The 2015 General Election Megathread

[GYL]

I am not embarassed.

 

Then again, the SNP never is either.

never are......and never need to be, is English not your first language? sorry had to be said  

Edited May 3, 2015 by GYL

[Guest Trapper John]

never are......and never need to be, is English not your first language? sorry had to be said  

Never argue with a scholar.

[leginten]

The English are in the main a sensible bunch. I've faith in them.

 

If we are in a mess it's not the Labour Party's fault. And anyway, what mess? Are we Greece, Spain, Italy? Why do many EU residents come here to work if we are in such a state?

 

Nationalism does not represent change. 

 

 

And there we have it. No responsibility, no awareness. Scotland today is in the image of Labour. So much of it could and should be better.

[TheMaganator]

never are......and never need to be, is English not your first language? sorry had to be said

if you're going to be a pedant it's best to make sure your post isn't riddled with punctuation errors IMO

[leginten]

never are......and never need to be, is English not your first language? sorry had to be said  

 

As with many collective nouns in English, the singular verb is correct but usage also permits plural. I'm surprised you felt bold enough to pick someone else up on their use of language without knowing this.

[Guest Trapper John]

And there we have it. No responsibility, no awareness. Scotland today is in the image of Labour. So much of it could and should be better.

You're exclusively blaming Scotlands ills on Labour. Nonsense.

 

Any country can be better. I asked you if we are such a mess, why are so  many people happy to come here?

 

You are turning on its head the ludicrous mantra of the SNP that we are a poor wee country etc.

 

I thought we were the 8th or 14th richest country in the world or something? ( I forget which).

 

Anyway, we are rich according to the SNP apparently.

 

I'd say its your type of attitude that is the kind that keeps Scotland 'back'. 

[Guest Trapper John]

if you're going to be a pedant it's best to make sure your post isn't riddled with punctuation errors IMO

I could have said that, Mag, but I'm too kind.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Trapper John

[leginten]

You're exclusively blaming Scotlands ills on Labour. Nonsense.

 

Any country can be better. I asked you if we are such a mess, why are so  many people happy to come here?

 

You are turning on its head the ludicrous mantra of the SNP that we are a poor wee country etc.

 

I thought we were the 8th or 14th richest country in the world or something? ( I forget which).

 

Anyway, we are rich according to the SNP apparently.

 

I'd say its your type of attitude that is the kind that keeps Scotland 'back'. 

 

Naw. The attitude that Scotland could and should be better isn't what's holding us back. Acceptance of mediocrity in all things is, and Labour Scotland has frequently failed even to get near mediocrity. 

[GYL]

if you're going to be a pedant it's best to make sure your post isn't riddled with punctuation errors IMO

 

Help me then?

As with many collective nouns in English, the singular verb is correct but usage also permits plural. I'm surprised you felt bold enough to pick someone else up on their use of language without knowing this.

Jeezo not you too....not an English scholar....got a C in my O'grade, yep they were still called that then. But i do know the difference between is and are after an adverb...

[Guest Trapper John]

Naw. The attitude that Scotland could and should be better isn't what's holding us back. Acceptance of mediocrity in all things is, and Labour Scotland has frequently failed even to get near mediocrity. 

I don't know. All I got from my old man growing up was how great Scotland was. Greatest doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. We invented everything worth inventing. We went out into the world and left our mark far more than any similar sized nation.

 

Not a bad wee place.

[Guest Trapper John]

Help me then?

Jeezo not you too....not an English scholar....got a C in my O'grade, yep they were still called that then. But i do know the difference between is and are after an adverb...

Take the hint, mate...Leave it.

 

These guys are deadly.

[GYL]

Take the hint, mate...Leave it.

 

These guys are deadly.

Unlike your political views....goodnight.

Edited May 3, 2015 by GYL

[Guest Trapper John]

Unlike your political views....goodnight.

Keep that dictionary under your pillow.

 

Sleep tight.

[luckydug]

Yes i agree, he seems to have taken a hard line on them so far though.

 

I think it'll be another Tory/Lib Dem coalition anyway thankfully.

 

Sadly I think you may be correct.

I'm just waiting for Ed's "SHEFFIELD MOMENT"

I hope not as I like him and would much prefer him to be PM. 

[leginten]

I don't know. All I got from my old man growing up was how great Scotland was. Greatest doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. We invented everything worth inventing. We went out into the world and left our mark far more than any similar sized nation.

 

Not a bad wee place.

