shuggy's blog
Excellent post, you have changed how I look at this.
It could be, and has been, objected that this won't transform the party's prospects. This is probably true - but I'm arguing that they should go as a matter of principle.
The party's prospects may not change if they go, but they absolutely will not change if they stay.
So it's a necessary condition if not a sufficient one.
I'll grant you that Gordon is a funny fish, but I'm still in rapture at the departure of the Loathsome Wee Twat, so I can't yet focus on the notion of his successor getting the boot.
Anent Sons [and, with Wendy, Daughters] of the Manse, I've found two types predominate: the first are humourless prigs who've had a complete humility bypass, and the second are out and out rakehells. Gordon and Wendy, sadly, fall into the first category.
I am beginning to feel very sorry for Gordon. He looks ill: he probably is ill. I would be if I were him. I thought the idea was that he'd turn the wheel a notch or two back in the direction of Old Labour, and that this might be perceived as a good thing, winning the support of the left-liberal press and all those who wanted socialism-lite but without the lingering fragrance of nuits d'Iraq. OK, he hasn't done anything except hold on to the wheel and try to prevent it spinning. OK, he has been a disaster and everything is spinning anyway.
But this is not just a personal difficulty. It is a strategic difficulty for Labour in the long term, because although the election disaster is the sum of a series of small personal disasters, plus bad luck (world recession) it leaves whatever ideas were fuelling the realpolitik, lost slap bang in the middle of nowhere, not just without a wheel but without a paddle. I mean who could replace Gordon and to what effect? Can anyone out there see a successor?
And I cannot see any ideas on the Tory horizon. Not even bad ones. Nothing. Boris Johnson is not an idea. David Cameron is not an idea. At least Salmond has an idea. It's only a single idea and probably a bad one, but there's not much else around at the moment.
But this is not just a personal difficulty. It is a strategic difficulty for Labour in the long term...
I agree but what I find compelling in a watching car crash sort of way about Brown is that his problems cannot be reduced to the structural problems the Labour party has. Over and above this, Brown is a tragic figure. His collapse is extraordinary. It's unprecedented in my lifetime. I've been saying for ages that the Force is not with him. How radically I understated my case - the gods hate Gordon Brown. He is destined to fail. It won't cure the Labour party to get rid of them but get rid of them they must. I wouldn't exclude sympathy for Gordon in the reasons for this: it's like watching a fight that you think should be stopped. 'Clunking fist'? I watched him on TV getting a kicking from some Tory fop who wants to be Prime Minister. It's fucking embarrassing - it needs to be stopped now.
Missed this...
And I cannot see any ideas on the Tory horizon. Not even bad ones. Nothing. Boris Johnson is not an idea. David Cameron is not an idea. At least Salmond has an idea. It's only a single idea and probably a bad one, but there's not much else around at the moment.
The Tories don't do ideas - Thatcher was an aberration here and the party's been in recovery ever since. I think Cameron understands this and even if he doesn't, his whole personae is in tune with the dispositions and prejudices that have made the Conservative party Western Europe's most successful election-winning machine in the 20th century. It doesn't matter if he gets it intellectually. I get the sense that he's like Blair in that he instinctively knew what's wrong with his party. It's this that's bringing him that bit closer to 10 Downing St. (This and the fact that Boris is a celebrity is all the analysis necessary vis-a-vis the London election...) Brown, on the other hand, hasn't even the faintest glimmer of an idea what's wrong with his party. If he was, he wouldn't be doing the job he's in now for a start...
I don't believe ideas win elections but in any event, I strongly disagree that Alex Salmond has an idea. I'd argue that he preaches an idea that he knows is false; he does this so that he can get closer to what he really wants. In this sense he competes with the very worst that religious hypocrisy has to offer.
In this sense he competes with the very worst that religious hypocrisy has to offer.
On reflection, this is a little unfair given the historical record but you'll catch the music of what I'm saying?
Yes, I hear the music, Shuggy, in fact I probably dislike the music more than most. With regard to the Tories, it's not ideas in the Big sense I mean, but bags of general principles. Who do you tax? How much? How much power do you give local government? What do you do about Europe? The USA? One-nation Toryism was a sort of idea. Wet and dry in the Thatcher cabinet were ideological positions of some description, don't you think? At least as much as Blairism.
But I'm sure you are right on Cameron. Opposition doesn't have to have ideas, only personalities. Once in power though it may be useful to have some.
One-nation Toryism was a sort of idea. Wet and dry in the Thatcher cabinet were ideological positions of some description, don't you think?
No, One-Nation Toryism is the antithesis of ideological politics. These were the 'wets'. The 'drys' were the ideologues, the believers. The latter are responsible for keeping the Tories in the electoral wilderness these past ten years.
Labour will look back and see that it was unwise to have Brown elected as leader in an uncontested race.
'I'd argue that he preaches an idea that he knows is false; he does this so that he can get closer to what he really wants. In this sense he competes with the very worst that religious hypocrisy has to offer.'
Well, you have piqued my interest. Go on then; argue it.
I take the view that the more intelligent and realistic of the SNPers know that an independent Scotland with it's own head of state, army, foreign policy, border police etc, isn't going to happen. They don't really believe in this. What they favour - and are probably likely to gain in the long-run - is simply greater autonomy within the UK with them enjoying greater influence. It's an act of bad faith because they will present the former option as a realistic proposition in order to gain the latter (they'll find some way of presenting three options to the Scottish electorate) - and they will have done so off the backs of those who sincerely believed in the cause.
Well, it could equally be said that those polytricians who want a three choice referendum do so because it splits the pro Independence vote into 'gradualists' or as some wag recently said: 'slow learners' who want more powers for a Scottish parliament, from 'true believers'.
I think every poll backs that up.
This is of course the currently Labour and Lib Dem policy re the Calman commision etc.
The SNP question in the manifesto does not have three choices, and I don't really see it happening unless the above lib dems and Labour make it so for the above reasons.
Besides, if Alex Salmond wanted real power in Scotland for personal reasons, he would have joined the Labour party long ago.
Why do it the hard way?
Commenting by HaloScan
