Brown should go ... and we need a general election SUNDAY HERALD EDITORIAL AFTER THE resounding and historic defeat at Glasgow East it is becoming increasingly uncertain how long the Labour Party can limp on in government. Yet even now, as it indulges in the regicide of Gordon Brown, there seems little indication that it has grasped the real implications of the situation in which it now finds itself.
The party does at least seem to have accepted that it made a huge mistake last year by appointing Brown as leader without any contest.
The danger is that it will now go on to compound that mistake by once again changing its leader without seeking a new mandate from the electorate. Labour got off with such a change once... it will not pull off the same trick twice and does not deserve to do so.
Yes, Labour needs a new leader. Brown cannot continue in his current position for much longer. He has lost the support of his party and every indication suggests that he has little public support either.
But the country has a right to expect a say in who should be become the prime minister. It must, therefore, be made clear during any post-Brown contest that the process has two parts: first, Labour must choose its leader; after that there should be a quick general election to allow the electorate to decide if Labour is fit to remain in office. There need be no time for bedding in, for another vision to be given time, for a new cabinet to make its mark. If Brown goes this year, whoever follows has to know his authority is conditional on the outcome of a general election.
Labour's election contest will thus have two themes: one focusing on the long term future of the party, whether it wins or loses at the polls, and the other focusing on the electability of whoever succeeds Brown. What is crucial here is that it is the country which must decide who stays in Number 10, not the Labour Party on its own.
A general election is not a democratic luxury - at the moment it is a necessity. Obsessed by survival, Brown's is not an administration that is governing. Instead, the politics of ego are to the fore: the government lacks vision; lacks strategy; and is without a recognisable backbone. At a time when we need a strong government, we have a weak group of politicians focused on their own survival, fending off leadership
challenges rather than finding ways of getting Britain out of the mess it is in.
Its defeat in Glasgow East was the final nail in a coffin that was almost complete before the by-election. However, Labour's insistence that it is "business as usual" suggests that it does not understand the significance of the next election.
A Tory victory currently looks a certainty in an early general election, with Labour already far behind in England and Wales. The SNP is equally certain to boost its representation at Westminster. After the next general election, it is increasingly clear that a referendum on Scotland's future will be held. Should Labour be reduced to a rump with the resurgent Conservatives looking to copy and pass the 18 years of Thatcher and Major, Scotland's decision in that referendum may be easier than it currently looks. Keeping the decision on the country's next prime minister solely in the hands of the Labour Party would send out entirely the wrong message. If Labour can't trust voters, voters will ask why bother trusting it.
|
|
Posted by: Tired of excuses, Galashiels on 11:57pm Sat 26 Jul 08
There is a gaping hole in the logic here.
Bean will not entertain the idea of a general election for the simple reason he is guaranteed to lose.
Neither will he stand down from the post he lusted after for years under Cheesy Tony.
Either way he is out of a job.
Unless he is pulled kicking and screaming out the door of number 10 he will not move.
There is a gaping hole in the logic here.
Bean will not entertain the idea of a general election for the simple reason he is guaranteed to lose.
Neither will he stand down from the post he lusted after for years under Cheesy Tony.
Either way he is out of a job.
Unless he is pulled kicking and screaming out the door of number 10 he will not move.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 11:58pm Sat 26 Jul 08
Editorial[quote]Obsessed by survival, Brown's is not an administration that is governing. Instead, the politics of ego are to the fore: the government lacks vision; lacks strategy; and is without a recognisable backbone. At a time when we need a strong government, we have a weak group of politicians focused on their own survival, fending off leadership challenges rather than finding ways of getting Britain out of the mess it is in.[/quote] The world order, thanks to the utter folly of Bush and his cohorts, is in disorder; the sooner we have statesmen with vision, and stable government, the better for us all.
Editorial
Obsessed by survival, Brown's is not an administration that is governing. Instead, the politics of ego are to the fore: the government lacks vision; lacks strategy; and is without a recognisable backbone. At a time when we need a strong government, we have a weak group of politicians focused on their own survival, fending off leadership challenges rather than finding ways of getting Britain out of the mess it is in.
The world order, thanks to the utter folly of Bush and his cohorts, is in disorder; the sooner we have statesmen with vision, and stable government, the better for us all.
Posted by: Samoyed, Costa del Menie on 11:59pm Sat 26 Jul 08
If Brown wasn't a self-obssesed, paranoid, megalomaniac, truly believing that despite the polls and byelections results, the "people" wants him to continue, therefore incapable of giving his toy away, what the Herald says would make sense.
Unfortunately for all of us the editorial is precisely the reason why labour is going to do nothing and just practice a scorching earth policy to make things as complicated as possible for the next Tory government.
And there is nothing we can do about that except prepare ourselves for the battles for independence, getting the best possible results in the next elections.
We ought to pity the English and Welsh, at least we got the SNP to vote for.
If Brown wasn't a self-obssesed, paranoid, megalomaniac, truly believing that despite the polls and byelections results, the "people" wants him to continue, therefore incapable of giving his toy away, what the Herald says would make sense.
Unfortunately for all of us the editorial is precisely the reason why labour is going to do nothing and just practice a scorching earth policy to make things as complicated as possible for the next Tory government.
And there is nothing we can do about that except prepare ourselves for the battles for independence, getting the best possible results in the next elections.
We ought to pity the English and Welsh, at least we got the SNP to vote for.
Posted by: democrate, central Scotland on 12:04am Sun 27 Jul 08
Gordon Brown was never a statesman; neither was Tony Blair. Kinnock? - don't make me laugh! Labour and New Labour in recent years have been so full of dross that to get to the top of that greasy pole required little more than the ability to tell and believe barefaced lies and to always have something with which to shaft those around you. It certainly was not about either the ability or the desire to improve the domestic, economic or employment circumstances of the population!
Gordon Brown was never a statesman; neither was Tony Blair. Kinnock? - don't make me laugh! Labour and New Labour in recent years have been so full of dross that to get to the top of that greasy pole required little more than the ability to tell and believe barefaced lies and to always have something with which to shaft those around you. It certainly was not about either the ability or the desire to improve the domestic, economic or employment circumstances of the population!
Posted by: Grant, RoS on 12:14am Sun 27 Jul 08
There is no way Labour will call an election before they have to.
Likewise, I would be surprised if anyone (credible) will risk their reputation trying to force Brown from office. Also that would not change matters much for Labour. They have had their time and people eventually want change.
Also... the longer Labour go before calling an election the better it will be for the SNP and the Tories as Labour will become yet more unpopular.
There is no way Labour will call an election before they have to.
Likewise, I would be surprised if anyone (credible) will risk their reputation trying to force Brown from office. Also that would not change matters much for Labour. They have had their time and people eventually want change.
Also... the longer Labour go before calling an election the better it will be for the SNP and the Tories as Labour will become yet more unpopular.
Posted by: jim mitchell, Sauchie, Clack's on 12:16am Sun 27 Jul 08
I think that Labour will try to tough it out but without Brown, and to try and make things look better they won't have a coronation this time but a leadership contest.
In the end though it won't help them survive an election.
I think that Labour will try to tough it out but without Brown, and to try and make things look better they won't have a coronation this time but a leadership contest.
In the end though it won't help them survive an election.
Posted by: A. Bell, Hamilton on 12:32am Sun 27 Jul 08
How can Labour fight an election when the party's funds are in such dire straights? And what big donors are going to come forward now? New Labour's alienation of its traditional support has led to a big drop in party members, leaving the unions to prop them up. They'll need to 2010 to sort their debt out!
How can Labour fight an election when the party's funds are in such dire straights? And what big donors are going to come forward now? New Labour's alienation of its traditional support has led to a big drop in party members, leaving the unions to prop them up. They'll need to 2010 to sort their debt out!
Posted by: wisnaeme on 12:34am Sun 27 Jul 08
Was there an earth shattering political earthquake less than forty eight hours ago?
Really?
Terribly memories some folk have.
So let's focus on has beens and me, me, me; then?
Oh dear, it's back to normal after the little excitement.
No change there, then. Well not in the Herald meja apparently. Strange that, I always thought bad news and disasters sold newspapers.
Ach weel, ah'm off to re-read the Sunday Times article by that Jenkins chappie. He said that 50 Scottish Labour MPs are Socialists. Ah'm sure their voting record and accomplishments will verify Mr Jenkin's perception of New Labour at Westmidden. Aye right.
.
Was there an earth shattering political earthquake less than forty eight hours ago?
Really?
Terribly memories some folk have.
So let's focus on has beens and me, me, me; then?
Oh dear, it's back to normal after the little excitement.
No change there, then. Well not in the Herald meja apparently. Strange that, I always thought bad news and disasters sold newspapers.
Ach weel, ah'm off to re-read the Sunday Times article by that Jenkins chappie. He said that 50 Scottish Labour MPs are Socialists. Ah'm sure their voting record and accomplishments will verify Mr Jenkin's perception of New Labour at Westmidden. Aye right.
.
