Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

Donate to our new server appeal.


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Stevie

Who will replace Brown?

With the inevitable failure of Gordon Brown at the polls next year, the Labour MPs are already positioning themselves for the next leader of the Labour party.

I predict Harriet Harmon will be the next Labour leader.

She has the zeal of Thatcher (albeit in a "left-wing" way) and in fact she even looks like her.

Everybody else is wrong except her.

Her bolshi attitude to anyone who suggests that the 50 pence in the pound tax rate is unreasonable is eye catching.

I think the Labour Party will want a woman to change their image.
Stevie

Steven Byers (a friend of Tony) says : ID cards should go, Trident should go, the 50 pence high earners Tax band is a government "thirst for revenge" on the rich.

Et tu Steven?  The knives are out.
Lord Pitsligo

I'm not sure it'll matter. Labour are heading for at least a decade in the political wilderness.
Aventinian

Re: Who will replace Brown?

Bravehand wrote:
With the inevitable failure of Gordon Brown at the polls next year, the Labour MPs are already positioning themselves for the next leader of the Labour party.


Even as an optimistic Tory, I don't see a Labour defeat and a Conservative majority as by any means a foregone conclusion in the next election.

Quote:
I predict Harriet Harmon will be the next Labour leader.


Hmm... I think there are a lot of other people that can command a lot more support from the parliamentary party.
Stevie

Re: Who will replace Brown?

Quote:
Even as an optimistic Tory, I don't see a Labour defeat and a Conservative majority as by any means a foregone conclusion in the next election.


The lowest the Labour Party have sunk to is 27%, they managed to rise to within ~5% of the Conservatives.

It is extremely unlikely Labour can shake off Brown's general malaise.  They've just gone and suggested a 50 pence tax for the rich(and at £150 thousand a year is hardly for the super rich).  This levy is a desperate move from a government desperate not to cut public spending before the next election by borrowing on future income.

Unemployment is rising, people give politicians 6 months tops before they lose total faith.  They're cooked in their own juice.

Quote:
Hmm... I think there are a lot of other people that can command a lot more support from the parliamentary party.


I agree, it's a hypothesis but Labour will want to change and I have a feeling.  I'm just throwing it out there but we'll see, it's what I think at the moment.  I guess an HH nickname is in order.

I was right about Obama, McCain and Palin months before they were chosen.  That of course may have no relevance since I am more interested in American politics on the whole.

Also there rests the potential that Alec Salmond is right that there may well be a hung parliament and a referendum will become possible due to the fact that Brown managed to claw his way back up the polls and Labour's base don't like the sound of Conservative "Thrift" spending cut politics.
Dave Coull

Re: Who will replace Brown?

Bravehand wrote:
a referendum will become possible (albeit a waste of time in my view)
You are going to have to explain that one.

Bravehand, I realise that, as far as you're concerned, you said that just as an aside from the topic on which you were writing. However, in my view, clarity on the issue of a referendum is far more important than the relatively trivial question of who will replace Brown as Labour Party leader. I also realise that Aventinian, as a diehard Unionist, is opposed to the whole idea of a referendum on independence, but why, Bravehand, would   YOU  regard a referendum on independence as "a waste of time"?

My own view is that a referendum  is  possible, and not only in the circumstances which you hypothesised, and that, far from being "a waste of time", a non-party-political, single-issue referendum on independence is essential to establish beyond doubt the wishes of the people of Scotland for the future of the country.
Stevie

I'm all in favour of having a referendum.

If Alec Salmond says it's a good idea then he's nobody's fool.  They don't call him "smart Alec" for nothing and his theory is sound with respect to a possible hung government.  

If there is a referendum then the Brits will shove everything at the SNP like never before (personally, I think Alec knew that the SNP was going to lose Glenrothes but he couldn't turn round and say it near the end of the election - I saw the SNP was on a small downturn and saw a slight change in his enthusiasm there)

Who knows, many people could change alliance with the prospect of an independent Scotland in front of them.  It's a gamble but as I said, they(his enemies who don't wish even to debate with him cause they're scared) don't call him "smart Alec" for nothing.

One last point, I live in France, I have distance.  I can honestly say, I've never seen such an interest towards independence in general in Scotland since 1976.

