Performance Of Labour MPs At Westminster

[Kingsmills]

I rather thought that you wouldn't answer the question.

[Charles Bannerman]

I rather thought that you wouldn't answer the question.

Let's put it this way.... I don't think a parliament in Edinburgh was particularly high on too many people's agendas and while they voted to have one as opposed to not having one, kind of like the way many people will pocket a proffered Jehovas Witness leaflet, rabid Nats should not judge that 1997 outcome by their own obsessional standards as something for which there was a massive clamour.

More to the point, 63% of voters in 1997 opted for tax varying powers so why, in their 8 years in charge, have the Nats not respected the will of the Scottish people and used there powers.... especially since they constantly bang on about benefits and poverty which they then fail to address by sticking a couple of p on the basic rate?

[+DoofersDad]

The SNP's objective of winning even more seats in Holyrood is undoubtedly made much easier by the way Labour have simply self destructed.  To have any chance of success in Scotland, the Labour Party must be strong and credible in the UK as a whole.  But it has lost a lot of strength and credibility and looks like it will lose a whole lot more by electing Corbyn as their leader.  Regardless of whether you agree with his policies or not, the fact is that the majority of the parliamentary party do not want him as their leader and are fundamentally opposed to some of the policies which Corbyn wishes to introduce.  It will be interesting but probably thoroughly depressing to see how this will translate into the performance of Labour MPs at Westminster.  A lurch to the left will mean they become even more un-electable South of the Border and the Tories' success at the next Westminster election is all but guaranteed.   Assuming Corbyn is elected, there will also be precious little common ground between Corbyn and Dugdale which will further damage Dugdale's credibility.

All of this suits the SNP down to the ground.  Until Labour are a credible united force again or unless something remarkable happens to vastly improve the popularity of the Tories or Lib Dems, there will be no meaningful challenge to the SNP in Scotland.  The SNP may be regressive, centralist and incompetent but there is simply no other party which has the credibility with the electorate to get the electorate to either understand that or vote for an alternative manifesto.

So what you are saying, DD is that it doesn't really matter what the majority of Labour Party members want. Democracy, Labour style, isn't really democracy unless the majority of Labour MPs want the result the people choose as well, as if the MPs are not simply Party members like Joe Public. You are saying that a couple of hundred or so MPs,  arguing a case predicated solely on getting into power and holding onto their jobs, should have more say than a couple of hundred thousand Party members and supporters who would prefer that the party represents all of them and not just the careers of the MPs. It appears you are another who thinks the only purpose of politics is to govern, and not to oppose or amend.

There seems to me to be a real dichotomy there, in a situation in which it appears to be perceived, by the average Labour punter, that the only difference between the policies of our two Buggin's turn Governments is one of method and not one of ideology. This perception has been confirmed regularly since 1997, and is still being underlined by the Labour abstention propensity, even when the abstentions mean they refuse to vote against Bills/clauses in Bills which damage the people who vote for them, or used to vote for them, along with everybody else.....like the Bedroom Tax, the moratorium on fracking, the Welfare Reform and Work Bill  etc.

With the best will in the world, the only job in Westminster of the Buggin's turn party, when not in Government, is to oppose anything which conflicts with the principles/manifesto commitments on which they were elected, but since 2010, the Labour Party has even failed at that, perhaps because it has pretty much agreed with everything the Government was and is doing.  It doesn't really matter, imo, if that opposition does not stop a bill or change a clause, they have to be seen to be standing up for their principles....or they are not being seen to be doing the job they are paid to do.

And that, more than anything, is why, in Scotland, there is simply no other party which has the credibility with the electorate to get the electorate to either understand that or vote for an alternative manifesto......because there is no other Unionist party which has an alternative manifesto, in Scotland or in the rest of the UK, and haven't had since 1979, because they are all of one mind...the need to get elected in swing seats in the South of England. If Corbyn doesn't get elected, there won't be any alternative manifesto.........you know it and I know it....... there will just be small variations on the theme of trashing those on benefits, whether working or not, to impose austerity on those who have no voice any more, enriching those who are already well-off and growing the poverty gap..... because Labour has gone over to the dark side to try to persuade the Southern electorate that they are not so different from the Tories really and safe hands to continue to meet their middle class aspirations and prejudices.

