Friday, 1 November 2013

WHY DOES LABOUR HANG ON TO LAMONT?

Yet another First Minister's Questions disaster

Dean recently criticised me for the blog's habit of criticising Labour in general, and Lamont in particular. I make no apology for doing that. I'm not anti Labour. At heart I'm a socialist. I should find Labour a natural home.

The trouble is, of course, that although I'm a socialist, Labour isn't a socialist party.

And Lamont in particular is simply not up to the job. A government with an absolute majority needs an effective and clever opposition. That is good for the country and for the government. Scotland doesn't have one. 

Ruth Davidson, Cameron's choice, is a silly lassie, not fit to lace Annabel Goldie's boots, who should not have been a party leader within weeks of taking her seat in the chamber. Her lack of skills in the chamber is understandable. She should still be on the tea duties...and learning her trade.

But Lamont has been in the business for years. She was deputy leader before she was leader. She watched as Iain Gray and before him Wendy Alexander were caught out week after week with poorly research material that left them with egg all over their faces as Alex Salmond batted away their out of date or false accusations.

Surely you'd think lessons (as they say) would have been learned.

How on earth then could she have managed to ask a question about what the First Minister was doing about fuel prices when she must have known that the First Minister has no power to do ANYTHING whatsoever about fuel prices?

How could she have gone on to criticise the First Minister for being absent from his desk over the last two weeks... on holiday... when he had cancelled other engagements to play a very substantial part in the discussions that saved as many as 5,000 jobs in and around Grangemouth? 

Indeed as a member of Unite and leader of the main opposition in Scotland where the hell was she during this industrial crisis? You would have thought that she would have had a major role to play.

Finally, like a fishwife scratching around for something with which to wound the First Minister, she accused him of being 'for' Fred Goodwin during the financial crisis (the same Fred Goodwin Tony Blair knighted for services to banking), for being shoulder to shoulder with Rupert Murdoch during the Milly Dowler scandal (the same Rupert Murdoch to whose child Tony Blair is godfather) and then she repeated that he was with the Big 6... although it had already been explained that it was a reserved matter for Westminster.

As Salmond said, most families in Scotland wish that he had the power to intervene... for he certainly would.

This piece by Tom Gordon from the Herald captures the mood perfectly.



Undeterred by the lesson of Frankenstein's monster, from whom she recently borrowed a haircut, Labour's Johann Lamont took her own stab at radical transplant surgery at First Minister's Questions and botched it horribly.

With the issue proving catnip for Ed Miliband at Westminster, she asked Alex Salmond what he thought of Labour's energy bill freeze.

The imported plan was to make the FM squirm like David Cameron on a Unite picket.

"Why won't the First Minister stand up to the Big Six energy companies on behalf of the people of Scotland and back a freeze?" she asked, hoping for Milibandesque success.

Instead, brows furrowed along the SNP backbenches like a caterpillar conga.

But surely energy law is reserved? Did she want voters to dwell on energy-rich Scotland having no say on the issue in the UK?

"Johann Lamont seems to have forgotten that we don't, in this parliament, have the power over energy bills," Mr Salmond swiftly reminded her. "Just about every family in Scotland would like to see this parliament have control."

Her transplant clearly heading for rejection, Ms Lamont fumbled for some needle.

"You would think with a fortnight off, the First Minister would think about doing his job properly," she sniffed.

"Actually," the FM replied, "I have devoted, with others, a huge amount of time over the last two weeks helping to save Grangemouth. I'm not quite certain what Johann Lamont's role was."

Clawing at the air, stitches popping, Ms Lamont ended in a death rattle of low blows.

"During the banking crisis he stood up for Fred Goodwin," she howled at the FM. "At the height of the Milly Dowler phone-hacking scandal he stood shoulder to shoulder with Rupert Murdoch. Now he stands with the Big Six!"

Mr Salmond's vampire smile said it all.

129 comments:

  1. Johann's boss!

    He said the First Minister’s “sensitive, understanding and helpful” approach was in stark contrast to Prime Minister David Cameron’s “despicable and disgusting” attempt to use the dispute to his political advantage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that someone in the Labour movement is acknowledging the skill of the Scottish government is superb. Cameron must be spitting nails this morning! Still that's what happens to grubby little chancing spivs!

      Delete
  2. I think we all tend to overanalyse Ms Lamont when the truth is actually quite simple. She's as thick as mince.
    Obviously that's no handicap to her in Scotland as she has a compliant media who will always back her up.
    Just as they did with her predecessor. The terminally dim Elmer " Killing fields of Cambodia " Gray.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Monty, I've always felt that you had to give her the benefit of the doubt.

      Badly advised by people who don't research properly, and up against a formidable opponent. The Prime Minister is scared to go head to head with him... over something he apparently believes in with all his heart and soul... (yuk)

      Delete
  3. The only, really the only, arguement against Scottish Independence is the prospect of that clown ever getting into government.

    It is like listening to a remedial class, they must be encouraged, but shouldn't be allowed around sharp objects. Ms Lamont is not a politician. She is a yet another carpetbagger.

    Anyway, what Lord Monty says.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think there is the least chance of her ever being in government.

      She would be replaced very quickly once some of the "A" team were back in Scotland. They aren't particularly good, but god knows they are better than her.

      But yeah, I guess I've been over generous to her. What Monty says !!

      Delete
  4. tris
    I am giving up on counting the blogs and articles drawing us to how, just when she couldn't be more inept, there she goes again, this time in a full lead lined paraglide suit. She is just so completely inept that she make all the previous tenants of her empty chair, look like intellectual colossuses (or is it ossi?)
    Of particular merit is Paul Cavanagh's wee Ginger Dug's excoriation of Johann.
    http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/when-the-truth-is-replaced-by-silence-the-silence-is-a-lie/
    Paul takes no prisoners.
    Surely must be about join the list of "deselected" Holyrood labour leaders to join the backbenches?
    However as she lives somewhere in a soundproof bunker and only surfaces infrequently when she has learned her lines to parrot in the daylight.
    I wonder if she reads anything critical of her performance?
    I wonder if she reads anything except her lines
    I wonder if she reads anything
    I wonder if

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair Snotty, it's almost impossible NOT to write about the ineptitude of the leader of the opposition.

      The whole Labour argument now appears to be about personal hatred of Alex Salmond. They change their policies before and after elections, so that basically we either vote for SNP policies administered by the SNP or SNP policies administered by Labour. In between of course they are opposed to all of these policies.

      This tends to make it a competition between Alex and Johann...

      I wonder...
      Lovely article and I'll add the blog to the list...

      "Ossi" is correct by the way! (I looked it up)



      Delete
    2. It s indeed 'ossi' but you must try to avoid ossification - that has been the downfall of SLabour.

