Todays launch of the Tory manifesto was pretty much what you would expect.
But one item in particular managed to unite both Jim Murphy & the SNP.
It was of course the English MP's right of veto over the budget.
Now I won't go into the rights and wrongs of this policy because there is something far more interesting about this than the actual policy, and that it Tory election tactics.
Labour have made numerous claims that the Tories want the SNP to win in Scotland to give David Cameron a chance at staying in power.
And here's the thing, Labour are right.
But it's not that the Tories want the SNP, they hate the SNP just as much as Labour, but they want to destroy Labours safe Scottish heartland.
On the face of it this seems like a good tactic, you've already lost Scotland yourself, so you weaken your opponent and you leave them competing with you for middle England on similar policies, so that even if you lose power you end up with a government that is implementing broadly the same policies as you would.
So in order to achieve this all you have to do is have policies which are unfair to Scotland and the SNP support will grow and Labour having been your partners in crime in Better Together will be decimated.
But this demonstrates a core problem is UK politics and that is short term strategic thinking.
It comes from the desire to win, and the idea that a win at any cost is a victory,
But as we know in Scotland this isn't necessarily the case.
David Cameron having got away with the referendum by the skin of his teeth, and not going down in history as the PM that saw the breakup of the union, thinks it is safe to provoke the nationalists for personal gain.
In the event that this goes badly wrong and leads to independence, in his version of history, this will be the fault of Labour for losing Scotland.
And that' a narrative he can sell to middle England to further damage Labour amongst these same voters.
As much as I hate David Cameron, I have to hand it to him, he has played Labour, just as he played the Lib-Dems.
That's not that he's some kind of tactical genius - it's just Labour and the Lib-Dems have been tactical numpties.
But they have only been able to be played like this because they are so readily prepared to abandon all their principles for power and play the game of winning at all costs.
Quite simply, when you abandon principles for personal gain, you create weaknesses that will one day come back to haunt you and you will have nobody but yourself to blame.
Tuesday, 14 April 2015
Sunday, 12 April 2015
A job well done Jim
Well I can only assume Jim, Ruth & Willie are giving themselves a well deserved pat on the back after the Sunday Politics leaders debate for a well coordinated assault on Nicola Sturgeon.
I must admit that I didn't watch it live - I binned the TV and the TV licence after the referendum!
So by the time I was watching it on iPlayer I had already seen the twitter reaction.
Now I'm used to partisan people being offended that their particular champion isn't being treated fairly by whatever broadcaster, but I wasn't quite prepared for what I saw.
I had also seen in person the ganging up on Nicola at the leaders debate in Aberdeen.
But this was on a new level.
Jim and Ruth came across as best buddies, in fact if it wasn't for the fact that Ruth is gay, I would be suspicious that a more intimate relationship wasn't on the cards.
But it was Jim that was leading what can only be called coordinated bullying with Ruth as second in command and poor wee Willie, like the weakest boy, desperately trying to be part of the gang and over the moon that he wasn't the victim.
But before uncorking the champagne to celebrate they should really look at what they achieved.
Jim got stuck in on Nicola's plans to get rid of any deficit by growing the economy, which was apparently impossible to do, only to say when challenged on Labours own plans that they would grow the economy.
Sorry did I hear that right?
It is impossible for the SNP, who have managed to balance their Holyrood budget, to grow their way out of a deficit, but Labour who oversaw the deregulation that led to the financial crisis and who have supported the Tories welfare cuts and austerity can achieve what was impossible a few minutes ago when Nicola said it.
Well I'm convinced, how could I doubt you Jim?
Ruth and Willie weren't any better, apparently their parties coalition is growing the UK economy faster than the rest of the world - I'm not feeling it, are you?
Not to mention the doubling of UK debt, but it would somehow be a disaster for Scotland to borrow even a tiny fraction of that amount,
Then of course there was Full Fiscal Autonomy that was at the heart of all this alleged 7.6 billion debt (I say alleged because it's based on an IFS report which only looks at this year figures and does not include forecast growth of over 15 billion ).
