Cameron hails end of New Labour!

[Undesired Walrus]

Blair phase 2 has hailed the end of New Labour (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7415362.stm) with the conservatives winning their first by-election in 26 years.

It seems more and more likely Cameron will be waking up as Prime Minister in 2009/10, if he keeps the wheels on his parties current momentum.

I wish I had something solid to offer the undecideds at the next election, yet all I have is a wheezing, out-of-touch government that invades foriegn countries and allows the richest 10% to get even richer. As a social democrat, I wish I could cross confidently the box entitled Labour come election day, but it seems more likely I will be spoiling the ballot paper with 'Rational social democracy PLS' in big letters. Labour's achievment of lifting 1 million children out of child poverty, devolution and higher employment seems to be eclipsed by their ability to displace millions of Iraqis and look tired and vacuous with their current cabinet.

I'm not really sure a party should have to 'reinvent' itself every couple of years, but Britain seems to suffer very badly from time-for-a-change, and the Labour party cannot seem to catch up.

Do you think a party should try and 'keep up' with the public so as to not appear old and outdated, or do you think they should stick to what they have always been? Are you likely to vote conservative?

[SpitfireIX]

Is anyone else struck by the tremendous irony that Labour (liberal) in Britain appears to be headed in exactly the same direction as the Republicans (conservative) in America?

Granted, the analogy is far from perfect. John McCain is no Gordon Brown (I'd say that Mitt Romney is the closest the Republicans have to GB), and David Cameron doesn't have Margaret Thatcher's husband challenging him for the party leadership, but I can't help noticing the many other similarities, in particular the dismal performance of both parties in recent elections.

[fagin]

Anything has to be an improvement over the paternalistic attempts by Labour at social engineering. I am sick to death of hearing about how it is their job to change behaviour by passing more and more laws that are impossible or impractical to enforce. people drink too much, eat too much, drive too much etc. If you can't ban it, tax it.
A recent example is the change in the classification of mary jane, against the advice of their experts, while people are actually worried about the economy.
Fiidling while Rome burns?

[Uzzy]

I'll likely be voting Conservative at the next election, though if they propose cutting back the BBC, I'll have a seriously hard time doing it.

Why won't I be voting Labour? Simple. One, I'm 21 right now. I was Ten last time the Conservatives were in power, and 4 when Black Tuesday occurred. I have no real knowledge of what things were like the last time the Conservatives were in power. So, every time you get Hazel Blears or one of the other Cabinet ministers come on TV and blame the Tories for something, I'm rather appalled. It was 11 years ago. Labour have had 3 terms in office to fix things. They should take responsibility for their own failures.

Oh. The 10p Tax issue. It is utterly disgraceful that the inheritors of Hardie, Attlee and Bevan to be putting forward proposals that directly attack the lowest paid in society. It would be disgraceful if the Tories or the Lib Dems proposed it, but for Labour to do it? Further, the emergency borrowing to bribe the electorate just about managed to destroy any hint of economic competence Labour had.

I just think it's time for a change.

[albion]

Is anyone else struck by the tremendous irony that Labour (liberal) in Britain appears to be headed in exactly the same direction as the Republicans (conservative) in America?

Granted, the analogy is far from perfect. John McCain is no Gordon Brown (I'd say that Mitt Romney is the closest the Republicans have to GB), and David Cameron doesn't have Margaret Thatcher's husband challenging him for the party leadership, but I can't help noticing the many other similarities, in particular the dismal performance of both parties in recent elections.

I don't really think US/UK comparisons are particularly useful because the left-right dynamic in this country is vastly different. Even the Tory party (which has been our most right-wing mainstream party) would not be much to the right of your Democrat party. They at least pay lip service to supporting the NHS (not for profit single-payer "socialized" healthcare)for example, which only Kucinich in the US supports.

Brown despite some forays into privatisation (Post-Office, PPP etc) is not a total Free-Marketer like Romney.

[albion]

Anything has to be an improvement over the paternalistic attempts by Labour at social engineering. I am sick to death of hearing about how it is their job to change behaviour by passing more and more laws that are impossible or impractical to enforce. people drink too much, eat too much, drive too much etc. If you can't ban it, tax it.
A recent example is the change in the classification of mary jane, against the advice of their experts, while people are actually worried about the economy.
Fiidling while Rome burns?

To be fair, these policies (particularly regards to pot) are an attempt to appeal to the Tory leaning swing voters in the South East. It is also supported whole-heartedly by the Tory party

"The Conservative party has a very clear view that it should be class B. People have had enough of reviews and the prime minister should stop dithering and get on and make a decision."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/03/drugspolicy

They have also supported just about every socially authoritarian measure the government has proposed including Asbo's etc.

Essentially it's change for the sake of change - despite it not being a change at all.


At the moment my voting intentions are Lib-Dem because despite being flawed, wishy-washy and unable to win, they are the only party I could in good conscience as a Social Democrat support.

[andyandy]

The 10p tax fiasco (TM all papers) really has removed the last barrier for people to vote Conservative. Everyone knows deep down that the Conservatives won't look after the worst paid workers, but by showing that labour don't really care either, lots of voters who have plenty of other grievances with the government are now willing to give the other side a try.......

Labour really is a pretty right wing party now, what with attempts to privatise large chunks of the health, education, transport, postal service either overtly or by stealth, with its insistence on 42 day detention, with its obsession with ID cards and Big Brother surveillance, with its tax cuts for the rich and tax hikes for the poor, with its refusal to sign up against cluster bombs and desire to press on with nuclear rearmament......

I think people are just saying " right, we've had enough of this right wing party, let's have a look at the other one."

In an ideal world, we would have a hung parliament with the Lib Dems as kingmakers and able to push through a swing to the left, but the way things are going, we could have a big Conservative majority, which I think will be just as unhealthy for the country as what we've got now.

[Rolfe]

I suppose schadenfreude is one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

I'm going to hell, then.

Rolfe.

