SO, AS WE SUSPECTED, JEREMY WON

AND WITH AN INCREASED MAJORITY...

...Despite the purge of anyone suspect, including people who had been members for over 50 years. So first off, Congratulations Mr Corbyn.

SO NOW WHERE TO?

Where does this leave Labour?

And for us in Scotland, perhaps more importantly, where does that leave Kezia?

Will the rebels accept the 'settled will' of the membership, or what's left of it now it has been purged? Or will there be another rebellion next year? 

And will they, this time, find someone a little more credible to put up as leader? (With respect neither Eagle nor Smith seemed to me to be remotely likely to win a general election. Both were decidedly third rate.) 

But there are potential leaders on the right of Labour, not least Hilary Benn or the guy that lost to Ed Miliband, his brother, David. Will someone like Benn be prepared to put himself forward, for possible humiliation, against a man who has twice won with massive majorities,  in a party that seems to be set on returning to a left of centre politics? And would Miliband give up his massive salary in New York to possibly be humiliated again and be left as a mere MP on a fraction of what he now earns?

Or will the right wingers leave Labour and elect their own leader as New Labour, or even New Improved Labour? (Now don't laugh. Persil has been doing it for years.) Possibly leaving the current Labour party as a rump, while New Sparkling Labour forms the official opposition, but with few members and no money.

Will Kezia be saved by the apparent fact that Scotland was the only "region" to vote for Smith? Or by the fact that in an amazing volte-face, she now thinks he's the man to lead Labour to a UK election win?

And what will happen to the ex-Shadow Secretary of State? Will he, like his boss, (*is she his boss or is Jeremy his boss?) suck up to the man they think is a disaster, or will he remain a rebel and maybe even stand himself next year? (Well we all need a laugh!) 

* Quick question to Niko: If Labour in Scotland has autonomy, and they disagree about something, what does the ex-SoS do as Scotland's only Labour MP? Is he whipped with English and Welsh MPs or as a Scottish MP of Kezia?

Kez's speech put a brave face on it, but clearly, as the pictures show, her heart isn't in it. 

How long will all this mess last and what will be the outcome?

Over to the brilliance of Munguin's readership...

SATURDAY SNAPS

Hmmmm, perhaps it would be a little troubling if your own imagined character DIDN'T agree with you.

Certainly the person who brought your imagined character to life isn't really with you on the Corbyn issue.

No no, I'm just recycling the old ones.
You lot are far too dim to notice.

Nuff said.

Power at any cost?

Scotland flag at a peaceful demonstration in Palestine

And again...

The need to be more Tory than the Tories is worrying.

So, that sounds not too bad then...

The argument for the London assembly to discuss and debate is strong, and the use of Royal Prerogative may seem weak, but the conditions appear to have been clearly laid out PRIOR to the vote.

So other countries do have them... but not quite so many.

So what rights exactly do the Tories want to get rid of?
Or is it their ever present hatred of anything that isn't British (or American) that makes this such a priority, even to the point of risking the Good Friday Agreement?

But be 5 minutes late for an appointment with the DWP, and there will soon be action taken.

But we are soooooo well defended. Or are we?

Fortunately Labour hasn't wasted the last few years fighting over their leadership.But wait...isn't crime down? Isn't there record satisfaction with the health service? So maybe the time was being used wisely. And, by comparison, how's that all going in the UK? Jeremy Hunt? How're the crime figures in England and Wales again? Real change now would be for them to stop stabbing each other in the back.

NICOLA'S STATEMENT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE EU REFERENDUM

Nicola Sturgeon gave a statement on the outcome of the EU referendum. She set out what action the Scottish Government will now take to safeguard our future in Europe, following the unequivocal vote for Scotland to remain in the EU.

Here’s what you need to know.

1. Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014.

During the 2014 referendum we were told that only a No vote would guarantee that Scotland would remain in the EU - this has proved not to be the case. We believe this is a democratically unacceptable situation.

2. We will take all possible steps and explore all options to secure Scotland’s continuing place in the EU and in the single market in particular.

We are clear that the Scottish Government must be fully involved in all decisions about the next steps the UK Government takes. The Scottish Government will also seek discussions with the EU institutions and its member states, including the earliest possible meeting with the President of the European Commission.

3. The Scottish Government will begin to prepare the required legislation to enable a new independence referendum - if and when Parliament so decides.

