RAMBLINGS ON WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT... PART 1

So... We did not badly last night, did we?

I was far too pessimistic, as ever. I just couldn't believe that it was even possible for us to get over 50 seats. I couldn't conceive that Labour, which had ruled Scotland since forever, would melt even more quickly than the Tories did after Thatcher laid waste to the country.

But damned hard work from the SNP, from Nicola Sturgeon, who never stopped, to the candidates, who were out day and night, tweeting and meeting, to folk going round chapping doors, putting leaflets through letter boxes, putting posters up in windows and gardens...and yes, Munguin, blogging, secured an unimaginable (at least to me) victory.

And now the work starts.

First let's kill dead the Labour narrative that if Scotland had only just voted Labour as usual, like it's supposed to do, we would have had a Labour government. 

We wouldn't. 

If every single seat in Scotland had sent a Labour MP to Westminster, we would still have had a Tory government. 

Currently the Tories have 325 seats; Labour 229. If the 58 seats in Scotland which did not vote Labour had done so, they would have had 287 seats and the Tories would have had 324. (Check my arithmetic. I only had about an hour's fitful sleep.)

Because the English voted Tory, like the English almost invariably do, we have a Tory government.

So leaving that behind, what went right for the SNP was that they worked hard for sure, but they also had a positive message about Scotland and about the future. And that wasn't anything to do with independence. No matter what Jim and Kez were saying.

It was about getting us what we were promised.

Gordon Brown, in partnership with David Cameron, and with Miliband and Clegg in tow, made us promises in September when they thought we were going to vote for independence. Enough of us bought these promises at face value, for Gordon to be able to claim to have saved the union, just like he'd saved the bankers, and the world, and just about the whole of civilisation, only 5 years earlier.

But the next day the promises started to fall apart. Cameron had pulled off a coup and got Gordon to sell us something that wasn't quite what it seemed.

On the day after we voted NO, thanks to promises of the best devolution in the universe, Cameron, like the sneaky little Eton boy he is, put in terms and conditions that Labour would NEVER have agreed to. 

English Votes for English Laws (EVEL), which he insisted must be a part of any improved devolution for Scotland, would mean that, effectively, Labour would never be the government of England again. Even if it won a general election depending on seats form Scotland and Wales, it would never control votes on English matters. 

In fact, it wouldn't be worth voting Labour in England, because the Tories would control everything that they proposed on English matters. And that is a large chunk of the Westminster timetable, comprising a vast spend. Why would Washington, Berlin, Paris or Beijing be interested in a government that didn't control a vast part of its territory and its laws?

Anyway, what did Gordon do about all this deceit? He fumed a little, probably smashed a few Nokias off the wall, then took off on his international jet setting and left us to stew, picking up his salary whilst being an ex-politician.

Seeing that the Clunking Fist and of course, his deadly enemy Alistair Darling, had nothing to say about the duplicity, Cameron reckoned a green light had been shown and carried on going back on much of what Brown had promised on his behalf.

[It's interesting that the Prime Minister of "our" United Kingdom, had been obliged to get Brown to deliver his promises because of his own unpopularity in Scotland. Nor was he able to send his deputy, or his Secretary of State. In fact he couldnt even ask the leader of the opposition. They were all seen as too unpopular.]

The Smith Commission was duly set up. But now Labour didn't want to devolve much to Scotland, because whatever was devolved to Scotland would be effectively devolved to England, and outwith their control.

Then when a very watered down Smith Commission reported, it reported not to the people of Scotland, but to a largely English Tory and Liberal Cabinet, which pulled it to pieces.

Some of what had been promised was simply not allowed because it offended Iain Duncan Smith or Theresa May; some of it turned out to be illegal anyway, like the setting in stone of the Edinburgh parliament.

No one stood up for Scotland except the SNP and the Greens. But in London we had no power. Six MPs isn't exactly a formidable block.

So we did something about that.

To be continued....

TORIES TAKE THE LOW ROAD...IN GERMANY

The Tory Campaign Poster

The General election campaign has started!

But the Tories appear to have taken a wrong turn already!

