Seil Chat

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... .117966622
Things must be desperate.

Bill,
I suspect that you might have a sneaking suspicion that this Murphy guy might have some influence on things.
Otherwise why do you dredge up anything available to vilify him?
However, to make your problems less of a hassle, you can take succour from the fact that adopting YES during the Referendum didn't do the trick.

jimcee wrote:I suspect that you might have a sneaking suspicion that this Murphy guy might have some influence on things.

When his predecessor threw in the towel I did think he might make a difference to Labours' fortunes, but Mr Murphy only wants to win the election with no idea of what to do with the power if he did. It seems his support agrees.

jimcee wrote: adopting YES during the Referendum didn't do the trick.

It almost did!

So it is fairly obvious that the Scottish contingent to Westminster, come May, will largely be carved up between Labour and SNP and that the SNP are cock-a-hoop at the moment with the current polls suggesting that they might do quite well.
This therefore would be the reason for Bill mcD doing all he can to vilify J,Murphy to -hopefully- influence local Labour voters (not thick on the ground hereabouts) that they should not waver from their recent espousal with the SNP.
I am surprised that NB has not joined into this crusade, given that he is another trawler of the press to pick up any positive news for his cause.
Perhaps this particular subject will become more active nearer polling day - at the moment it is pretty desultory.

jimcee wrote:I am surprised that NB has not joined into this crusade, given that he is another trawler of the press to pick up any positive news for his cause.
Perhaps this particular subject will become more active nearer polling day - at the moment it is pretty desultory.

Jim Murphy is, I think, the most dishonest, opportunist and despicable fellow I have yet come across in Scottish politics, prepared to change his opinions at the drop of an opinion poll and shamelessly unafraid to rewrite his personal political history.

Murphy has previously argued that Labour should accept the Tory austerity plans in full in order to be ‘credible’, while describing any opposition as “shallow and temporary” populism – but recently deleted the comments from his website.

He was caught red-handed fiddling the figures on NHS operations this week – before deleting Tweets and a YouTube video in an attempt to hide the evidence online.

And of course he is still refusing to tell his constituents if he will be standing in his current seat of East Renfrewshire in May . . .

Murphy will blow whichever way he judges the winds of personal opportunity are blowing at any point. I think most traditional Labour voters in Scotland can see right through him, in spite of the BBC giving him an extraordinary amount of airtime to punt his nonsense unchallenged.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/jim-mu ... -1-3684503

Doesn't even buy his own Irn-Bru, the cad !!

So NB joins the fray with a further bit of Murphy bashing.
And pretty vitriolic stuff it is.
It is a funny thing about people who indulge in denigrating others - there must be a reason for dredging every available source of information to find the achiilles heel.
And I suspect that the principal reason is because they perceive the object of their derision, to be a threat to their espoused goal and wish to do everything possible within their power to present the strongest possible negative image.
Politicians (and the rest of us) are not lily white - we all have our failings, but I would challenge NB or even B McD to come up with even a mild rebuke of any of their SNP bunch on this website - they might query an odd decision or two made by any individual, but it would undoubtedly be tempered by an apologetic explanation to exonerate this slight fall from grace.

jimcee wrote:So NB joins the fray with a further bit of Murphy bashing.
And pretty vitriolic stuff it is.
It is a funny thing about people who indulge in denigrating others - there must be a reason for dredging every available source of information to find the achiilles heel.

It doesn't take much effort to see what is wrong with Murphy, Jim. He doesn't have an Achilles heel, he is just one giant mass of lies, contradictions and naked ambition. Huge swathes of traditional Labour voters in Scotland can see this, which is why every opinion poll for the last four months has shown Labour in Scotland facing massive losses in May's election, with no discernable improvement since the ascension of Saint Jim to the top of Scottish labour's greasy pole.

I am surprised you are apparently unable to see through the man yourself . . . though if your only sources of information are the BBC and the Telegraph then there is perhaps some excuse.

jimcee wrote:It is a funny thing about people who indulge in denigrating others - there must be a reason for dredging every available source of information to find the achiilles heel.

Jim, I'm not denigrating Murphy, I'm simply pointing out that the man is a hollow shell with no substance, an embarrassment to the Scots tradition of hard fought political debate, and that's a perfectly valid observation to make.
If you read the link below you will see his blatant electioneering and the stating of political promises that he has absolutely no idea how to achieve.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/jim-murphy ... -1-3697986

The above two postings have taken upon themselves to attack the integrity of one J. Murphy.
This, as I have already pointed out, is because he is the person who has been appointed by Labour to rally their vote and reverse the current SNP upsurge before the election in May.
So their stance in this denigration is understandable - they want to discredit his efforts to rally the troops with those who are currently in the SNP camp but might revert to Labour- come May.
I suppose that it is human nature in politics to trash the opposition and glorify the chosen party, but it does not reflect well on those who stoop to these lengths.

jimcee wrote:The above two postings have taken upon themselves to attack the integrity of one J. Murphy.This, as I have already pointed out, is because he is the person who has been appointed by Labour to rally their vote and reverse the current SNP upsurge before the election in May.So their stance in this denigration is understandable - they want to discredit his efforts to rally the troops with those who are currently in the SNP camp but might revert to Labour- come May.