      Delete
    3. Oh Lord no. Much though I like Australians I wouldn't want to become one!

      Delete
  5. Must say I liked the look on her face when Salmond slipped "I'll tell her something for nothing" into his answer!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't like criticising folk's appearances since I'm no oil painting myself but she looked like a bulldog chewing a wasp when he said that!

      Delete
    2. No, I wouldn't be knocking her looks either. Some of the nicest people in the world aren't oil paintings.

      Although on occasions I've fallen short of that principle, often with regard to Fat Boy Air Miles and his Ugly twins...

      And I may have poked a bit of fun at osborne for getting fat, and Cameron for getting thin on top... but they hardly count.

      Anyway, we're only laughing at facial expressions here, which indicate much more what is going on inside.

      Bitterness is turning so many of these Labour MSPs and MPs into ugly people. The pure hatred they express as their promised fiefdom disappears is a very waring thing.

      Delete
  6. In the company of giants
    cynical Highlander
    "“despicable and disgusting” attempt to use the dispute to his political advantage."

    Lord Monty (pleased to meet you sir)
    "The terminally dim Elmer " Killing fields of Cambodia " Gray."

    inner Bearsden Snotty Urchin
    "just when she couldn't be more inept, there she goes again, this time in a full lead lined paraglide suit. She is just so completely inept that she make all the previous tenants of her empty chair, look like intellectual colossuses"

    It is a privilege gentlemen to post alongside such masters I wish I could post such erudite comments,
    forever your servant good sirs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye, there's some good stuff gets posted here...

      I always regret that none of it is mine!!!
      :)

      Delete
  7. sorry John I genuinely did not see your comment before I posted mine in praise of my fellow (cybernats) or without a shadow of a doubt you also would have featured in my hall of fame of commentators who will be revered in an independent Scotland,
    each time gentlemen like you post an insightful comment you bring another person into the yes fold, of that I have no doubt,
    if only Bugger the Panda were here so I could heap fulsome praise on him as well?
    ah well never mind ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You called, Sir?
      Were you at the march and outside the Albanach before?

      Delete
    2. "You called, Sir?
      Were you at the march and outside the Albanach before?"
      my names king, john king 007,1/2 I thought you knew that Bugger sorry

      Delete
  8. Right first rule before you post check the other posts
    now I see Douglas I have also missed you,
    Mr Clark I salute your indefatigability, (wow got that right first time)
    and lets not forget Tris who facilitates this wonderful site without you and your good humored repartee this campaign would be a sadder place to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was feeling a bit left out ;-)

      However, when you are up against a phrase like:

      "a full lead lined paraglider suit"

      You just have to abandon hope.

      Tris runs perhaps one of the few - BBC Scotlandshire being the other exception - that uses humour as it's first line of attack.

      Delete
    2. I'm rather flattered to be mentioned in the same group as the brilliant BBC Scotlandshire. An undeserved but most welcome compliment!

      Delete
  9. Right thats it,
    now who can I slag off?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well I've added a comment, maybe it will be me?

      Delete
    2. not on your life Panda Paws

      Delete
    3. We can start a fan club here if you like...

      Delete
    4. I though M.R was the fan club ;-)

      Delete
  10. Joanne?
    Now we shouldn't mock the afflicted

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...according to the Government's figures, someone saving £100 a month will lose £170,000 over the lifetime of their policy with annual fees of 1% and £230,000 for 1.5%...."

      Is there anything that they aren't cheating us out of?

      What a corrupt country. The City of London must be one of the worst sewer pits of the world.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think I walked past her on Market St last week Tris. Walking like a tiny battleship in a swell, hair like Rosa Klebb, mouth like a pillar box slot welded shut, she went past me - and entered the Edinburgh Dungeon.

    Perhaps she has a day job...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When it comes to erudite, I think you've got it sown up there Conan...

      That is a superbly crafted description...

      Maybe that's where she hides when some crisis that would normally require the leader of the opposition to intervene, comes along.

      Delete
  13. Did you not mean 'araldite', Tris?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You two will get a good pasting if you're not careful!!

      Delete
    2. Erm you 3... I get stuck on numbers bigger than 2!¬

      Delete
    3. Yes. You should adhere to the truth.

      Delete
    4. We appear to be stuck in a rut here, tacky I know.

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure I want this to become a "fixture" here...

      Delete
    6. "Time to unglue ourselves and move on."


      No you don't, not before I get a wee shotty
      Tris is the CEMENT that holds this site together :) no?

      ah'll get ma coat (again) :(

      Delete
    7. It reads like some solvent abuse has been going on here, tut.

      Delete
    8. ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH...

      YouHoo you lot....

      I must say that MR readers are "Super".

      Delete
    9. What Gloy to have such intellectually superior readers...

      Delete
    10. I'd say 'collé', but I'm guessing that some wouldn't have a 'cloué'.

      Still, I'm 'rivé' by this exchange....

      Bugger the Panda will appreciate this (for those shaking their heads can I suggest Google translate!!)

      Delete
  14. "WHY DOES LABOUR HANG ON TO LAMONT?"

    The Labour strategy is that she's there as the punch bag for Salmond until it gets close to the next Scottish Parliamentary election which Labour are convinced will be held with Scotland still in the Union.

    At that point they assume that Alex Salmond and the SNP will have been fatally damaged by the successful "No Scotland" vote and they'll put up someone new as Parliamentary leader for Labour who's not been knocked around verbally by Alex Salmond for the past four years

    In terms of the open goals she presents to Alex with her speeches and questions I can only assume that Labour speech-writers are stupid enough to believe their own propaganda which goes along the lines of:

    1. The SNP do nothing unless it's for the referendum.
    2. Alex Salmond was Fred Goodwin's personal financial adviser and the 2008 financial crisis was partly his fault.
    3. Alex Salmond and Rupert Murdoch are best buddies and always have been.
    4. The SNP are colluding with the coalition to impose the bedroom tax on Scotland
    5. The SNP welcome energy price rises because they're buddies with all the Energy companies.

    These are all themes which Labour have presented to the press and have had the press eagerly run with or parrot to the electorate. It's called knocking the opposition so I can understand why they do it but it's now dawned on me in a kind of stunned fashion that Labour actually believe they're own propaganda and can't understand why they gain no advantage with all these true "facts" in the Parliamentary debates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it's as good a hypothesis as any other I've heard...

      It's one hell of a risky thing to do though...

      And the big question is that, in the past the succession of Labour leaders has gone from reasonably good to erm, pretty naff.

      The Great Helmsman, Mr Mcleish, Lord Jock, Bendy, (Don't sleep in the) Subway Man, and now Lamentable, each one that little bit less credible as a leader than the last.