 

That was a long time ago, and all the cliches about the best education system in the world etc may have had something to them. But I think complacency set in. 

 

I've no doubt we were and maybe still are a great nation of inventors. But all these things we think we invented? Go to France and look up a reference book and guess what? The French invented them! There's a fair degree of latitude with inventions.

 

The fairly recent  "Best Small Country In The World" slogan was a bit of an embarrassment (McConnell? McLeish?). In the best small country in the world people would put their litter in bins, not drink themselves into a stupour at every opportunity and certainly achieve higher Pisa rankings, to name but three of hundreds of areas of concern. Scotland has a lot going for it, but a lot not yet going for it.

[JamboX2]

I would like to see them try to get their cuts through a vote.

As the Observor pointed out today, the vote of Labour in the coalition cuts bill was not actually in support of the cuts package. Labour voted on the sections which changed the remit of the OBR.

 

Again, in a hung parliament the Labour Party will need to deal with Liberals, DUP, SDLP, Green etc. Not just the SNP. So the SNP hand isn't as strong as thought when looked at there.

 

Also, considering they've said they'd not back Cameron all Labour need do is bring forward a Queens Speech and Budget. If the SNP abstain (IMO they will do this in such a position) then Labour form a government with support from others and the SNP drop off to issue by issue votes.

 

A formal deal is not a necessity. Salmond had no formal deals with anyone when he was a minority First Minister. Ed Miliband needn't have one either.

 

The parties will need to talk, but official deals are not needed.

[Guest Trapper John]

That was a long time ago, and all the cliches about the best education system in the world etc may have had something to them. But I think complacency set in. 

 

I've no doubt we were and maybe still are a great nation of inventors. But all these things we think we invented? Go to France and look up a reference book and guess what? The French invented them! There's a fair degree of latitude with inventions.

 

The fairly recent  "Best Small Country In The World" slogan was a bit of an embarrassment (McConnell? McLeish?). In the best small country in the world people would put their litter in bins, not drink themselves into a stupour at every opportunity and certainly achieve higher Pisa rankings, to name but three of hundreds of areas of concern. Scotland has a lot going for it, but a lot not yet going for it.

What is the population of France compared to Scotland?

 

I agree with the stuff about litter etc. But what can you do? 

 

Are you sure you're going to vote SNP? Christ, you've got me doubting myself, now...

[JamboX2]

And there we have it. No responsibility, no awareness. Scotland today is in the image of Labour. So much of it could and should be better.

And after 8 years of SNP government it's not really been changed. Plenty time and scope to have done that. A majority as well there. Government is the same in how it works. How it relates to people is the same. How it fails to actually to do much to make government services more tailored to people's needs. All could and should be better.

 

Much of what we have - free tuition and free personal care - are Labour achievements from their devolved governments. But the SNP hasn't really built on this. It's not got a great track record on reforming things for the better.

[Gorgiewave]

That was a long time ago, and all the cliches about the best education system in the world etc may have had something to them. But I think complacency set in. 

 

I've no doubt we were and maybe still are a great nation of inventors. But all these things we think we invented? Go to France and look up a reference book and guess what? The French invented them! There's a fair degree of latitude with inventions.

 

The fairly recent  "Best Small Country In The World" slogan was a bit of an embarrassment (McConnell? McLeish?). In the best small country in the world people would put their litter in bins, not drink themselves into a stupour at every opportunity and certainly achieve higher Pisa rankings, to name but three of hundreds of areas of concern. Scotland has a lot going for it, but a lot not yet going for it.

 

I agree with much of that. Curriculum for Excellence is a disgrace (mostly a Labour creation but implemented by the SNP). Minimum alcohol pricing is a good thing. The smoking ban is a good thing.

 

All of these things are within the scope of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government. Councils do need healthy budgets, though.

 

We need to get back to real life.

[leginten]

What is the population of France compared to Scotland?

 

I agree with the stuff about litter etc. But what can you do? 

 

Are you sure you're going to vote SNP? Christ, you've got me doubting myself, now...

 

The France thing was just to illustrate that every nation claims inventions.

 

I'm very much a floating voter, but one currently attached to SNP. Mark Lazarowicz is a nice guy but I don't think I can bring myself to vote for his party. In North Edinburgh and Leith, under FPTP you either vote SNP or Labour this week or your vote goes in the bin. I wasn't far from voting No in the referendum either. It's all very marginal with a lot of people, which is understandable in a country where most of the main parties have always been a very broad church. A lot of the professional classes have largely stuck with Labour in Edinburgh and Glasgow - the same people down south are staunchly Tory. Maybe the LibDems are the most resolutely middle class of the lot. And support for independence is an idea which cuts right across class and income bracket, of course. 

