The tyranny of whining
The excellent Jon Ronson has had a couple of articles published recently promoting his imminent book about the phenomenon of “internet shaming”, most recently one in yesterday’s Guardian. He talks fascinatingly with and about people who’ve had their lives ruined because they said things that weren’t illegal, but merely deemed in some way unacceptable by a self-elected mob, often led by the professionally-offended.
Some of the victims are sympathetic and others less so, according to one’s personal tastes and prejudices. But the overall picture painted is one of a world in which it’s becoming harder and harder to express opinions beyond the crushingly bland.
We saw countless examples during the independence referendum, in which comments which were often very mildly rude at worst – calling someone a “minion”, say – were inflated by press and/or social media hysteria into shock-horror scandals. (Indeed, on a few occasions this site was itself the subject of the monsterings.)
Such witch-hunts were of course done in the furtherance of a political agenda – in those cases, in the service of a No vote. But it’s interesting to see a wider version of the tactic being deployed against the SNP in the context of a UK general election.
Andrew Rawnsley has a piece in today’s Observer that’s ostensibly about hardening attitudes within the Labour Party towards working with the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament after this May’s election:
The rationale for this argument is that English voters would be so outraged at the SNP influencing a UK government – and specifically by shutting the party that won the most seats out of power – that they would refuse to vote Labour again. And it’s an argument that has an immediate air of “truthiness” about it, especially if you watched this week’s Question Time.
But it’s also an argument that falls to pieces under scrutiny.
Because to analyse it, first you have to work out who the angry people are. Labour voters? They’ve just seen their party form the government despite not winning the most seats. They’re going to be delighted, especially as many of them (mostly those outside Scotland) are likely to regard the SNP as a welcome force pulling the party to the left, where the UK public actually wants it to be.
SNP voters cheesed off at propping up the “red Tories”? Hardly. Nationalists know that they can’t form the government, and the best they can ever hope for is to wield the balance of power. Polling suggests they make little distinction between the two main Westminster parties, and they know SOMEONE has to be in 10 Downing Street.
So long as the SNP doesn’t make the mistake of joining a formal coalition, and so long as it extracts meaningful concessions from whoever’s Prime Minister – which it certainly ought to be able to do, if the arithmetic is as Rawnley’s hypothetical scenario suggests – we can see no grounds for the party’s voters being disgruntled.
So in essence we’re left with angry Tory voters. But Tory voters would be angry with ANY Labour government, so we’re not sure we can see what practical difference there is in them being angry with a Labour one that’s supported on an issue-by-issue basis by the SNP. Yes, the Mail and the Express and the Telegraph will rage and fume and whine, but they’d rage and fume and whine anyway. So what?
All over the UK, people are already used to the largest party not necessarily being in power. As we noted last month, many councils in Scotland are run by administrations which exclude the party that won most seats. And voters do grumble about that, but they don’t riot in the streets. They accept that it’s a function of democracy – if you don’t give any one party a majority of seats, they’ll always be vulnerable to the others ganging up in an alliance against them.
The remarkable thing is that this scenario looks like occurring in a First Past The Post election, a system that’s specifically designed to avoid coalitions and create “strong” one-party government. But the public appears sick and tired of “strong” governments holding absolute power on barely more than a third of the vote.
We’ve just had five years of coalition rule, yet the electorate isn’t stampeding back to the “big two” in pursuit of “strong” government – precisely the contrary. Having been sold out by the Lib Dems over electoral reform, voters seem to be hell-bent on forcing a PR result in an FPTP system, and they’ll expect horse-trading as a result.
(Rawnsley faithfully trots out Labour’s recently-tweaked line that every government of the past 90 years has been led by the party with the most seats. But just because something happens to have been the case in the past, subject to an arbitrary cut-off point, doesn’t mean it must be the case forever. It also overlooks the 1951 election, in which the Tories got most seats but Labour got the most votes.)
Labour, in short, is bluffing in panic. The most certain way for the Labour Party to commit electoral suicide isn’t doing a deal with the SNP – that’ll only upset Tories and a few tribal hardliners in the Scottish branch office. Most of its UK supporters will simply be happy to be in government by whatever means necessary.
Labour will die if it walks away from a valid and workable arrangement and lets the Tories in for five more years because it’s in a sulk. For that, it will not be forgiven.
The problem in such a hung scenario is not that the Labour voters would rebel, but that the Labour Lifers and sausage factory entrants would object as would the Tories.
Seems like it is a rerun of the Referendum and is the future of the Labour Party. In bed formally and informally for the Wonga.
Fek the unwashed.
Alas, I don’t think it is quite so simple. I quote from a good friend of mine, an Englishman living in Scotland, who is a Labour Party supporter and a socialist.
“The idea of a party which wants to break up the UK holding the balance of power at Westminster is horrifying to me Bill.”
I suspect there are many more good English socialists who would feel the same.
My money is on “a sulk”. they have been on one enormous sulk in Holyrood since 2007 so why change the habits of a lifetime. Hell mend them!
Yet another good, well thought through article.
The truths of political life laid bare, is never nice to see,
most people all over the UK want change, and the SNP look to be the only ones who will break the Westminster elitist mould. Let it happen.
Is it just me, or would the SNP going into cahoots with Labour not be just as toxic as the current Tory LibDem arrangement?
I do realise that there will have to be some form of alliance but, with Labour, after all the damage they have done and their “style” of politics, who can trust them?
They disgust me more than the Tories and LibDems ever could.
Is it fair to say that the LibDems ‘sold out’ on voting reform? My Impression is that they negotiated a poor deal in the alternative vote referendum, allowing their coalition ‘colleagues’ to stab them in the back
Out of power so long in Scotland, the Labour Party has lost the skill of electioneering.
False promise no longer comes easily to them. They falter and stumble in composition. Electoral gullibility has all but evaporated.
For a start, they have no policies fit for the 21st century. They are all mildly tweaked from last century.
Secondly, now outed as a branch office of Labour-London, their influence is holed below the water line.
Lastly, announcing a succession of ‘intellectual giants’ promoted to local leader, that turned out to be comically inept, no better than car valets, diminished voter confidence.
Trumpeting their latest, Jim Murphy, as the new Messiah, bolder than before, prat fall protected, with added ear trumpet, is, after a series of self-created blunders, one too many clown without a red nose.
In the event, he’s just a …
Why would voters of the ‘one nation Labour party’ from one region of their ‘one nation’ be outraged that the ‘one nation Labour party’ did a deal with a party from another region?
Nothing’s certain in the murky world that is Westminster,except for one thing-their own perpetuation- and I can’t help getting the feeling that all this ‘opposition’ posturing between what are essentially the British State cabal-Con-Lib-Lab-parties is surely just for effect.
They already vote or abstain on all their prescribed subjects,like Trident,Austerity,Illegal Wars etc.etc. for each other so the actual act of doing the right thing will not necessarily be how it’s going to go.
What really matters to them is the continuation of the same corrupt structure,that’s their main objective.
Everything else takes a poor second.
Though I have to say that it looks like the Walls O’Westminster are gonna take a battering in this next GE.
Vote SNP get SNP is the best thing we can do to try and upset the applecart.
Here’s to change.
Now’s the right time for it.
Good article. Ta. One observation. When I saw Alex Salmond on BBC Question Time Liverpool the distinct impression I got from the audience was if an SNP candidate with SNP policies stood in ENGLAND they would have a good chance of winning a seat. Can we not try, just for the sake of interest, to put a few SNP GE2015 candidates up for election in ENGLAND. At least it would allow a public platform to dismiss the UKIP Paul Nutall ‘take, take, take’ lies and myths.
SNP in power at WM? No danger the gruesome twosome will EVER allow it. They will join forces ala ref. stylee to block it. Guaranteed.
Given that every single policy that the branch office has adopted since electing Murphy as branch leader followed by his choice of staff, has resulted in achieving the exact opposite effect of winning over their targeted erstwhile voters.
It can now be safely assumed that indeed they, the Labour party will not do a deal with the SNP as this will be in keeping with their overall arrogant inward focus group driven myopic stupidity. They are not fit to govern.
And when indeed they do, in May, publicly commit suicide in front of the world, I for one will not mourn their passing.
Rest in Obscurity
Calum McLean
Way back when I was living/working in London a couple of decades ago the London Branch of the SNP thought we might put Gerry Fisher as a candidate in 1983 against Thatcher is Finchley but decided against it because it had a knock on effect to the Party Political Broadcasts the SNP would get here is Scotland.
is = in 🙁
Balls would sulk as would a number of Slab people…although they would under this scenario be thinner on the ground. Miliband I am not so sure. I think he will triangulate as ever and gauge how best to present a supply and confidence arrangement. The fact that it wouldn’t be a coalition that Alex would not be in the cabinet might I think be enough for the pragmatists to go for it.
As to the Record’s smear and sneer approach, I’m not convinced it will be a success. Looks too Tory nasty party for my book.