[SpitfireIX]

I suppose schadenfreude is one of the Seven Deadly Sins?

I'm going to hell, then.

Rolfe.


Out of curiosity, how do the major national parties feel about Scottish independence?

[mrbaracuda]

Come on, vote Tory. You know you want it!

[Rolfe]

Out of curiosity, how do the major national parties feel about Scottish independence?


About as happy as they are about global warming and the subprime mortgage situation combined.

It's difficult to tease the reasons out of them, mostly they just seem to take "the union" as an unexamined good. However, it's a combination of (for Scottish politicians) wanting to keep on playing with the big boys at Westminster where they have a fantastic gravy train going and a nuclear button to boot, and (for English politicians) the unspoken realisation that it is Scottish assets that have bankrolled the boom times since the 1970s, and without these, the rump state would be feeling the cold more than a bit.

Cameron targets Nationalists in battle to safeguard the Union (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2295052.0.Cameron_targets_Nationalists _in_battle_to_safeguard_the_Union.php)

Part of the Union (http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/editorial/display.var.2291778.0.Part_of_the_Union.php)

Prime Minister in rallying cry to defend the Union (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2275399.0.prime_minister_in_rallying_c ry_to_defend_union.php)

These should give a flavour of it.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Come on, vote Tory. You know you want it!


On a cold day in Hell.

Thank goodness I have a real alternative to vote for, with a credible chance of winning, and I'm not just stuck with Tory-dum and Tory-dee.

Rolfe.

[mrbaracuda]

On a cold day in Hell.

Isn't that what Britain's like these days anyway? Cold and hell?
"It's a nice day to vote Tory!" :D

[Finnegan]

Come on, vote Tory. You know you want it!

This is partly the point. The self-congratulation of the Conservative Party is essentially futile, as people aren't voting for them but against Labour.

[Gurdur]

Oppostions do not win elections, but on the contrary governments lose them.

[andyandy]

This is partly the point. The self-congratulation of the Conservative Party is essentially futile, as people aren't voting for them but against Labour.

I would certainly agree that people are voting against Labour, but in previous by-elections that would result in protest votes for the Liberal Democrats. What we have now is a proactive choice for the main opposition party. The Conservatives have picked up 6000 new votes in Crewe, something pretty unthinkable only a year ago.

[Fiona]

I think it is very interesting. So far as I can see, Margaret Thatcher was a very successful politician, according to conventional wisdom, anyway. Yet she destroyed her party completely and they are only now recovering because, as Uzzy said, many who can now vote have absolutely no idea what it was like. Tony Blair has done exactly the same to the labour party. It would be funny if it were not for the fact that it effectively disenfranchises many people. I also have the option of voting for independence for this country and I will do so. Nothing could induce me to vote for either labour or conservative. I see very little difference between them. Our system makes it very unlikely that voters in England will choose a third party, since no truly viable alternative has emerged: so they have no choice but to try the other lot if they want a change. This will make things a little worse, perhaps, but it certainly won't make them better.

I am really glad I do not live in England. So are the many many english people, who having got what they wished for have now moved abroad.

[fagin]

Bring back the Raving Monster Lunatic Party

[andyandy]

Bring back the Raving Monster Lunatic Party

The monster raving loony party was running in Crewe, their candidate was called Flying Brick......

Edward Timpson (Con) 20,539 (49.49%, 16.93% increase on 2005 share of vote)
Tamsin Dunwoody (Lab) 12,679 (30.55%, -18.29%)
Elizabeth Shenton (Lib Dem) 6,040 (14.55%, -4.03%)
Mike Nattrass (UKIP) 922 (2.22%)
Robert Smith (Green) 359 (0.87%)
David Roberts (Eng Dem) 275 (0.66%)
The Flying Brick (Monster Raving Loony) 236 (0.57%)
Mark Walklate (Ind) 217 (0.52%)
Paul Thorogood (Cut Tax on Diesel and Petrol) 118 (0.28%)
Gemma Garrett (Ind) 113 (0.27%)

He came a quite respectable seventh place :)

[Rolfe]

I am really glad I do not live in England. So are the many many english people, who having got what they wished for have now moved abroad.


I lived in England until quite recently. However, I was an active member of the SNP at the time, and managed to keep my vote in Scotland.

I remember a number of conversations where English friends said they envied me, having a real alternative to vote for. Even 15 or 20 years ago, way before the current Holyrood success story, I heard remarks such as "wouldn't the SNP just stand here in England too?".

I'm afraid, however, that the English are going to have to work it out for themselves. Unfortunately it appears as if too many English voters really do like the xenophobic Little Englander stance of the Conservatives.

Rolfe.

PS. Fagin, I understand that every single thing that was on the original MRL Party manifesto when they were formed is now law, with the single exception of the legalisation of cannabis.

[andyandy]

I lived in England until quite recently. However, I was an active member of the SNP at the time, and managed to keep my vote in Scotland.

I remember a number of conversations where English friends said they envied me, having a real alternative to vote for. Even 15 or 20 years ago, way before the current Holyrood success story, I heard remarks such as "wouldn't the SNP just stand here in England too?".

I'm afraid, however, that the English are going to have to work it out for themselves. Unfortunately it appears as if too many English voters really do like the xenophobic Little Englander stance of the Conservatives.

Rolfe.

PS. Fagin, I understand that every single thing that was on the original MRL Party manifesto when they were formed is now law, with the single exception of the legalisation of cannabis.

if you think that the conseratives are enjoying a voting rise on the back of xenophobia, then you haven't been paying that much attention to English politics.....though perhaps it confirms your own prejudices? Have any evidence that xenophobia is the cause?

labour played the race card in crewe "the tories oppose forcing foreign nationals to carry id cards" and lost horribly.......

[Uzzy]

Who was it who said 'British Jobs for British People', Rolfe?

Here's a clue. It wasn't David Cameron.

[Undesired Walrus]

The monster raving loony party was running in Crewe, their candidate was called Flying Brick......