Alba gu brąth
Dave Coull

I asked
Quote:
why, Bravehand, would   YOU  regard a referendum on independence as "a waste of time"?
Bravehand claims to be in favour of a referendum
Quote:
I'm all in favour of having one
however, in answer to my question, replies
Quote:
Because I don't think the Scots are ready.
"NOT  READY"??????!!!!!!!!!!
Not ready for democracy?????!!!!!
Give us democracy, but not just yet, because I don't think we can win a democratic vote????!!!!!
Bravehand wrote:
don't think the Scots will vote yes
I think you're wrong. I think there are good reasons for expecting the referendum vote to be far more positive than either "optimistic Unionists" or "pessimistic nationalists" (such as yourself) believe.  As I see it, there are only three possible outcomes for a referendum. These three possible outcomes are:
(1) A very decisive win for independence. This is, in my view, by far the most likely outcome. I have given my reasons for thinking so many times before, but, if you like, I can give them again. A decisive win for independence will lead to negotiations on the details of independence.
(2) A narrow win for independence. This is, in my view, far less likely than a decisive win for independence, but okay it's a possibility. A narrow win would make the negotiations on the details of independence more difficult, but they could still go ahead.
(3) A narrow defeat for independence. This would, in my view, be the LEAST likely of all the possible results. But okay, it might just possibly happen. If it did, it would settle nothing. The United Kingdom would certainly not be strengthened, and the narrowness of the result would be a boost for the independence movement to keep pushing.

What about a decisive defeat for independence? It's just not going to happen. I don't consider that even remotely possible. But of course some unionists will think it a possibility, otherwise, they  would never go along with a referendum. So, let's consider the theoretical hypothesis that they are right. What then?

What then? That's democracy for you. Telling your opponents,  AND  the large numbers of uncommitted or uncertain folk that you are trying to convince, that you are  SCARED  of  democracy, sends out the worst of all possible messages. Does a football team go into a game with their coach telling them "okay lads, we're probably going to lose this one, in fact, to tell the truth, I would prefer not to have to play this match at all for a few more years?" Of course not!

REFERENDUM NOW   -   INDEPENDENCE   -   YES  OR  NO
Stevie

What are the current poll figures in favour of independence?
Dave Coull

Bravehand wrote:
If you know of any polls that are different then I would be happy to change my view
Yes, there have been opinion polls giving different indications from that particularly dodgy one which got a lot of publicity from the unionist media quite recently. But, in any case, I think excessive scrutinising of "the polls" is the wrong approach.  With the vote on the referendum on a Scottish  Parliament, right up until the actual referendum, there were polls suggesting that the referendum might be lost, or that it would be touch and go, or that some regions of the country would vote against. In the end, all of that was wrong. There is, in fact, a pattern, which can be found from other referendums as well, of people being more inclined to choose the more "radical" option than seems likely right up until the actual vote itself. The act of actually calling a referendum will in itself boost support for independence. So will the broadly based  NON  PARTY  POLITICAL campaign for a "yes" vote in that referendum. I think you are seeing things far too much from a narrow party political standpoint. The actual campaign isn't going to be like that.
Bravehand wrote:
the kids need to be educated to "feel" Scottish in a way that some people never will.  Thus 30 years of education is probably about right
So, does that mean you would favour a referendum on independence after 30 years of the "right" kind of education? That is a ludicrously gradualist position. It is also a ludicrously "Nationalist", capital "N", position. We don't need to convince people to be Nationalists. We don't even need to convince them to be Scottish. The largest minority group in Scotland is the English, and, strange though this may seem to some folk, a significant proportion of that minority group are prepared to vote for independence for the country that they live in. All we need to do is to convince people that independence is better than dependence. That's all. And no, this won't take 30 years.
Bravehand wrote:
I said I could be wrong
What you said you could be wrong about was the chances of winning a referendum. What I'm saying is, regardless of the chances of winning, it's wrong to delay democracy full stop.
Aventinian

Bravehand wrote:
They don't call him "smart Alec" for nothing


I think that label would be intended to allude to him being a smart-arse rather than smart in the intelligent sense.
Stevie

smart arse... really that's it?  (... sigh)
Holebender

Yes, even Alec Salmond's arse is smarter than the opposition! Wink
azzuri

...Jack Straw seems a safe bet, which is what they'll go for when they inevitably lose the next election. Failing that, David Miliband.
Stevie

Yep, normally that's what I would have said but I have a feeling that the zealot Har Har might just pull a Thatcher.