[Guest Trapper John]

The France thing was just to illustrate that every nation claims inventions.

 

I'm very much a floating voter, but one currently attached to SNP. Mark Lazarowicz is a nice guy but I don't think I can bring myself to vote for his party. In North Edinburgh and Leith, under FPTP you either vote SNP or Labour this week or your vote goes in the bin. I wasn't far from voting No in the referendum either. It's all very marginal with a lot of people, which is understandable in a country where most of the main parties have always been a very broad church. A lot of the professional classes have largely stuck with Labour in Edinburgh and Glasgow - the same people down south are staunchly Tory. Maybe the LibDems are the most resolutely middle class of the lot. And support for independence is an idea which cuts right across class and income bracket, of course. 

I just don't believe in the false dawn expounded by nationalism. What did Einstein call it, 'the measles of mankind'?

 

It has it's attractions, of course. But it's not a realistic alternative in an uncertain world. I also don't understand the seethe about the Lib Dems. What else could they have done in 2010? And they arn't the only party to ever break a pledge.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Trapper John

[leginten]

I just don't believe in the false dawn expounded by nationalism. What did Einstein call it, 'the measles of mankind'?

 

It has it's attractions, of course. But it's not a realistic alternative in an uncertain world. I also don't understand the seethe about the Lib Dems. What else could they have done in 2010? And they arn't the only party to ever break a pledge.

 

The thing is, there's a lot of nationalism afoot in these islands, and there has been since Thatcher. It's just that the dominant nationalism doesn't get called out very often. It doesn't necessarily regard itself as nationalism because it has never, until now, needed to define itself as such, but it's there all right, and its face isn't always pleasant. It's up to individuals to decide what the most dangerous brand of nationalism is. My own view of the current SNP surge is that the custodians of the Union haven't been very good at their job or even at knowing what the Union is over the last 40-odd years.

[aussieh]

That was a long time ago, and all the cliches about the best education system in the world etc may have had something to them. But I think complacency set in.

 

I've no doubt we were and maybe still are a great nation of inventors. But all these things we think we invented? Go to France and look up a reference book and guess what? The French invented them! There's a fair degree of latitude with inventions.

 

The fairly recent "Best Small Country In The World" slogan was a bit of an embarrassment (McConnell? McLeish?). In the best small country in the world people would put their litter in bins, not drink themselves into a stupour at every opportunity and certainly achieve higher Pisa rankings, to name but three of hundreds of areas of concern. Scotland has a lot going for it, but a lot not yet going for it.

They drink cause thats all theyve got to live for.

[aussieh]

I just don't believe in the false dawn expounded by nationalism. What did Einstein call it, 'the measles of mankind'?

 

It has it's attractions, of course. But it's not a realistic alternative in an uncertain world. I also don't understand the seethe about the Lib Dems. What else could they have done in 2010? And they arn't the only party to ever break a pledge.

Eh, lets see, A coalition with Labour?.

[aussieh]

Jack McConnell, Eh Traps?

[JamboX2]

Eh, lets see, A coalition with Labour?.

Whilst it was a possibility, the government would've been a minority one of two parties.

 

For better or worse the LibDems made their bed and opted to form a majority coalition. Whilst we've had a Tory government it has been a largely restrained one. I think the LibDems who stood up against the repealing of the Human Rights Act, in defence of the minimum wage, in support of child benefits and in defence of our EU membership deserve a bit of credit. They did make achievements in office.

 

Circumstances dictated they weren't going to abolish tuition fees in England and Wales. But why that in Scotland is an issue I don't know. After all it's a devolved matter and they abolished them with Labour in 2001.

[Boris]

The thing is, there's a lot of nationalism afoot in these islands, and there has been since Thatcher. It's just that the dominant nationalism doesn't get called out very often. It doesn't necessarily regard itself as nationalism because it has never, until now, needed to define itself as such, but it's there all right, and its face isn't always pleasant. It's up to individuals to decide what the most dangerous brand of nationalism is. My own view of the current SNP surge is that the custodians of the Union haven't been very good at their job or even at knowing what the Union is over the last 40-odd years.

 

That's nailed it for me.

