Labour Hit New Low

Reluctant Hero · Labour Hit New Low

The Labour Party is now 24 points behind the Tories in the latest opinion poll.

Was watching Question Time last night and one of the panelist's made a good point. Regardless of what Brown does, he is not going to win the next election. Therefore he has two years left to achieve what he really wants to do. So he should pursue the big things he really wants to do and forget about the consequences, because he is going to be punted out of office regardless.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics...-blow-Party-popularity.4136027.jp

Scott2006

YouGov poll for the Telegraph
Surveyed May 27-29, 2008
Scottish section (200 responders)
(Seat allocation according to Electoral Calculus)
Results

SNP 41 (43)
Labour 25 (7)
Conservatives 19 (4)
LibDems 13 (5)
Others 2 (0)

The Labour Party in England at 23% is at the lowest point in 65 years of opinion poll records.
The underlying figures could be 23%, but at a general election could also return to 30%+ if past general election run-ins are a useful guide.

Gordon Brown sounds Scottish, so even if he says what the swing voters in England want to hear, his accent makes them less likely to vote for him.

Labour, or the Red Tories as they have morphed into, have two years to re-invent themselves or perhaps they'd rather prepare the ground for a Con take-over and regroup indefinitely on the opposition benches come 2010.

William_Cleland

Are Labour heading for the fate of the Progressive Conservatives in the 1993 Canadian federal election? Smile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cana...election%2C_1993#National_results

Aventinian

Scott2006

Aventinian: I'm not saying all swing voters are racists. The general columnists in certain newspapers when turning to politics chose to highlight Mr Brown's origins, as if to confirm a vague idea that he is from a different place and therefore less in touch with those certain newspapers' readership.

Neil Kinnock was attacked for being a Welsh Windbag, even when the vast majority knew he was Welsh, and those that paid attention probably thought he was a windbag. Alliteration, and re-inforcing an idea of someone from a different place in a short phrase is journalistic shorthand when they try to fill out a paragraph while grappling with thinking of something, hopefully intelligent, to say.

Dour Scotsman - is it accurate in describing Gordon B, most people would think so - but every journalist choosing to highlight his different origin, continues to turn a phrase associating a degree of incompetence (while the Scot/tish/sman hangs beside a pejorative term) with a heavy reliance on the number of Scottish people in his inner circle of admirers/advisers.

Reinforcing regionalism is a way that does part of the damage more obvious racism would not as it is rightly challenged.

If refering to David Miliband, somebody always described him as envious Englishman, hankering after the PMs position, for example - would that be seen as trying to portray ALL English as envious or not? Surely not, but for the sake of alliterative purposes a low level insult or slight is perpetuated.

Aventinian · Re: Labour Hit New Low

Holebender

He seems to want to lock us up for 6 weeks without benefit of a trial, for one thing.

Reluctant Hero · Re: Labour Hit New Low

Alasdair · Re: Labour Hit New Low

Holebender

He just wants to be Prime Minister (or he wanted to be PM before he actually got the job).

Scott2006

Scotland On Sunday 1st June 2008
Brown urged to get rid of "Scots Mafia"
By Eddie Barnes and Murdo McLeod
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman....Brown-urged-to-get-rid.4140049.jp

LABOUR figures have called on Gordon Brown to purge the "Scots Mafia" around him in an effort to curry favour with voters south of the border.

The Prime Minister is being urged to give key jobs to ministers seen as able to reach out to Middle England amid concern that the party will face a landslide general election defeat at the hands of David Cameron's Conservatives.

MPs believe that ministers from south of the border will be better able to appeal to middle-class voters in marginal seats across England.

The call came amid increasing speculation about Brown's future as Labour leader and private warnings that David Miliband needs to "seize his chance" to unseat Brown to save his party from defeat.

Stephen Ladyman, a former minister and the Labour MP for the marginal English seat of South Thanet, said: "It is important to recognise that the election is won or lost in England. We need to have English voices speaking and giving messages that make sense in English communities."

Lindsay Hoyle, the Labour MP for Chorley, added: "Voters are looking to see a better balance within the cabinet to ensure that all the regions of England are represented."

Keith Vaz, a former minister and a member of Labour's national executive committee, called for Brown to appoint an English deputy prime minister.