As Margaret Thatcher is meant to have said, DD, her greatest legacy was the Labour Party of Tony Blair, the party which was in power as long as she was and made no effort to repair the damage she did, but simply applied more Germolene and sticking plasters to the wounds she inflicted.It is now reaping what it has spent the last twenty years sowing. 

 

For goodness sake!  What utter nonsense!  Oddquine, if you are going to attempt to respond to what other people say, please afford them the courtesy of responding to what they actually said and not what you would have liked them to have said in order to justify the nonsense you then come out with.

How on earth do you deduce from my post that I think it doesn't matter what the majority of labour party members want?  Of course it matters - they elect the leader!   And no, I did not say that the MPs should have more say than the party members.  In fact, I made absolutely no comment on how labour should conduct its business!  I simply expressed the view that electing Corbyn as leader will make Labour less credible with the electorate and that it will be interesting to see how the likely election of new leader, whose views are to the left of the majority of the MPs will affect the parliamentary performance of labour MPs.  I would have thought that even you might agree with that!  You mention party members but it is the electorate who MPs represent. Surely it is more important for Labour MPs to represent their constituents than a massive influx of new members from the left wing who joined the party after the election for the sole purpose of getting a left wing leader who believes in policies different from those which got the MPs elected in the first place.

You then can't help yourself but to repeat the tired old lie about there being no difference between Labour and the Conservatives.  You know as well as I do that this is a electoral gimmick of the SNP.  First of all they demonising the Tories so that every policy they come up with must be pure evil designed to subjugate the poor (and especially the Scottish poor).  Then this nonsense about there being no difference between Labour and the Tories so that Labour will be hated too.  Red Tories, Blue Tories - pathetic!  Anyone with half a brain knows it's nonsense and the practical politics of the SNP shows it up for the nonsense it is.  Sturgeon was more than happy to do a deal with Labour to keep the hated Tories out of power .  No difference?  Yeah, right!

Your black and white view of politics is further illustrated with your simplistic view of the role of the "opposition" parties.  Just because we have terms like "opposition benches" and "leader of the opposition" doesn't mean the role of the parties not in government is simply to oppose.  Legislation is passed by parliament and not by the governing party.  MPs are elected to serve their electorate (all of it) in contributing to the sound governance of our country.  MPs best serve their electorate when they don't waste time bleating on over points of principle in obstructing legislation which is going to be passed in any case, but instead, spend time constructively helping to shape the detail of bills in areas where some consensus is likely.  Good MPs, like good members of any committee know that results are achieved when people are pragmatic and seek consensus by making compromises. 

In terms of credible alternatives to the SNP in Scotland I would argue that Labour look increasingly non-credible as the leadership and membership in the UK party lurch to the left.  Both the Lib Dems and the Tories have credible manifestos but they and Scottish Labour all need to be more effective in overcoming the appeal to short term self interest the SNP offer the electorate if they are to gain more seats.  Dugdale has it right when she says the SNP's focus is the Scottish Nation whilst the focus of Scottish Labour is the Scottish People.  In that at least, Labour is aligned with the other Unionist parties. 

[Oddquine]

Charles, define a generation.   In my family three generations have already had one bite of the independence cherry......so if you say a generation what do you actually mean by that....do you mean after my generation, who were born in the 1930/40s, or after my children's...born in the 1960/70s, or after my grandchildren's...born in the 1980/1990s...or are you thinking of after my great grandchildren's who won't be old enough to vote until after 2030?

Or do you mean, as I suspect was meant, a political generation which is five years in the UK and four years in Scotland.....and which is why the SNP has consistently said that .the holding of a referendum in any Scottish Parliamentary term will be a decision taken by the Scottish people (and Mundell actually said the same.) Independence might be in the SNP's Constitution, but that means diddly squat if it isn't in a manifesto and the SNP are in a position to action it..

But, whatever was meant by generation, it wasn't the SNP who said it as it  was never party  policy to only have a referendum once in a generation, however that is defined.....it was Alex Salmond who said it (and the FM can't make policy on the hoof, whatever the media thinks), and then he promptly resigned anyway. If one Government can't bind another government, even if a law has been passed, why on earth would you think a remark from an outgoing FM would bind his successor?

