|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UK Election 2015
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Charles Clarke was quite probably the worst Home Secretary in the modern era. Not a nice man at all.
But he was brilliant in education and a champion for RE
Probably a reflection on the permanent people at Education and the Home Office respectively. It was under Clarke that momentum grew for ID cards and we must not forget what a fiasco that was.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
.. Cameron gave an understated performance, but of all of seven, he was the only one who came across as convincing in the part of prime minister. It was impossible to visualize any of the others jetting off to high-level policy discussions with heads of state or trying to sort out what to do about Islamic militants or Putin....
I've never understood this perception- very widespread- that Cameron is somehow 'prime ministerial'. To me he's so obviously a bluffer and a waffler and- when under pressure- a blusterer.
Anthony Wells, who works for YouGov and owns ukpollingreport says that, according to the polls, people who are Prime Minister always look more prime ministerial than people who are not Prime Minister, ie, it is always easier to look what you already are.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
On t'other hand, the debates helped show that if you give Ed more than five mins talk time he looks less like a dawk, and more credible as a politician.
He doesn't come across as potential leader material to me. He seems cold, hard and ambitious, still lightweight and still a bit unsure of himself. Perhaps if he was older he might do better.
Cameron, OTOH, had come across as capable and confident before he was elected. Tony Blair never looked prime ministerial and neither did Gordon Brown (or John Major). Some do, some don't.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Really, the guy who lost the 2010 debate? I think he did better this time.
It was close between Red Ed and Teflon Dave in this debate. Though (and it shames me to say this) I agree with the Daily Mail . Nicola Sturgeon won.
I disagree with the Mail that Sturgeon is dangerous for Britain. I think I want Sturgeon's Britain.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Cameron, OTOH, had come across as capable and confident before he was elected.
I still maintain that this is the "Old Etonian" effect. Such people often seem casual and comfortable with positions of leadership, as if it is their "birthright". I tend to think that this is one of the reasons why Justin Welby was so easily "promoted" to be Archbishop of Canterbury. It is still (sadly) the case in England that people who have been to the "right" schools and who project an aura of confident authority are instinctively (even irrationally) preferred.
I know I have made this point before, but I think it is worth repeating. There are great similarities between Cameron and Welby. Both have that "Old Etonian" aura; both have a tendency to speak smoothing generalities which sound good, but which don't actually bear a lot of analysis; both found themselves being placed in positions of leadership without ever having to really prove themselves.
(NB: I am not saying that Welby had done nothing - simply that his actual achievements as priest and bishop were not that different from any other bishop. He was not appointed on what he had done, so much as on what was felt to be some rather ill-defined "potential".)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Ed Miliband has never satisfactorily explained what he knew about Mr McBride and his activities: bearing in mind Damian McB was Gordon Brown's closest aide and Miliband was Gordon's protege it isn't credible that Miliband knew nothing.
Given that that there is no evidence Brown knw what McBride was up to I don't see why Miliband would necessarily know.
.. and given Cameron's antics with Coulson et al. pardon me if I relegate such matters to be very much of secondary importance.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Really, the guy who lost the 2010 debate? I think he did better this time.
It was close between Red Ed and Teflon Dave in this debate. Though (and it shames me to say this) I agree with the Daily Mail . Nicola Sturgeon won.
I disagree with the Mail that Sturgeon is dangerous for Britain. I think I want Sturgeon's Britain.
The opposition to Cameron are very different now. Brown was a heavyweight with no charisma while Miliband is a lightweight with no charisma. The Nick Clegg then and now are utterly different as a consequence of the coalition while the other four, UKIP apart, are a distraction.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I disagree with the Mail that Sturgeon is dangerous for Britain. I think I want Sturgeon's Britain.
The more I think about it, the more I think that a successful SNP is not that much of a problem for Labour. The downside is that they will get their asses kicked in Scotland and won't get an absolute majority. The upside is that there is no chance on earth that the SNP will ally itself with the Tories. You could make the case for Labour to refocus itself more directly on being an English party, addressing specifically English themes, allowing the SNP to take on the Tories north of the border.
There would always have to be some sort of alliance or coalition between the two parties, but sensible negotiation could deal with that as the two parties do share a lot in common (far more than the Tories share with the Lib Dems).
It could also be presented as a "new" way for the UK to work together - England and Scotland in a mature, mutually beneficial, partnership, The Welsh and the Northern Irish would then need to be brought into the scheme of things.