Posted by: Iainbroch, Moray on 12:48am Sun 27 Jul 08
[quote][bold]A. Bell[/bold] wrote:
How can Labour fight an election when the party's funds are in such dire straights? And what big donors are going to come forward now? New Labour's alienation of its traditional support has led to a big drop in party members, leaving the unions to prop them up. They'll need to 2010 to sort their debt out![/quote] I asked this question weeks ago about Liebaaahs finances. The press and media has still not provided an answer.
Just who is signing Liebaaahs books off? What happenned in respect of the loans that were due to be called in this month?Not just to the millionaire backers but to the banks that they borrowed from?
The officially released debt figures were I believe are £16 million I believe but the true figure is more like £24 million and can only be worse after Glasgow East?
Where are they going to find that amount of money by 2010 - present donations dont even cover what they are spending?
A. Bell wrote:
How can Labour fight an election when the party's funds are in such dire straights? And what big donors are going to come forward now? New Labour's alienation of its traditional support has led to a big drop in party members, leaving the unions to prop them up. They'll need to 2010 to sort their debt out!
I asked this question weeks ago about Liebaaahs finances. The press and media has still not provided an answer.
Just who is signing Liebaaahs books off? What happenned in respect of the loans that were due to be called in this month?Not just to the millionaire backers but to the banks that they borrowed from?
The officially released debt figures were I believe are £16 million I believe but the true figure is more like £24 million and can only be worse after Glasgow East?
Where are they going to find that amount of money by 2010 - present donations dont even cover what they are spending?
Posted by: yabutey, Rothesay on 1:48am Sun 27 Jul 08
After the next general election, it is increasingly clear that a referendum on Scotland's future will be held. Should Labour be reduced to a rump with the resurgent Conservatives looking to copy and pass the 18 years of Thatcher and Major, Scotland's decision in that referendum may be easier than it currently looks.
At last! recognition that the people of Scotland may just possibly arrive at the logical conclusion of their own volition and despite the scaremongering of the unionist lackeys!!
After the next general election, it is increasingly clear that a referendum on Scotland's future will be held. Should Labour be reduced to a rump with the resurgent Conservatives looking to copy and pass the 18 years of Thatcher and Major, Scotland's decision in that referendum may be easier than it currently looks.
At last! recognition that the people of Scotland may just possibly arrive at the logical conclusion of their own volition and despite the scaremongering of the unionist lackeys!!
Posted by: Margaret, Edinburgh on 4:53am Sun 27 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Iainbroch[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]A. Bell[/bold] wrote: How can Labour fight an election when the party's funds are in such dire straights? And what big donors are going to come forward now? New Labour's alienation of its traditional support has led to a big drop in party members, leaving the unions to prop them up. They'll need to 2010 to sort their debt out![/quote] I asked this question weeks ago about Liebaaahs finances. The press and media has still not provided an answer. Just who is signing Liebaaahs books off? What happenned in respect of the loans that were due to be called in this month?Not just to the millionaire backers but to the banks that they borrowed from? The officially released debt figures were I believe are £16 million I believe but the true figure is more like £24 million and can only be worse after Glasgow East? Where are they going to find that amount of money by 2010 - present donations dont even cover what they are spending? [/quote] The 'policy' forum this week was actually a 'begging-on-bended-k
nees' exercise by NuLiebour to the unions for bail out funding. Sheer blood hypocrisy! Hoist by their own petard doesn't cover it - the party that in opposition criticised Tory cash-for-questions sleaze, the party that promised no more snouts in the trough on being elected to government, the party that has gorged itself at the public trough ever since, the party that invented 'cash-for-honours', the party brought in laws about donations to political parties.
Hopefully the unions will tell them where to shove their request for money .
Iainbroch wrote:
A. Bell wrote: How can Labour fight an election when the party's funds are in such dire straights? And what big donors are going to come forward now? New Labour's alienation of its traditional support has led to a big drop in party members, leaving the unions to prop them up. They'll need to 2010 to sort their debt out!
I asked this question weeks ago about Liebaaahs finances. The press and media has still not provided an answer. Just who is signing Liebaaahs books off? What happenned in respect of the loans that were due to be called in this month?Not just to the millionaire backers but to the banks that they borrowed from? The officially released debt figures were I believe are £16 million I believe but the true figure is more like £24 million and can only be worse after Glasgow East? Where are they going to find that amount of money by 2010 - present donations dont even cover what they are spending?
The 'policy' forum this week was actually a 'begging-on-bended-k
nees' exercise by NuLiebour to the unions for bail out funding. Sheer blood hypocrisy! Hoist by their own petard doesn't cover it - the party that in opposition criticised Tory cash-for-questions sleaze, the party that promised no more snouts in the trough on being elected to government, the party that has gorged itself at the public trough ever since, the party that invented 'cash-for-honours', the party brought in laws about donations to political parties.
Hopefully the unions will tell them where to shove their request for money .
Posted by: Guga, Rockall on 6:11am Sun 27 Jul 08
From what I understand, the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party are in debt to the tune of £30 million. They cannot raise any more funds by selling peerages, and now are trying to bludge it off the unions.
Why the unions would even consider giving this neo-Tory party any money is beyond comprehension. They have no interest in ordinary people, only in their business friends who they hope will help them on their path to riches.
If they do call an election, not only will they be wiped out in England, but they stand a good chance of being wiped out in Scotland too. There is also a good chance that they will end up bankrupt.
From what I understand, the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party are in debt to the tune of £30 million. They cannot raise any more funds by selling peerages, and now are trying to bludge it off the unions.
Why the unions would even consider giving this neo-Tory party any money is beyond comprehension. They have no interest in ordinary people, only in their business friends who they hope will help them on their path to riches.
If they do call an election, not only will they be wiped out in England, but they stand a good chance of being wiped out in Scotland too. There is also a good chance that they will end up bankrupt.
Posted by: donald, glasgow on 6:39am Sun 27 Jul 08
Even England would prefer Alex Salmond as Prime Minister to extricate themselves from this mess.
Even England would prefer Alex Salmond as Prime Minister to extricate themselves from this mess.
Posted by: heavy, Glasgow on 8:18am Sun 27 Jul 08
The obsession of both major political parties Labour and Tory with what can only be described as a fascist intolerance of the weakest and poorest sections of British society is reminiscent of TYRANT THATCHER.
The vast bulk of the UK should have leaders in power who do not constantly use the poor as victims for their whipping boys.The UK is by the day becoming one of the most intolerant and spied on societies across the globe.
We have those seeking power obsessed with a "1984" agenda and all UK citizens being treated like enemies of the state.
Unless the national media can accommodate a wider spectrum of political parties, that are NOT in that mould, and continue to give platforms only to TWO major political parties with a history of sleaze and corruption the UK is doomed.
How can we see political change for the better when daily we have two agendas rammed down our throats that show very little difference in policy that sees the proliferation of warmongering ,surveillance, vast inequality and constants attacks on the poorest and weakest sections of British society.
We should be ashamed, NOT giving platforms to parties that are headed by bully boys who constantly require to impose their fascism on those least able to protect themselves from draconian and tyrannical abuse of powers .
A GREAT leader, which is a rarity in the UK, is one who gains power without abusing it. Which Prime Minister in the last 100 years has achieved anything close to that goal?
The obsession of both major political parties Labour and Tory with what can only be described as a fascist intolerance of the weakest and poorest sections of British society is reminiscent of TYRANT THATCHER.
The vast bulk of the UK should have leaders in power who do not constantly use the poor as victims for their whipping boys.The UK is by the day becoming one of the most intolerant and spied on societies across the globe.
We have those seeking power obsessed with a "1984" agenda and all UK citizens being treated like enemies of the state.
Unless the national media can accommodate a wider spectrum of political parties, that are NOT in that mould, and continue to give platforms only to TWO major political parties with a history of sleaze and corruption the UK is doomed.
How can we see political change for the better when daily we have two agendas rammed down our throats that show very little difference in policy that sees the proliferation of warmongering ,surveillance, vast inequality and constants attacks on the poorest and weakest sections of British society.
We should be ashamed, NOT giving platforms to parties that are headed by bully boys who constantly require to impose their fascism on those least able to protect themselves from draconian and tyrannical abuse of powers .
A GREAT leader, which is a rarity in the UK, is one who gains power without abusing it. Which Prime Minister in the last 100 years has achieved anything close to that goal?
Posted by: heavy, Glasgow on 8:19am Sun 27 Jul 08
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
Steps to a jury and democracy
(1) we demand our Right to Trial by Jury in any action
(2) the Judiciary deny us that Right
(3) we deny that they have the power to do so by saying, "I do not consent to be without a Jury and I Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court."
(4) a Jury determines the Jurisdiction of the Court (of which a Judge is an Officer) and
(5) once a Jury overrules the Judge, the TRIAL re-commences BY JURY
LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS
Steps to a jury and democracy
(1) we demand our Right to Trial by Jury in any action
(2) the Judiciary deny us that Right
(3) we deny that they have the power to do so by saying, "I do not consent to be without a Jury and I Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court."
