The front runner behaving like an underdog
 |
| CAMPAIGNER: Margaret Curran |
A former Holyrood minister, a local MSP for nine years and the bookmakers' favourite - Margaret Curran could hardly be a more experienced candidate for Glasgow East.
She's not looking too nervous beyond her normal enthusiastic self, but her handlers are protecting her like a campaign trail novice.
Ms Curran, so media savvy that she was nicknamed the Minister for Newsnight, has more top-flight political experience than all of the other eight candidates put together, and yet Labour's campaign is edgy and gaffe-prone.
The reason can only be that the stakes are very high indeed. There is interest from media across the world, not because foreign journalists care much for Barlanark or Carmyle, but because of speculation - and it is only speculation - that if Labour lost one of its safest seats in the UK to the Scottish Nationalists then it could precipitate the resignation of the prime minister.
"My message is resonating on the doorsteps," she said yesterday, after visiting a
pensioner in Shettleston
Road who was said to be shifting her allegiance back to Labour after dallying with an SNP vote.
Ms Curran is saying most of the right things most of the time. Her talk is of not taking constituents for granted, because the accusation is that Labour have been doing that in their heartlands, and of fighting for every vote, because with a majority of more than 13,000 the loss of the seat is politically unthinkable.
So the MSP for Baillieston, which is a big part of the Westminster constituency, has a series of defaults: that she will fight hard for the East of Glasgow; that she will be a radical, dissenting voice to that end if need be; and that while much has been done to improve the area, much more needs to be done.
And therein lies her
problem. If much still needs to be done, people have the right to ask whether Labour has already had long enough in charge at every elected level, including Ms Curran as a Holyrood minister.
Last year the SNP message "It's Time" worked at a Scottish level, and the danger for Labour is that it will resonate now here in their heartland.
This explains why Ms Curran has been speaking and acting almost as if she is an underdog. She has turned a lot of the ill-informed attacks on the constituency from London commentators to her advantage, putting her on side with the locals.
"There is a real level of
frustration about the way the East End has been characterised as if it is all total devastation here," she said yesterday.
Ms Curran has been credited by some MPs as someone who will save the party from a devastating defeat in the seat, and come next Thursday that may be true, but it has required some nifty footwork from the candidate.
On the key issues in this campaign - fuel taxation, retail prices, knife crime - she has developed a tactic of absorbing criticism of the government, accepting that something must be done, and then stopping short of agreeing that wholesale change is necessary.
Ms Curran is a seasoned operator, speaks the language of the area, and exemplifies a gallus, fast-talking energy that will probably carry her through to victory next week.
But questions remain. For example, can it really be true, as she said on Thursday night, that she did not know about the controversial home-based office arrangements that fuelled criticism of David Marshall's Westminster expenses? It is
hard to see how an MSP co-operating regularly with the local MP could fail to be aware of this.
Was she really fifth choice candidate for the seat? What about the suggestion she accepted the nomination to save her career because she faced losing out in a selection battle come Holyrood boundary changes in three years' time?
Then there have been those campaign glitches. Her claim that she had lived and worked in the constituency all her life when she has lived for many years in Glasgow's South Side was of her own doing, but other gaffes have not been.There were the Westminster cabinet ministers coming and going without announcement, giving the impression that their presence would hinder rather then help.
Then there was the campaign letter seeking support addressed to her Nationalist opponent, and the Second World War veteran on her website who turned out to be no such thing because of a captioning error.
And, of course, there was her "superstar" supporter, the actor from Taggart, who turned out to be an independence supporter.
Ms Curran deserves better than that.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: girfut, thebigisland on 10:24pm Fri 18 Jul 08
A big Wendy 10/10 to Robbie Dinwoodie forn allowing comment.
And 11/10 for doing the introductions
"Balance meet Herald"
"Herald meet balance"
A big Wendy 10/10 to Robbie Dinwoodie forn allowing comment.
And 11/10 for doing the introductions
"Balance meet Herald"
"Herald meet balance"
Posted by: democrate, central Scotland on 10:27pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Bad article; Ms Curran does not deserve any better service or treatment than she has had in this campaign. Ms Curran should, if she had a conscience, be explaining just exactly what benefits Labour has brought to this constituency in the past years and she should face her electorate honestly, warts and all, and explain how she and her Party will improve their lot in the next couple of years as the result of her efforts if she is sent to Westminster to represent them. That's too tall an order, so the people of Glasgow East will be left with spin, conjecture and lies.
Bad article; Ms Curran does not deserve any better service or treatment than she has had in this campaign. Ms Curran should, if she had a conscience, be explaining just exactly what benefits Labour has brought to this constituency in the past years and she should face her electorate honestly, warts and all, and explain how she and her Party will improve their lot in the next couple of years as the result of her efforts if she is sent to Westminster to represent them. That's too tall an order, so the people of Glasgow East will be left with spin, conjecture and lies.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:30pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Oh dear Margaret Curran behaving like a dog. Who let that one through ?
Oh dear Margaret Curran behaving like a dog. Who let that one through ?
Posted by: Iainbroch, Moray on 10:31pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Curran deserves a slap in the face! Liebaaah deserves a kick in the balls!
Curran deserves a slap in the face! Liebaaah deserves a kick in the balls!
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:33pm Fri 18 Jul 08
If you threw the ball would Margaret chase it ?
If you threw the ball would Margaret chase it ?
Posted by: Craig, Glasgow on 10:35pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Could allowing comments be connected to a recently sacked editor
Could allowing comments be connected to a recently sacked editor
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:37pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[bold]How Margaret Curran voted on key issues[/bold]
Voted Against returning Attendance Allowance to pay for Free Personal Care [italic]despite Lord Sutherland's Report saying it should and despite Margaret Curran saying, on behalf of the Labour party, saying they fully accepted the report.[/italic]
Voted against scrapping the Council Tax
Voted to hamper councils building new council houses by not restricting right to buy legislation.
Voted against scrapping the graduate endowment fee
Failed to support a freeze on the Council Tax. (Abstained)
Failed to support record spending for local authorities. (Abstained)
Failed to support reducing prescription charges - a tax on the ill. (Abstained)
Failed to support 1000 extra police officers on Scotland's streets- there will 750 extra in Strathclyde. (Abstained)
Voted against new patient rights.
Failed to vote against the development of Trident II
Voted to spend half a billion pounds on a tram line in Edinburgh - money which could, in part be spent on key transport objectives in Glasgow.
Supports £500,000 per child ASBO's
How Margaret Curran voted on key issues
Voted Against returning Attendance Allowance to pay for Free Personal Care
despite Lord Sutherland's Report saying it should and despite Margaret Curran saying, on behalf of the Labour party, saying they fully accepted the report.
Voted against scrapping the Council Tax
Voted to hamper councils building new council houses by not restricting right to buy legislation.
Voted against scrapping the graduate endowment fee
Failed to support a freeze on the Council Tax. (Abstained)
Failed to support record spending for local authorities. (Abstained)
Failed to support reducing prescription charges - a tax on the ill. (Abstained)
Failed to support 1000 extra police officers on Scotland's streets- there will 750 extra in Strathclyde. (Abstained)
Voted against new patient rights.