Let's face it. At the moment, the Tories don't really have to campaign hard in Scotland. They know they won't get much return, so they can focus resources more on England. Labour is trying to fight two very different battles in Scotland AND England.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... but Charles Clarke was quite probably the worst Home Secretary in the modern era. Not a nice man at all.
No he wasn't but are you sure he was the worst. There's some pretty stiff competition for that slot. I need only mention (working backwards) Jacqui Smith, John Reid, Michael Howard (he of the night), Reginald Maudling and Henry Brooke. Sir William Joynson-Hicks is another ferocious competitor for that slot, but he probably doesn't count as 'modern era' any more.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I agree there is stiff competition but Clarke presided over a couple of substantial blunders in a short period. All since the mid-eighties have all had their knuckles rapped by our judges when trying to abridge human rights legislation.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...the assorted nationalist parties (UKIP, the SNP, and Plaid)...
Sorry, y'what now? How can you lump SNP and Plaid in with UKIP as though they are of a type?
I was about to make much the same point. I'm not as familiar with PC, but the SNP and UKIP are about as far apart politically as you can get without including the real extremist fringe groups. The SNP favour open immigration, European Union membership, state funded healthcare and education, a decent welfare system for those who need it. On Europe and immigration UKIP clearly and emphatically stand on a different platform. I've not seen a detailed policy statement on health care (though I did see Farage make some comment about it being better to go private if you can afford it), education or welfare.
At present there isn't an English equivalent of the SNP or PC. English Nationalism is the realm of fascist thugs, and any SNP/PC equivalent party to be established in England will need to be careful to avoid that association or they'll never get anywhere. It's difficult to know what an English party would stand for, though they could stand against the influence of Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs on matters that are devolved to those nations, but that doesn't seem enough of a platform to form a party on.
I could see a greater opportunity for regional parties, standing to promote and protect the distinctive cultures and interests of (say) the SW of England, or Tyneside.
Well, there is part of me that would totally support a 'Dumnonia Arise' movement, if only we could find a legitimate scion of the House of Pendragon to lead it. But, boringly, I don't think that the interests of people living in council estates in Exeter are that different to the interests of people living in similar conditions in Glasgow or London. (Also I now live in Sussex.) This is the thing. To a proper socialist, or social democrat or liberal or conservative what matters is the functioning of the economic system and who it benefits. To a nationalist all of this is subordinate to the question of the welfare of the nation. To a nationalist the interests of the working person in Hackney is the same as the interest of the Duke of Westminster and the interest of the working man in Glasgow is the same as the Duke of Buccelech. Which is why the economic policies of nationalist parties are essentially fluid. Once upon a time the SNP was a party of the centre right - the Tartan Tories - who changed their mind when opposition to Thatcherism became popular in Scotland. Prior to devolution, their main contribution to the history of the UK was voting for the motion of no confidence in Jim Callaghan which led to Mrs Thatcher's first election victory. They are currently led by a woman whom, it appears, would prefer Mr Cameron to Mr Miliband as Prime Minister. UKIP are the continuation of Enoch Powell by other means who, famously, urged a vote for the Labour Party in the 1974 General Election on the grounds they supported a referendum on the Common Market. In the South East they are Thatcherites, in the north of England they pitch their appeal to Old Labourites who feel left behind by globalisation. If the SNP were a principled socialist, or social democratic party, they would prefer a Labour government which would strengthen the union to Cameron who is, frankly, indifferent to its survival and if UKIP were a principled party of the free market they would not be tacking left oop north. But the thing is the enemy - as far as the SNP is concerned - is the union with England and - as far as UKIP is concerned - is the EU. If, say, the option was a Conservative led government led by Mr Ken Clarke and a Labour government led by the late Mr Michael Foot UKIP would opt for the latter and, frankly, given a choice between a Labour party led by, say, the late Mr. Robin Cook and the current shower the SNP would opt for Mr Cameron every time. It's not a coincidence that Mr Farage and Mr Salmond are both admirers of Mr Putin. The point is that economics is, rather than being the fundamental question, is camouflage. If they thought they could achieve their aims by embracing Marx, Ayn Rand or Yogic Flying they would do without too much hesitation. But the thing is for an internationalist social justice is about structures - are our markets too free or not free enough. For a nationalist it is about outsiders - Westminster and Brussels are conspiring against us.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
They are currently led by a woman whom, it appears, would prefer Mr Cameron to Mr Miliband as Prime Minister.
This is sloppy journalism by the Daily Telegraph, who didn't check their story with either of the people named.
Sturgeon has denied it.