Have you noticed the SNP have been the only party to lay their cards on the table as regards this
The other parties continue to attempt to create scenarios in which the SNP don’t exist, in order to avoid the inevitable truth that co-operation of some kind is going to happen
The thought of it all may horrify the Unionists but ignoring it won’t make it go away,the electorate of this country are speaking and the more we’re ignored the louder we’ll shout
So get used to it London Westminster Unionistas we know exactly what we’re doing
You’re losing
Get over it
Imagine you have the chance to get rid of a Tory government propped up by Tory ‘minions’, of having a chance to be PM,(a chance that may not happen again if you don’t deal, mind) and then turn it down,what do you say then to all those who unlike you,would never work with the Tories or take their money and champagne?
@ Joemcg says:
“SNP in power at WM? No danger the gruesome twosome will EVER allow it. They will join forces ala ref. stylee to block it. Guaranteed.”
I am with you on that one, well at least to it being not a long shot.
The possibility of the Tories being in power with Labour supporting them on a supply and confidence basis cannot be ruled out.
Stranger things than that have already happened, like a former Labour Chancellor being the gust of honour at a Tory Party Annual Conference.
All in the spirit of the Union.
Bugger (the Panda)
I have always thought that Darling was a bag of wind.
Totally agree with you about “professional offendees” on the internet; it’s barely impossible to utter a single word these days without some tiresome, morose “social justice warrior” leaping down your throat for apparently saying something so utterly appalling, it’d be better if you’d never have been born, or something. Time was, I used to love a good ol’ fashioned political debate, but even I grow tired of the constant, corrosive stream of bewildering nonsense from such types.
In terms of whether or not Labour should work with the SNP, my own personal take on this is that far too much damage was done to, and by, both sides to each other during Indyref, and as such both are simply too toxic to each other’s core support (sorry to say).
Still more importantly, the sight of a minority or very weak Labour government being propped up by the SNP, no doubt at great political cost and concessions, is not going to play out well with ‘Middle England’, which as history shows as under the New Labour project of the mid 90s, is essential to Labour if they are to form a majority UK government? In other words, it’d likely be a case of short term gain (being in government, albeit heavily compromised) vs. long term oblivion. Just ask the Lib Dems…
I keep hearing this SNP wants to break up the UK nonsense
Nothing could be further from the truth
They can keep their UK they can call themselves anything they want, they can be the United Kingdom of England and other bits of whoever wants a part of it, Scotland just don’t want to be in it
Simples
Bill: “The idea of a party which wants to break up the UK holding the balance of power at Westminster is horrifying to me Bill.”
The simple response is that
A) the SNP won’t be able to negotiate the break-up of the UK from the position of a minority party in a coalition, will they?
B) the SNP only want to get independence by the will and consent of the people of Scotland, not by Westminster horse-trading.
O/T; Not widely advertised by the Unionist parties is the key date of 2017, in the course of which the sum of £300 Billion, (borrowed by the Labour government in 2008) is to be paid back to the Rothschilds World bank. But monthly borrowing from the IMF and other sources by Osborne and the Tory’s routinely exceeds £25 billion leaving only one source available to gather the money to repay the loan. The UK taxpayer. The next few years will bring about austerity plus. Many sacred cows will be slaughtered upon the altar of need. Pensions, welfare, health, capital building projects, defence and other aspects of expenditure will be brutally cut. The return of £300 Billion is not negotiable. But even repaying the aforesaid loan will still leave the UK £1.5 Trillion in debt. Clearing this will take around 30 years. What a legacy the incompetent Unionist governments and bankers are passing onto our children. But note the richest 1% will remain outside the austerity agenda. The poor will get poorer and the rich get richer.
link to caltonjock.com
Calum McLean – I’ve often thought they should have a punt at a few seats in England. It wouldn’t cost all that much for a deposit and some posters. The rest of the campaign will take care of itself. Mass door-knocking might be tricky (unless a few bus trips can be arranged) but the media attention would be priceless. The best option might be to go for the party leader’s constituencies and try to punish them at local hustings. It might be pretty bold, but it would be that much harder for the English media to ignore the actual policies on offer and stop demonising the party in quite the way they do.
On the article, I want someone to ask Ed Miliband this question: if the Tories get the largest number of seats overall but even with support from any UKIP and Northern Irish unionists and even Lib Dem MPs can’t command an absolute majority, will he vote with the SNP/Plaid/Green/NI Other bloc to vote down the Queen’s Speech? That’s the only question that matters. From there it’s only a question of how much they’re willing to negotiate with the remaining parties in order to enable any sort of government at all.
It’s either that or the Labour leader saying he’d rather have the Tories in government than Scotland to have any say in its own governance, and that’s the endgame.
Je McG:
SNP in power at WM? No danger the gruesome twosome will EVER allow it. They will join forces ala ref. stylee to block it. Guaranteed.
Wise counsel.
They warn us many times they will form a coalition with Beelzebub himself rather than allow the SNP to have an influence over England’s affairs, thus confirming, if confirmation was ever needed, the dominant nation, England, never ever saw Scotland as a country it was obligated to treat with respect.
We are a minor if disobedient territory.
Superb analysis Stu.
What an education we get.
Vote SNP. It’s a no brainer. The rUK was in a panic over the ref, oh what a panic if we win the seats predicted.
Thanks Stu, and the rest of the commenters here. We are an educated bunch.
QT last week showed how far apart we are.
I have had my faith in democracy shattered following the referendum them misconduct of organisations during that event brought into question whether it established anything other than a pointless expense. I do not feel for one minute that the will of the Scottish people was established and the GE2015 is going to demonstrate that. Subject to the Civil Service not deeming the election being to important to be left to the electorate to decide as in the case of the Referendum.
Political parties will have to either work with the electorates verdict or risk being punished for failing the country. We were told that we were better together, well we are going to see. Scotland is going to test that assertion, I have no doubt but I do not think in a destructive manner. They will seek to put people at the center of government and seek to represent their interests. Hopefully The concept, of the people being in charge, will catch on and rUK will become once again engaged as the referendum engaged them in Scotland. Then perhaps we will get a government we deserve.
This was probably the most brutal example of gangstering in the entire campaign, given its invasive targeting of ordinary folk exercising their democratic rights.
With respect to Graham Grant – may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his armpits.
link to weourselves.com
OT-did any winger see a telly interview with Fud a while back? The words Red Tories were mentioned and his face contorted like the proverbial bulldog! They absolutely hate that one and it’s definitely an Achilles heel for them.
This use of “ellipsis” is worryingly common in modern online “debate”. You take one or two tweets from some asshole and then present this as organized abuse. Its a misuse of data effectivly, by framing minority actions as majority. Its the basis of “feminists are transphobic” “gamergate is a hate movement” or “vile cybernats hate democracy” or whatever the hell else you want to spin.
Of course it works all ways, so we are jsut as capable of complaining about “britnat abuse” (by which we mean some guy with a rangers profile posting Photoshopped pictures of Salmond). Its still an utterly inane way of avoiding the opponents argument and the shame of the information age.
Nippy sweetie sends a billet-doux. 🙂
Dear Sir Jeremy
PRE-ELECTION CONTACT BETWEEN OPPOSITION PARTIES AND CIVIL SERVICE
I am writing with regard to the contact between opposition parties and the civil service prior to General Elections, which has become a standard feature of the UK’s democratic processes.
These meetings – which as you know require to be sanctioned by the Prime Minister – enable an opposition party to brief civil servants on its policy agenda, and gain deeper understanding of the systems of policy delivery in Whitehall.
I understand that the Prime Minister wrote to Ed Miliband last year offering such pre-election contact to the Labour Party.
Of course, no one political party has an overall majority in the existing House of Commons, and consistent polling evidence indicates that a hung or balanced parliament will also be the outcome of the General Election in May.
In these circumstances, all political parties with a presence in the House of Commons may well be in a position of power and influence in the next parliament, and therefore it would be appropriate to offer such contact beyond the main opposition party.
The SNP programme includes a substantial alternative to the austerity cuts supported by the UK Westminster parties, cancelling the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system, and a requirement that each and every constituent nation of the UK would have to vote to leave the European Union in any in/out referendum before the UK could exit.
These and other policies which we will seek to advance in the next parliament are obviously of UK-wide application, and I believe that the Whitehall system would benefit from becoming more familiar with our propositions.
As you may be aware, before the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, the then First Minister authorised offering pre-election contact to all political parties represented at Holyrood, including for example the Greens.
Given the likely continuance of a hung parliament situation in the House of Commons, I believe that in advance of this General Election it is time for Westminster to move towards the higher, more inclusive standards which prevail in the Scottish Parliament.
NICOLA STURGEON
Scottish National Party Leader
Marcia
You are quick, my post didn’t get published until 3:26 and you replied at almost immediately.
I must be on some sort of moderation here, again?
windbag, maybe lower down.
Hi there Cavey, nice to see you pop in again
Is Miliband going to win that middle England vote that Blaie carved out as his own? I am not sure he will in this election and if he fails in May I don’t think he will get a second chance. It might all or nothing for Ed and Nicola might well be his best hope. Independence aside, Nicola is closer to Old Labour than half of Ed’s cabinet.
@Bill Hume
“The idea of a party which wants to break up the UK holding the balance of power at Westminster is horrifying to me Bill.”
That fear would only really apply if the SNP joined a formal coalition and tried to force another referendum through Westminster. Unlikely to happen.
But Scots have every right to have influence at Westminster, while we are still part of the UK.
If Labour and Tories have begged Scotland to stay, then you have to accept that Scottish votes count.