(4) a Jury determines the Jurisdiction of the Court (of which a Judge is an Officer) and
(5) once a Jury overrules the Judge, the TRIAL re-commences BY JURY
Posted by: Dirty Leftie, Glasgow on 8:39am Sun 27 Jul 08
Another interesting piece from Iain MacW.
However, for this to happen would require a senior figure to sacrifice his/her career for the long term good of the party.
Given the quality of person in the higher echelons of NuLab this seems unlikely to say the least. Also, unlike the Tories, who tend to be ruthless about these things, Labour are not adept at assassinating their leaders, no matter how useless.
Everyone can see that Broon is doomed and risks bringing it all down with him but is there anyone with the cojones to force the issue?
Don't hold your breath. I expect the government to stagger on until 2010 and then be destroyed in a landslide for the Tories in England and the SNP here.
Another interesting piece from Iain MacW.
However, for this to happen would require a senior figure to sacrifice his/her career for the long term good of the party.
Given the quality of person in the higher echelons of NuLab this seems unlikely to say the least. Also, unlike the Tories, who tend to be ruthless about these things, Labour are not adept at assassinating their leaders, no matter how useless.
Everyone can see that Broon is doomed and risks bringing it all down with him but is there anyone with the cojones to force the issue?
Don't hold your breath. I expect the government to stagger on until 2010 and then be destroyed in a landslide for the Tories in England and the SNP here.
Posted by: marian, Edinburrgh on 8:47am Sun 27 Jul 08
It must be glaringly obvious by now to even the most loyal follower of New Labour that they have a guy as leader who is clearly not up to the job. However the problem runs much deeper as New Labour have been found to be not up to the job of running the UK. The UK desperately needs a General Election to elect politicians who are up to the job of turning around he course to disaster that we are presently embarked upon. Problem is that Brown and his New Labour want to hang on "in case something turns up" to reverse their fortunes. Meanwhile we all suffer.
It must be glaringly obvious by now to even the most loyal follower of New Labour that they have a guy as leader who is clearly not up to the job. However the problem runs much deeper as New Labour have been found to be not up to the job of running the UK. The UK desperately needs a General Election to elect politicians who are up to the job of turning around he course to disaster that we are presently embarked upon. Problem is that Brown and his New Labour want to hang on "in case something turns up" to reverse their fortunes. Meanwhile we all suffer.
Posted by: Necro, Cenobites shadow on 9:04am Sun 27 Jul 08
The rape victim Gordon Brown is a good example of a man raped and broken by a political system that controls and manipulates him behind the scenes. He is merely a tool for the arms manufacturers agenda. The arms manufacturers and the rothschild banking network are trying to figure out to whom they will give their "support" to. In other words it's not going to matter who replaces Brown. At the end of the day "democracy" in this country is decided by the banking network and the arms industry. Cameron has been "chosen" to "lead" the country which means he is just another Bilderberger. The only for Scotland to remove their influence is to go for full independence and to be independent from europe as well, with a Scottish currency that ursurps the Sterling.
The rape victim Gordon Brown is a good example of a man raped and broken by a political system that controls and manipulates him behind the scenes. He is merely a tool for the arms manufacturers agenda. The arms manufacturers and the rothschild banking network are trying to figure out to whom they will give their "support" to. In other words it's not going to matter who replaces Brown. At the end of the day "democracy" in this country is decided by the banking network and the arms industry. Cameron has been "chosen" to "lead" the country which means he is just another Bilderberger. The only for Scotland to remove their influence is to go for full independence and to be independent from europe as well, with a Scottish currency that ursurps the Sterling.
Posted by: heavy, Glasgow on 9:49am Sun 27 Jul 08
http://www.educate-y
ourself.org/nwo/
The New World Order (NWO)
Browns New World Order speech at
http://www.youtube.c
om/v/Uv5cqh26CC0
“There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an elite group of genetically related individuals which include many of the very wealthy, politically powerful, and corporate elite of the world, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility [nothing to do with the color of one's skin] of Europe whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda.
Events are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda which includes utilizing mass Mind Control of an unprecedented scale and scope. You need to inform yourself of this diabolical scheme and take steps to thwart their agenda. Their intention is to affect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by 5.5 Billion people.
http://www.educate-y
ourself.org/nwo/
The New World Order (NWO)
Browns New World Order speech at
http://www.youtube.c
om/v/Uv5cqh26CC0
“There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an elite group of genetically related individuals which include many of the very wealthy, politically powerful, and corporate elite of the world, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda.
Events are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda which includes utilizing mass Mind Control of an unprecedented scale and scope. You need to inform yourself of this diabolical scheme and take steps to thwart their agenda. Their intention is to affect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by 5.5 Billion people.
Posted by: Mac, Dundee on 9:52am Sun 27 Jul 08
Isn't just wonderful to see the Unionist media in Scotland in full panic mode. The Scottish editors applauded Gordon Brown's leadership skills only a year ago. They concurred at the same time that there was no need for a general election to confirm Brown's premiership. How things have changed. How foolish papers like the Herald and Snday Herald now looks.
Isn't just wonderful to see the Unionist media in Scotland in full panic mode. The Scottish editors applauded Gordon Brown's leadership skills only a year ago. They concurred at the same time that there was no need for a general election to confirm Brown's premiership. How things have changed. How foolish papers like the Herald and Snday Herald now looks.
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 10:02am Sun 27 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Mac[/bold] wrote:
Isn't just wonderful to see the Unionist media in Scotland in full panic mode. The Scottish editors applauded Gordon Brown's leadership skills only a year ago. They concurred at the same time that there was no need for a general election to confirm Brown's premiership. How things have changed. How foolish papers like the Herald and Snday Herald now looks.[/quote] Not half as foolish as the hootsmon!
[quote]tinyurl.com/stickitu
pthehootsmon[/quote]
Mac wrote:
Isn't just wonderful to see the Unionist media in Scotland in full panic mode. The Scottish editors applauded Gordon Brown's leadership skills only a year ago. They concurred at the same time that there was no need for a general election to confirm Brown's premiership. How things have changed. How foolish papers like the Herald and Snday Herald now looks.
Not half as foolish as the hootsmon!
tinyurl.com/stickitu
pthehootsmon
Posted by: James Morton, Glasgow on 11:09am Sun 27 Jul 08
I don't think it matters right now who is in charge of new-labour. Who would take over? The pool of potential candidates are an array of cartoonishly inept, spineless wretches.
They have stood by while energy companies have gouged the UK for massive profits, then went chasing after them to provide funding for their precious 2012 olympic games.
Energy prices are spiking due to speculators trading in oil futures and a slightly foolish war of choice in the middleeast.
Food prices are rising due to speculation in bio-fuels, and due to the increase in oil prices impacting on the processing and transportation of food...not because some chinaman wants some beef with his rice.
And what does new labour say about that. It is frustratingly silent on the energy crisis and tried to blame us for the increase in food costs because we don't eat our left-overs.
All this and the decision to pick a fight with public services from the civil service to schools and hosptials. Lets also not forget the stupidity of picking a fight with the countries working poor.
We are now heading into a perfect storm created by the free-market that they championed so loudly...they are no longer in control of events, but rather events are in control of them.
Whats Brown got to say...well he's really worried that in 2 years time there will be a conservative government in power and those precious schools he keeps banging on about won't be built.
Seriously Gordon?...is that the only thing you're worried about.
I don't think it matters right now who is in charge of new-labour. Who would take over? The pool of potential candidates are an array of cartoonishly inept, spineless wretches.
They have stood by while energy companies have gouged the UK for massive profits, then went chasing after them to provide funding for their precious 2012 olympic games.
Energy prices are spiking due to speculators trading in oil futures and a slightly foolish war of choice in the middleeast.
Food prices are rising due to speculation in bio-fuels, and due to the increase in oil prices impacting on the processing and transportation of food...not because some chinaman wants some beef with his rice.
And what does new labour say about that. It is frustratingly silent on the energy crisis and tried to blame us for the increase in food costs because we don't eat our left-overs.
All this and the decision to pick a fight with public services from the civil service to schools and hosptials. Lets also not forget the stupidity of picking a fight with the countries working poor.
We are now heading into a perfect storm created by the free-market that they championed so loudly...they are no longer in control of events, but rather events are in control of them.
Whats Brown got to say...well he's really worried that in 2 years time there will be a conservative government in power and those precious schools he keeps banging on about won't be built.
Seriously Gordon?...is that the only thing you're worried about.
Posted by: Wullie on 11:34am Sun 27 Jul 08
Maybe if Labour had supported the people of Scotland and kept their hand out of the till, then things would be different.
However, Labour have lost the trust of the people, they have been, and still are, rotten to the core with corruption.
Labour have also been shown to be no supporters of democracy and even this Glasgow East by-election has been an example of electoral manipulation.
Calling a snap by-election with three weeks notice, in the middle of the Glasgow holidays with parliament going into recess, and allegations of fraud against the retiring MP is certainly not an example of democracy at its best.
It comes therefore as no surprise that the SNP who are in power in Hollyrood, have control and or share of control in many many councils, have European MEP's, have made such stunning progress in what was Labour's heartland.