The French Consul General has denied it (scroll down)
The Foreign Office are denying knowledge.
It now appears that this memo came from the Scottish Office, not the Foreign Office and was written by an unnamed civil servant based on a phone call to the French consulate. The memo writer wasn't present at the actual meeting, and has managed to produce a memo which is contrary to what all the people who were at the meeting recall.
[ 05. April 2015, 20:31: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
It's a pretty pathetic attempt at a smear. Nicola Sturgeon has little to worry about if that is the best her opponents can do.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Callan, you have now repeated the slander that Alex Salmond is a devotee of Putin multiple times on the boards. He was asked in an interview by Alistair Campbell to run through the strengths and weaknesses of a gamut of politicians (prior to Putin going rogue in Crimea, though it was published after) and after saying both what was good and bad about a number of people that Campbell enquired about, made clear that his ultimate hero was Nelson Mandela. He specifically condemned Putin's human rights abuses. Your posts lose all credibility when you keep repeating this smear which relies on decontextualisation and people not having read the original interview.
[ 06. April 2015, 01:54: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It's a pretty pathetic attempt at a smear. Nicola Sturgeon has little to worry about if that is the best her opponents can do.
It is a pathetic attempt at a smear. But it's now been on the front pages of the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror, so it has become widespread.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The problem with smears is that no matter how often the facts are presented, showing that the alleged comments have been fabricated or taken totally out of context, they get repeated and people continue to believe them just because they're so often repeated. We've just had a demonstration of an intelligent person taken in by gross mis-reporting of comments made by Alex Salmond regarding Putin.
It's a really shitty way to do politics. And, in the midst of the last few weeks before an election those so smeared are not going to waste their time pursuing the scum reporters who repeat these lies in print through the courts, and even if they did the election will be done and dusted by the time the court has ruled.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I suspect right wing press doublethink. Continuing the slur will annoy Scots voters, strengthening the possibility of lots of Labour losses in Scotland. The more seats the SNP win in Scotland, the more likely it is that the Tories will win more seats than Labour overall.
If you don't want Labour to get in power, annoy the Scots? In right wing media strategy terms, that might make a strange kind of sense.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Callan, you have now repeated the slander that Alex Salmond is a devotee of Putin multiple times on the boards. He was asked in an interview by Alistair Campbell to run through the strengths and weaknesses of a gamut of politicians (prior to Putin going rogue in Crimea, though it was published after) and after saying both what was good and bad about a number of people that Campbell enquired about, made clear that his ultimate hero was Nelson Mandela. He specifically condemned Putin's human rights abuses. Your posts lose all credibility when you keep repeating this smear which relies on decontextualisation and people not having read the original interview.
First of all, I think that you will find that it is a libel rather than a slander as it is written, not spoken, and i assume that you are posting as a shipmate rather than a host. In which case can I point out that libel has a specific meaning in UK law which doesn't equate to "an opinion or fact which a Scottish Nationalist finds inconvenient". Just to make sure that we are clear about this.
When I was a student I was quite involved with Amnesty International and, in the late eighties, two of the regimes we were concerned with were South Africa and the Pinochet regime in Chile. I was a student at the London School of Economics and there was something called the Shaw Library with comfy chairs and classical music and all the newspapers you could read, and then some, and I am amazed looking back at it that any of us managed to attain academic qualifications. There is a point to this trip down memory lane, bear with me. Now the thing is it seemed obvious to me that the regimes in question were indefensible and it was equally obvious that the UK government were quite keen on said regimes. So I read a lot of Op-Ed's in the Telegraph and Times and whatnot which put forward the point of view of Brother Boer and Uncle Augusto trying to work out what was going on.
What struck me was that hardly ever did anyone state baldly that they thought treating black people as second class citizens was a good thing or that trade unionists and human rights activists were scum and their rape and torture was exactly what they deserved. The articles would always contain a paragraph which would mournfully lament the failures of the regime to conform to international norms before pointing out that the economic dynamism or strategic role in the struggle against international communism meant that we ought to cut them some slack and, indeed, admire P.W. Botha and General Pinochet as statesmen and patriots. Of course, it would not be difficult to find apologias for left wing tyrannies couched, mutates mutants, in similar terms. And, of course, the genre is alive and well today. Here is a classic example of the genre.
