Should there be a General Election or Leadership Challenge in the Labour party

[teenybash]

In light of the Glasgow East by election result should there be a General Election or change of leadership for the Labour party........What do you think...:confused

[scotsboy]

I think there may well be a leadership challenge, but don't think there should be a general election.

I think Brown is unfortunate rather than inadequate.

[percy toboggan]

We have been in the economic doldrums for all of six months.
Too many have forgotten history. Good times do not last forever.
Brown is inept...but what good will a leadership election do at this late stage?
He has little charisma, but the last one had loads of it and I detested him!
There are no obvious candidates, and the only ones who will represent real change will mean a lurch to the left...and disaster for labour (sadly - the left is finished - harsh reality and a bitter pill to swallow...I never swallowed all of the left's tripe but I am a sort of underdog meself, albeit with a reasonably healthy bank balance)

The case for a 'general election' is even more obscure.

One thing I do know is that yesterday's by-election result in Glasgow had little to do with a yearning for independence.

[TBH]

I think Brown should resign and bring down Wendy Alexander as his replacement. I hear she is looking for a job.

[northener]

Definitely no General Election.

Appeasing the masses with a General Election will not make one bit of difference on the world's stage at the moment. The Tories may jump at the chance - but it's a poisoned chalice, methinks.

And regarding Scotland and the recent Glasgie result, the Tories may play into the SNP's hands if they persist with calls for an Election......

[TBH]

Definitely no General Election.

Appeasing the masses with a General Election will not make one bit of difference on the world's stage at the moment. The Tories may jump at the chance - but it's a poisoned chalice, methinks.

And regarding Scotland and the recent Glasgie result, the Tories may play into the SNP's hands if they persist with calls for an Election......Let's hope they do then Northerner. Scotland could do with cutting away the deadwood that is the UK.

[northener]

Let's hope they do then Northerner. Scotland could do with cutting away the deadwood that is the UK.

Ouch!!!!!!!!!

[DeHaviLand]

I voted No, and No. The longer Brown stays, the more damage he causes. Pretty soon Labour will be all but unelectable. Come election time in May 2010, the Tories will be in charge of Englandshire and King Alex of Salmond will be getting ready to plank his posterior on the Stone of Destiny:lol:

[scorrie]

It won't matter what they do. The Labour Party is Goosed. Already, the Conservatives are 2/9 favourites to gain most votes at the next election. More inflation, rising fuel prices and continued deaths abroad will only make it worse. Gordon Brown has less charisma than a Leper with Aids, and knows as much about image as a Coo kens aboot takin' a half holiday. Tony Blair played Gordon Broon like a tuppenny banjo and then cut the strings. A typical Scotsman with his eyes on the prize and then gets his hands on it when it has turned into a sticky turd that nobody wants.

[Melancholy Man]

Scotland could do with cutting away the deadwood that is the UK.The United Kingdom has been perhaps the most successful political union in the modern era. Scotland is part of it, and it is part of Scotland. No way does Fish-heid think of himself leading Norway or Denmark. All the grandeur he has in mind hails from Scotland's willing participation in Empire.

The EU, which the SNP assure us we'll be able to join in a flash regardless of what Spain or France or Italy would think of secessionist regions, is less than one lifetime in age and a last ditch attempt to stop the continent eating itself every few decades. Even then, it's savvy to little countries jumping on the gravy train.

The Cromwellian assault on Ireland , which was obviously not pleasant for the people involved and probably worse than contemporary events, could be said to have been separate from the UK. Other human catastrophes - yes, the Irish Famine or the Highland Clearances - were repeated many times over across continental Europe.


Tony Blair played Gordon Broon like a tuppenny banjo and then cut the strings.

Personally, as much as I didn't like him personally, it was Blair which made the party popular. The chattering classes, by wanting shot of him, have killed the golden goose. The suggestion, now, that the Brown's antisocial tendancies weren't known throughout the ten years are, in a greater part, desperate damage limitation. Anyone who claims to loath Bullington Tories, and with an ounce of social conscience, would not want to inflict them on England and Wales just to get Scottish independence.


A typical Scotsman with his eyes on the prize and then gets his hands on it when it has turned into a sticky turd that nobody wants.

