WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?

SCOTTISH LABOUR TO BE GIVEN GREATER AUTONOMY, AGAIN!

Sorry, Scottish Labour, just how many times have we heard that?

I seem to remember Iain Gray being slapped down for assuming that he had some authority in Scotland. Indeed I recall that he had the temerity to suggest that he was the leader of Labour in Scotland. Gordon Brown was having none of that. HE was the leader of Labour in Scotland, and Mr Gray was the leader of the party in the Scottish parliament. Only the geographical distance between the two saved poor hapless Gray for a Nokia round the lughole!

Then Johann Lamont was to be given real power to steer Scottish Labour in a direction more in line with Scottish sentiment, only to resign after the referendum, complaining that she was kept out of the loop by London, that her staff were sacked without her knowledge, and that she sometimes had to wait weeks for a decision from London on the stance she should take on given situations (by which time they had passed). She said, in short, that it was impossible to run the organisation as a branch office.

Next came the short-lived Jim Murphy, who told anyone who would listen (the BBC probably) that he was his own man and nobody would tell him what to do. Except that they did, and very publicly too! And then Jim lost all but one of Scotland's 41 Labour seats in the UK parliament, most of which had been in their hands for near on 100 years.

Now Kezia Dugdale is to have much more autonomy. Heavens, if each of these leaders got progressively more autonomy, surely Kez must, by now, have more power than the President of China. And Hillary Clinton thinks she's going to be the most powerful woman in the world? Think again, sweetie!

You know, back in the early days of Holyrood there were those who simply assumed that Labour would always form the major part of the government of Scotland. Then over the past few years, that they would always form the main opposition to the government of Scotland. 

Now the notion that they will always manage to be the third party is beginning to be in doubt. 

I've been known to disagree with the views of Henry McLeish, but on this one why on Earth don't they listen to him. It's the only way forward.

Thanks to Oor Jim on Twitter for the artwork!

LABOUR DOWNSIZING ...

WELL, IN THESE HARD ECONOMIC TIMES "WE ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER..."

There has been a slight delay with Abu's article, which is entirely down to my incompetence, I might add! (Munguin has cancelled my holiday!)

In the meantime I thought you (even Niko) might enjoy seeing SLab's new Battle Bus. And the fact that they've had to ask their ex-ex-leader to lend a hand. 

But why are they are not asking Jimbo? After all, his record on not loosing one seat to the SNP is unmatched, ever, in all history.

I guess he must be off conflict solving! A splendid job for someone who could cause a rammy in an empty room and was part of a government that helped cause conflict all over the world. 

While we are on the subject of Labour chapping doors, can I just stress that it is NOT ILLEGAL (as some canvassers have allegedly been suggesting) to give your constituency and list votes to the same party.

RANDOM THOUGHTS

I was interested to read that the USA has despatched 12 F15 fighter jets to Iceland and The Netherlands in a bid to deter Russian aggression.

I thought we were spending up to £200 billion of hard working families' tax money (see, we can do that too) so that Russia wouldn't be a threat?

If Moscow is so frightened of our nuclear capacity why does the West need to threaten them with American bombers?

I'd have thought that it was high time there was a summit meeting between the Russian and American presidents, although there will be those who would argue that in his last year, Mr Obama has little authority. In nine months the reigns will be in someone else's hands. Heaven help us if it is Trump's. 

Or maybe this is what it's all about? A genuine cross party fear of a Trump presidency?
**********
Interesting comment today in the Mail (yes, who'd have thought it) by Peter Hitchens. 

To his great credit it seems he's having second thoughts, and very desperate ones too, about the mad Thatcherite (and Blairite, Brownite, Cameronite) passion for privatisation.

He reflects on how it has ruined his country. As always with these refection type articles, there is an element of "la vie en rose" (I mean seriously, no one looks back lovingly at British Leyland, do they), but there is a considerable amount of good common sense in what he's saying.

Nothing is about service; everything is about making money, and yet we are putting at risk our health service, or at least the English are, and in doing so putting at risk the service that we all rely on to a great extent at some points in our lives.

Contracts in social security awarded to private companies are measured by results that can be quantified, not by results in compassion or satisfaction. 

It's become a very different union from that which existed before the Thatcher revolution. And on balance it's not really a better one.
**********
Interesting tweet I came across this morning! I reckon that 6000 jobs in an exaggeration (UK government's figure was far smaller), and that 15,000 is underplaying the job losses. 