      Where do we go from here.... The Hon. Paul Martin?

      Delete
    2. I suspect that the true reason for Lament's dreadful performance is that, by demeaning the Scottish parliament in the eyes of the electorate, they hope to persuade them from voting to extend its powers.

      This could also have the side effect of making it more acceptable to reduce that parliament's powers following a No vote.

      Or, alternatively, she may simple be a useless as she appears.

      Delete
    3. Hello BBC Scotlandshire...

      I wondered about that a few times myself.

      And, it's a worrying thought that in an independent country Lamont could possibly be first minister. But then I tell myself that this is just silly. Nothing in the world would make that happen.

      They'd even elect Wee Willie Whatsit before they'd elect her surely.

      But she would certainly be a good reason for taking back vital services to the tender mercies of the Tories in Westminster!

      Delete
    4. Tris says
      "They'd even elect Wee Willie Whatsit before they'd elect her surely."

      is the word your searching for winkie?

      Delete
    5. Winkie is the word... or at least one of them, John.

      It will certainly do!

      Delete
  15. "Labour actually believe they're own propaganda"

    Damn. It should be "their" not "they're"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just heard on air that fame is spreading as Johann Lamont will be on Any Questions next friday which is coming from Oxford.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What an embarrassment. I wonder if the BBC will feel the need to balance the hatred and bile with someone from the green party or the SNP. Probably not. I guess she will be free to spread her hatred

      Delete
  17. Has Madame Tussauds been emptying out it's back catalogue?

    What's with Blair McDougall and the enormous black bags under his eye's ...........looking through binoculars someone's smeared soot round the eyepieces?

    Pee holes in the snow doesn't begin to describe them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think he sleeps too well...remember Norman Lamont was the same. Or maybe they are half man half panda?

      Delete
  18. tris and the snp malcontents

    No worrys we or Labour that is will keep
    putting new generals/leaders and Alex
    like Napoleon can keep cutting them down.
    But eventually we or Labour will find the winning
    generals/leader.
    After all Labour can lose many generals/leaders
    the snp once they lose Alex and they will lose him
    are finished.

    Alex reached the apotheosis of his career at
    the last election since then slowly but surely
    he and the snp have bit by bit lost power and
    authority.
    come the referendum it will be bye bye Alex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...And hello Johann, Niko?

      Can you imagine her as first minister...?

      Seriously, can you?

      Delete
    2. Where did you find the magic mushrooms Niko?

      Delete
    3. "tris and the snp malcontents"
      What is that?
      an new group?

      Here let me get that for you
      http://preview.tinyurl.com/nuv6a8o
      you nearly spilled your bile there,
      careful

      Delete
    4. Interesting figures there John....

      Delete
  19. tris and the snp malcontents

    Of course i can or as the empress of the known universe.
    But the fact is when Alex fails to deliver Independence.
    the snp with CH in the lead will in their collective madness.
    tear Alex limb from limb and with much gnashing of their teeth
    throw his remains into the north sea....
    And as for the next first minister I couldn't give a toss
    just to dance a mad whirrly jig at the fall and demise
    of Alex salmond would be enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, she'd certainly be good as the Empress of the Known Universe... maybe even better as the Emrpess of teh Ps that's not yet known about... We could slip her though a blakc hole maybe....

      When Eck gets torn limb from limb and is thrown into the North Sea, will you be getting some drink in?

      And having a party?

      Just asking... because you can contact me here, and I'll bring JB down and we'll get drunk chez toi!

      You Labour supporters will be the only ones with any money then, as clearly the Bollocks Together campaign must be paying you a lot of money to support them...

      Delete
    2. Oh and btw
      you can stick your apotheosis
      right up your apogee

      Delete
    3. I can't actually... I used to be able to , but...

      Delete
    4. Interesting you should use that term, especially confirming that democracy has no place in the Labour Party. Dougthedug's point put me in mind of Beast Rabban being put in place as a bad example before some, as yet unnamed, Feyd-Rautha comes "to save the day"

      Delete
    5. Apotheosis?

      Nice word I think.

      I think that Ms Lamont's refusal to meet with the people of Falkirk Labour Party shows that she is not interested in their will, don't you think.

      I'm not sure that apotheosis (or indeed apogee) is a particularly appropriate word for her state at the moment. Nadir is prehaps more appropriate

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  20. Oh dear Niko Alex won't deliver anything as he is only the catalyst in allowing the people the right by a referendum to claim back the oldest nation in Europe to self government. The only thing which would of stopped independence was having a third question on the ballot paper but you unionists were so blinded by hatred of Alex as a person that you couldn't see the obvious outcome of voting for less or the prospect of more power, suckers big time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably their biggest mistake, because I think that all the unionist parties wanted that and the vast majority of unionist supporters wanted that.

      It would have been difficult to legislate for and the English MPs might have been against it, but they could have been whipped into order (they like that sort of thing so I'm told).

      Even I would have reluctantly accepted that as another stage on the road to independence.

      Delete
  21. Replies
    1. I think the comment below (culled from that archived page) says a lot:

      Alastair Gordon, West Lothian • 2 hours ago
      − ⚑
      After Thursday's FMQs JoLa probably thought, "It can't get worse" - now it seems it just has!
      It's not the FM that's criticising her now (let's face it, you'd expect that), it's the Falkirk branch of the Labour Party that are pointing out she's useless (and you shouldn't/wouldn't expect that)
      Are the bookies offering odds that she'll still be leader of 'Scottish' Labour by 1st January 2014? Surely it would be worth a fiver!
      Will she do a 'Bendy Wendy'?

      Delete
  22. Niko,

    malcontents? This is the winter of our discount tents.- made glorious summer by the referendum!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yay... Did Rabbie Burns really write that?

      Delete
    2. I was trying, in light of the previous puns, to join in and the best I could come up with was "wall-flower to wall-paper" so I didn't bother.

      Delete
    3. Didn't you, John? I could swear I saw something from you :) yeah look, just above this comment!

      Delete
    4. You could say it was stuck on the end... but...

      OK, this time I'll get my coat!

      Delete
  23. The immediate aftermath of a 'Yes' vote will be very interesting. I will probably vote for a 'Common Weal' candidate. or perhaps for the Greens. Though I sort of expect a new Labour - after a huge amount of infighting - to have 'learned lessons'. They always say that. I will still not vote for a party so wedded to the 'dark arts' of political persuasion.

    What ought to be obvious is that the centre of gravity in our politics will have moved dramatically towards a Scandinavian model.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s interesting Douglas.

      I've often said that my natural home would be in either the Labour or Liberal party, as they "should" be.