They have chosen the slogan... "Let's stay on the road to a strong economy", which would be more appropriate if any of us, outwith those people at the top, actually felt that there was even a modicum of truth in it. How many strong economies are £1.6 trillion in debt, and growing?

With a little adaptation

That aside, and who was expecting any truths in the campaign, of course any advertising for anything in the days of photoshopping is always open to a little adaptation so it's not surprising that some clever work from the keyboard satirists has been going on. Every party will experience that and the advertising companies employed to come up with poster ideas should take sabotage into consideration when presenting their ideas, as should the parties when selecting them!

...and some more adaptation

So some of these doctored posters must have been expected. However, the Tories' opponents couldn't have planned for the what comes next. 

It appears the road used in the advertisement is not in fact even in Britain.

The original photograph

It is claimed that the illustration is, in fact, from a photograph taken in 2008, by German photographer Alexander Burzik, not far from his home town of Weimar. 

Initially, when asked, Gideon insisted that the road was definitely in Britain, but then, after careful consideration, the Tories admitted that the road was a composite of several images, but added that they had been assured that all of the illustrations used were in Britain.

You should have checked, Gideon, because it does look remarkably like the whole thing, while doctored, was based or Herr Burzik's picture!

Stefan Drew  a marketing expert told the Mail: "When you first look at it it's just a grey road going into the distance. 

"But the more you look at it, the more you see that it's actually quite an evocative picture with a lot of hidden messages. 

"It taps into emotions – the green and pleasant land, (or should that be "grün und angenehm Land") the straight and narrow, blue skies and the patriotic Union flag."

Somewhere nearer the truth

I'm puzzled, though. 

For all the economic failures of this and previous governments, there are some very attractive roads in the UK. Some of them are reasonably straight, stretch off into the distance, and with a little bit of artistic licence could be made to look as if they were not full of pot holes.  So why complicate things by using a composite of images, whether or not they were elsewhere?
**********

Ah, that sounds just like our lovely UK

Added to all that, Gideon unveiled the poster on a government visit, seemingly violating the rules that government and party business must be kept separate.

PHIL WOOLAS FACES COURT CASE OVER ALLEGED ELECTION MISCONDUCT

Today in England for the first time in 99 years, a court will hear a case against a sitting MP’s right to be that sitting MP.

In a case alleging “corrupt practices” but this time based on the 1983 Representation of the Peoples Act, a Liberal Democrat will contest the election to the seat in Oldham East and Saddleworth of none of other than my dear friend, female underwear purchasing, and Joanna Lumley fearing, Phil Woolas. (He has an interesting life does our Phil!)

Elwyn Watkins will allege that Woolas’s campaign literature, contained, contrary to that Act, sections that were “false statements of fact in relation to the candidate's (his) personal character or conduct”.

Woolas’s election leaflets contained allegations that his opponent received foreign donations, that he had support from Muslim extremists and that he had engaged in vote-fixing. The Liberal Democrat said two publications contained many misleading and erroneous allegations about his personal character and reputation.

Given that Woolas’s majority was just over 100, Mr Watkins’ claims of character assassination may well have had a enough of an effect to change the result.

I don’t know what would happen if the judges (there are two) were to find in favour of Mr Watkins. A by-election would hardly be a reasonable course of action given that the government is now in place and Mr Watkins’ party is a part of the ruling coalition. It’s likely that, with no hope of influencing the make-up of the government, any re-run of the election in the constituency would be unable to recreate the conditions of the General Election.

It may be that the judges have the power to overturn the election result and appoint Mr Watkins to the seat.

I have no idea what Mr Watkins is like. I’m not fond of the government that his party forms part of, but Woolas is a grinning idiot, way too pleased with himself, to cocky and self assured by half and the leaflets are certainly inflamatory.

On reflection, based on the fact that the member for this constituency will make no difference to the overall make up of government, my dislike of campaign material that berates other candidates instead of laying out what THIS candidate stands for....and, I admit, my passionate dislike for Phil Woollas, I hope the judges find for Mr Watkins.

......