 

Russ‏@DickGraceless

The argument for #trident is that is costs £120bn and saves 6000 jobs The argument against #steel is it costs £1.5bn and saves 15,000 jobs

Of course there are more arguments than jobs in both cases, but SLAB's best argument for Trident is not that it makes Scotland safe, but that it supports (I think Baillie said) 11,000 jobs.

**********

While we are talking about steel, I see the old argument rehearsed so frequently by Ms Lamont has shown its face again. The Forth Crossing is being built with Spanish and Chinese steel. This is becasue the bulk of the order for steel is for a type of steel that is no longer made in this country since the Tories shut Ravenscraig. The diminution of steel making in this country has been going on for a long time. No British company tendered for the work, because they couldn't provide the standard of materials required. Of course the Scottish government could have done a Thomas Bouche and made the bridge out of unsuitable materials... after all, that ended well!

Oh yes, and there there's this... 

**********

"Oooooops, them pesky kids stitched me up!!"
**********

**********

I thought this was an interesting Facebook comment...

Nicholas Roach commented on an article.

Yesterday at 11:52 · 

Let's be clear; the "special relationship" that's so often trumpeted (every pun intended) as vitally important is only "special" when it suits the US to consider it so.

Every major European country thinks they have some sort of "special relationship" with the US, and changes of presidency effects them very marginally - unless and until, of course, the US elect a serial chancer and known dingbat to the Oval Office.

The Trumpet is such a chancer and well-known serial dingbat.

Trump is not likely to forgive nor forget that his "plans" to lay waste whole swathes of the Scottish coast were thwarted, his mindless opposition to a few offshore wind turbines was defeated and the little matter of a several hundreds of thousands of people who signed a petition to ban him from the UK may colour his opinion.

All the above and more are likely to sway his decision (should the US electorate be stupid enough to vote for him as POTUS, that is) to treat us to another round of that, oh so one-sided, US-interpretation of the "special relationship".

  

We only have a special relationship with the States if there's something for them to gain; you know, such as:

1 the UK cravenly following them into a series of unwinnable and largely illegal wars, 

2. the UK being their tame and caged attack donkey and main disrupter-agent within the EU,

3. being required to sponsor Turkey's application to join the EU,

4. making sure that TTIP has absolutely free rein to pillage and prosper from our public services, or what's left of them, unlike some of our more enlightened and less impressionable neighbouring countries, and,

5. the reciprocal deportation system which only works in one direction - deportations to the US to face justice happen often, the other way around, they never happen at all.

Whoever becomes the next POTUS will, as always in recent decades, call all the shots, hold all the cards and have a pair of loaded dice in case the other two don't achieve exactly what they want, when they want it and how they want it, and who will be the fall-guy in case things go wrong - and they so often go wrong, don't they?

If Trump is elected, the question everyone asked in the 1950/60s changes:

It used to be:

Shall I dig a nuclear fall-out shelter?

now becomes:

How deep shall I dig my nuclear fall-out shelter?

Just imagine the near future: Trump in the US, Cameron/Farage in the UK, Marin le Pen in France and a plethora of lesser fascists erupting around Europe - not a happy thought, I think you'll agree?

Discuss...

YOU CAN DO IT WITHOUT B&QING IT

One of the problems that any government, SNP, Tory or Labour will have when introducing legislation on wages is that companies will simply find ways around it.

Here is a letter from an employee of B&Q, the company which was firmly on the side of the NO campaign in our referendum and which issued warnings about paused investment if we voted YES, and, when the No side won, did more than pause investment. It closed stores all over the UK, including one which was handy to Munguin's Republic in Dundee.

The writer has called himself Kevin Smith in order to hide his identity. I hope his gender, location and career history have been similarly doctored, otherwise the management of B&Q should have little difficulty in identifying him.

It's amazing what big companies like this will do in order to avoid paying people a wage, which, although it is called "a living wage", is not.

He has a campaign going here. You might want to sign, if you think B&Q is acting unfairly. If you aren't a petition signing type, you may wish to consider your DIY shopping habits.

After their behaviour in the referendum and subsequent closing of stores, I restrict my shopping there to an absolute minimum. If I can get something elsewhere, then I will. I never cut off my nose to spite my face in boycotts*, but I spend a lot less there than I used to, and I'll spend even less now.

I wonder how proud Johann Lamont is of being associated with this company!

Here is the letter/petition.