We have the choice to elect MPs who put Scotland first, not the Labour party first.
If that hurts some feelings, then so be it.
“The idea of a party which wants to break up the UK holding the balance of power at Westminster is horrifying to me Bill.”
More horrifying than letting the Tories in?
There is a ‘UK’ constitutional problem no one seems to be considering; with 40+ SNP MPs at Westminster they, as the majority of Scottish MPs, will be deemed to represent the considered will of the people of Scotland at Westminster. (see AXA vs the Lord Advocate, McCormack vs the Lord Advocate)
While Labour have been returning the majority of Scottish MPs this has never been an issue because they did what London said and controlled the Scottish Affairs Committee.
The position and role of Scottish Secretary is increasingly meaningless as all the previous ‘real’ powers of this individual now lie with Holyrood which is also in the SNP’s control.
This leaves a conundrum for either the Tories or Labour in government as after May 2015, to pass any UK legislation relating to or impacting on Scotland they will need to gain the support of the SNP otherwise such legislation will fail because the legislation can not be entered into Scots Law or statute if it has not the support of the considered will of the people of Scotland.
Sadly Mr Rawnsley, like most of the English commentariat, is blind to the big holes in the UK’s unwritten constitution a majority SNP MP presence at Westminster will expose.
In the GE and probably out with Scotland we might see the lowest turnout due to public anger towards Westminster over expenses and paedophilia. Those who DO vote seem to be drawn away from Labour and Conservative in ever increasing numbers. Due to LibDems perceived cosying up to Cameron their support looks likely to desert them. The battle, then, is over the disaffected LibDem vote. “Floating” voters might go for UKIP etc. but previous LibDems will only be drawn to Labour or Conservative. In this case Labour have to keep up the pretence of bring able to win and not contemplating an SNP deal. An SNP deal would not end Labour in Scotland it would just stick in their craws. English Labour MPs and voters are unlikely to care one way or the other. But then the Tories press machine has to be taken into account.
A national government, while I wouldn’t put it past them, would surely kick the independence door right in. It would be indefensible to completely discard Scotland’s democratic contribution to the union. I would say they’re not that daft but some of the noises coming out of Westminster lately on the subject suggest otherwise.
Re – DM hatchet job – Oops, I see that was already cited in the article (how could it not be).
Well anyway, in mitigation I’ll offer that recitation for the sake of condemnation of such dastardly calumnies is no vice.
“Is it fair to say that the LibDems ‘sold out’ on voting reform? My Impression is that they negotiated a poor deal in the alternative vote referendum, allowing their coalition ‘colleagues’ to stab them in the back”
In other words, sold out. Could and should have said “a referendum on proper PR, or best of luck governing as a minority”.
The Tories didn’t stab them in the back, they never claimed to be anything other than opposed to AV.
I read Andrew Rawnsley’s article earlier today. There was the usual ignorant MSM arguments that a vote for the SNP is effectively a vote for the Tories.
More interestingly though was the sources from Labour, presumably based in London (it is not made very clear), saying that they should rule out a deal with the SNP even before the election, as a failure to do so would finish Labour off in both Scotland and England! This is an really extraordinary viewpoint to take from the present political situation in the UK. They are saying that if Labour loses some or even most of their seats in Scotland to the SNP, which only numbers around 40 MPs anyway, and out of spite refuse a deal with the SNP, then they would not be finished in both Scotland and England?
This is batshit crazy mental. England must have around 500 seats in total, while Scotland has just over 50. I am genuinely struggling to see the logic in this at all. It is completely irrational. They think refusing to do a deal with the most popular party in Scotland at present, would not finish them off in Scotland at the very least?… Are the UK Labour Party not aware of the consequences of this, which would almost certainly be another 5 years of Tory government, as Rev Stu says in the article? Utter madness from Labour.
Soooooo this whole Better Together thing. (Coming along any day now)
The establishment got its way, yes? Scotland narrowly, but dutifully, voted to remain part of a political union for the time being.
And this should stop Scotland sending down whoever it damn well pleases as representation how precisely? Just why should the thought of the SNP protecting our partnership interests be so offensive to the English, Welsh and NI voter? Why should this representation offend that huge number of MPs which form the bulk of Westminster’s commons?
Rhetorical questions really, but if you’re a visitor to the site, have a quick ponder.
The answer if this was a democracy, a fair and equal partnership and if the established Westminster parties had any intention of honouring the spirit of our treaty and settlement, is that it shouldn’t worry them in the slightest. The Rev, IMO, is right on the money. The progressive voter of the left should be delighted at the prospect of truly centre left support in Commons. The MPs however… seem unduly put out.
That should tell you something.
“SNP in power at WM? No danger the gruesome twosome will EVER allow it. They will join forces ala ref. stylee to block it. Guaranteed.”
That would enrage BOTH their own sets of voters, though.
[…] The tyranny of whining […]
@HandandShrimp
Hiya mate 🙂 , yes, I’m a fairly avid reader of this site and am really enjoying a lot of its output as of late, most especially the Soapbox Debates. Clearly I don’t agree with much of it (albeit not the basic, end objectives though in many cases), but so what? It’s good to hear opposing views and rigorous for one’s own preconceptions.
Anyhoo, I completely take your points – the dilemma for Labour here is that Millipede is not a strong electoral prospect but they’re saddled with him now? (Their whole front bench is greatly lacking in political quality in my view; you might say that as a small-c Conservative I’m bound to say that, but I like to think I’m capable of at least a modicum of objectivity!)
Ed is no Blair (however little I think of Blair both at the time, and most especially now with the full benefit of “I told you so” hindsight, obv) – he *wholly* lacks his charisma, and besides we’re now in very different political and economic waters as compared to 1995, most especially post-indyref Scotland. Dare Labour risk throwing their hat in with the SNP? For Ed personally, I think you might be right, this could be his only chance to make it as PM (as he’ll be sure to be binned after a GE defeat, when Labour so cynically decided to “sit this [last Parliamentary term] one out” and let the Tories take the heat for mopping up their biggest mess yet.
But for Labour as a party, I honestly think it would be a disaster for them, because like I say, Middle England would loathe such an arrangement and would likely never forget it.
I’ve just read the Guardian article linked to, it is almost (but isn’t) unbelievable.
To think that you could lose your job, your friends and in effect your life, as you understand it because of a silly photo on facebook, a daft tweet or shock, horror a post you stick on Wings at 02:30 on a Sunday is terifying.
Who are these self styled guardians of all that is pure and clean? I have no idea but I’ll tell you this for nothing.
Freedom of speech? Bah Humbug!
We ran a minority administration successfully so the SNP know perfectly well that it can be done without toxifying anyone.
We are also under no obligation whatsoever to vote through tory austerity and tory policies if Miliband tries to force them through. He does that we will vote them down and he will either have to rely on tory support or they won’t pass.
Some idiot Blairites and Labour commentators are also under the delusion that every vote is a vote of no confidence and if it doesn’t pass the government falls. Simply not true. This coalition saw more than a few of their votes and legislation booted out.
The fact of the matter is Miliband is so comically unpopular that he also wouldn’t dare risk another election. They also couldn’t afford it as they don’t have the money or the manpower any more to run two full election campaigns in a row.
We also have no reason at all to bring down a Labour government. Why on earth would we? If they are too inept and right-wing to being forward reasonable and workable left of centre legislation (that we all know would be popular with their supporters anyway) then let the Red Tory MPs blunder about for five years of weakness, incompetence and inaction. That’s hardly going to be bad for us. Quite the opposite. 🙂
Bugger (the Panda)
I posted almost immediately after reading your post- spontaneous humour I hope. I don’t think you were on moderation.
scottishlaboursnpEnglandwillgoballistic
Labour have still not ruled out a deal with the Tories, and yet some in their party want to rule out now a deal with the most popular party in Scotland?
Good post Rev
I can imagine the UK Labour strategists thinking aloud the possible angles of attack.
1) Punish Scotland for making us work at winning Indyref.How dare those jocks force us to do some work?(Events since indyref proved that the things they said would happen if YES win, will happen anyway)
2) Install new leader of Scotland branch. A bruiser to bring them to heel.(That went well NOT. Slab leader a laughing stock)
3) Spread fear & hatred amongst UK electorate in MSM/BBC (oh shit, jocks aren’t listening but other UK countries are questioning us & moving to smaller parties)
4) Create the excuses early for why working with a nationalist party won’t work (getting ducks in a row to explain away defeat in GE)
5) All businesses will abandon Scotland (yeah well we saw how that went last time-NOT)
6) Get Lab, Lib, Cons to vote tactically (we can see how well that is currently working-NOT)
7) Shame & smear SNP on TV programmes-they’ll fall flat on their face (Nicola on BBCQT caused a surge in membership last weekend-that went well then for US 🙂
8) Anybody else got any ideas? Please, please I’m begging you otherwise we’ll be kicked off the gravy train.
Right now they are just trying anything they can think of to deter people voting SNP. Doesn’t matter if it’s a potty idea, it’s full of lies & propaganda soundbites etc. Don’t worry they will get to alien attacks eventually 🙂 but the one thing they can’t acknowledge is that very few of the UK or Scottish electorate want to vote for more of the same. They are looking for alternatives to pigs at the trough whilst voters get poorer. What they can’t accept is that change is coming whether the seatwarmers like it or not.