Repeat, I'm not attacking Murphy's integrity, simply pointing out his LACK of it.
Anybody who makes rash promises like Murphy's and deep down knows that these are impossible to fulfil has NO integrity.
If any other party leader spouted the nonsense Murphy comes out with, I, and many others would happily draw attention to that too.
He's probably a nice bloke but he's naïve and out of his depth.
Traditionally Scottish Labour has been a powerful force for social justice. Surely they have something better to offer their supporters.

.
Jim, how about you tell us what you think about Jim Murphy's integrity and give your reasons, instead of simply responding with ad hominem attacks on myself and Bill?

.

Our two SNP supporters are quick to refute my attempt to get a reason from them for their vitriolic attack on J. Murphy. They maintain that it is purely because of his personal political record that he is not fit for the job.
But it is interesting to note that all the other players in the field are not receiving the same denigration. This I suspect, is because J.Murphy poses the biggest threat to the SNP upsurge, and must be discredited at any cost.
Personally , NB, have no axe to grind in defence of Mr. Murphy - he is probably as perfidious as the majority of politicians, but I find it deplorable that individuals are singled out for this vilification - parties and policies -yes, but as I said in a previous statement, those who try to belittle individuals, because of a threat to their cause, are not high on my personal order of integrity.

jimcee wrote:Our two SNP supporters are quick to refute my attempt to get a reason from them for their vitriolic attack on J. Murphy.

Guess you didn't read the reasons given in previous posts Jim.

jimcee wrote:They maintain that it is purely because of his personal political record that he is not fit for the job.

Quite correct.

jimcee wrote:it is interesting to note that all the other players in the field are not receiving the same denigration.

Seriously Jim, would you like to see booze at football matches? probably not.

jimcee wrote:J.Murphy poses the biggest threat to the SNP upsurge,

He's the SNPs' secret weapon. My worry would be if they binned him and appointed a competent leader. ( won't happen at this late stage )

jimcee wrote:but I find it deplorable that individuals are singled out for this vilification - parties and policies -yes, but as I said in a previous statement, those who try to belittle individuals, because of a threat to their cause,

Nothing I've posted has been critical of Murphy personally. He's just making it up as he goes along and thinks nobody's noticed.

The loss of a strong Left Wing party like Scottish Labour is a tragedy for Scotland as the rise of the Right wing today is bad news for us all.

Hey! if we were independent we wouldn't have to worry about UKIP, BNP, New Labour or the Tories, Scotland would develop it's own Right and Left. ( The SNP themselves admit they probably won't always be in power come Independence.)

jimcee wrote: They maintain that it is purely because of his personal political record that he is not fit for the job.

Pray tell me Jim, what else would you judge a politician on if not their personal record as a politiiician ?

Their hairstyle or dress sense perhaps? Their accent? The way they walk?

What you say makes no sense.

The above two postings have not addressed the issue of why they take it upon themselves to denigrate Mr Murphy on this website, with recourse to all sorts of media references to support their cause.
B mcD claims that the said Murphy's utterances are the best weapon the SNP have - so why then the vilification - if what B mcD says is true they should be hoping for his continuation in office, to further their cause, and not try to undermine him.
While on the subject of his reply - I am completely lost on the reference to the subject of alcohol at football matches, but maybe it is another of the Murphy utterances which they can cite as derogatory ( this might be a subject for debate here outwith the political arena).
To NB - he suggests that one should maybe judge a person by anything other than their political outpourings, and that if their political stance does not agree with his own, then they are fair game for as much dirt as can be levelled against them. regardless of however they come across in other fields of human behaviour. This is dangerous grounds - only approve or deride a politician on whether you personally assess their merit or lack of same, in relation to your own cause.
Leaders of parties have to be constrained by lots of backroom pundits who have some control over their utterances - this is particularly true of the mainstream parties, and this also applies to the rank and file if they step out of line vis-à-vis the current Straw/Rifkind affair -and something which has been a particular problem with UKIP - but that is an aside.
So, come on, NB and B McD - a plea - what is your motive for vilifying the current leader of the Labour party in Scotland - you may have a personal reason, but why are you airing it on these pages, to try and influence the readers of these remarks?

jimcee wrote:To NB - he suggests that one should maybe judge a person by anything other than their political outpourings, and that if their political stance does not agree with his own, then they are fair game for as much dirt as can be levelled against them. regardless of however they come across in other fields of human behaviour. This is dangerous grounds - only approve or deride a politician on whether you personally assess their merit or lack of same, in relation to your own cause.

As usual you are - wilfully or otherwise - seriously misrepresenting me Jim.

I am not questioning Mr. Murphy's political stance - indeed, it is hard to see what that is.

I am questioning his probity, his integrity, his honesty - as expressed in his public speeches, perss releases, tweets etc made in his capacity as leader of Scottish Labour.

His political leanings are irrelevant to my criticism. If Nicola Sturgeon or any member of the SNP had behaved in a similarly dishonest and cavalier manner then that would have been every bit as bad. They haven't though - as if they did they would be savaged by the media, while Murphy gets a free ride - particularly from the BBC.

jimcee wrote:So, come on, NB and B McD - a plea - what is your motive for vilifying the current leader of the Labour party in Scotland - you may have a personal reason, but why are you airing it on these pages, to try and influence the readers of these remarks?

Well Jim, I can't speak for Bill, but I'm just doing it to wind you up

I can't really believe you haven't read about it but here goes !!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3696257
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31551386
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... 80-5166077
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ll-matches
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... diums.html
Your up to date now Jim.

Or how about this for a Murphy policy.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... ll-5207187