Whilst I would not admire anyone who managed to get from the late eighties until now without some revision of their political views, I thought then and I think now that this is essentially bullshit. If a regime is predicated on murder, torture and oppression it is not a defence to point up its achievements in the realm of pension reform or its comparative economic successes or even its strategic role in the defence of the west. No-one says this of an unpleasant authoritarian government after the fact. Mussolini's comparative success in ensuring the punctuality of the 9.45 between Florence and Rimini might have been couched in his defence when he was a thing, as the young people say, but no-one says it now. Even the liberation of Auschwitz hasn't been enough to uphold Stalin's reputation.
So when someone tells me that they admire "certain aspects" of Putin's regime in restoring "a substantial amount of Russian pride" whilst deploring " aspects of Russian constitutionality and the intermesh with business and politics" which is a euphemism, I think, for whacking people who disagreed with the government, brutally suppressing the separatist movement in Chechnya (oh, the fucking irony) and running the regime primarily for the benefit of a bunch of corrupt oligarchs then I say bullshit, just as I did when I was assured by those clever, clever right wing columnists that P.W and Augusto had a point, you know. It's not like the Lib. Dem. manifesto where you might be all "Oh, on the one hand I support P.R. but on the other hand I'm not sure I support further European integration". The whole Russian pride thing is integrally tied up with the gangsterism of the regime. The idea that a bit of throat clearing makes that all right is frankly nonsensical. It's a regime predicated on torture, murdrer and oppression. The idea that, in that context, there can be good bits is ludicrous. Like trading off the Cuban health service against the Cuban secret police or Franco's mass murder against Franco's anti-communism. It's what Andrew Roberts, in a discussion of the political vagaries of the late Sir Arthur Bryant, described as the "it wouldn't do for us, but they seem to like it" school of politics.
Incidentally, Salmond's remarks were endorsed by the Russian government and condemned by Amnesty International. I know whom I trust out of the two. Oh, and the idea that Putin only went rogue after Salmond's remarks is utterly disingenuous. Russian troops were massing on the Ukranian border at the time, even if they only crossed it by the time that GQ hit the newsagents.
And, just for the record, I append the offending interview. People can make of it what they will. My own view is that a proper democrat, asked it they admired Putin, would have said something like "it's pretty hard to admire the murderer of Anna Politkovskaya".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If you don't want Labour to get in power, annoy the Scots? In right wing media strategy terms, that might make a strange kind of sense.
I think there's nothing strange about it. Right-wing parties might win as much as 1 seat in Scotland, but no more.
However if Labour holds its Scottish seats and holds or wins the number of seats projected elsewhere then they can form a majority government. But if it loses all those seats to the SNP, David Cameron gets first dibs on forming a government, even if it is a minority.
By the way, do I correctly observe a massive change of approach by the SNP now Nicola Sturgeon has replaced Alex Salmond? Sturgeon wants reform at Westminster and states the is on the side of all those outside Scotland who want the same. She is prepared to support a Labour government on a vote-by-vote basis, implying support beyond Scotland-only matters. I think it's great. To me it makes a big change from Alex Salmond's approach. I found him supercilious and duplictous, and given imposing tactical blame on Westminster at every turn. Presumably most SNP members, including their leaders, still want independence. I suspect that if Salmond were calling the shots, the SNP would be planning a somewhat more sabotage-oriented ("hold them to the fire") approach at Westminster.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The change is simple to explain. Salmond was always looking to an independence referendum. That's no longer on the radar for the foreseeable future. Therefore Scotland has to exist within the UK, and that means to get the best for Scotland the SNP needs to deal with Westmonster. Alex had it easy, just keep pointing out how dangerous the beast by the Thames was, and how better off we'd be putting political distance between us. Nicola has to go down there and woo the beast, and she does seem to be off to a good start.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I was involved with Amnesty as a student too and I know the difference between governments which underhandedly supported Botha and Pinochet, even with arms deals, and monstering somebody who brought in same-sex marriage (and was vocally in favour of it), opposed the war with Iraq, opposed Trident, spoke up for increasing immigration in the face of racists, (and who was equally praised by Amnesty for bringing up China's human rights abuses while in China), because he tried to be diplomatic in his words to Alistair Campbell at a time when frantic efforts were going on with EU foreign ministers and with John Kerry to avert war, and it backfired badly on him because by the time the article actually came out, things had moved from diplomacy to outright war. The demonisation over this only works if you ignore practically everything else the man has done and said in seven years of government to take a few of those words out of context.
By the way, the primary meaning of slander is simply
quote:
The utterance or dissemination of false statements or reports concerning a person, or malicious misrepresentation of his actions, in order to defame or injure him; calumny, defamation - Oxford English Dictionary
[ 07. April 2015, 01:06: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Most people, when asked "what do you think about person X" would tend to appear to be fair and say something positive. To simply point out all their faults seems rude, and where there are various diplomats trying their hardest to avoid war potentially unhelpful.