I have worked for B&Q for over 5 years, I started in the business working as a part time customer advisor and have worked my way up to a management position. I live and work in a high cost living area of London. The past month has been one of the most difficult for me personally and as a manager.

In early February 2016, after the Government announced that the minimum wage would be increased to a new ‘national living wage’, B&Q ran a consultation of its pay and rewards framework. They proposed the following changes:

• removal of time and a half pay for working Sundays,
• restructuring of allowances for working in high cost of living areas of the UK
• removal of double time for working bank holidays (now proposed to be 1.5) 
• Removal of a summer and winter bonus equating to 6% of annual salary 

The full time customer advisors are being hit the hardest. Those who have worked within the business for over a decade and know our customers and our business the best are losing thousands of pounds a year. B&Q are asking people to sign their new terms and conditions of employment or they will be dismissed.

As a manager it has been incredibly difficult conducting consultations with people that are set to lose thousands of pounds and telling them that if they don’t sign by March 24th they will lose their job.

Big businesses like B&Q are using the national living wage as an excuse to cut overall pay and rewards for the people that need it the most. I feel ashamed to work for a business that treats their employees with so little respect. I feel ashamed to work for a business that proposes to pay neighbouring stores two separate rates of pay. I hope that there are others out there that feel the same and support this petition.

I hope that with the support of others, through signing this petition, we can influence B&Q and other businesses to reverse these changes. I also hope they acknowledge that treating people in this way will have a negative impact on their business in the future.

I've written this petition under a pseudonym to protect myself at work.

* I know I said I would boycott B&M, and I have done. That's not cutting of your nose, in my opinion because it's no effort to not go there. It's not a good store and it sells largely nasty tacky stuff, or goods you can get elsewhere, just as cheaply... Home Bargains, for example .

THE WAY AHEAD FOR LABOUR

Duncan McNeil MSP has called upon Jim Murphy to stand down from the task of reviewing the Scottish branch of the Labour Party and its electoral system.

Despite the old adage “Never interrupt your opponent while he is doing something stupid”, I cannot help but agree with him.

Murphy, as we have now said on several occasions, was the wrong person to lead a party whose membership had shown that they were begging it to move to the left.  

In their droves, Labour’s heartlands voted against the Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat and UKIP (not to mention the Orange order and George Galloway) coalition in the referendum campaign and voted with Labour for Indy, the Greens, Scottish Socialists, Radical Independence and of course the SNP, for a more socially conscious, decent, independent Scotland and an end to Tory rule and austerity for the sake of it, from London forever… that’s Blue Tory or Red Tory rule, by the way.

Murphy made some attempts to be that kind of Labour person, but the years of slavish right wing politics, wars, Blair and Henry Jackson were hard to shake off, and maybe Glasgow man wasn't quite a stupid as he had thought, or hoped. 

Glasgow man didn't buy Jim's pally footie patter. Glasgow man was largely insulted that Jim, in his right wing metropolitan ignorance, thought that if you allowed the working man to get drunk at football and sing sectarian songs, everything would be just fine again.

He was wrong. Glasgow man it seems really doesn't want nuclear weapons (and dangerously neglected ones at that) only a stone’s throw from his multi. 

He doesn't like that he has to claim benefits even when he’s working full time, just to pay the rent. He’s not too keen on Rachel Reeves' declaration that they don’t represent unemployed or sick people (echoing what Harris has been saying for years), and he didn't care for Darling and Murphy being seen to be all matey with the Tories and their Liberal Democrat friends.

Murphy is also the wrong person to write a paper on reform of the voting system.  Labour needs new blood, untainted by the failures of the past. And, as Mr McNeil points out, that only concerns itself with Labour internal systems. It's the voters that cont. All of them, not just the Labour membership.

What the party must do in the next few months while Kezia is caretaker branch manager, is work out where the future lies for them. This is deep philosophical stuff. Above Murphy's pay band.

Do they want to stay a branch office of London Labour tied to Labour's English based policies, or do they want to be free to espouse their own policies. 

Even Murphy, a dyed in the wool London MP, could see that, after Johann Lamont’s declaration that her hands were always tied by London, he had to show that HE and not anyone was in charge of Scottish Labour am its policies.

Unfortunately when he did that, Chukka Ummuna and Ed Balls slapped him down within hours, telling the broadcasters that THEY made the rules.