He came a quite respectable seventh place :)

Their campaign promise of building a two-foot high wall around Britain in order to trip up foriegn invaders is a touch of brilliance.

[Rolfe]

I was thinking more of the anti-EU stance of the Tories. I grant you, the anti-immigrant thing seems to cross the unionist party boundaries quite seamlessly.

Rolfe.

[andyandy]

I was thinking more of the anti-EU stance of the Tories. I grant you, the anti-immigrant thing seems to cross the unionist party boundaries quite seamlessly.

Rolfe.

I think the Tories are doing their best to distance themselves from their old image of being anti-Europe.... they've played big on it in previous elections and done catastrophically. Whilst I'm sure there are still plenty of Conservative MPs who are anti-Europe, David Cameron seems to be trying to avoid the issue, or at least avoid making the issue a key tenet of Tory policy. The Tories are effectively trying to mould themselves in the image of new Labour circa 1997 - aspirational promises, a commitment to the NHS, education and policing.....

listening to any political debate these days you'd be hard pressed to pick out which side was left wing and the other right wing. Indeed last week on Question Time you had the remarkable situation of a left-wing government minister defending 42 day detention, the raising of taxes for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich and post office closures, whilst the right-wing opposition railed for greater civil liberty, more help for the least advantaged in society, and the preservation of public sector expenditure on the postal network. :)

Now I'm quite sure that the Tories will say anything if they think it's popular, but even so they do genuinely seem to wish to position themselves to the left of Labour.....

Politics is a funny old world :D

[Rolfe]

Yeah. Bizarre, isn't it?

There's a trollish poster on the Herald forums called "Exiled Aussie" who just jumps into every thread with some snide comment about the TARTAN TORIES. I suspect many of the casual readers don't even realise he means the SNP. (The fact that he invariably refers to the SNP leadership as "Diminutive, Little Fish and McSwindell" doesn't help his clarity either.) It's an interesting observation however that any hint of being in any way "Tory" is still seen as a damning insult by many in Scotland. The corollary is that such people are incapable of seeing how Tory New Labour has become, even when it's pointed out to them in words of one syllable.

Rolfe.

[andyandy]

As has been noted amongst political commentators, David Cameron's greatest achievement has been to "detoxify" the Tory brand in England. It would be interesting to see if he has had any effect north of the border,

if not what would it take to build up the Tory base in Scotland so that they could at least contest Parliamentary seats?

Or will the Tory brand be radioactive for a good few years to come? :)

[Sunstealer]

I think that the legacy of the Poll Tax as first tested in Scotland still has a long way to work itself out of the Scottish subconscious. You also have to factor in a number of other things to understand the poor showing of the Conservatives in Scotland, which are perhaps more difficult to "detoxify" given the rise of the SNP.

Firstly, Tory government from Westminster has in modern times (see poll tax) been seen as a quasi foreign government by a lot of Scots because they were somewhat detached from the far north. The irony is that alot of Britain now feels like this. There is the Westminster Village with all the MPs snaffling up large quantities of perks and being detached from the proletariat plus many Scottish MPs in governmental positions who proclaim to be listening, but are not ;) and this rankles in English and other constituencies, hence a more vocal call for an English Parliament. The irony on me is not lost and I think that alot of English people understand where the Scots have been coming from. (although the disproportionate number of Scottish seats, the Barnett "formula" and the West Lothian question are now matters for concern and should be readily acknowledged by Scottish politicians and addressed).


Secondly, OIL plus Employment/investment/incentive for private companies. This could go for any area that is less well off/deprived than other regions. How many times do you telephone a government agency and hear a Scottish voice on the other end? Why are theses regions above not given massive incentives for business? To hell with it why not make these regions pay bugger all tax? Scotland is far too dependent on government jobs and welfare subsidy, it's not self sufficient with independent, private companies and enterprise. Why is this sector not boosted massively by government incentive especially as we have a large percentage of Scottish ministers in givernment? (lol - that should read government, but given the subject matter I'll let it stand as a fitting misspelling). Scotland is far too dependent on handouts, the irony is that those wanting independence think that oil will solve all of their problems. It won't. All it will do is shift where the money is coming from. New Labour is a Scottish manifestation. Anyone who thinks that it's tentacles cannot invade the SNP after independence is having a laugh. You need more than a single source income to become self reliant/rich. Eggs in one basket. The Conservatives are seen as people who will reduce any money going to Scotland yet take all the lovely stolen Scottish resources that make England the gold paved nation that it is. The simple matter remains that England would profit massively if it were to become an independent nation outside (most likely) of the EU 9just the same as much smaller nations with much smaller GDP do). Wales, Scotland, NI would soon realise this not only with regard to economical circumstances but political ones aswell. Compare the clout of minor European states inside the EU.

Thirdly, the Tories have always been seen as the landed gentry, the Toffs, whether true or not (see C&N bye-election Labour hypocritical propaganda). This is an anathema because the Scots are still motivated by nationalism and their history, which is often misunderstood or twisted by the Scots themselves. Say "Land clearance" and you'll here the shouts (as with Crusade/Jihad/attach your historical gripe here). This also coincides with the "Braveheart factor", a massive obstacle. I remember the movie when released, because I was an Englishman living in Glasgow at the time. I laughed at the inaccuracies that were lapped up by the ignorant and those that had an agenda, I witnessed the smugness of the "see we were right" brigade. I also saw the irony that if Mel had produced an English version then there would have been huge cries of uproar about the English/Little Englanders/Xenophobes/Racists/Empire Builders/BNP/ etc, etc.

Which just goes to show how ingrained that notion is, witness I'm afraid, however, that the English are going to have to work it out for themselves. Unfortunately it appears as if too many English voters really do like the xenophobic Little Englander stance of the Conservatives.QED.