And sure as hell, not one of the 44.7% even considered not having another referendum when the time was right, whenever that might be. 

Edited August 17, 2015 by Oddquine

[Oddquine]

I rather thought that you wouldn't answer the question.

Let's put it this way.... I don't think a parliament in Edinburgh was particularly high on too many people's agendas and while they voted to have one as opposed to not having one, kind of like the way many people will pocket a proffered Jehovas Witness leaflet, rabid Nats should not judge that 1997 outcome by their own obsessional standards as something for which there was a massive clamour.

More to the point, 63% of voters in 1997 opted for tax varying powers so why, in their 8 years in charge, have the Nats not respected the will of the Scottish people and used there powers.... especially since they constantly bang on about benefits and poverty which they then fail to address by sticking a couple of p on the basic rate?

That would be for exactly the same reasons the Labour/LibDem Governments from 1999 to 2007, didn't Charles, because they knew the Scottish people wouldn't wear being higher taxed than any other part of the UK, while 70% of their taxes went into the Westminster maw.  The SNP did try the "penny for Scotland" in the 1999 election, and we got a Lab/LibDem Government......so that was a lesson learned, I hope, particularly as they can't raise just a single band, but have to raise all bands by the same amount, which will not help the lower paid.......or Scotland, because the tax take from any growth in the economy will head straight down to Westminster. Devolution, Westminster style is a con trick, devised to damage the SNP, not to  benefit Scotland......just as it has been since 1979. 

[+DoofersDad]

Charles, define a generation.   In my family three generations have already had one bite of the independence cherry......so if you say a generation what do you actually mean by that....do you mean after my generation, who were born in the 1930/40s, or after my children's...born in the 1960/70s, or after my grandchildren's...born in the 1980/1990s...or are you thinking of after my great grandchildren's who won't be old enough to vote until after 2030?

Or do you mean, as I suspect was meant, a political generation which is five years in the UK and four years in Scotland.....and which is why the SNP has consistently said that .the holding of a referendum in any Scottish Parliamentary term will be a decision taken by the Scottish people (and Mundell actually said the same.) Independence might be in the SNP's Constitution, but that means diddly squat if it isn't in a manifesto and the SNP are in a position to action it..

But, whatever was meant by generation, it wasn't the SNP who said it as it  was never party  policy to only have a referendum once in a generation, however that is defined.....it was Alex Salmond who said it (and the FM can't make policy on the hoof, whatever the media thinks), and then he promptly resigned anyway. If one Government can't bind another government, even if a law has been passed, why on earth would you think a remark from an outgoing FM would bind his successor?

And sure as hell, not one of the 44.7% even considered not having another referendum when the time was right, whenever that might be. 

More complete nonsense from Oddquine and more suggesting someone who holds different views to her says or means something completely different from what they actually said or meant.  Is there anyone who genuinely thinks Salmond (and the current FM, by the way!) meant anything other than approximately 20 - 30 years for a generation?  Indeed one or both of the FMs used the phrase "once in a generation or maybe a lifetime" or words to that effect.    5 years is an electoral term and not a political generation.  I doubt that any politician has ever thought of 5 years as being a political generation.

You then cover your back and say that the generation thing is of no consequenceanyway because it was said by Salmond and was not party policy!  The implication of this is that we can simply ignore anything the First Minister says unless it is enshrined in the party manifesto!  Perhaps the only people who should make statements on behalf of the SNP are those on their policy committee with any statement cross referenced to the appropriate policy!  What you fail to acknowledge is that both Salmond and Sturgeon referred to the referendum as a once in a generation thing because they accepted that it is the reality of the political nature of these things.  It was said in the hope that the fact that it is a once in a generation thing  would encourage people to grasp the opportunity whilst they could. 

A decision for Scotland to become Independent would be irrevocable.  You can't just change back in 5 years time if the people decided they had made a mistake.  That is why the once in a generation thing is such an important concept.  In the history of our democracy it is literally only in the last few months that a majority of the population have indicated a preference for independence and we cannot know how people will feel in the future.  If we remain in the UK we may well find that a majority drift back to the view that Scotland is better as part of the wider UK.  Or if we become Independent it may be that people regret that decision and no longer want to be independent - but by then it will be too late.