      But the Liberals have ruled themselves by allowing the Tories to proceed with most of their evil plotting against "ordinary" people. (And yes, I know that only this morning they scuppered that silly woman May's plans to make tourists pay of £3,000 bond, which was a bit counterintuitive considering that they have just dismantled every impediment to Chinese coming to the UK.) Willie Rennie has had every chance to distance himself from the London party, and has failed dismally to do so.

      And since Blair the warmonger and right wing nut job managed to bend the Labour party into a carbon copy of the Tories I gave up on them.

      Yes, I think they will change given the freedom to stop appealing to the South East of England that independence will bring, but who could trust people who totally betrayed their party's ideals and went out of their way to court the bankers and the city of London, ennobled half their ex-MPS (what happened to scrapping the House of Lords?) and sold the working class down the river, preferring to bomb innocent people in Baghdad to worrying about the miserable situation of the old and sick in their own country. The Scottish branch also could have distanced themselves from these right wing policies, but didn’t. It’s been sickening to watch people like Lamont, so clearly of working class background, spout London centric policies that damage Scotland. She and her likes are opportunists. And that’s without mentioning the moronic and xenophobic behaviour of Curran and the barefaced lies of Jackie.

      I'm reasonably Green, but I reckon they are a bit extreme for me, and whilst I can't help thinking that the Scottish Socialists, well meaning though they may be, are not in any position to form governments.

      So, I guess, depending on what happens to the SNP after the YES vote, I might stick with voting for them. At least for the first term. They have proved that they are competent and that they have the skills to govern. They will also have Scotland’s best interests at heart and people like Salmond and Sturgeon have shown that they are no one’s poodles.

      It would be interesting to know what others think...

      Delete
  24. Its something that has perplexed me and quite a few others as to how utterly awful the Scottish labour party has become. Mr Peatworrier has posted something on this just recently, and well worth a look.
    For me though I reckon it is a more simple chain of events leading to an inevitable meltdown. The first was the hollowing out of the Scottish labour party. There is absolutely no talent on the labour front bench nor it seems on the back benches in Holyrood. All the talent went south, nothing was kept to man the line in Holyrood as they never dreamt they could lose control of Holyrood. The 2nd event was when they lost Holyrood.
    This left labour with a zero talent front & back bench, populated with people who could at best be described as local council material. The SNP have always had Scotland first and foremost in their minds and so their heavy hitters resigned WM positions to take seats in Holyrood. And they have kept the bulk of their talent in Scotland. The combination of these two events is pretty self evident. Scottish Labour had no strategy in place to challenge the SNP, they instead spent most of their time making things personal or trying to force a vote of no confidence. When 2011 came around the Scottish electorate made their own vote of no confidence in labour. Scottish labour still struggling with no direction or any talent whatsoever have decided to simply rinse and repeat what they did last time around. They have also started to look unbalanced as they lay claim to those that didn't vote as being for "them" neatly forgetting that the problem with the silent majority is that they are "silent".
    They have shown themselves to be dishonest in the extreme by laying challenges at Salmond for things he & Holyrood have no responsibility for, interlaced with idiotic outbursts about squirrels, 1970s ladders, 2nd hand pies and Scotland's on pause, when clearly events show that it isn't.

    Trying to figure out what they stand for is another issue. They seem hell bent on pursuing bedroom tax claims, despite the party finally agreeing that it should be repealed. Why? Why do this, unless it is a puerile attempt to "get" at Salmond. Why isn't HE stopping it, what is HE going to do about it. Knowing that there is little he can do about it. Only if Scotland was independent could he promise to stop it. Westminster holds the reins of power there and Labour well knows this. They are doing a lot of harm, just to get at one man.

    Lamont's something for nothing culture and her commission for cuts. Universalism is paid for by taxes. Its not free. Its paid for. And it is the wealthier citizen who pays the most. Simply being wealthy does not mean they use it more often, that is utterly absurd. But it is their wealth that underpins it. Lamont's attack of these people shows that she lacks not only historical perspective but that she also lacks judgement.
    A historical perspective would have reminded her that right of centre politics has never really prospered in Scotland. Only once did it come close and that was a party that was completely Scottish and had no English counterpart. A sense of history would have told her what happened to that party in time. A quick look at the lib-dem bench would have told her what happens when you parrot a tory agenda. But she did it all the same. Was she simply aping her paymasters in London, who are busily trying to pursue a right wing vote. Was she told to do it, or lacking experience and judgement, simply did it thinking if it was good enough for Miliband it must be good enough for Scotland?

    Its clear to me that Lamont, her party and her politics have become deeply dysfunctional as a result of internal and external conflicts. couple with the lack of experience and talent across the whole swathe of Scottish labour, it is amplifying these issues to almost surreal and destructive levels.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Great summation, James.

    There is no doubt that most of Labour’s talent does go south. South where there is a prospect of power in what remains, for whatever reason, a state with some apparent influence.

    In my opinion, that appearance of influence is the need of the USA to have an ally upon which it can always depend, and a mouth in Brussels/Luxembourg/Strasbourg.

    The opportunity to one day be in the same room as the presidents of China, France and the USA and appear to have influence in world affairs draws the talent away from their home. The attitude that Edinburgh is just a wee regional council (Blair said Parish Council, which I believe is an English political body) is prevalent in their thinking.

    As you say, most of the real talent in the SNP is in Edinburgh, although in fairness there are some formidable voices in London. MY own MP Stewart Hosie is certainly no slouch on matters of finance, and wiped the floor with the Noble Baron Robertson of somewhere that speaks Gaelic, in a recent debate in Dundee
    .
    I think that it is hard for the No campaign to argue seriously against independence as the real figures show all the things that they want to hide.

    So they have resorted to picking on Alex Salmond who is, like most leaders, a man you either love or loathe.

    It’s regrettable that they seem incapable of understanding that the only people they impress with this rhetoric are those who are already NO voters. That’s not the name of the game. Convincing people who are already convinced is no great achievement. More of an ego trip.

    The lies are again designed to impress those who already dislike the SNP. A pointless exercise, and as more and more lies are revealed probably counterproductive. When in the last 16 weeks the BBC is obliged by the electoral commission to be balanced in its coverage, and the newspapers will probably have to make some attempt at that (otherwise they will seem to be behind the curve) it is likely that more of their lies will be uncovered.

    We watch FMQs and see Lamont accuse the FM of things over which he has no power, but how much does the general, non political public see of this?


    continues...

    ReplyDelete
  26. continued

    They stand for what they are told to stand for by London.

    As we have agreed, Labour sees London as the place to be. The place where they can go down in history; meet presidents and kings, plan wars. Elections are won and lost in the south east of England where the bulk of the population lives.