Does anyone know if the bookies are taking bets, AND if not then it might be an idea to start?
magister ludi

One thing is for sure...it won't be a scot, or anybody with Mac in their name.

My guess is that HH won't be in the running....there too many associations with the titled/landed gentry  for the traditional left to lend her their support ( or than as a stalking horse).

Milliband.....I don't see it.....he lacks charisma....and real gravitas, there's too much of the "school prefect and secretary of the chess club" about him......although I can see him being called on to be part of a dream ticket. If the  tim henman of politics wants to get to the final it'll need to be in a doubles team

Watch out for H Benn.  Pedigree in the name.....even although there's a suspicion of runt of the litter about him, but he'll play that to his advantage.  The establishment left  do love their dynasties.
Dave Coull

magister ludi wrote:
Watch out for H Benn. Pedigree in the name.....even although there's a suspicion of runt of the litter about him, but he'll play that to his advantage.  The establishment left do love their dynasties.
When Hilary Benn stood for deputy leader of the party, his dad endorsed his candidacy, dismissed any suggestions that H. was too "new labour" for his liking, and said he was very proud of his son who was doing a fantastic job. If he says the same again for Hilary as leader, yes, that would carry some weight. It would mean that H. Benn could  appear to be  a more "left wing" candidate, and that could be spun to be a break with the failed "new labour" policies of Blair and Brown. It was Hilary's dad who, as Minister of Technology in a Labour government, symbolically turned the tap that started North Sea Oil coming ashore, and of course he rejected any suggestion that "It's Scotland's oil". So far as Scotland is concerned, there is no reason to think Benn would be any more enthusiastic about independence than any other Labour leader, but he would have less of a personal stake in continuing the Union than Gordon Brown. His constituency is in Yorkshire, not Fife. Benn would find it hard to dispute the argument for a referendum on independence as a matter of democratic self-determination, but would seek an endorsement of continued Union from that referendum. (Which he wouldn't get.......)
Reluctant Hero

I think the way David Milliband acted a couple of months (or is it years now!) ago when he refused to support Brown and was hinting that he may stand against him, will not act in his favour.  So hopefully he will be over looked.

The problem Labour may have is that there might not be anyone left, so their choice might be severely limited.  

What about a return for John Reid?
Dave Coull

Reluctant Hero wrote:
What about a return for John Reid?
He's Scottish. The chances are the next leader of the Labour Party will NOT be Scottish.
Reluctant Hero

I don't necessarily buy that argument.

They had their most successful period with Scottish leaders.

First with John Smith, then with Tony Blair.
Lord Pitsligo

Reluctant Hero wrote:
I don't necessarily buy that argument.

They had their most successful period with Scottish leaders.

First with John Smith, then with Tony Blair.


And now Gordon Brown......oh, that buggers that idea  Wink
Dave Coull

Tony Blair "Scottish"? I thought that product of Durham Cathedral Choirboys' School, Fettes College, and Oxford, had emphatically DENIED being Scottish.

I had written
Quote:
The chances are the next leader of the Labour Party will NOT be Scottish.
Reluctant Hero wrote:
They had their most successful period with Scottish leaders.
No they didn't. In 2004, the MORI polling organisation organised a poll of professors of history at British universities on the question "Who was the greatest British prime minister of the 20th Century?". The verdict of the historians was, the greatest British Prime Minister of the Twentieth Century was Major Clement Attlee. Not just the greatest "Labour" prime minister, mark you, but the greatest prime  minister of ANY party. Major Attlee led the Labour Party, a party then full of difficult and quarrelsome factions and individuals, for TWENTY  YEARS,  from 1935 to 1955; served as Deputy Prime Minister in the wartime coalition government; then, when his cabinet colleague Winston Churchill made the mistake of calling a snap general election while the war against Japan was still going on, Attlee won a landslide victory against the more flamboyant Churchill (with the enthusiastic backing of large numbers of men in the armed forces including those still fighting in the far east). He then presided over a government which embarked on an ambitious house-building programme, ensured full employment, and introduced the National Health Service and the welfare state. Attlee was a Londoner. The health minister in his government, in charge of introducing the NHS, was Aneurin Bevan, and just try saying that name without sounding Welsh. As for Tony Blair, the verdict of history is sure to be, he simply wasn't in the same league.
Reluctant Hero

I can't believe my eyes Dave.

