This is the man who's in the best position to take Nigel Dodds' seat in North Belfast -

 

Did no-one at any point stop and think that maybe this isn't the best advertisement for a candidate?

If the election was on May 4th, it might make some sort of sense. Not much sense, but at least a little bit.

Surely Ed's positon with what he says about coalitions and the SNP is the ultimate no-win? If he says yes he'd consider some form of agreement with the SNP it'll make more people in Scotland go to SNP from Labour thinking it's still a Labour government they're voting for and more people in England who don't want SNP meddling more likely to vote tory. If he says he's no interest in having any deal or agreement he's then called a liar if it happens.

 

Think he was brave and/or stupid to be that adamant in denial last night though.

 

He should really have taken a leaf out of Dave's book and say he doesn't want to do something, not that he won't do it.....

Surely Ed's positon with what he says about coalitions and the SNP is the ultimate no-win? If he says yes he'd consider some form of agreement with the SNP it'll make more people in Scotland go to SNP from Labour thinking it's still a Labour government they're voting for and more people in England who don't want SNP meddling more likely to vote tory. If he says he's no interest in having any deal or agreement he's then called a liar if it happens.

 

Think he was brave and/or stupid to be that adamant in denial last night though.

 

He should really have taken a leaf out of Dave's book and say he doesn't want to do something, not that he won't do it.....

 

Imo, it's the other way round. The more Labour run away from the SNP, the higher the SNP go in the polls as Scots interpret it as him joining in with the English anti-Scottish hysteria.

I think that's the aim though. They're trying to pull people back to Labour without actually understanding why they've left in the first place. Jim Murphy really isn't helping matters. He's a complete hinderance to this campaign for Labour.

 

They're between a rock and a hard place though because down south seems to have bought the Austerity message but up here the majority haven't and want it to stop. So while they have to say they'll continue to be tough on the deficit to attract rUK votes, it's pushing more people to the SNP every time they mention it.

 

Plus the general attitude of Labour/Conservatives right now is 'Better Together, but on our terms, our way and not in our parliament'. If you wanted us to say so badly you then can't have a hissy fit because we are exercising our democratic right to be heard. Austerity is affecting the country as a whole and we have just as much right as anyone else living in the UK to try to stop this injustice.

I think that's the aim though. They're trying to pull people back to Labour without actually understanding why they've left in the first place. Jim Murphy really isn't helping matters. He's a complete hinderance to this campaign for Labour.

 

They're between a rock and a hard place though because down south seems to have bought the Austerity message but up here the majority haven't and want it to stop. So while they have to say they'll continue to be tough on the deficit to attract rUK votes, it's pushing more people to the SNP every time they mention it.

 

Plus the general attitude of Labour/Conservatives right now is 'Better Together, but on our terms, our way and not in our parliament'. If you wanted us to say so badly you then can't have a hissy fit because we are exercising our democratic right to be heard. Austerity is affecting the country as a whole and we have just as much right as anyone else living in the UK to try to stop this injustice.

Spot on I'd say there. The 2 old parties need to accept people don't think either of them deserve to govern overall so they should accept the fragmented political reality. Cameron meanwhile says nothing which is politically deceitful and is essentially treating the electorate like they are fools. I look forward to coalitions it's not the end of the political world no matter how much they keep saying it

im Murphy really isn't helping matters. He's a complete hinderance to this campaign for Labour.

 

His ratings are now lower than the Scottish LibDem leader :rofl:

I'm not overly knowledgable about specific uk seats but I always assumed Batersea was a labour area - the name sounds poor - or is it a UKIP target?!

It's a very, very demographically polarised seat (very poor council estates next to affluent yuppie flats that go for a million a pop) just south of the Thames in London that's been your standard swing seat for a while - Tory in the 80s, Labour 97-10. The Tories being on 50% there is basically the final sign that it's demographically shifted far too much for us to get it again on anything other than a Tony style swing - and also a symptom of how much central London is being totally hollowed out.

His ratings are now lower than the Scottish LibDem leader :rofl:

If your ratings are lower than a libdem in Scotland you either belong to ukip or you should quit politics. If you're in ukip you should quit politics too but I'd prefer if coburn quit breathing.

After the focus groups I'm beginning to think Jim Murphy may be the Michael Howard of Scottish Labour - literally the only option available for avoiding a total morale obliteration in the face of disaster (and he's running by far the most professional campaign a Scottish Labour leader has run), but sadly defined too much in opposition to the people he has to win back to make much headway. Findlay was so utterly useless that he wouldn't be doing better, but it's really difficult to see what other options are available at the moment, short of Gordon Brown.