I wonder what stance Rolfe attributes to UKIP or the English Democrats. Surely if the SNP can be regarded as being for an independent, self sufficient, democratic Scotland, which by it's advocates is seen as a noble stance then why cannot such regards be aimed simultaneously at an equivocal English party? Nope sorry folks, the mainstream Conservatives are "little Englanders". The UKIP, heaven forbid they are "little Britishers"! The BNP, well actually they are racist, xenophobic, anti-europe, Britishers. So how can Rolfe advocate that the English sort it out for themselves? In doing so they'll take on all the negative tabs of, quote; "Little Englanders", and worse. The English cannot do what the Scots can do because people like Rolfe will automatically point and howl like Donald Sutherland did at the end of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

You have to remember that the only reason a lot of Scottish people are able to walk down Sauchiehall Street without veering off to one side is that the very large chip on the left shoulder balances out the very large chip on their right shoulder. I include Rolfe as one of these types, which is a shame because when I lived in Scotland (92-95) these types of people were seen for what they were and queried or dismissed. They were a vocal minority although substantial. I often found that amongst the educated Scots that a live and let live / pull together attitude was much more prevalent and those who wanted more autonomy understood that the Union was beneficial to both parties. Of course there was a bit o' banter and stick given to the English, i.e me, but this was par for the course, of course, and taken as such, as well as given back mind you! I've seen the same in Australia and NZ, but never seen the vitriol that can accompany it amongst the Scots (and Welsh for that matter).

There were those that did indeed take it upon themselves to become Braveheart II and try to give me a good kicking simply on hearing my voice. The irony is that all of my Scottish friends stood in the way and said, "to get to him you must first come through us".

I do not think that the Conservatives can appeal in Scotland until they can directly appeal to all voters which will be in the run up to the next election because otherwise Labour will steal their policies. I have always found the Scots to be a nation who (very much like the English) dislike unfairness. To generalise they value; value for money, hard work, meritocracy (I know there are others but I'm in mid flow). If I were "call me Dave" I'd make it a manifesto pledge that within 6 months of the election a Conservative government would give Scotland a referendum on independence.

Sorry if this is a tl;dr job but I was in mid flow :)

[Rolfe]

This is a bit long to answer in one go, but I'll make a start.

I think that the legacy of the Poll Tax as first tested in Scotland still has a long way to work itself out of the Scottish subconscious. You also have to factor in a number of other things to understand the poor showing of the Conservatives in Scotland, which are perhaps more difficult to "detoxify" given the rise of the SNP.


I suspect you're right, but this isn't an issue I relate to very personally. I was living in England throughout the entire poll tax episode, so I only have second-hand understanding of how deep the feeling was in Scotland.

I remember arguing with my then business partner (an active Conservative) about it, putting the practical case for why a flat rate personal tax was a bad idea no matter who was proposing it. His failure to listen was interesting - he replied that something had to be done about the rates because people hated rates, and the Conservatives were doing Scotland a favour by making the change there first, because Scots had been the most vocal complainants about the rates. And he defended the replacement (the poll tax) as fair, because everybody should pay the same for the same service, just the way the price of a loaf of bread is the same no matter how rich you are.

Pointing out the impossibility of raising enough money to pay for local services from a flat-rate tax if that tax was set at a level which wouldn't bankrupt the poorest people fell on deaf ears. As did pointing out the difficulty of establishing every single person's actual residence at every given moment, right down to parish level. I think in truth the Conservatives had little idea how mobile certain sections of the community are.

The scales only fell from his eyes when the Poll Tax was introduced in England, and he saw how it actually worked. First he noticed the extreme difficulty some of our own staff were having trying to abide by the law and keep their frequent changes of address on the public record. With the best will in the world, some of them were two or three moves ahead of where the poll tax people thought they lived. Then his own son turned 18. His son was in full time education, and had no income. Of course, Daddy had to pay. (Daddy could well afford it by the way.) However, Daddy was absolutely outraged that someone with no income was expected to pay the tax. Gradually he realised what a complete horlicks it al was, though he fell back on declaring that nobody could have realised these problems would occur before they actually arose - conveniently forgetting that I'd predicted the whole mess in advance.

I don't think many living in Scotland realised quite the level of (possibly well-meaning) ignorance that lay behind that entire debacle, and it was (possibly unjustly) seen as a direct attack on Scotland.

Firstly, Tory government from Westminster has in modern times (see poll tax) been seen as a quasi foreign government by a lot of Scots because they were somewhat detached from the far north. The irony is that alot of Britain now feels like this. There is the Westminster Village with all the MPs snaffling up large quantities of perks and being detached from the proletariat plus many Scottish MPs in governmental positions who proclaim to be listening, but are not ;) and this rankles in English and other constituencies, hence a more vocal call for an English Parliament. The irony on me is not lost and I think that alot of English people understand where the Scots have been coming from. (although the disproportionate number of Scottish seats, the Barnett "formula" and the West Lothian question are now matters for concern and should be readily acknowledged by Scottish politicians and addressed).


I think you have to acknowledge here the additional dimension in Scotland of Scotland actually being a country and not a region. Scotland isn't just a region like "the north" or "the west country", it is one of the two signatories to the Treaty of Union. Thus the impression of foreign government under the circumstances (Tory government from Westminster even without a single Tory MP elected for a Scottish seat) had a lot more force behind it for that reason.

So, while it it true to some extent that more English people are beginning to understand where the Scots have been coming from, I don't think the parallel is exact. Regions of England do not have the history (and indeed the present, of separate legal, educational and other systems) to colour their perceptions of identity in quite the same way.

The Barnett formula was designed gradually to reduce Scotland's appropriation down to where it was perceived it ought to be with regard to Scotland's population and land mass. It's ironic that it is being attacked just about the point where it is beginning to achieve that objective. Naturally, I'd prefer to see the formula abandoned in favour of full fiscal independence.

Similarly, I'd like to see the numbers of Scottish seats at Westminster reduced to zero. However, in the mean time, are you factoring in that Scottish seats are being or have been reduced to 59 (from 72)? Do you believe that in fairness they should be reduced even further? If so, to how few?