Yup. John Major was the very definition of greatest being thrust upon him.

Brown, out, out, out.

[TBH]

The United Kingdom has been perhaps the most successful political union in the modern era. Scotland is part of it, and it is part of Scotland. No way does Fish-heid think of himself leading Norway or Denmark. All the grandeur he has in mind hails from Scotland's willing participation in Empire.

The EU, which the SNP assure us we'll be able to join in a flash regardless of what Spain or France or Italy would think of secessionist regions, is less than one lifetime in age and a last ditch attempt to stop the continent eating itself every few decades. Even then, it's savvy to little countries jumping on the gravy train.

The Cromwellian assault on Ireland , which was obviously not pleasant for the people involved and probably worse than contemporary events, could be said to have been separate from the UK. Other human catastrophes - yes, the Irish Famine or the Highland Clearances - were repeated many times over across continental Europe.



Personally, as much as I didn't like him personally, it was Blair which made the party popular. The chattering classes, by wanting shot of him, have killed the golden goose. The suggestion, now, that the Brown's antisocial tendancies weren't known throughout the ten years are, in a greater part, desperate damage limitation. Anyone who claims to loath Bullington Tories, and with an ounce of social conscience, would not want to inflict them on England and Wales just to get Scottish independence.



Yup. John Major was the very definition of greatest being thrust upon him.

Brown, out, out, out.Very successful with England as the main symbiote.

[Melancholy Man]

Very successful with England as the main symbiote.We could start counting Scottish prime ministers, or asking if "England" is one homogeneous mass south of Berwick and how many tens of thousands of tenant farmers were sent to a land some call Virginia, or contrasting Scottish mercantile and/or political overseas successes with those of Norway or Denmark, but we'll come out with six on one side and half a dozen on the other. The double think required is sometimes quite astounding. Scotland was bled dry, but Edinburgh is the Paris of the North and Glasgow the Athens. Scotland wasn't given any industry, but all the jute came to Dundee and what about the ships on Clydeside. It was all tickity-boo down south, but it was Cottonopolis (aka Manchester) in which Engels came up with his dotty ideas. I recall at the 250th anniversary of 1745, the Scottish Episcopalian and Roman Catholic Churches were told in no uncertain terms that the CoS was to take the lead. Er, no, sorry... they were the Jacobites.

Sorry, this is petty nationalism. Where an ethnic or political group is dispossessed compared to others, there is a valid claim for secession. But, the SNP encourages the assumption that first Scots were always one harmonious group, Gaelic or Teutonic (gads, anyone who was required to read Sunset Song at school would know what Chris Guthrie had to say about Euan Tavendale!), and that their successes were because they deserved it, and not because of attachment to the British Empire. Precisely what I was saying to Percy who thought he could detach the material benefits of globalization from immigration.

Let me take you by the hand and lead you round the streets of [any English area] and I'll show you something to make you change your mind that it was all peachy down south.

[wifie]

Haven't voted myself as politics is deffo not my strong point but I would love to know what this country would be had the union of the crowns not occurred! I suppose the only thing that holds people back from voting SNP is the fear of the unknown - scared to let go of the hand that pats them on the head. I think too that a lot of G Brown's problems stem from being Scottish in Englandshire. What is wrong wi bein dour - is better than a grinning actor!
(I do not wish to upset any of my english friends by this post but we cannot deny that there is a scottish english divide which will always colour politics in this country.)

[Melancholy Man]

I'm an ethnic teuchter.

[teenybash]

I wish the time were right for general election but think the time is not right....yet.
When an election is called I wold hope that Scotland will have the courage to vote for Independance...................for too long the Scots have lain under the feet of successive English governments who have done little more than rob Scotland.
I would hope, with an independant Sotland we would work alongside all our neighbours, England, Ireland and Wales. :eek:

[TBH]

Scotland would have survived without the union, of that there is no doubt.
As to the benefits of union, of course there has been, but it is time to see if we can survive on our own which I have no doubt that we can.
It's not like we are going to become a third world country, that would be scare mongery.

[Melancholy Man]

Scotland would have survived without the union, of that there is no doubt.