If Scotland had voted for independence, one of the options was that Scotland would not have participated in this election. Scottish constituencies would just have retained their current MPs until Scotland left the UK. If that had happened, Labour could now be heading toward being comfortably the largest party, Indeed, if the Tories lost support, as the party that presided over the breakup of the UK, Labour could even have been heading for a majority. Don't you just love Ifs?

If Scotland had voted for independence, one of the options was that Scotland would not have participated in this election. Scottish constituencies would just have retained their current MPs until Scotland left the UK. If that had happened, Labour could now be heading toward being comfortably the largest party, Indeed, if the Tories lost support, as the party that presided over the breakup of the UK, Labour could even have been heading for a majority. Don't you just love Ifs?

There's basically zero chance the Tories would've allowed that option. We're talking about the party that thought the most appropriate response to the referendum result was changing the subject to England to try and get the upper hand over Labour, for crying out loud.

After the focus groups I'm beginning to think Jim Murphy may be the Michael Howard of Scottish Labour - literally the only option available for avoiding a total morale obliteration in the face of disaster (and he's running by far the most professional campaign a Scottish Labour leader has run), but sadly defined too much in opposition to the people he has to win back to make much headway. Findlay was so utterly useless that he wouldn't be doing better, but it's really difficult to see what other options are available at the moment, short of Gordon Brown.

 

It was always going to be tough for Labour, but pretty much anyone else could've probably salvaged about 25-30% I reckon, even Johann Lamont. Considering Scottish Labour were being deserted for being too much like the Tories / for taking part in the negative anti-independence campaign / for being too focussed on Westminster / for having such uncharismatic leaders compared to the SNP, selecting a Blairite Westminster MP who was fresh off being one of the main faces of the independence campaign and who had no discernible charisma couldn't have been a more laughably misguided choice if they tried. He literally confirms every single thing that the SNP are using as arguments against Labour.

Edited May 1, 201510 yr by Danny

'No discernable charisma' doesn't really take into account that countless MPs did a tour of all the constituencies to do public appearances during the referendum campaign and literally none of the others got any response or attention when they did that. And Jim Murphy wasn't a Blairite - he was New Labour. The point of New Labour is that you apply your values to the relevant political context rather than holding to dogma. You couldn't really call Murphy's campaign Blairite, or focused on Westminster, or similar to the Tories.

And I'm pretty sure Labour will manage 25-30% of the vote in Scotland come next Thursday.

It was always going to be tough for Labour, but pretty much anyone else could've probably salvaged about 25-30% I reckon, even Johann Lamont. Considering Scottish Labour were being deserted for being too much like the Tories / for taking part in the negative anti-independence campaign / for being too focussed on Westminster / for having such uncharismatic leaders compared to the SNP, selecting a Blairite Westminster MP who was fresh off being one of the main faces of the independence campaign and who had no discernible charisma couldn't have been a more laughably misguided choice if they tried. He literally confirms every single thing that the SNP are using as arguments against Labour.

I actually think a faceless Lamont type would be worse - it would embody the fact that Scottish Labour is regarded by most Scots as nothing more than an outpost for the national party. Murphy being outspoken (which he is, his profile in the referendum showed us that much) isn't the problem, it's that he comes across as disingenuous. Putting Miliband in an awkward position by being to the left of his rhetoric works better if you actually ARE to the left of him. Murphy isn't.

If nothing else, he's to the left of Diane Abbott *.*

 

(quite possibly one of my favourite political circumstance curios of all time)

If nothing else, he's to the left of Diane Abbott *.*

 

(quite possibly one of my favourite political circumstance curios of all time)

Mansion tax?

I actually think a faceless Lamont type would be worse - it would embody the fact that Scottish Labour is regarded by most Scots as nothing more than an outpost for the national party. Murphy being outspoken (which he is, his profile in the referendum showed us that much) isn't the problem, it's that he comes across as disingenuous. Putting Miliband in an awkward position by being to the left of his rhetoric works better if you actually ARE to the left of him. Murphy isn't.

 

Exactly right down in Westminster he was centre right then he went up north and became a Michael Foot figure - disingenuous to say the least and siding with the Tories on independence won't have helped.

And I'm pretty sure Labour will manage 25-30% of the vote in Scotland come next Thursday.

 

How many seats would that equate to - 12-14?

Exactly right down in Westminster he was centre right then he went up north and became a Michael Foot figure - disingenuous to say the least and siding with the Tories on independence won't have helped.

Independence isn't a Tory-exclusive position. You may as well say vegetarians are siding with Hitler.