IF THIS IS THEIR SECRET WEAPON, LOOK OUT FOR SOME SHOCK AND AWE

For some reason beyond my comprehension, Labour has decided to rehabilitate Tony Blair in an effort to help them win the election.

He made his first intervention criticising the Tories for inconsistency and indecision while praising Gordon Brown for experience, judgment and boldness at the Labour Club in his old constituency in Sedgefield.

He said that during his decade in power he had always been known as an optimist, and he was still optimistic about Britain. (So would I be if I have a hundredth of his money.) He said: "Strange as it might seem, the financial crisis does not diminish this optimism. We are not out of the woods yet; but we are on the path out.” (Easy to say when none of it hurt you at all!)

Mr Blair's analysis is that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling made the right decisions during the financial crisis and should now be trusted to lead the recovery. (Except of course that if Brown wins the election, Alistair Darling won’t be anywhere, and we’re looking at Ed Balls for chancellor.)

"At the moment of peril the world acted. Britain acted," he said. "The decision to act required experience, judgment and boldness. It required leadership. Gordon Brown supplied it." (Ye gads, while he was swanking round the world making money with our security guards looking after him, did he even look at the newspapers?)

He accused the Tories of going to the right over Europe; going liberal when actually they should have stuck with a traditional Conservative position on law and order; and on the economy, of worrying too much about public opinion (That’s rich!)

He further accused them of being confused compared to Labour which had “chosen its path. It is mapped out. It is consistent. It is solid. It matches a strong commitment to public services with a strong commitment to reform."

Mr Blair listed Labour’s achievements so far: reduced crime, higher standards in schools, hospital waiting lists reduced from 18 months to 18 weeks. (All English only issues. He didn’t mention illegal wars or soldiers’ deaths, or MPs who think that they should not have to face the courts.)

He said that the country needed strong leadership. (He seemed to have forgotten that it is Brown we are talking about here; Brown who is renowned the world over for his dithering, for his inability to decide about anything except when he loses his temper.)

I wonder how much Labour is paying him for this intervention. I’m not sure that it is money well spent. Many people see Blair at best as insincere, at worst as a war criminal with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and British soldiers on his hands. Almost everyone must be disgusted at the way he has made money (estimated at £20 million) since he left office and that he had all his expenses paperwork destroyed, including repairs to his house the week before he left office.

I’ve never met anyone who likes him and the comments on the Times article which is my source for this post seem to bear that out.

I wouldn’t want him in my corner. Would you?

Pic: Brown and Blair; Blair; Blair: Blair and Brown (And now I'll put my Iraq experience at the service of the Isaeli-Palestinian cause)

MoD ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS RE EMBARRASSING DISCLOSURES FROM AFGHANISTAN IN RUN UP TO ELECTION

On Monday Subrosa carried a story about a truth blackout on military matters from Afghanistan in the period of Purdah which as she explains is “the period generally known to be between an election being called and taking place”.
The news comes from a memo written by Mr Gurr, the MoD’s director of Media and Communications. You can read the whole thing at Subrosa’s place from this link (and if you haven’t already read the post, can I suggest you do), but the main thrust is that the MoD is taking steps to reduce embarrassing disclosures.....

I quote this direct from Subrosa’s blog:

“Information on MoD and armed forces websites, it [the memo] says, must be 'cleansed.' Official blogs and websites must 'report factual information only.' Even internal MoD and service journals must be 'submitted for approval before publication' with 'controversial issues avoided' because 'these get into the public domain'. Another order is that 'Any activity that can be delayed should be.'

Subrosa continues: “The most distressing section of Mr Gurr's email, for me, is, 'Fatalities: Can put in public domain as now with Min (minimum I assume) quotes paying tribute to the individual.”

It seems that our government wants to make sure that nothing that might lessen its chances of being re-elected gets into the press. And keeping their podgy little trotters on the levers of power, and in the trough of course, seems to be more important to them than paying full tribute to men who may die for them.

There not a lot about this Wetminster government that I find shocking any more, but this is much lower than even I thought that even they would sink.