    Our common weal, Scandinavian leaning politics would go down like a lead balloon in the land of Thatcher’s every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost of stockbroker belt England.

    The people of Chipping Norton simply don’t largely care about the poor, whom they see as feckless and lazy, or foreigners (except Americans) whom they see as scroungers. But Labour must try to win places like Chipping Norton.

    And so we get Mrs Lamont’s support for nuclear weapons and her commission on cuts…

    If you put the brain drain to London, and the hegemony of London together, you get a hopeless out of depth leader of the Scottish branch office, who has to, at all costs be kept away from anything of importance, for fear she reverts to type, or simply doesn’t understand what the clever people are talking about.

    Well…that’s my view anyway. I apologise to her if I’m underestimating her abilities. But it’s certainly the way it comes over.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "So, I guess, depending on what happens to the SNP after the YES vote, I might stick with voting for them. At least for the first term. They have proved that they are competent and that they have the skills to govern. They will also have Scotland’s best interests at heart and people like Salmond and Sturgeon have shown that they are no one’s poodles."

    You are probably right. It would be a bit of a jolt for me to vote for anyone else. But that is the opportunity we are opening up for ourselves. I want the imaginative politics that other voices portray. It is the option to think otherwise, widdershins, that excites me about our future. Not the poverty of imagination that the Unionist case represents.

    It is not all about oil, it is about transferring to economically sustainable renewable energy. I, for one, will argue till the cows come home that the true route to that is tidal. Perhaps combined with hydro.

    For independence to work we have to use our brains and our resources in an incredibly intelligent way. We can do this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that we must have open up other parties. It's only sensible and of course it will happen. A new centre right party will almost certainly be on the cards.

      I agree too that it isn't about oil. We could manage perfectly well without it, depending on the debt we inherit from the broke UK. But with it we will be able to really start to improve people's lives and put some by in the good old fashioned Scottish fashion, for a rainy day.

      We can indeed do it, of that I have absolutely no doubt.

      Delete
  28. The SNP vote share collapsed in Dunfermline, and the by-election in Donside saw similiar swings to Scottish Labour.

    So this being the political reality, that Scots are coming home to Labour, I find it comical that some on this blog continue to promote the surrealism that is 'Natland'.

    A strange multi-verse where Big Eck is still enormously popular, that separation is knocking on the door (and not, say, running far behind 'No' in vast majority of polls)...

    Lets face facts, Scots want social democracy, but without the farcical tax and spend psuedonomics that we know associate with the SNP. A governing executive who think everything can simply become 'free' if Laird Salmond deigns to make it so...

    Lamont is correct, the SNP shouldn't be playing politics with the big issues of the day like energy prices or industrial Scotland.

    For Scots Labour, what is workable is the solutions. For the SNP, its what can further their 19th century nationalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One by-election does not an general election make.

      Lamont is wrong Dean, what should a elected Scottish parliament be doing with big issues that effect Scots? Did Lamont not lambast him for doing nothing whatsoever? What would she have done Dean? Going by your argument, she too would have done nothing.

      Is that what labour will do if it gets into Holyrood in the event of a no vote? shrug their shoulders & say - The big issues?, nothing to do with us, we're Scottish.

      What is scots labours solutions to the big issues - leave it to Westminster? Would this be the same Westminster that is reducing the UK to near total levels of poverty. Social justice dean? from a party that keeps claiming it will be worse than the current lot. I am supposed to put my faith in Westminster led by these clowns being opposed by another group of clowns who will say anything and do anything to get into office?

      When I mentioned universalism, did I not state that it was not "free" that it was paid for by taxes. Did I not state this? Is this not the stated position of the SNP as well? that it is paid for by taxes? If universalism is based on tax distribution then it is clear that the wealthier citizen pays the most towards it. In you nonsensical attacks on it, you imply that these people have no right to this assistance with prescriptions. Playing the Tories game of trying to set one group of people against the other, while raising the spectre of cuts and means testing. You cannot say to a group of people that they are not entitled because they earn to much and then expect to keep taking that money from them. In time they will turn to parties who will do away with that altogether.

      Social justice dean? This from the party whose light touch regulation of the banking sector heralded the greatest transfer of public wealth and assets into private hands? Who gave ATOS their first contract, who raided pension funds, who once tried to do with the social fund in favour of credit cards, and who once thought they would raid dormant bank accounts. You want me to put my faith in a system as dysfunctional as that?

      lastly - SNP does not have 19th century nationalism. It was founded in the 30s. But labour however was founded in the 19th century and its founder, as Scot. Keir Hardie believed in home rule for Scotland.

      Delete
    2. Can't add anything much to that, James.

      Spending more on social welfare or social security or whatever isn't necessarily about higher taxes, although I'd hope that Scotland wouldn't be a free for all for the spivs that pay less tax than their servants.

      It's about using the money sensibly.

      Universality is a Labour founding principle.

      If you start means testing where do you stop, Dean...please answer this?

      Do you think, for example, that people who have some money should pay for prescriptions? Should they pay more, the more money they have. In England if you have a job, or if you are on non means tested benefit, you have to pay £7,50 or thereby, per item. Only pensioners, children, people with certain conditions (diabetes) and people on means tested benefit are exempt... But whether you earn £100 a week or £100 a minute, you still have the same cost. And even if you are Bruce Forsyth, you get your prescription for free when you are retired.

      Do you think this is fair. Is it fair to someone on £15,000 a year that they pay the same for their medication as someone of £5 million a year?

      If people should pay for tertiary education, why shouldn't it be properly means tested. Those on average salaries pay teh £9,000 that is the going rate in England, those on £3,000 get help, but those like say the children of multi millionaire Tony Blair pay £30,000?

      Would you agree with that, or do you think that it is only poor people who have to be humiliated by filling in forms and disclosing their personal details to clerks?

      I'm perfectly happy for you to believe that the SNP is a busted flush. Suit yourself. But I think it is burying your head in the sand.

      It has been noted elsewhere that Labour people are starting to ask where Lamont is... and where she was when the Grangemouth plant was falling down...


      Delete
  29. Dean MacKinnon-Thomson,

    Nothing could be further from the truth:

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/dunfermline-result-provides-further.html

    Labour is a busted flush.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By-elections half way through a parliament almost invariably go to the opposition except in the safest of safe seats.

      Why even the Liberals used to take seats in by-elections before they became Tories.

      You remember Wee Willie Rennie took a labour seat, and promptly lost it at the next election when people were actually voting for a government. They clearly didn't want a Liberal government and who could blame them.

      In the case of Bill Walker' seat, come on. It was a safe Labour seat. It was taken by a tiny majority at the last election and then Walker was disgraced and set to prison.