When the process for the UK to leave the EU begins in three months time, it is expected to take two years to leave. If the Scottish Parliament decides that a second referendum is the best or only way to protect our place in Europe, it must have the option to hold one within that timescale.

The need to act decisively will be tempered with the need to build consensus. While many people who voted No in 2014 are reassessing their decision, we will not simply assume their support - we will be straight and honest with them.

4. For citizens of other EU countries living here in Scotland - you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.

The Remain vote in Scotland was won by a campaign that was positive about the EU and about the benefits of migration. Scotland has voted to renew its reputation as an outward looking, open and inclusive country.

5. Our business community can be reassured that as of now we remain firmly in the EU.

Trade and business should continue as normal - we are determined that Scotland will continue to be an attractive and stable place to do business.

The survey Nicola referred to is available HERE

IDENTIFY THE IDIOT

Oh yeah, it's Owen.

A few pieces of advice if you are serious about wanting to be leader, Owen.

Not everyone is vapid. Don't make the assumption that they are. 

Remember there is an internet. Everything is out there somewhere. it never goes away.

It is, without doubt, important to take your MPs with you. Without them you will struggle to succeed. 

It is even more important to take your membership and the voters with you. Without them you will undoubtedly fail.

Jeremy may not wear the right clothes, do his hair the right way, trim his beard properly, or wear hipster glasses. He may not have gone to the right university or indeed any university at all. He may not stand up straight and sing God Save the Queen, but he's considerably sharper than the proverbial tack. 

You walked right into the trap above. 

Why would you offer a cabinet job to someone in whom you had no confidence?

DONATE £25 TO THE TORIES AND THEY'LL SAY "HERE'S A MUG"

According to my latest "Dear Peregrine" letter from the Conservatives, whilst the Labour Party are tearing themselves apart, the Tories are "building a country that works for everyone".

Well, that's kinda comforting. I'd truly love to live in a country that works for everyone, but I can't speak any more that a few words of any Scandinavian languages. "Þegar þú talar fljótt ég get ekki skilið þig", or "Har du noen brukt cornflakes?", won't get you very far in Iceland or Norway so that's that knocked on the head!

So this is exciting news readers, is it not?

The poor Tories say that it's alright for the Labour Party as they are funded by the Trades Unions... although they left out the bit about the 600,000 Labour members who pay membership fees, as opposed to the 150,000 Tories ( a number which, according to Norman Tebbit, is likely to drop) who send their money to the Conservatives. But what about all those people that Cameron just elevated to the peerage, handed knighthoods or made companions of honour? What do they do with their millions?

According to the email they sent me, not on this occasion from a big name to impress me... yeah well, to try to impress me... but just signed, "the Conservatives", "people in kitchens and living rooms all over Britain are looking for a party that will build a country that works for them". 

But I thought that we already had a party which was doing just that...that in fact the writer had already told me in the first paragraph that this party not only existed but that they were indeed the Tories. 

So, pardon me, but I'm confused. Why are people looking in their living rooms and kitchens for them? They are in London in posh restaurants, clubs and possibly even knocking shops. And why is no one looking in bathrooms and bedrooms? Or does that have overtones that Tories don't like to mention? Well, not in front of plebs.

Well, I expect it's not my place to query all that, but given the drivel of these statements, I'm not surprised that no one wanted to sign the email.

Anyway, the good news is that you can pay £25 and get a mug that says "Theresa May a country that works for everyone" which leaves me even more confused, because I had no idea that Theresa May was a country... or that she was working for everyone.

But then, I have to say, ya know that if you'd pay £25 for something you can get in Morrisons for £1.25, you don't really need a mug. 

Because you kinda ARE a mug.

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!

RANDOM THOUGHTS

So, to add to the list of broken promises from Better Together, we now find that the fleet of global combat frigates promised by Cameron to the Clyde shipbuilders is to be put on hold, because of a mixture of technical and financial problems, putting the jobs to thousands of the Clyde's shipbuilders at risk.

No one seem to know when they will be built, if at all. The number promised by Cameron was 13. This was already reduced to eight. No the immediate plan is for none to be built. 

