Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
Le Stu

Glasgow East By-election

Recommended Posts

There won't be a general election, why on earth would Labour call one they'd be almost assured to lose?

Considering where the by-election is taking place, I think anything other than a convincing win will be a bad day for Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There won't be a general election, why on earth would Labour call one they'd be almost assured to lose?

Labour wouldn't call one, but Brown might. It depends on just how much the captain is dedicated to going down with the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labour wouldn't call one, but Brown might. It depends on just how much the captain is dedicated to going down with the ship.

No I don't think that's going to happen. He'll either cling on grimly until he's forced to call one in a couple of years or he'll resign (of his own free will or otherwise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No chance of a general election, but a decent chance of Brown being forced out if they lose I would say.

Utterly bizarre that Labour couldn't find a candidate in a seat where they have a 13,000 majority. They should have had all that sorted out before the incumbent resigned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No chance of a general election, but a decent chance of Brown being forced out if they lose I would say.

Utterly bizarre that Labour couldn't find a candidate in a seat where they have a 13,000 majority. They should have had all that sorted out before the incumbent resigned.

i think he resigned rather sharpish before certain issues regarding using his home as an office and employing his wife came to light.

no candidate wants to stand and be the one to lose a 13000 majority and force gordon brown to resign. Steven Purcell would have been a strong candidate should he have stood but he may be more interested in a MSP position.

amazing chance for the snp and even if they don't win the actual seat there's no doubt that there will be a massive swing towards them. Labour really have disintegrated and need to have a serious rethink now. I can't see anyone who could really take over from brown and get their confidence back. David Miliband perhaps but there's no other standout candidates for me. As for Scottish Labour, they're just as bereft of genuine charisma. I think Cathy jamieson will probably win that one but they need to accept they're in oposition and start forming some genuine counter policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I just see Alex Salmond on teh BBC????

Pulling some bullshit Connery brogue also, I noted. Very good. I guess this is a big deal.

*a little later and he's slugging it out with The Paxman. This is becoming very entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow, Lanarkshire and West | SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East

:laughing:

I can't stop laughing.

An amazing piece of propaganda for the SNP and a truly terrible day for Labour. Just how did they manage to lose a 13,000 majority seat that's as red as they come?

Thought the most bizarre thing was probably the Tories beating the Lib Dems to push them into 4th place and they lost their deposit. Probably due to the latter being leaderless in Scotland just now and the former having quite a strong parliamentary performance recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMFG, they got pwnz00rd!!!!

This made my friday, along with the street fair being here! Wild boar burgers, churros, and a kick in the teeth to The Supreme Leader! MMMMMMMmm, delicious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow, Lanarkshire and West | SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East

:laughing:

I can't stop laughing.

An amazing piece of propaganda for the SNP and a truly terrible day for Labour. Just how did they manage to lose a 13,000 majority seat that's as red as they come?

god it was a long night. silly recount, amazing result though.

they lost because they've taken it for granted for most of the last century. they lost because their campaign was pretty inept and full of rather foolish mistakes. they lost because labour in westminster is a failing government and it's obvious for everyone to see. people are skint and see now that labour aren't helping them.

i don't think the people of glasgow east necessarily see the snp as the answer to their problems but they want labour to change their policies and voting snp in a by election is the most obvious way of registering their disgust. also the snp ran a brilliant campaign and it probably helped that the snp are doing well as the government in scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This result is terribly depressing. I'm not a Labour supporter, far from it, but Labour losing a seat like this makes it clear just how much of a certainty it is that the conservatives will win the next general election. The thought of David Cameron's Britain makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This result is terribly depressing. I'm not a Labour supporter, far from it, but Labour losing a seat like this makes it clear just how much of a certainty it is that the conservatives will win the next general election. The thought of David Cameron's Britain makes me sick.