How do you feel about the disproportionately high numbers of European parliamentary seats accorded to the smaller European countries such as Denmark and even Luxembourg? Do you believe that EU seats should be allocated on a strict population basis?

Secondly, OIL plus Employment/investment/incentive for private companies. This could go for any area that is less well off/deprived than other regions. How many times do you telephone a government agency and hear a Scottish voice on the other end? Why are theses regions above not given massive incentives for business? To hell with it why not make these regions pay bugger all tax? Scotland is far too dependent on government jobs and welfare subsidy, it's not self sufficient with independent, private companies and enterprise. Why is this sector not boosted massively by government incentive especially as we have a large percentage of Scottish ministers in givernment? (lol - that should read government, but given the subject matter I'll let it stand as a fitting misspelling). Scotland is far too dependent on handouts, the irony is that those wanting independence think that oil will solve all of their problems. It won't. All it will do is shift where the money is coming from. New Labour is a Scottish manifestation. Anyone who thinks that it's tentacles cannot invade the SNP after independence is having a laugh. You need more than a single source income to become self reliant/rich. Eggs in one basket. The Conservatives are seen as people who will reduce any money going to Scotland yet take all the lovely stolen Scottish resources that make England the gold paved nation that it is. The simple matter remains that England would profit massively if it were to become an independent nation outside (most likely) of the EU 9just the same as much smaller nations with much smaller GDP do). Wales, Scotland, NI would soon realise this not only with regard to economical circumstances but political ones aswell. Compare the clout of minor European states inside the EU.


I like the "givernment" Freudian slip, by the way!

Again, speaking of Scotland as a "region", and a deprived one at that, is not something that goes down very well in Scotland as I imagine you know. Scotland, I repeat, was a sovereign country which was one of the two signatories of the Treaty of Union. Scotland has its own borders which are far more than a county boundary.

I don't think anyone thinks that oil will solve all Scotland's problems at one stroke, not in the way you seem to imply. However, oil is one of Scotland's natural resources that could be used to do exactly what you recommend - attract inward investment and get the whole economy on its feet. Along with the whisky industry, the financial services industry, the tourism industry and other things.

You describe Scotland as "less well off/deprived", "far too dependent on .... welfare subsidy" and "not self-sufficient". Is this not a terrible indictment of how Scotland's resources have been managed within the Union? Which other country has discovered significant amounts of oil in its territory and ended up in that state? This is a quote from the Herald comments from today (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2296420.0.Top_Labour_figures_urge_part y_to_rally_and_back_Brown.php).

The revenue produced so far could have made an enormous difference to the lives of people in Scotland. Just take a trip to Paisley, Kirkcaldy, Motherwell, Wishaw or Baillieston and ask yourself if these places have been well governed for the last thirty years, and if some decent money spent could have made a difference. Instead, this windfall was wasted on broo money, Trident submarines and cutting the higher rate of income tax, chiefly to the benefit of the London property market. And more recently on the Millenium dome, the Olympics, and the £3 billion high speed line from London to Dover.

But of course, Paisley, Kirkcaldy, Motherwell, Wishaw and Baillieston are benefiting from the Union, aren't they? They keep telling us that....


This is the background against which the unionists have to present their case.

Thirdly, the Tories have always been seen as the landed gentry, the Toffs, whether true or not (see C&N bye-election Labour hypocritical propaganda). This is an anathema because the Scots are still motivated by nationalism and their history, which is often misunderstood or twisted by the Scots themselves. Say "Land clearance" and you'll here the shouts (as with Crusade/Jihad/attach your historical gripe here). This also coincides with the "Braveheart factor", a massive obstacle. I remember the movie when released, because I was an Englishman living in Glasgow at the time. I laughed at the inaccuracies that were lapped up by the ignorant and those that had an agenda, I witnessed the smugness of the "see we were right" brigade. I also saw the irony that if Mel had produced an English version then there would have been huge cries of uproar about the English/Little Englanders/Xenophobes/Racists/Empire Builders/BNP/ etc, etc.

Which just goes to show how ingrained that notion is, witness QED.


The fact is that in Scotland it has historically mainly been the landowning class (whether gentry or not) who have been the traditional Tory voters - and in certain areas such as the north-east they traditionally instructed their employees to vote Tory also. That latter segment transferred directly to the SNP in more recent years, hence the strong SNP showing in that region. So there is some truth in your stereotype.

I don't really know about the Braveheart thing. I was living in England when the film was released, and I went to see it at a cinema in Leicester Square a month or two later. I was bored stiff by the first half of the film, irritated beyond measure by the poor period detail in the sets and costumes, never mind the blatant historical inaccuracies, and thought the whole thing was massively overrated. I wouldn't watch it again, even if it was on TV on a wet afternoon. Anyone whose politics can be influenced by a piece of Hollywood box-office is not exactly a clear thinker in the first place in my opinion.

There's an odd aspect to that though. A few years before Braveheart came out, I was at my usual reading group meeting on a Saturday afternoon in Brighton, and mentioned that I was going into London to the annual Wallace Day commemoration at Smithfield the following afternoon. My friends asked me what Wallace Day was, and I explained - the commonly accepted version, not the Mel Gibson rewrite, obviously. I was then faced by a roomful of English people asking first, was this some sort of "secret history" I was relating (they'd never heard about the Scottish Wars of Independence before). On being assured that it was not, that every Scottish primary school child knew the general gist of it and that the Wallace Monument in Stirling is a phallic symbol to put Nelson's Column to shame, they then asked me quite seriously why every Scot wasn't an SNP voter and why Scotland hadn't declared independence.

I found myself on the odd position of explaining to these English people that 700 years is a long time, that you don't base your modern politics solely on events that long ago, and that there were other factors such as the Labour unionist stranglehold on Scottish politics to be taken into account. I was and still am surprised by their reaction, but it does indicate that it's not only Scots who react to the events of 1296-1320 by regarding them as support for modern-day independence.

