?!?!?!? The most notable part of her leadership was when she attacked the SNP for being too generous with public services, and then took part in an independence campaign which lifted tricks straight out of the classic right-wing playbook. Just because someone is endorsed by the unions that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean they have left-wing policies, with Ed Miliband being exhibit A.

 

I thought even you accepted that working-class Scottish Labour voters think the party is too much like the Tories, even though you seem to think it's just confined to Scotland rather than across the UK.

If anything I think it demonstrates it even more how much trouble the left-wing faces that every single left-wing candidate for leader 'becomes a traitor' when they become leader. Doesn't that say something? Because just because she didn't have left-wing policies (and seriously, bugger off with the implication that taking part in the No campaign and being left-wing are mutually exclusive) doesn't mean she wasn't the left-wing candidate. She was endorsed by Katy Clark (one of Labour's most socialist MPs) and Neil Findlay (this election's probable left-wing candidate). It says something if the left-wing candidates don't find the policies they should notionally be supporting viable, and I'm surprised it's something left-wingers haven't picked up on. Are they all just craven traitors then?

 

I have never said that Scottish Labour voters think the party is too much like the Tories? Every single time this canard comes up I have rejected it, because it's literally only something TUSCites and Green voters say. There's a difference between 'you're all the same' and 'you're too much like the Tories', and it's a cultural rather than a political one. Scottish Labour voters were disillusioned with New Labour, but typically over things like Iraq and the decay of Scottish Labour, which was what gave the SNP an 'in' in 2007.

I have never said that Scottish Labour voters think the party is too much like the Tories? Every single time this canard comes up I have rejected it, because it's literally only something TUSCites and Green voters say. There's a difference between 'you're all the same' and 'you're too much like the Tories', and it's a cultural rather than a political one. Scottish Labour voters were disillusioned with New Labour, but typically over things like Iraq and the decay of Scottish Labour, which was what gave the SNP an 'in' in 2007.

 

Virtually every single report on the Scottish independence campaign found countless former lifelong Labour voters saying they were voting for independence because they thought Labour had become too much like the Tories and they needed to get out of the UK to have any chance of a government that was for them. I mean, that's accepted by EVERYONE in the commentariat (even though most go with the angle of "Scotland is a separate political system so what works there for Labour wouldn't work elsewhere", whereas I think you get the exact same comments across the north of England and Wales but it's just not showing up in Labour's election results as much because their opponents elsewhere are not as talented as the SNP). At this point, I'm wondering if you're being disingenuous.

Edited October 27, 201410 yr by Danny

New Scottish poll puts the SNP 29% ahead of Labour(!!).

 

Would result in the SNP holding 54 seats, Labour 4 and the Lib Dems just the one in Orkney & Shetland.

That has to be an outlier. The SNP are holding onto a big lead but that's a significant swing from what I've seen. I can't see the Tories losing the one seat they possess either.

 

The LibDems I can believe too.

 

Murphy today confirmed he would run for Scottish Labour leader and proclaimed he would be first Minister. I'm more likely to become The President of the USA next week than he is likely to beat Nicola in 2016. Polls for 2016 have the SNP on course to majority it again without even trying. The referendum has far from killed the nationalists as Westminster hoped it would but has reinvigorated them and their support just keeps growing. They will stay in power at Holyrood.

It's not surprising. One party's in a honeymoon handover phase between two popular leaders, the other's just had a resignation and looks in chaos. There's no chance the SNP are going to have a 29 point lead come next May.

It's not surprising. One party's in a honeymoon handover phase between two popular leaders, the other's just had a resignation and looks in chaos. There's no chance the SNP are going to have a 29 point lead come next May.

 

Do you still think Labour will get more seats than the SNP?

Do you still think Labour will get more seats than the SNP?

I don't see the SNP winning more than ten seats directly from Labour under any circumstances. The SNP will make about seven or right easy gains from the Lib Dems, about six or so from Labour (the likes of Falkirk, maybe the Glasgow seats, and Dundee West), but past the twenty seat point they'll be going up against some very well-entrenched MPs with good local reputations. I don't think there's a chance they'll make 15 gains from Labour and go past 30 seats, which is where they'd need to make it to in order to overtake Labour on seats.

because it's literally only something TUSCites and Green voters say.

 

Apparently, even people in constituencies that vote for Tory MPs are all closet "TUSCites":

 

 

I asked a Conservative MP to estimate how many letters she received from voters complaining about missed deficit targets. She narrowed her eyes and looked heavenwards for some kind of answer. “Not sure. Can’t remember any if I’m honest but I’m sure I must have had one or two.”

 

“OK,” I said, “and what about letters protesting about cuts to benefits, or to local libraries?”

 

At this point her eyes widened. The hands rather than the head pointed upwards. “Loads and loads,” she replied. The immediate electoral cost of making spending cuts is simply much, much greater than the cost of failing to eliminate the deficit.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/colu...icle4253113.ece

Without even dealing with the point that very few people write to their MPs, and when they do it's invariably 95% of the time about something that a. affects them on a personal level and b. they think their MP personally can do something about, going from what people write to their MPs about to that apparently meaning they think Labour are basically Tories is a hell of a logical leap.

(Still *.* at the revelation that Danny HAS A TIMES SUBSCRIPTION #BlairWitchProject)

Without even dealing with the point that very few people write to their MPs, and when they do it's invariably 95% of the time about something that a. affects them on a personal level and b. they think their MP personally can do something about, going from what people write to their MPs about to that apparently meaning they think Labour are basically Tories is a hell of a logical leap.

 

I'm just still bemused at the fact you seem to be canvassing in some parallel universe where everyone is constantly talking about the deficit, where no-one is angry about spending cuts, and where no-one thinks Labour and the Tories are essentially the same party pushing the same policies. Even though your experiences are contradicted by most opinion polls, and countless anecdotes and "vox pops" (just tonight on the news they did a piece in Scotland where Labour voters were saying how Labour had abandoned the people it was set up to fight for, how they'd "betrayed Keir Hardie" or something, and how they were in bed with the Tories).

Edited October 31, 201410 yr by Danny

Like I've said before, it isn't the case that 'everyone's talking about the deficit', but if there was one piece that cut through from conference season that people noticed, it's that Ed didn't mention it. People might not see it as the biggest priority but they don't want a government that they don't think will do anything about it. And as I've said before, my argument's based on my view that it would be easier (to do and to stomach) to win over voters who like the idea of a Labour government but don't want a government that doesn't even try to make the books balance (and yeah, there are enough of them out there that we'd be on a solid lead now if we had them, given how many are undecided) than those who voted Labour before who have immigration as their big concern. At this stage I wouldn't even have minded a last-gasp 'sod it, we're going all out to secure the Lib Dem defectors' promise (like I've said many times before - my issue with a left-wing campaign in this splintered multiparty climate isn't electability, it's sustainability once in office) but it's a bit late for that now.

 

And the 'in bed with the Tories' criticism has *just a bit* of a different dimension in Scotland given the big line the SNP are running with at the moment is 'nobody will ever forgive Labour for teaming up with the Tories to do Better Together'. Which is remarkable given it's a campaign they lost, but I'm not exactly surprised given Salmond and Sturgeon are both pure chutzpah.

But did they lose?

 

Every single constituency in Glasgow voted to leave. Their membership has skyrocketed, not usual for a losing side, and they have a growing lead in both polls. Ed has an approval/trust rating in Scotland that is lower than Cameron's. Reads more like a massive loss for labour to me

Yes, the SNP did lose. 55 is more than 45, much as they try to pretend otherwise, and some of that 45 joining up with the one party which was most logically identified with the position they voted for doesn't suddenly mean they won.

Like I've said before, it isn't the case that 'everyone's talking about the deficit', but if there was one piece that cut through from conference season that people noticed, it's that Ed didn't mention it. People might not see it as the biggest priority but they don't want a government that they don't think will do anything about it. And as I've said before, my argument's based on my view that it would be easier (to do and to stomach) to win over voters who like the idea of a Labour government but don't want a government that doesn't even try to make the books balance (and yeah, there are enough of them out there that we'd be on a solid lead now if we had them, given how many are undecided) than those who voted Labour before who have immigration as their big concern. At this stage I wouldn't even have minded a last-gasp 'sod it, we're going all out to secure the Lib Dem defectors' promise (like I've said many times before - my issue with a left-wing campaign in this splintered multiparty climate isn't electability, it's sustainability once in office) but it's a bit late for that now.

 

And the 'in bed with the Tories' criticism has *just a bit* of a different dimension in Scotland given the big line the SNP are running with at the moment is 'nobody will ever forgive Labour for teaming up with the Tories to do Better Together'. Which is remarkable given it's a campaign they lost, but I'm not exactly surprised given Salmond and Sturgeon are both pure chutzpah.

 

But the reasons they would presumably like the idea of a Labour government are INEVITABLY being ruled out as result of the pledge to "balance the books". Like I've said before, I've never said that pledging to keep running deficits in itself is going to get people to vote for them, my point is that it's needed to get to the only things that will get people to vote Labour - "we'll protect public services", "we'll stop more cuts devastating your towns", "we'll help poor people and people in the middle and stop them falling even further behind the rich". What Labour have never understood is that, even if one accepts the "economic incompetence" thing as a big weakness, they can't tackle it without surrendering all their strengths at the same time -- and it's certainly much better to have big strengths and weaknesses, than to be seen as nothing at all like Labour currently are, with no-one having a clue what they stand for, having nothing of interest to say, and being irrelevant to all the big debates on the future of the country (things like Newsnight often just invite Tory and UKIP people on for debates these days, because Labour would have nothing of interest to contribute due to their complete lack of any strong stances on anything fundamental).

 

And I just can't understand how you think it's going to be easier to win over "fiscally conservative" people than left-wing/working-class people. Look at how dismal the Tories' poll ratings are -- they're made up of people who stuck with the Tories even in their worst ever election defeats, and stuck with them in the "Omnishambles". If these people didn't desert the Tories in their dog days, how do you think Labour could EVER win them over whatever they said? How could they be easier to win over than people who even stuck with Labour in 2010, or Lib Dem defectors who were rock-solid for Labour until very recently? And I don't think you can keep blithely dismissing Green voters as pie-in-the-sky loony lefties since they're now at 5-8% in the polls (and in my view likely to grow more if Labour carry on as they are).

Just because the Tories are only polling around 30-32% doesn't mean that they've retreated back to just their 1997-2001 vote. Partly because quite a lot of those people, to be blunt, are now dead. As much as I don't think it's particularly rewarding for Labour, there ARE more votes to be gained there but the main problem would be what happened as soon as the party got back in power. It would put us in dreadful standing in 2020.

 

With the announcement of bus regulation today it's clear that the party is going to go into the election on a platform of intervening with the markets which are ripping people off. That's a strategy which could attract both 2010 Tories (the same people Tirren's going after) and a few of the "left-wing" (economically, at least) people who aren't too far gone on immigration.

Just because the Tories are only polling around 30-32% doesn't mean that they've retreated back to just their 1997-2001 vote. Partly because quite a lot of those people, to be blunt, are now dead. As much as I don't think it's particularly rewarding for Labour, there ARE more votes to be gained there but the main problem would be what happened as soon as the party got back in power. It would put us in dreadful standing in 2020.

 

With the announcement of bus regulation today it's clear that the party is going to go into the election on a platform of intervening with the markets which are ripping people off. That's a strategy which could attract both 2010 Tories (the same people Tirren's going after) and a few of the "left-wing" (economically, at least) people who aren't too far gone on immigration.

 

What about the point that these are generally people who stuck with the Tories during the "Omnishambles"? If they stuck with them when the Tories were making incompetent gaffes every week, doesn't that suggest that they're going to stick with them forever? I completely fail to understand the thought process that it's easier to win over people who haven't voted Labour in years and years (if ever), than it is to win back people who said they were going to vote Labour up until 6 months or a year ago.

Edited October 31, 201410 yr by Danny

What about the point that these are generally people who stuck with the Tories during the "Omnishambles"? If they stuck with them when the Tories were making incompetent gaffes every week, doesn't that suggest that they're going to stick with them forever? I completely fail to understand the thought process that it's easier to win over people who haven't voted Labour in years and years (if ever), than it is to win back people who said they were going to vote Labour up until 6 months or a year ago.

The difference being that the former were probably giving a new-ish government the benefit of the doubt while the opposition had absolutely no policies. The Labour defectors to UKIP may have been reluctantly backing the party a year ago but it'll take a long time to bring them back.

Poll results are in, and have confirmed the extent of the glorious recovery that Jim "Funereal" Murphy will lead Scottish Labour to:

 

Standard Holyrood voting intention: SNP 46%, Labour 28%

Holyrood voting intention with Murphy as leader: SNP 47%, Labour 29%

 

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumul...otland-FULL.pdf

 

But I'm sure such an irrelevant thing as public opinion will not dissuade the Westminster bubble convincing themsleves through mindless groupthink that this is some uber-charismatic heavyweight who can save the party (or, indeed, humanity itself).

Edited November 2, 201410 yr by Danny

Please. Prospective voting intention of 'how would you vote if [x] were leader?' is utter nonsense most of the time unless someone has BIG name recognition and a well known political prospectus. Pretty rare. If someone well known and well liked gets massive responses it's almost always inaccurate, because people are for all intents and purposes just saying they like the person and projecting their hopes on them, regardless of what the person's actual position is. If the person isn't well known then it's basically pointless - and let's not forget that the three party leaders plus Boris and a select few ministers (Osborne, Gove, Balls) are pretty much the only active politicians with face and name recognition above 50%.

 

Jim Murphy has neither, but that isn't the point - the point is that people pay attention once the person is leader, and Jim Murphy has the skills and approach that would make him a good leader. I'd actually argue that the only useful hypothetical voter intention recently was Boris Johnson - it showed that even with the 'LOL BORIS' persona, which means he has basically no ideological baggage to pull him down, even that would barely shift opinion in the Tories' favour. It was revealing that even with people projecting all they liked on Boris, they still wouldn't be falling over themselves to vote Tory if he were leader, so imagine how much worse it would be once he actually had to take stances that pissed people off. That's different for somebody without name recognition - they have the luxury of being able to still define themselves.