It would be a complete betrayal of the people of Scotland to commit us to a long term future as an independent nation simply because a majority voted for it at a point in our history when a variety of factors briefly conspired to make independence look attractive.  If we are to become an independent nation it should be on the basis of consistent support for independence by a majority of the people over a number of years.  It is not something you can change and it is not something you should go into on a whim.

Nicola Sturgeon is well aware of the truth of this but faces a dilemma.  She knows she could give way to the mob, have another referendum and possibly go down in history as the person who took Scotland into independence and became the first Scottish Prime Minister.  Alternatively she knows she should do the responsible thing and honour the earlier statements about the previous referendum being a once in a generation thing.  Doing that would allow the Scottish Government to use the fiscal and other powers devolved to them and demonstrate to the Scottish people that the more responsibility the Scottish people have for their own affairs, the better off the people are.  If the support for independence was maintained then a date for a referendum could be set well in advance with clear statements agreed about how an independent nation would function.  In that way we would know what we were voting for and if we did vote for independence, we would know it reflected a long term view of the electorate.  That's how the democratic process should work.

You refer to the 44.7% who voted "Yes" but not to the 55.3% who voted "No".  It is high time the First Minister took note of that figure and accepted that a majority voted to stay in the Union.  It is high time for the First Minister to repeat her earlier statement that a referendum should be no more than a once in generation thing and confirmed that there will be no further referendum whilst she is first minister (although I would accept that the UK voting to leave the EU and a significant majority of Scots voting to stay in might well justify one).  The First Minister needs to start using the powers available to her to govern Scotland better than the SNP are currently doing instead of blaming everything on the hated Tories.  If the SNP could stop being so depressingly negative about everything then Scotland might move forward.  And in a generation we might have another referendum in which the argument for independence was based on the record of a Scottish Government in improving the lot of the Scottish people when it has fiscal autonomy.  This would be far more preferable and meaningful than the appalling campaign of lies and false promises we had to endure last year. 

 

[Laurence]

1. Going back to square one - You should when voting hope your vote will be towards governing  - not opposing
2. Especially if you are red or blue - To vote to oppose is negative in the extreme,
3. Next year in the Scottish elections  a Nationalist landslide is expected so a vote for the other parities may be seen as voting to oppose , but hopefully  the Scottish people will have the good sense to realise that the SNP are nothing more than a one dimensional propaganda machine with one aim in life that is to separate from the Union.

[Kingsmills]

1. Going back to square one - You should when voting hope your vote will be towards governing  - not opposing
2. Especially if you are red or blue - To vote to oppose is negative in the extreme,
3. Next year in the Scottish elections  a Nationalist landslide is expected so a vote for the other parities may be seen as voting to oppose , but hopefully  the Scottish people will have the good sense to realise that the SNP are nothing more than a one dimensional propaganda machine with one aim in life that is to separate from the Union.

Were the SNP a one dimensional propaganda machine with one aim in life that is to separate from the Union (sic) they would not be on the verge of winning the trust of the people to govern the nation within the Union for a third successive term nor would they be providing the only effective opposition within the parliament of that Union so effectively and constructively that the speaker of that parliament describes them as 'excellent parliamentarians'.

To describe them us such betrays astonishing ignorance on your part.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

Were the SNP a one dimensional propaganda machine with one aim in life that is to separate from the Union (sic) they would not be on the verge of winning the trust of the people to govern the nation within the Union for a third successive term nor would they be providing the only effective opposition within the parliament of that Union so effectively and constructively that the speaker of that parliament describes them as 'excellent parliamentarians'.

 

John Bercow?!!! It's really quite hilarious to see a Scottish nationalist quoting the most useless Tory on earth and the most notoriously ineffectual Speaker in Parliamentary history as an authority on what constitutes  an "excellent parliamentarian"

Mind you, when it comes to adopting stances of convenience, nobody does that better than Scottish nationalists!