With the Conservatives poised to take power by a huge majority in England as soon as an election is called, it is not difficult to see how the electorate will soon make Scotland a Labour Free zone, as it did with the Tories before them.
Maybe if Labour had supported the people of Scotland and kept their hand out of the till, then things would be different.
However, Labour have lost the trust of the people, they have been, and still are, rotten to the core with corruption.
Labour have also been shown to be no supporters of democracy and even this Glasgow East by-election has been an example of electoral manipulation.
Calling a snap by-election with three weeks notice, in the middle of the Glasgow holidays with parliament going into recess, and allegations of fraud against the retiring MP is certainly not an example of democracy at its best.
It comes therefore as no surprise that the SNP who are in power in Hollyrood, have control and or share of control in many many councils, have European MEP's, have made such stunning progress in what was Labour's heartland.
With the Conservatives poised to take power by a huge majority in England as soon as an election is called, it is not difficult to see how the electorate will soon make Scotland a Labour Free zone, as it did with the Tories before them.
Posted by: Martin, Edinburgh on 12:21pm Sun 27 Jul 08
I am actually quite happy for Labour to carry on with the idea that there is nothing really wrong with continuing with their present agenda. Head in the sand anybody?
A vote on Scotland's future in 2010 looks quite promising for at least wider powers to come to Scotland though I think independence would be the best way forward.
Taking a wider view - it is a pity for many people who stuck with labour through the Thatcher years see them turning into the shambles they currently are - for Scottish Labour, I think they should make plans for their own independence from London. By doing this they can form their own agenda for once.
I am actually quite happy for Labour to carry on with the idea that there is nothing really wrong with continuing with their present agenda. Head in the sand anybody?
A vote on Scotland's future in 2010 looks quite promising for at least wider powers to come to Scotland though I think independence would be the best way forward.
Taking a wider view - it is a pity for many people who stuck with labour through the Thatcher years see them turning into the shambles they currently are - for Scottish Labour, I think they should make plans for their own independence from London. By doing this they can form their own agenda for once.
Posted by: Andrew BOD, Aberdeen on 12:31pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Martin, Edinburgh on 12:21pm today
[quote]I am actually quite happy for Labour to carry on with the idea that there is nothing really wrong with continuing with their present agenda. Head in the sand anybody?
A vote on Scotland's future in 2010 looks quite promising for at least wider powers to come to Scotland though I think independence would be the best way forward.
Taking a wider view - it is a pity for many people who stuck with labour through the Thatcher years see them turning into the shambles they currently are - for Scottish Labour, I think they should make plans for their own independence from London. By doing this they can form their own agenda for once.[/quote]
Martin, I agree.
But if I were a Labour supporter with a sensible head, I would elect a new leader, call a general election, give Cameron a smaller majority than he'd get in 2010, give him a recession to deal with, and upset the independence referendum timetable.
But I'm not a Labour supporter, so more of the same please.
Martin, Edinburgh on 12:21pm today
I am actually quite happy for Labour to carry on with the idea that there is nothing really wrong with continuing with their present agenda. Head in the sand anybody?
A vote on Scotland's future in 2010 looks quite promising for at least wider powers to come to Scotland though I think independence would be the best way forward.
Taking a wider view - it is a pity for many people who stuck with labour through the Thatcher years see them turning into the shambles they currently are - for Scottish Labour, I think they should make plans for their own independence from London. By doing this they can form their own agenda for once.
Martin, I agree.
But if I were a Labour supporter with a sensible head, I would elect a new leader, call a general election, give Cameron a smaller majority than he'd get in 2010, give him a recession to deal with, and upset the independence referendum timetable.
But I'm not a Labour supporter, so more of the same please.
Posted by: Ted H on 12:39pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Could Mr Brown be the last Prime Minister of Great Britain?
Two consequences, both of huge importance, flow from yesterday's historic by-election victory for the Scottish National Party in Glasgow East.
The first, and most obvious, concerns Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister has been dealt another terrible, wounding blow.
The Labour defeat, which was not predicted until the very last moment within the disastrously out-of-touch British political establishment, places Brown's premiership for the first time into genuine doubt.
It guarantees that a question mark will surround Gordon Brown's leadership all summer, dominate Labour's conference in early autumn, and probably reach some kind of crisis early next year.
The likelihood remains that Gordon Brown will survive, but he is gravely weakened and in danger of becoming irrelevant, as John Major was in his final months in office.
However, the feverish discussions of Gordon Brown's political health which have dominated the airwaves over the past 24 hours have obscured a matter of much more enduring significance: whether or not the United Kingdom itself can survive beyond the next General Election.
History may come to view the Glasgow East by-election as the moment the breakup of the 300-year-old British union became inevitable.
One thing is now certain: it will not survive in its present form.
This is because the most significant feature of yesterday was not defeat for Labour, important though that undoubtedly was.
The really important thing was that each one of the mainstream national political parties was humiliated.
The Lib Dems lost their deposit - a third successive by-election disaster which confirmed how much their pointless new leader Nick Clegg has become a liability.
But David Cameron's Conservatives also failed to take advantage of government unpopularity.
The brutal truth is that in Scotland Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party now mark the only meaningful opposition to Gordon Brown.
And this undeniable fact has deadly serious consequences for the future of Britain.
It means that when David Cameron - as now seems certain - becomes Prime Minister after the coming General Election, he will immediately be plunged into a first-rate constitutional crisis that could destroy his premiership before it has even begun.
Cameron's problem is simple. As incoming Prime Minister he will be able to count on approximately 340 Conservative MPs, giving him a reasonably comfortable majority in the House of Commons.
Crucially, the vast majority will be English, and - judging by Friday morning's SNP triumph - only one or at most two will come from Scotland's 59 constituencies.
In other words, the new Cameron administration will carry zero legitimacy north of the border.
More worrying by far, Cameron will take power at the exact moment when Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, has always promised to unleash his nuclear weapon: a referendum on independence.
The timing for Salmond, who has emerged as a politician of exceptional luck as well as talent since his election as Scottish First Minister last spring, would be perfect.
On the one hand, he would be dealing with a Tory government which has lost its Scottish power base.
On the other hand, he would be able to challenge a gravely weakened opposition Labour Party, which would be in the thralls of the bloody leadership contest that normally takes place after an election defeat.
Alex Salmond knows that he will never have a better chance of securing his long-standing objective and winning the Scottish war for independence.
David Cameron, on the other hand, faces the miserable prospect of securing his lifetime ambition, entering 10 Downing Street - and ceasing to be Prime Minister of all of Britain within months of taking office.
Within the Conservative Party, there are two contradictory attitudes towards this rise of the Scottish National Party and the prospect of Scottish independence.
On the one hand, senior Tory strategists are aware that they and the SNP share a common enemy - Gordon Brown and his moribund Scottish Labour Party.
They realise that Scottish independence will not merely bring with it the end of Britain, but go a long way to destroying Labour, which has relied on Scotland as its power base for so many years, as the party of government.
David Cameron does not share this view. He is at heart a romantic Tory, which is why in his speeches over recent months he has gone out of his way to emphasise the significance of the union with Scotland.
'I do not want to be the Prime Minister of England,' he told Scottish voters in Ayr last May, 'I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - all of it, including Scotland.'
But Cameron is also pragmatic: he understands that the Tories stand no chance of winning the argument in Scotland for the union, least of all against an opponent as formidable as Alex Salmond.
That is why, I can reveal, allies of Cameron have entered into informal talks with the SNP over recent months.
Their objective is to save the union by working out a new kind of constitutional settlement for Scotland.
Details are sketchy, but it is possible to indicate the main outlines.
An incoming Tory administration would need to meet Alex Salmond's demands that the Scottish Parliament should have massive new powers over taxation and public spending.
In domestic terms, a Scottish administration would be entirely self-governing and have complete command over economic policy.
And yet the union could be maintained through the retention of shared armed forces, and foreign policy, and the monarchy.
These talks are complex. Alex Salmond is demanding control over business taxation, for example.
Yet such a concession would be desperately unpopular south of the border, because it would allow Scotland to attract British firms by offering lower taxation.
Salmond also wants to get rid of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent, which is based in Scotland - unthinkable for the Tories, who pride themselves as the party of defence.
Yet a solution must be found. Otherwise Gordon Brown could go down in history as the last Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Could Mr Brown be the last Prime Minister of Great Britain?
Two consequences, both of huge importance, flow from yesterday's historic by-election victory for the Scottish National Party in Glasgow East.
The first, and most obvious, concerns Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister has been dealt another terrible, wounding blow.
The Labour defeat, which was not predicted until the very last moment within the disastrously out-of-touch British political establishment, places Brown's premiership for the first time into genuine doubt.
It guarantees that a question mark will surround Gordon Brown's leadership all summer, dominate Labour's conference in early autumn, and probably reach some kind of crisis early next year.
The likelihood remains that Gordon Brown will survive, but he is gravely weakened and in danger of becoming irrelevant, as John Major was in his final months in office.
