Seil Chat

Jim, everyone is a welcome addition to the Yes campaign – even you! – hence its success!

This thread is looking at the future of the Labour party and links I’ve put up about it are from social media, not my own words. Although I do select those that reflect my views, which at this point in time do reflect over 50% of the voting public of this country.

I’ve bought you a life time subscription to www.google.com – try it out, you can learn things from it! Just type random words or phrases and then select the subject matter you seek. A world of knowledge and wisdom awaits you!

.
LATEST ODDS for “Scottish Labour” Leader

4/5 JK Rowling
2/1 Jackie Bird
3/1 Ruth Davidson
5/1 Len McCluskey
10/1 Archie McPherson
20/1 Some English bloke
50/1 Hazel McWitch
1,000,000/1 Jim Murphy

Think I'll put a quid on Murphy, in case he decides to farage his resignation.

Thanks Gavin for trying to redress the balance - sometimes difficult on this site.
And a thought for N.B. and others of that ilk - The PR system in place for Holyrood, does indeed give us a well balanced representation of voter's preferences, and seems to have served us well since it's inception, as I think the SNP will concede.
However, had we been able to operate the same exemplary system during the just recent past elections, there would not have been the same landslide SNP representation in Westminster. One hopes that the SNP contingent will lobby to have the Westminster system changed to a bit of PR, but don't hold your breath - both they and D.Cameron will not be in the market like turkeys voting for Christmas.

The SNP are on record as supporting proportional representation for Westminster elections. This policy has been confirmed by Nicola Sturgeon after the recent election success, because although PR would substantially reduce their representation, it would be The Right Thing To Do. The fact that any politicians putting principle before Party seems unlikely to you is a sad reflection on our political heritage , which is thankfully being discarded.

Tim Bowles - there may be a new era dawning in political circles in your estimation, but so far I have seen no sign of it in the current machinations - by all parties.
Agreed that it is ridiculous for SNP with somewhere over 1 million votes walking off with over 50 seats in the chamber while other parties with a vastly superior number of votes, finish up with just one or two representatives. But it has been my experience in the past that any idea that the system might be made fairer has been resolutely resisted by those who might find themselves disadvantaged by any change to the status quo.
Tim Bowles may feel that change is in the air and we might all see a fairer apportion of representation according to the wishes of the electorate in the aftermath of the recent results, but my own feeling is that politicians always have the primary consideration of their own skins above any desire to see change which might threaten that.
But maybe I am being too cynical, and we will all see a more equable and just political society some time in the near future - if so, I will take off my hat to Tim Bowles, and shake his hand if it is proffered.

Interesting discussions on Radio Scotland this morning 8.30 to 9.00 ish.

Question was - Is there still a future for the Labour Party in Scotland?

Jack McConnel put in a good case for a right of SNP Unionist Labour and the callers put in good cases for a seperate Left of SNP Indy backing party (seemed close to the Scottish Socialists to me). But neither option allowed for business as usual with Scottish Labour drifting in what ever way rUK Labour goes (which seems about to take a major lurch to the right).

Everyone admitted that Labour needed to basically reinvent itself in one or two new parties to be a functioning opposition to the SNP lest the Scottish Conservatives become the only viable opposition in the Scottish Parliament. And the only mention of the Lib Dems came from a short comment that the SNP should lose the N and replace it with a D and move more to the center ground.

But one thing was clear the Indy support choice was the one thing that (despite Lesley Riddock best attempts) was the polarising question that Labour supporters are torn over. Worth listening to on iPlayer.

Without diverting this thread seriously off topic could I suggest that the current Labour support is divided between those with a disillusionment with the present Labour stance (who have since joined the SNP bandwagon) and those who still hold dear to their Labour principles. This has in effect split the party into two and the current hiatus is to try and get the SNP (Yes) backsliders back into the mainstream Labour camp. An uphill task, by any reckoning, but it would still not be a decisive turn around for any future independence referendum ( not another 4 years of media extravaganza?)
Coming back to the situation about SNP/Labour values -it would appear that the things that divide many of them are Trident and Independence, and whichever camp can capture their allegiance on these things will sway the vote.

I think it's more complicated than that Jim.

The Labour party just did not convince their traditional labour voters that they were against austerity or were going to redact the bedroom tax or welfare cuts. This showed in the labour vote right across the UK. They either went for Tories (if you can't beat them join them) or UKIP or Greens or didn't vote.

In Scotland it had the effect that many voted for the SNP as the only party they saw actually upholding left of centre principles. Many who voted for the SNP may not have been Yes voters as this election was not a run of the referendum but a general election.

Any new new labour line up, whether it is badged as Scottish Labour or whatever way they try to sell it, will need to prove - and decisively so - to long serving labour voters who have switched to SNP that they are returning to something different than rUK Labour's right lurching mess.

To try and cover the anti-Trident, anti austerity, pro-EU etc - exactly the same stance as SNP - and only be different on the single point of Indy may not help them. To stand against any of the former issues will just paint them as the same failed rUK Labour party they shared the fate of on 8th May. They are in a seriously messed up place. They have been replaced by the SNP and have nowhere to go.