Indeed there is probably no better example than their current milking of the current transient left wing loopiness which seems to be pervading Europe in one form or another in order to promote their aforesaid "one dimensional" political objective (singular). It's also interesting to see the current high standing of the SNP in the polls attributed to "trust"! I would suggest that it's far more to do with the utter fecklessness of the other parties which leaves the SNP as the least bad of a bad lot and gaining further brownie points in well documented Yes supporting areas through their Jam tomorrow promises.

On that subject, and to answer the point made previously about the other parties not having used their tax altering powers either... the other parties seemed to manage OK during 1999-2007 without these. However the SNP, despite the positive discrimination of the Barnet Formula, appear to have been permanently confounded and obstructed by all these "tight settlements" from Westmonster and various other conspiracies from south of the border. So in that case, if they can't otherwise balance the books properly, why have they not made an ex[ression of independence from Westmonster and used the tax powers without which the others seem to have managed fine to finance their fantasy economics?

 

[Yngwie]

Or do you mean, as I suspect was meant, a political generation which is five years in the UK and four years in Scotland.....and which is why the SNP has consistently said that .the holding of a referendum in any Scottish Parliamentary term will be a decision taken by the Scottish people (and Mundell actually said the same.) Independence might be in the SNP's Constitution, but that means diddly squat if it isn't in a manifesto and the SNP are in a position to action it..

But, whatever was meant by generation, it wasn't the SNP who said it as it  was never party  policy to only have a referendum once in a generation, however that is defined.....it was Alex Salmond who said it (and the FM can't make policy on the hoof, whatever the media thinks), and then he promptly resigned anyway. If one Government can't bind another government, even if a law has been passed, why on earth would you think a remark from an outgoing FM would bind his successor?

And sure as hell, not one of the 44.7% even considered not having another referendum when the time was right, whenever that might be. 

Classic nationalist revisionism. A generation is 20-30 years. That's what Salmond meant.

Sturgeon herself also described the referendum as a "once in a lifetime opportunity." which rules out your argument that she can't be bound by what he said.

The (SNP) Scottish Government's white paper on independence says on its first page that the referendum is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

With these esteemed SNP folk offering a new kind of politics full of honesty and integrity, unlike the lying, deceitful rogues at Westminster, I can only conclude that they all simply forgot to specify that they were actually basing those pledges on the life expectency of hamsters.

[Oddquine]

You can read Salmond's mind?  Well done you! 

Who says a generation is 20 to 30 years? There are a number of kinds of "generations", societal, familial, political, biblical etc......which one do you favour? .

Certainly looks as if it is going to be once in the lifetime of many of my generation I suspect, though, Yngwie.  However, neither of your quotes said whose lifetime/generation they were talking about, or didn't you all notice the indefinite article?  They could have said my generation, or our lifetime  or qualified it in another way to make the interpretation less nebulous, but they didn't.......now why could that have been, I wonder? 

 

 

[+DoofersDad]

You can read Salmond's mind?  Well done you! 

Who says a generation is 20 to 30 years? There are a number of kinds of "generations", societal, familial, political, biblical etc......which one do you favour? .

Certainly looks as if it is going to be once in the lifetime of many of my generation I suspect, though, Yngwie.  However, neither of your quotes said whose lifetime/generation they were talking about, or didn't you all notice the indefinite article?  They could have said my generation, or our lifetime  or qualified it in another way to make the interpretation less nebulous, but they didn't.......now why could that have been, I wonder? 

 

 

You are either being very thick or very naughty.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and to paraphrase Monty Python, say "she's been a very naughty girl!"  I am sure you are well aware that the generally accepted definition of a generation in the context of "once in a generation" is the average span of time between the births of an individual and their offspring.  No qualification is needed unless you specifically mean something else.

There is no doubt that prior to the referendum, the leadership of the SNP recognised that a referendum on such a major constitutional change should be held no more frequently than every 20 or 30 years.  Equally there is no doubt they still recognise the truth in that.  The question is, will they behave in a principled way or will they abandon their principles and submit to blind opportunism?  I know which my money is on.

[Charles Bannerman]

You are either being very thick or very naughty. 