 

A swing to the SNP isn't necessarily "nationalism".  Rather a vehicle for change.  For me, the fact no one is talking about modernising and revamping the Westminster system so that it is more representative and democratic speaks volumes.

 

Rightly or wrongly, the lurch to the right by the Labour party is an anathema to many too.  And not just in Scotland!

[JamboX2]

That's nailed it for me.

 

A swing to the SNP isn't necessarily "nationalism". Rather a vehicle for change. For me, the fact no one is talking about modernising and revamping the Westminster system so that it is more representative and democratic speaks volumes.

 

Rightly or wrongly, the lurch to the right by the Labour party is an anathema to many too. And not just in Scotland!

Few points:

 

1. Labour and the LibDems, the Greens also, are all offering reform to how Westminster is elected, works and relates to people. The means are different. Labour wants an all encompassing constitutional convention, the LibDems want to pass a series of acts and the Greens too want a series of referendums on EU membership to voting reform to pass this. The SNP position here is weak in detail - in principal an abolition of the Lords, but no detail on its replacement, in principal a move to PR but no detail on a preferred replacement of fptp.

 

So that's off. It's just Labour are focused as a party on the cost of living, the LibDems on being the best coalition partner for both parties and the Greens in Scotland have been marginalised by the SNP ever since they signed up to Yes Scotland.

 

2. If people in Scotland are truly annoyed about how the centre of British politics having shifted to the right since the mid-1980s then why did they increase their popular support for Labour in 2010? Why did Labour win two elections at Holyrood in 1999 and 2003, and why did they come second by a seat in 2007? The popularity of Labour has been diminished by poor leadership and a lack of a coherent and effective message for people to back. Not because of a shift right.

 

If we follow that line of thought, then why are the SNP popular? A party that moved from left to a third-way populist party over the same period of time, yet its popularity under good leadership grew. A party that on many issues for years was to the right of Labour.

 

I don't buy this "lost soul" argument. It doesn't add up because the main beneficiary of this collapse is the SNP. Not a party of the left, not a party offering much greater left wing reforms than Labour and one whose track record of supporting the poorest in Scottish society, those on low wages and those most vulnerable and in need of support, is lacking to say the least. Both under Salmond and now Sturgeon.

 

The SNP won the 2011 election because Iain Gray was an empty coat compared to Salmond and because the evaporation of the LibDem vote went to the SNP not to Labour. That swing in support of soft Labour/Liberal tactical voters swung to the SNP.

 

Scottish Labour are where they are for two reasons:

 

1. Bad leadership, which lead to bad strategies and an awful way of dealing with the SNP as a minority government.

 

2. Not using the referendum as a way of growing the party and developing policies to take into 2016. Had there been an effective leader then, not a weak leader like Lamont, then you'd have seen use of a daily campaign as a means of spreading and re-building the Labour support across Scotland. They didn't.

[2NaFish]

I do find it rich that a labour supporter is telling us all why people who dislike labour are wrong about their reasons for disliking labour. Here's a hint; it's things like telling us why we're wrong about disliking labour that makes us dislike labour.

 

An analogy, if you'll indulge me. Astronomers can view galaxies and give descriptions of them. We can look at other galaxies and describe ther shapes and form. The milky way is a spiral galaxy and has arms but we'll never be able to tell how many arms it has because we're inside it and have no point of reference to view it. You're inside the political bubble and are therefore utterly incapable of explaining, and from the look of it understanding, why non-politicos think and feel the way they do. 

[Boris]

Few points:

 

1. Labour and the LibDems, the Greens also, are all offering reform to how Westminster is elected, works and relates to people. The means are different. Labour wants an all encompassing constitutional convention, the LibDems want to pass a series of acts and the Greens too want a series of referendums on EU membership to voting reform to pass this. The SNP position here is weak in detail - in principal an abolition of the Lords, but no detail on its replacement, in principal a move to PR but no detail on a preferred replacement of fptp.

 

So that's off. It's just Labour are focused as a party on the cost of living, the LibDems on being the best coalition partner for both parties and the Greens in Scotland have been marginalised by the SNP ever since they signed up to Yes Scotland.

 

2. If people in Scotland are truly annoyed about how the centre of British politics having shifted to the right since the mid-1980s then why did they increase their popular support for Labour in 2010? Why did Labour win two elections at Holyrood in 1999 and 2003, and why did they come second by a seat in 2007? The popularity of Labour has been diminished by poor leadership and a lack of a coherent and effective message for people to back. Not because of a shift right.