I wonder what stance Rolfe attributes to UKIP or the English Democrats. Surely if the SNP can be regarded as being for an independent, self sufficient, democratic Scotland, which by it's advocates is seen as a noble stance then why cannot such regards be aimed simultaneously at an equivocal English party? Nope sorry folks, the mainstream Conservatives are "little Englanders". The UKIP, heaven forbid they are "little Britishers"! The BNP, well actually they are racist, xenophobic, anti-europe, Britishers. So how can Rolfe advocate that the English sort it out for themselves? In doing so they'll take on all the negative tabs of, quote; "Little Englanders", and worse. The English cannot do what the Scots can do because people like Rolfe will automatically point and howl like Donald Sutherland did at the end of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers".


Possibly the "little Englanders" phrase was ill-chosen. I was mainly thinking of the anti-EU and anti-foreigner (and here I'm not primarily talking about immigrant, more referring to the "wogs begin at Calais" mindset) attitude that seems to pervade much of English political discourse, and it has already been pointed out to me that that is both peripheral, and to some extent out of date so far as actual Conservative policy is concerned. (By the way, after an internal local party spat, my former business partner, now retired but still a valued personal friend, is now an active campaigner for UKIP. I'm occasionally struck by the irony. Once upon a time he was a supporter of the governing party, while I was a supporter of a fringe nationalist party. Now I'm a supporter of the governing party (where I now live), and he's a supporter of a fringe nationalist party....). It does seem, though, that English voters can understand the fear of being swallowed up by a larger state when they look at their own relationship to the EU, but can't understand that fear as it is manifest in Scots looking at their relationship with England.

What I think I really had in mind was the conviction that the left of English politics, in my opinion, will have to make its own case on its own merits. That looking to Scotland's habit of delivering disproportionate numbers of Labour MPs to counteract the impact of the right on English politics is not the answer. If England as a country (with or without Wales and/or Northern Ireland) really does support right-wing Conservatism then that is the government they should have, and they should get on with it. Again, in my opinion.

You have to remember that the only reason a lot of Scottish people are able to walk down Sauchiehall Street without veering off to one side is that the very large chip on the left shoulder balances out the very large chip on their right shoulder. I include Rolfe as one of these types, which is a shame because when I lived in Scotland (92-95) these types of people were seen for what they were and queried or dismissed. They were a vocal minority although substantial. I often found that amongst the educated Scots that a live and let live / pull together attitude was much more prevalent and those who wanted more autonomy understood that the Union was beneficial to both parties. Of course there was a bit o' banter and stick given to the English, i.e me, but this was par for the course, of course, and taken as such, as well as given back mind you! I've seen the same in Australia and NZ, but never seen the vitriol that can accompany it amongst the Scots (and Welsh for that matter).

There were those that did indeed take it upon themselves to become Braveheart II and try to give me a good kicking simply on hearing my voice. The irony is that all of my Scottish friends stood in the way and said, "to get to him you must first come through us".


Well, thanks for those kind words. I can only say that one of my hopes for independence is that we can see the back of this petty tribalism anti-English mentality. As I said, I lived in England from 1982 to 2006, and most of my best friends are English. Funnily enough, where I live now, almost half the (small) street is English and I've never heard the slightest bad reaction in the village to the English segment of its population.

I do not think that the Conservatives can appeal in Scotland until they can directly appeal to all voters which will be in the run up to the next election because otherwise Labour will steal their policies. I have always found the Scots to be a nation who (very much like the English) dislike unfairness. To generalise they value; value for money, hard work, meritocracy (I know there are others but I'm in mid flow). If I were "call me Dave" I'd make it a manifesto pledge that within 6 months of the election a Conservative government would give Scotland a referendum on independence.

Sorry if this is a tl;dr job but I was in mid flow :)


I think the antipathy to the Conservative party in Scotland is still strong enough to prevent any serious Tory revival at the next general election. And this sort of thing doesn't help (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article4004722.ece).

Asked what the election of a a David Cameron-led Government would mean for the Barnett Formula and the block grant from the Treasury to Scotland, he [Andrew Fulton, chairman of the Scottish Conservatives] said: “David Cameron has genuinely said he would govern for the UK and look on the devolved parts of the UK in a kindly way. We do not know how that will work out in pounds, shillings and pence ... It depends on how much of a representation we can get in Scotland.”


"Govern in .... a kindly way!!!!" Whatever he actually meant by that, it comes over once again as if the Conservatives regard Scotland as a colony, to be rewarded for good behaviour (in this case, voting Tory) with a better share of its own resources. This isn't the way to recover your vote.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Here is another take on the situation, from another poster on the same Herald page.

The very best that could be said for Mr. Cameron's approach to Scotland, soon to be enacted when he becomes the leader of the UK, is that, it is at best, a form of benign paternalism. I'm sure he was applauded to the rafters at Ayr when he declared that he wants to be PM of all the UK and I don't doubt he intended the sentiment to be worthy. The fact of the matter remains that Scotland will soon find itself in a position when the cold hand of Westminster diktat is wielded not by a Labour party who maintains a consideration of Scotland as its own little back-yard but by a Tory party. This is the dilemma Scotland has always found itself in and it is the dilemma faced even more apparently as it becomes increasingly certain of a whopper of a Tory victory in Westminster once again.

I believe in Scottish politics because it has the potential to play a leading role in European and world politics. I do despair, though, at the underlying mentality that seems to discern Scotland as a place in the world where benign paternalism is the best we can strive to achieve politically. It sort of reminds me of those Labour councillors who keep trying to tell me and others like me that they were the ones who saved Scotland from the worst ravages of Thatcherism and, yet, is that the very best that can be hoped for in Scotland? Every now and again when the Tory party begins its ascendency, as is the way of two-party politics, when one is down the other is up, we in Scotland sit back and hope they'll go easy with us this time. That isn't the sign of a mature democracy.