The Darian disaster when we tried to be a colonial Empire by ourselves? Without that, we could have been like Denmark or Norway... but that's not what Salmond thinks we have the right to be.


As to the benefits of union, of course there has been,Just a few, international presence, markets for our goods, customers for our bankers, territories for our people, offices for our politicians). But, without Union some fairy godmother would have appeared and waved her magic wand, and we'd have got it all the same.


but it is time to see if we can survive on our own which I have no doubt that we can.Based on what? Don't say Ireland.



for too long the Scots have lain under the feet of successive English governments who have done little more than rob Scotland.

Hardly.


I would hope, with an independant Sotland we would work alongside all our neighbours, England, Ireland and Wales.There we have the wishful thinking the oleaginous Salmond exudes (a man who, let us not forget, is willing to play with nasty religious reactionaries as long as he gets some personal credit; and, when rumbled, threatens other parties that he won't go down alone). The idea that we can retreat to our own room and do *everything* we want to, but come supper time, there it'll be on the table. I even recall his suggesting that if we didn't like it, we could easily rejoin. Nope. I wouldn't do it if I were England and Wales, and NI.

[Rheghead]

David Milliband for PM for me. He seems to have a good sensible head, green credentials and he has the right attitude to get things going again.

[Melancholy Man]

David Milliband for PM for me.

Brown, out, no back, out, no back.

<head explodes>

[Oddquine]

The Darien disaster when we tried to be a colonial Empire by ourselves? Without that, we could have been like Denmark or Norway... but that's not what Salmond thinks we have the right to be.

Heck MM.............

Funding.......The English Government, however, was opposed to the idea, since it was at war with France and did not want to offend Spain, which claimed the territory as part of;New Granada,as a result, the English investors were forced to withdraw.

Support........Meanwhile,King William had instructed the English colonies in America not to supply the Scots' settlement so as not to incur the wrath of the Spanish Empire ,which in addition to inadequate provisions, combined with the unfamiliar hot and humid climate, soon caused fever to spread and many settlers died. In July 1699 the colony was abandoned.
Only 300 survived and only one ship managed to return to Scotland. A desperate ship from the colony that called at the Jamaican city of Port Royal was refused assistance on the orders of the English government.

Maybe without spoiling tactics by the English, it might have succeeded.........we'll never know, will we?



Just a few, international presence, markets for our goods, customers for our bankers, territories for our people, offices for our politicians). But, without Union some fairy godmother would have appeared and waved her magic wand, and we'd have got it all the same.


I'm maybe a cynic, MM..............but if England hadn't worked so hard to ensure that Scotland didn't get access to all of the above....would it have been necessary for Scotland to join the Union at all.

As far as I can see from my reading........The country was destroyed by Darien partly because England, with whom we shared a king, ordered its colonies not to trade with the desperate Scottish settlers. England was at war with France and was anxious to placate its ally Spain, which felt the Scots were trespassing in her Latin American backyard.
Despite our close, familial relationship with England since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, we had no access to English colonial markets.




Based on what? Don't say Ireland.

* Scotland would be much wealthier and better prepared than many other independent nations around the world
* Revenue from oil and other energy industries could be invested to provide a secure fund to support future generations
* Much of the political and civil infrastructure needed to administer the country is already in place, and the people are highly educated

Scotland's growth rate has averaged 1.8% over the past three decades, against 2.5% for the UK as a whole............so the UK is failing Scotland.

Even so........Scotland Office Minister David Cairns said he did not believe the country would "wither and die" if it was to break from the UK.




Hardly.

There we have the wishful thinking the oleaginous Salmond exudes (a man who, let us not forget, is willing to play with nasty religious reactionaries as long as he gets some personal credit; and, when rumbled, threatens other parties that he won't go down alone). The idea that we can retreat to our own room and do *everything* we want to, but come supper time, there it'll be on the table. I even recall his suggesting that if we didn't like it, we could easily rejoin. Nope. I wouldn't do it if I were England and Wales, and NI.

Well.....excuse me, MM...........but who has always been the Catholic sympathiser over the term of the UK Labour government.........Tony Blair perhaps?

Let's wait and see what concessions the SNP actually give to the worst excesses of Catholicism.