 

If we follow that line of thought, then why are the SNP popular? A party that moved from left to a third-way populist party over the same period of time, yet its popularity under good leadership grew. A party that on many issues for years was to the right of Labour.

 

I don't buy this "lost soul" argument. It doesn't add up because the main beneficiary of this collapse is the SNP. Not a party of the left, not a party offering much greater left wing reforms than Labour and one whose track record of supporting the poorest in Scottish society, those on low wages and those most vulnerable and in need of support, is lacking to say the least. Both under Salmond and now Sturgeon.

 

The SNP won the 2011 election because Iain Gray was an empty coat compared to Salmond and because the evaporation of the LibDem vote went to the SNP not to Labour. That swing in support of soft Labour/Liberal tactical voters swung to the SNP.

 

Scottish Labour are where they are for two reasons:

 

1. Bad leadership, which lead to bad strategies and an awful way of dealing with the SNP as a minority government.

 

2. Not using the referendum as a way of growing the party and developing policies to take into 2016. Had there been an effective leader then, not a weak leader like Lamont, then you'd have seen use of a daily campaign as a means of spreading and re-building the Labour support across Scotland. They didn't.

 

I suspect that since the 2010 election and the clamour for austerity, Labour has been seen to want this too.  I think this has alienated people.  Rightly or wrongly, but I believe that is the perception.  

 

I don't disagree that the Labour party in Scotland has been badly led and that there has been an over-riding sense of entitlement from them regards Scottish seats.  I also think that the public perceive the party in Scotland as the branch office.  Again, rightly or wrongly, but that's the perception.

 

The SNP have, imo, seized that left of centre social democratic ground that Labour used to call their own.  You may argue that the Labour party still holds this ground, and it may well do on certain issues, however in an attempt to win a majority at Westminster and due to the Westminster system, they have to make themselves look economically credible to the whole UK and that means convincing the voters in those swing seats down South that they are credible, thus aping Tory policies.

 

You may retort that the SNP are this or that, and that's fine, but it's actually irrelevant because the public perception in Scotland, as shown by the polls, is that Labour quite simply aren't putting that message over or can't put it over as it then clashes with what they are telling the rest of the UK.

 

Hence the shift to the SNP.  IMO, of course!

[JAYEL]

Few points:

 

1. Labour and the LibDems, the Greens also, are all offering reform to how Westminster is elected, works and relates to people. The means are different. Labour wants an all encompassing constitutional convention, the LibDems want to pass a series of acts and the Greens too want a series of referendums on EU membership to voting reform to pass this. The SNP position here is weak in detail - in principal an abolition of the Lords, but no detail on its replacement, in principal a move to PR but no detail on a preferred replacement of fptp.

 

So that's off. It's just Labour are focused as a party on the cost of living, the LibDems on being the best coalition partner for both parties and the Greens in Scotland have been marginalised by the SNP ever since they signed up to Yes Scotland.

 

2. If people in Scotland are truly annoyed about how the centre of British politics having shifted to the right since the mid-1980s then why did they increase their popular support for Labour in 2010? Why did Labour win two elections at Holyrood in 1999 and 2003, and why did they come second by a seat in 2007? The popularity of Labour has been diminished by poor leadership and a lack of a coherent and effective message for people to back. Not because of a shift right.

 

If we follow that line of thought, then why are the SNP popular? A party that moved from left to a third-way populist party over the same period of time, yet its popularity under good leadership grew. A party that on many issues for years was to the right of Labour.

 

I don't buy this "lost soul" argument. It doesn't add up because the main beneficiary of this collapse is the SNP. Not a party of the left, not a party offering much greater left wing reforms than Labour and one whose track record of supporting the poorest in Scottish society, those on low wages and those most vulnerable and in need of support, is lacking to say the least. Both under Salmond and now Sturgeon.

 

The SNP won the 2011 election because Iain Gray was an empty coat compared to Salmond and because the evaporation of the LibDem vote went to the SNP not to Labour. That swing in support of soft Labour/Liberal tactical voters swung to the SNP.

 

Scottish Labour are where they are for two reasons:

 

1. Bad leadership, which lead to bad strategies and an awful way of dealing with the SNP as a minority government.

 

2. Not using the referendum as a way of growing the party and developing policies to take into 2016. Had there been an effective leader then, not a weak leader like Lamont, then you'd have seen use of a daily campaign as a means of spreading and re-building the Labour support across Scotland. They didn't.