They’ve been dragged kicking & screaming out of their comfort zones into uncharted territory & they can’t handle it. It’s called democracy & they are showing their true colours & are at panic status.
Let’s keep the pressure on folks-politics has never been such fun 😉
[…] The excellent Jon Ronson has had a couple of articles published recently promoting his imminent book about the phenomenon of “internet shaming”, most recently one in yesterday’s Guardian. He talks fascinatingly with and about people who’ve had their lives ruined because they said things that weren’t illegal, but merely deemed unacceptable by a self-elected mob, often led by the professionally-offended. […]
A vote for the SNP is a vote for more powers for Scotland.
@ Mad Jock
Couldn’t agree more MJ. I’ve been saying much the same thing for a while now. With bulk SNP representation at both Westminster and Holyrood passing unpopular legislation in Scotland would prove a bit of a problem for Westminster government.
Its a potential pickle for them and no mistake. 😉
Vote SNP, get SNP seems a pretty fair summation.
CC
They might hate it
or they might put in a transfer request for Nicola to take over from Ed 😉
“The “45”, as yes-voters like to call themselves, are still impassioned by the energy aroused during the campaign and unreconciled to losing. They have surged behind the SNP. The party’s membership has ballooned from around 24,000 at the time of the referendum to about 100,00 now.”
– pure propaganda piece; note:
“impassioned”, “aroused”, “unreconciled”, “surged”, “ballooned”, and the fun mistake of “100,00”.
– basically telling those silly jocks to get over whatever sulk they’re in and to hurry up and get back to the serious business of electing professional troughers, who can be trusted to run a real nation.
Rawnsley’s stuff shows absolute determination to stop SNP getting anywhere near Westminster power which is fair enough really. Even getting any of THE VOW farce through parliaments like theirs. Dudes like him also have to make it look it has though.
Trident seems to be the chosen vote SLab attack at the BBC, with massive detailed news report/coverage of nutters like the Australian PM’s perpetual and frantic war on IS terror on the streets of OZ, look at how Trident keeps UK safe, aren’t SNP hypocrites for staying in NATO but getting rid of nukes, so SNP v v bad, vote SLab Scotland. Using terror to make us vote SLab shows how desperate they all are.
OT but relevant for me.
Can anyone help me with posting on Wings.
It appears that I am automatically gpoing into pre mod.
Stu thinks it is a cookies problem.
I post from a Mac using Firefox.
What do I need to do to access cookies and change permissions to allow Wings to enable my postings?
Bottle of French red for someone who can help me here!
Honestly.
“Is it fair to say that the LibDems ‘sold out’ on voting reform? My Impression is that they negotiated a poor deal in the alternative vote referendum, allowing their coalition ‘colleagues’ to stab them in the back”
Both parties were lied to by their leadership to force AV on them. Cameron told his own MPs that Labout had offered the lib dems AV without a referendum to force his own backbench MPs into accepting an AV referendum. Clegg knew perfectly well that was a lie but he was too weak, incompetent and greedy for power to make PR a red line so rolled over for Cameron, didn’t make a fuss about the lie, and told his party they had no choice but to accept an AV referendum.
The irony is if Labour MPs had been serious about power (they were too busy plotting up to see who would take over from Brown) then they could have actually offered the lid dems a referendum on PR publicly and watched the carnage as the lib dem voters realised they were being sold out by Clegg. Panicking tories would also then have had to match that or up the ante elsewhere.
There’s a reason that Clegg is one of the most incompetent and unpopular party leaders in modern politics.
Unionists like to talk of the unwritten ‘UK constitution’. Aside from ignoring the reality of the Scottish constitutional settlement, which remains unchanged since 1689, distinct from that of England, it is patent nonsense.
I for instance, in my house in Edinburgh, have the title deeds in my name for both Windsor Castle and Buckingham palace. Both are of course ‘unwritten’ (a mere technicality, so my unionist lawyer insists), but I swear they do exist.
Talking of the ‘UK constitution’ lends the charade a credibility which it doesn’t deserve.
The Tories are saying: ‘Vote SNP, get Labour’
Labour are saying: ‘Vote SNP, get the Tories’
A bit of a puzzle but if you apply a little mathematical manipulation to solve it you get:
Vote SNP, get SNP …….and a Labour/Tory coalition.
There sorted.
Stuart:
That would enrage BOTH their own sets of voters.
Was that an impediment in the Referendum?
In the Unionist’s mentality what takes precedent, holding the UK together, or voter’s ‘dilettante’ loyalty? Remember ‘the best of both worlds’?
Better a ‘government of national reconciliation’ than one ‘tainted’ by SNP influence ‘intent on breaking up’ the UK.
@BtP
Same for me and the site wont refresh until about 20 mins or so, this only started 2-3 weeks ago for me.
Bill Hume at 1.44
Why would breaking up the UK be offensive to any socialist with half an ounce of political understanding.
Tory and Labour voters have moved a lot closer since the referendum, and I agree they would align to keep any SNP influence from happening. Voters accept that stance because it protects the Union.
I always said that if Labour felt so strongly about the Union, why didn’t they just campaign last year on their own platform? Why do Tory and Labour align in local councils, quite openly, to prevent SNP doing anything? This is a very cosy relationship at local and national level, and they are bonded by their hatred of SNP and their left wing policies.
I actually think SNP have just politely said they would work with Labour, and they haven’t went on about it, to smoke out the tribal hatred, which prevents Labour from even using common sense. It’s another clockwork toy they have set off, to great effect.
Panda: Can anyone help me with ‘pre-mod’ posting on Wings.
In my experience, invariably a typo error in log-in name or address.
There’s a reason that Clegg is one of the most incompetent and unpopular party leaders in modern politics.
He is doing it deliberately.
Bill Hume
“The idea of a party which wants to break up the UK holding the balance of power at Westminster is horrifying to me Bill.”
Wasn’t that actually said by Norman Lamb on QT other night, without the Bill.
“…the irony is if Labour MPs had been serious about power (they were too busy plotting up to see who would take over from Brown)…”
Labour ‘serious about power’ in 2010? Meh! I don’t think so; my reading of the situation at that time was (and still is) that they were only too happy to hand over the reins (and the supreme MESS they had made of everything) to what they perceived to be a hapless, very fragile Conservative-LD coalition that they likely had every expectation would not prove durable for an entire parliamentary term. Basically, they could get rid of Brown, let the Tories take the immense unpopularity that was bound to ensue from even their own “deeper cuts than Thatcher” austerity measures that Darling himself articulated pre GE.
Gah, politics is a dirty old game, especially where Labour are concerned? Anyone who seriously thinks Labour WANTED to be in government in 2010 is, in my opinion, being very naive. The infamous, good luck “there’s no money!!!11!” memo springs to mind; ne’er a truer word spoken in jest…
Mad Jock McMad says:
22 February, 2015 at 2:34 pm
“There is a ‘UK’ constitutional problem no one seems to be considering . . .”
very interesting.
Captain Caveman at 2:47pm
As a small-c Conservative is there anyone for you to vote for?
Test
It is now 15.22 and posting after
link to wingsoverscotland.com
It would be nice to be the power in the land but way I see it, Labour are a load of cry babies who like the way things are. Seriously would prefer a Tory Government to trying anything different.
No, we worried the heck out of them in the seventies when we had 11 MP’s if we get as forecast then there will be serious problems for them, they know their tenure here is going to be a damned sight shorter than they hoped.
Dave McEwan Hill
My best pal is probably the only Labour Activist left on this Island, he still thinks that he is standing for International Socialism and that people like him will reclaim the Labour Party.
He is Intelligent, has a very good Political understanding, however, I don’t understand his reasoning, does that mean I don’t have Political Understanding?
Regrettably I think he has caught the “Labour” delusional virus.
@bjsalba
I voted Lib Dem at the last GE and may well do so again.
Can imagine a conversation between Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy.
GB: Jim, it’s Gordon. Was watching the Godfather part III last night. I’ve got a great idea.
JM: It’s not The Vow part III is it?
GB: No. We’ll bankroll The Orange Order.
JM: How will that work?
GB: We’ll provide them with funds to offer annual membership of £1 a year, In exchange for vouchers for free beer. Say 12 cans of lager a week. Providing they vote Labour.
JM: Brilliant Gordon, just fechin brilliant! I’ve got great contacts in The Order. Will get onto it straight away.
Rev, I must admit, that I don’t quite agree with the line of ‘They’re going to be delighted, especially as many of them (mostly outside Scotland) are likely to regard the SNP as a welcome force pulling the party to the left.
Thanks to the UK media, the SNP are demonised on a daily basis to the point, that for the English Electorate, they perceive that half of Scotland is a place full of ‘separatists’. The idea that the SNP whose main belief is the principle is to see the breakup of the United Kingdom, now being given the keys to major power within Westminster will not only sit uneasily with the English electorate, but it will anger many of them deeply. Not only would it pee off the supporters of the Tories as you rightly point out, but I think it would do the same to the supporters of UKIP, Lib-Dems, as well as Labour supporters themselves. And in that …we are talking more than half of England, if not 3/4’s of it.
The idea of the SNP being ‘welcomed’ …I just can’t see that happening. If anything, the possible resentment that such a coalition might create, may just be the thing that speeds us all towards the ending of the Union.