I suggested to Subrosa, and she agreed, that we should publish a website with links to English language newspapers in other countries, so that we can keep abreast of any information that the MoD might try to keep from us, and we bloggers can publish to make up for the supine press (at least here in Scotland) who roll over at a word from Brown.

So here’s the link.

And here's a link to Last of the Few's Facebook page

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=365628811528&ref=mf

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A FEW RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE ELECTION...

As we draw near to the next General Election the gap between the Tories and the incumbents is dangerously close. There are those, me amongst them, who think that Cameron is light and most of the shadow cabinet even lighter. In particular I have the impression that if you didn’t nail him down, Osborne would float away.

So we seem to be faced with the choice of the current bunch of tired, idealess, failed, tainted, third raters, or a bunch of untried, tainted, lightweights. Hard choice.

Over the next few months we are going to suffer the most horrific onslaught of politicking from all of them. They will tell us lies, they will jerk our emotions. They will do what they said they would never do by using their families, and in one case already upon us, their family tragedies, to try to show what good men they are.

It will be sickening. Much of it of course will go over people’s heads. Remember that under our system of government around ¾ of the seats in the London parliament are completely safe. They never change hands. After a while even people like me, interested in politics, will turn off. Some of it will be too sickening to watch or to listen to.

In Scotland both the Tories and Labour have told us that it is a two horse race. Either Brown of Cameron will be the next Prime Minister. The SNP, and for that matter, the Liberals are insignificant; they don’t matter.

Not true. They matter very very much. Although our political system is flawed badly (remember Blair had a HUGE majority with around 35% of the vote), it still does matter who you vote for.

I understand that the Civil Service chiefs and Buckingham Palace big wigs have been undergoing training as to how to deal with the prospect of a hung parliament. It looks, at this point very possible that that may be the outcome.

If things really are that close, then votes for the Liberals or the SNP are anything but wasted. Whilst it would be impossible (I think at least) for the SNP to form any kind of coalition with either party, the Liberals certainly could. This could make a massive difference to the way that the country is governed. But it is equally important that Scotland has a real voice in the London parliament. We must show them that we intend to be heard, and that the half hearted devolution settlement, or indeed most of what was proposed by Calman will not do. We can’t do that if we do not have a sizable SNP party in their parliament.

Over the last year the London Parliament has been disgraced by over half of its elected members stealing from us on a lax expenses system. (The unelected part has done its fair share of fiddling too, but there is nothing we can do about them.) There will be a strong temptation not to bother voting, because “they are all the same”.

But we must remember that, even if we all stay at home and the politicians’ families are the only ones to vote for them, we will get the politician with the biggest family as our representative...

CAMERON PREVIEWS MAJOR SPEECH ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

THIS IS an interesting video from David Cameron. If you take the time watch it (it’s around 3 minutes long) you get a summary of subjects he intends to address in a major speech tomorrow (Monday).

The thrust of the video is changes he is proposing for the new parliament. No one could deny that this one has been a disaster. The UK and its Duck House Parliament are a laughing stock all over the world. More than half our MPs have taken advantage of a loosely policed expenses regime to make, in some cases, vast amounts of money at our expenses. The upper chamber has its share of thieves too, as yet hardly investigate.

But it’s not just expenses that are the problem. The whole of Westminster is antiquated. Almost everything about it is more suited to the 19th century than the 21st. It's not fit for purpose; it's run like a gentlemen's club, full of traditions, which charming though they may be, are not producing efficient and trustworthy 21st century governance.

As Mr Cameron says this General Election is an ideal opportunity to change things. Vast numbers of the intake in May will be new; those who don’t fancy the idea of a whole new regime might be better to reconsider standing.

Cameron, however, feels that Brown’s ideas about changing the voting system are a waste of time: I disagree. However, I'm cautiously with him on other points he makes here: electing Select Committees, reducing whipping, and trying to make parliament more relevant to what the population cares about.

He’s looking for a parliament that “speaks about what we speak about; worries about what we worry about and does what we want it to do”. Noble thoughts, but isn’t that what our democracy is about and has been supposed to be about for hundreds of year? Sounds good, but doesn’t work.