So the argument put forward was, don't vote SNP or Scotland will end up with FFA and massive debt.
Oh, but vote Labour (or indeed Tory), because we will never vote for it, and indeed with only 59 seats in Scotland FFA can only happen with either Labour or Tory support, which they have been quite clear will never happen.
So you got that?
Don't vote SNP or you will get something that we can guarantee will never happen.
But of course it wasn't just the idiocy of the arguments that should make them pause and consider if this was indeed a victory or a massive cock up.
The three unionist parties have once again acted in union and cemented that link in the minds of the viewers.
Not only that, they have taken the Leader of the party who has been in power in Scotland since 2007 (and history tells us should therefore be deeply unpopular), and who has a massive lead in the polls ( and should therefore be the favourite), and by making it three against one, made her not only the underdog, but also the anti-establishment candidate.
We all know the Scots love an underdog and are looking to give Westminster a good kicking.
Really at a point where the SNP would be worried that complacency amongst it's voters might be a concern, the three unionist leaders have done her one of the biggest favours they could.
Keep up the good work Jim!
I must admit that I didn't watch it live - I binned the TV and the TV licence after the referendum!
So by the time I was watching it on iPlayer I had already seen the twitter reaction.
Now I'm used to partisan people being offended that their particular champion isn't being treated fairly by whatever broadcaster, but I wasn't quite prepared for what I saw.
I had also seen in person the ganging up on Nicola at the leaders debate in Aberdeen.
But this was on a new level.
Jim and Ruth came across as best buddies, in fact if it wasn't for the fact that Ruth is gay, I would be suspicious that a more intimate relationship wasn't on the cards.
But it was Jim that was leading what can only be called coordinated bullying with Ruth as second in command and poor wee Willie, like the weakest boy, desperately trying to be part of the gang and over the moon that he wasn't the victim.
But before uncorking the champagne to celebrate they should really look at what they achieved.
Jim got stuck in on Nicola's plans to get rid of any deficit by growing the economy, which was apparently impossible to do, only to say when challenged on Labours own plans that they would grow the economy.
Sorry did I hear that right?
It is impossible for the SNP, who have managed to balance their Holyrood budget, to grow their way out of a deficit, but Labour who oversaw the deregulation that led to the financial crisis and who have supported the Tories welfare cuts and austerity can achieve what was impossible a few minutes ago when Nicola said it.
Well I'm convinced, how could I doubt you Jim?
Ruth and Willie weren't any better, apparently their parties coalition is growing the UK economy faster than the rest of the world - I'm not feeling it, are you?
Not to mention the doubling of UK debt, but it would somehow be a disaster for Scotland to borrow even a tiny fraction of that amount,
Then of course there was Full Fiscal Autonomy that was at the heart of all this alleged 7.6 billion debt (I say alleged because it's based on an IFS report which only looks at this year figures and does not include forecast growth of over 15 billion ).
So the argument put forward was, don't vote SNP or Scotland will end up with FFA and massive debt.
Oh, but vote Labour (or indeed Tory), because we will never vote for it, and indeed with only 59 seats in Scotland FFA can only happen with either Labour or Tory support, which they have been quite clear will never happen.
So you got that?
Don't vote SNP or you will get something that we can guarantee will never happen.
But of course it wasn't just the idiocy of the arguments that should make them pause and consider if this was indeed a victory or a massive cock up.
The three unionist parties have once again acted in union and cemented that link in the minds of the viewers.
Not only that, they have taken the Leader of the party who has been in power in Scotland since 2007 (and history tells us should therefore be deeply unpopular), and who has a massive lead in the polls ( and should therefore be the favourite), and by making it three against one, made her not only the underdog, but also the anti-establishment candidate.
We all know the Scots love an underdog and are looking to give Westminster a good kicking.
Really at a point where the SNP would be worried that complacency amongst it's voters might be a concern, the three unionist leaders have done her one of the biggest favours they could.
Keep up the good work Jim!
Saturday, 11 April 2015
Roman Catholic Church say don't vote Labour!
