I really hope Wendy Alexander stays leader of the Scottish Labour party for a long time. Not because I want a weak Labour leader - I have no fear of any of the MSPs they have - but because she has single-handedly brought her party around to the cause of holding a referendum on independence and will now have to defend that u-turn to her political grave.
I suspect I am not alone in this. Gordon Brown might already have ordered the Labour Party equivalent of the KGB around, and if this was in fact Soviet Russia she would probably be declared 'unwell' and put in a hospital somewhere. Considering how both her and Gordon have lost all sense of reality - her with her astonishing about-face and him with his denial that she said what she pretty manifestly said (and probably that the sky is blue as well given the chance) - maybe that's not such a bad idea.
This isn't going to end well. Gordon and Wendy have now contradicted each other too publicly for there not to be some kind of politically violent resolution. This is elevating the issue from a Scottish one to a UK-wide one that threatens the integrity - not to mention credibility - of an already vulnerable Prime Minister.
I don't see where this goes to be honest. Wendy Alexander's unilateral abandonment of what has been a core article of faith for the Labour party - opposing a referendum on independence at all costs - ever since it thought it might lose on the issue (Labour in the early 1990s supported a multi-option referendum including independence as well as a devolved Scottish Parliament) - is not everyday politics.
She is the reason there is now suddenly a parliamentary majority in favour of an independence referendum. She is the only thing holding Labour behind the option. I suspect she suddenly now therefore has at least 47 friends in the Scottish Parliament wanting her to stay in job and see this vast political gamble of hers through to the bitter end. Given the face she has been displaying around Holyrood after speaking to her colleagues in her own party, that might be 47 more friends than she has from amongst Labour.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I am bored revising - in amongst my many pages saw this and thought of you
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" because a tax on "the luxuries and vanities of life [which] occasion the principle expense of the rich ... would in general fall heaviest upon the rich and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable"
Now which book is it from - Author and title and year is too easy. No googling
In content it reads like Marx, or Rawls, or Nagel, or someone of that ilk, BUT it has a more archaic sentence structure going on and on and on that makes me think of the eighteenth century and makes me think that the reason you might post it here would be that it was of course that famous socialist Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, 1776? I couldn't for the life of me tell you which volume though.
Not quite sure what wendy is up to here but the fact that Gordon Brown appears to be contradicting what she said on newsnight last night is very damaging.
On newsnight last night she seemed very vague and non-committal on whether and when Labour would bring forward their referendum bill. Indeed she didn't commit on when Labour did actually want to have a referendum, but rather was concentrating on the SNP's proposals and that 2010 would not be an appropriate time to hold a referendum eg. parliamentary procedure wouldn't allow enough time to scrutinise, it would be too close to an election etc. etc,
My view is that Wendy Alexander and Labour will not either bring forward their own referendum bill or vote for the bill to be brought forward by the SNP. What she will do however is say that whilst she believed in a referendum in principle she could not possibly back the SNP Bill because it was inappropriately timed, dint allow enough parliamentary scrutiny etc. etc. She would then say that the SNP had no right to claim that Labour were trying to deny the Scottish people a say but it was the SNP's proposals, brought forward so late in the term of parliament made it impossible for her to vote for them.
This is a dangerous game however, as the SNP could bring their bill forward early and force her to back it, or the people could see through this transparent tactic and see "lack of parliamentary scrutiny" as a feeble excuse, which would make labour look less principled.
I cant see any other reason why she would try and do this as there are a number of reasons why this doesn't make sense including the Calman Commission....Also as Scottish Tory Boy has pointed out, it may be outwith parliamentary rules for Labour to bring forward a referendum bill.
The mistake Wendy has made however was a couple of months ago (and I said so at the time as well) when Alex Salmond had suggested a 3- way referendum by STV - there is much less chance that independence would win this. A 2-way question is another matter (as recent polls have shown)
Because Wendy claimed how undemocratic it would be to have a 3-way STV vote and it was an outrage that Salmond suggested it she now had to back a straight Yes-No question on independence, which makes independence more likely to win. It was good tactic by Salmond therefore by suggesting this 3-way referendum.
All the best
Calum
Save Our Wendy (SOW) badges available from MSP's Block MG.17
Phone Simon Pia for more details
Book 5 - Useless, sure you have done enough reading to have that title? ;)
Absolutely agree. But who is the true leader of the UK labour party? Brown or Wendy? :-)
Post a Comment