      That the SNP threw him out of the party in exactly the same way as Ed Miliband (not Johann Lamont) threw out Eric Joyce, didn't make any difference to the fact that he was associated with the SNP (as Joyce is with Labour).

      In a safe Labour seat it was pretty unlikely that the SNP 6 years into government with the Walker legacy were going to keep their seat.

      Jame's piece suggest however that if the swing caused by a wife beater were repeated all over the country the SNP would still beat Labour.

      Delete
  30. Universalism is alive and well in the Labour party, the slippery slope arguments put about by James, Tris et al I respectfully disagree with. Let me explain why.

    When Ed Balls announced that under Labour we'd cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners this does not constitute an assault on the founding principle of universalism in our party. It also happens to be a principle I fundamentally believe in too incidentally.

    What it does represent is a very minor saving on a very minor benefit going to the richest 10% of pensioners in the UK. Ed Balls and Miliband have been at pains to make clear that under Labour there would be no knife taken to universalism expressed more widely for example in bus passes or television licences.

    I'm just not convinced that this slippery slope argument means that a very reasonable saving here, means the end of universalism as the (vital) founding ethic behind our social security, our brilliant welfare state.

    Slippery slope arguments are used often disingenuously and rarely become realised in real life. After all the likes of Norman Tebbit argued that if you lot let gays like me marry, its a slippery slope leading to incest. Is that likely to ever happen? Of course not, because society would JUST SAY NO to extreme ideas. Traction is only gained if the majority of our society endorse the ideas in question, and universalism is very much here to stay (and long may it remain so).

    As with extending the marital bed to include gays hasn't led to the end of the sanctity of marriage, ensuring that a future Labour government happens by pledging to make savings by removing it from the extreme 105 wealthy pensioners won't lead to the end of universalism.

    Is it right the Queen can claim winter fuel allowance alongside the poorest subject? I think not, and it doesn't threaten universalism for Labour to seek to make sure the likes of Sir Fred the Shred doesn't get free winter fuel allowances. Plus it makes sure we kick out this vile Tory coalition which WILL end universalism unless they are kicked out of office post haste!

    The only policy that would spell an end to univeralism isn't another Labour government north or south of the 'border', but a Tory majority. And that, dear friends, is inevitable unless Scots back Labour. A vote for the SNP in the Tayside opens the door to the ultimate threat to all of us, the Tories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't talking about Universalism Dean. I was addressing Lamont's lack of judgement and indeed her capability to govern. - I was also addressing the mistakes your party made. I was drawing attention to the blunder of Lamont choosing to make cuts to universalism as a means of attack the SNP.

      To be honest given the odd see-saw display we saw over bedroom tax, workfare and indeed a the current crisis regarding shrinking incomes. I am unable to accept the argument that Universalism is safe in labours hands. I don't see labour undoing the damage done to the English NHS. I don't see them undoing the injustice of workfare and the real damage this is causing the economy. I don't see them as being able to tackle the crisis with energy bills as no sooner did Miliband announce his freeze than they announced price rises. There are probably going to be 2-3 of these until the GE, making the freeze seem like too little too late. You talk about slippery slopes dean. Well it was Labour who de-regulated the energy markets, it was Labour who introduced the bedroom tax and it was labour who started workfare. The very least labour could do is apologise. I mean they opened the door, the Tory party just walked through it. The tory party don't need a majority Dean, they have the Lib-dems, and they're pulling down the concept of universalism right now, right this minute. Let me re-iterate this point. The tory party has won. Scotland voted for labour in 2010 but England wanted the tories, so we got the tories. Labour and by extension Scottish labour, needs the English vote more that it needs the Scottish vote.

      lastly trying to use the queen as justification for cuts...really? the idea that HM applies for these is absurd - as is the notion that 600k of the richest pensioners can in anyway make the necessary savings. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul only works if Peter had any money to begin with.

      Delete
  31. Replies
    1. Firstly about Lamont about 1hr 7 mins in.

      As to the hypocritical Labour party over universalism try learning about politicians and their forked tongues.

      340 MPs get their energy bills paid on EXPENSES to heat second homes - with one claiming £5,822

      As to your last paragraph which is total mince e.g feeble 50 who couldn't stop a Tory government as history and facts show mind you you have been told that before but you refuse to accept it.

      Delete
    2. Dean...

      erm... hardly bad!!! (specially when I look back at some of my mistakes in this thread!)

      Well, I’m not sure that it is, Dean. Ms Lamont did talk about a wide range of things that Scots got for nothing (some of them brought in under her own party, some which have been brought in in Wales under her own party) and said we couldn’t afford to have these things for free.

      Bus passes, prescriptions, tertiary education… we couldn’t have it all without sky high taxes as they have (allegedly) in Scandinavia.

      The Jimmy Reid Foundation appears to think that we can, but Ms Lamont thinks not, and to this end she set up a commission to look at universality. It won’t of course report back until after the referendum of course.

      I certainly see your argument about the nonsense of the Queen getting bus pass, or free education for William at St Andrews or free prescriptions for Prince Phillip at his advanced age…
      I accept that Fred Goodwin and Alex Salmond and Wee Willie Rennie don’t need these things free because they are paid a very handsome salary. But what I was asking was… where do we draw the line, and should we say that richer people should not only pay what the English pay, but why not more.

      After all a prescription drug may well cost thousands of pounds. You or I couldn’t afford it. But Fred Goodwin could. Why wouldn’t he have to pay more than Mr Average who pays £7,50.

      Or why should Mr Blair’s kids get subsidised education at £9,000 pa? A year at uni clearly costs more than that, so as a very rich man, why should he be subsidised by the taxes I pay?

      I do understand what you are saying though, and it is a valid point. It is just that simply taking away from “the squeezed middle” isn’t my idea of a good solution.

      Of course if the filthy rich paid their taxes instead of dodging them then we would be very capable of paying for everyone.

      I’m not convinced either by the argument that against the “slippery slope”, although I do agree with the example that you give being quite right. Tebbit is a fossil and we all know he is not alone in this. The SNP has its fossils too. But the notion that if you allow marriage between same sex couples then people will wish to marry their dogs or their sons, or whatever is just silly. … no, idiotic, and more or less what you would expect from Sir Lord Prince Norman. Legalising homosexuality didn’t lead to any increase in paedophilia, incest or bestiality and Norman is a dick wit!

      But Mrs Thatcher took away the “earnings related” element of unemployment benefit (one which most European countries have so that short term unemployment doesn’t mean selling the car and taking your kids out of their dance classes or rugby team. After she got away with that, she then reduced the amount of entitlement that your NI contribution gave you from 12 months to 6, and Cameron reduced it to 0 months…

      If we had kicked off at the beginning when Thatcher tried to take away something from Brits which at least most other countries had, she wouldn't have gone farther with it.