It is being reported that the Roman Catholic Church is Scotland is to tell it's parishioners that they should use their vote to oppose the renewal of Trident.
In what can only be a direct attack on Jim Murphy they are to say in a letter to parishioners that "on serious issues some politicians who profess a Catholic faith remain silent - or even surrender - in the face of grave ethical injustice".
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/bishops-rally-against-trident-as-churches-spur-voters.122922661
In what can only be a direct attack on Jim Murphy they are to say in a letter to parishioners that "on serious issues some politicians who profess a Catholic faith remain silent - or even surrender - in the face of grave ethical injustice".
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/bishops-rally-against-trident-as-churches-spur-voters.122922661
An admission of defeat
When Jim Murphy because the leader of the Scottish Labour Party (branch office) he was quite clear that Labour would not lose any seats in Scotland.
How did he intend on achieving this - to win back the Yes voters to Labour.
In order to win back these Yes voters his plan was to make it very clear that Scottish Labour was it's own man and not a branch office.
So he set out to be patriotic, standup for Glasgow mans right to get pissed at old firm matches and absolutely no toxic Ed Milliband in Scotland during the election campaign.
Well yesterday we saw not only Ed Milliband in Scotland, but Ed Balls as well alongside Jim Murphy.
So how bad exactly is Jim Murphy doing that the toxic in Scotland Ed Milliband is seen as the best option.
Not only was Jim Murphy's Scottish Labour firmly put back to the status of a branch office by this move, any attempt at winning back Yes voters was abandoned as we were once again subjected to "Project Fear".
And now it's an attack on Full Fiscal Autonomy.
It doesn't strike me as a very clever move to attack the thing that the majority of Scots want i.e. control over all out finances so that we can not only protect ourselves from Westminster but also grow our economy instead of growing the city of London.
So it's full panic mode once again, they are now relying on the Unionist/tactical votes and scaring pensioners.
We are again portrayed as too wee, too stupid.
Cause that worked so well for them during the referendum when support for independence grew from 25% to 45%.
The problem is that many people including the pensioners have realised that all the pre-referendum promises were nothing but a sham.
And once people see the sham for what it is, they can't go back.
You can't unlearn once the blinkers have been removed.
And in reality that is the problem they face, the Scots have become politically educated and engaged.
All we need now is David Cameron telling us how much he loves us!
How did he intend on achieving this - to win back the Yes voters to Labour.
In order to win back these Yes voters his plan was to make it very clear that Scottish Labour was it's own man and not a branch office.
So he set out to be patriotic, standup for Glasgow mans right to get pissed at old firm matches and absolutely no toxic Ed Milliband in Scotland during the election campaign.
Well yesterday we saw not only Ed Milliband in Scotland, but Ed Balls as well alongside Jim Murphy.
So how bad exactly is Jim Murphy doing that the toxic in Scotland Ed Milliband is seen as the best option.
Not only was Jim Murphy's Scottish Labour firmly put back to the status of a branch office by this move, any attempt at winning back Yes voters was abandoned as we were once again subjected to "Project Fear".
And now it's an attack on Full Fiscal Autonomy.
It doesn't strike me as a very clever move to attack the thing that the majority of Scots want i.e. control over all out finances so that we can not only protect ourselves from Westminster but also grow our economy instead of growing the city of London.
So it's full panic mode once again, they are now relying on the Unionist/tactical votes and scaring pensioners.
We are again portrayed as too wee, too stupid.
Cause that worked so well for them during the referendum when support for independence grew from 25% to 45%.
The problem is that many people including the pensioners have realised that all the pre-referendum promises were nothing but a sham.
And once people see the sham for what it is, they can't go back.
You can't unlearn once the blinkers have been removed.
And in reality that is the problem they face, the Scots have become politically educated and engaged.
All we need now is David Cameron telling us how much he loves us!
Friday, 10 April 2015
The get out clause
When listening to any politician it is always best to listen out for what they are not telling you, because the reality is that the politician is like a magician, it's all about misdirection.
Here's an example from Wednesdays Scottish Leaders debate.