However, the feverish discussions of Gordon Brown's political health which have dominated the airwaves over the past 24 hours have obscured a matter of much more enduring significance: whether or not the United Kingdom itself can survive beyond the next General Election.
History may come to view the Glasgow East by-election as the moment the breakup of the 300-year-old British union became inevitable.
One thing is now certain: it will not survive in its present form.
This is because the most significant feature of yesterday was not defeat for Labour, important though that undoubtedly was.
The really important thing was that each one of the mainstream national political parties was humiliated.
The Lib Dems lost their deposit - a third successive by-election disaster which confirmed how much their pointless new leader Nick Clegg has become a liability.
But David Cameron's Conservatives also failed to take advantage of government unpopularity.
The brutal truth is that in Scotland Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party now mark the only meaningful opposition to Gordon Brown.
And this undeniable fact has deadly serious consequences for the future of Britain.
It means that when David Cameron - as now seems certain - becomes Prime Minister after the coming General Election, he will immediately be plunged into a first-rate constitutional crisis that could destroy his premiership before it has even begun.
Cameron's problem is simple. As incoming Prime Minister he will be able to count on approximately 340 Conservative MPs, giving him a reasonably comfortable majority in the House of Commons.
Crucially, the vast majority will be English, and - judging by Friday morning's SNP triumph - only one or at most two will come from Scotland's 59 constituencies.
In other words, the new Cameron administration will carry zero legitimacy north of the border.
More worrying by far, Cameron will take power at the exact moment when Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, has always promised to unleash his nuclear weapon: a referendum on independence.
The timing for Salmond, who has emerged as a politician of exceptional luck as well as talent since his election as Scottish First Minister last spring, would be perfect.
On the one hand, he would be dealing with a Tory government which has lost its Scottish power base.
On the other hand, he would be able to challenge a gravely weakened opposition Labour Party, which would be in the thralls of the bloody leadership contest that normally takes place after an election defeat.
Alex Salmond knows that he will never have a better chance of securing his long-standing objective and winning the Scottish war for independence.
David Cameron, on the other hand, faces the miserable prospect of securing his lifetime ambition, entering 10 Downing Street - and ceasing to be Prime Minister of all of Britain within months of taking office.
Within the Conservative Party, there are two contradictory attitudes towards this rise of the Scottish National Party and the prospect of Scottish independence.
On the one hand, senior Tory strategists are aware that they and the SNP share a common enemy - Gordon Brown and his moribund Scottish Labour Party.
They realise that Scottish independence will not merely bring with it the end of Britain, but go a long way to destroying Labour, which has relied on Scotland as its power base for so many years, as the party of government.
David Cameron does not share this view. He is at heart a romantic Tory, which is why in his speeches over recent months he has gone out of his way to emphasise the significance of the union with Scotland.
'I do not want to be the Prime Minister of England,' he told Scottish voters in Ayr last May, 'I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - all of it, including Scotland.'
But Cameron is also pragmatic: he understands that the Tories stand no chance of winning the argument in Scotland for the union, least of all against an opponent as formidable as Alex Salmond.
That is why, I can reveal, allies of Cameron have entered into informal talks with the SNP over recent months.
Their objective is to save the union by working out a new kind of constitutional settlement for Scotland.
Details are sketchy, but it is possible to indicate the main outlines.
An incoming Tory administration would need to meet Alex Salmond's demands that the Scottish Parliament should have massive new powers over taxation and public spending.
In domestic terms, a Scottish administration would be entirely self-governing and have complete command over economic policy.
And yet the union could be maintained through the retention of shared armed forces, and foreign policy, and the monarchy.
These talks are complex. Alex Salmond is demanding control over business taxation, for example.
Yet such a concession would be desperately unpopular south of the border, because it would allow Scotland to attract British firms by offering lower taxation.
Salmond also wants to get rid of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent, which is based in Scotland - unthinkable for the Tories, who pride themselves as the party of defence.
Yet a solution must be found. Otherwise Gordon Brown could go down in history as the last Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Posted by: Andrew BOD, Aberdeen on 1:01pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Ted H
[quote]That is why, I can reveal, allies of Cameron have entered into informal talks with the SNP over recent months.
Their objective is to save the union by working out a new kind of constitutional settlement for Scotland.
Details are sketchy, but it is possible to indicate the main outlines.
An incoming Tory administration would need to meet Alex Salmond's demands that the Scottish Parliament should have massive new powers over taxation and public spending.
In domestic terms, a Scottish administration would be entirely self-governing and have complete command over economic policy.
And yet the union could be maintained through the retention of shared armed forces, and foreign policy, and the monarchy.
These talks are complex. Alex Salmond is demanding control over business taxation, for example.
Yet such a concession would be desperately unpopular south of the border, because it would allow Scotland to attract British firms by offering lower taxation.
Salmond also wants to get rid of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent, which is based in Scotland - unthinkable for the Tories, who pride themselves as the party of defence.
Yet a solution must be found. Otherwise Gordon Brown could go down in history as the last Prime Minister of Great Britain.[/quote]
Ted, you need to give a bit more evidence of the talks than this for people to take you seriously.
Ted H
That is why, I can reveal, allies of Cameron have entered into informal talks with the SNP over recent months.
Their objective is to save the union by working out a new kind of constitutional settlement for Scotland.
Details are sketchy, but it is possible to indicate the main outlines.
An incoming Tory administration would need to meet Alex Salmond's demands that the Scottish Parliament should have massive new powers over taxation and public spending.
In domestic terms, a Scottish administration would be entirely self-governing and have complete command over economic policy.
And yet the union could be maintained through the retention of shared armed forces, and foreign policy, and the monarchy.
These talks are complex. Alex Salmond is demanding control over business taxation, for example.
Yet such a concession would be desperately unpopular south of the border, because it would allow Scotland to attract British firms by offering lower taxation.
Salmond also wants to get rid of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent, which is based in Scotland - unthinkable for the Tories, who pride themselves as the party of defence.
Yet a solution must be found. Otherwise Gordon Brown could go down in history as the last Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Ted, you need to give a bit more evidence of the talks than this for people to take you seriously.
Posted by: Faux Cu, Palais Bourbon on 1:04pm Sun 27 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Ted H[/bold] wrote:
Could Mr Brown be the last Prime Minister of Great Britain? Two consequences, both of huge importance, flow from yesterday's historic by-election victory for the Scottish National Party in Glasgow East. The first, and most obvious, concerns Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister has been dealt another terrible, wounding blow. The Labour defeat, which was not predicted until the very last moment within the disastrously out-of-touch British political establishment, places Brown's premiership for the first time into genuine doubt. It guarantees that a question mark will surround Gordon Brown's leadership all summer, dominate Labour's conference in early autumn, and probably reach some kind of crisis early next year. The likelihood remains that Gordon Brown will survive, but he is gravely weakened and in danger of becoming irrelevant, as John Major was in his final months in office. However, the feverish discussions of Gordon Brown's political health which have dominated the airwaves over the past 24 hours have obscured a matter of much more enduring significance: whether or not the United Kingdom itself can survive beyond the next General Election. History may come to view the Glasgow East by-election as the moment the breakup of the 300-year-old British union became inevitable. One thing is now certain: it will not survive in its present form. This is because the most significant feature of yesterday was not defeat for Labour, important though that undoubtedly was. The really important thing was that each one of the mainstream national political parties was humiliated. The Lib Dems lost their deposit - a third successive by-election disaster which confirmed how much their pointless new leader Nick Clegg has become a liability. But David Cameron's Conservatives also failed to take advantage of government unpopularity. The brutal truth is that in Scotland Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party now mark the only meaningful opposition to Gordon Brown. And this undeniable fact has deadly serious consequences for the future of Britain. It means that when David Cameron - as now seems certain - becomes Prime Minister after the coming General Election, he will immediately be plunged into a first-rate constitutional crisis that could destroy his premiership before it has even begun. Cameron's problem is simple. As incoming Prime Minister he will be able to count on approximately 340 Conservative MPs, giving him a reasonably comfortable majority in the House of Commons. Crucially, the vast majority will be English, and - judging by Friday morning's SNP triumph - only one or at most two will come from Scotland's 59 constituencies. In other words, the new Cameron administration will carry zero legitimacy north of the border. More worrying by far, Cameron will take power at the exact moment when Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, has always promised to unleash his nuclear weapon: a referendum on independence. The timing for Salmond, who has emerged as a politician of exceptional luck as well as talent since his election as Scottish First Minister last spring, would be perfect. On the one hand, he would be dealing with a Tory government which has lost its Scottish power base. On the other hand, he would be able to challenge a gravely weakened opposition Labour Party, which would be in the thralls of the bloody leadership contest that normally takes place after an election defeat. Alex Salmond knows that he will never have a better chance of securing his long-standing objective and winning the Scottish war for independence. David Cameron, on the other hand, faces the miserable prospect of securing his lifetime ambition, entering 10 Downing Street - and ceasing to be Prime Minister of all of Britain within months of taking office. Within the Conservative Party, there are two contradictory attitudes towards this rise of the Scottish National Party and the prospect of Scottish independence. On the one hand, senior Tory strategists are aware that they and the SNP share a common enemy - Gordon Brown and his moribund Scottish Labour Party. They realise that Scottish independence will not merely bring with it the end of Britain, but go a long way to destroying Labour, which has relied on Scotland as its power base for so many years, as the party of government. David Cameron does not share this view. He is at heart a romantic Tory, which is why in his speeches over recent months he has gone out of his way to emphasise the significance of the union with Scotland. 