To be asked that question about Putin and the best you can say about him is "well, he's restored some pride in the Russian people" is pretty piss poor. You mean, he couldn't even get the trains running on time?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I thought Salmond's answers throughout that interview were smarmy, and his comments on Putin very odd at best.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The change is simple to explain. Salmond was always looking to an independence referendum. That's no longer on the radar for the foreseeable future. Therefore Scotland has to exist within the UK, and that means to get the best for Scotland the SNP needs to deal with Westmonster. Alex had it easy, just keep pointing out how dangerous the beast by the Thames was, and how better off we'd be putting political distance between us. Nicola has to go down there and woo the beast, and she does seem to be off to a good start.
It occurs to me that she might be playing the long game. However, it also occurs to me that she knows she could lose much support by dogmatically insisting on another referendum in short order, and attempting to gain popular support by stoking up resentment. I think that is what Alex Salmond would want to do. I'm so glad he isn't in charge any more!
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Presumably most SNP members, including their leaders, still want independence.
I think it's fair to say that most SNP leaders want independence, and that most members want, at a minimum, increased devolution. However, I think that there is a sizeable group of SNP voters who simply want a left-of centre party. These are voters who started to feel disillusioned with Labour when it became "New Labour" but continued to vote Labour in the absence of a credible alternative. The SNP now looks like a credible alternative.
When the referendum was first mooted, I don't think there was much popular support for full Independence. Had there been a three question vote (No, Fiscal Autonomy, Yes) the middle option would have won overwhelmingly. Perhaps 20% at most of those voting would have voted for Independence.
The middle ground option was ruled out in the Edinburgh Agreement; Cameron calculated that the majority middle ground wouldn't vote for Independence, and that a huge "No" vote would crush Scottish Nationalism. Then, when it started to look as though the middle ground might vote "Yes" there was the last-ditch offer of extra powers, to claw back the middle ground.
End result - 55% No, 45 % Yes. But a substantial proportion of those voting Yes (I'm including myself in this) did so because there were only two options, and Yes was the lesser of the two evils.
I don't think Independence is the be-all and end-all of the majority of SNP voters.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I also wonder if some take the "independence eventually" view and others might prefer further devolution on a "let's see" basis.
However, if that is the SNP's strategy I think they're misguided - unless they put their hopes in the process of constitutional reform being stuffed up - which is perhaps reasonable enough. The creation of the Scottish parliament was, in my view, always likely to increase support for independence because by definition it gave Scots the ability to elect representatives to run Scotland the way they chose within a larger polity. However, full independence does require facing issues that devolution doesn't - currency, defence, common trading areas and so on - matters that can only be dealt with on a state-wide basis.
As an aside, I remember about a year out from the referendum, the No campaign were quietly predicting 55/45. At the time, the polls were more like 60+ / 40- but they expected the gap to close as the matter was publicly debated. I think with hindsight, the fact that the top brass at Westminster panicked like they did shows just how lamentably out of touch they were (and probably remain). Mind you, I jumped too. At 5/1 I was very tempted to have a flutter on Yes, and buy myself a bottle of Aberlour with the winnings. Happily my prudence held me back.
I also can't help thinking that the conditions couldn't have been better from a Yes point of view - austerity, government with little support in Scotland, quantative easing benefitting London and nowhere else, and an utterly, utterly lamentable No campaign.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
The creation of the Scottish parliament was, in my view, always likely to increase support for independence because by definition it gave Scots the ability to elect representatives to run Scotland the way they chose within a larger polity.
Yes, and if there had been a three question referendum with DevoMax as an option, I think the vote would have been for DevoMax. But in another 15 years or so, once DevoMax had bedded in, I suspect there would have been calls for another referendum on Independence. So I can see why it made sense to the Tories to remove the DevoMax option and have a two question referendum, in the belief that there would be an overwhelming no, and the whole issue would be kicked into the long grass for a generation.
But the Tories misjudged badly and here we are.
I think this election could be a game changer. Many people in Scotland have felt disenfranchised from Westminster - there are more pandas (two) than Conservative MPs (one), and yet there is a Conservative Government. But even if there had been a Labour government, the sense of disenfranchisement would still have been there, because the Labour heartlands of Scotland are Old Labour, and the Westminster Labour party is largely New Labour.
