I've never seriously entertained the notion of David Cameron throwing away this election at the eleventh hour but it really looks like it might happen, and I'm not even talking about the Times poll that shows Labour a mere 2% behind the Conservatives and on course to winning the most seats.
I initially shrugged off Cameron's suggestion today that he had a "duty" to beat Gordon Brown but his Union Jack stained vision of how the future could be coupled with the "let's win it for Britain" ending was just too jingoistic to take and I suspect I won't be alone in thinking so. The only thing missing was Dave chomping on a cigar and giving a big Churchillian peace sign as he shuffled off the stage. Nigel Farage would've been proud.
Indeed the ending of Cameron's big speech today was so poor I, and all others in the room, joined in a chorus of 'was that it?'. If Tory tactics are going to be borne out of desperation given the recent slide rather than a truly modern, truly EU-friendly, truly global outlook then I'll take my chances of five more years with Gordon Brown as PM right now.
We don't need an Old Blighty national saviour Dave, we need someone who will give us a tangible alternative when he claims to offer 'change'.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Depends if you think it's axiomatic that non-racists have to support unfettered immigration for materialistic reasons - e.g. local councils receiving grants for housing immigrants, and shopping around for that reason - and communalising of politics.
As a nationalist, I had long given up hope that Brown could win.
I believe that a further term of Labour is the best outcome for the SNP in the medium to long term (i.e. 2011 and beyond) so I really hope Cameron keeps flopping.
Unfortunately, uninspiring though he is, when push comes to shove I just can't see the voters of England allowing Brown back in.
I think there is a little hint of 'backing the underdog' going on just now but just like those who say they would be happy with higher taxes for better public services I don't think they will put their money where their mouth is when it actually matters.
Jeff,
Someone on the Andrew Marr show mentioned that in the seventies and eighties when there were swings as large as there are now, there was always an understatement in the governments' support, whether Labour or Tory. I think he described it as the 'incumbency factor'. In other words opinion polls underestimate the fear of change.
I have no idea whether this is true or not, but no-one invites me on the Andrew Marr show.
Anon
I fail to see how a Labour government is in any way good for the SNP. This Nat is cheering on Cameron & Co. Why?
1. Labour are currently able to use the Scotland office as a full-time anti-Nat propaganda bureau, and have quite cleverly (by their limited standards) linked up their narrative at Holyrood and Westminster. A Tory S of S will not be as effective as Murphy, who is a slick operator and plays well in the West of Scotland.
2. The Tories are chock full of anti-Scottish colonialists and they won't be able to keep them all under wraps forever. The more post-election foaming at the mouth about the Barnett formula, the better.
3. Talking about the Barnett Formula, DC has pledged to 'reform' it. This means either devo-max, a Nat objective, or a hugely unpopular cut in Scotland's funding - which plays into our hands.
4. Labour don't want more power at Holyrood because they don't need it - they're in power at Westminster. After a bit of post-election grieving, they will figure out that under devo-max they will be in with a good chance of exercising significant power in Scotland in 2011/2015. Whereas, at Westminster, they're going to be out until 2018 at the earliest.
5. A Conservative government, even based on these polls which I believe overstate their support, will only have 2-4 Scottish MPs out of 59. That's a back-to-the-future democratic deficit scenario which will without doubt have the same result as before - an inexorable public demand for more devolution, this time backed by the Libs and Labour (once they pass through the shock, grief and anger stages).
So - in my opinion, the ideal result for the SNP and Scottish nationalism generally is a Tory landslide in England, propelling them into power despite a poor showing in Scotland.
As Wendy would say....BRING IT ON
CC
Re the ukip comment, the tories need that 3 or 4% that might vote UKIP to come "home". They cannot base it on europe, where they flunked, so it neeeds to be based on vague matters such as patriotism and halting some aspects of immigration without being too specific.
Labour will try same thing a week out from the election to stop a slide of the WWC to the BNP. No earlier as message in that target group will be lost. All politics; we all know that it is the floating voters and marginals that count and they will be targetted.
I sure hope the sentiments of CassiusClaymore are not common within the SNP.
So essentially, CassiusClaymore, you want a Westminster government to sweep in with a savage and sinister attack on Scotland. Greeting in an age of suffering to support your own agenda is not a great strategy to gain popular acceptance. I am sure ideas like that will go down well in the poorer areas of Scotland.