      Delete
    3. Interesting piece, rather well balanced fro the BBC. I thought a Scotsman jouno and a former advisor to Lord Jock of Skirt (come on, a kilt without tartan is a skirt) would be pretty biased. They turned out not to be.

      Lamont is going to ahve to be allowed to say stuff, otherwise she really isn't doing her job... but they don;t trust her to say anything. So when a Scottish MP who reports to her misbehaves Ed Miliband deals with it; when there is possible corruption in Falkirk, a Scottish constituency under her leadership, Ed Miliband deals with it, and when the union she is in is in a dispute which closes one of the biggest plants in Scotland, she has nothing to say... and I hear that she didn't turn up at the meeting in Falkirk today, as was requested by Labour members.

      As for the MPs... sickening. I'm happy to announce here that Stewart Hosie, my MP, claimed £0.0.

      Well done Stewart!

      Delete
    4. East Dunbartonshire needs looking into.

      We are getting to the stage where it's almost impossible to trust anything. I hope that there was scrutiny of the postal votes in Dunfermline.

      Delete
  32. Opportunity knocks

    “Well, it might have been that Denis, who I have undying love and respect for, felt he underplayed it but the reality is that the Tories then didn’t underplay it, they completely obscured it whilst taking the swag and I think it was one of the most untransparent and unfaithful acts of modern government, in terms of the way they treated oil and its potential and the point is that had we had a sovereign fund, it would have made it much more difficult for Maggie to squander the revenues, which some people put at over £200bn, certainly well over £120bn, and what was an obvious resource for the total renovation of the British social and economic infrastructure: schools, hospitals, old people’s homes, motorways, computers, whatever, we had nothing to show for it because it was all given away in tax concessions, most of which were exported.

    Never again will I trust a unionist politician especially Scottish Labour ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He didn't complain much about it at the time. Denis Healy and presumably Neil Kinnock knew what it was worth and they did nothing, said nothing, and I wonder if they ever demanded a sovereign fund, for the UK never mind Scotland.

      Delete
  33. Is this Dean Dean the Tory?

    Not surprised he finds his home now in aLabour Party where Leadership Candidates can openly say that the party is not there for the poor, where Universal Entitlement is abandoned even when means testing costs and his new party, in Councils, is sending out letters threatening people who can't pay the Bedroom Tax with eviction AND with taking their children .

    Dean, if the same one, still a nasty piece of work

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just love the bravery of someone hiding behind anonymity making such bold statements. What a decent human being/ keyboard warrior you are anonymous.

      Delete
    2. What is wrong with what Anon has written as it is the truth?

      I suspect you know that so your only way of debating the fact is attack the messenger soooo Labour.

      Tory/Labour run council sends out Bedroom Tax eviction letters

      Tory/LibDem/Labour all the same protecting the corruption in the City of London.

      Three Bank of England advisers implicated in FX market rigging probe
      Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/11/three-bank-of-england-advisers-implicated-in-fx-market-rigging-probe/#Z9pOF09Uus7D6rIo.99

      Delete
    3. One more thing Dean when is the Nikodean big debate feature which you both complain that there is a lack of from this side?

      Delete
  34. so that's a confirmation of being the same Dean then? No comment on the fact your new home is just as nasty as your old one? perhaps you agree with evicting people for not being able to afford extra for that room the specialist equipment for their disabled child is stored and then taking the child into care. Perhaps that is your idea of goid governance

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think that we should manage to debate this without resorting (on either side) to personal insults.

    Politicians are fair game for insults, although substantiated argument is always more satisfying... but as I admitted above, ive been known to descend to slagging off a member of the royals or indeed a poltiticain on less than an intellectual argument.

    But I reckon that between us we should tyry to keep it civil.

    We know we don't agree about stuff, and one man's nasty is another man's reasonable...

    I think that just because Labour betray their origins and neglect their constituency, often for their own personal gain, it doesn't mean that their followers are necessarily nasty people.

    I'd like to hear Dean's take on the foul threatening letter and indeed threats of taking kids into care, as reported by a Labour supporting paper.

    I suspect tthat he heartily disagrees with it.

    There are things that the SNP does that I disagree with.

    There are probably things that they do that are plain wrong sometimes, but that doesn't make me nasty.

    So can we raise it above personal insults ... please :)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Will Johann resign before the end of the week? That is is the question as media pressure is building on her continual silence over alleged candidate manipulation.

    Is she trembling?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. There is no one to replace her...

      No wait... don;t read this with your mouth full though...

      Kazia Dugdale....

      Well, I warned you and if you choked it's nothing to do with me.

      Delete
    2. Ah Kazia. I remember her as Fifi la Bonbon.

      Delete
    3. Ohhhhhhh... seriously was that her?

      I remember once pointing out to her that it was Fifi LE Bonbon...

      Articles agreeing with their noun and all...

      It went down very badly, I fear.

      Delete
  37. Don't worry Tris, I won't engage in personalised insults like those who bravely hide behind anonymity and keyboards.

    One simply hopes they aren't as rude in real life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't improve the debate.

      ...and it makes the blog feel a less pleasant place to be.

      Delete
    2. Tris

      I'll make it less directed then, despite the last wee side-swipe above, but I will continue to point out where Labour are arrant hypocrites, who dumped their principles in order to attract right-wing voters happy to punish the poor for being poor.

      Delete
  38. BBC Scotland news at 10.15 tonight was mainly about the Falkirk stushie, I was enjoying a game of " which one's Grahamski?" from the procession of muppets they had on denying anything was wrong but it should never happen again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you work it out in the end? :)

      I don;t think that this will go away...and yet it seems to be a totally internal thing.

      Maybe Cameron is stirring a bit, but I don't hear any overt troublemaking from Yes.

      Delete
  39. I hardly think it's 'Brave' to put your name to a post on a blog or 'cowardly' not to.
    To Deans main point about the Labour Party in Scotland, not being on a slippery slope, I must Disagree.
    If you trace the membership numbers as well as overall votes they garner at national elections in Scotland, you would see a steady trend of decline, so much so that Labour are actively hiding their own membership numbers.
    The fact that Labour held on to overall control of Glasgow last year was cause of huge relief and celebration in Labour (GLASGOW!!!) because they had a genuine fear that they might loose overall control to the SNP, something that would have been unthinkable to have considered just 15 years ago.
    The lies included in the Dunfermiline leaflets as well as Johann silence over Falkirk/Grangemouth, is causing disillusionment within Falkirk LP, each of these issues causing further erosion of Labour support.

