Scottish Labour RIP

[007stuart]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30461687

It's fair to say Christmas has come early for the SNP with Jim Murphy being voted Scottish Labour Leader, if he does as much for Scottish Labour in Holyrood as he does in his constituency then Labour MP's from Scotland will are rare as Conservative MP's in Westminster after the General Election Next Year.

[Derek]

I used to live in East Ren and have met Murphy a few times. I've always thought he was a decent guy and MP.

He certainly wiped the floor with the guessers during the Indy ref debates.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by 007stuart

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30461687

It's fair to say Christmas has come early for the SNP with Jim Murphy being voted Scottish Labour Leader, if he does as much for Scottish Labour in Holyrood as he does in his constituency then Labour MP's from Scotland will are rare as Conservative MP's in Westminster after the General Election Next Year.

Whatever he does I'll wager there'll be a hell of a lot more Tory MPs than Labour MPs with Scottish seats in parliament after the next election.

[007stuart]

I just wonder which current MSP will make way for him in Holyrood?

Ken Macintosh will wondering what 2015 holds for him given he represents Eastwood and his name has already been mentioned.

[LondonRoad]

It says much about the talent that is available to the Scottish Labour Party.

Realistically there wasn't an alternative to Murphy.

The hustings will not be pleasant for SLP door knockers campaigning for the General Election.

Debating politics with the new generations of nats is a bit like trying to placate a wasp in late summer.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Whatever he does I'll wager there'll be a hell of a lot more Tory MPs than Labour MPs with Scottish seats in parliament after the next election.

You're not a betting man are you

What odds are you wanting?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by 007stuart

I just wonder which current MSP will make way for him in Holyrood?

Will he not just be number one for labour list MSP's?

Far easier than standing for a seat that will attract all manner of nutters in an attempt to stop him winning.

It's funny how the Nats have been lining up to say how wonderful this all is for the SNP. I wonder who they're trying to convince? Themselves, in all probability.

Jim Murphy put a boot through the Yesser bandwagon's windscreen last summer. He hurt them, and they knew he was hurting them, and they threw all manner of grubby tactics back at him to try to get him to shut up.

So forgive me if I chuckle quietly whenever I hear a Nat claiming Jim Murphy is good news for Nats.

Originally Posted by Chris

It's funny how the Nats have been lining up to say how wonderful this all is for the SNP. I wonder who they're trying to convince? Themselves, in all probability.

Jim Murphy put a boot through the Yesser bandwagon's windscreen last summer. He hurt them, and they knew he was hurting them, and they threw all manner of grubby tactics back at him to try to get him to shut up.

So forgive me if I chuckle quietly whenever I hear a Nat claiming Jim Murphy is good news for Nats.

It doesn't matter who Labour selected the SNP support would have claimed it's a disaster for Labour. I think it's part a disingenuous way of keeping up the narrative of Labour tanking in Scotland and the SNP souring and part a genuine belief that he is a bad choice because it's not who they, the nationalists, would have chosen. They don't understand that hardcore nationalists or socialists are not the demographic Labour are chasing. People are really bad at separating their personal political outlook from the wider political situation.

Still I am quite worried about the SNP. They're dominating Scotland at the moment.

They claim they'll make scrapping trident a non-negotiable part of any coalition agreement which, agree or disagree with the policy, should not be a decision which is taken in haste on the back of a grubby agreement for power!

If we're not careful then the SNP will continue to make Independence a popular cause and the Unions days will be numbered if we don't fight back.

Labour in Scotland has been rudderless since the resignation of an ineffective leader who hardly made an impression while she was in the job. Add to that, the Yessers managed to con a section of the natural Labour vote into supporting independence on lies of milk and honey and you have both push and pull factors influencing the polls.

But Scots voters are not, by and large, stupid. They know the difference between the different chambers they send representatives to. Labour didn't crash and burn in Scotland in 2010 despite Gordon Brown and the financial crisis (in fact, perversely, Gordon Brown was, and still is, quite popular here). They won't crash and burn in 2015 either. Those who say they're going to vote SNP are more or less the people who voted Yes in the referendum, and they're still thumping their fists over the referendum. Once Murphy begins to make an impression and people's minds focus on the issues that are actually pertinent to a general election, that SNP poll lead will melt away.

Let us not forget that, in the midst of the referendum campaign, when they should have been riding the crest of the wave of growing popularity for the idea of voting Yes, the SNP completely failed to break out of its core support at the European elections. In fact, their share of the vote dropped slightly.

