Vocal Voices

Nationalists who attempt to divide Scotland from England are no better than racists and sectarians, London mayor Sadiq Khan will say on Saturday

Well I can tell Mr Sadiq Khan that Mrs S, as a rabid unionist who hates the SNP, would probably be driven to vote Yes in Indyref#2 if she had to listen to drivel like this.

Not only that but if Labour wants to get back in the race in the UK elections, it needs at least 40 of the Scottish seats currently occupied by the SNP. Making a speech calling SNP voters racists, simply because they don't want to be in a political union with England, is a real slap in the face. SNP votes had been declining since the anger over the lies during the referendum. This will only inflame them.

Stupid "little Englander" speeches do not go down well with the bulk of the population in Scotland.

What the heck's Scottish independance got to do with Khan anyway?

Labour is still hoping to regain its lost seats in Scotland. They reckon if they don't get them back the Tories have an excellent chance of being permanently in power.

So all the Labour party haev now become fervent uninists - not because they believe in the UK, but because they know that if Scotland and Wales become independent countries, Labour will never regain power in Westminster.

According to the Guardian:

Khan is expected to tell Scottish Labour’s spring conference on Saturday that there is no difference between nationalists trying to divide Scottish and English people and “those who try to divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion”.

That is not quite the same as calling them outright "racists and sectarians" but, Hell Fire, it comes close and people will twist it that way - guaranteed.

The Scottish Labour conference has come at a bad time for Labour, but that is how the world turns.

I voted Labour for a long time. But the Labour party I voted for isn't today's Labour party. Overwhelmingly big city based, fallafel eating, middle class and itching for open borders; they certainly have changed. Parties do, I suppose.

cromwell wrote:I voted Labour for a long time. But the Labour party I voted for isn't today's Labour party. Overwhelmingly big city based, fallafel eating, middle class and itching for open borders; they certainly have changed. Parties do, I suppose.

It's not really how I see it. Labour was a party which was to redistribute the wealth, break down the class structure and gain significantly better working conditions for the working class.

Having achieved those goals and much more, Labour is having an identity crisis. Who are they and what is their main message.

The Tories and the Liberals (not the dems), have a much more traditional role and find it easier to continue.

This is what happens with pressure group parties who try to hang around. Witness the SNP. It is true that without Labour the Tories would revert, ever so slowly, to where they were before. But the hardcore stuff they needed to do was done. Now they are like Tory-Lite and struggling to convince the people that this is a good thing.

What is even more fun is that the hard left message turns off their core support. The people they lifted out of the lower class and raised up to the middle classes. Something that never fails to amuse me.

Suff wrote:Labour was a party which was to redistribute the wealth, break down the class structure and gain significantly better working conditions for the working class.

Having achieved those goals and much more, Labour is having an identity crisis.

True, in parts. Labour's achievements, unfortunately, were only temporary. Over the past decade the distribution of wealth has drifted back towards the 'haves' and the conditions for some workers has gone the other way with ZHC and part-tine work. If anything Corbyn is trying to take Labour back to a version of 'old Labour', a version similar to the one Cromwell and my parents would have voted for, but it goes too far and is one not recognised in today's world.

Its crisis, and there is no doubt that there is one, comes down to two things: 1) personalities and their baggage, and 2) Blairism and Blairites. Corbyn's crew; himself, Abbott, Thonrberry, McDonnell and others, are not popular and for a variety of well known reasons. Then there are the 'Tory lite' Blairites who nobody now trusts - Harman, Cooper, Benn. Blair himself and the likes. With hindsight they are now seen as taking Labour down the wrong path with moving to the right of centre, PFI and immigration etc.

My take is that if someone like Dan Jarvis were to take the helm, keep some of Corbyn's more popular policies, and he does have some, come up with some slightly left of centre policies and bring some of the less strident Blairites, such as Rachel Reeve, back into the fold, he could take Labour forward.

After the recent by-election results something like that could be on the cards.