'I do not want to be the Prime Minister of England,' he told Scottish voters in Ayr last May, 'I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - all of it, including Scotland.' But Cameron is also pragmatic: he understands that the Tories stand no chance of winning the argument in Scotland for the union, least of all against an opponent as formidable as Alex Salmond. That is why, I can reveal, allies of Cameron have entered into informal talks with the SNP over recent months. Their objective is to save the union by working out a new kind of constitutional settlement for Scotland. Details are sketchy, but it is possible to indicate the main outlines. An incoming Tory administration would need to meet Alex Salmond's demands that the Scottish Parliament should have massive new powers over taxation and public spending. In domestic terms, a Scottish administration would be entirely self-governing and have complete command over economic policy. And yet the union could be maintained through the retention of shared armed forces, and foreign policy, and the monarchy. These talks are complex. Alex Salmond is demanding control over business taxation, for example. Yet such a concession would be desperately unpopular south of the border, because it would allow Scotland to attract British firms by offering lower taxation. Salmond also wants to get rid of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent, which is based in Scotland - unthinkable for the Tories, who pride themselves as the party of defence. Yet a solution must be found. Otherwise Gordon Brown could go down in history as the last Prime Minister of Great Britain. [/quote] I want a Scottish passpot and the Euro
Ted H wrote:
Could Mr Brown be the last Prime Minister of Great Britain? Two consequences, both of huge importance, flow from yesterday's historic by-election victory for the Scottish National Party in Glasgow East. The first, and most obvious, concerns Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister has been dealt another terrible, wounding blow. The Labour defeat, which was not predicted until the very last moment within the disastrously out-of-touch British political establishment, places Brown's premiership for the first time into genuine doubt. It guarantees that a question mark will surround Gordon Brown's leadership all summer, dominate Labour's conference in early autumn, and probably reach some kind of crisis early next year. The likelihood remains that Gordon Brown will survive, but he is gravely weakened and in danger of becoming irrelevant, as John Major was in his final months in office. However, the feverish discussions of Gordon Brown's political health which have dominated the airwaves over the past 24 hours have obscured a matter of much more enduring significance: whether or not the United Kingdom itself can survive beyond the next General Election. History may come to view the Glasgow East by-election as the moment the breakup of the 300-year-old British union became inevitable. One thing is now certain: it will not survive in its present form. This is because the most significant feature of yesterday was not defeat for Labour, important though that undoubtedly was. The really important thing was that each one of the mainstream national political parties was humiliated. The Lib Dems lost their deposit - a third successive by-election disaster which confirmed how much their pointless new leader Nick Clegg has become a liability. But David Cameron's Conservatives also failed to take advantage of government unpopularity. The brutal truth is that in Scotland Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party now mark the only meaningful opposition to Gordon Brown. And this undeniable fact has deadly serious consequences for the future of Britain. It means that when David Cameron - as now seems certain - becomes Prime Minister after the coming General Election, he will immediately be plunged into a first-rate constitutional crisis that could destroy his premiership before it has even begun. Cameron's problem is simple. As incoming Prime Minister he will be able to count on approximately 340 Conservative MPs, giving him a reasonably comfortable majority in the House of Commons. Crucially, the vast majority will be English, and - judging by Friday morning's SNP triumph - only one or at most two will come from Scotland's 59 constituencies. In other words, the new Cameron administration will carry zero legitimacy north of the border. More worrying by far, Cameron will take power at the exact moment when Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, has always promised to unleash his nuclear weapon: a referendum on independence. The timing for Salmond, who has emerged as a politician of exceptional luck as well as talent since his election as Scottish First Minister last spring, would be perfect. On the one hand, he would be dealing with a Tory government which has lost its Scottish power base. On the other hand, he would be able to challenge a gravely weakened opposition Labour Party, which would be in the thralls of the bloody leadership contest that normally takes place after an election defeat. Alex Salmond knows that he will never have a better chance of securing his long-standing objective and winning the Scottish war for independence. David Cameron, on the other hand, faces the miserable prospect of securing his lifetime ambition, entering 10 Downing Street - and ceasing to be Prime Minister of all of Britain within months of taking office. Within the Conservative Party, there are two contradictory attitudes towards this rise of the Scottish National Party and the prospect of Scottish independence. On the one hand, senior Tory strategists are aware that they and the SNP share a common enemy - Gordon Brown and his moribund Scottish Labour Party. They realise that Scottish independence will not merely bring with it the end of Britain, but go a long way to destroying Labour, which has relied on Scotland as its power base for so many years, as the party of government. David Cameron does not share this view. He is at heart a romantic Tory, which is why in his speeches over recent months he has gone out of his way to emphasise the significance of the union with Scotland. 'I do not want to be the Prime Minister of England,' he told Scottish voters in Ayr last May, 'I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - all of it, including Scotland.' But Cameron is also pragmatic: he understands that the Tories stand no chance of winning the argument in Scotland for the union, least of all against an opponent as formidable as Alex Salmond. That is why, I can reveal, allies of Cameron have entered into informal talks with the SNP over recent months. Their objective is to save the union by working out a new kind of constitutional settlement for Scotland. Details are sketchy, but it is possible to indicate the main outlines. An incoming Tory administration would need to meet Alex Salmond's demands that the Scottish Parliament should have massive new powers over taxation and public spending. In domestic terms, a Scottish administration would be entirely self-governing and have complete command over economic policy. And yet the union could be maintained through the retention of shared armed forces, and foreign policy, and the monarchy. These talks are complex. Alex Salmond is demanding control over business taxation, for example. Yet such a concession would be desperately unpopular south of the border, because it would allow Scotland to attract British firms by offering lower taxation. Salmond also wants to get rid of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent, which is based in Scotland - unthinkable for the Tories, who pride themselves as the party of defence. Yet a solution must be found. Otherwise Gordon Brown could go down in history as the last Prime Minister of Great Britain.
I want a Scottish passpot and the Euro
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 1:22pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Teddy[quote]Alex Salmond knows that he will never have a better chance of securing his long-standing objective and winning the Scottish war for independence.[/quote] "War"?
You choose your hyperbole carefully.
Personally, I might have hit a few imbeciles with sharp adjectives in my attempt to win an argument, but I have yet to resort to a toothpick as a weapon let alone a Claymore.
Teddy
Alex Salmond knows that he will never have a better chance of securing his long-standing objective and winning the Scottish war for independence.
"War"?
You choose your hyperbole carefully.
Personally, I might have hit a few imbeciles with sharp adjectives in my attempt to win an argument, but I have yet to resort to a toothpick as a weapon let alone a Claymore.
Posted by: Carlo, Inverclyde on 1:32pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Samoyed (11.59pm Sat.): You obviously haven't noticed that the Welsh [bold][italic]have[/italic][/bold] got a party of independence and members of/voters for Plaid Cymru were probably greatly heartened by the SNP win.
Samoyed (11.59pm Sat.): You obviously haven't noticed that the Welsh
have got a party of independence and members of/voters for Plaid Cymru were probably greatly heartened by the SNP win.
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 3:19pm Sun 27 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Carlo[/bold] wrote:
Samoyed (11.59pm Sat.): You obviously haven't noticed that the Welsh [bold][italic]have[/italic][/bold] got a party of independence and members of/voters for Plaid Cymru were probably greatly heartened by the SNP win.[/quote] [bold]go and read wales online! They are VERY HAPPY![/bold]
http://tinyurl.com/w
aleshappy
Carlo wrote:
Samoyed (11.59pm Sat.): You obviously haven't noticed that the Welsh have got a party of independence and members of/voters for Plaid Cymru were probably greatly heartened by the SNP win.
go and read wales online! They are VERY HAPPY!
http://tinyurl.com/w
aleshappy
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 3:19pm Sun 27 Jul 08
or even WELL PLAID!
HOHOHO
or even WELL PLAID!
HOHOHO
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 3:20pm Sun 27 Jul 08
LA try this tinyurl.com/stickitu
pthehootsmon/
LA try this tinyurl.com/stickitu
pthehootsmon/
Posted by: Iain, Glasgow on 3:39pm Sun 27 Jul 08
[quote][bold]heavy[/bold] wrote:
http://www.educate-y ourself.org/nwo/ The New World Order (NWO) Browns New World Order speech at http://www.youtube.c om/v/Uv5cqh26CC0 “There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an elite group of genetically related individuals which include many of the very wealthy, politically powerful, and corporate elite of the world, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility [nothing to do with the color of one's skin] of Europe whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda. Events are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda which includes utilizing mass Mind Control of an unprecedented scale and scope. You need to inform yourself of this diabolical scheme and take steps to thwart their agenda. Their intention is to affect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by 5.5 Billion people. [/quote] Why do you think education of working classes has been dumbed down?