Have you not on every single occasion in the past totally disregarded out of hand any opinion poll that has been presented?  Yet here you are backing up your argument with the findings from an opinion poll!!  Unbelievable!!

I happen to agree with you about Blair.  He couldn't lace a lot of previous PMs boots.  He had no substance.  The only thing he was good at was talking.

However the fact remains, that electorally (and let's face it, that is all the Labour Party is interested in these days - getting elected - they'll say anything to get there) they have just enjoyed the most successful period in their history.
Lord Pitsligo

Reluctant Hero wrote:

However the fact remains, that electorally (and let's face it, that is all the Labour Party is interested in these days - getting elected - they'll say anything to get there) they have just enjoyed the most successful period in their history.


But what if you factor in their upcoming time in the wilderness, it kind of starts to average out, doesn't it?  Wink
Dave Coull

Reluctant Hero wrote:
Have you not on every single occasion in the past totally disregarded out of hand any opinion poll that has been presented?  Yet here you are backing up your argument with the findings from an opinion poll!!
Consistency is the virtue of small minds. However, I must point out one absolutely crucial difference between this poll and all those other polls. Those other polls claim to "sample" public opinion. They claim to gauge public opinion by choosing a supposedly "representative" sample. This one is NOT a sample. This one asked every history professor at every university in the United Kingdom who they thought was the greatest British prime minister of the 20th Century. The day that any opinion poll asks EVERY person in Scotland what they think about independence, I will accept that as a valid poll. Or, to call it by its other name, I will accept the result of the referendum.
Reluctant Hero wrote:
they have just enjoyed the most successful period in their history
Even if we were to accept that, your contention that this was done under Scottish leaders is false. Tony Blair, educated at Durham Cathedral Choirboys' School, Fettes, and Oxford, denied being Scottish, supported the England football team, etc. Culturally, you could say he is British but definitely more English than Scots. In any case, coming back to the original point, the chances are the NEXT leader of the Labour Party will NOT be Scottish. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.
agentmancuso

Dave Coull wrote:
Reluctant Hero wrote:
They had their most successful period with Scottish leaders.
No they didn't. In 2004, the MORI polling organisation organised a poll of professors of history at British universities on the question "Who was the greatest British prime minister of the 20th Century?". The verdict of the historians was, the greatest British Prime Minister of the Twentieth Century was Major Clement Attlee. Not just the greatest "Labour" prime minister, mark you, but the greatest prime  minister of ANY party.


The question of "who was the most successful Prime Minister of the 20th Century" has nothing to do with the point RH made, which was that the Labour Party have had their greatest period of electoral success in recent years under a succession of Scottish (or half-Scottish) leaders, which is undeniable.

But it's equally undeniable that another Scottish leader for the Labour Party would be a bridge too far for the English Press, and hence arguably the English electorate.
agentmancuso

Dave Coull wrote:
I must point out one absolutely crucial difference between this poll and all those other polls. Those other polls claim to "sample" public opinion. They claim to gauge public opinion by choosing a supposedly "representative" sample. This one is NOT a sample.


Ooooof. Neatly swerved!
Aventinian

Dave Coull wrote:
Even if we were to accept that, your contention that this was done under Scottish leaders is false. Tony Blair, educated at Durham Cathedral Choirboys' School, Fettes, and Oxford, denied being Scottish


I don't think he has ever denied being Scottish, but he has certainly given the impression that he doesn't consider himself so. Which is fair enough really; where he went to school has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Quote:
Culturally, you could say he is British but definitely more English than Scots.


I don't really see the case for that. He was British; to my knowledge he never claimed Scottish or English nationality, nor did he have any particular interest in the concepts.
Stevie

Har Har is making her her moves.
Stevie

Since I'm here... I saw a dead badger (large cute beastie) lying sadly at the side of the road - hit by a car. I think this cute dead badger could do a better job than dumble is managing to do just now. I mean the Tory excesses in expense fiddling are impressively larger than Labour's (if not as widespread) and yet D Cam has still managed to turn it into a victory dance over Labour's political grave.

see http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ very witty

I don't think dumble will actually make it to the next election as leader of the Labour Party (still Labour don't like kicking leaders out - wait a minute, this is New Labour, didn't they just kick Tony out?).

However, it is impressive how good dumble manages to makes D Cam look (but remember, D Cam's talented and sometimes mildly funny but he's no Tony who made me laugh sometimes and he doesn't have his brains)

I go with dead badger.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics