In what I hope will be the first of many guest posts from Scottish PPCs I am delighted to host Lis Bardell's article - Jim Devine, M.P. and the rights of the people of the Livingston Constituency
In all the extensive coverage and discussion of Jim Devine’s doings about shelving, electrics and staffing problems through now to criminal charges about cleaning and stationery, little has been said about the democratic fate and rights of the people of the Livingston Constituency over what is now an extended period of time. Neither has much been said about the Labour Party’s failure to ensure representation of an appropriate standard for local constituents during this period.
Prior to being deselected at national level by Labour’s Star Chamber, Mr Devine was given the unreserved backing of his local Constituency Labour Party and of the Labour Group in the local Council whose Leader is Labour’s new Westminster Candidate, Graeme Morrice.
Since deselection Mr Devine has remained an MP. Until 8th February, he remained a member of the Labour Party and, so far as we know, also retained the Labour Whip.
Meantime, the people of the Livingston Constituency continue to be represented by someone that the Labour Party, itself – at national level (they are silent at local level)- deems unfit to hold office. They will have been so represented for nearly a year by the time Gordon Brown sees fit to call a General Election. It is clear that proper representation for the people of the Livingston Constituency does not feature in Gordon Brown’s calculations.
Meantime, while due caution has to be exercised by others, including political opponents, when matters are subject of legal process, Mr Devine, on the other hand, has been free to grab the airwaves, bemoan his fate and offer varying, sometimes vying explanations for his conduct.
For those who saw his interview with Channel 4 News on Friday 5th February this has hardly been an edifying spectacle. This is now widely circulating in Cyberspace with understandable, common sense commentary questioning reason and competence. It is not easy to hear or see one’s home community associated with this.
Lest anyone think that it somehow reflects on the good people of the Livingston Constituency that a (small) majority of them voted for Mr Devine in 2005, I can confirm, from months of knocking on doors, that voters - of whatever political persuasion – feel betrayed, let down and angry both on their own and on their community’s behalf.
This is a serious democratic issue which, if Gordon Brown and the Labour Party had any conscience, should have been resolved by calling a General Election 9 months ago. Labour has let Livingston down.
Lis Bardell
SNP Westminster Candidate for the Livingston Constituency
SNP Tax
8 minutes ago
17 comments:
So which party do you think the majority of voters in Livingston who don't believe in independence should vote for?
Vote SNP. If the independence referendum ever happens, you can still vote 'no'.
So we can usefully ignore any change in votes for the SNP as any indication of support for independence?
Thought so.
Maybe the SNP should become the Scottish Quite Effective in a Small Way Devolutionist Party?
It's the way the Quebeckers do it, Tarantella. All the angry shouting about separatism but baulking at referendum when they'd have to raise taxes and print stamps and maintain embassies.
>> For those who saw his interview with Channel 4 News on Friday 5th February this has hardly been an edifying spectacle.
Oh, don't be coy, it was the best thing since that those Fox anchors tried to jump the McCain/Palin ship.
As Hythlodaeus discusses, Devine was known about for some time.
http://hythlodaeus.com/2010/02/just-when-was-jim-devine-exposed/
If the SNP can't take Livingston in May they never will, Jim Devine has presented the party with a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
That's it, spoil one of Newsnet Scotland's articles - this is in Sunday's edition.
Two exclusives down to just one now !!
That one is by Irish economist Marc Coleman who has written a piece for the newsletter.
Good post.
It's just another one of these examples of a Labour party who are only interested in one thing - themselves.
They care nothing for the people they're meant to represent. Nothing at all.
Lara
Tarantella,
"So we can usefully ignore any change in votes for the SNP as any indication of support for independence?"
Of course you can.
It's the votes in a referendum that counts, but you're too scared of that because you stand a very real chance of losing.
Especially after you've lost the upcoming election and Scotland is forced to swallow the Tories because Labour insisted we stay in the union.
That will be the end of you in Scotland, just as we saw the end of the Tories in Scotland back in the day.
Labour are following that same path of oblivion up here.
To get back on topic (Comments here often seem to spiral into shouting matches: INDEPENDENCE! NO! INDEPENDENCE! NO!)
I think that Lis Bardell raises an important point.
Labour seems to feel that if they can hold on for long enough, people will forget about the corruption.
There should have been a string of by-elections.
Back off topic, I have a solution for our woes when it comes to taxes and embassies: get a larger tax base.
One of the real problems we've been dealing with for centuries is the loss of people. Wikipedia states that there are, officially, 30,000,000 Scottish people around the globe.
But if you look at US Immigration statistics, and count the "Scots Irish" and the people cleared out of the Lowlands as well as Highlands, a different Wikipedia article estimates that there are almost 60 million people of Scottish descent in America alone.
Knowing the kinship that the Diaspora feels for Scotland, why not invite some of our lost Bretheren to come home?
More people = more people we can tax = problems funding embassies solved.
We're not the Qebecois.
-QR
Is your point that a General Election should have been called because of the wider expenses scandal, or because of a democratic deficit for the constituents in Livingston in particular? I really hope it is the former.
Seems an entirely valid call from Lis, and a real quandary fro the local labour party, have they even considered an alternative candidate yet?
It's the greant unknown in this coming election with so many hackneyed MP's stepping down, this could be a real watershed year.
>> We're not the Qebecois.
Nor are we the Irish, Icelanders, Norwegians, [insert nationality which seems to be doing well at the time]... d'you know where I'm going on this?
I don't have a particular opinion on whether Jim Devine should resign his seat. It's kind of up to him, not the Labour Party, surely? And I can see why he would not want to resign whilst he still claims to be innocent.
I can see it would be ridiculously politically naive to resign his seat to have a by-election a few weeks before a general election. No party would do it.
I think we should have a referendum when the SNP have done the hard work of building up a movement for independence that shows that it is the strong will of the Scottish people. Support for independence remains stubbornly low and, as always happens, falls whenever the issues are discussed widely. Just track support for independence (up when the football team wins, down during election campaigns)
Planning a referendum on the backlash to a Tory general election victory is incredibly cynical. It's about pulling a fast trick to put the minority concern of the SNP above the will of the people of Scotland.
Once you've built the movement come back with a referendum proposal.
Lis Bardell cannot expect Jim Devine to stand down because of charges being brought.
If thats the case, I wonder what her opinion would be should an administration councillor find themselves in a similar situation?
I think she would have a different opinion altogether! Though time may tell!
This is a Narrow Minded Blog, not as open as it tries to suggest.
Most comments here are from deluded Sycophants.
Post a Comment