Jim McLean's Ghost Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Salmons did, and got absolute pelters from Scottish Labour who called it all sorts of disgraceful. Can't see them being so hypocritical.... oh wait.... yes I can. I wasn't bothered by it but then I wasn't his constituent. How many WM votes did he turn up for while First Minister? It was pretty obvious he wouldn't give up his Westminster seat to lead the opposition in Holyrood. If the 2007 result had been only one seat the other way Scotland could be a very different place. Jim is doing the same thing. No way he comes to the Scottish parliament to lead the opposition. He would resign as leader and slink back to Westminster. I'm not offended by the idea of him doing and certainly not disgraceful but quite correct to point out the hypocracy of Scottish Labour. Of course this is all based on the premise of Jim retaining his seat next week... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 To be fair to him, it looks like Jim was correct about the polls breaking "big and late". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 A refeshing change of tack from oor Jum, when asked about the poll. Oh, wait... Commenting on the poll result, Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy said: "This is another bad poll for the Scottish Labour party, it’s another good poll of course for the SNP, and it’s another fantastic poll for the David Cameron. "David Cameron can’t beat the Labour party here in Scotland, so someone else has to do it for him. "That way David Cameron gets to cling on to power because he’s the leader of the biggest party, the likelihood is David Cameron will remain Prime Minister, not because Scotland went out and voted for the Tory party but because Scotland voted against Labour for the SNP and reduced the chances of Labour forming the government. "There’s much still to play for in this election a week’s a long time in politics and we’ll keep going with a huge amount of energy and a determination to turn much of this round." Interviewed on Sky News, he said: "Let the pollsters poll & let the voters vote next week." So basically 'If you're not with us, you're one of them.' Scottish Labour really are the Rangers of politics and I can't wait for them to be as dead as their footballing counterparts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 If the 2007 result had been only one seat the other way Scotland could be a very different place. ... Massive statement this. If labour had won that extra seat and formed a minority gov, they would potentially have upped their seat count in 2011 in voter defiance to the 2010 WM Tory/Fib Dem coalition. Thus no indy ref, no informed electorate and more of the same Labour pish at this GE. By winning that extra seat SNP, although in minority, proved they could run a very competent Gov.... and the rest is history That 1 seat will be talked about in many years time.... as an enormously significant moment in Scottish politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 I think the Rev Paisley was collecting salaries from Stormont, Westminster and Brussels for a while. Nothing illegal about double jobbing in a Westminster context. I think Murphy's problem is that it isn't clear that he is allowed under Labour rules to be "leader" if he is not a parliamentarian and that meant he had to stand to keep his status on that, which I seriously doubt he expected (as now appears likely) to be in any serious danger of losing. If he loses, he is history. No way can he bounce back from a near or complete wipeout. It would be a Portillo moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Nothing illegal about double jobbing in a Westminster context. I think Murphy's problem is that it isn't clear that he is allowed under Labour rules to be "leader" if he is not a parliamentarian and that meant he had to stand to keep his status on that, which I seriously doubt he expected (as now appears likely) to be in any serious danger of losing. If he loses, he is history. No way can he bounce back from a near or complete wipeout. It would be a Portillo moment. Lets be honest it clearly should be illegal. Any one of them is, or should be, a full-time job. So to hold more than one at the same time means you couldn't possibly be devoting enough time and energy to either. You should only be allowed to hold one at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Ad Lib looks exactly how I'd imagined him to. Unsure why I find this slightly amusing. I'm not sure if this will make sense, but he looks even more Ad Lib-y than I expected. I suppose I thought he might look more like your average person than the personification of a young politician. Anyway, Jim - . I can't wait to see Ad Lib deliver the Dale Carrick as Murphy's head explodes on election night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Malkmus Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04/29/has-any-labour-leader-ever-run-a-worse-campaign-than-jim-mur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Do you get any stick from the party for arguing against the renewal of Trident? I think the Lib Dem policy is to order 3 subs instead of 4, which seems a bit daft to me, it wouldn't save a lot, nowhere near a quarter of the budget, and it would only make the "deterrent" value marginally less convincing. None whatsoever. The party is in any case much less judicious than other parties in using the proverbial whip for our Parliamentary delegations. The local party are actually fairly pleased that I've carved out a clear dividing line from Jim on the issue that isn't just "nukes are immoral and dangerous". I believe that even defence Hawks should be anti-Trident. It's money we could be spending properly equipping the RAF and Army for their missions in places