The fact that Alex Salmond is against the legislation which discriminates Catholics in the UK doesn't mean he thinks Catholics should be above the law............After all Cardinal Keith O'Brien has said........I have had very friendly relations with previous first ministers and members of the Scottish Executive, and I look forward to the same friendly relations continuing in the next four years of the life of this Scottish Parliament.

I'd appreciate the link to the article which says that if we didn't like it, we could easily rejoin.

[Melancholy Man]

Maybe without spoiling tactics by the English, it might have succeeded.........we'll never know, will we?Yup, I've read my John Preeble! Talk me through this one, the Darian settlement would have infringed directly on English mercantile interests and upset the principle power in the Spanish Main at whose behest these operated... and England should have said, "ah, go on then"? With such trusting naivety, small wonder it failed. As David Lister said, "it shouldn't be beware of Greeks bearing gifts, it should be beware of Trojans. They're absolute smegheads".

As soon as political union comes, this changes and we're on an equal footing.


I'm maybe a cynic, MM..............but if England hadn't worked so hard to ensure that Scotland didn't get access to all of the above....would it have been necessary for Scotland to join the Union at all.Fortunately, I've already pushed the line that it's assumed Scotland should have shone because we deserved it, and not by playing at the same rules as everyone else, otherwise I would have been absolutely gobsmacked by this! Yeah, and if I knew tomorrow's lottery numbers I would be able to pay off all my student debts!

(Cue more double-think. I don't know for sure, but I assume you believe Scotland has been one of many victims of the colonial mentality of England. Yet, you also believe we should have enjoyed a handicapped benefit in establishing a colonial Empire which we wouldn't have to share with dog-in-the-manger England. Would the local Indians have had a say? I doubt it. Back to Denmark, she at least was able to annex a few islands in the Caribbean, and hold onto them until 1917, because she didn't attempt to punch above her weight, i.e. wasn't blooming stupid.)


Scotland Office Minister David Cairns said he did not believe the country would "wither and die" if it was to break from the UK.

I'm not suggesting it would. But, being easy is not a reason to do something. Positive reasons should be given, and the thrust of what I see is simply not being 'English', i.e. negative and reactionary. Similar are the Quebecker separatists who *always* baulk at the last moment when it comes to raising taxes, printing money/stamps, funding foreign offices.


Let's wait and see what concessions the SNP actually give to the worst excesses of Catholicism.I'm talking about Islamism, or hobnobbing with the Khomenists. This isn't a slight on you, but another tactic has been to claim a Muslim-friendly line, or at least those who can raise a few votes, in the cities and not even mention it in the rural areas. Duplicity.


I'd appreciate the link to the article which says that if we didn't like it, we could easily rejoin.It's one of his many attested off-the-cuff remarks in response to germane questions which indicate a lack of game-plan other than being against the 'English', including his belief that admission to the EU would be a fait accomplie, which you haven't challenged. I recall it was reported in an edition of the Economist from April/May last year.

[Oddquine]

Yup, I've read my John Preeble! Talk me through this one, the Darian settlement would have infringed directly on English mercantile interests and upset the principle power in the Spanish Main at whose behest these operated... and England should have said, "ah, go on then"? With such trusting naivety, small wonder it failed. As David Lister said, "it shouldn't e beware of Greeks bearing gifts, it should be beware of Trojans. They're absolute smegheads".

Funnily enough, I haven't read John Prebble at all.....he writes fiction, doesn't he? .

Given England and Scotland were under the same monarchy, I'd have assumed that, if England didn't want to help the Scottish aspirations.......they wouldn't have worked against them as they did.

But the East India company.......not the Spanish, lobbied to get the Darien company proscribed resulting in the withdrawal of promised English funds...and the English consuls on the continent were told to stop foreign investors from taking up the slack.

William of Orange didn't give a toss for his Scottish subjects.......as he said......what vexes me in particular is that this affair [with the Scottish Parliament] retards my departure for Holland, which I long for more than ever.



Fortunately, I've already pushed the line that it's assumed Scotland should have shone because we deserved it, and not by playing at the same rules as everyone else, otherwise I would have been absolutely gobsmacked by this! Yeah, and if I knew tomorrow's lottery numbers I would be able to pay off all my student debts!