Fortunately for Scotland the 50,000 jobs (sorry, my mistake; it's only 500) involved in maintaining nuclear subs on the Clyde was secured by the right wing parties in England yesterday, so at least Tory (sorry, keep getting mixed up here) erm, socialist, Jackie Baillie can sleep in peace tonight. (Echos of manic laughter echo around Munguin Towers.)
**********

 American politics is every bit as crazy as UK politics at the moment, and clearly their politicians like to treat the public with as much contempt as the British ones. But seriously, just how half witted would you have to be to believe this crap?

**********

Of course the Labour Party in the UK is in the most horrific mess too, and is treating, not just members of the public, but their own supporters and members too,  as if they were morons.

Their desperate attempts to keep Corbyn, a man chosen as leader by 59.5% of the electors, off the ballot paper in a challenge to his leadership would have been astounding in any party, but for heaven's sake, in the party set up to support the ordinary person against the British Establishment, it was breath taking.

When they were forced to allow him to defend his place, they tried to put all kinds of barriers in the way of potential support. They ramped up the minimum membership to £25 and allowed a small window of time for joining. That's a hell of a lot for someone on minimum wage (remember Labour, that's the people you're supposed to be there for), or the unwaged. Then they had a website, set up to raise money to help less well off people to pay this exorbitant fee, shut down. No charity in the Labour movement. Despite this, and hell mend them, 183,541 people joined.

They also shut down Labour Party branch meetings, presumably in order to try to stop angry members deselect their right wing and hard right wing MPs. Stalin and Pinochet both would have been proud of them.

Frankly I'm beginning to wonder if there will be a single British Labour Party by the end of the year. They surely have to split and let the Blairites follow their dreams or being American puppets, while allowing Corbynites to work for ordinary people, just as the Labour Party was intended to do.

(The illustration above was taken from Twitter.)
**********
Finally, I loved this!

THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE NICOLA

\

Oh and for those of you who wonder where George is...

We're not too sure... but then, neither is he.

A Yesser's appeal to hard nosed party political 'enlightened self interest'.

GUEST POST BY BRACO

Mr D'Hondt

I am not a member of any political party but I am totally committed to the Yes movement and an Independent Scotland. 

After reading a very interesting and thought provoking post-election article over on Arc of Prosperity  these are some of my own (non party political) thoughts on the issue of d'Hondt and pro-independence majorities. I would really like to thank Tris and the Republic for giving me the opportunity to try and develop that discussion on here as a guest post.

I think, after the heat of party political battle is over, the electoral evidence is now becoming clear for all to see. The voting system, which Scotland currently operates under, is designed (and was selected specifically) in order to try and make the devolved governance of Scotland reliant on the formation of coalition politics (of some sort). This is at the heart of unionist reasoning behind d'Hondt as their voting system of choice for Holyrood back in 97. 

I.e. IF Scottish governance is made dependent on coalitions and the SNP are the only effective Independence party in the country to vote for, then it will never have a coalition partner party to form a majority government with. Therefore the SNP will be unable to pass Independence Referendum legislation while in government, no matter how popular the SNP becomes. This is central and must always be kept in mind when thinking about Scotland's current electoral system.

It also explains the reason behind the Libdem leadership's point blank refusal to enter into coalition with the SNP in 2007 (and, dare I say, Lord Nicol Stephen's shock resignation as Libdem leader and subsequent enoblement in 2008). 

It was this refusal that forced the SNP into forming Holyrood's first, 'shock horror'... minority government. Also, worth noting that even the SNP themselves bought into the accepted political narrative of the time and really didn't want to take (or see the political opportunities) that minority government could bring. 

This refusal of the democratic will of the electorate to form a coalition with the SNP shocked many of the Libdem rank and file, and was the start of Libdem electoral rot in Scotland thereafter. What it did do however, was absolutely ensure that there was no Indy Ref during that first term of enforced SNP minority rule. 

I.e Short term, the system worked exactly as designed. 

As ever, though, unionist long term thinking has been shown to be more tactical than strategic and even in those terms limited and inept, as during the period of exceptional circumstances that followed, we the Scots electorate were able to first experience successful and competent minority SNP governance, and then watch the stars align during the 2011 election as the d'Hondt system was broken (just) through what we now know was a lucky balance being struck between constituencies won and regional list votes cast. All resulting in the SNP winning an incredible (and d'Hondt busting) single party absolute majority. 

The evidence of the extraordinary nature of that result at the time was seen in the total and utter shock of even the SNP's own leadership, as well as the hilarious absolute blind panic and horror that followed from all other sections of the Scottish (and UK) political establishment. This 'breaking of their system' at the root of all the 'Holyrood-as-anti-democratic' psychosis and unionist schtick that still fills their media output to this day.