like Syria. We're cannibalising aircraft for spare parts FFS. At what point do we decide that an at best remote, hypothetical and implausible threat needs defended against but immediate, real and happening threats don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 3 subs not 4 is the epitomy of Lib Dem policy. A big pile of nothing pitched as the middle road and pretending to challenge the status quo. I understand the change: they know Labour and the Tories will contrive to renew it anyway, so they're looking for ways to de-escalate the cost and presence in a way that might tempt one of them away from a like for like renewal. But it undermines the strength of the argument that it's just not deterring anyone, will never be used, as much for strategic reasons as moral ones, and that it's one of the least efficient *military* job creation programmes going, let alone of any job creation programme. If we want rid of Trident we need to stop talking about the "principle" of unilateralism and multilateralism or the "morality" of weapons. We need to win over the officer class and defence advisers. They speak only one language: efficacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 At what point do we decide that an at best remote, hypothetical and implausible threat needs defended against but immediate, real and happening threats don't? Brilliantly put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04/29/has-any-labour-leader-ever-run-a-worse-campaign-than-jim-mur Interesting comment on that article: 'Has any Labour leader every run a worse campaign than Jim Murphy? Former Labour FM Jack McConnell'scampaign in the 2007 Scottish election was a failure and resulted in Alex Salmond coming to power. Former Australian Labour Prime Minister, Julia Gillard premiership was a disaster and was forced to resign in 2013 because of very poor polls. The person that links Jack McConnell, Julia Gillard and Jim Murphy is John McTernan. McTernan ran the election campaign for McConnell. McTernan was the controversial communications director for Gillard. McTernan is now Murphy's Chief of Staff.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Salmons did, and got absolute pelters from Scottish Labour who called it all sorts of disgraceful. Can't see them being so hypocritical.... oh wait.... yes I can. https://archive.is/iRyut "He is letting down both his Westminster constituents and the people of Scotland," Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said. "Surely his job as First Minister of Scotland should take up all his time, energy and commitment. Likewise, any constituent should expect full commitment from their MP. He cannot fulfil both jobs properly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTG_03 Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 https://archive.is/iRyut "He is letting down both his Westminster constituents and the people of Scotland," Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said. "Surely his job as First Minister of Scotland should take up all his time, energy and commitment. Likewise, any constituent should expect full commitment from their MP. He cannot fulfil both jobs properly." I would probably agree with that, I wasn't aware Salmond was doing the two roles tbh. Cannot see how anyone can manage both jobs at the same time. This, of course would apply to Murphy as well and seeing as he is terrible at his current job I would suggest 2 is a stretch too far for him. He will be fortunate just to save his seat in just over a weeks time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Murph yon Kaye Adams this morning complaining that the economy in Britain was so bad his family were forced to emigrate to find work. So where did his doting father take his precious family? Apartheid South Africa. Must give Jum a warm fuzzy feeling to know that his papa would help support the apartheid regime to ensure his family were fed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speckled tangerine Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Murph yon Kaye Adams this morning complaining that the economy in Britain was so bad his family were forced to emigrate to find work. So where did his doting father take his precious family? Apartheid South Africa. Must give Jum a warm fuzzy feeling to know that his papa would help support the apartheid regime to ensure his family were fed. I heard the show and he claimed that the family emigrated because of Thatcher, but I believe they left before she came into office. So, family Murphy actually left because Sunny Jim's Labour Government had fucked them over into penury and unemployment and rather than face the prospect of a right wing free market Tory one they bail to argubly, the country with the worst regime since the second world war. A man of the people? What a fucking whompercunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 I see timekeeping isn't Jim's strongest point. 5 mins late for hustings last week, 5 mins late for 'Call Kaye' this morning. Then again, he's never had a proper job in his life, so it's to be expected. Snorting lines of Charlie in the bogs IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Simao Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 "An Ipsos-Mori poll for STV news that shows the SNP could win all 59 seats north of the border" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 "An Ispos-Mori poll for STV news that shows the SNP could win all 59 seats north of the border" Poor Jum. With the greyness of his hair there he fits right in at Sleepy Hollows retirement home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Wow. Didn't Jim actually have brown hair 6 months ago? If outmanoeuvring the SNP is easy then being annihilated by them must be pretty tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.