In Ireland for example people there are widely knowledgable about their country's history about their literary figures and so forth. Not so in the UK. How many people in England could even name some of their literary giants let alone have read any of them. In Scotland we're not any better.
Why do you think the TV program Big Brother was created (and shown so much on E4 that they may as well call it the Big Brother Channel)? It's so that when we are all required to have that level of surveillance of our personal and daily lives it won't bother us because it will be "just like on the telly". The idea of having cameras in people's living rooms that we can watch on a YouTube type website is probably appealling to a disturbingly higher number of people than we'd imagine. OK that's a bit over the top but its certainly the direction in which society is sleepwalking.
heavy wrote:
http://www.educate-y ourself.org/nwo/ The New World Order (NWO) Browns New World Order speech at http://www.youtube.c om/v/Uv5cqh26CC0 “There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an elite group of genetically related individuals which include many of the very wealthy, politically powerful, and corporate elite of the world, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda. Events are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda which includes utilizing mass Mind Control of an unprecedented scale and scope. You need to inform yourself of this diabolical scheme and take steps to thwart their agenda. Their intention is to affect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by 5.5 Billion people.
Why do you think education of working classes has been dumbed down?
In Ireland for example people there are widely knowledgable about their country's history about their literary figures and so forth. Not so in the UK. How many people in England could even name some of their literary giants let alone have read any of them. In Scotland we're not any better.
Why do you think the TV program Big Brother was created (and shown so much on E4 that they may as well call it the Big Brother Channel)? It's so that when we are all required to have that level of surveillance of our personal and daily lives it won't bother us because it will be "just like on the telly". The idea of having cameras in people's living rooms that we can watch on a YouTube type website is probably appealling to a disturbingly higher number of people than we'd imagine. OK that's a bit over the top but its certainly the direction in which society is sleepwalking.
Posted by: Yok Finney, Ross-shire on 3:55pm Sun 27 Jul 08
[italic]Council Tax needs to be reformed. A more immediate revaluation system would be a start.[/italic]
This, we'd expect, would cost more than even a single tramline though Edinburgh. 1000s of lawyers would get involved and all this would be cost but none-at-all benefit to the honest citizen. LIT is a reasonably fair way of collecting regional tax. As far as these things can be done. Or you could live outside in a posh suburb and pay less for the facilities you use more of. Which the CT tax-payer has payed for. No it's not fair!
NIT, or UKIT? It's a conn, it's a scam and steals our earnings for fraud, deception, wars abroad (you name it) the drugs arms trade and money laundering from each and every British person.
It's time to roll up the UK (not a Nation, a Country or anything else 'cept a bankers' concoction) and throw it into the North Sea.
Or the American Declaration of Independence was in vain - and we'll go down with it too!
Council Tax needs to be reformed. A more immediate revaluation system would be a start.
This, we'd expect, would cost more than even a single tramline though Edinburgh. 1000s of lawyers would get involved and all this would be cost but none-at-all benefit to the honest citizen. LIT is a reasonably fair way of collecting regional tax. As far as these things can be done. Or you could live outside in a posh suburb and pay less for the facilities you use more of. Which the CT tax-payer has payed for. No it's not fair!
NIT, or UKIT? It's a conn, it's a scam and steals our earnings for fraud, deception, wars abroad (you name it) the drugs arms trade and money laundering from each and every British person.
It's time to roll up the UK (not a Nation, a Country or anything else 'cept a bankers' concoction) and throw it into the North Sea.
Or the American Declaration of Independence was in vain - and we'll go down with it too!
Posted by: Iainbroch, Moray on 4:28pm Sun 27 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Martin[/bold] wrote:
I am actually quite happy for Labour to carry on with the idea that there is nothing really wrong with continuing with their present agenda. Head in the sand anybody? A vote on Scotland's future in 2010 looks quite promising for at least wider powers to come to Scotland though I think independence would be the best way forward. Taking a wider view - it is a pity for many people who stuck with labour through the Thatcher years see them turning into the shambles they currently are - for Scottish Labour, I think they should make plans for their own independence from London. By doing this they can form their own agenda for once. [/quote] They have not the brains, the talent or dare I say the independence of thought to formulate thier own policy agenda. It is obvious that by thier actions they have tried to sabotage the Calman Comission on Constitution.
I am talking about the Labour Party in Scotland that is.It takes its orders from Brit Establishment in London!
Also as we have seen when an independent commission does make recommendations if the Liebaah Party does not like those recommendations it either tears the report up or blame the SNP for some skullduggery.
I am happy for Labour to keep going the way it is going! Like the Press and Media it is hopelessly out of touch with what is happenning out in the real world that is Scotland 2008.
It is also obvious that the Fib Dems are equally duplicitious in hamstringing the Calman Commission - another Party that is out of touch! Another Party with the same flaws as Labour!
All they have done is speed up the likliehood of there being an independent Scotland.
Martin wrote:
I am actually quite happy for Labour to carry on with the idea that there is nothing really wrong with continuing with their present agenda. Head in the sand anybody? A vote on Scotland's future in 2010 looks quite promising for at least wider powers to come to Scotland though I think independence would be the best way forward. Taking a wider view - it is a pity for many people who stuck with labour through the Thatcher years see them turning into the shambles they currently are - for Scottish Labour, I think they should make plans for their own independence from London. By doing this they can form their own agenda for once.
They have not the brains, the talent or dare I say the independence of thought to formulate thier own policy agenda. It is obvious that by thier actions they have tried to sabotage the Calman Comission on Constitution.
I am talking about the Labour Party in Scotland that is.It takes its orders from Brit Establishment in London!
Also as we have seen when an independent commission does make recommendations if the Liebaah Party does not like those recommendations it either tears the report up or blame the SNP for some skullduggery.
I am happy for Labour to keep going the way it is going! Like the Press and Media it is hopelessly out of touch with what is happenning out in the real world that is Scotland 2008.
It is also obvious that the Fib Dems are equally duplicitious in hamstringing the Calman Commission - another Party that is out of touch! Another Party with the same flaws as Labour!
All they have done is speed up the likliehood of there being an independent Scotland.
Posted by: James Wilkie on 5:01pm Sun 27 Jul 08
The Scottish political situation is in a state of flux. This transitional situation will continue for some time, but the general long-term trend is already clear. The weakening of the Union in Scotland is not a new phenomenon. It has been accelerating since the mid-19th century - very gradually at first, but increasingly, to the extent that the graph line is now rising almost vertically. The Glasgow East election result is merely the latest symptom, and it is just myopia to attribute it entirely to current prices or the popularity or otherwise of certain politicians. That long-term trend towards withdrawal from the UK is not going to be put into reverse, and the SNP is a symptom of it, not the cause.
From the Scottish point of view, what are the concrete reasons why the Union should be preserved? It is difficult to think of any. From the English point of view there are very concrete reasons for the retention of the Union, only these are not so well appreciated down south. There is a body of opinion there that they would be well rid of the "subsidy junkies" north of Hadrian's Wall. In the end the English are going to be hoist with this particular petard, because when the full facts on precisely who subsidises whom are brought out into the open there will be a rude awakening.
One of the main reasons for the decline of the Labour Party in Scotland - and for its forthcoming extinction as a political force there - has been its inability to analyse the social forces that are now finding their expression in the movement to resume Scottish responsibility for Scottish affairs. Labour's attempts to turn back what is now a flood tide are in the King Canute class, and will have the same success as that gentleman's efforts. To change the analogy, there is no point in abusing the SNP, because that party is merely the barometer, and smashing it would do nothing to change the Scottish political weather.
The Scottish political situation is in a state of flux. This transitional situation will continue for some time, but the general long-term trend is already clear. The weakening of the Union in Scotland is not a new phenomenon. It has been accelerating since the mid-19th century - very gradually at first, but increasingly, to the extent that the graph line is now rising almost vertically. The Glasgow East election result is merely the latest symptom, and it is just myopia to attribute it entirely to current prices or the popularity or otherwise of certain politicians. That long-term trend towards withdrawal from the UK is not going to be put into reverse, and the SNP is a symptom of it, not the cause.
From the Scottish point of view, what are the concrete reasons why the Union should be preserved? It is difficult to think of any. From the English point of view there are very concrete reasons for the retention of the Union, only these are not so well appreciated down south. There is a body of opinion there that they would be well rid of the "subsidy junkies" north of Hadrian's Wall. In the end the English are going to be hoist with this particular petard, because when the full facts on precisely who subsidises whom are brought out into the open there will be a rude awakening.
One of the main reasons for the decline of the Labour Party in Scotland - and for its forthcoming extinction as a political force there - has been its inability to analyse the social forces that are now finding their expression in the movement to resume Scottish responsibility for Scottish affairs. Labour's attempts to turn back what is now a flood tide are in the King Canute class, and will have the same success as that gentleman's efforts. To change the analogy, there is no point in abusing the SNP, because that party is merely the barometer, and smashing it would do nothing to change the Scottish political weather.