What is the alternative? A Council of the Isles, anyone? Federalism doesn't make sense, confederalism makes even less sense. Thus, anyone for a Council of the Isles? A bi-annual meeting of the leading representatives from the British Isles to discuss and meet and plan for coming areas where interest is mutual. That would be about mature democracies interacting, recognising shared concerns, and generally being a good bunch. Benign paternalism for Scotland should not be the future of Scottish democracy. It would be a tragedy if people in Scotland were to sit back and cross their fingers and hope Cameron's benign paternalism is all that it says on the blue tin he held aloft at Ayr at the weekend.


Is this guy walking straight down Sauchiehall Street?

Rolfe.

[Damien Evans]

Oppostions do not win elections, but on the contrary governments lose them.

Quoted For Truth.

[volatile]

Can someone explain to me why Labour removing the 10p tax rate is encouraging people to vote Tory? It's not like those who benefit from the 10p rate are going to be any better off under Conservative economics...

Is this just a case of "Anyone but the lot we've got at the moment"?

[dudalb]

I am glad we yanks are not the only people who have a strong segment of the population who wish there were a "None Of The Above" space on the ballot.

[dudalb]

I think it is very interesting. So far as I can see, Margaret Thatcher was a very successful politician, according to conventional wisdom, anyway. Yet she destroyed her party completely and they are only now recovering because, as Uzzy said, many who can now vote have absolutely no idea what it was like. Tony Blair has done exactly the same to the labour party. It would be funny if it were not for the fact that it effectively disenfranchises many people. I also have the option of voting for independence for this country and I will do so. Nothing could induce me to vote for either labour or conservative. I see very little difference between them. Our system makes it very unlikely that voters in England will choose a third party, since no truly viable alternative has emerged: so they have no choice but to try the other lot if they want a change. This will make things a little worse, perhaps, but it certainly won't make them better.

I am really glad I do not live in England. So are the many many english people, who having got what they wished for have now moved abroad.


Don't forget that Thatchter got in because "Old Labor" had screwed up so badly.
I think that breaking the stranglehold that the unions had on the British economy was a good thing but Thachter became increasingly more extreme as her reign went on.
Labor's current dilemna is that people are fed up with New Labor, but know that going back to Hard Line Old Labor is political suicide.

[Almo]

I'll likely be voting Conservative at the next election, though if they propose cutting back the BBC, I'll have a seriously hard time doing it.

I wish I could vote in the UK just to vote on any issue pertaining to the BBC. They rock, and need to keep their funding and independence from advertisers.

[Undesired Walrus]

I am glad we yanks are not the only people who have a strong segment of the population who wish there were a "None Of The Above" space on the ballot.

Something like 'The Rational Party' would do nicely!

Our problem (I'm sure you know) is that we do not have an accountable system like you yanks. Our PM can choose to hold an election whenever he/she wants, and call off an election whenever she/he wants.

[Undesired Walrus]

I wish I could vote in the UK just to vote on any issue pertaining to the BBC. They rock, and need to keep their funding and independence from advertisers.

In a world gone mad, you can always count on the journalistic integrity of the BBC.

[Soapy Sam]

No. You can't.
Ask their journalists.

[Sunstealer]

I wish I could vote in the UK just to vote on any issue pertaining to the BBC. They rock, and need to keep their funding and independence from advertisers.I presume you don't pay a license fee. I do and I watch less than 2 hours of BBC TV a week. They no longer produce the quality of programs they were once renowned for and are so politically biased in favour of New Labour and the left that I can't watch anything on the news to do with politics. They are top heavy with management and a huge proportion of the Tax (people are forced to pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the content) is wasted. They are dinosaurs in the modern world and I'd like to see them lose their public license remit because it's not required anymore.

[andyandy]

I presume you don't pay a license fee. I do and I watch less than 2 hours of BBC TV a week. They no longer produce the quality of programs they were once renowned for and are so politically biased in favour of New Labour and the left that I can't watch anything on the news to do with politics. They are top heavy with management and a huge proportion of the Tax (people are forced to pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the content) is wasted. They are dinosaurs in the modern world and I'd like to see them lose their public license remit because it's not required anymore.

To which one could respond, "I presume you have never lived abroad?" ;)

The BBC is not perfect, but a comparison with America or Japan shows just how lucky we are to have a quality multi platform media outlet. Watch an hour of Lou Dobbs on the supposedly objective CNN and you'll appreciate Jeremy Paxman......

And in terms of value for money, two main terrestrial channels, several digital channels, five analogue radio stations, several more digital radio stations, a website with over a million pages, online streaming, the World Service and BBC world for less than £150 a year doesn't seem too bad to me.

[Rolfe]

Don't forget that Thatchter got in because "Old Labor" had screwed up so badly.
I think that breaking the stranglehold that the unions had on the British economy was a good thing but Thachter became increasingly more extreme as her reign went on.
Labor's current dilemna is that people are fed up with New Labor, but know that going back to Hard Line Old Labor is political suicide.


What is this "Labor" of which you speak? I've never seen that word on a ballot paper, not ever.

If we're discussing UK political parties, perhaps we could give them the correct names?

Rolfe.

[Fiona]

Don't forget that Thatchter got in because "Old Labor" had screwed up so badly.

How so?

I think that breaking the stranglehold that the unions had on the British economy was a good thing

What stranglehold? :confused:

but Thachter became increasingly more extreme as her reign went on.

What makes you think she changed in any way?


Labor's current dilemna is that people are fed up with New Labor, but know that going back to Hard Line Old Labor is political suicide.

Labour's current dilemma is that they are tories :)

[Rolfe]

I wish I could vote in the UK just to vote on any issue pertaining to the BBC. They rock, and need to keep their funding and independence from advertisers.


Some of it rocks. Some of it sucks, big time.

They may be independent from advertisers, but that's about it. There's the stuff Soapy Sam is referring to, and then there's the deeprooted, ingrained establishment bias.

