Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jim Murphy is new Scottish Labour leader.

Anyone seen this?
11182127_966542283386007_3052379638823529924_n.jpg
 
Utterly pathetic.

Not least because the SNP don't want to be ministers in a Labour-led administration. They haven't asked for the job and would be daft to accept if it was offered.
I don't remember an election like this one: the desperation; the extreme scaremongering. 1974 gets mentioned but even that election wasn't at all like this one.
 
Fuck - That really is the kiss of death...! :eek: :D
Did you see this?

Wee Ginger Dug: Death goes on the stump for Jim Murphy | Comment | The National

http://t.co/vzvGUztTNd


"Tebbit was the evil uncaring embodiment of an evil and uncaring government which already had evil and uncaring off pat entirely without his assistance. Tebbit was the bitter icing on a rancid cake of greed and rancour.

He was Iain Duncan Smith without the compassion, Michael Gove without the social conscience,

George Osborne without the joie de gimp. And he wants you to vote Labour.

How low has Labour in Scotland sunk, how far removed has it got from its socialist roots, how distant from the dreams of Keir Hardie, for Norman Tebbit to advise people to vote for it.

Norman Tebbit wants people to vote for Jim Murphy – that’s the endorsement of death. "
 
Gordon Brown has just said a labour govt after the election would immediately release emergency funds for food banks, but isn't this just institutionalising food banks as a key welfare state tool?
The Gordon Brown who isn't standing?

Let's say he doesn't deliver this pledge he'll have no power to deliver, as an unelected citizen. Will we hold him to account by not not re-electing him?
 
The Gordon Brown who isn't standing?

Let's say he doesn't deliver this pledge he'll have no power to deliver, as an unelected citizen. Will we hold him to account by not not re-electing him?

Mind you, none of this stopped him promising stuff the last time (though suppose he was at least a backbencher then).
 
They really can't see their own role in why people have deserted them, can they?
did you see the reaction of the bent labour bloke who lost out to galloway after the bradford by election? (now theres a hobsons..but anyway). He was astonished and angry. Literally seemed to have no idea that a certain amount of shit sarnie-eating had been deemed too much shit, not enough bread by the electorate. Its an indication of the fact that labour take the votes for granted
 


Oh, that's fun. It really is. :D Never mind that Labour had 41 seats at the 2010 election, but it sounds so good to say we're "confident" about getting 10.

Labour might actually get 10 seats, then it will be fun to hear all the triumphant after-count speeches about how it did really well, despite all those annoyances who thought they would join in the election game.

Then a Labour government advised by Michael Heseltine. Oh joy. :eek:
 
"Labour's faltering campaign in Scotland reached a new low yesterday as internal divisions and bitterness seeped into public view for the first time".

[...] "Jim Murphy appeared to blame his Scottish leadership predecessors for the party's current problems".

 
I heard a bit of Douglas Alexander's interview on Reporting Scotland this morning. Gary Robertson was, surprisingly, pushing him quite hard on the notion that he was going to lose his seat and that he was fighting the campaign on Holyrood issues, not Westminster. (The implication being that they've already given up on GE15 and have moved onto next year's Scottish Parliament elections).

In the space I was listening Alexander said several times that the referendum had been "bitter and divisive", and repeated it as a mantra, saying that voting SNP would cause more bitterness and division.

It's clearly their strategy to push that line, but I think it's another mistake; for most of those Labour has lost, that wasn't their experience of the referendum. The Yes side report having felt a sense of empowerment, involvement, community, optimism and excitement that they hadn't experienced in politics before. So, where Labour is getting this emphasis on a negative experience from, I don't know: are they privately polling No voters?

The second line Alexander was pushing was that too much financial responsibility for Holyrood was dangerous, and that "pooling and sharing" with Westminster was best. Again, I suggest, a dangerous line for them to take, especially if Labour is no longer trusted.

The biggest research, the Scottish Referendum Study by Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Essex concludes that the median Scottish voter: wants almost all powers at Scottish level, questions legitimacy of Westminster government, and was optimistic about independence but had economic doubts. (This latter bit - the economic doubts - is why they suggest No won).

It looks like Labour still has no idea why it has haemorrhaged support.
 
It's clearly their strategy to push that line, but I think it's another mistake; for most of those Labour has lost, that wasn't their experience of the referendum. The Yes side report having felt a sense of empowerment, involvement, community, optimism and excitement that they hadn't experienced in politics before. So, where Labour is getting this emphasis on a negative experience from, I don't know: are they privately polling No voters?
Seems particularly daft because if they want increase their share of the vote they are clearly going to have to be able to appeal to both YES and NO voters. Increasingly alienating such a large share of the vote seems utterly stupid, I can't believe that no one at central office hasn't pointed this basic fact out to them.
 
Seems particularly daft because they want increase their share of the vote they are clearly going to have to be able to appeal to both YES and NO voters. Increasingly alienating such a large share of the vote seems utterly stupid, I can't believe that no one at central office hasn't pointed this basic fact out to them.
Exactly my point. If they're limiting their ambitions to only the No voters they've lost, their ambitions are clearly very low. It looks very much to me like all they're aiming at is the tactical votes of the 15% of voters in Scotland who vote Tory.
 
I think Danny's right to say they have yet to begin grappling with the extent of, and reasons for, their unpopularity.

I think they should have started by reconstituting Scottish Labour as a new party run independently of the UK Labour party - and rejecting the politics of New Labour - but recognising the historical affiliations (similar to the SDLP/Labour relationship).
 
I think Danny's right to say they have yet to begin grappling with the extent of, and reasons for, their unpopularity.

I think they should have started by reconstituting Scottish Labour as a new party run independently of the UK Labour party - and rejecting the politics of New Labour - but recognising the historical affiliations (similar to the SDLP/Labour relationship).
Second paragraph is an interesting point. It's worth remembering that there is actually no such thing as "Scottish Labour"; for example, in a recent employment dispute the employee had to sue HQ on London, as the Scottish Party had no legal status as a separate entity. (Unlike the Tories in Scotland, who are the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and a distinct though affiliated entity).
 
Second paragraph is an interesting point. It's worth remembering that there is actually no such thing as "Scottish Labour"; for example, in a recent employment dispute the employee had to sue HQ on London, as the Scottish Party had no legal status as a separate entity. (Unlike the Tories in Scotland, who are the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and a distinct though affiliated entity).
ha, when it suits them - the Bakers Union were told that although they are national affiliates, they never specifically affiliated to Labour in Scotland so couldn't have a vote in the union section of the leadership election
 
Back
Top Bottom