Yesterday we just saw a return to the normal way that the voting system was actually designed to operate. That is, no matter how popular a single party becomes, in a multiparty d'Hondt system, it will most likely NOT gain a majority. This is again shown to be true by the fact that the SNP voting figures actually went up from 2011 yet their seat count went down.

If all the above is taken into account and properly rationalised, then there is only one relatively simple way to ensure that democratically endorsed pro Independence electoral results in Scotland always have the ability to produce equally strong pro independence majority governance in Holyrood (along with all the democratic abilities that will naturally bring, such as referendums on Independence as often and as regularly as the will of the Scots electorate will allow).  

The answer is simple; don't try and 'game' the system by attempting to form a single super supported (and therefore super powerful) single Independence party that can somehow regularly overwhelm d'Hondt, as this strategy will inevitably risk wasting hundreds of thousands of pro-Indy votes on the list every time that attempted majority fails (750 000 votes in the case of the SNP on Thursday). Far better to simply go with the grain of d'Hondt and purposely set about helping the development and establishing of a good, strong and electorally successful moderate second pro independence party that can be relied upon to form strong and effective pro independence coalition governments with. (After Thursday, this is looking like it could be the Greens).  It's that simple.

As the main creators of our devolved electoral system, SLabour's leadership never truly saw the LibDems as an electoral threat in Holyrood, rather they viewed them as their key to consistently forming (and leading) majority Scottish governments.  Term, after term, after term. This is how the SNP (and the Yes electorate) should start thinking about the Green Party. There are many overlaps between SNP and Green party policy priorities (other than just Independence) within which a sensible and workable, progressive eco friendly programme for government could be formed.

Now that SLAB and the LibDems are up to their necks in the same d'Hondt electoral trap they hoped to lock the SNP into, it's that very same opportunity of consistently leading (though perhaps not totally dictating) the policy agenda of Scotland over many, many terms of majority government that now presents itself as the enormous prize to the SNP (and Greens as junior partners). 

All that is required is that each can somehow see past traditional UK party political tribalism. It's not happy clappy idealism that I am appealing to here but instead simple, hard nosed party political 'enlightened self interest'. This is what d'Hondt is designed to reward and it is through this (along with a powerful and autonomous YES grass-roots movement) that Scotland will quickly win it's independence.   

I think this is the lesson that the Independence movement will learn from yesterday's frustrating experience of the d'Hondt system. Hopefully all this will also be cemented in place during a term of government where the dominant pro indy party (SNP) learns to work effectively and builds strong political relationships with the other, much smaller, pro independence party that was also returned by Yes supporters to sit alongside them in Holyrood (The Greens). 

It's essential that both these parties manage to control, and then throw off, those 'me-only' party political attitudes developed and inherited from the British adversarial 'first past the post' system (essentially two party politics) and begin to adopt the more consensual, coalition based political culture that we all hoped Holyrood would help usher in (and which yesterday proved, will be needed) if timely Independence is to be achieved within the designed limitations and political realities that we the Scots electorate find ourselves having to operate under.

Thanks for a great article, Arc of Prosperity, it was much appreciated, and thanks again to Tris and Munguin's Republic for the opportunity to discuss it further in the Republic :-) 

WHERE'S JACKIE?

Jackie Baillie has gone against Labour's line on nuclear weapons on the basis that jobs in her constituency will be lost should the facilities at Faslane be closed down, or should they move to England or Wales.

Ms Baillie has put the number of jobs at risk variously at 13,000 and 11,000. The actual employers, the MoD put the number at 520. A small difference of no great import if you have a political agenda.

Ms Baillie has defied the party leadership over this and yet is standing for Labour at the election as a constituency member for Dumbarton,and a regional member for the West of Scotland. Of course as a constituency member it's not unreasonable for her to differ from the party line from time to time. Less so, perhaps, as a list member.

Co-incidentally, the number of job losses from the collapse of BHS is estimated to be around  11,000 across Ms Baillie's beloved united kingdom. And we all know that Labour espouses solidarity with the working classes all over England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (Anyone know why not across the world?)

So will we see Jackie campaigning hard for the retention of British Home Stores across her united kingdom? Or are 11,000 workers (or 520 depending on your source) only worth her effort when they are tending the weapons of mass destruction that make Jackie Baillie's Britain great?