Jim Murphy says Labour will "act on zero hour contracts", but he quickly realises he hasn't said the magic word and so he repeats "we will end those exploitative zero hour contracts"
But he's messed up the trick, he's revealed the misdirection, which is of course the word "exploitative".
Now everyone is meant to take the word as a description of zero hour contracts, and as they are exploitative, you naturally don't even blink at it's inclusion.
But here's where the magic is.
In this case "exploitative" is not a description, it's a get out clause!
What Jim is really saying is that some zero hours contracts are acceptable and it's only certain ones we would ban.
And of course if the magic works he goes unchallenged and we don't find out what is considered exploitative and what is acceptable until the policy is actually implemented.
Now remember that 62 Labour MPs currently employ people on zero hour contracts. I assume these then must be the fair and acceptable type - whatever that is.
So how about it Jim, tell us when are zero hour contract not "exploitative".
Here's an example from Wednesdays Scottish Leaders debate.
Jim Murphy says Labour will "act on zero hour contracts", but he quickly realises he hasn't said the magic word and so he repeats "we will end those exploitative zero hour contracts"
But he's messed up the trick, he's revealed the misdirection, which is of course the word "exploitative".
Now everyone is meant to take the word as a description of zero hour contracts, and as they are exploitative, you naturally don't even blink at it's inclusion.
But here's where the magic is.
In this case "exploitative" is not a description, it's a get out clause!
What Jim is really saying is that some zero hours contracts are acceptable and it's only certain ones we would ban.
And of course if the magic works he goes unchallenged and we don't find out what is considered exploitative and what is acceptable until the policy is actually implemented.
Now remember that 62 Labour MPs currently employ people on zero hour contracts. I assume these then must be the fair and acceptable type - whatever that is.
So how about it Jim, tell us when are zero hour contract not "exploitative".
Thursday, 9 April 2015
A report from the Scottish Leaders Debate
I was lucky enough to attend the BBC Scottish Leaders Debate in Aberdeen on the 8th of April, but not lucky enough to get the chance to ask a question or make any points.
Despite this it was an interesting experience being there in person and gave me a slightly different perspective on the debate that I though might be worth sharing.
It did involve a fair bit of hanging around, but I guess that's the nature of TV.
Whilst hanging around we only saw two of the leaders.
Firstly Ruth Davidson walked through the crowd to get to the staged area and then back to where the leaders were waiting.
She didn't interact with any of the waiting audience, it was a blinkers on straight there and back affair.
Then a little while later Nicola Sturgeon came through to get to the stage area.
On her way she acknowledged the waiting audience although she didn't stop.
On her way back, however, she stopped and chatted to anyone who wanted to talk to her had photos/selfies taken.
So very contrasting styles.
I did not see any other leader until the start of the debate when they came on stage.
Whilst hanging around it became apparent that a lot of people knew each other and I started earwigging and it didn't take long to overhear a conversation about people lying to the BBC about who they supported in order to try and skew the audience.
At this point I wasn't sure who the group supported but I kept an eye out during the debate to see who they were applauding.
They had taken people through to be seated in groups of ten, and this group split up and as a result got scattered thoughout the audience.
I was still able to pick them out but unfortunately this did not help that much because it turned out they were all applauding Ruth Davidson and Jim Murphy equally, and Willie Rennie when he made a comment about Scotland voting No in the referendum.
So all I could say for definite is that they were anti-independence and could very well have been supporters of any of the Better Together alliance.
But this also revealed something else interesting that I noticed.
The anti-independence supporters would not only applaud when they agreed with something that was said, they would also stamp both feet and show vocal support it what appeared to be a pre-arranged tactic.
It was pretty clear that they were not there for a party political debate for the general election, this was still fighting the war over independence and party allegiances had to take a back seat.
Of course they loved any ganging up against Nicola Sturgeon and that is something else that doesn't come across on the TV coverage is the collusion between the Party leaders.
You see them chatting before the debate, and of course they know each other well, so it shouldn't be surprising that they could actually get along on a personal basis and I'm sure some of you have seen the photos of Ruth Davidson adjusting Jim Murphy’s tie.