I see from WoS Twitter that there are people making allegations about SNP activists. Are these smears or there anything in them?
” Anyone who seriously thinks Labour WANTED to be in government in 2010 is, in my opinion, being very naive. “
Your points about Labour wanting to hand over a mess while thinking the next election would automatically be handed to them on a plate are astute and well made.
However, there were still undoubtedly some (not very fucking many though) Labour MPs who thought a deal might be possible. The rest were positioning for a post Brown leadership election. They won out and it was only ever a half-hearted attempt to negotiate a deal (hence it’s incompetence) with some of the leadership candidates all but saying ‘fuck this! let’s pick a new leader and leave the tories and lib dems to further ruin the country’
In regards to my last post, given that people like Duncan Hothersall are heavily involved in SLAB, I strongly suspect they are smears.
I see the possibility of a Tory/Labour pact is mentioned from time to time. Has happened before in the “national” interest.
However anyone who believes this would annoy both sets of supporters is wrong.
Such may well annoy ideologically driven Labour supporters. It would not annoy Tories, who are pragmatists and not believers, and who, holding their noses, would assume they had “catched” Labour
Still waiting for Milliband to rule out a coalition with the Tories…
OT – Scottish Greens are standing in over half of the seats for WM, their largest ever, and 40% of the candidates are women.
It seems that even just considering working with the SNP is causing damaging divisions within the Labour party.
Oh dear, what a shame.
I think a pact between Labour and the tories would kill off Labour in Scotland. They might not care if the SNP get the result the polls are predicting. Labour in Scotland will have outlived their usefulness.
That would, I believe, enhance the support for Independence.
BtP & Cynical Highlander
I’m using Win Vista & IE Explorer. My posts always take 20 minutes or so to show up except for last night when there were fewer of us posting due to the rabble partying the night away at Invergowrie 🙂
I’ve tried using Chrome & Firefox browsers but they make no difference at all so I’ve just learned to live with it.
@Iain Gray’s Subway Lament
Thanks 🙂
I, in turn, largely agree with your reading of the situation, albeit (and I know this ain’t going to be popular around here), I do credit the current UK government with at least delivering us all back from what was a very, very sharp precipice.
Sadly for Labour, their whole premise of being “white Knights” riding to the UK’s rescue and securing a landslide victory when someone else has done all the unpleasant heavy lifting (and taken all the flak), has likely about to be proved false. In my view: serves them bloody well right – just desserts.
Of course, I am not blind to the fact that the ‘recovery’, such as it is, is not widely felt yet among the majority of people. Whilst earnings are now outstripping inflation, this is a recent development and real terms incomes are still lower than they were in 2008. This is not good, obviously.
But seriously, what did people honestly expect? The fact is, the UK is doing vastly better than the rest of the Eurozone; our unemployment rate sits at around 6%, which is half that of the Eurozone AVERAGE (equivalent to another 2 million on the dole than as of now), and when you consider that since Labour’s 13 long years had rendered our economy so utterly dependent on the Banking sector (much moreso than the ‘average’ Eurozone state), and thus disproportionately much more deeply damaged as a result, this alone is nothing short of miraculous in less than one parliamentary term?
Yes, yes, I know there are zero hours contracts and the rest to factor into all of this, but let’s not be too disingenuous. To say that the number of people in genuine, waged work is a figment of George Osborne’s or Vince Cable’s imagination, nothing more, is just plain daft. Anyone who seriously thought we were, as a collective, just going to walk away unscathed from what has been widely described as a massive heart attack in economic terms, is just being totally unreasonable.
In my view, what has been achieved is far from ideal, has very unfortunate elements, but compared to what COULD have been, and very much likely WOULD have been as under continuation of that inarguably disastrous Labour government, it’s not bad?
Labour, Torie, Lib Dem? What’ll it be Hmm?
Well as far as the English electorate go, after about two weeks they won’t care
If it doesn’t happen in their street they mostly won’t even know about it
Walk down any Main Street Englandshire and ask passers by to tell you who the Foreign Secretary is or any post which isn’t Prime Minister and see what answer you get
Politicians will do whatever is best for them if they can get away with it The Labour Party will prostitute itself with ease all we’re arguing over is the price
The likely outcome is that the SNP will be the third largest party so why should we worry, in the end we’ll get what we want and that is a team who works for us
Let the Tories threaten, let Labour Girn and the Lib Dems proclaim themselves the peacemakers
VOTE SNP SCOTLAND WINS
I got slated on twitter for suggesting that the greens could take some votes from the SNP and allow Labour to sneek in.
Folk can vote for whomever they want but does anyone believe that the Scottish greens will get any WM seats this time round?
@JLT
Penny….. Clang Thump Bong
Yay!!!!
test
@Bugger (the Panda)
I’m Mac/Firefox too and I had terrible problems posting on sites, though not this one. I eventually refreshed Firefox: Help; Troubleshooting; Refresh (top right). Back up your Bookmarks and note any passwords you have saved. You will also have to reinstall all your addons.
It meant I could login to sites I haven’t been in for months. Things like using a WP etc login on other sites now works too.
@ Liz
I’ve been thinking the same for a while. The Greens could throw the kitchen sink at this election and they wont get a seat. Nicola will have to make a huge push to get the Green vote.
“The position and role of Scottish Secretary is increasingly meaningless as all the previous ‘real’ powers of this individual now lie with Holyrood which is also in the SNP’s control.”
BBC R4 currently fluffing SLibdem Danny Alexander’s all new cunning stunt to tax big money, 8 weeks to go before he’s retired permanently after 4 or 5 years at Treasury, and that’s how it goes…
Alistair Carmichael, who argued for Scottish Secretary to be scrapped, until they made him it, vote record to date, basically he’s voted NO to every and any Scots devo.
Orkney & Shetland
Liberal Democrat
Devolution Record
Public Whip record: 35%
Voted against a second reading of the Scotland Bill
Voted against requiring Scottish ministers to order officers to start counting within four hours of polls closing
Voted against devolving regulation of air weapons
Voted against keeping insolvency powers with the Scottish parliament
Voted against keeping responsibility for regulating health officials with the Scottish Parliament
Voted against devolving tax powers for quarrying and mining
Voted against code of conduct for Scottish ministers in relation to the treasury and borrowing powers
Did not vote on devolving the Scottish elements of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Did not vote on devolving responsibility for railways that start and finish in Scotland
Did not vote on devolving elements of the Crown Estate and accountability of the Crown Estate
Did not vote on devolving time powers, time zones, and British Summer Time
Did not vote on devolving powers over food content and labelling
Did not vote on allowing the Scottish government to tax companies’ profits
BtP + Cynical Highlander – I’ve had the 20 minute delay in posting and indeed also with refreshing pages, for about the past oodles of months – there is always a 20 minute to 21 minute delay until I can see my post, although they do eventually show time stamped at time of posting. It’s why I rarely post these days, as the delay with my posting looks like I’m a bit late to the party and the thread has often veered off.
It’s nice to know I’m not alone, but better if we can get it fixed. I have tried deleting all cookies, but get a Microsoft message saying I wont be able to access my inbox if I delete cookies as Microsoft needs to know when I’m logged in (Eeek). I don’t know how to delete the WOS cookie, so if that’s the problem, grateful for help in identifying said WOS cookie – perleeese. 🙂
(I’m using a Dell laptop and Firefox. I’ve also had wee advice warnings (from Virgin) on occasion when I refresh a WOS page, asking along the lines of – are you sure you want to enter this site as it may contain harmful content.????? Bloody cheek. :-b
(posted at 16.02)
“The idea of a party which wants to break up the UK holding the balance of power at Westminster is horrifying to me Bill.”
From this statement above, I put forward that if a true Scottish Party wanted to hold some minor influence over a coalition party in government, just like the Lib Dems have done with both Labour & Tory, we should never become demonised for operating within the system.
I consider that most Scots would sign up to Westminster keeping control of Defense and Foreign Affairs, but the Westminster Parties insist that although this would keep the Kingdom United,
it isn’t enough.
They must fully control all major matters in Scotland.
They obviously don’t agree that there is a serious problem for the Scots repeatedly being ruled by a Tory Government that they have never voted for in generations.
Are they seriously suggesting that it’s healthy to vote for comprehensive change, when they know our proportion of UK seats can never deliver it.
At Westminster, just 0.6% of matters being voted on, has the Scottish vote influenced the outcome?
In other words, if Scots MPs were to vote on 200 matters that they felt were detrimental to Scotland, they would likely be able
to stop just one issue from being passed!
Could these misinformed Labourites condemn the Irish for leaving the UK? How about the other Colonies who dumped Westminster for
a better future under their own control, America, Australia, Canada, Egypt, Jamaica, Malta, Namibia,New Zealand, Rhodesia, South Africa. How dare these colonies put their needs before
Westminsters, why should their resources be their own, why create policies that the indigenous people want to live under?
As Labour representatives have said: They are Labour First, your country, your personal thoughts and your needs don’t matter.
Not on their lives do I buy into this. I did vote Labour when I thought that they were there for the greater good, but their Party has transformed itself into a new right wing Tory Party. They are career politicians looking after their own pockets and
happy to lie their way into power and into the house of Lords.