well hopefully if the snp take a load of seats off labour then we won't be in cameron's britain for very long :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am VERY far from being a Nationalist (last refuge... etc), but am happy about the result, as Neu Labour have not been fit for purpose (that purpose being a redistributive party, dedicated to helping those parts of society that need it most), practically since inception. Although they have done positive things that would never have been started by a Tory regime (minimum wage, Sure Start), their craven unwillingness to confront inequality, or even admit that the Thatcherite legacy of greed is hugely socially corrosive, has repulsed vast swathes of their natural support, mine included. The government idea of centrism is trying to charm the enemies of social progress (business, Associated Press, bigots), while being unreasonably hard on their allies and natural supporters (public sector workers, the disadvantaged, people with a conscience, etc). Well this is the whirlwind made real, well and truly reaped. Have you seen the East End of Glasgow, it is a desolate place, Labour's near century of hegemony, at council and national level, have done nothing for them, yet the party assumes that their support will be eternal and unquestioning, this shows that those Politburo days are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As my girlfriend pointed out, announcing that you were scrapping incapacity benefits, days before a by-election in an area where a huge number of people are on incapacity benefits, probably didn't help Labour's cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When are people going to realise that ALL modern political parties are just "catch-all" parties? None of them are going to help the poor and needy of society because the biggest voting block in general are the middle classes. The whole objective of parties these days is just to keep an even keel, and spin anything that looks bad. They aren't going to actually change anything (other than minor, insignificant gestures) because that would upset the status quo. Their sole raison d'etre is to acquire the largest number of votes possible, and then hold onto the power that affords them as long as possible. This means, of course, that you can't alter the balance of things in favour of poorer people, because then the more politically-active middle-age middle-class individuals would get upset. ANY party will act in this manner once in power with a majority, whether they call themselves Socialists, Nationalists or Conservatives. Ideology is nothing but a PR exercise, these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no point in reading / thinking about political parties. I feel sorry for anyone who can actually digest the trash they talk or even get interested that the SNP won some constituency 150 miles away. It doesn't say anything or make any grand statement - voting is entirely arbitrary and no-one really knows why they make the choices they do. All it means is that the winning party managed to contrive some realm of half-truth that appealed to voters more effectively than the loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shit, i agree with dave in a political post! i have to go lie down now :)

actually there's one bit i'm not keen on which is your last paragraph as poverty is relative to those around you so comparing the poorest people in this country's standard of living with those in somalia is irrelevant. otherwise though, i concur. political parties based on dogmatic ideology aren't going to benefit anyone anymore. i think we've seen a shift towards more socially conscious free market economics benefitting the majority. we'll never go back to rampant thatcherism but we'll never see a true socialist party in power again either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at what Labour's done since they came to power. They introduced the minimum wage, tax credits for working families on low to medium incomes, introduced employment rights for people in previously precarious and brought about a change in British society that made discussing politics in terms of class division irrelevant. Much of the "working" class have Sky TV, mortgages and disposable income these days. The debate has moved on from the parameters set by the class warriors of previous decades.

While this is true to an extent, Labour still hasn't done much to really help the worst areas. Look at Glasgow East. 10 years of Labour and it's still a deprived shithole. That's probably what lost them the by-election more than anything else. Their party had been in power for a decade and their situation hadn't improved, so why should they continue to vote for the lie? They'd been told all their lives that Labour was their party and would help them but it didn't happen.

The minimum wage, new deal etc have helped many who needed it (I've been on new deal twice) but many of these schemes are still bypassing the truly deprived. There's always more that could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While this is true to an extent, Labour still hasn't done much to really help the worst areas. Look at Glasgow East. 10 years of Labour and it's still a deprived shithole. That's probably what lost them the by-election more than anything else. Their party had been in power for a decade and their situation hadn't improved, so why should they continue to vote for the lie? They'd been told all their lives that Labour was their party and would help them but it didn't happen.