 

 

Alex Salmond changed the SNP to a party of the Left

 

 

Cuts to welfare are the actions of a right wing party

[JamboX2]

I do find it rich that a labour supporter is telling us all why people who dislike labour are wrong about their reasons for disliking labour. Here's a hint; it's things like telling us why we're wrong about disliking labour that makes us dislike labour.

 

An analogy, if you'll indulge me. Astronomers can view galaxies and give descriptions of them. We can look at other galaxies and describe ther shapes and form. The milky way is a spiral galaxy and has arms but we'll never be able to tell how many arms it has because we're inside it and have no point of reference to view it. You're inside the political bubble and are therefore utterly incapable of explaining, and from the look of it understanding, why non-politicos think and feel the way they do.

Cheers. As with all things on here it's my opinion. I am not intending to lecture people. All I was doing was saying why I disagreed with Boris - basing that on my view of the track record of the SNP in office and their policies over the same period I don't see how they are (a) more to the left ( b ) less tied to the neo-liberal consensus than the rest.

 

Folk can vote for who they want based on whatever reasons. That's democracy. This is a discussion forum and I was merely explaining why I disagreed with a certain opinion posted on it.

 

Thanks for your bubble analogy though. Really added to the two lines before it.

[aussieh]

On the matter of Trident, and Britain.

A small island with a big ego.

[JamboX2]

Alex Salmond changed the SNP to a party of the Left

 

 

Cuts to welfare are the actions of a right wing party

No he tried to and Gordon Wilson had him expelled from the SNP. He rejoined it in the 1980s and as leader in the 1990s dropped some of its traditional left wing positions - opposition to EU integration, nationalised industries and began to support the deregulation and break up of the monetary and banking system which Clarke, Brown and Darling presided over as Chancellors over the period he led the SNP. His time as leader saw opposition to the social chapter, opposition to the minimum wage and also a period of no-policy on removing clause 28 on gay rights in education. As First Minister, health and educational inequality rose in Scotland on the back of his policy decisions and he voted down on repeated occasions the implementation of the living wage in the public sector and in procurement law for the Scottish government when dealing with private firms when brought by Liberals, Greens and Labour to the chamber at Holyrood. On welfare the SNP back a cap on payments, supported limits to child benefit in principal and where forced to act over the bedroom tax by opposition from other parties at Holyrood preferring to use it as a political weapon to use in the referendum than use Holyrood to negate it in Scotland.

 

No party is great. No party is worthy of unquestioning support, but Alex Salmond, the SNP and their new leadership team are hardly the socialist alternative base on their time in office and before that.

[Boab]

I do find it rich that a labour supporter is telling us all why people who dislike labour are wrong about their reasons for disliking labour. Here's a hint; it's things like telling us why we're wrong about disliking labour that makes us dislike labour.

 

An analogy, if you'll indulge me. Astronomers can view galaxies and give descriptions of them. We can look at other galaxies and describe ther shapes and form. The milky way is a spiral galaxy and has arms but we'll never be able to tell how many arms it has because we're inside it and have no point of reference to view it. You're inside the political bubble and are therefore utterly incapable of explaining, and from the look of it understanding, why non-politicos think and feel the way they do. 

Milky Way Galaxy has four spiral arms.

 

Sorry.....

[JamboX2]

I suspect that since the 2010 election and the clamour for austerity, Labour has been seen to want this too. I think this has alienated people. Rightly or wrongly, but I believe that is the perception.

 

I don't disagree that the Labour party in Scotland has been badly led and that there has been an over-riding sense of entitlement from them regards Scottish seats. I also think that the public perceive the party in Scotland as the branch office. Again, rightly or wrongly, but that's the perception.

 

The SNP have, imo, seized that left of centre social democratic ground that Labour used to call their own. You may argue that the Labour party still holds this ground, and it may well do on certain issues, however in an attempt to win a majority at Westminster and due to the Westminster system, they have to make themselves look economically credible to the whole UK and that means convincing the voters in those swing seats down South that they are credible, thus aping Tory policies.

 

You may retort that the SNP are this or that, and that's fine, but it's actually irrelevant because the public perception in Scotland, as shown by the polls, is that Labour quite simply aren't putting that message over or can't put it over as it then clashes with what they are telling the rest of the UK.

 

Hence the shift to the SNP. IMO, of course!

I agree with most of that. But I can't escape the fact that what the SNP say and what they do never entirely meets and their ambitions are limited in comparison to what they actually have as policies.