Labour’s Gerrymandering corrupted Scottish democracy, the theft of 6,000 square miles of Scottish Waters, their Ilegal Wars brought death to the innocents, our troops and wasted £billions.
They let the Bank run unregulated, they let Brown sign off the plundering of people’s pensions, they support Trident over the NHS or Food Banks. There is no credible Labour party!
No organisation with this track record can claim to care about the working classes or have any connection with socialism.
GB
The Name and Mail boxes load my name and Mail automatically when I type in the first letter so not that and every other blog site where I am registered is OK.
I wonder if ghost Mr Bowdler is haunting the site.
Bugger!
Labour and the tories couldn’t make a formal pact without their supporters (what little remains of them anyway) telling them where to go and deserting in droves. Which makes the Labour leadership’s refusal to rule out a deal with the tories all the more incredible and damaging to them.
By not seeing past their tribal hatred of the SNP what Labour seem intent on doing is relying on the tories to pass unpopular right-wing Blairite policies because, as well all know, they’ve done it before like with Iraq. That they have not learned from that mistake is staggering.
So I don’t see that ending very well for wee Miilband either as it would be impossible to pretend Labour are anything other than Red Tories after just a few months of that. It would be all but confidence and supply between labour and the tories given how far to the right Miliband is taking Labour with his austerity, cuts and further privatisation/PFI agenda.
You only have to look at Clegg and the vanishing lib dem vote to see how quickly those remaining labour voters would turn on him, leave and never come back. Not quite as quick as a formal coalition (which won’t happen anyway) but soon enough.
What everyone but Clegg and a few of his most stupid acolytes and MPs knew is that supporting the tories would come at a very, very heavy price since the lib dems had pretended to be left of centre for years. The voters rightly concluded Clegg was an unprincipled liar who had sold out his party for a nice ministerial car and the rest as they say, is history, much like Clegg’s lib dems. 😀
The toxicity of the tories is not something we will ever make the mistake of underestimating. Wee Miliband and his Labour MPs seem intent on following Clegg’s example. That will not end well for them, to say the least.
The reality is the majority of the Westminster electorate never get the government they voted for.
In my lifetime of five decades I am not aware of any government getting a majority of the votes cast. Even Labour’s 1997 “landslide” gave them 64% of the seats on 43% of the vote.
So if this time around we get a coalition (formal or otherwise) involving the SNP then there are no grounds for complaining. To do so now after years of governments and coalitions that the majority didn’t vote for would be the ultimate hypocrisy.
As for people being “horrified” at the prospect of the SNP having a say at Westminster – I find that profoundly anti-democratic.
Home computer takes ages to refresh too, work computer fires straight in…which is odd because the home one is more up to date….or maybe that is the problem.
I think a Con/Lab coalition is the most likely outcome, and the best outcome for Scotland, provided that the SNP handle the situation. It can only help to boost the drive for independence.
BTP and others, try using this as an add-on:link to dwipal.com It works with Firefox. Don’t know if there is something similar for other browsers. It’s also good for sites that only let you read 2-3 articles before they disappear behind a paywall.
I don’t get much chace to read and comment on Wings these days, but would hate to not see you here x
Go to options then privacy then exceptions bottom right of screen, then copy the wos url address into the exceptions cookies box and then hit allow hope this helps
@Bugger (the Panda)
22 February, 2015 at 3:07 pm
OT but relevant for me.
Can anyone help me with posting on Wings.
It appears that I am automatically gpoing into pre mod.
Stu thinks it is a cookies problem.
I post from a Mac using Firefox.
What do I need to do to access cookies and change permissions to allow Wings to enable my postings?
Bottle of French red for someone who can help me here!
Honestly.
TV Debates
link to thesundaytimes.co.uk
On the subject of unionist media smearing of SNP supporters the facts speak for themselves.
SNP membership has rocketed to close to 100,000 from some 25,000 despite a concerted and relentless barrage of paper-thin smears and lies aimed at SNP supporters from the unionist dominated media. Support for the SNP is also at unheard of levels in all the polling now with a very popular leader in Nicola
So I think it’s pretty safe to say that most of the public don’t trust the tabloid papers and media as far as they could throw them after that. 😉
They are clearly wasting their time but the westminster bubble media do not have the insight or intelligence to realise it. Let them waste their time. We have an election to fight and seats to win while they do so.
Omg, now this is hilarious, apparently Murphy’s latest gaffe is to announce savings of up to £3k per annum for Scottish tenants, when they scrap the bedroom tax!
No one in Scotland pays the bedroom tax, thanks to the £300M spent by the Scottish govt.!!!
Wow, this just gets better.
@bookie from hell
So that’s Clegg and Cameron exposed as cowards by trying to run away from the debates.
The two cowards are leaving the broadcasters no choice but to empty-chair them. After all, the broadcasters have nothing whatsoever to lose by doing so. The broadcasters would still be guaranteed huge viewership figures as opposed to no viewers at all if there are no debates like Cameron and Clegg want.
Dr. Jim
I’m very much aware as to what an SNP-Labour coalition truly means to us should it come to pass. I was being a tad ‘polite’ about it in my rhetoric.
Personally, as much as an SNP-Labour coalition might be rather good for the UK in re-addressing many of the faults that have been done under the Tories and the Banking system, we also have the irony that if the SNP do make a success in re-addressing those issues, then it could also damage the key principle of the SNP’s ideology in wanting to end the Union. Doing good works to make the United Kingdom a better place to live, does not help the SNP overall, and it could lead to them actually saving the Union! Lord help us!
Like yourself, I also want to see the rest of the UK become aware as to how unsatisfactory the Union really is, and that it might be best if we all just call it a day. As said …I was being polite.
So, I’ve retrieved your penny, which I now pass back to you.
“So in essence we’re left with angry Tory voters”
Perhaps not. The group who will be most cheesed off after the GE will be UKIP voters. I suspect when people who are tempted to vote UKIP go to vote, they will actually opt for Con, or possibly Lab. However, it is possible UKIP will get 10-15% votes and virtually no seats with FPTP.
I can foresee a situation where Labour and Conservative get maybe 35% each. SNP will do well to get 5% of the UK vote. Lab + SNP have >50% seats but 40% votes. Add perhaps PC and English Green.
However, that means a right wing grouping of Con + UKIP potentially still get a lot more votes than the progressive grouping. Worst case, more than half of votes added together.
Would that matter? What about the LibDems, who might still get 10% of votes and (because they are concentrated) retain 10-15 seats?
I do foresee a lot of very pissed off right wing, BritNat, Little Englanders!
What is said before the election and what is done after the result comes in are passing strangers.
@ronald alexander McDonald
NS will not be able to do that as Patrick Harvie’s article in The National was saying it was wrong to expect Green voters to vote for anyone else.
As there appears to be a variation in how this site is working under different browsers and OSs maybe it is the version of WordPress 4.0 that is the problem.
link to codex.wordpress.org
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
22 February, 2015 at 2:33 pm
“The idea of a party which wants to break up the UK holding the balance of power at Westminster is horrifying to me Bill.”
More horrifying than letting the Tories in?
Yes, I do think there are many perfectly good socialists and Labour supporters in the whole of the UK who believe that the union is more important that which party forms the next government.
Before everybody jumps on that statement……..I’m not one of them.
Tommy Ball has written a truly shocking article on the GCC ‘punishing’ the folk of Glasgow for voting Yes.
link to t.co
The anti Scottish feelings from the “British” (ENGLISH) establishment is coming out into the open and becomes more vociferous with every passing day. Have come to the conclusion that the establishment will do ANYTHING to preserve their colonial status over their colony (wee Scotland).
TORIES and LABOUR will work with each other to ensure the SCOTS are kept subservient, their native troops (SLAB) will be allowed extra rewards to cause as much disruption in Scotland as they nead to, to put their fellow countrymen in fear and keep their knee bent and head down.
We are heading into the unknown thanks to greed of the Establishment.
Campbell: “Rawnsley faithfully trots out Labour’s… line that every government of the past 90 years has been led by the party with the most seats.”
.
Yes, and obviously that is because in nearly every case the largest party has also been the MAJORITY PARTY. That is to say, the largest party has almost always enjoyed a majority over all other parties.
Now it should not be difficult for any higher primate to work out that in that case, of course the largest party forms the government – not per se because it is just the largest party, but because IT IS THE MAJORITY PARTY.
The case at issue here is the exception, where no party has a majority – i.e., where we have a hung parliament.
It is an inconvenient truth for Labour that the first actual real-life 20th Century example, the 1923 election result, gave us a hung parliament wherein the parties ranked:
Con 258
Lab 191
Lib 158
Who formed the government? Why, Labour formed the Government.
Whether a party is the largest party in a hung parliament or not offers ZERO operational advantage. Incumbency offers no substantive advantage. Winning the popular vote means nothing in the face of the ability or inability to command a majority in the House.
Now, all this is obvious, but Labour are not giving up on deploying attenuated variations of the original emphatic “largest party forms the government” canard.
If they are able to inculcate the notion in the mind of the voters, they likely will claw back ground lost to the SNP.
As noted in other posts, I think it vital to continue to confront this lie wherever and whenever it is used before it sticks like shite to the political zeitgeist and becomes a real problem.