If this time round there's a Labour party in power, forced to listen to the SNP in return for support on a case-by-case basis then Scotland finds itself re-enfranchised at Westminster.
Interesting times ahead.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If this time round there's a Labour party in power, forced to listen to the SNP in return for support on a case-by-case basis then Scotland finds itself re-enfranchised at Westminster.
Which is my (Scottish) wife's opinion. But if that is what happens, will it increase the demand for the same thing to happen for the other nations and regions within Britain? I suspect so.
Both she and I are federalists along this line.
[ 07. April 2015, 07:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
... But even if there had been a Labour government, the sense of disenfranchisement would still have been there, because the Labour heartlands of Scotland are Old Labour, and the Westminster Labour party is largely New Labour.
...
That's actually quite a surprising statement from down here. Back in the 1980s when the English Labour Party seemed to be committing hari kiri, the Scottish one, the party from which John Smith emerged, seemed to remain outside that fanaticism and blood-letting. So perhaps even the phrase Old Labour and what it represents mean something different in Scotland?
It also isn't only the Scots who feel disenfranchised by Westminster. At least the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have a group of public figures committed to running their part of the union and aspiring to represent them. We haven't even got that.
[ 07. April 2015, 07:54: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I suspect part of the problem is consistent centralising and streamlining various government functions in order to save money (I suppose the NHS would be something of an exception). Once you shut the local offices and retrench the local or regional managers, it is much harder to keep your fingers on the pulses of various localities and regions, and respond properly to the people you serve.
Especially if you outsource services to the likes of Serco etc.
I emigrated to NZ a decade back. One thing I immediately noticed was just how easy it was to talk to a civil servant capable of exercising their judgment to get things done. In more recent times, however, there is a fashion for hiring UK civil servants. They are absolutely obsessed with standardisation and process. It is turning staff into robots, and perhaps the idea is that eventually they will be replaced with them. This fetish pleases no one but the Cabinet.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Enoch wrote: quote:
That's actually quite a surprising statement from down here. Back in the 1980s when the English Labour Party seemed to be committing hari kiri, the Scottish one, the party from which John Smith emerged, seemed to remain outside that fanaticism and blood-letting. So perhaps even the phrase Old Labour and what it represents mean something different in Scotland?
I think the blood-letting was really precipitated by the troubles with entryist Trotskyite factions (or so they were perceived) rather than old labour. It gave the Blairite new labour the chance to make their own appearance on the back of worries about Marxist-Leninists in old labour, though in truth old labour was always a mixed left-wing front. IYSWIM.
No doubt this perception varies according to where you stand.
[ 07. April 2015, 11:10: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most people, when asked "what do you think about person X" would tend to appear to be fair and say something positive. To simply point out all their faults seems rude, and where there are various diplomats trying their hardest to avoid war potentially unhelpful.
Do you think? The reaction would presumably vary depending on the person. If 'person X' was, say, Robert Mugabe, do you think a regional politician should be similarly lukewarm in his comments?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most people, when asked "what do you think about person X" would tend to appear to be fair and say something positive. To simply point out all their faults seems rude, and where there are various diplomats trying their hardest to avoid war potentially unhelpful.
Do you think? The reaction would presumably vary depending on the person. If 'person X' was, say, Robert Mugabe, do you think a regional politician should be similarly lukewarm in his comments?
His call for reconciliation between all parties during the 1980 election campaign was a beacon of hope to the people at the end of a protracted conflict. It is a tragedy for the people of Zimbabwe that he reneged on this almost as soon as he entered office, leading to the abuses of the human rights of political opponents and the white population.
I would have liked to see Salmond say more in criticism of Putin (though, I don't know how much was edited out of the transcript published in GQ magazine). But I'm not going to fault him for offering a very small amount of praise as well.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Questions from an outsider:
Note that I am differentiating a "formal coalition" of the type that now exists with the Tories and LibDems with an informal agreement to support a PM's party on votes of confidence and on budget measures.
1. Would Labour ever consent to a formal coalition with the SNP (ie, SNP gets some cabinet positions, SNP policies are part of some joint agreement announced at the formation of a government?), seeing that the SNP is still an anti-Union party, regardless of its "moving on" after the referendum results?
2. Would the SNP ever agree to be part of a formal coalition at Westminster with any party, for fear of seeming hypocritical?
Of course, an informal agreement with SNP and another party to support confidence and supply motions is, as I said, a completely different thing.
Maybe Labour and the SNP have already given answers to these questions, so I'm honestly admitting that I don't know.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think the answers to both of those questions at the moment appears to be 'no'.