The SNP must win the argument of independence under any government and not pathetically cling to an absurd notion to bring independence through the back door. If this argument can't be won. Then surely it must in time, die.
Good grief, there are some parochial, nasty remarks here. Anyone who claims to be operating according to anything approaching basic bleedin' humanity should be concerned for the best incumbent in Downing Street.
To explicitly hope for a shower of bastards who'd take 50 millions of their fellow citizens to hell in a handcart just to further Scottish separatism is political psychopathy.
And Douglas Clark isn't one of these.
Like most of Scotland, they're a disgrace to Scotland.
>> I am sure ideas like that will go down well in the poorer areas of Scotland.
Absolutely, Mark. Who would have thought sub state nationalism appealed to to a barking mad, anti-human reactionary strain which loathed the 'lower' classes?
According to the new poll, Labour are two points ahead for Westminster and the SNP are seven points ahead for Holyrood.
Sorry, Mark and Alec, but the next Government are very probably going to be whoever the people of England decide. That's how Westminster works, with very few historic exceptions to that rule.
All I'm saying is that aTory government is inevitable, and that we might as well strategise as best we can to get something out of it. Just as Margaret Thatcher was the midwife of Scottish devolution, David Cameron will deliver devo-max. And the long march will continue.
Works for me.
CC
...and, bang on cue, today's Scotsman poll says that 41% of Lab voters and 39% of LibDem would go Nat if there was a Tory government at Westminster. Amazing if true.
CC
>> Sorry, Mark and Alec, but the next Government are very probably going to be whoever the people of England decide. That's how Westminster works, with very few historic exceptions to that rule.
That's not what you said.
>> Works for me.
That's because your prime concern is for ethno-nationalism (which some designated honorary Scots) beyond basic humanity towards the Scottish urban poor, never mind those in England.
There are some weird, reactionary, right-wing loonies who think they're progressive these days.
Alec
My 'prime concern is for ethno-nationalism'?!
Where did you get that? Note from anything I wrote - from your own twisted imagination, presumably. No Nat I know would support any kind of ethnic nationalism and, try as you like, that sort of pathetic and baseless accusation won't stick to Scottish nationalism. My own family is not ethnically Scottish, not that it's any of your business.
You are, clearly, a Labour troll and accordingly this is my final reply to you. I hope you're looking forward to electoral oblivion.
CC
POLL ALERT - QUARTERLY IPSOS-MORI SCOTTISH MONITOR
Ipsos-MORI/Times
Westminster voting intention - Scotland
(+/- change from November Monitor)
Lab 34% (+2)
SNP 32% (-2)
Con 17% (+2)
LD 12% (n/c)
“Ipsos MORI Scotland interviewed 1,006 Scottish voters by telephone between February 18 and 21.”
So, that was at the same time as the 17th - 24th February 2010 YouGov for the Scottish Sun was out in the field:
Lab 42%, SNP 20%, Con 19%, LD 14%
The Lib Dem and Tory figures are within the MoE of the Ipsos-MORI figures, but how can YouGov find a 22% Lab lead over the SNP, but Ipsos-MORI find only a 2% Labour lead? It just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Links:
Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7044719.ece
Ipsos-MORI Scottish Public Opinion Monitor: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/offices/scotland/scottishpublicopinionmonitor.aspx
YouGov/Scottish Sun: http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/ScottishSun02.24.pdf
I'm banking on Brown's Labour being re-elected without an absolute majority (maybe 5-10 short).
It will expose his spend / cut lies
It will expose the Unionists over Calman.
It will expose Labour to the democratic will of the people of the UK by having to seek agreement with other parties.
It could potentially put a small party like the SNP in a very powerful position with only 7-15 seats.
It will exacerbate the internal feuding in Labour.
It will highlight the inqeuqities between England & Scotland, furthering English resentment of Scots Labour Mp's voting on matters that do not affect their constituents.
Bring on 2011.
HOLYROOD VOTING INTENTION
The Times only makes a very brief mention:
- … the SNP is still maintaining a clear lead over Labour when it comes to the first-past-the post section of the Holyrood vote.
Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP deputy leader, described the poll findings as “fantastic”. She added; “We are neck-and-neck with Labour in Westminster voting intentions, and we have a substantial 7-point lead in Scottish Parliament voting intentions.”
The Times - "... Mr Brown, who has appeared beleaguered in recent months in the face of a string of negative media stories, appears to have found a groundswell of sympathy and support in his native country."