The minimum wage, new deal etc have helped many who needed it (I've been on new deal twice) but many of these schemes are still bypassing the truly deprived. There's always more that could be done.

actually, most reports were that labour lost the vote in the aspirational parts of glasgow east rather than the truly deprived areas. it probably didn't help that labour smuggled ministers in to campaign for only a couple of hours then smuggled them out again. that only gave the impression that they didn't want to be there and that the government was a liability for their campaign.

i'm sure minimum wage has helped those in deprived areas a fair bit though.

you're right though, labour had been the dominant force in scotland for 50 years and yet we still had the worst health record and some of the highest levels of poverty in europe. about time they got a shock and we tried a fresh approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at Glasgow East, indeed, nearly a century of hypothetically left-wing local government has done nothing for that place, as it exists(existED) in a hegemony, which appears to be crumbling. I repudiate the Labour Party utterly. (On the Guardian CIF pages, people refer to them as NuLab, which sounds about right)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave: Thank you for an engaging response, which raises some good points. However, please allow me to respond to a few of them

There are plenty of parties that either appeal to a particular social group or are devoted to single-issue politics. The Greens, UKIP, the BNP, whatever the successors to the Judean People's Front call themselves this week (Solidarity, Socialist Workers Party, etc etc.), Pensioners Alliance and so on. To suggest that all political parties employ a "catch all" philosophy is wrongheaded.

You are correct, there are many smaller issue parties around. As my point concerned parties seeking a parliamentary majority, I should have specified that it is only all parties seeking to win power that are "catch-all" parties.

Look at what Labour's done since they came to power. They introduced the minimum wage, tax credits for working families on low to medium incomes, introduced employment rights for people in previously precarious and brought about a change in British society that made discussing politics in terms of class division irrelevant. Much of the "working" class have Sky TV, mortgages and disposable income these days. The debate has moved on from the parameters set by the class warriors of previous decades.

The debate may have moved on but I would argue that the divisons are still there, albeit perhaps slightly altered. Most of these initiatives aimed at helping people on lower incomes are the bare minimum of what is required to ensure that the gap between higher and lower earners does not widen too far in a time when the general affluence of higher earners increases. Let us also not forget that this is the Labour government whose recent alteration of the tax bands meant that - in crude terms - the poor will now be subsidising the rich.

This is a charge that has been levelled against political parties since time immemorial. In fact, in the last thirty years we have seen two parties come to power, the Conservatives in 1979 and Labour in 1997, and both have introduced seismic changes in the political and social landscape of the country, And yet, while they were seeking election they were assailed by commentators accusing them of perpetuating the status quo and being ciphers rather than the agents of change. Both administrations proved their doubters wrong. I see no reason to think that the current generation of major party leaders should act any differently from their predecessors once they gain office.

This is a fair observation, but my point is just that political parties are NOT the same as they used to be. Could you give me some examples of changes made by the Labour party made since 1997 that you would consider to be "seismic", bearing in mind that all activities of a party must be considered relative to the social and economic context that they find themselves in? It could be that we have differing ideas of perspective.

Ideology went by the wayside decades ago, and our country is better for it. Pragmatism and a sense of political reality replaced it and has been practiced by every politician who seeks election. And, to be honest, altering the balance of power in favour of the so-called "poorer people" is never going to be a vote winner, despite the fact that the poor in this country have a higher standard of living than almost any other country in the world, and that standard has been rising for decades. The poor will always be with us, the best our politicians can do is reduce their numbers by taking as many of them as possible beyond the poverty line. At the same time, however, they must consider the needs of working people, families, the elderly and those afflicted by crime and injustice.

It is, in my opinion, debatable to suggest that our country is better off without ideology. To abandon ideology is to abandon the suggestion that you can make important, lasting changes to the world we live in - and surely that should be why people want to get involved in politics. Of course, all ideology must be tempered with reality and practicality, but to cast it off entirely means that all you become is a government reacting to social and economic situations, rather than attempting to forge a path to a better future. The issue as I see it is that any ideology will alienate at least one part of the electorate, and as these parties are merely seeking the maximum number of votes, they abandon such lofty ideals as social change to the detriment of us all.

As Mr Officer has already pointed out, poverty is relative. But it shouldn't matter if a policy is a "vote-winner" as long as it's the right thing to do. Of course, then the point can be made that if a party doesn't pay attention to what wins votes then they won't be in power to affect such noble changes. We're also in danger of approaching a discussion about "what is right", which is a whole other can of worms....

I'm interested to know what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×