I think Labour may be more likely to consider a formal coalition with the SNP. But, I suspect they will be slaughtered by the English electorate by giving Scottish politicians controlling positions in a UK government (although, presumably, those same voters would have no problem if Labour came out of the elections with a dozen MPs from Scottish constituencies that tipped them into a small majority - such are the indiosyncracies of electorates).
The SNP have ruled out participation in any form of coalition in Westminster on matter of principal.
Although I would add that once the votes are in and the bargaining to form a government begins about the first thing that seems to get sacrificed is high principal (just ask Clegg), so I wouldn't rule anything out.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
That's unfair on Clegg. If anything he was too princpled, stating in advance that he would seek a coalition with the largest parliamentary party and adhering to stuff like cabinet collective responsibility, which really don't work in coalition government. He and the rest of the Lib Dems ought to have driven a harder bargain, much like I suspect the SNP will.
There are two risks that parties face when in the position of the Lib Dems in 2010 or the likely position of the SNP at the forthcoming election: 1. facing criticism for sacrificing principles or 2. facing criticism for rendering the political process unworkable and causing mayhem.
The SNP need to beware of the latter. Cameron gets first dibs on forming a government. If he chooses to form a minority goverment it will presumably require a no-confidence vote brought by the SNP and Labour (to whom the SNP have hitched their wagon, regardless of the fact that Labour haven't reciprocated yet). There could be all sorts of shenanigans. Also, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 it is no longer nearly as easy simply to dissolve parliament and call a fresh election.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That's unfair on Clegg. If anything he was too princpled, stating in advance that he would seek a coalition with the largest parliamentary party and adhering to stuff like cabinet collective responsibility
Yes, I know it was unfair. Put me down as a LibDem voter who felt let down that the LibDems didn't fight their corner in the coalition negotiations strongly enough - in particular by accepting a referendum on a crap electoral reform system that wasn't in their manifesto, and also being forced to follow Cameron on tuition fees. Would the coalition not worked if Clegg had demanded a referendum on PR rather than AV, and that they would want a free vote on tuition fees? OK, quite possibly it would because they might have won a PR referendum and a free vote on tuition fees could have defeated that bill - and, I don't think Cameron wanted to risk either of those to happen, and may have prefered to try a minority government instead.
quote:
Cameron gets first dibs on forming a government.
Only if the Tories are the largest party.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That's unfair on Clegg. If anything he was too princpled, stating in advance that he would seek a coalition with the largest parliamentary party and adhering to stuff like cabinet collective responsibility
Yes, I know it was unfair. Put me down as a LibDem voter who felt let down that the LibDems didn't fight their corner in the coalition negotiations strongly enough - in particular by accepting a referendum on a crap electoral reform system that wasn't in their manifesto, and also being forced to follow Cameron on tuition fees. Would the coalition not worked if Clegg had demanded a referendum on PR rather than AV, and that they would want a free vote on tuition fees? OK, quite possibly it would because they might have won a PR referendum and a free vote on tuition fees could have defeated that bill - and, I don't think Cameron wanted to risk either of those to happen, and may have prefered to try a minority government instead.
quote:
Cameron gets first dibs on forming a government.
Only if the Tories are the largest party.
IIRC, in the event of no party having a majority, the sitting PM does indeed get first go at forming a govt, whether leader of the largest party or not.
Often forgotten five years later, but Brown did in 2010. It was only when Labour couldn't bang out a deal that Brown asked the queen to send for Dave.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I didn't know that. But, according to theUK Parliament website that is correct, and the sitting PM gets first dibs at forming a government.
It's good to learn things.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The sitting PM continues to be PM until either he/she resigns or somebody else puts a government together. Short of losing a no-confidence vote, it would be regarded as very, very bad form to resign before someone else is in a position to take over. It is even possible that if a person tried to do that, it might be incumbent on the Queen to refuse to accept their resignation.
Stonespring, it is, if anything, temperamentally even harder for the Labour Party than the Conservatives to re-digest its way of looking at the world sufficiently to enter into a formal coalition which went as far as actually including other party figures in the government rather than just agreeing not to vote them down.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I knew the PM stayed put while a government is formed, even when there's no coalition agreement to be bashed out there is still a short time before everyone is signed in and in place. Although it's not likely anything will happen, but someone should be on the bridge keeping watch.
What I didn't know before today was that the sitting PM gets first chance to form a government if there is no overall majority, even if they didn't get the most seats.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
As I understand it (from a friend who works in the Cabinet Office), part of the reason for this is that we continue to have a government that could act in a national crisis if need be.