Failed to vote against the development of Trident II
Voted to spend half a billion pounds on a tram line in Edinburgh - money which could, in part be spent on key transport objectives in Glasgow.
Supports £500,000 per child ASBO's
Posted by: Duns Scotus, Berwick on 10:39pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote]the Second World War veteran on her website who turned out to be no such thing because of a captioning error.[/quote] Mr Dinwoodie, you're being too generous here. It may have been a captioning error but we have still not got the full story on John Hipson.
No John Hipsons were born in the whole of Scotland that could make the man in the picture 93 years old.
Why have we not heard the truth.
Anyway, regardless of all that's gone on, Mrs Curran is seriously damaged goods and if she does manage to retain the seat for Labour, she will be out on her ear come the Westminster General Election and out of Holyrood the year after that.
the Second World War veteran on her website who turned out to be no such thing because of a captioning error.
Mr Dinwoodie, you're being too generous here. It may have been a captioning error but we have still not got the full story on John Hipson.
No John Hipsons were born in the whole of Scotland that could make the man in the picture 93 years old.
Why have we not heard the truth.
Anyway, regardless of all that's gone on, Mrs Curran is seriously damaged goods and if she does manage to retain the seat for Labour, she will be out on her ear come the Westminster General Election and out of Holyrood the year after that.
Posted by: ditchgazza on 10:40pm Fri 18 Jul 08
A good piece, Robbie.
But your bit about the pensioner being a captioning error is false.
That photo was not cut and cropped. It was a single photo designed to mislead the people.
Maggot is a serial liar, Robbie. Please let the people know.
A good piece, Robbie.
But your bit about the pensioner being a captioning error is false.
That photo was not cut and cropped. It was a single photo designed to mislead the people.
Maggot is a serial liar, Robbie. Please let the people know.
Posted by: democrate, central Scotland on 10:41pm Fri 18 Jul 08
We have here a similar set of circumstances to that we had with Wendy "brain the size of a planet" as now we have an ex-Minister with "top-flight political experience." It would make you greet if it were not so perverse. The more they lie, obfuscate, deny, shiver, tremble and hide, the greater they are applauded. I guess in Scotland now that there is bound to be a huge amount of talent which could be put to good public service and likely achieve great things, but won't because of the impression that you can only get somewhere or achieve something worthwhile in Scotland if you have the backing of a political party, preferably one with dodgy connections. What is wrong with just telling the truth on expenses, aspirations, votes?
We have here a similar set of circumstances to that we had with Wendy "brain the size of a planet" as now we have an ex-Minister with "top-flight political experience." It would make you greet if it were not so perverse. The more they lie, obfuscate, deny, shiver, tremble and hide, the greater they are applauded. I guess in Scotland now that there is bound to be a huge amount of talent which could be put to good public service and likely achieve great things, but won't because of the impression that you can only get somewhere or achieve something worthwhile in Scotland if you have the backing of a political party, preferably one with dodgy connections. What is wrong with just telling the truth on expenses, aspirations, votes?
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 10:44pm Fri 18 Jul 08
From Iain Dale:
[bold]Gordon's Imperfect Economic Storm Approaches
Iain Dale 8:23 PM[/bold]
[quote]An economic shudder has just run down my spine. I just read THIS on the BBC website. In June public borrowing reached a massive £9.16 billion. That's £9.16 billion of Her Majesty's Pounds. It's also 24% more than Treasury forecasts. In the first quarter of this financial year, the government borrowed more than £24 billion. Annualise it, and the government will be borrowing close on £100 billion this year - a seventh of all government spending. No wonder Alistair Darling is seeking to rewrite his own rules. In case you think I am being over dramatic, government borrowing is at its highest since April 1946.
Inflation is set to rocket. Unemployment is increasing. The Balance of Trade is at its worst level ever. The PSBR is out of control. And this is all before the recession has really started to bite. Have I missed anything?
If this sort of financial management goes on, I dread to think what kind of financial situation the Conservatives may inherit in May 2010.[/quote]
If you consider that Scotland currently has a surplus..
[italic]BBC article source:[/italic] http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/business/7513
309.stm
From Iain Dale:
Gordon's Imperfect Economic Storm Approaches
Iain Dale 8:23 PM
An economic shudder has just run down my spine. I just read THIS on the BBC website. In June public borrowing reached a massive £9.16 billion. That's £9.16 billion of Her Majesty's Pounds. It's also 24% more than Treasury forecasts. In the first quarter of this financial year, the government borrowed more than £24 billion. Annualise it, and the government will be borrowing close on £100 billion this year - a seventh of all government spending. No wonder Alistair Darling is seeking to rewrite his own rules. In case you think I am being over dramatic, government borrowing is at its highest since April 1946.
Inflation is set to rocket. Unemployment is increasing. The Balance of Trade is at its worst level ever. The PSBR is out of control. And this is all before the recession has really started to bite. Have I missed anything?
If this sort of financial management goes on, I dread to think what kind of financial situation the Conservatives may inherit in May 2010.
If you consider that Scotland currently has a surplus..
BBC article source: http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/business/7513
309.stm
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:44pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote]On the key issues in this campaign - fuel taxation, retail prices, knife crime - she has developed a tactic of absorbing criticism of the government, accepting that something must be done, and then [bold]stopping short[/bold] of agreeing that wholesale change is necessary[/quote]
[bold]Bingo[/bold]
[bold]Empty Rhetoric, Career First, Promise the World[/bold]
On the key issues in this campaign - fuel taxation, retail prices, knife crime - she has developed a tactic of absorbing criticism of the government, accepting that something must be done, and then stopping short of agreeing that wholesale change is necessary
Bingo
Empty Rhetoric, Career First, Promise the World
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:48pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]democrate[/bold] wrote:
We have here a similar set of circumstances to that we had with Wendy "brain the size of a planet" as now we have an ex-Minister with "top-flight political experience." It would make you greet if it were not so perverse. The more they lie, obfuscate, deny, shiver, tremble and hide, the greater they are applauded. I guess in Scotland now that there is bound to be a huge amount of talent which could be put to good public service and likely achieve great things, but won't because of the impression that you can only get somewhere or achieve something worthwhile in Scotland if you have the backing of a political party, preferably one with dodgy connections. What is wrong with just telling the truth on expenses, aspirations, votes?[/quote]
I has assumed that Robbie was taking the piish out of her.
[quote][italic]
normal enthusiastic self
media savvy
Minister for Newsnight
top-flight political experience
edgy and gaffe-prone
acting almost as if she is an underdog
a seasoned operator,
fast-talking energy
[/italic][/quote]
democrate wrote:
We have here a similar set of circumstances to that we had with Wendy "brain the size of a planet" as now we have an ex-Minister with "top-flight political experience." It would make you greet if it were not so perverse. The more they lie, obfuscate, deny, shiver, tremble and hide, the greater they are applauded. I guess in Scotland now that there is bound to be a huge amount of talent which could be put to good public service and likely achieve great things, but won't because of the impression that you can only get somewhere or achieve something worthwhile in Scotland if you have the backing of a political party, preferably one with dodgy connections. What is wrong with just telling the truth on expenses, aspirations, votes?