I have to say that David Coburn was the exception to this, the other leaders clearly (and quite rightly) shunned him and tried to have as little contact as possible – they weren't rude to him, but clearly keeping him at a distance.
But there was more than that.
Being there during the actual debate you could see subtle looks between the leaders that the cameras don't pick up or the editors/directors don't include.
It honestly reminded me of a group of children ganging up to bully someone, throwing looks of encouragement to egg each other on when they thought they'd found a weakness.
And it was clear this wasn't about policies, Patrick Harvey got an almost clear run in comparison.
This was clearly about ganging up against the biggest threat and Patrick Harvey didn't qualify.
Although David Colburn didn't qualify either, he still got the Murphy treatment because Nicola's condemnation of Coburn had gotten the biggest applause so far and Murphy wasn't going to miss out on that – even if it meant he had to awkwardly refer back to a moment which everyone else had moved on from.
But hey that's politics and it's not really anything we would not expect.
It is however a very different experience seeing it in the flesh.
If you want my opinion on who won, I would say both Patrick Harvey and Nicola Sturgeon were impressive.
Coburn was a waste of time that could have been better spent.
If anyone else is thinking of putting themselves forward for anything like this in future I would encourage you to do so.
But one tip, they don't pick the best questions.
Or rather they try to pick the most vanilla questions.
If anyone's interested in the questions/points I never got a chance to ask, here they are:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Jim, you say the only way to lock David Cameron out of no10 is to vote Labour.
However you confirmed that Labour would vote against any Tory Queens speech.
Nicola has already confirmed she would do the same and vote for a Labour queens speech.
So Scottish voters can safely replace every single Labour MP with a SNP MP and the numbers voting against the Tories will be exactly the same.
In that one statement you have confirmed that it is nonsense to say the biggest party forms the government and and the same time made Labour irrelevant in Scotland.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Jim you talk about social justice and foodbanks, where was your social justice when 30 Scottish Labour MPs, including yourself, voted with the Tories for a welfare cap & 40 Scottish Labour MPs, including yourself, voted with the Tories for a further £30 billion pounds of austerity cuts, not to mention the bedroom tax that you didn't vote against.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If anyone is in any doubt that the Labour party has sold it soul for right wing votes you only need to look at Ed Milliband, the son of polish jewish immigrants, standing on a stage, pandering to UKIP's racist agenda & funding their election campaign selling anti-immigration mugs on their website.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The days are gone where you can spend 5 years talking tory to middle england and expect Scotland to believe you when come up here & rediscover your socialist roots just in time for each general election.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I don't want to vote for a party because they are not quite as bad as the party you most hate.
I want to vote for a party that has principles and conviction,
Not a party that shamelessly chases votes by saying one thing to the English and another to the Scots
A party that takes you for granted and only talks of socialism once every 5 years when it wants your vote.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Jim tells us that vote for the SNP and we'll get the tories.
Given Labours record of standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in the referendum, voting with the Tories or abstaining to allow the Tories to pass bills on such controversial issues as austerity, welfare caps, bedroom tax etc, would we really notice any difference in government and would it not be better to have a large group of SNP MP's to provide a real opposition?”
Despite this it was an interesting experience being there in person and gave me a slightly different perspective on the debate that I though might be worth sharing.
It did involve a fair bit of hanging around, but I guess that's the nature of TV.
Whilst hanging around we only saw two of the leaders.
Firstly Ruth Davidson walked through the crowd to get to the staged area and then back to where the leaders were waiting.
She didn't interact with any of the waiting audience, it was a blinkers on straight there and back affair.
Then a little while later Nicola Sturgeon came through to get to the stage area.
On her way she acknowledged the waiting audience although she didn't stop.
On her way back, however, she stopped and chatted to anyone who wanted to talk to her had photos/selfies taken.
So very contrasting styles.
I did not see any other leader until the start of the debate when they came on stage.
Whilst hanging around it became apparent that a lot of people knew each other and I started earwigging and it didn't take long to overhear a conversation about people lying to the BBC about who they supported in order to try and skew the audience.