I note that the Times report does the classic biased analysis of opinion polling, by comparing Mr Salmond's satisfaction rating the the Ipsos-MORI monitor of 6 months ago, not the most recent November monitor. I thought that this kind of thing was against British Polling Council rules?
Here are the satisfaction ratings (net) compared with the November MORI Monitor:
Gordon Brown +4 (up 12 points on November 2009)
Alex Salmond +1 (down 3 points on Nov)
David Cameron ? (he was at -11 in Nov)
Sheesh, it's cnut-soup here. A disasterous party gets into Downing Street, bringing misery and privation for tens of millions... and what do these freaks do?
Have a street-party!
My 'prime concern is for ethno-nationalism'?!
Where did you get that?
An understanding of your nasty little mind and the poisonous politics it produces. Or do you think ethno-nationalism requires beatings and deportations, as opposed to malevolent glee at the opposing group's misery?
That at least is sadly 'normal' for human behaviour. What's abnormal is the satisfaction at their own group (i.e. Scots) being screwed-about to satisfy their ends.
This is the death cult end of the SNP.
Scotland as a region is, by no qualifiable means, economically and politically worse off than the other regions in the UK - and compares favourably to much of the world.
Thus, the only reason for supporting separatism is an irrational dislike of Westminster rule (or the English fullstop as some effortlessly show).
Racists/bigots can be honest and dishonest. The former at least admit they loathe the alien group (note, "honest" doesn't mean "good").
The latter wish to be thought nice people whilst continuing with their hatred of the alien group. Sorry, mates, you can't be racists/bigots and nice people. You can only be racists/bigots and hypocrites.
You are, clearly, a Labour troll [...]
Right on cue. I am not and never have been a member of the Labour Party. Right above I said that any half-way formed moral creature's first concern should be for the better resident at Downing Street whoever that may be.
You don't do proportion, do you?
[...] and accordingly this is my final reply to you. I hope you're looking forward to electoral oblivion.
You cannot tell me or anyone else what to do you pathetic middle-class nobody. If you wished to end the conversation, you would have posted only the first sentance... but, being a bully at heart, you seek to abuse someone and then deny them the right to reply.
You are a squadist.
Alec - you are Wolfie Smith and I claim my £5. You do know he was a tragi-comic parody.....don't you?
Alex
There already is a disastrous party in Drowning Street bringing misery and privation to tens of millions, its called The Labour party.
With Westinster it is not a case of which party governs that matters its who will be the least worst for Scotland.
One party Labour does not bother about Scotland as it takes peoples votes for granted, the other party Tory does not bother about Scotland as they have few votes here and do not need Scottish votes.
We know from the last 13 years that Labour have been a disaster for not just Scotland but the UK as a whole. We know from Thatcher and Major that the Torys will be a disaster for Scotland.
The only vote that gives Scotland any chance is a vote for the SNP, any other vote is a choice between two right wing partys.
There already is a disastrous party in Drowning Street bringing misery and privation to tens of millions, its called The Labour party.
Point to where I was offering a view on that. What's said here, being a blog, doesn't add up to much even in the minor scheme of things. I am responding first and foremost to Cassius and Gradualist as individuals.
We know from the last 13 years that Labour have been a disaster for not just Scotland but the UK as a whole.
Do we know? Or are we looking through 20/20 spectacles? There are any number of parliamentary questions from Vince Cable, and warnings from Will Hutton... so where are the prescient statements from the SNP or Salmond specifically that all was being built on sand?
No, he thought it was going swimmingly.
We know from Thatcher and Major that the Torys will be a disaster for Scotland.
This is not what Classius and Gradualist are saying. Like identifying at a glass eye 'cos it had a glint of compassion, their remarks were simply of a glee in misfortune in England and hope for increased misfortune in Scotland - like a false flag operation - to drive people into their arms.
The only vote that gives Scotland any chance is a vote for the SNP, any other vote is a choice between two right wing partys.
Bandying about "right wing" as an insult is like still playing with your Tamagocci.
I think you'll find there's a longer tradition of trade unionism and socialist policies still present in the Labour Party than there is in the SNP.
And, who says Scots wouldn't vote for what you term right-wing parties anyway? If memory serves, the Tories are the only party ever to receive a plurality of votes in Scotland.
"Vote for change" is a meaningless slogan. Where the SNP has been tested, it hasn't done too well... voting based simply on your dislike of the current system is reactionary.