In the age of the internet Cameron proposes more opportunity for the population to take part in politics. Again a great idea but how practicable is it? Didn’t Mr Brown try some sort of online Q&A, with fairly disastrous results?

He says we should be able to look at “that place, that building, that palace....” (and that’s a problem; it can’t really be a people’s parliament and a royal palace at the same time) “and think, 'it is mine'”.

This is a taster and before I seriously criticise anything I’ll wait for the speech. And I’d like to hear what changes the Liberals would like to see, given that they may well hold considerable sway in the next parliament.

And, as ever, I’d like you guys’ opinions too....

JIM MURPHY THINKS THAT THE SNP IS IRRELEVANT

Amazingly, according to the Caledonian Mercury, Labour will ignore the SNP completely during the General Election campaign in Scotland.

Jim Murphy, who will be leading the Labour Party’s election campaign in Scotland, told the Mercury that Scottish Labour party was going to concentrate solely on the Tories during the campaign, even though the Nationalists represent the biggest threat to Labour in most seats around the country and the Tories have only one seat in Scotland.

He said: “The people of Scotland know, or almost everyone in Scotland knows, that the SNP are not in with a hope in this election. They are irrelevant.”

How incredibly silly to discount the party that is in government as irrelevant. How odd too, given the most recent (European) election results, that he should dismiss the SNP in this way.

Of course Murphy’s strategy is in tune with Labour’s message throughout the UK. The election is between Labour and the Conservatives. But it is a strange one in Scotland where recent polls show that it is the SNP and Labour who are players in the country.

The Scottish Secretary has already been delivering leaflets in his East Renfrewshire constituency with a simple anti-Tory message. This could be explained by a poll over the weekend which suggested that Murphy would be one of several high-profile Labour MPs to lose their seats if the Tories secure the levels of support they have at the moment. In short Mr Murphy personally is in danger from the Conservatives, rather than from the SNP.

I imagine that the SNP will be dancing with joy at the strategy. No one would deny for a second that the only two parties who can form a government at the next election are Labour and the Conservatives, but to concentrate on what is the forth party in Scotland (in Westminster terms) seems to be folly beyond measure.

Still, who am I to disagree with the great Mr Murphy? (Snigger.)

.........

TO ADD A LITTLE DIGNITY AND GRAVITAS, WE PRESENT MRS BERCOW

Any hopes that replacing disgraced Speaker Michael Martin with John Bercow was going to add a little much needed dignity to the House of Commons were dashed today when Mrs Bercow launched her attempt to become a Labour councillor with a Press Conference where she decided to get rid of all the baggage.

It seems that Mrs Bercow was a bit of a party girl and a “ladette” in her time at Oxford, where her drinking got a bit out of hand. She reckons that she slept around a bit and enjoyed life to the full and that, although she got a grip on her drinking, she resumed her behaviour in the mid 90s when she was working in advertising.

She became teetotal in 2000 after realizing that she had put herself in danger. “I was an argumentative, stroppy drunk, picking arguments with my bosses over stupid things. Plus I’d lose my judgment and put myself in danger. I’d fall asleep on the Tube and end up in Epping or Heathrow. And I’d get into unlicensed minicabs in the early hours. All the things we’d tell our daughters not to do.”

According to an article in The Times, she decided to get it all out in the open before she starts her bid for a political career as a Labour Councillor in Pimlico. But residents of the London borough shouldn’t get too used to her. She says that she wants to be an MP at the next election. (I’m sure, however, that she must mean the one after the next.....)


Some MPs wonder if her living at the taxpayers’ expense in Speakers House in the Palace of Westminster, whilst being a councillor or an MP might compromise the Speaker’s independence.

Actually, she doesn’t sound that bright to me. I respect her right to a job doing what she believes in regardless of her husband’s job, and admire her openness. It would all have come out anyway, but she was right to be open and up front from day one.

It’s her judgement I have problems with... This is a corker of a quote from the article: Asked how it might work if she was an MP while her husband was Speaker, she said: “He’d be so tough on me though. I’d never get a question when he was in the chair. I’d have to wait till the deputy speaker was in.”

Well, that would hardly be fair to your constituents Mrs Bercow, would it?