I has assumed that Robbie was taking the piish out of her.
normal enthusiastic self
media savvy
Minister for Newsnight
top-flight political experience
edgy and gaffe-prone
acting almost as if she is an underdog
a seasoned operator,
fast-talking energy
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:48pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Wilhelm[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
Oh dear Margaret Curran behaving like a dog. Who let that one through ? [/quote] A dog with rabies.[/quote]
[italic]canis canem edit[/italic]
Wilhelm wrote:
Observer wrote:
Oh dear Margaret Curran behaving like a dog. Who let that one through ?
A dog with rabies.
canis canem edit Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:49pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote]....she said on Thursday night, that she did not know about the controversial home-based office arrangements that fuelled criticism of David Marshall's Westminster expenses?[/quote]
[bold]tinyurl.com/65hts7[/bold]
....she said on Thursday night, that she did not know about the controversial home-based office arrangements that fuelled criticism of David Marshall's Westminster expenses?
tinyurl.com/65hts7
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:53pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Wilhelm[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote: Oh dear Margaret Curran behaving like a dog. Who let that one through ? [/quote] A dog with rabies.[/quote] [italic]canis canem edit[/italic] [/quote] Do you think she is on speed or was she born like that ? [/quote]
She talks a lot but says very very little.
Often it is the same words simply rearranged.
She also has a propensity to make up phrases that sound a little like yoda fae starwars
[quote]
e.g.
Labour are doing well, well labour are doing, doing well labour are
[/quote]
Observer wrote:
Wardog wrote:
Wilhelm wrote: Observer wrote: Oh dear Margaret Curran behaving like a dog. Who let that one through ?
A dog with rabies.
canis canem edit
Do you think she is on speed or was she born like that ?
She talks a lot but says very very little.
Often it is the same words simply rearranged.
She also has a propensity to make up phrases that sound a little like yoda fae starwars
e.g.
Labour are doing well, well labour are doing, doing well labour are
Posted by: mike, London on 10:56pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Her leader in London won't turn up,and she has'nt even got one in Scotland,what a shambles.
Her leader in London won't turn up,and she has'nt even got one in Scotland,what a shambles.
Posted by: democrate, central Scotland on 11:01pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Wardog, I invariably admire your comment here; am usually dead jealous too. But, and this is very important, I have noted that you really are very polite about the shortcomings of our friends who cannot yet understand how crucial it is to put up a comment in support of independence even although this would be their desired state of affairs. Could you maybe break the habit of a lifetime and speak your mind now?
Wardog, I invariably admire your comment here; am usually dead jealous too. But, and this is very important, I have noted that you really are very polite about the shortcomings of our friends who cannot yet understand how crucial it is to put up a comment in support of independence even although this would be their desired state of affairs. Could you maybe break the habit of a lifetime and speak your mind now?
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 11:07pm Fri 18 Jul 08
There are times when you have to look at the overall picture, where are we collectively after years of Labour rule?
It doesn't matter what they say, the fact is they have failed. They have been given chance after chance and failed utterly.
Watching newsnight tonight with the predictions of economic doom the choice is stark. Stay with a Unionist, Westminster based governance or say enough !!, we'll look after ourselves from now on.
There are times when you have to look at the overall picture, where are we collectively after years of Labour rule?
It doesn't matter what they say, the fact is they have failed. They have been given chance after chance and failed utterly.
Watching newsnight tonight with the predictions of economic doom the choice is stark. Stay with a Unionist, Westminster based governance or say enough !!, we'll look after ourselves from now on.
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 11:07pm Fri 18 Jul 08
The BBC are reporting that a poll, they acknowledge is around 500 people, give Labour a lead of 17%. The poll, carried out by Progressive Scottish Opinion was I believe a telephone poll.
Like the last poll no methodology is available .......... two polls, both telephone, both less than the acknowledged number of required respondents, both good news for Labour.
Will the Scottish press headline this latest poll despite the last one being so obviously flawed?
The BBC are reporting that a poll, they acknowledge is around 500 people, give Labour a lead of 17%. The poll, carried out by Progressive Scottish Opinion was I believe a telephone poll.
Like the last poll no methodology is available .......... two polls, both telephone, both less than the acknowledged number of required respondents, both good news for Labour.
Will the Scottish press headline this latest poll despite the last one being so obviously flawed?
Posted by: soloman, Stirling on 11:10pm Fri 18 Jul 08
The front runner behaving like an underdog............
but her handlers are protecting her like a campaign trail novice..............
."My message is resonating on the doorsteps," ..................
Lets hope that her handlers had a pooper scooper, was the McChattterriiing Donkey handling her, lots of questions for the candidate!
The front runner behaving like an underdog............
but her handlers are protecting her like a campaign trail novice..............
."My message is resonating on the doorsteps," ..................
Lets hope that her handlers had a pooper scooper, was the McChattterriiing Donkey handling her, lots of questions for the candidate!
Posted by: Iainbroch, Moray on 11:15pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]democrate[/bold] wrote:
Wardog, I invariably admire your comment here; am usually dead jealous too. But, and this is very important, I have noted that you really are very polite about the shortcomings of our friends who cannot yet understand how crucial it is to put up a comment in support of independence even although this would be their desired state of affairs. Could you maybe break the habit of a lifetime and speak your mind now?[/quote] I will say something positive about Independence. Most of us who believe in it share certain values. Values that are not shared by the masters of and the servatns of the British State! Indeed those common values are not found exclusively in the SNP - there are genuine people in other Political Partys as well.
I believe it goes without saying what those values are? Those values to which I refer are totally absent in the present leadership of the Labour Party and also absent from most of their elected reps. I dont believe that they are absent from many who are Labour members - they are just silent and suffer in that slience. Nor do I believe that those values are absent from most people who vote Labour - again they suffer in silence!
I would like to live in afair and just Scotland - I wish for that for my family and friends and future generations. It is not going to happen as long as this outdated Union is preserved!
democrate wrote:
Wardog, I invariably admire your comment here; am usually dead jealous too. But, and this is very important, I have noted that you really are very polite about the shortcomings of our friends who cannot yet understand how crucial it is to put up a comment in support of independence even although this would be their desired state of affairs. Could you maybe break the habit of a lifetime and speak your mind now?
I will say something positive about Independence. Most of us who believe in it share certain values. Values that are not shared by the masters of and the servatns of the British State! Indeed those common values are not found exclusively in the SNP - there are genuine people in other Political Partys as well.
I believe it goes without saying what those values are? Those values to which I refer are totally absent in the present leadership of the Labour Party and also absent from most of their elected reps. I dont believe that they are absent from many who are Labour members - they are just silent and suffer in that slience. Nor do I believe that those values are absent from most people who vote Labour - again they suffer in silence!
I would like to live in afair and just Scotland - I wish for that for my family and friends and future generations. It is not going to happen as long as this outdated Union is preserved!