Aside from that, I think there are questions to answer. What do you think?

Philip Green, that great Monegasque tax payer, owned BHS until 1 year ago. 

I can safely say I've never bought anything (except breakfast) from them in my life, despite there being a huge store in Dundee. The reason? They are the kind of store your granddad might buy stuff from.

Given that he was a great entrepreneur with his finger on the pulse of retail in Britain, could he not see that the store was losing its place in the retail world? Why did he run the business into the ground?

He sold it to a group of financiers for £1 last year. They took money out of the business and failed to invest as they had promised.

Are they culpable? Did they never have any intention of making a go of the brand?

There is a massive black hole in the pensions fund. Should the tax payer         pick up this shortfall? Should the financiers? Given that Green owned the company so recently, should he be held partly responsible?

And, given that we have a Tory government, who will end up paying for this mess?

HAVE YOU HAD ANY ELECTION MATERIAL?

John brought up an interesting point on Munguin's last article, and I thought that it really needed a better airing than at the bottom of a day-old story.

He wrote: You may recall that I mentioned a leaflet from a local Labour candidate which made no mention whatsoever of Labour's proposal of a tax-rise of 1p across all tax bands and I wondered if this was a 'one-off' omission by the local candidate or whether it was wide-spread by all candidates? Perhaps some of your readers might have received similar leaflets? 

I think that it would be an interesting exercise for readers who have received any party literature to share any apparent inaccuracies or glaring omissions in them, so putting up taxes in the case of Labour, or the reduction in public services that will be the inevitable result of reducing taxes in the cases of the Tories... the fact that the Tories have more or less wiped their toxic name off everything and replaced it with Ruth Davidson.

Have the Liberals or UKIP put out something that is economical with the truth... and does anyone care? 

This election, overshadowed as it is by Cameron's ridiculous and undemocratic decision to run an EU referendum campaign concurrently,  is mainly a contest for second place between two partners in the last referendum Better Together or Project Fear coalition, but let's not forget that the Greens and the SNP are sending out leaflets too. Are there errors or omissions in them?

Are  errors down to purely local decisions made by the candidate and his or her agent or are they widespread. In other words is there a "don't talk about the tax rises" type policy from head office, or is candidate Jock McBloggs leaving out things he's not comfortable with? 

(Remember, of course, that in a  doorstep leaflet you can't include the whole party manifesto!)

Oh, and  is anyone getting leaflets from RISE?

So if you get anything through your door (and you are minded to do this), please let us know.

**********

John raised another interesting point. 

When Scottish Labour proposed their tax increase policy across the board, they very reasonably decided that those earning under £20,000 should be given a rebate. 

(The inadequacies of the system currently devolved does not allow for a change in tax free allowance, the bands, nor any kind of rebate. The  questionably legal rebate proposed by SLAB  would have had to be managed by local authorities at considerable cost and a great deal of prying!) 

However, when Labour discovered that the UK tax free allowance was being raised by George Osborne to £11,000, it decided to drop the somewhat clumsy rebate proposals. This means that those earning over £11,000 will not be liable to pay the increase in taxes that Labour wants to introduce.

John,  and now Munguin, wonder why SLAB's website appears to not mention this. 

Any ideas?

************

Niko highlighted another totally separate but every bit as important point in the same Munguin article. This Guardian piece looks at how the DWP are treating people who are dependent on Tax Credits becasue they are not in full time work (including those who are on zero hour contracts, which sometimes are 40 hours or more on occasions). 

The system is operating in trial areas at the moment (something which seems inherently wrong to me in any case. All areas of "our united kingdom", as Dodgy Dave would have it, are, or should be, subject to the same terms and conditions where matters of UK-wide government policy still holds). However, it is, in the future, to be rolled out across these islands.

It's another way of smacking down the people who aren't lucky enough to have a full time solid job. They, in many cases, are the REAL strivers in the UK. The people who often get up at silly o'clock to do horrible unrewarding jobs in bad conditions, and with no security at all.  Compare them to the fat cat bankers, politicians and those who have fallen into cushie numbers because of their connections.

What a wonderful country this is if you got to a good school at £50,000+ a year, and have a daddy who can get you into Oxford no matter how thick you are, then have a word... and get you a nice little number with one of his friends.

If not, not so great!