I think it would be a good idea to clarify a few terms here, hung parliament, majority, minority etc but first it should be pointed out
1. The SNP MP’s do not vote on English only issues, presently about 5-10% of current legislation going through Westminster
2. This is not a re-run of the referendum, mores the pity. The SNP manifesto is Devo max, full control over everything except defence and foreign affairs
Should any party or group of parties at Westminster give in to the SNP’s demands, partially or completely, the % of issues that the SNP wouldn’t vote on would increase to as much as 90%
The scenario below uses simplistic results to make the electoral arithmetic easier to follow, I used the labour party here as the main protagonist but the same scenarios would hold for the tories
Senario one
Tory 300
Labour 336
Everyone else 25
SNP 59
Labour would form a coalition (+36+25) with everyone else bar the tories to keep the snp out and would have an overall majority of one. This is the most likely scenario and before anyone points out that they wouldn’t dare ignore the wish of the people of Scotland, they can, they would and they will. If we had elected 41 SNP MP’s, instead of 41 Labour MP’s, in 2010, does anyone think that this ConDem government would ignore the SNP MP’s any less than they ignore the 250 Labour MP’s? I personally think this is the preferred result, the voters in Scotland would be outraged at being ignore and support for independence would continue to climb in the polls. NS said it would be the people who decided if and when there is another referendum, roughly translated, this means a consistent +60% before indyref2 is even offered in an SNP manifesto
Scenario two
Tory 300
Labour 326
Everyone else 25
SNP 59
Here, the minority labour party could give in to the SNP devo max demands which would leave the labour minority with an overall Majority for 90% of the time. Bear in mind, the Labour Government would need the SNP to oppose or at least sit on their hands when the Tories bring forward their EU referendum bill. The Tories and Labour can sell this deal to the rUK as an end to Scottish subsidies and EVEL
Scenario Three
Tory 300
Labour 316
Everyone else 25
SNP 59
It would be difficult, if not impossible for the Labour party alone to cut a deal with the SNP. What’s in it for the Labour party? If they gave in to the SNP demands for devo max, The SNP MP’s would walk leaving the labour party in a minority for 90% of the time. In many ways, this scenario is the worst, in that it will rely on coalitions to form a government. This could be very damaging to the smaller parties. This is why we say the DUP last week saying they would support a Labour government. If the Greens and Plaid’s refusal to back a labour or tory coalition allows the SNP in, it might damage their reputation. I remember what happened to the SNP in 1979, we are still blamed for letting Thatcher in, whether that is true or not, it set back the SNP for a generation.
The next time you hear someone talking about coalitions and agreements with the SNP, ask yourself if agreeing to let the SNP walk away with their manifesto pledges fulfilled qualifies for the description as a coalition or an agreement? Also, the arithmetic is very tight indeed, with only a very small window in which and deal with the SNP can be made.
I didn’t expect the result of the Holyrood Election in 2011. No-one did. Recent polls indicate a similar or greater success for the SNP in May. Should these polls become a reality, it will give us an opportunity to do something in the Holyrood Election in 2016, which was unimaginable just 4 years ago.
Consider the following scenario from 2011 with a cross party Scotland Alliance, where the SNP didn’t stand any list MSP’s and that the SSP/SG didn’t stand any Constituency MSP’s, the result would have been as follows.
SNP 53 +0 = 53
Labour 15 +7 = 22
Tory 3 + 5 = 8
LibDems 2 + 0 = 2
Indy 0 + 0 = 0
Greens/SSP 0 + 44 = 44
2011 actual result
SNP 53 + 16 = 69
Lab 15 + 22 = 39
Tory 3 + 12 = 15
LibDems 2 + 3 = 5
Indy 0 + 1 = 1
Greens 0 + 2 = 2
I enjoyed the Yes campaign immensely, not the result obviously, but the camaraderie between the SNP, SG, SSP and those of no political allegiance. To be part of such a movement was an awe inspiring privilege, the memory of which I will take to my grave.
Too bad that the General Election comes before the Holyrood Election, It would have given us the opportunity to continue working together for the greater good of Scotland, an opportunity I would have relished. Even if the above scenario would have meant, and may mean in the future, the loss of an overall majority for the SNP in Holyrood, the chance to see Wullie Rennie, Wee Ruthie and so many other well kent unionist faces relegated back into the obscurity where they belong, is too good to miss. It would be worth it.
Unfortunately, this is not the case; we have a General Election in May before this opportunity presents itself. So what to do about it? It was mooted by many that a Scotland Alliance should have been created, the SNP should have stood aside in 2 or 3 seats to allow the SG’s and the SSP to have a free and unhindered run at the incumbent unionist politicians. I was against this for a number of reasons and fell foul of a number of people on this site for saying so, “ilk man and mothers son tak heed”, after a hard day’s work and a bottle of red, 2 am is probably not the best time to post on wings. I was concerned that such an alliance might precipitate the emergence of a Scottish Unionist Party and I didn’t think the electoral calculus was with the SSP or the SG in a general election. I still don’t. I asked a fellow winger I had driven down to Rosyth, “for the sake of unity among the Indy movement, was it worth risking losing 2 or 3 seats to the unionists”? His answer was a resounding “No”. But I’m not so sure now, I understand that the SSP and the SG have a right to representation, otherwise they might as well fold and join the SNP and I don’t think such a one party state is desirable. It is also true the SG’s and the SSP may take votes from the unionist candidates, as pointed out by Paula Rose a few days ago, but they will also undoubtedly take votes from the SNP candidates. The real question is “how much from each? which unfortunately can never be answered. The problem will arise if the unionist candidate wins by a margin of e.g. 4% over the SNP and the SG/SSP gain 5% of the vote. The accusation of splitting the vote by the Indy movement will be loud and clear and very divisive. Perhaps if I had framed my question to my fellow winger “what is worse? Losing 2 or 3 seats to the unionist because the Indy movement split the vote or because the SG/SSP were not up to the task”? I might have got a different answer.
Why is this so important now? If the polls are to be believed, then the unionists are about to be wiped out in a few months. The demise of the Labour and the LibDem parties may herald the launch of a Scottish Unionist Party and the tables will be reversed, it is the opposition who will be united and we who will be divided. An alliance is now not just desirable I think it is unavoidable. I sincerely hope that, should a unionist candidate win a seat in May, then combining the SNP/SG/SSP vote still leaves us short of a winning majority, otherwise we might be looking at an SNP/Solidarity alliance for Holyrood in 2016
These figures serve only to show the nature of majorities at Westminster
Notional 2015 Result senario 1
Labour 262
Tory 260
Libdems 37
UKIP 4,Ulster Unionists 9,Plaid 5,Greens 1,SDLP 2 ,total= 24
SNP 59
A cross party alliance with either Labour or Tory would give them an overall majority. The SNP will be ignored. This is probably most likely
Notional 2015 Result senario 2
Labour 272
Tory 270
Libdems 27
UKIP 4,Ulster Unionists 9,Plaid 5,Greens 1,SDLP 2 ,total= 24
SNP 59
A Tory/Libdem coalition would have a majority 90% of the time withouth the SNP voting
Ergo, they could give in to the SNP’s demands for FFA Devo max. The snp would walk away leaving such a coalition in a majority for 90% of the time. Of course, the numbers here mean that the libdems could also form a coalition with labour with the same deal, the libdems could be king makers
Notional 2015 Result senario 3
Labour 245
Tory 298
Libdems 27
UKIP 4,Ulster Unionists 9,Plaid 5,Greens 1,SDLP 2 ,total= 24
SNP 59
Labour would need SNP votes to form a majority rainbow coalition of any description, not really possible since any concessions to the SNP effectively mean the SNP walk away leaving the labour coalition in a minority. The Tories could cut a deal with the SNP, since if the SNP walk, then it leaves the tories with a majority for 90% of the time.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
“SNP in power at WM? No danger the gruesome twosome will EVER allow it. They will join forces ala ref. stylee to block it. Guaranteed.”
That would enrage BOTH their own sets of voters, though
If the SNP wipe out labour and libdems in scotland, no one in westminster will care what anyone in scotland thinks. if we dont elect any unionist MPs, why would any unionists care?
Sorry for the accidental post about holyrood, below the last about westminster
everything after I didn’t expect the result of the Holyrood Election in 2011 should be ignored
Nevermind the fallout of Labour refusing to work with the SNP in England, imagine the outrage in Scotland. If Scotland is to vote for a majority of SNP in May and Labour decide to effectively ignore Scotland where does that leave the credibility of Better Together and us being part of a “family of nations”?
Nevermind if they let in the Tories just because they are in a huff, even if they do a deal elsewhere to keep the Tories out Scotland will not appreciate being kept out of the UK’s democracy. In fact I can think of nothing surer to strength the case for independence than a large group of SNP MP’s being effectively shut out of power.
@Muiris:
“Is it fair to say that the LibDems ‘sold out’ on voting reform?”
Absolutely.
another
test
Cindie, John O, Muscleguy, T Jenny and G B (plus anyone missed out)
I am getting nowhere fast and beginning to think it is a problem resident in a WordPress update.
I can post, it just takes yonks to appear, unless R Stu is obviously online himself and maybe monitoring the blocked ones. Also whole blocks of other peoples’ post remain unseen until the same time delay has passed.