Posted by: Morag, Peeblesshire on 11:15pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Well two polls saying much the same thing does tend to reinforce the impression. Could well be that Los Angeles is right and this isn't as close as we've all imagined.
However, I've been in SNP campaign rooms where the canvassing wasn't going so well, and I know what they feel like. This one really does have the feel of, we're in with a chance. It will be interesting to see the methodology (including weightings) of this poll.
Well two polls saying much the same thing does tend to reinforce the impression. Could well be that Los Angeles is right and this isn't as close as we've all imagined.
However, I've been in SNP campaign rooms where the canvassing wasn't going so well, and I know what they feel like. This one really does have the feel of, we're in with a chance. It will be interesting to see the methodology (including weightings) of this poll.
Posted by: girfut, thebigisland on 11:16pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Sorry i am no bloody good at links yet. I googled "progressive scottish opinion" and looked at the third option "ePOLITIX". Please someone put in the link
Sorry i am no bloody good at links yet. I googled "progressive scottish opinion" and looked at the third option "ePOLITIX". Please someone put in the link
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 11:17pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Just thought I'd let you all know before the headlines start that Progressive Scottish Opinion, who the Daily Mail use, don't subscribe to any kind of basic industry standard for polling.
I understand that their usual methodology is to call random numbers, sometimes as low as 350 people.
They have, in the past, over inflated SNP support ............ causing later polls to suggest a 'slump' when the more accurate numbers were known.
Just thought I'd let you all know before the headlines start that Progressive Scottish Opinion, who the Daily Mail use, don't subscribe to any kind of basic industry standard for polling.
I understand that their usual methodology is to call random numbers, sometimes as low as 350 people.
They have, in the past, over inflated SNP support ............ causing later polls to suggest a 'slump' when the more accurate numbers were known.
Posted by: Alex Porter, TROLL FREE SCOTLAND on 11:17pm Fri 18 Jul 08
george alexander,
I can't see this article - was it on radio? have you got a link?
george alexander,
I can't see this article - was it on radio? have you got a link?
Posted by: Iainbroch, Moray on 11:19pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]george alexander[/bold] wrote:
There are times when you have to look at the overall picture, where are we collectively after years of Labour rule? It doesn't matter what they say, the fact is they have failed. They have been given chance after chance and failed utterly. Watching newsnight tonight with the predictions of economic doom the choice is stark. Stay with a Unionist, Westminster based governance or say enough !!, we'll look after ourselves from now on.[/quote] Ditto
george alexander wrote:
There are times when you have to look at the overall picture, where are we collectively after years of Labour rule? It doesn't matter what they say, the fact is they have failed. They have been given chance after chance and failed utterly. Watching newsnight tonight with the predictions of economic doom the choice is stark. Stay with a Unionist, Westminster based governance or say enough !!, we'll look after ourselves from now on.
Ditto
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 11:21pm Fri 18 Jul 08
This isn't an article in any papers yet ................ it probably will be.
It was mentioned on Newsnight, Labour lead 17% - numbers involved 500 or so, no more info.
This isn't an article in any papers yet ................ it probably will be.
It was mentioned on Newsnight, Labour lead 17% - numbers involved 500 or so, no more info.
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 11:23pm Fri 18 Jul 08
I beg Robbie Dinwoodies pardon, he mentions the poll in his article.
This from Robbies piece:
[quote]The latest opinion poll today is expected to show Labour leading their challengers by 17%...[/quote]
I beg Robbie Dinwoodies pardon, he mentions the poll in his article.
This from Robbies piece:
The latest opinion poll today is expected to show Labour leading their challengers by 17%...
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 11:25pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Morag,
Like you I am interested in the weighting. I think this outfit has a director who is pals with Charles McGhee and Gordon Brown and was used in order to replace System 3.
Filthy matters by-elections.
Whatever, there are loads of converts in the area. The SNP has now worked it and that softens it up for the future. We may lose this battle but we are going to win the war - make no mistake.
Labour should know that we're coming to get them!
Morag,
Like you I am interested in the weighting. I think this outfit has a director who is pals with Charles McGhee and Gordon Brown and was used in order to replace System 3.
Filthy matters by-elections.
Whatever, there are loads of converts in the area. The SNP has now worked it and that softens it up for the future. We may lose this battle but we are going to win the war - make no mistake.
Labour should know that we're coming to get them!
Posted by: Iainbroch, Moray on 11:25pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Forget the Opinion Polls - They are there to manipulate and sow despondency! Another devious Brit tactic! The polls are not representative.
The Daily MAIL is a poisonous Tory rag that peddles the Unionist mythology! They want Tory rule in England and Liebaah in Scotland to keep the jocks compliant!
Forget the Opinion Polls - They are there to manipulate and sow despondency! Another devious Brit tactic! The polls are not representative.
The Daily MAIL is a poisonous Tory rag that peddles the Unionist mythology! They want Tory rule in England and Liebaah in Scotland to keep the jocks compliant!
Posted by: Curley Bill, the southwest on 11:34pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Here's a bit of name-dropping - I met Alex Neil today.
He was in Ayr with his good lady and, even though he was 'off-duty', was extremely pleasant when I spoke to him.
[italic]And that's the difference![/italic]
Almost all the SNP politicians at all levels are nice people who value the voter's opinions and are willing to make time for the ordinary Joes and Jills.
Contrast this with the motormouths, trough-snouters and south-facing unionistas who [italic]value the votes but not the voters[/italic] .
Here's a bit of name-dropping - I met Alex Neil today.
He was in Ayr with his good lady and, even though he was 'off-duty', was extremely pleasant when I spoke to him.
And that's the difference!
Almost all the SNP politicians at all levels are nice people who value the voter's opinions and are willing to make time for the ordinary Joes and Jills.
Contrast this with the motormouths, trough-snouters and south-facing unionistas who
value the votes but not the voters .
Posted by: Vote for Scotlands Future, Vote for the SNP on 11:34pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Looking at tonight's stories so far:
Curran "Frontrunner"
Labour "turned-Corner"
Business Group Against LIT.
Good thing this paper isn't pro-Labour.
Talking up the candidate. I stopped counting after 30 statements in this article that derscibe her in a positive and favourable way. Look at the first few para's:
Former Minister, MSP 9-Years, bookmakers favourite, most experienced candidate,media savvy, top-flight political experience....
My goodness, you should be writing for The Scotsman Mr Dimwoodie
Looking at tonight's stories so far:
Curran "Frontrunner"
Labour "turned-Corner"
Business Group Against LIT.
Good thing this paper isn't pro-Labour.
Talking up the candidate. I stopped counting after 30 statements in this article that derscibe her in a positive and favourable way. Look at the first few para's:
Former Minister, MSP 9-Years, bookmakers favourite, most experienced candidate,media savvy, top-flight political experience....
My goodness, you should be writing for The Scotsman Mr Dimwoodie
Posted by: Morag, Peeblesshire on 11:34pm Fri 18 Jul 08
I see the Herald has a separate article on the opinion poll, and people are commenting on that. I suggest everyone moves over there to make better sense of the debate.