Och there's just this faction within the 44.7 that wants to keep having referenda every other Thursday until they fluke a single result which they then claim to be "the settled will of the Scottish people" so they then don't have another referendum ever again. They just don't seem (want?) to understand that If you go to the bookies and lose your stake, the bookies tend not to keep giving it back to you until you eventually win money and disappear out of the shop forever with your winnings.

So when should we have another referendum? Well how soon would the 44.7 have been wanting one if they had actually become the 50.1? You see there is something deeply flawed with an arrangement whereby, in the best traditions of the IRA, "they only have to be lucky once whereas we have to be lucky all the time."

We have already had a referendum which categorically said NO. So if there happened to be any yes vote in any second referendum, that would no more than cancel out the effect of the first one and return us to the status quo before it.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Charles Bannerman

[Charles Bannerman]

On the subject of Labour, what on earth is going on with this election of a leader? It seems that you can pay £3 to become some kind of registered hanger-on and be entitled to vote in this election which of course makes it open house for all the left wing cranks of the day, and Tories as well, to make a very modest investment to secure the election of the natural successor of Michael Foot. The main difference is that Jeremy Corbyn doesn't quite have Michael Foot's dress sense.

It rather reminds me of the Inverness football merger where both sides of the argument recruited massively for the second vote at £20 per season ticket. On the other hand that particular exercise made no difference whatsoever so let's see what happens here.

At the moment the whole process seems to have all the hallmarks of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Talking of one man political embarrassments, what on earth has happened to Alex Salmond since his televised pronouncements about a second referendum? Absolute silence! I'm not complaining like, but has SNP Central by any chance sent him for a long stretch on the St Kilda Gulag r something similar? 

Edited August 19, 2015 by Charles Bannerman

[Alex MacLeod]

A generation is deemed to be 25 years though a generation ago it was twenty years.

The current SNP leadership have no intention of calling for another referendum unless public opinion demands it. That is the key to this whole debate. Independence will always be in the constitution of the SNP but it is not in the manifesto for the next government elections and probably wont be in four years time either. We dont even know if the SNP will win a majority next May nor indeed four years from then so why is everybody harping on about referendums. Yes a once in a lifetime opportunity came and went and, for me, it probably was once in a lifetime. Knowing my family longevity statistics I dont think I'll be around in 25 years time.

As to the opening posters subject the Labour party developed a cancer on the demise of John Smith. The powers that be couldn't see a way to defeat the Thatcherites without adopting many of the policies of the Conservatives. They had no choice at the time because Thatcher had created a new class in society. The working class property owner. Hundreds of thousands had the opportunity to buy their council home and set themselves on the property ladder. With that came new responsibility. A mortgage not paid became a home lost so the working man could no longer fight for better wages and working conditions. Some of those actually turned from being lifelong labour supporters to swinging between red and blue.

So, are Labour MP's performing well in WM? No I dont think they are. They are broken and in need of a leader who can bring about togetherness. Unfortunately nobody of the right caliber is willing to take on the role so they are now in a situation, within their strange voting system, where the right of centre parliamentarians are threatening to oust Corbyn if the membership elect him.

I'm not one of those who believes the opposition is elected to oppose. Indeed I've never understood the second largest group in WM being called opposition. They should all be there  to support good policy and to argue against bad policy. Labour MP's cant agree on their own party policy so are ineffective in carrying out their duties.

[+DoofersDad]

An excellent post Alex - apart from the 1st half of the 2nd paragraph!  I'm not sure how you can assert that a policy for a further referendum is not in the manifesto when, to the best of my knowledge, the manifesto has yet to be written!  I feel fairly sure that if it was written and was public knowledge, it would be a major news story.

The other point I would take issue with is that if it is the case that the SNP leadership have no intention of calling for another referendum unless public opinion demands it, then they are demonstrating a serious lack of leadership.  They would be following and not leading.  Leadership in this situation requires the first minister and her senior colleagues to explain to those supporters of independence clamoring for a re-run, why a second referendum just a few years after last year's is simply not appropriate.  The First Minister has made a number of deliberately ambiguous statements around this issue and has singularly failed either to re-affirm earlier comments that a referendum should be a once in a generation event or even to rule it out of next year's manifesto.