 

Again, comparing the two manifestos shows a huge amount of overlap for Labour and the SNP. The SNP are not some left wing, anti-austerity party. Their cuts take only a few years longer than Labours do and their economic prescription of infrastructure spending and reform to the utilities markets to bring down the cost of living is really no different either.

 

All IMO of course Boris.

 

Where I agree is the perception is there, thanks to the referendum campaign, that Labour have vacated that soft -left, fairer than them approach. Again before the referendum the Labour vote share was pretty constant and I fact grew in 2010 and Iain Gray's debacle of a leadership helped sow the seeds of where we are now.

 

Where I disagree is that Labour has to fight to regain that off the SNP and if that means using their record in Holyrood against them or pointing out the flaws in their arguments and positions that has to be the case - the SNP are happy to do it against others and it's not negative campaigning then. But it needs a plan to do that. Murphy has shown wanting in that regard and his time may well be up after this election.

[2NaFish]

Milky Way Galaxy has four spiral arms.

 

Sorry.....

 

I should've expected that. I thought i was doing so well with an apt analogy as well...

 

Anyway, it's modelled currently that there are four arms, up from the model of 2 a few years ago. I'll not say that it's guesswork, as it's obviously well beyond that, but my point about self-analysis still stands.

[TheMaganator]

I do find it rich that a labour supporter is telling us all why people who dislike labour are wrong about their reasons for disliking labour. Here's a hint; it's things like telling us why we're wrong about disliking labour that makes us dislike labour.

 

An analogy, if you'll indulge me. Astronomers can view galaxies and give descriptions of them. We can look at other galaxies and describe ther shapes and form. The milky way is a spiral galaxy and has arms but we'll never be able to tell how many arms it has because we're inside it and have no point of reference to view it. You're inside the political bubble and are therefore utterly incapable of explaining, and from the look of it understanding, why non-politicos think and feel the way they do.

What are labour meant to do then?

 

Nats -'we hate labour because of X'

SLAB -'we think you are wrong about X because of Y'

Nats -'SLAB are wee shiters for telling us about Y'

[Boab]

I should've expected that. I thought i was doing so well with an apt analogy as well...

 

Anyway, it's modelled currently that there are four arms, up from the model of 2 a few years ago. I'll not say that it's guesswork, as it's obviously well beyond that, but my point about self-analysis still stands.

Indeed.

Sorry for being a bit of a ****.

The analogy is good.

[aussieh]

What are labour meant to do then?

 

Nats -'we hate labour because of X'

SLAB -'we think you are wrong about X because of Y'

Nats -'SLAB are wee shiters for telling us about Y'

Mags-Thats the make believe Tory of jkb

[Guest Trapper John]

 

What are labour meant to do then?

 

Nats -'we hate labour because of X'

SLAB -'we think you are wrong about X because of Y'

Nats -'SLAB are wee shiters for telling us about Y'

Mags-Thats the make believe Tory of jkb

 

This is real make-believe, Aus:

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/full-fiscal-autonomy-could-double-scots-economy-1-3762302

 

You couldn't make it up. Unless you're an SNP/N56 'financial analyst' that is.

[aussieh]

This is real make-believe, Aus:

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/full-fiscal-autonomy-could-double-scots-economy-1-3762302

 

You couldn't make it up. Unless you're an SNP/N56 'financial analyst' that is.

Ffs, I thought you did do mornings. :S

[Guest Trapper John]

Ffs, I thought you did do mornings. :S

 

Just out on the estate, shooting a few pheasant and hunting down some working class. My man is keeping me up to speed with developments on JKB.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Trapper John

[Boris]

I agree with most of that. But I can't escape the fact that what the SNP say and what they do never entirely meets and their ambitions are limited in comparison to what they actually have as policies.

 

Again, comparing the two manifestos shows a huge amount of overlap for Labour and the SNP. The SNP are not some left wing, anti-austerity party. Their cuts take only a few years longer than Labours do and their economic prescription of infrastructure spending and reform to the utilities markets to bring down the cost of living is really no different either.

 

All IMO of course Boris.

 

Where I agree is the perception is there, thanks to the referendum campaign, that Labour have vacated that soft -left, fairer than them approach. Again before the referendum the Labour vote share was pretty constant and I fact grew in 2010 and Iain Gray's debacle of a leadership helped sow the seeds of where we are now.