Guess what, it's entitled "Labour claims...." (There must have been one "Labour claims...." article a day for the past fortnight!)
I see the Herald has a separate article on the opinion poll, and people are commenting on that. I suggest everyone moves over there to make better sense of the debate.
Guess what, it's entitled "Labour claims...." (There must have been one "Labour claims...." article a day for the past fortnight!)
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:40pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]democrate[/bold] wrote:
Wardog, I invariably admire your comment here; am usually dead jealous too. But, and this is very important, I have noted that you really are very polite about the shortcomings of our friends who cannot yet understand how crucial it is to put up a comment in support of independence even although this would be their desired state of affairs. Could you maybe break the habit of a lifetime and speak your mind now?[/quote]
Where do I start.
I wouldn't dream of articulating any other nationalist's views.
For me it's such a paradox, such a simple concept yet excruciatingly complex issue, without getting into the mechanics of what independence would mean on the ground, i.e. economics, taxation, social, green energy etc etc.....
[quote]
[italic]Scotland small?[/italic]
Our multiform, our infinite Scotland....
[italic]SMALL?[/italic]
[bold]Hugh Mac Diarmid[/bold]
[/quote]
For me independence firstly and crucially is a state of mind, an idea. It is therefore voluntary and is not reliant on race, colour, creed or belief.
It's the logical conclusion, the normality for a nation.
Deeper than that however, it allows the true expression of that nation. I seek a liberal, humanitarian, peaceful and sustainable Scotland contributing positively and directly to the wider world.
[quote]
[italic]This is my country,
The land that begat me.
These windy spaces
Are surely my own.
And those who toil here
In the sweat of their faces
Are flesh of my flesh,
And bone of my bone.[/italic]
[bold]Sir Alexander Gray[/bold] [/quote]
It's simply about belonging to a community that interacts openly with the rest of the world.
Leading in some areas, learning from other nations in other areas, working with partners, creating a society of hope & aspiration.
Creating a future that our grand children can be proud of.
I don't fear difference, I welcome it and indeed thrive on it.
Those that would slander civic nationalism with feigned calls of fascism or racism see only conflict from difference, hence their support of a union which constricts the expression of nationhood
We don't need to be afraid of 'them & us' - that's [bold]difference[/bold], be proud of it and cherish it, it's what makes the world beautiful and indeed us human..... we are intrinsically different and shouldn't try to subsume that in a union.
These ramblings are probably best summarised with one of my favourite quotes by a man that had direct experience of seeking that expression from within a form of unequal union.
[quote]
It is impossible for one to be internationalist without being a nationalist. Internationalism is possible only when nationalism becomes a fact, i.e., when peoples belonging to different countries have organised themselves and are able to act as one man. It is not nationalism that is evil, it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil.
Each wants to profit at the expense of, and rise on the ruin of, the other. Indian nationalism has struck a different path. It wants to organise itself or to find full self-expression for the benefit and service of humanity at large… God having cast my lot in the midst of the people of India, I should be untrue to my Maker if I failed to serve them. If I do not know how to serve them I shall never know how to serve humanity. And I cannot possibly go wrong so long as I do not harm other nations in the act of serving my county.
[bold]MAHATMA GHANDI[/bold]
(YI, 18-6-1925, p. 211)
[/quote]
democrate wrote:
Wardog, I invariably admire your comment here; am usually dead jealous too. But, and this is very important, I have noted that you really are very polite about the shortcomings of our friends who cannot yet understand how crucial it is to put up a comment in support of independence even although this would be their desired state of affairs. Could you maybe break the habit of a lifetime and speak your mind now?
Where do I start.
I wouldn't dream of articulating any other nationalist's views.
For me it's such a paradox, such a simple concept yet excruciatingly complex issue, without getting into the mechanics of what independence would mean on the ground, i.e. economics, taxation, social, green energy etc etc.....
Scotland small?
Our multiform, our infinite Scotland....
SMALL?
Hugh Mac Diarmid
For me independence firstly and crucially is a state of mind, an idea. It is therefore voluntary and is not reliant on race, colour, creed or belief.
It's the logical conclusion, the normality for a nation.
Deeper than that however, it allows the true expression of that nation. I seek a liberal, humanitarian, peaceful and sustainable Scotland contributing positively and directly to the wider world.
This is my country,
The land that begat me.
These windy spaces
Are surely my own.
And those who toil here
In the sweat of their faces
Are flesh of my flesh,
And bone of my bone.
Sir Alexander Gray
It's simply about belonging to a community that interacts openly with the rest of the world.
Leading in some areas, learning from other nations in other areas, working with partners, creating a society of hope & aspiration.
Creating a future that our grand children can be proud of.
I don't fear difference, I welcome it and indeed thrive on it.
Those that would slander civic nationalism with feigned calls of fascism or racism see only conflict from difference, hence their support of a union which constricts the expression of nationhood
We don't need to be afraid of 'them & us' - that's
difference, be proud of it and cherish it, it's what makes the world beautiful and indeed us human..... we are intrinsically different and shouldn't try to subsume that in a union.
These ramblings are probably best summarised with one of my favourite quotes by a man that had direct experience of seeking that expression from within a form of unequal union.
It is impossible for one to be internationalist without being a nationalist. Internationalism is possible only when nationalism becomes a fact, i.e., when peoples belonging to different countries have organised themselves and are able to act as one man. It is not nationalism that is evil, it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil.
Each wants to profit at the expense of, and rise on the ruin of, the other. Indian nationalism has struck a different path. It wants to organise itself or to find full self-expression for the benefit and service of humanity at large… God having cast my lot in the midst of the people of India, I should be untrue to my Maker if I failed to serve them. If I do not know how to serve them I shall never know how to serve humanity. And I cannot possibly go wrong so long as I do not harm other nations in the act of serving my county.
MAHATMA GHANDI
(YI, 18-6-1925, p. 211)
Posted by: AM2, Scotland, UK on 11:43pm Fri 18 Jul 08
There's an inaccuracy in the article. Actor John Mitchie [bold]used to[/bold] favour independence.
But in a statement issued yesterday, he said: [italic]“On whether we should break up Britain, I agree with Margaret Curran that independence isn’t the best way forward for Scotland.”[/italic]
So he’s changed his mind. What is so strange about that?
There's an inaccuracy in the article. Actor John Mitchie
used to favour independence.
But in a statement issued yesterday, he said:
“On whether we should break up Britain, I agree with Margaret Curran that independence isn’t the best way forward for Scotland.”
So he’s changed his mind. What is so strange about that?
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:45pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[bold]SNP hopes for another Govan[/bold]
[italic]www.timesonline.co.u
k/tol/news/uk/scotla
nd/article4360234.ec
e[/italic]
SNP hopes for another Govan
www.timesonline.co.u
k/tol/news/uk/scotla
nd/article4360234.ec
e Posted by: AM2, Scotland, UK on 11:46pm Fri 18 Jul 08
While I'm here, a question for the SNP activists.
Why is the SNP trying to give voters the false impression that voting their man into the seat would put an extra £48 per household per week (£2500 per year) into their pockets?