One can see the strategy here a mile off.  It will be in the manifesto, but she will say it was not her intention to call one so soon but the public demand was such etc etc.  In other words, she will try to put some principled position spin onto her bare faced opportunism.  The reason why some of us keep banging on about a 2nd referendum is because it still so clearly very much on the agenda of the SNP.  And until the SNP leadership actually demonstrate some leadership and take it off the agenda, I for one will keep on banging on about it.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

The current SNP leadership have no intention of calling for another referendum unless public opinion demands it. That is the key to this whole debate.

 

Now there's interesting! Because on passing the Gelluns this evening I noticed that the blackboard outside wasn't advertising the Beer of the Week or the Malt of the Day which you might expect from a normal pub, or even some band booked to belt out cheesy Jacobite songs at the next SingalongaNat session..... but was truimpeting a demand for a second referendum! Now granted, the Gelluns folk are pretty far out on the extremes of the SNP's sizeable Cranky Wing, but this does rather nicely illustrate how, accelerated by the zeal of the recently converted who have made them the Biggest Political Party In The Known Universe, the SNP will soon be fighting like ferrets in a sack over how soon to try to have another referendum as the leadership totally brick it, knowing that a second defeat means curtains.

However it does seem that squabbling furry beasties within the SNP are already tearing each other's eyes out as they clamour to get their snouts into the trough which is the Holyrood gravy train. Men in grey kilts have already visited and deselections have already been made with more highly likely as they scrap among themselves for what are now seen as easily obtained jobs for the boys next May. After all they've already seen a large cohort of absolute duds incredibly get into Westminster among the "56" so there are now even more of them queuing up for more of the same here.

Whatever is happening to SNP Central's Stalinist control freakery?

Edited August 20, 2015 by Charles Bannerman

[Laurence]

1. Going back to square one - You should when voting hope your vote will be towards governing  - not opposing
2. Especially if you are red or blue - To vote to oppose is negative in the extreme,
3. Next year in the Scottish elections  a Nationalist landslide is expected so a vote for the other parities may be seen as voting to oppose , but hopefully  the Scottish people will have the good sense to realise that the SNP are nothing more than a one dimensional propaganda machine with one aim in life that is to separate from the Union.

Were the SNP a one dimensional propaganda machine with one aim in life that is to separate from the Union (sic) they would not be on the verge of winning the trust of the people to govern the nation within the Union for a third successive term nor would they be providing the only effective opposition within the parliament of that Union so effectively and constructively that the speaker of that parliament describes them as 'excellent parliamentarians'.

To describe them us such betrays astonishing ignorance on your part.

You should know because you are the self appointed brain of this web platform

One dimensional Kingsmills  like you

So blatantly obvious  you are in self denial ,

Edited August 21, 2015 by Laurence

[Laurence]

Charles I think you are very unkind to the memory of Michael Foot

Michael was an intellectual a deep thinker and a very kind-hearted person , a true parliamentarian

Jeremy Corbyn  is an idiot of the first order who may succeed in becoming a leader of the Labour party

The Labour Party who  have a record second to none in world politics

How can the Party born out of the Trade Unions around 2015 to fight for the rights of workers be classed as Tories

How can the party that gave us The National Health Service

That Gave us Family Allowances , Family Tax credits, The Minimum Wage

That gave us the Legal Aid Act

Equal opportunism acts for ethnic memories  Equal Pay for Women

That Gave us Health and Safety at Work

Brought Devolved Government to Scotland and Wales

Sorted Out Government in Northern Ireland

On The Green side  the Pollution Acts of 1948 and 1977

together with clean water legislation

Massive Extension to Comprehensive education by Tony Crosland

Gay Rights, Decimalisation 1n 1967

Under Wilson

Liberation of Censorship Laws

including Liberation, of Divorcé under the reform act

Great improvements of Social Security Benefits

Capital Gains Tax on the Rich

Rent Acts , Protection From Eviction Acts

Massive increase in Council House Building and School  Building

Housing Slum Clearance Act

Town and Country Planning Acts

Social Security Acts

National Insurance Act which enabled payment when out of work

Under Tony Blair

Tax Credits

Introduced Civil Partnerships

Banned Fox Hunting

Over 60s local Bus Travel

Doubled Apprenticeships

Dads allowed Paternity leave

Gift Aid of 828 million to Charities

Restored City wide Government to London

Record Number of Students in Higher Education

Introduced Equality and Human Rights Commission

Increased Child benefits by over a quarter

Increased teachers by over a third

Full time workers allowed 24 days paid holidays

Built countless new Schools and Hospitals

Bailed out the banking system to such an extent the Tories can bow sell off the shares at a loss to help their case as the party who saved Britain