If just make for a difficult direct exchange as, by the time I read a reply, the thread has moved on in a different direction.
I just will not post very much, which may be a blessing in disguise for you lot.
The poison pill suggestion of deleting all add ons and passwords sounds pretty apocalyptic. Please remember I have difficulty with my ursine paws to type and look up other stuff at the same time.
Thanks to all.
BtP
Bootsy81
I agree & I’m thinking maybe that is what Nicola is hoping for. No taxation without representation in WM & particularly if EVEL is introduced thus locking out SNP MP’s that could well be the trigger for the population to clamour for a referendum.
Remember what she said-the next referendum will be when the majority of the Scottish people ask for it. I believe she means it too.
@BtP
Almost all my posts take about 30mins to appear. This is from both iPad and PC.
Very occasionally they appear instantly, but this is rare.
I just live with it.
What do others see?
@ galamcennalath says:
22 February, 2015 at 6:58 pm
Thanks, so it not just me.
I can be a bit paranoid from time to time and I really do believe I am a Panda. I have lived with that for some years
It will sort itself out soon enough I am sure.
Thanks
If Scots vote for the SNP in large numbers, only for Westminster MP’s to get together to make sure we are frozen out, we have no democracy in Scotland.
The power of this statement and the political damage it will do to any claims that we are a family of equals, pooling and sharing, better together etc etc, will be catastrophic.
The Union may just be about to end on May 7th.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!
Likewise here for time delay with posts, with occasional instant post when the thread is less ‘busy’. It’s been like this for months since the big DDOS attacks that Wings suffered. Seems to be average 20 minute turnaround for posts.
I’ve become quite used to it, have to refresh quite regularly too when reading current thread to see others’ posts…they come in batches it seems.
Could it be that as the site’s traffic has become so much higher, that askimet is literally taking much longer to process and remove trolling etc than it did in the past, as the queue has become longer?
Don’t know…it is what it is.
It’s still worth everyone posting, so much of what you say gets out there, even if it isn’t instant, it’s still obviously read by everyone. So don’t stop…you lot…you know who you are…you good yins. 🙂
@BtP
link to wingsoverscotland.com
While their may be a possibility of labour and the SNP working together to form a labour government, I am a bittie unsure if it would happen.
I think that labours hatred of the SNP will be to strong if the SNP wins the majority of seats in Scotland. Instead I would not be surprised if the labour & tory parties form a national government in the believe anything is better than allowing a national party to have any control of Westminster.
But to me that would be a good thing as finally Scotland will see that under no circumstances will the unionist parties allow Scotland to have a fair and honest democratic hand in running the UK.
And if that does not allow Scotland another referendum and the final step to independence what will !!!
Imagine voting at every general election for a party whose primary objective is independence but getting a government that is determined to prevent it.
@BTP et al
yes, same as you 20 to 30 minutes for posts to appear and then you might get half a dozen.
Also, when this happens, the screen no longer goes to the last post read like it used to, but back to the beginning of the article.
See you in half an hour 🙂
Christian Wright at 5.48.
I think I am correct in saying that the Tories won the 1923 election then a few months later in 1924, they lost a vote of confidence and the King asked Ramsay McDonald to form a Government. Not sure there was an election after the vote of confidence.
But it is interesting that Labour is so exact about their statement when they use 90 years as a cut off point.
The huge gamble for Labour is that going into coalition with the SNP legitimises their prescence in Westminster.
For decades they have been painted as being an irrelevance in UK wide elections but at a stroke Labour would be changing this. Our politics, during UK elections, would likely move to a more Northern Irish situation whereby the debate would be localised and dominated by Scottish issues. At a Westminster level this means pretty much the devolution settlement would be forever up for grabs.
It would be difficult to see how Labour would get its Scottish Block vote back if a SNP group was seen to be effective in fighting the Scottish corner. This would also help solidify voter recognition of issues that affect us from Westminster and those that are devolved.
The SNP may have both the barrel and the Vaseline in their hands come 8th May.
The question we need to see the answer to is whether Ed will play the long or short game.
The danger for the SNP is Dave dangling everything short of independence as a lure with supply and confidence as the cost.
Interesting days lie ahead.
Starting to read a lot of comments on here showing concern that if Scots vote for SNP en masse, then they could be ignored at Westminster.
Good!. It might wake folk up to the fact that they (Westminster parties) couldn’t care less about Scotland on a day to day basis.
That would be the death knell of the Union.
“So long as the SNP doesn’t make the mistake of joining a formal coalition”
That’s the bit that concerns me. Much like the Liberals should’ve done last time, I think that the SNP – should they make large gains – would be best employed as an aligned but non-attached bunch of votes.
@Barbara Watson says:22 February, 2015 at 1:49 pm
“Is it just me, or would the SNP going into cahoots with Labour not be just as toxic as the current Tory LibDem arrangement?”
Not really, Barbara, for I believe the plan is that, if they do hold the balance of power, the SNP will do so without a formal coalition agreement. Just support whatever party is doing what is best for Scotland on an issue by issue basis.
They do have experience of working in that manner while in power at Holyrood as a minority government. The LibDems threw in their lot almost unconditionally with the Tory Party. They turned their coats so many times they’ve worn the buttons out.
OT but I have just checked today’s newspaper headlines online. Straw and Rifkind have allegedly been caught in a string operation peddling access for cash. Both deny any wrongdoing.
What next. Surely the UK must be close to the point when the entire paradigm of post war Westminster politics, with its greed, scandals, propaganda, illegal surveillance of its own citizens and elitist world view crashes inward under its own weight.
We should never underestimate the capacity of the establishment to resist change but I look forward to May when we as Scots will have, through the ballot box, the opportunity to play a small part in the eventual demise of this toxic union by returning a shedload of Scottish MPs to parliament.
Derek @0100
The idea of any kind of coalition is disturbing. The Lib Dems entered into a coalition for shiny nameplates and ministerial cars. Should the SNP accept any post within government such as the Lib Dems they will deserve eternal damnation.
I think the idea of a sister party to sit in a few seats with the goal of independence of the nations of UK being the one goal sought would be priceless.
Grendel: Should the SNP accept any post within government such as the Lib Dems they will deserve eternal damnation.
Think it through.
If it is means to an end, supervising the transition from subservient nation to self-determination and a new Treaty with England why flambé it in advance?
Would the Labour and Tory parties be brazen enough and go as far as forming a coalition government so as to stop the SNP gaining a stronger foothold in WM and pawn off such an action to their voters as necessary in order to protect the union? Undoubtedly yes!!!! Is the mainstream media not already laying the groundwork on such a scenario? Both the guardian and the telegraph reported such a coalition on the 5th January ’15 with other ‘sources’ picking up on it some days after. I fear the shafting we have been getting over the years is about to get worse!!!!
Apologies, OT but,
Stu
After reading the words of Straw and Rifkind this morning in denial of any wrongdoing in the alleged under the radar cash for access scandal just breaking, the word ‘sophistry’ came to mind. Checking the meaning of sophistry online it seemed to me that this is truthiness’s Sunday name.
Sophistry: The use of arguments that sound correct but are actually false.
Here’s an idea. Might Wingers nominate individuals or organisations suspected of truthiness for awards called ‘Sophies’?
Wait. I know what you’re thinking; we’d be opening the floodgates. But Wingers could make informal nominations during the week with you selecting a winner(s) over the weekend? (This week’s Sophie goes to …), and you could weed out the wheat from the chaff before awarding.
This might lighten some of our less upbeat days while serving the serious function of using humour to nail fallacious argument.
Someone tried this with me yesterday, the person on twitter who I was arguing with hinting darkly that he knew where I worked and that he didn’t like my tweets
I wasn’t intimidated though because I tweet as myself, not anonymously, and although I have strong views about certain things I am careful never to tweet or post anything which would cause me any embarrassment or difficulty. And I don’t find that remotely difficult. I believe most normal adults have that power of judgement and self-control.
The person I was arguing with was, of course, doing so from behind the cloak of anonymity. He was upset that I didn’t agree that Margaret Curran was being harassed in yesterday’s video of her being challenged whilst campaigning.
While all this stuff about fronting up Westminster is entertaining I wouldn’t expect the SNP to do any such thing. I would expect them to deal with whatever outcome emerges in a pragmatic way to represent the best interests of the whole of the UK. We are not engaged in a game. We are responsible people who want an end to the policies of state induced poverty, violence and corruption that are endemic at Westminster. That is what is in the interests of the Scottish people and nothing that is the interests of the Scottish people is detrimental to the interests of other people in the UK.
[…] find even mildly out with their comfort zone. All I did was post the following story – from Wings Over Scotland – quoting the two paragraphs […]
Grouse Beater: I have thought it through. If the SNP go into a formal coalition where they perhaps take on ministerial roles (such as Clegg and his chums have) then they deserve what is coming.
Horse trading I can accept, a bit of support here for a concession there, yes. But full on, jumping into bed coalition? No way.
Grendel:If the SNP go into a formal coalition with ministerial roles
That’s actually what I meant they would not do, but was too lazy too explain. It’s a step too far. 🙂
They would not have a true mandate to govern England, but by all legal tests they might gain leverage to get the best they can from England.
That encompasses supporting selected policies with which they have sympathy that affect England and Scotland on the basis of quid pro quo, and rejecting all others.