An SNP election leaflet reads: “£48 extra per household. Isn’t it time you got your share of Scotland's oil windfall? SNP On your side”
http://tinyurl.com/5
daboj
While I'm here, a question for the SNP activists.
Why is the SNP trying to give voters the false impression that voting their man into the seat would put an extra £48 per household per week (£2500 per year) into their pockets?
An SNP election leaflet reads: “£48 extra per household. Isn’t it time you got your share of Scotland's oil windfall? SNP On your side”
http://tinyurl.com/5
daboj
Posted by: Jwil, Lanarkshire on 11:47pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Mrs Curran's tactic seems to be to beat each accusation to death with the answer 'everything will be alright, I've got the solution in hand'. She makes no attempt to justify her assertions and ditches labour policies right left and centre, claiming that she can fix things if she is elected. This is a totally false stance to take as she would be one small voice in the Labour Party in Westminster and would very little, if any, clout in the Commons.
Mrs Curran's tactic seems to be to beat each accusation to death with the answer 'everything will be alright, I've got the solution in hand'. She makes no attempt to justify her assertions and ditches labour policies right left and centre, claiming that she can fix things if she is elected. This is a totally false stance to take as she would be one small voice in the Labour Party in Westminster and would very little, if any, clout in the Commons.
Posted by: Samoyed, Costa del Menie on 11:48pm Fri 18 Jul 08
This is from Political Betting: UNREGISTERED POLLSTER GIVES LABOUR 17% LEAD IN GLASGOW BY-ELECTION
But how much can we trust a pollster that’s not in the BPC?
Ben Brogan is carrying a report that a new poll for the Scottish Daily Mail has Labour 17% ahead in Glasgow East. This comes as the campaign goes into its final weekend.
The pollster, Progressive Scottish Opinion, is not listed as a member of the British Polling Council and it is hard from its website to work out what its methodological approach is. We do not know whether the detailed data will be made available in the same manner as pollsters who are BPC members are required to do.
I think it is a disgrace that a paper such as the Scottish Daily Mail should be commissioning polls from a firm that can’t be bothered to join the body that almost all the firms carrying out voting intention surveys belong to. It certainly does not inspire confidence
The shares it is giving are Lab 52%: SNP 35%: CON 7%: LD 3%
Clearly this will impact on the betting.
Mike Smithson
This is from Political Betting: UNREGISTERED POLLSTER GIVES LABOUR 17% LEAD IN GLASGOW BY-ELECTION
But how much can we trust a pollster that’s not in the BPC?
Ben Brogan is carrying a report that a new poll for the Scottish Daily Mail has Labour 17% ahead in Glasgow East. This comes as the campaign goes into its final weekend.
The pollster, Progressive Scottish Opinion, is not listed as a member of the British Polling Council and it is hard from its website to work out what its methodological approach is. We do not know whether the detailed data will be made available in the same manner as pollsters who are BPC members are required to do.
I think it is a disgrace that a paper such as the Scottish Daily Mail should be commissioning polls from a firm that can’t be bothered to join the body that almost all the firms carrying out voting intention surveys belong to. It certainly does not inspire confidence
The shares it is giving are Lab 52%: SNP 35%: CON 7%: LD 3%
Clearly this will impact on the betting.
Mike Smithson
Posted by: exile, far away on 11:49pm Fri 18 Jul 08
"Then there was the campaign letter seeking support addressed to her Nationalist opponent, and the Second World War veteran on her website who turned out to be no such thing because of a captioning error."
What do you mean "a captioning error"? The man was holding up a military medal, not an OBE, or have I been misinformed? Looks like clear fraud to me.
"Then there was the campaign letter seeking support addressed to her Nationalist opponent, and the Second World War veteran on her website who turned out to be no such thing because of a captioning error."
What do you mean "a captioning error"? The man was holding up a military medal, not an OBE, or have I been misinformed? Looks like clear fraud to me.
Posted by: soloman, Stirling on 11:51pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
While I'm here, a question for the SNP activists. Why is the SNP trying to give voters the false impression that voting their man into the seat would put an extra £48 per household per week (£2500 per year) into their pockets? An SNP election leaflet reads: “£48 extra per household. Isn’t it time you got your share of Scotland's oil windfall? SNP On your side” http://tinyurl.com/5 daboj[/quote] Isn’t it time you got your share of Scotland's oil windfall?
VOTE SNP FOR A FAIRER SCOTLAND
AM2 wrote:
While I'm here, a question for the SNP activists. Why is the SNP trying to give voters the false impression that voting their man into the seat would put an extra £48 per household per week (£2500 per year) into their pockets? An SNP election leaflet reads: “£48 extra per household. Isn’t it time you got your share of Scotland's oil windfall? SNP On your side” http://tinyurl.com/5 daboj
Isn’t it time you got your share of Scotland's oil windfall?
VOTE SNP FOR A FAIRER SCOTLAND
Posted by: Samoyed, Costa del Menie on 11:51pm Fri 18 Jul 08
This is from Political Betting: UNREGISTERED POLLSTER GIVES LABOUR 17% LEAD IN GLASGOW BY-ELECTION
But how much can we trust a pollster that’s not in the BPC?
Ben Brogan is carrying a report that a new poll for the Scottish Daily Mail has Labour 17% ahead in Glasgow East. This comes as the campaign goes into its final weekend.
The pollster, Progressive Scottish Opinion, is not listed as a member of the British Polling Council and it is hard from its website to work out what its methodological approach is. We do not know whether the detailed data will be made available in the same manner as pollsters who are BPC members are required to do.
I think it is a disgrace that a paper such as the Scottish Daily Mail should be commissioning polls from a firm that can’t be bothered to join the body that almost all the firms carrying out voting intention surveys belong to. It certainly does not inspire confidence
The shares it is giving are Lab 52%: SNP 35%: CON 7%: LD 3%
Clearly this will impact on the betting.
Mike Smithson
This is from Political Betting: UNREGISTERED POLLSTER GIVES LABOUR 17% LEAD IN GLASGOW BY-ELECTION
But how much can we trust a pollster that’s not in the BPC?
Ben Brogan is carrying a report that a new poll for the Scottish Daily Mail has Labour 17% ahead in Glasgow East. This comes as the campaign goes into its final weekend.
The pollster, Progressive Scottish Opinion, is not listed as a member of the British Polling Council and it is hard from its website to work out what its methodological approach is. We do not know whether the detailed data will be made available in the same manner as pollsters who are BPC members are required to do.
I think it is a disgrace that a paper such as the Scottish Daily Mail should be commissioning polls from a firm that can’t be bothered to join the body that almost all the firms carrying out voting intention surveys belong to. It certainly does not inspire confidence
The shares it is giving are Lab 52%: SNP 35%: CON 7%: LD 3%
Clearly this will impact on the betting.
Mike Smithson
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:52pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
There's an inaccuracy in the article. Actor John Mitchie [bold]used to[/bold] favour independence.