 

Where I disagree is that Labour has to fight to regain that off the SNP and if that means using their record in Holyrood against them or pointing out the flaws in their arguments and positions that has to be the case - the SNP are happy to do it against others and it's not negative campaigning then. But it needs a plan to do that. Murphy has shown wanting in that regard and his time may well be up after this election.

 

I don't really disagree with your analysis of the SNP and, come the Holyrood elections next year, I would hope to see a detailed scrutiny of the SNP's track record in Government - at that election as the Govt they have to be held account.  So far though, and again I think it's all about perception, I can't help but feel Labour are being found wanting.  The main problem is, as I mentioned, the friction between the UK party and policy and how that is translated for the Scottish electorate.  The perception is that Labour nationally is centre-right as a means to an end to appease Tory-mindedness in the south of England.

 

I think you have mentioned it before, but Paul Mason's analysis of the UK is something I agree with and that needs addressing with Labour being the natural party to do so on a UK scale.

[2NaFish]

What are labour meant to do then?

 

Nats -'we hate labour because of X'

SLAB -'we think you are wrong about X because of Y'

Nats -'SLAB are wee shiters for telling us about Y'

 

C'mon, that's going down the gorgiewave line of questioning. "Why are nats so greedy?". The idea that a party that have lost their core vote after years of ignoring their core vote should then tell the core vote how and why they feel what they do strikes me as a wonderful microcosm. It's patronising and it furthers the perception that labour have no respect for traditional labour voters.

 

Now, the more pertinent question, given that labour have lost their core vote, why have they chosen the SNP despite the fact that their policies and views are much of a muchness? There are lots of answers to this; 

 

There's **** all else to vote for

Sturgeon comes across well and people don't actually give a shite about policy. people in politics say they do, but that's just to justify their own existence. People that like cameron like him largely because he looks like a prime minister. Murphy comes across as a slimy politician.

As boris said, the snp are perceived as being more left wing

As boris says, repeatedly and is unfortunately ignored, the snp are a means to an end which a possibility of change

The automatic voting of labour due to fear of thatcher has died, but folk still can't be doing with the tories. 

 

What labour shouldn't do is come out with middle management speak such as "The popularity of Labour has been diminished by poor leadership and a lack of a coherent and effective message for people to back." - Put simply traditional labour voters in scotland think scottish labour are a shower of ***** and telling people what they should think isn't going to go far to change that.

 

Indeed.

Sorry for being a bit of a ****.

The analogy is good.

 

You're alright. Wild hoses couldn't have held me back if i could pull apart someone point with minor technicality.

[Thunderstruck]

No he tried to and Gordon Wilson had him expelled from the SNP. He rejoined it in the 1980s and as leader in the 1990s dropped some of its traditional left wing positions - opposition to EU integration, nationalised industries and began to support the deregulation and break up of the monetary and banking system which Clarke, Brown and Darling presided over as Chancellors over the period he led the SNP. His time as leader saw opposition to the social chapter, opposition to the minimum wage and also a period of no-policy on removing clause 28 on gay rights in education. As First Minister, health and educational inequality rose in Scotland on the back of his policy decisions and he voted down on repeated occasions the implementation of the living wage in the public sector and in procurement law for the Scottish government when dealing with private firms when brought by Liberals, Greens and Labour to the chamber at Holyrood. On welfare the SNP back a cap on payments, supported limits to child benefit in principal and where forced to act over the bedroom tax by opposition from other parties at Holyrood preferring to use it as a political weapon to use in the referendum than use Holyrood to negate it in Scotland.

 

No party is great. No party is worthy of unquestioning support, but Alex Salmond, the SNP and their new leadership team are hardly the socialist alternative base on their time in office and before that.

Well said but I suspect you are sowing seed on stony ground.

[JamboAl]

On the matter of Trident, and Britain.

A small island with a big ego.

Do you have house insurance or just don't bother because the chances of an earthquake or being burgled are low?

[Boris]

 

As boris said, the snp are perceived as being more left wing

As boris says, repeatedly and is unfortunately ignored, the snp are a means to an end which a possibility of change

 

 

I'm glad someone agrees!

[aussieh]

Do you have house insurance or just don't bother because the chances of an earthquake or being burgled are low?

No I dont have any incase shite, **** all to steal/lose, ans the dignity of being Scottish ficked off last september.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Do you have house insurance or just don't bother because the chances of an earthquake or being burgled are low?

 

The domestic analogy really, really doesn't work here.