He suggested that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, should take over full responsibility for domestic and economic policy.

Such a change would effectively be a demotion for Chancellor and Edinburgh MP Alistair Darling.

Vaz said: "Gordon has proved to me to be very effective. But now he has got a real opportunity to shake up the Government. There is one way of proceeding without the necessity of a huge reshuffle. There is a post that is vacant at the moment and that is the post of deputy prime minister."

Some MPs believe that Alan Johnson, the health secretary, or James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, could be given new roles as the English "spokesmen" for the Government.

At present there are four Scots in the cabinet, including Brown and Darling. Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary and Des Browne, the defence secretary, are both close to the Prime Minister. However, some English MPs privately question their ability to communicate with voters south of the border.

One Labour MP, who asked not to be named, reportedly said: "We live in a world where there is a quota for women MPs and there may soon be quotas for black MPs. Why should there not be quotas for the English too? The Scots Mafia have dominated Brown's team for too long."

Labour's poor showing in the Crewe by-election has in part given rise to the anti-Scottish backlash.

The disastrous Labour campaign was run by a Scot, Steve McCabe, a Government whip. He has been criticised for running a negative campaign caricaturing the Conservatives as "toffs", a campaign that backfired among English voters.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband is being warned by allies that he will have "missed his chance" if he fails to mount a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown this summer.

Miliband is being pressed by backbench supporters to 'throw his hat into the ring' in order to force the Prime Minister to quit within the next few months.

But they are also piling pressure on the minister, telling him that he will not be supported if – after an election defeat in 2010 – he decides to go for the leadership then.

One senior Labour source said: "David Miliband won't get the leadership if he goes for it when it's easy, after Brown has lost the election. He is being told he should go for it now, or he won't be backed later."

Holebender

So there you have it, all together in one big happy United Kingdom, but Scots need not apply.

Independence anyone?

Holebender

The Sunday Times has the same story. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4040175.ece

Holebender

I love the implication that they lost the Crewe byelection because they had a Scot in charge. Priceless.

William_Cleland

Definitely a coded message in there. Odds on Steve McCabe is not really the Scot that they think is really causing the problem. Smile

The key sentence is:-

Miliband is being pressed by backbench supporters to 'throw his hat into the ring' in order to force the Prime Minister to quit within the next few months.

Alasdair

William_Cleland

15 or 20 years ago most of them would have envisioned England and Britain interchangeably so is that surprising?

Alasdair

Not surprise, more disappointment.

Labour have created a clear and obvious imbalance in governance by providing an assembly in Wales and a Parliament in Scotland without introducing an equivelent in England.

England seems to be rediscovering itself, my only concern is that there is an increasingly negative tone which paradoxically seems intent on retaining the union (in some quarters at least) whilst minimising the input from scotland, in particular, on the basis that we have a 'parliament'.

Yet the real problem seems to be not so much that we have an elected body, but that they don't.

Following independence, my main concern is how the the remaing 'UK' would deal with a Scotland which has potentially walked off with the lion's share of North Sea oil. What intimidation might be presented by a cash strapped Westminster and how might the population of England, feeling hard done to, react to Scots in their midst.

A simplification and a doomsday projection I grant, but still it's scenarios like these which may be more accurate than any feared anti-english sentiment from an independent Scotland.

Blackleaf

Holebender

Red Justice

Blackleaf said: Brown may be the typical dour Scotsman (let's face it, the Scots are a pretty dull, depressing lot, as dull as ditchwater)

Above comment sounds a tad racist Blackleaf?

If I made comments on this forum about English people I would soon be harassed possibility by a quisling?

Dave Coull

Blackleaf wrote "let's face it, the Scots are a pretty dull, depressing lot, as dull as ditchwater"

Well, as it says right under Blackleaf's pseudonym, "confirmed TROLL".

Red Justice says

"Above comment sounds a tad racist Blackleaf?"

Of course it's racist. But since Blackleaf is a confirmed troll, that is, somebody who is deliberately seeking to annoy, in order to provoke a reaction, getting upset about it is exactly what he wants.

"If I made comments on this forum about English people I would soon be harassed possibility by a quisling?"

Do you actually know who Quisling was?

Vidkun Quisling was the leader of the National Socialists in Norway. As such, of course, he portrayed himself as being very patriotic. When the German National Socialists invaded Norway, he became the leader of the collaborationist regime.