Mostly it is about getting in touch with ordinary people. That is people who aren't in a political bubble. People who might be inclined to vote for a left of centre Labour Party not bound and gagged by London for fear of frightening off the stockbroker belt and its money. People like me and the folks that I know.

What do they want from a party in Scotland that has to be distinctly Scottish and yet must necessarily be able to chime with the policies of their big brother in London if they are to take the same whip in Westminster? 

How can it be made to work? How can you be distinctly Scottish and yet British too? Is it, today, even possible?

Mr McNeil indicated that Labour activists must get out on the streets and talk to people… find out what they want. That makes sense.

The amazing thing is that with all these MSPs, councillors, MPs and MEPs, none of them have thought to do this already.

I thought that was their bloody job!

LETTERS TO LABOUR (IN THE TRADITION OF HRH)

Dear Mr Murphy,

Shortly after you were elected as the leader of the Scottish branch of the UK Labour Party, you said that you would not lose a single seat to the SNP.

If you should lose the odd seat to that party, will you resign your leadership?

Kind regards


Munguin.

++++++++++

Dear Mr Murphy,

If the Tories have 290 seats, Labour has 280 seats and the SNP 45 seats, will your boss allow the Tories to form a minority government rather than work with the SNP to promote left of centre policies?

Best wishes

Munguin.

++++++++++

Dear Ms Lamont,

As an elder stateswoman of the Labour Party, what do you think of the job Jim Murphy is doing?

Salutations

Munguin.

++++++++++

Dear Labour,

The London Labour spokesperson on Work and Pensions has said that Labour is not the party of the unemployed, nor would it wish to be seen as such.

Whilst, of course, I was aware that the party was not exclusively dedicated to the unemployed, I thought that at least they had an interest in their welfare. Indeed I could be quite sure that they used to care about people who were out of work.

Would you care to indicate to the unemployed who they should now vote for if they wish to elect someone who gives a damn?

Sincerely

Munguin.

++++++++++

Dear Mr McTernan,

I've been reading that you have on numerous occasions praised Mrs Thatcher and indicated that a Tory revival would be good for Scotland.

Is that the general feeling of the Labour Party in Scotland?

Best wishes

Munguin.

++++++++++

Dear Mr Murphy,

Could you please let me know what would be your priority if Labour were to be elected to power in Scotland? (No, don't laugh.)

Would it be dealing with the number of people who are using foodbanks, or would it be making sure that Trident were renewed?

Your truly

Munguin.

+++++++++++

Dear Mr Murphy,

In England you appear to think that £6 000 is a reasonable amount for students to pay each year to avail themselves of a bachelor's degree. In Scotland you appear to think that that sum is £6 000 too much.

Could you explain what is different between Scottish and English students?

Kind regards

Munguin.

++++++++++

Dear Mr Miliband,

It has been Labour policy for over 100 years to abolish the House of Lords.

It is SNP policy to abolish the House of Lords.

Is this something you could work together on, or would Willie Bain insist that 100 years of traditional Labour thinking on aristocratic rule be over turned because a wee lassie in a tin hat also happens to believe that?

Yours sincerely

Munguin.

+++++++++++

CONFUSED ABOUT THE SCOTTISH DEBATES

We’re a bit confused here at Munguin Towers.

We've been led to believe that there is to be a debate, in the run up to the UK election, shown on STV, between the Scottish Party Leaders.

Fair enough. 

We know that the Scottish branches of each of the London parties are just that, and that their "leaders" take their orders from London, so there is no reason that they wouldn't have the debate in Scotland on behalf of their Westminster bosses. It may seem a little pointless, given that the big bosses are going to debate, but for all that it's harmless.

Except for Labour.

Jim Murphy has been at great pains, since Johann Lamont resigned with the poisoned words “branch office”, to point out that he is his own man, and no one tells him what to do. 

His policies are designed only to help Scotland, for he is a patriot and a proud Scot and he will happily take money from the rich of the South East of England to provide an indefinite number of nurses in Scotland.

So we can see that the other Scottish leaders, who accept their branch status, and thus accept Nick or Cameron as their overall leaders, can speak on behalf of their parties on UK policy. It's also clear that Nicola Sturgeon can speak on behalf of the SNP on UK policy, what with her being the leader.

We are not so sure that Jim can speak for a very separate and independent Labour Party run on different principles, by Ed Miliband in the rest of the UK.

For example on Education policy, Jim will have to stick to the £6,000 a year fees that the English Labour Party want to charge, as opposed to the so-called "something for nothing" fees that the Scottish Labour party want to charge. Isn't he likely to become confused?