Cassiusclaymore-
No wonder New Labour supporters bang on about Tartan Tories with views like yours. Hey, i'm even looking forward already to seeing that first comment of yours re-printed on Wee Dougies election missive.
By the way I don't think New Labour (if they lose) will be office for that long. Brown might be a disaster, but Comedy Dave and Boy George will be even more of a disaster, and with a small majority if New Labour drop the New and get their act together (by not picking Balls or Millipeed as leader), they might turn things around very quickly.
This is not what Classius and Gradualist are saying. Like identifying at a glass eye 'cos it had a glint of compassion, their remarks were simply of a glee in misfortune in England and hope for increased misfortune in Scotland - like a false flag operation - to drive people into their arms.
Cassius's remark about how a cut in Scotland's funding would "play into our hands" and his subsequent backtracking have certainly made him look a tit, but I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Where did he express, or even hint at, "glee" at the prospect of misfortune for England? What did Gradualist say that remotely justifies your characterisation of him/her as hoping for "misery and privation for tens of millions"? I wonder if it is you who doesn't "do proportion".
Colin, taking just one of Cassius' caveats:
This means either devo-max, a Nat objective, or a hugely unpopular cut in Scotland's funding - which plays into our hands.
Why on earth would anyone *welcome* an unpopular cut in funding? Note, this ain't earnings - with the association of an honest crust - but an expectation of being kept in the style to which we have become accustomed thanks to the pockets of UK-wide taxpayers.
Gradualist has hoped for increased animosity from English-MPs, and a Tory-landslide (which, presumably, s/he doesn't want in Scotland) south or the border where a great many would *not* have voted for them.
As for the matter of proportion, I am responding to individuals (note wot eye say about whoever is best for Downing Street) . Cassius and Gradualist, to name but two, imagine they are pushing chess-pieces around a UK-shaped board.
Why on earth would anyone *welcome* an unpopular cut in funding? Note, this ain't earnings - with the association of an honest crust - but an expectation of being kept in the style to which we have become accustomed thanks to the pockets of UK-wide taxpayers.
Yes, I already noted this obnoxious bit of calculation by Cassius. What I didn't understand was why, confronted with it, you accused him of taking pleasure in the suffering of the English, whom he hadn't even mentioned. You say it was "just one" example of him wishing misery on his fellow man: what were the others?
Incidentally, Cassius would appear to support "separation": i.e. the exact opposite of "being kept in the style to which we have become accustomed thanks to the pockets of UK-wide taxpayers".
Gradualist has hoped for increased animosity from English-MPs, and a Tory-landslide (which, presumably, s/he doesn't want in Scotland) south or the border where a great many would *not* have voted for them.
Are we talking about the same post here? Gradualist quite clearly expressed a preference for a hung parliament, with Labour as the biggest party.
S/he also hoped that a Labour victory would increase English anger about the West Lothian question, which is a legitimate grievance. You read this as a "hope for a shower of bastards who'd take 50 millions of their fellow citizens to hell in a handcart". Do you see how that connection might not be obvious?
But let me see if I understand this new point you're making: are you saying it's wrong to hope for a landslide by any party because there will always be "a great many" who didn't vote for them?
Allan - as a right-of centre Nat, I probably am a 'Tartan Tory'. Nothing wrong with that....sorry if it upsets your sensibilities. Unlike many right wing Scots, independence for Scotland is my priority. Come that happy day, I'll be looking for a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party to join. Until then, I'll be voting SNP.
Colin - thanks for the 'tit' remark, and I am sorry that you misunderstood my comments. I do not backtrack at all from my comment that cuts will play into our hands, nor do I think it's a controversial statement - why else do you think Alex mentions it at every opportunity?
Alec - did you stop taking your medication? Your attacks on Gradualist are absurd.
CC
It's true that a side effect of cuts could well be (but I don't think is guaranteed to be) an increase in support for independence. Do you see the difference between making that prognosis, and actually "cheering on" a party for the reason that it might make a "hugely unpopular cut in Scotland's funding"?
Colin
I'm not cheering them on because they're going to make cuts. Both parties will make cuts and there isn't a fag paper between them. I'd prefer a Con victory because I believe their election will bring Scottish independence closer. That's all.
For what it's worth I also think that Brown has been a terrible PM (and Chancellor before that) and richly deserves to be kicked out. I would support Cameron over Brown, without much enthusiasm, but would be far happier if we were electing our own leader of an independent Scotland.
CC
Post a Comment