At this point I wasn't sure who the group supported but I kept an eye out during the debate to see who they were applauding.
They had taken people through to be seated in groups of ten, and this group split up and as a result got scattered thoughout the audience.
I was still able to pick them out but unfortunately this did not help that much because it turned out they were all applauding Ruth Davidson and Jim Murphy equally, and Willie Rennie when he made a comment about Scotland voting No in the referendum.
So all I could say for definite is that they were anti-independence and could very well have been supporters of any of the Better Together alliance.
But this also revealed something else interesting that I noticed.
The anti-independence supporters would not only applaud when they agreed with something that was said, they would also stamp both feet and show vocal support it what appeared to be a pre-arranged tactic.
It was pretty clear that they were not there for a party political debate for the general election, this was still fighting the war over independence and party allegiances had to take a back seat.
Of course they loved any ganging up against Nicola Sturgeon and that is something else that doesn't come across on the TV coverage is the collusion between the Party leaders.
You see them chatting before the debate, and of course they know each other well, so it shouldn't be surprising that they could actually get along on a personal basis and I'm sure some of you have seen the photos of Ruth Davidson adjusting Jim Murphy’s tie.
I have to say that David Coburn was the exception to this, the other leaders clearly (and quite rightly) shunned him and tried to have as little contact as possible – they weren't rude to him, but clearly keeping him at a distance.
But there was more than that.
Being there during the actual debate you could see subtle looks between the leaders that the cameras don't pick up or the editors/directors don't include.
It honestly reminded me of a group of children ganging up to bully someone, throwing looks of encouragement to egg each other on when they thought they'd found a weakness.
And it was clear this wasn't about policies, Patrick Harvey got an almost clear run in comparison.
This was clearly about ganging up against the biggest threat and Patrick Harvey didn't qualify.
Although David Colburn didn't qualify either, he still got the Murphy treatment because Nicola's condemnation of Coburn had gotten the biggest applause so far and Murphy wasn't going to miss out on that – even if it meant he had to awkwardly refer back to a moment which everyone else had moved on from.
But hey that's politics and it's not really anything we would not expect.
It is however a very different experience seeing it in the flesh.
If you want my opinion on who won, I would say both Patrick Harvey and Nicola Sturgeon were impressive.
Coburn was a waste of time that could have been better spent.
If anyone else is thinking of putting themselves forward for anything like this in future I would encourage you to do so.
But one tip, they don't pick the best questions.
Or rather they try to pick the most vanilla questions.
If anyone's interested in the questions/points I never got a chance to ask, here they are:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Jim, you say the only way to lock David Cameron out of no10 is to vote Labour.
However you confirmed that Labour would vote against any Tory Queens speech.
Nicola has already confirmed she would do the same and vote for a Labour queens speech.
So Scottish voters can safely replace every single Labour MP with a SNP MP and the numbers voting against the Tories will be exactly the same.
In that one statement you have confirmed that it is nonsense to say the biggest party forms the government and and the same time made Labour irrelevant in Scotland.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to vote for a party that has principles and conviction,
Not a party that shamelessly chases votes by saying one thing to the English and another to the Scots
A party that takes you for granted and only talks of socialism once every 5 years when it wants your vote.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given Labours record of standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in the referendum, voting with the Tories or abstaining to allow the Tories to pass bills on such controversial issues as austerity, welfare caps, bedroom tax etc, would we really notice any difference in government and would it not be better to have a large group of SNP MP's to provide a real opposition?”
Welcome
Hi
Welcome to my blog.
I'm not a journalist or professional writer (as will become very obvious).
So don't expect the most scintillating prose or witty banter, it's just a place for the thoughts I want to share or that I think might be interesting to somebody else.
If it's not interesting to you or you disagree fine, just don't be a dick about it!
Welcome to my blog.
I'm not a journalist or professional writer (as will become very obvious).
So don't expect the most scintillating prose or witty banter, it's just a place for the thoughts I want to share or that I think might be interesting to somebody else.
If it's not interesting to you or you disagree fine, just don't be a dick about it!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)