It’s just a thought.

Another thought is that there is a glaring omission in the line up. There were, the last time we looked, five parties in the Scottish parliament (and therefore representing Scottish public opinion) . 

SNP, Labour, Conservatives, Liberals and Greens.

So where is Patrick Harvie’s name?

Why has STV decided to exclude him?  

Do they remember what happened when they tried that game in England?

Are they just anti-Green?

Or is there another reason?

The other party leaders should demand Patrick’s involvement in the interests of democracy.

Vive la construction navale ... en France

This is another one of these situations where reality is stranger than fiction.

I mean, if I'd ever come up with a script for a play about independence that had that long streak of misery, British Virgin Islands Hammond, coming to Scotland for a day to tell us that shipbuilding in our country would die without the UK... 

...and had I gone on to suggest that the UK would never build its warships abroad...

... and had I then depicted a winning "no" side....

... and then, had I suggested that 6 weeks or so later, the UK's head of the navy would announce that there was a good chance that in fact the new ships wouldn't be built in Scotland after all... but in France, un paye étranger, I might add...

...the producer would have thrown the script in the bin and said... you have to go for some reality, Tris. The audience'd never believe this rubbish. Don't give up your day job!

Well...

With friends like you, and a Tory government, who needs enemies?

Erm yeah, the future of it going down the pan?

Sep...what?????  Oh wait, it was Ian Davidson.

You did a really crap job, Margrit.

On the banks of the Clyde, three thousand men and women go to work week after week in one of this country's great industries - shipbuilding. Thousands more rely on those high-skilled jobs for their own employment.

How many of those jobs would you put at risk to vote Yes? That's the very real question facing the SNP this morning and once again they don't have any answers. That's why the campaign by Johann Lamont and Margaret Curran is so crucial. When launching the campaign Johann said:

"Scotland has a proud history of shipbuilding and despite the serious challenges the industry has faced over a long period, the skills and expertise of the workforce mean that Scottish shipbuilding has a bright future if it secures the defence contracts planned by the UK Government.

"But these jobs are at risk. There is a danger that if we vote Yes in September we won't have a shipbuilding industry any longer, because we're reliant on UK defence contracts."

At the start of 2012 the UK Government confirmed that the contracts for the Type 26 will be granted in the middle of the decade, after the referendum on independence.  I often have worried about the Tory Government's industrial strategy, but today it's the SNP that poses a greater threat to Scotland's naval shipbuilding.  

Jim Murphy

No thanks to shipbuilding, eh Jim?

Hmmmmm....

About as accurate as the rest of your facts

"You shall have your reward, what's your name again?
I'll make you supervisor of the branch office in Glasburgh and I'll
get rid of that awful woman, what's her name?
Norman Lamont?"

SNAPS ON SUNDAY

Can't think of a better way of using the money.

Better Together, pooling resources, sharing MISERY risks?
To borrow a phrase, NO THANKS!

...then he disappeared, then he resigned.

Hmmm. 

She doesn't do irony, does she...?

... and that's big enough.

Not that he'll see it that way.

We agree on that then!

Can't be released while Tony Blair lives?
What is there to hide about setting up regional government
 in line with the demands of the Council of Europe?
Blair will have found something, I've no doubt.

The Liberals listen attentively to one
of their Cabinet Ministers...

...while the Sheffield Ukip candidate's family
turn up in force to listen to him.

...the Scottish Tories applaud Ruth...

...and Dundee stands for Nicola Sturgeon.

Enough said!

And finally...

Seen on Twitter.
As far as I can ascertain this is genuine.
Munguin warns...
Don't call premium numbers (starting with 09)!

More random thoughts...

A real prime minister.

An unreal prime minister

A real socialist

A real two faced bastard
(not you Annabel)

A Labour health secretary worth his salt

A Labour health secretary worth diddly squat.

A man who better hope he keeps his MEP job
with the free healthcare in Belgium...
Paul Nutcase, MUP (PET)

If at first you put one over on the daft voters
carry on and do it again. They may not have got wise to you.

This was in Wales. The Welsh for Car Park is Parcio
How thick and insulting would you need to be to put up a sign
in the wrong language?
That's ASDA thick as well as Cameron's
Wet Tissue!

All good reasons Eck, but the last one is a corker.

And finally...

Wouldn't want to deliver it to the wrong place, 

would we?