But in a statement issued yesterday, he said: [italic]“On whether we should break up Britain, I agree with Margaret Curran that independence isn’t the best way forward for Scotland.”[/italic]
So he’s changed his mind. What is so strange about that?[/quote]
[bold]John Michie: Iraq Conscience?[/bold]
He changed his mind in little over 12 months?
Everyone is allowed to change there mind but check out this wee nugget to see just how much this guys has changed his tune and to think he supported independence because of [bold]Iraq[/bold]
[italic]news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
scotland/7511649.stm[/italic]
[bold]Champagne Socialist?[/bold]
Margaret Curran continues to claim to have voted in the Scottish Parliament to have a second resolution at the United Nations....
This is what Margaret Curran backed in January 2003:
[italic]That the Parliament endorses notes the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 as unanimously adopted by the Security Council; agrees that the Government of Iraq must comply fully with all the provisions of that resolution and that, if it fails to do so, the Security Council should meet in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance; notes that a further material breach of Iraq's obligations under resolution 1441 will be reported to the Security Council for assessment; further notes that responsibility for policy on this matter lies with Her Majesty's Government, and also notes the current support given to the Middle East peace process by Her Majesty's Government, and extends its full support to our armed forces if, as a consequence of an Iraqi failure to comply, military action should prove necessary.
[/italic]
Two months later, she voted for this:
[italic]That the Parliament believes that the authority of the United Nations is crucial to resolving conflicts in the Middle East, that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the international community, the region and his own people and that Saddam Hussein should co-operate fully with the implementation of UN resolution 1441 and notes the objective of Her Majesty's Government to secure a further resolution in the UN Security Council before any military intervention, registers its concern that the report published by the International Development Committee of the House of Commons concludes that insufficient emphasis has been placed on the humanitarian implications of military action in Iraq and urges Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with the United Nations, aid agencies and other governments, to address this as a matter of priority.[/italic]
At no point did she ever vote in favour of a second resolution.
[bold]A simple but crucial lie.[/bold]
She merely voted to note that there were attempts to get one.
Malcolm Chisholm said he [bold]deeply regretted[/bold] having backed the government's policy on Iraq in the above Holyrood votes.
He described his decision as [bold]"immoral"[/bold] and urged other people in the Labour Party to speak out against the war......
To date we have heard no regret or apology from Margaret Curran.
AM2 wrote:
There's an inaccuracy in the article. Actor John Mitchie used to favour independence.
But in a statement issued yesterday, he said: “On whether we should break up Britain, I agree with Margaret Curran that independence isn’t the best way forward for Scotland.”
So he’s changed his mind. What is so strange about that?
John Michie: Iraq Conscience?
He changed his mind in little over 12 months?
Everyone is allowed to change there mind but check out this wee nugget to see just how much this guys has changed his tune and to think he supported independence because of
Iraq
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
scotland/7511649.stm
Champagne Socialist?
Margaret Curran continues to claim to have voted in the Scottish Parliament to have a second resolution at the United Nations....
This is what Margaret Curran backed in January 2003:
That the Parliament endorses notes the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 as unanimously adopted by the Security Council; agrees that the Government of Iraq must comply fully with all the provisions of that resolution and that, if it fails to do so, the Security Council should meet in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance; notes that a further material breach of Iraq's obligations under resolution 1441 will be reported to the Security Council for assessment; further notes that responsibility for policy on this matter lies with Her Majesty's Government, and also notes the current support given to the Middle East peace process by Her Majesty's Government, and extends its full support to our armed forces if, as a consequence of an Iraqi failure to comply, military action should prove necessary.
Two months later, she voted for this:
That the Parliament believes that the authority of the United Nations is crucial to resolving conflicts in the Middle East, that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the international community, the region and his own people and that Saddam Hussein should co-operate fully with the implementation of UN resolution 1441 and notes the objective of Her Majesty's Government to secure a further resolution in the UN Security Council before any military intervention, registers its concern that the report published by the International Development Committee of the House of Commons concludes that insufficient emphasis has been placed on the humanitarian implications of military action in Iraq and urges Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with the United Nations, aid agencies and other governments, to address this as a matter of priority.
At no point did she ever vote in favour of a second resolution.
A simple but crucial lie.
She merely voted to note that there were attempts to get one.
Malcolm Chisholm said he
deeply regretted having backed the government's policy on Iraq in the above Holyrood votes.
He described his decision as
"immoral" and urged other people in the Labour Party to speak out against the war......
To date we have heard no regret or apology from Margaret Curran.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:54pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
While I'm here, a question for the SNP activists.
Why is the SNP trying to give voters the false impression that voting their man into the seat would put an extra £48 per household per week (£2500 per year) into their pockets?
An SNP election leaflet reads: “£48 extra per household. Isn’t it time you got your share of Scotland's oil windfall? SNP On your side”
http://tinyurl.com/5
daboj[/quote]
spin spin spin
It won't help AM2, apparently we'll all be paying[bold] £5000[/bold] more in any event.
AM2 wrote:
While I'm here, a question for the SNP activists.
Why is the SNP trying to give voters the false impression that voting their man into the seat would put an extra £48 per household per week (£2500 per year) into their pockets?
An SNP election leaflet reads: “£48 extra per household. Isn’t it time you got your share of Scotland's oil windfall? SNP On your side”
http://tinyurl.com/5
daboj
spin spin spin
It won't help AM2, apparently we'll all be paying
£5000 more in any event.
Posted by: Vivas, Embra on 11:56pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Jwil[/bold] wrote:
Mrs Curran's tactic seems to be to beat each accusation to death with the answer 'everything will be alright, I've got the solution in hand'. She makes no attempt to justify her assertions and ditches labour policies right left and centre, claiming that she can fix things if she is elected. This is a totally false stance to take as she would be one small voice in the Labour Party in Westminster and would very little, if any, clout in the Commons.
[/quote] Agreed Jwil. She will have 2 years in which to "stand up for the east-end" before she is judged again at the poll ;-))
Jwil wrote:
Mrs Curran's tactic seems to be to beat each accusation to death with the answer 'everything will be alright, I've got the solution in hand'. She makes no attempt to justify her assertions and ditches labour policies right left and centre, claiming that she can fix things if she is elected. This is a totally false stance to take as she would be one small voice in the Labour Party in Westminster and would very little, if any, clout in the Commons.
Agreed Jwil. She will have 2 years in which to "stand up for the east-end" before she is judged again at the poll ;-))
Posted by: AM2, Scotland, UK on 11:57pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Wardog
No spin. But the parallel wasn't lost on me. That's the last time you can try that one!
Wardog
No spin. But the parallel wasn't lost on me. That's the last time you can try that one!
Posted by: Morag, Peeblesshire on 11:57pm Fri 18 Jul 08
Samoyed, we're discussing the poll in the "Labour claims...." thread here, as the article reports the poll results.
Samoyed, we're discussing the poll in the "Labour claims...." thread here, as the article reports the poll results.
Posted by: robert le diable on 11:59pm Fri 18 Jul 08
[quote]Whatever, there are loads of converts in the area. The SNP has now worked it and that softens it up for the future. We may lose this battle but we are going to win the war - make no mistake.[/quote]
The Laird o Madrid throws in the towel!