    Labours is standing very close the point of no return and I can envisage a sudden and rapid decline, as the UK press begin to dig deeper into the Falkirk/Grangemouth and now Dunbartonshire fiascos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that tehy are in decline, and it is their fault for pretending to be something they are not.

      The say they are separate from London Labour, but they are not. They say that Ms Lamont in the leader, but she is not, or if she is she must delegate her responsibilities to Mr Miliband.

      They have become a centre right party against the real wishes of their constituency in order to buy votes from the prosperous south east of England. They don;t want to frighten the rich with any mention of socialism, nationalisation or social security benefits...

      They sould out to the rich. They should hang their heads.

      Delete
  40. Like Tris, I would also like to hear from people who support the Labour Party if they are comfortable with people being sent threats of eviction coupled with threats to have their children taken away by Social Services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's fair that they may abhor this and still support Labour, but I think an explanation of people's feelings.

      I know that Niko has on occasions (when he's being serious) expressed real dismay and disappointment at a party he has supported all his adult life.

      I don't want to take party advantage from it, but I would like to know from Labour supporters what it is that they think is so good about the present party.

      Delete
  41. Tris

    You seem to have opened either a huge debate or a can of worms. It's why I read your blog daily lol. Scottish ' Branch ' Labour, as anyone reading my rants will know, are not my favourite party at all. I actually despise them more than the Tories. With the Tories you know what you are going to get and there is a warped honesty about them in how they go about government, they are basically rich enough not to care and use the state arms very effectively to shit on the poor knowing the poor will not fight back.

    New Labour or whatever they are called now have no excuse what so ever. They are a bunch of lying money grabbing no marks. First they pretended to be socialist without ever actually doing anything really socialist in their lives. They have mis-managed Government everytime they have been in power, any good they have achieved has been more of an accident than a design or they have made a little change to keep the plebs happy in their core areas. It just doesn't do them to improve the lives of the most vulnerable. They don't want the poor to go into further education in case they get educated and start to vote for someone else. They don't want full employment because the poor will then move away from their core areas and will start to vote for someone else, they don't want life expectancy to improve because abject poor health and poverty allows them to blame everyone else and shout from the rooftops VOTE for us we are the only ones who will protect you as we dip your pocket while your not looking. The Labour Party are a disgrace, they are only interested in themselves and how much they can milk the system. Now I have no doubt there are some decent members but if they can't see Labour for what they are then they deserve what they get, the sad part of that statement is that in Scotland it means they inflict this toilet bug of a party on the rest of us.

    Now Johann Lamont, along with Curran, has got to be not only the worst Labour politician in Scotland but also the most loathsome. Not only is she a terrible person to lead anything, she doesn't come across as very bright and I don't mean intelligence, she has no common sence. She is so blinded by her hatred of Alex Salmond and all things SNP that she has already lost. I could understand if this hatred was about politics and improving the lives of all Scots and people who live here but it is not, it is just pure blind hatred and like something from the Soviet era blind abedience to the party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is good to provoke argument... and I'm always pleased when I do it.

      This must be the most commented on post in Munguin's history adn I'm happy that so many people have felt the need to add a comment.

      I more of or less agree with your points, although I think that along the way Labour has done a lot of good as well as a lot of harm.

      Most notably obviously the 1945 government of Clement Attlee, which set up the Welfare State, and the wartime government which Attlee ran, while Churchill concerned himself with the war. Imagine managing to bring in the 1944 Education Act while still at war. Attlee was the man!

      I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I'd like to come back to some of your points later, Bruce if I may...

      Delete
  42. Lamonts vision is not a prosperous Scotland, a healthy Scotland, a democratic Scotland, a socially just Scotland and an Independent Scotland(I know she is a unionist). Lamont I feel would be happy to see the end of Scotland, she would be happy for Scotland to be North Britain or just plain old England. She would be happy for NI and W to be called England too, her ambitions are not for the improvement of people's lives or life chances but of her own, her party etc. When will people stand up and see the damage that these people have done to our country and continue to do today, when will the west coast wake up and shake off this unionist rubbish that has kept them poor, unhealthy, unemployed, under educated and cannon fodder. They need to stop supporting a political party that stoke up sectarianism as it is good for their vote in the west and whose only mantra is to keep people down so they can be kept up. I would rather have Tory rule and what that means than have to put with a party filled with people with no principles or honesty, decency or honour. I voted Labour once, I think it was around 92 when they had Kinnock, and then I took an interest in politics and soon saw that they were a bunch of wankers who would sell my granny to get where they wanted to be and screw the rest of us. I live in hope that the west coast and the islands will wake up before it's too late and stop voting Labour/Liberal. I hope that they can put aside their hatred of the SNMP and vote YES, then take control of their political movements and build a movement that truly reflects their beliefs.

    I consider myself a Liberal, certainly a hell of a lot more left than the current bunch, but a Liberal all the same. The day after the YES vote I will join the Liberal Democrats and work hard to get the Carmichals, Campbells, Swinsons, Rennies out in Scotland and a proper Liberal party in place.

    If we all truly want what is best for Scotland, for ourselves and our neighbours then we all have to take responsibility. If Labour members in Scotland don't have the balls to clean out their party of the cancer that is Curran and Lamont then they should vote YES and start again. They owe it to us all and that includes NIKO and DEAN, the gains that they mention at times in the main have come about as a result of a nationalist party in Government, we owe it to ourselves not to give up now. If we vote NO then we will have lost forever, we will be slaves forever and people like Lamont will have lovely, comfortable, warm, well fed lives at the expense of the rest of us.

    Lamont is a plank.

    Bruce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think many people will join other political parties once the referendum is over, Bruce.

      But hopefully, like you, to change them. Make them Scottish.

      The trouble is at the moment that unionist parties are interested in teh bigger picture. The UK.

      I don;t blame them for that. 9/10 of the population more or less, is English. It is right that they have the majority of the say. And when we appeared to have the same ideas and inspirations as them, tehn I suppose the union was OK.

      But we don;t. You only have to look at the number of times we have had to say "Scotland opposes...Westminster imposes" over then last few years, to know that we point in different directions.

      I'm not sure how the average Englishman in Stafford for example, feels about the country having the 4th largest military spend in the world while 1200 people die in their local hospitals because of neglect... and lack or resources and the Red Cross delivers their parcels to people down their road.


      But if it were happening here, I know how I'd feel.

      We need parties in Scotland that work for Scotland, and whatever anyone says about the SNP, that is what they do. Scotland first, other people second.

      Not surprisingly the UK parties say England first... why wouldn't they.

      I suspect that they would get rid of lamont if they could...if they had anyone to replace her, but she was the best they had and Anas Sarwar was the second best...

      Pffffffffffffff ...

      Who was third best?

      The only decent one wouldnt stand.

      Delete