When it comes to actually putting an X in a box, far fewer Scottish voters are prepared to support the SNP than will claim in public.

Originally Posted by Chris

Labour in Scotland has been rudderless since the resignation of an ineffective leader who hardly made an impression while she was in the job. Add to that, the Yessers managed to con a section of the natural Labour vote into supporting independence on lies of milk and honey and you have both push and pull factors influencing the polls.

But Scots voters are not, by and large, stupid. They know the difference between the different chambers they send representatives to. Labour didn't crash and burn in Scotland in 2010 despite Gordon Brown and the financial crisis (in fact, perversely, Gordon Brown was, and still is, quite popular here). They won't crash and burn in 2015 either. Those who say they're going to vote SNP are more or less the people who voted Yes in the referendum, and they're still thumping their fists over the referendum. Once Murphy begins to make an impression and people's minds focus on the issues that are actually pertinent to a general election, that SNP poll lead will melt away.

Let us not forget that, in the midst of the referendum campaign, when they should have been riding the crest of the wave of growing popularity for the idea of voting Yes, the SNP completely failed to break out of its core support at the European elections. In fact, their share of the vote dropped slightly.

When it comes to actually putting an X in a box, far fewer Scottish voters are prepared to support the SNP than will claim in public.

I hope so.

[007stuart]

For the record the Scottish Labour has a membership of 13500 down from 30000 in 1997, the corresponding figure for the Scottish National Party is 92000, up 75000 this year.

It will be interesting to see how Jim will turnaround the Scottish Labour Party's slide into obscurity.

Originally Posted by 007stuart

For the record the Scottish Labour has a membership of 13500 down from 30000 in 1997, the corresponding figure for the Scottish National Party is 92000, up 75000 this year.

It will be interesting to see how Jim will turnaround the Scottish Labour Party's slide into obscurity.

Quite.

The SNP's headline membership figure is impressive. It will be even more impressive if they mobilise a similar percentage of those new sign-ups to canvass for the election in May. Personally, I have my doubts. Joining a party online for a pound (which doesn't even cover the cost of membership) has only slightly more political oomph behind it than signing a dozen petitions a day on Change.org, and will change precisely as much. Which is not a lot.

[007stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

Quite.

The SNP's headline membership figure is impressive. It will be even more impressive if they mobilise a similar percentage of those new sign-ups to canvass for the election in May. Personally, I have my doubts. Joining a party online for a pound (which doesn't even cover the cost of membership) has only slightly more political oomph behind it than signing a dozen petitions a day on Change.org, and will change precisely as much. Which is not a lot.

It's pity Scottish labour couldn't invigorate the Scottish people even for a pound!

Originally Posted by 007stuart

It's pity Scottish labour couldn't invigorate the Scottish people even for a pound!

It is; however that membship number is a truer reflection of the general state of representative democracy in the UK today. The SNP's figure, on the other hand, is just another Internet campaign run out of control. A lot of people - and I do mean, a *lot* of people - have "joined" the SNP with a click as casual as hitting "Like" on Facebook, and with about as much forethought. It scratched an itch. It gave them a momentary self-righteous buzz. What it didn't do, I'm quite sure, is indicate that those people have thought through the implications of commitment to one particular party, along with all of its processes, priorities and policies, even the ones they personally disagree with.

As I said, the real test will be how many of these new recruits are sufficiently committed to hit the streets and go canvassing next May; how many of them will renew their membership when their subs are demanded next September; and (which we will alas never find out), how many of them are prepared to pay subs at a level that at the very least covers the cost of administering their membership. Whatever that figure is, it is substantially more than a pound. A great many of these new members are, as we speak, a financial drain on the SNP. So it's not all bad news after all.

[007stuart]

Given that Scottish Labour have haemorrhaged so many members recently with the accompanying loss of revenue I would suggest that even with Jim Murphy's fine words about being a separate autonomous party a large injection of funds from London will be required to keep Scottish Labour afloat and I can't see Ed and his pals giving him what he needs without having a say in the running of the party north of the border.

Regarding the cost of membership, it is £1.00 a month or £12 annually or £5 annually if you don't earn a wage. Don't worry Chris it's easy to make that mistake as Jim Murphy made exactly the same error on Scotland Tonight yesterday, so your your comment about the additional 75000 members being a drain seems to be way off the mark as even if half stays on for a year that's £450,000 in additional revenue, something Jim, even if he sells his political soul, will be unlikely to get for Scottish Labour from Ed!