New Labour Old Labour ? Doesn't matter The Labour party is the only party since the last Liberal governments welfare reforms that has made the lot of the working classes any better. One exception was Harold MacMillan's Council House building program of the fifties,

The Conservatives as their name implies seek to maintain the Status Quo , Changing and spoiling any progress made by earlier governments like public ownership ,

A lot of Labour supporters cannot get their heads around the fact that to get power they have to appeal to " Disgusted of Tunbridge Well", or the bursars of Thurrock , but that's a fact of life.

Poor leadership like that of Milliband and Michael Foot have not helped, Democracy in the leadership elections have not helped either. Union leaders have put the boot in when leadership elections are taking place .  Having said all that I am profoundly s

disappointed that the party are on course to make the same mistakes. But at the end of the day the nation needs a strong Labour party and strong radical views.

 

Edited August 21, 2015 by Laurence
m

[IBM]

That's some list Laurence!  But all 'This nation' needs is a further swing to the SNP and we have cracked it

[Laurence]

That's some list Laurence!  But all 'This nation' needs is a further swing to the SNP and we have cracked it

Even the strongest party needs opposition

Some of the governments with big majorities have been the poorest . When parties are too strong they start to become factionalised.

he best example was in the late 40s when Beven started the bevenites, in opposition to Attlee

Small majorities keep governments on their toes

 

[Charles Bannerman]

Charles I think you are very unkind to the memory of Michael Foot

Michael was an intellectual a deep thinker and a very kind-hearted person , a true parliamentarian

Lawrence... he was a Loony Lefty who made a bigger contribution to the unelectablity of the Labour Party in the 80s and early 90s than anyone else in history (pre Corbyn!) On which subject, with the emergence of Corbyn, who would now criticise Foot for making a scarecrow look like the epitome of sartorial elegance? The thing is, guys like Lenin, Marx (Karl - and except the beard) and Trotsky actually used to look relatively smart. It's just these neo-Commies who have (unsuccessfully) tried to make it trendy to be scruffy.

[Laurence]

Charles I think you are very unkind to the memory of Michael Foot

Michael was an intellectual a deep thinker and a very kind-hearted person , a true parliamentarian

Lawrence... he was a Loony Lefty who made a bigger contribution to the unelectablity of the Labour Party in the 80s and early 90s than anyone else in history (pre Corbyn!) On which subject, with the emergence of Corbyn, who would now criticise Foot for making a scarecrow look like the epitome of sartorial elegance? The thing is, guys like Lenin, Marx (Karl - and except the beard) and Trotsky actually used to look relatively smart. It's just these neo-Commies who have (unsuccessfully) tried to make it trendy to be scruffy.

Boris ?

[+DoofersDad]

BBC website

Top Stories

Labour voting ends amid ballot claims

1 hour ago

New human-like species discovered

8 hours ago

I wonder if the two stories are related?

[Charles Bannerman]

BBC website

Top Stories

Labour voting ends amid ballot claims

1 hour ago

New human-like species discovered

8 hours ago

I wonder if the two stories are related?

I think they must be. For a start the species in the National Geographic bears a striking resemblance to that well known Labour Party creature "Homo Corbyniensis".

This quote from correspondent Laura Kuenssberg is interesting:- An unexpected candidate has done the unexpected and Jeremy Corbyn has put himself into the most likely position to win the contest. Strikingly, that is against the better judgement of nearly every single senior figure in the Labour Party, and crucially nearly all of its MPs.

I don't think it will take Labour long to place the following words in their correct order - Fighting.... sack....in...ferrets...a.