Parliament cannot be recalled as there are no MPs, but we do have ministers of government, including a prime minister. That's why Cameron can still call himself prime minister and why Hammond was able to recently act as secretary of state for defence in the recent Iranian nuclear talks.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If this time round there's a Labour party in power, forced to listen to the SNP in return for support on a case-by-case basis then Scotland finds itself re-enfranchised at Westminster.
Interesting times ahead.
And this is where I think the SNP risks getting itself a very bloody nose (which I personally don’t regard as a bad thing, in the interests of full disclosure).
AFAICT the SNP are hoping, or even expecting, to be the tail that wags the Westminster dog. The experience of the Lib Dems this time round proves to me that dogs wag their tails and not the other way round.
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Sturgeon has said, "I'm offering to help make Ed Miliband prime minister". I think this might be a dangerous thing for her to say - even though everyone knows that it is probably true! For surely the SNP must keep differentiating itself from Labour; if it appears to be simply "shoring up" Labour's position, then it may lose votes.
On the other hand, it will still attract those who are further to the Left than Labour, and - of course - those who hold an "independence" or "federalist" position rather than a "unionist" one.
What is interesting is that, if we do get a Labour/SNP government, presumably Sturgeon could not be Deputy Prime Minister a la Clegg, as she won't be an MP. (I doubt if they could bump her up to the Lords and have her be DPM from there).
[ 08. April 2015, 10:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Sturgeon has said, "I'm offering to help make Ed Miliband prime minister". I think this might be a dangerous thing for her to say - even though everyone knows that it is probably true! For surely the SNP must keep differentiating itself from Labour; if it appears to be simply "shoring up" Labour's position, then it may lose votes.
On the other hand, it will still attract those who are further to the Left than Labour, and - of course - those who hold an "independence" or "federalist" position rather than a "unionist" one.
What is interesting is that, if we do get a Labour/SNP government, presumably Sturgeon could not be Deputy Prime Minister a la Clegg, as she won't be an MP. (I doubt if they could bump her up to the Lords and have her be DPM from there).
Unless the SNP are lying*, then an SNP/Labour government isn't on the cards. Both sides have ruled out I think any formal coalition, so no government posts for the SNP.
*which would be amusing insofar as it would cause some of the more vocal extremist cybernats' heads to explode when they realise they're just like all the others but with a gloss of newness
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What is interesting is that, if we do get a Labour/SNP government, presumably Sturgeon could not be Deputy Prime Minister a la Clegg, as she won't be an MP. (I doubt if they could bump her up to the Lords and have her be DPM from there).
although, from the Putin/Medvedev playbook,
"poor Alex Salmond, forced out of retirement as First Minister of Scotland to serve as the lowly DPM of the UK..."
Until Nicola ruled out SNP coalition, I had actually assumed that was the plan.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Nicola Sturgeon is First Minister in Scotland. She has no seat in Westminster and is not standing. Any arrangement in the Westminster parliament has to be with the SNP members of that Parliament. There will inevitably be a lot of critical comment/speculation after the election as to whether,
a. Nicola is on the telephone all the time and they take their orders from her, or
b. They are doing their own thing.
This will be especially the case if, as appears almost certain, Alex Salmond is elected to Westminster.
This will be a new scenario as there was no parliament back home and no First Minister in John Redmond's day.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
although, from the Putin/Medvedev playbook,
"poor Alex Salmond, forced out of retirement as First Minister of Scotland to serve as the lowly DPM of the UK..."
I'm not sure that would have been the plan. The SNP don't look likely to be as big in 2015 as the Lid Dems were in 2010, so Salmond may end up as secretary of state for Scotland or leader of the House of Commons.
One thing I find an intriguing possibility is, given the state of the Palace of Westminster, whether an SNP-anybody coalition might try to move the seat of government away from London for a fixed period of time. Possibly to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester or Birmingham.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
although, from the Putin/Medvedev playbook,
"poor Alex Salmond, forced out of retirement as First Minister of Scotland to serve as the lowly DPM of the UK..."
I'm not sure that would have been the plan. The SNP don't look likely to be as big in 2015 as the Lid Dems were in 2010, so Salmond may end up as secretary of state for Scotland or leader of the House of Commons.
That might be no bad thing. DPM has been Secretary of State for Bad News, certainly when Prescott and Clegg held it. Willie Whitelaw probably did it best but at best it's an Aunt Sally and no place for an ambitious, vain man.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