If you made comments on this forum like the comment from Blackleaf, then yes, you would be pulled up about it, for two reasons. (1) Because you are NOT a confirmed troll. That is to say, although you do say some annoying things, you appear to do so because they make some sort of sense in your own confused mind, and not just in order to provoke a reaction. (2) Because you have 'form' where anti-English remarks are concerned. In fact, you have a criminal conviction for harassment in connection with this.

carol

Dave why keep dragging RJ through the mire? You campaigned with him on the streets of Dundee a few months ago, could you not have settled differences then and moved on?

Red Justice

Mr Coull I give you an offer instead of hiding behind a keyboard to blacken my name come to Dundee at an agreed neutral venue to discuss the matter with me. But you should come alone only. This is not a threat but to see if you are a coward or not the offer is there if you do not take it up then shut up!

And never describe my mind as confused you stupid cretin!

Red Justice

carol

coward behind a keyboard, 2 faced also springs to mind, he belittles others on public forums rather than say what he thinks of them face to face

Red Justice

Coull said: Because you have 'form' where anti-English remarks are concerned

Hope you are not making a false defamatory statement about me as I said it will be followed up I will be seeking legal advice. In case you are thick I am not engaged in anti-English remarks against anyone at this time so be careful and not peddle lies about me on this forum I have friends that can prove your childish remarks to be nothing more than slanderous.

Red Justice

Pip

In the 90s when I started wearing a St George's Cross pin and correcting my countrymen on that 'complicated' England/Britain thing, I used to dream of the day when an English Question would be a burning national issue. I didn't think it would turn out quite like this, to put it mildly (careful what you wish for?). For every pro-England point that's made, whether in the media or by ordinary people, there seem to be five anti-Scottish ones. While some might be delighted that elements of English nationalism are becoming mainstream, there's the danger that it will end up as a 'cab-driver' issue, taken semi-seriously at best.

I would think that post-independence the hostility would drain away, but I don't see it happening inside a British context. Maybe if the UK faced some massive and real external threat it might power-up Gordon Brown's precious Britishness. Alternatively if the unionist parties were able to sideline Scottish Nationalism within Scotland and keep Scottish issue out of the English consciousness for a time, things might cool down a bit, but I doubt that will happen.

Incidentally Blackleaf, I don't like to criticize another Englishman on a foreign forum, but over the past couple of years you have made me embarrassed and ashamed. Why these good people tolerate you is beyond me.

Reluctant Hero

Listen lads and lasses.

This is a forum to discuss Scottish and UK politics and Scottish society.

It is not a forum to renew personal, bitter arguments.

So keep to the topic that is being discussed or threads will continue to be locked and further action taken.

Dave Coull

Red Justice writes “This is not a threat but to see if you are a coward or not the offer is there if you do not take it up then shut up!”

First of all, it is pointless ordering me to “shut up”. I don’t obey such orders.

Secondly, if it wasn’t a threat, then why would it matter one way or the other whether I am a coward or not? That sort of language is only appropriate where a threat IS being implied.

Thirdly, in any case, since you yourself have stated that your legal action against me is “in process”, any such meeting (without your solicitor and mine being present) would almost certainly be deemed by a court to have compromised your case against me.

Make up your mind. Which kind of action is it that you have “in process”? Legal, or illegal?

“Mr Coull I give you an offer instead of hiding behind a keyboard to blacken my name come to Dundee”

It could be said that anybody who uses as pseudonym on a discussion forum is “hiding”. It could be said that calling yourself “Red Justice” is a kind of hiding. My real name is on everything I write. I prefer putting things in writing because when you put things in writing you can not be interrupted, you can not be shouted down, and it becomes much harder to twist what was said. Not impossible, but much harder. If anybody tries to twist what was said, then it’s just a case of pointing out the exact written words.

I honestly don’t think it would achieve much to have such a meeting with you. For one thing, in my experience, you have a tendency to interrupt, and a tendency to only hear what you want to hear. If I was to agree to meeting, I would certainly want to make sure I had a tape recorder, or whatever the modern equivelant is, with me, to verify exactly what was said, if necessary.

Like I said, I’m not sure that such a meeting would actually achieve anything; but, since you are the one who is keen, if it is to take place at all, then it is up to you to do the travelling, not me. I am very rarely in Dundee these days.

Dave Coull

Red Justice wrote "I helped the SIC campaign that day and the next day Coull blasted about me again on this forum".

Not true.

What happened was that Carol asked for a report of the petitioning on 23rd February in Dundee. I gave it. Carol then expressed her surprise that I had "survived" petitioning along with RJ, and continued to needle me about this in further messages. In response I wrote "I really didn't want to get into this, Carol, because it is a side-issue which can distract from the need to concentrate on campaigning for a referendum on independence for Scotland. But you have left me with no choice. As you may know, last year RJ was fined £250 by Arbroath Sherrif Court for what was described as racially-aggravated harrassment (of a fellow member of Independence First). He acknowledges he made a 'mistake' in referring to her English roots in e-mails in the course of a disagreement, but considers the decision of that court unjust. As you also know very well, RJ had earlier been expelled from Independence First, the only person ever to be expelled from the organisation. You are also well aware of the reasons for that expulsion. Yet today he was willing to work alongside five people who, when they were members of IF, were part of the majority which supported expulsion. And we were also willing to work with him, as people involved together in petitioning for a referendum on independence, and willing to work with those of very different views. Why could you not have just left it at that?"

Personally, I would very much have preferred to leave it at the report which I gave, which was as follows "The folk that turned up for today's Independence Convention petition activity on the streets of Dundee were all known to me. Five out of six of us were members of Determination, the only one that was not a member of Determination was 'Red Justice'. I think you had guessed whose pseudo-name that was, and both you and I have had our differences with him, but like I said in an earlier post 'The position is that anybody who is prepared to support the SIC petition, and to seek to get members of the general public to sign it, and who is prepared to work with others who may have very different views from themselves, is invited to take part'; and like Red Justice said in an earlier post 'I just get on with what is required of me', which is what we all did today".

All of this is on record on the Our Scotland Forum, under Campaigns and Events, under the heading "Independence Referendum street petitioning Dundee 23rd Feb".

Dave Coull

Carol asked “Dave why keep dragging RJ through the mire?”

I don’t. I merely respond to things said which I think are misleading. If I did not respond, then some folk might think these misleading statements are true.

“You campaigned with him on the streets of Dundee a few months ago, could you not have settled differences then”

No.

I was in Dundee for just a couple of hours, for a very specific purpose, to collect signatures on the SIC petition. In the middle of a busy shopping street while trying to interact with the wider public is neither the time nor the place for discussing differences.

William_Cleland

carol

Dave Coull is beneath contempt

Holebender

Carol, why the f*** are you stirring this?

Alasdair

is it normal for every thread on here to turn into a slanging match?

Dave Coull

Alasdair asked “is it normal for every thread on here to turn into a slanging match?"

Scotland is not a particularly big country. The percentage of political activists is smaller than the population as a whole. The percentage of political activists actively involved in campaigns or organisations connected with independence is smaller still. Some of the folk posting on here know each other from various campaigns. Some of those who have personal experience of each other from being involved together in various campaigns have quite friendly relations with each other (for example, myself and Holebender, myself and Chicmac) while others do not.

If we look at how this particular thread, "Labour Hit New Low", went wrong, first there was a post from Blackleaf in which he said "Brown may be the typical dour Scotsman (let's face it, the Scots are a pretty dull, depressing lot, as dull as ditchwater)".

Okay, that was quite offensive, but like it says on the label which the moderators of this Our Scotland forum have attached to his name, Blackleaf is a "confirmed TROLL". He is only here to try to provoke an outraged reaction. The more upset you get over remarks like that one, the better Blackleaf likes this. And although his remark was offensive, it did still retain some connection to the original subject matter, "Labour Hit New Low".

It was in the NEXT post, from Red Justice, that the connection with the original subject matter was broken. Furthermore, RJ went on to make a remark which was almost certain to provoke a reaction from some of his fellow Scots. Almost certain to provoke a reaction, and did.

Although I personally responded, I have tried to keep things on the level of rational argument. That is, I have tried to argue coherently for my point of view. The most recent post from Carol, by contrast, is just an expression of feeling, with no attempt at rational discussion whatsoever.

Alasdair

Dave Coull

Alasdair wrote "England seems to be rediscovering itself, my only concern is that there is an increasingly negative tone which paradoxically seems intent on retaining the union (in some quarters at least) whilst minimising the input from scotland, in particular, on the basis that we have a 'parliament'."

Unfortunately, here we have a classic example of a late-imperial attitude. Seek to keep hold of territory, but keep the natives in their place.

"Yet the real problem seems to be not so much that we have an elected body, but that they don't." - the United Kingdom is not, and never could become, a federal system. If you imagine a USA in which one state, whether it is California or Texas or somewhere else, has nine tenths of the population, and all of the other forty nine states add up to just one tenth, then you see the problem. The Labour Party tried to make some moves in a quasi-federal direction with their proposals for regional assemblies for the different regions of England, but this was emphatically rejected in the region they thought would be most favourable to the idea, the north-east. So, no regional assemblies, and no English parliament possible within a federal UK. What's left is the break-up of the UK. But we in Scotland can't be expected to wait until the rest of the UK sorts itself out. Our referendum on independence should not depend on what the rest of the UK does.

"Following independence, my main concern is how the the remaining 'UK' would deal with a Scotland which has potentially walked off with the lion's share of North Sea oil. What intimidation might be presented by a cash strapped Westminster and how might the population of England, feeling hard done to, react to Scots in their midst." - it's true that, when the realisation does finally sink in that all that guff about 'subsidizing the Scots' was just hot air, there could be some dangerous developments in English politics. We need control of the oil in Scottish waters, apart from anything else, there is a good case for slowing down the rate of exploitation of this resource, on the grounds that too-rapid exploitation of it (as successive British governments have encouraged) is harmful to the planet, and, anyway, oil still in the earth will gain value even faster than money in the bank. But Scotland has no interest in impoverishing the people of England, because of, apart from anything else, the reasons Alasdair mentions.

"it's scenarios like these which may be more accurate than any feared anti-english sentiment from an independent Scotland" - I agree. Yes, there IS anti-English sentiment in Scotland, that is undeniable. But independence will minimise this. There is more danger from anti-Scottish sentiment in England.

Aventinian

agentmancuso

Red Justice

Holebender

Please let us know what your lawyer advises.

Dave Coull

Well, I had hoped we had returned to the original topic of this thread, I had done my best to ensure this by posting quite a long and thoughtful message on the original topic of this thread, but some folk are determined to change the subject.

Aventinian wrote "Two defamation cases in as many days? This is going to be a very expensive process..."

And, ignoring the hook in this obvious piece of bait, Red Justice responded "It is called seeking advice Av perhaps may not come to anything"

So far, fair enough. If RJ had left it there, that would have been the end of this diversion away from the original topic of this thread. But he just couldn't leave it at that.

"but that no doubt won't stop the traitors from their usless campaign of hatred against one man".

(1) There is no "campaign". What there is, is individual people responding, quite reasonably, to stupid things that have been said. Like this latest example. If these stupid things weren't said, then there would be no need to respond to them.

(2) So far as I am aware, nobody "hates" you, RJ. I know I don't. Pity, yes; hatred, no.

(3) Since you have at least hinted at possible legal action against myself, and Holebender, and Iainmohr also, presumably these three are all included amongst those you describe as "traitors".

(4) When William Wallace was accused of being a traitor against King Edward the First of England, who, by that time, considered himself to also be the rightful ruler of Scotland, his reply was that, since he had never at any time sworn an oath of loyalty to that king, it was impossible for him to be a traitor. Applying the principle which William Wallace stated more generally, if somebody doesn't believe the same things as you, has never believed the same things as you, and has never made any pretence of believing the same things as you, then they cannot be a "traitor" to your beliefs.

Red Justice

I will not be taking legal advice it is too expensive but was seriously considered. It is up to the moderators of this forum to prevent people like Coull posting half truths about my past publicly on the Internet. And Mr Coull I do not need pity from yourself or others get real!

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

agentmancuso

Neil

Since this thread started a month ago they seem to have hit some further new lows, particularly coming 5th behind the BNP in the by-election.

It seems there are 1 Scottish Westminster & 2 Hollyrood Labour by-elections coming up.

Labour Hit New Low

Re: Labour Hit New Low

Re: Labour Hit New Low

Re: Labour Hit New Low