To pick up on just one point from Steve J's assessment of the current political scene -anti austerity.
It was a feature of every party apart from Lib Dem and Tory - no more austerity and with just a bit more borrowing we will all have a rosy life style with whatever goods and services we require to enhance it.
What absolute rubbish.
Whatever happened to values (even in my own lifetime) where one saved (not borrowed) to acquire whatever one fancied purchasing?
For some peculiar reason the current fashion, from governments downwards, is to borrow now and not to worry too much about repayment.
Even our television advertising extols us the ease with which we can get access to a bit of spare cash (no questions asked and an exorbitant interest rate).This on top of numerous organisations suggesting that indulging in their Bingo is the way to instant riches.
I would suggest that the current support for the Tories was in part due to their rather more responsible approach to financial matters.
Not north of the border, where we seem to think hand-outs are our God given rights, and will support any left wing organisation which promises some of the sweeties. At one time the Scots were looked upon as being both canny and thrifty - but no more.

jimcee wrote:-anti austerity.It was a feature of every party apart from Lib Dem and Tory - no more austerity and with just a bit more borrowing we will all have a rosy life style with whatever goods and services we require to enhance it.

Nobody ever suggested the above, the SNP in particular proposed loosening the austerity vice enough to ease the pain of those folk who are being squeezed hardest. ( largely the poor and disabled you will note, because "we are (NOT) all in this together", to misquote Cameron).
This is not 'anti-austerity' it is a responsible approach to a problem generated by the overspending of previous Westminster Governments.
The debit would still be settled, but over a longer timescale, and it would keep more folk in work to pay their taxes. Surely that is much more sensible than the crash diet Cameron and Osbourne are planning for the poorest in society.

Tim Bowles may feel that change is in the air and we might all see a fairer apportion of representation according to the wishes of the electorate in the aftermath of the recent results, but my own feeling is that politicians always have the primary consideration of their own skins above any desire to see change which might threaten that.
But maybe I am being too cynical, and we will all see a more equable and just political society some time in the near future - if so, I will take off my hat to Tim Bowles, and shake his hand if it is proffered.

I'm not sure change is in the air for Westminster, and never said as much. I merely pointed out that pr is SNP policy, even if it would harm their electoral chances down there. They are heavily outgunned by the Tory/Labour hegemony who have no interest in any electoral system that would loosen their grip on power. It ain't gonna happen.

Well - a flurry of response there.
OK Tim Bowles agrees that the powers that be are not going to vote for anything that weakens their hold on power. And although SNP with 50+ seats in the chamber are keen on the idea of PR (and it is a laudable objective) they will not prevail on the incumbents unless outside sources force them to mend their ways.
To Bill McD - he keeps harping on about the poorest in society being the brunt of austerity cuts - are these in reference to welfare changes or other measures? Our welfare system supports those in need and pensioners, at the expense of those in employment, but the way things are going the employable will not be able to support the rest, and it would only seem fair that those who have contributed to the system throughout their working lives should have that contribution respected, whereas those who get state handouts which enable them to smoke, run cars, and travel abroad to football matches are possibly not quite as high up on the welfare ladder, as their elderly relatives.
I realise that this is a can of worms, and will not receive universal approbation, but with increased automation, and a limit of opportunities in the service industries, the number of humans required to keep us alive and kicking, is declining and until the age of complete automation, when we all have an income regardless of whether we work or not, there are problems ahead.
Over to you Bill - what about the long term?

jimcee wrote:Bill McD - he keeps harping on about the poorest in society being the brunt of austerity cuts

Only because that's the way it is. The Tories have always biased the economy in favour of the better off when in power to curry favour and votes.
Labour made the fatal error of suggesting that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should contribute their fair share, well it would appear the all those broad shoulders voted Tory when that was pointed out to them.

jimcee wrote:those who get state handouts which enable them to smoke, run cars, and travel abroad to football matches.

Nobody can justify benefit fraud but neither can the we condone the tax evasion/avoidance, expenses fiddling, house 'Flipping' that goes on in Westminster. If you are caught diddling the Benefit System or your Tax Return, it's fraud, i.e. big fine or some porridge. Not so for our 'Honourable Members' or Bankers, they walk off with golden handshakes if caught with their pinkies in the till.
Not really fair is it.

OK Bill - agreed, anyone who gets away with defrauding the system of their fair contribution is pretty low on the morality standards.
You cite Westminster as being a hotbed of chicanery, but I would suggest that even at Holyrood there are abuses to the system in what is legitimately claimed as expenses, and even closer to home our Kilmory lot are not above reproach. And I will concur that bankers have been fairly obscene on performance related bonuses which has absolutely nothing to do with performance.
It would be interesting to grade professions by public perception of morality to include Politicians, bankers, lawyers, estate agents, used car salesmen, and journalists - maybe Lord Ashcroft should have a go at this, but he has a finger in several pies, so maybe not an uninterested bystander.