There they are, ducks in a row – Johann Lamont MSP, Ken Macintosh MSP and Tom Harris MP.
What do they stand for? Well, they're all for fairness and equality - aren't we all - but they're against the independence of the country they want to represent, Scotland.
And by definition, they're
in favour of retaining nuclear weapons and WMDs in Scottish waters
against Scotland having an independent voice in the EU
against Scotland having a seat at the UN
against Scotland having its own foreign policy and its own defence forces
against Scotland having the right to decide when its servicemen and women are sent to die in foreign wars.
Do we really need to know more than this?
A CONTRAST TO THE ABOVE
Posts
Of the three, Tom Harris is the only one with the intellect and gravitas to take on Alex Salmond - not to say that his arguments would necessarily be correct, but that they might actually be arguments requiring some degree of intellectual engagement on the part of the First Eck. Johann Lamont's assertion that the LP's half-hearted avowal of the council tax freeze was the reason for their defeat was just laughable, as was Ken Macintosh's ascribing it to negativity without giving a single indication of what positive processes he would substitute for that. Harris went little further in outlining a strategy, but at least managed not to talk himself into a corner. My feeling is that Labour MSPs must be in despair right now, as (a) given that this might be the last devolved parliament, they need someone on the ground at Holyrood to fight their corner on a daily basis, and (b) their only candidate who looks capable of outshining the lamentable Ian Gray is stuck in Westminster for the duration. There is, of course, the possibility that someone might be persuaded to fall on his/her sword and resign, thus creating a by-election seat for Tom Harris. This comes up against the problem that NO Labour seat can be counted absolutely safe at the moment, and they're not likely to be in any position to dangle rewards in front of any such political suicide candidate. Also, I'm not certain, but isn't the procedure just to slot in the next one on the list - or is that just for regional MSPs?
ReplyDeleteIsobel didn't push any of them particularly hard, but I think this helped (from our point of view) to make them seem bland and unconcerned as none of them had to fight their corner and show what mettle they really had. Not a single one of them came up with any pre-prepared policy initiatives - it was all "set up commissions" and "look at the detail". I'd have thought any realistic candidate would have already looked at details and come armed with some kind of positive strategy. Very unconvincing.
Nicola, as usual, came across as in charge of her brief and committed to the welfare of the people of Scotland.
The contrast between people blinded by an oppositional political stance and a lack of vision and smarts with a vision based on evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe three of them are welcome to become leader... euphemistically speaking.
Lamont's arguments were awful, McKintosh (a nice enough fellow it seems) like Lamont but less unappealing - less aggressive but about the same level. Harris, sees a possibility of progression in a party that is dead in England via the Scottish route. He does imagine he's going to ride in and save the day - I wonder if he really knows anything about Labour in Scotland.
Nicola Sturgeon could replace Salmond if need be - she's potentially that good.
As usual, thanks for the videos.
Thanks, Stevie
ReplyDeleteWhat Isabel Fraser did was exactly right, Bobelix - she gave them enough space to say exactly what they stood for. Since, other than opposition to their country's independence, they have no idea what they stand for, the silence was deafening. They tried to fill the void with platitiudes about equality.
ReplyDeleteNo cause... other than getting into power for the sake of getting into power... not pretty.
ReplyDeletePeter
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the three candidates (thank you for the link as I do not watch Pravda North Briton) I was reminded of the old American put down "where is the meat" there was no substance and no ideas.
Do you think Labour may look back on Iain Grays tenure and think that was "the good old days"
I think it was "where's the beef", Dubbieside, but the sense is the same.
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
ReplyDeleteThanks from me too for the videos. I can hardly bring myself to watch BBC in "real time" these days.
Of the BBC Newsnicht Scotland interviews I have seen recently, Isabel Fraser seems to be the only interviewer to have adopted a reasonable, and consistently fair interview technique. Though she did not exactly hound the Labour threesome, she asked some quite reasonable questions and basically allowed them enough rope to hang themselves. The vacuousness of the answers was plain for all to see.
With Nicola she again asked some pretty reasonable questions but actually allowed her to answer them, indeed seemed almost to allow some sort of rapport to establish itself between them.
I am absolutely sick of the other interviewers giving the Unionists (with the exception of the Tories on occasion) an easy ride and putting questions to the SNP along the lines of "and have you stopped beating your wife yet", then jumping down their throats every five or six words into the answer. It has become too tedious for words.
With close to a majority of Scots voters voting SNP you would think that they might begin to adopt a more respectable tone. Not that I am suggesting for a moment that they should not ask the SNP difficult and probing questions, but you would think that the disrespect and abuse might have abated a little by now. Do none of the others see that, one day, they might be looking for a job in SBS (Scottish Broadcasting Service), or its equivalent?
Regards,
I think that realisation is dawning, not only on television, but in prinit journalism as well, Rab.
ReplyDelete