(Cue more double-think. I don't know for sure, but I assume you believe Scotland has been one of many victims of the colonial mentality of England. Yet, you believe we should have enjoyed a handicapped benefit in establishing a colonial Empire. Did the local Indians have a say? I doubt it. Back to Denmark, she at least was able to annex a few islands in the Caribbean, and hold onto them until 1917, because she didn't attempt to punch above her weight, i.e. wasn't bloody stupid.)

Could you please translate the above into intelligible English appropriate to the subject? It's a bit late at night for me to sit and try to work out your meaning........and btw....I am reasonably well educated........though in English and Scottish history rather than world history..........though not being as well educated as yourself perhaps is as likely to mean you are talking twaddle rather than I don't understand your purple prose.



I'm not suggesting it would. But, being easy is not a reason to do something. Positive reasons should be given, and the thrust of what I see is simply not being 'English', i.e. negative and reactionary.

Did I say it would be easy? Did I give any positive reasons? I was simply quoting one of the Nulabour hierarchy who contradicted all the crap produced by pro-unionists when they insist that Scotland is not capable of hoeing their own furrow.




I'm talking about Islamism, or hobnobbing with the Khomenists. This isn't a slight on you, but another tactic has been to claim a Muslim-friendly line, or at least those who can raise a few votes, in the cities and not even mention it in the rural areas. Duplicity.

And you know it has never been mentioned in the rural areas, MM? :confused

How many hustings in those areas have you attended? :confused

How many SNP conferences?

I don't have a problem with moderate Islam.......and I am not aware that the SNP has ever had any truck with the more fundamental Islamists.............do you have any links to back up your contention?

If you do have a problem with integrating Muslims into Scotland............it seems to contradict what you have said on other threads on here.



It's one of his many attested off-the-cuff remarks in response to germane questions which indicate a lack of game-plan other than being against the 'English', including his belief that admission to the EU would be a fait accomplie, which you haven't challenged. I recall it was reported in an edition of the Economist from April/May last year.

As far as I am aware, the prospect of Scotland's membership of the EU is a matter for a referendum. It wasn't challenged because it wasn't mentioned in the post to which I replied...........I'm a nationalist........not a mind reader!

I am still awaiting the link to anything which remotely resembles if we didn't like it, we could easily rejoin.

I do think you have a hard neck chastising other posters for flanneling and being economical with their quoting of posts when you do exactly the same yourself.

[Melancholy Man]

As far as I am aware, the prospect of Scotland's membership of the EU is a matter for a referendum.again, no reproach, but you're only half right. True, an independent Scotland could vote for membership, but the EU would be under no obligation to accept it. It's not something which Salmond has given a clear answer on, because he seems to be making it up as he goes along.


Could you please translate the above into intelligible English appropriate to the subject?You appear to e non-plused that Scotland wasn't given all the assistance necessary by England to set-up a colony which would have interfered with English political and mercantile interests. Why should we have? When we entered into reciprocal political union, we had all the access to estalished influence over multiple colonies and territories.


And you know it has never been mentioned in the rural areas, MM? :confused

How many hustings in those areas have you attended? :confused

How many SNP conferences?I've read literature and news reports and spoken to canvassers in the street. Is there a level of initiation at conferences I'm not aware of?


If you do have a problem with integrating Muslims into Scotland............it seems to contradict what you have said on other threads on here.Indeed it would! I'm having an awful problem with dial-up speeds, but I'm referring to the likes of Osama Saeed and £215,000.


I am still awaiting the link to anything which remotely resembles if we didn't like it, we could easily rejoin.

I gave you a reasonable reference. Publication and date. I can look it out later, but it is *un*reasonable to expect Interweb links for every reference. How d'you think discussion was conducted pre-2001?

[scotsboy]

Oddquine wrote:
Funnily enough, I haven't read John Prebble at all.....he writes fiction, doesn't he? .

LOL the romantic kind.

[Melancholy Man]

Oh, fiddlesticks, now I agree with Scotsboy. I like Gordon Donaldson's judgement that much of JP's 'analysis' was "absolute rubbish".