So the earthquake -
Was that just Uncle Eck breaking wind again??!!
Whatever, there are loads of converts in the area. The SNP has now worked it and that softens it up for the future. We may lose this battle but we are going to win the war - make no mistake.
The Laird o Madrid throws in the towel!
So the earthquake -
Was that just Uncle Eck breaking wind again??!!
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:59pm Fri 18 Jul 08
AM2, Scotland, UK on 11:57pm today
A huge gulf between threatening a £5000 tax bill for every household and putting forward the proposal that a SNP Candidate will fight to get a share of the Oil Revenue Windfall.
That's a huge leap of the imagination.... and a bit even beyond you.
AM2, Scotland, UK on 11:57pm today
A huge gulf between threatening a £5000 tax bill for every household and putting forward the proposal that a SNP Candidate will fight to get a share of the Oil Revenue Windfall.
That's a huge leap of the imagination.... and a bit even beyond you.
Posted by: AM2, Scotland, UK on Sat 19 Jul 08
Yes, Wardog. He changed his mind. Nothing unusual there.
I think it was the ESRC Scottish Election Study 2007 which suggested that in any given year something like 3-5% of people switch their opinion between wanting Scottish independence and supporting the UK.
Yes, Wardog. He changed his mind. Nothing unusual there.
I think it was the ESRC Scottish Election Study 2007 which suggested that in any given year something like 3-5% of people switch their opinion between wanting Scottish independence and supporting the UK.
Posted by: Wilhelm on Sat 19 Jul 08
AM2
Posting comments in newspapers, are you going to make that your life's work, son ?
AM2
Posting comments in newspapers, are you going to make that your life's work, son ?
Posted by: Power in a union, Scotland on 12:03am Sat 19 Jul 08
The belief of nationalists such as Wardog that Scotland is in any way comparable with India in its days as a colonial part of the British Empire are incredible. Indians did not have a democratic voice in the UK Parliament for a start.
Scotland was never and is not now a "colony" of England or the UK, Scotland is a partner member of the UK.
The language of some nationalists in comparing Scotland with India ( and in some cases apartheid South Africa) are both unconvincing and silly.
The belief of nationalists such as Wardog that Scotland is in any way comparable with India in its days as a colonial part of the British Empire are incredible. Indians did not have a democratic voice in the UK Parliament for a start.
Scotland was never and is not now a "colony" of England or the UK, Scotland is a partner member of the UK.
The language of some nationalists in comparing Scotland with India ( and in some cases apartheid South Africa) are both unconvincing and silly.
Posted by: AM2, Scotland, UK on 12:04am Sat 19 Jul 08
Wardog
The £5000 claim was at least accompanied by a slogan which read “Break up Britain. End up broke", thereby signalling that the context was an independent Scotland, not an devolved SNP executive.
As far as I can see, there is no such context in the SNP election leaflet.
Wardog
The £5000 claim was at least accompanied by a slogan which read “Break up Britain. End up broke", thereby signalling that the context was an independent Scotland, not an devolved SNP executive.
As far as I can see, there is no such context in the SNP election leaflet.
Posted by: doonhamer on 12:04am Sat 19 Jul 08
STOP THE PRESSES. HOLD THE FRONT PAGE. AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED IN GLASGOW EAST.
After reading the shrill headline in the Guardian which screasmed,
"SNP voters are defecting to us says Labour in Glasgow East"
I was expecting an whizzbang on some division in the SNP ranks.
Unfortunately all we got was the Baillieston Banshee crowing about finding a voter that was still in her camp. Instead of a SNP convert, it was a 73 yr old pensioner from Shettleston who admitted that she had stopped supporting the SNP "about four years ago". Yes, lads and lassies, that was prior to the last Westminster election, did someone forget to tell Maggie?
Now I know that Maggie Curran has been having a bad week, or was it bad month, but I was very surprised to see her issue a press release when she finally found a voter still with her. Too bad, it was one she already had in 2005 and not a change as she claimed. Can this women ever speak the truth? Or was this a press release from Mr. Marshall's 2005 campaign that was sent out by accident? I am sure that we will soon see a denial from David Cairns.
Given that Labour had almost 19,000 votes in 2005 and they are now down 15%, this non-announcement will still leave them down almost 3000 votes since last time, and that is their best case. Perhaps next time they will send out a press release when they actually find a current voter actually switching to them.. You could not make this up
STOP THE PRESSES. HOLD THE FRONT PAGE. AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED IN GLASGOW EAST.
After reading the shrill headline in the Guardian which screasmed,
"SNP voters are defecting to us says Labour in Glasgow East"
I was expecting an whizzbang on some division in the SNP ranks.
Unfortunately all we got was the Baillieston Banshee crowing about finding a voter that was still in her camp. Instead of a SNP convert, it was a 73 yr old pensioner from Shettleston who admitted that she had stopped supporting the SNP "about four years ago". Yes, lads and lassies, that was prior to the last Westminster election, did someone forget to tell Maggie?
Now I know that Maggie Curran has been having a bad week, or was it bad month, but I was very surprised to see her issue a press release when she finally found a voter still with her. Too bad, it was one she already had in 2005 and not a change as she claimed. Can this women ever speak the truth? Or was this a press release from Mr. Marshall's 2005 campaign that was sent out by accident? I am sure that we will soon see a denial from David Cairns.
Given that Labour had almost 19,000 votes in 2005 and they are now down 15%, this non-announcement will still leave them down almost 3000 votes since last time, and that is their best case. Perhaps next time they will send out a press release when they actually find a current voter actually switching to them.. You could not make this up
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:06am Sat 19 Jul 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Yes, Wardog. He changed his mind. Nothing unusual there.
I think it was the ESRC Scottish Election Study 2007 which suggested that in any given year something like 3-5% of people switch their opinion between wanting Scottish independence and supporting the UK.[/quote]
Over Iraq?
AM2 wrote:
Yes, Wardog. He changed his mind. Nothing unusual there.
I think it was the ESRC Scottish Election Study 2007 which suggested that in any given year something like 3-5% of people switch their opinion between wanting Scottish independence and supporting the UK.
Over Iraq?
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:09am Sat 19 Jul 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Wardog
The £5000 claim was at least accompanied by a slogan which read “Break up Britain. End up broke", thereby signalling that the context was an independent Scotland, not an devolved SNP executive.
As far as I can see, there is no such context in the SNP election leaflet.[/quote]
That's an incredibly weak argument.
The context is the current one: higher than anticipated revenue from Oil Revenue, Scotland receiving a share of that windfall and punitive fuel duty taxation.
To try and spin it any other way appears a bit desperate.
AM2 wrote:
Wardog
The £5000 claim was at least accompanied by a slogan which read “Break up Britain. End up broke", thereby signalling that the context was an independent Scotland, not an devolved SNP executive.
As far as I can see, there is no such context in the SNP election leaflet.
That's an incredibly weak argument.
The context is the current one: higher than anticipated revenue from Oil
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (347)