The BBC has been a party to the systematic downplaying of the advantages of Scottish independence for many years. Not to put too fine a point on it, the establishment lies have been regurgitated wholesale and uncritically, while the investigative journalism that might have exposed these lies was conspicuous by its absence. Even when the lies were thoroughly exposed by use of the Freedom of Information Act, the reporting of the revelations was nonexistent. Winnie Ewing remarked a long long time ago that if the BBC had existed in the early 1920s, Ireland would never have gained its independence. Dammit, Lord Reith, who founded the BBC, explicitly stated that one of its primary reasons for existing was to preserve the Union.

More recently, the BBC treatment of the new First Minister has been shameful. Some of the things said to him when the election results came through were appalling. "What would you say to the people in Scotland who may be feeling very afraid tonight?" was one classic. Then there was the infamous Kirsty Wark interview for which she eventually had to issue an ungracious and partial apology - well, that was a first at least.

Kirsty Wark, bastion of Newsnight, was a frequent holiday guest of the former Labour First Minister. Known Labour supporters secure and retain top political posts with the BBC. Anyone with a known SNP connection finds themselves off documenting wildlife or something.

I like a lot of what the BBC puts out. I'm a total Radio 3 freak. I sang in the BBC Symphony Chorus for nine years and I've still got my "Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation" t-shirt. But anybody who thinks they don't have an agenda is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Or America.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Is this just a case of "Anyone but the lot we've got at the moment"?


In a word, yes. That is EXACTLY what it is.

That's why the Conservatives are going to have such a difficult, if not impossible task staging a recovery in Scotland. It really is a bit irrational to turn to the Blue Tories as your best hope when the Red Tories have got up your nose a bit far. If there is another credible choice, that party is going to benefit. And don't say "Lib Dems", I may choke.

Leaving aside any question of independence, the SNP is currently offering Scottish voters fed up with the Torying of Labour a genuine alternative choice. The only people likely to turn that choice down flat are the ideologically dyed-in-the-wool unionists, and there really aren't very many of these overall.

I am glad we yanks are not the only people who have a strong segment of the population who wish there were a "None Of The Above" space on the ballot.


Well, fine. So "none of the above" wins. What do you do then?

If you don't like any of the parties on offer, start your own or stand as an independent. Refusing the entire menu will not feed you.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Labour's current dilemma is that they are tories :)


Uh, yes.

This is the real dilemma. England voted Tory in its droves during the 1980s. Tony Blair saw that the only way to get that sort of vote for his party was to turn it into a copy of what the electorate were already voting for. Thus, when the real Tories fell out of favour, they'd be there to collect the rebound vote.

Worked a treat.

However, what goes around comes around, and now the Red Tories are the ones at the bottom of the Wheel of Fortune, they find that the votes transfer the other way just as easily.

The dilemma is, whether returning to the true Labour roots would make any difference. There is a strong argument that it wouldn't. Traditional Labour values didn't get English votes in 1979, 1983, 1987 or 1992 - or not nearly enough anyway. Labour had to become the Tories to get its chance on that merry-go-round. Arguably, reverting back to the previous model merely allows the real Tories a relatively free run at an essentially Tory-minded electorate.

That's sort of what I meant earlier when I said that if the English voters want a Tory government they should be allowed to get on with it. Turning to the votes of Scotland (and Wales) to dilute this Tory-voting tendency isn't the answer - and it's arguably undemocratic for England.

It's often pointed out that Labour got a majority in England in both 1997 and 2001, so by that yardstick the party would not be in the outer darkness forever if it was fighting elections in an independent England. Yes and no. It was New Labour that got these majorities. That is Labour completely transformed root and branch to be Just Like Tories. Like the pigs at the end of Animal Farm. Labour has a choice. Stay as Tweedledum to Tweedledee, stay on the merry-go-round, and get its chance every two general elections or so, however long it takes for the other lot to become insufferably corrupt and annoying. Or revert to Old Labour and lose enough English votes to stay in opposition forever.

Anyway, that's my take on the phenomenon that is New Labour. Alternatively, I present the CT that's been going the rounds. Tony Blair is not an obvious Labour party type. Not by a mile. When he was at his toffee-nosed private school he stood as a Conservative in the mock elections. Why did he join the Labour party and wrench it away from its roots in order to become PM? Wouldn't his route to the top have been much smoother if he'd joined the party of his ideological peers, the Conservatives?

The CT proponents suggest that this Bilderberg bunch deliberately planted Tony in the Labour party to transform it into a right-wing duplicate of the Tories. Thus in effect destroying the political wing of the Trades Union movement, and leaving both main parties, both parties with an actual chance of forming the government in Westminster, as right-wing Tories.

I merely present this theory or your entertainment. And observe that it certainly explains why Tony Blair ever became a Labour party member in the first place, which my theory actually doesn't.

Rolfe.

[volatile]

In a word, yes. That is EXACTLY what it is.

That's why the Conservatives are going to have such a difficult, if not impossible task staging a recovery in Scotland. It really is a bit irrational to turn to the Blue Tories as your best hope when the Red Tories have got up your nose a bit far. If there is another credible choice, that party is going to benefit. And don't say "Lib Dems", I may choke.


Agreed, for the most part - though I think the Lib Dems are still the best choice for the left-minded voter, even if they desperately need to sort themselves out and become much more visible and direct.

[Rolfe]

Agreed, for the most part - though I think the Lib Dems are still the best choice for the left-minded voter, even if they desperately need to sort themselves out and become much more visible and direct.


Once upon a time I agreed with you. And I have a number of English friends who are active Lib Dems.

However, observing the pronouncements and behaviour of the Scottish brand has put me off them completely. I don't want to start an anti-LibDem rant, but the nastiness, the two-facedness, the opportunism and maybe I'd better stop now, have quite genuinely sickened me.

Also, they've been stuck on the starting blocks like forever. I don't think they're electable any way you slice it.

Rolfe.