Posted by: Mag B on 6:33pm Sun 27 Jul 08
ne of the main reasons for the decline of the Labour Party in Scotland - and for its forthcoming extinction as a political force there - has been its inability to analyse the social forces that are now finding their expression in the movement to resume Scottish responsibility for Scottish affairs."
B...llocks James!
The REAL reason is that slab has treated the Scots voters as FOOLS, and have been rumbled at last!
Simple, init??
ne of the main reasons for the decline of the Labour Party in Scotland - and for its forthcoming extinction as a political force there - has been its inability to analyse the social forces that are now finding their expression in the movement to resume Scottish responsibility for Scottish affairs."
B...llocks James!
The REAL reason is that slab has treated the Scots voters as FOOLS, and have been rumbled at last!
Simple, init??
Posted by: Jock in the Box, Embra on 7:04pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Ive just watched Des Browne explain that what New Labour(same old Tory) have to do is "[italic]examine what caused people to behave in this way[/italic] "?
Thats easy Des. Common sense!
The arrogance of his assumption is that to NOT vote Labour is somehow abnormal behaviour!
You have to be a complete numpty to believe anything this shower claim, and rest assured the opposite will more likely be true!
A better question would be How did we get away with betrayal of the Scots and the endless lies for at least the last fifty years (and thats being generous)?
How indeed? Glasgow East will return to Labour? Not likely sunshine.
[bold]FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU
FOOL ME TWICE SHAME ON ME![/bold]
There is no longer a Labour Party,only a bunch of champagne socialists who could not care about anything or anybody except their own gravy train mortgages just like Blair and Brown etc.
[bold]SACK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM .[/bold]
They are getting off lightly.They should be in prison,many of them.
The sad (and I do mean sad) thing is 30% of Scotland still does not realise what happened, and would be quite happy to go into a polling station with I'm an Idiot stamped on their forehead,they must be because that's what they are when they re-emerge having voted New Labour and have no idea that its NOT the same party as Labour were!
Its not even close!
[bold]If it were the same they would not need the word NEW and even the village idiot should grasp that with ease[/bold] !
Ive just watched Des Browne explain that what New Labour(same old Tory) have to do is "
examine what caused people to behave in this way "?
Thats easy Des. Common sense!
The arrogance of his assumption is that to NOT vote Labour is somehow abnormal behaviour!
You have to be a complete numpty to believe anything this shower claim, and rest assured the opposite will more likely be true!
A better question would be How did we get away with betrayal of the Scots and the endless lies for at least the last fifty years (and thats being generous)?
How indeed? Glasgow East will return to Labour? Not likely sunshine.
FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU
FOOL ME TWICE SHAME ON ME!
There is no longer a Labour Party,only a bunch of champagne socialists who could not care about anything or anybody except their own gravy train mortgages just like Blair and Brown etc.
SACK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM .
They are getting off lightly.They should be in prison,many of them.
The sad (and I do mean sad) thing is 30% of Scotland still does not realise what happened, and would be quite happy to go into a polling station with I'm an Idiot stamped on their forehead,they must be because that's what they are when they re-emerge having voted New Labour and have no idea that its NOT the same party as Labour were!
Its not even close!
If it were the same they would not need the word NEW and even the village idiot should grasp that with ease !
Posted by: Ben H on 7:13pm Sun 27 Jul 08
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=vi-IJjxFm
eM
Note beans remarks about "Runcorn, in the north west"
Speaks volumes for Beans mindset, doesn't it? From a Scots perspective, Runcorn is down south. From beans perspective (as someone who when asked where he was born, replied-north Britain) he sees it as "north west from London"
He obviously sees his future in pandering to middle England and denies his Scots roots-what an ambassador for Scotland-I DONT think!!
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=vi-IJjxFm
eM
Note beans remarks about "Runcorn, in the north west"
Speaks volumes for Beans mindset, doesn't it? From a Scots perspective, Runcorn is down south. From beans perspective (as someone who when asked where he was born, replied-north Britain) he sees it as "north west from London"
He obviously sees his future in pandering to middle England and denies his Scots roots-what an ambassador for Scotland-I DONT think!!
Posted by: James Wilkie on 8:36pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Mag B - Of course Labour treated the Scots electors as fools, but that was just one of the results of their inability to analyse and understand the mood of the country. The home rule movement has been building up for a century and a half to its present level, and every arrogant and corrupt blunder Labour has made in its dealings with the electorate has simply added fuel to the fire.
Intellectually, Labour is far down-market, and can no longer be saved as a political force. The present developments are not simply a routine electoral swing, and the movement towards independence is now unstoppable. The key step was forcing the restoration of the Scottish Parliament, after which, as Alex Salmond stated, independence became inevitable. If you want the true story of how that happened - in the teeth of murderous opposition from the Labour leadership - take a look at:
http://www.realmofsc
otland.com/paper/Vie
w_Scotland-UN-Papers
.aspx?id=2
Mag B - Of course Labour treated the Scots electors as fools, but that was just one of the results of their inability to analyse and understand the mood of the country. The home rule movement has been building up for a century and a half to its present level, and every arrogant and corrupt blunder Labour has made in its dealings with the electorate has simply added fuel to the fire.
Intellectually, Labour is far down-market, and can no longer be saved as a political force. The present developments are not simply a routine electoral swing, and the movement towards independence is now unstoppable. The key step was forcing the restoration of the Scottish Parliament, after which, as Alex Salmond stated, independence became inevitable. If you want the true story of how that happened - in the teeth of murderous opposition from the Labour leadership - take a look at:
http://www.realmofsc
otland.com/paper/Vie
w_Scotland-UN-Papers
.aspx?id=2
Posted by: Mag B on 9:27pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Of course Labour treated the Scots electors as fools, but that was just one of the results of their inability to analyse and understand the mood of the country"
So-why not call a spade a spade James? Why use dozens of hi-fallutin words which you need to be a professor to analyse-when a few simple words would suffice-something which we can ALL understand without trying to puzle out its true meaning?
Apart from that (minor) chastisement-I'm glad to see we both agree on this
Of course Labour treated the Scots electors as fools, but that was just one of the results of their inability to analyse and understand the mood of the country"
So-why not call a spade a spade James? Why use dozens of hi-fallutin words which you need to be a professor to analyse-when a few simple words would suffice-something which we can ALL understand without trying to puzle out its true meaning?
Apart from that (minor) chastisement-I'm glad to see we both agree on this
Posted by: Morag, Peeblesshire on 10:24pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Ah, here's James back again peddling his "UN-papers" - documents so important they're not online and even the index is only hosted on another organisation's site. And no doubt Traquair will be along any minute to demand we offer him a knighthood - for what he [italic]says[/italic] he has done.
The more I examine James's claims, the more implausible I find them. I don't mind in the least if in the future some independent evidence emerged to corroborate his story. But in the mean time, forgive me if I don't start genuflecting.
Ah, here's James back again peddling his "UN-papers" - documents so important they're not online and even the index is only hosted on another organisation's site. And no doubt Traquair will be along any minute to demand we offer him a knighthood - for what he
says he has done.
The more I examine James's claims, the more implausible I find them. I don't mind in the least if in the future some independent evidence emerged to corroborate his story. But in the mean time, forgive me if I don't start genuflecting.
Posted by: subrosa on 10:41pm Sun 27 Jul 08
I've just been informed that today at Crieff Golf Club the flags at the holes were of the saltire.
What a change for Crieff, a tory bastion in the past :)
I've just been informed that today at Crieff Golf Club the flags at the holes were of the saltire.
What a change for Crieff, a tory bastion in the past :)
Posted by: Dr. james Wilkie on 11:26pm Sun 27 Jul 08
Morag, nobody's asking you to genuflect, just stick to the subject, which is the political manifestation of a much wider social movement within Scotland. For the rest, the truth will all come out in due course when the records of the Council of Europe, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Cabinet Office become available. The facts that can be revealed in the meantime have been presented, and as an academic with a scientific training you should know that, while you may be puzzled, you have no basis for actively casting doubt on them. The fact is that I was there and you were not, and I am not "peddling" any story. I have a professional reputation to uphold. So a very good night to you.
Morag, nobody's asking you to genuflect, just stick to the subject, which is the political manifestation of a much wider social movement within Scotland. For the rest, the truth will all come out in due course when the records of the Council of Europe, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Cabinet Office become available. The facts that can be revealed in the meantime have been presented, and as an academic with a scientific training you should know that, while you may be puzzled, you have no basis for actively casting doubt on them. The fact is that I was there and you were not, and I am not "peddling" any story. I have a professional reputation to uphold. So a very good night to you.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 12:45am Mon 28 Jul 08
Subrosa[quote]What a change for Crieff, a tory bastion in the past :)[/quote]Back in the early seventies Jimmy Rae was their Lord Provost, well liked, and the first (I believe) SNP provost. His family still live in the area.
Subrosa
What a change for Crieff, a tory bastion in the past :)
Back in the early seventies Jimmy Rae was their Lord Provost, well liked, and the first (I believe) SNP provost. His family still live in the area.
Comment | Read Comments (46)
Print this story
Email to a friend