Jim Murphy

[Mark frae Crieff]

Jim Murphy an astute politician

That's like saying Gary Glitter was an accomplished baby sitter.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Mark frae Crieff

[Scunnered]

Jim Murphy an astute politician

That's like saying Gary Glitter was an accomplished baby sitter.

I love a giggle at Murphy as much as the next man... But there's morons all over Social Media this morning who think that's genuine.

[Lamia]

I love a giggle at Murphy as much as the next man... But there's morons all over Social Media this morning who think that's genuine.

I can't believe people are so gullible. I took one look and immediately knew it was a hoax.

There are too many of these floating about. There are plenty of real ones which are heaps more effective to use

[Flure]

An interesting piece by James Kelly in today's "The National" - do buy it.

"

THE biggest shortcoming of Lord Ashcroft’s original batch of Scottish constituency polls a few weeks ago was that (with the exception of Gordon) only regions with a higher than average Yes vote were covered. However wonderful the results were for the SNP, they didn’t – and couldn’t – exclude the possibility that incumbent MPs from the unionist parties were faring much better in the parts of Scotland that were responsible for the No victory last year.

There has also been increasing speculation of late that tactical anti-independence voting, particularly from those who normally vote Conservative, will save the bacon of Labour and the Liberal Democrats in a handful of affluent seats. It seems hard to credit, but the new set of Ashcroft polls have snatched away even these very small scraps of hope from the SNP’s opponents.

It’s true that, in line with the tactical voting theory, the Conservative vote is down in all of the seats surveyed, by anything between two and five per cent. And there is some limited evidence that a few voters are drifting to the party best placed to beat the SNP. Once respondents are invited to think about the candidates in their own constituency, a three per cent SNP lead in Jim Murphy’s seat is transformed into a wafer-thin Labour advantage of one per cent. But the assistance the Scottish Labour leader is getting is trivial, and isn’t sufficient to rescue him from what the Americans would call a “statistical tie”.

Although many will be shocked that Charles Kennedy finds himself trailing, in one respect he’s actually performing better than Murphy. When asked to consider their vote in the context of local circumstances, respondents in Ross, Skye and Lochaber slash the SNP’s lead from 15 per cent to five per cent. That looks very much like the effect of Kennedy’s personal popularity, rather than widespread tactical voting. So it could be that the LibDems will just about cling on in one seat other than Orkney and Shetland, but their prospects everywhere else look bleak in the extreme.

And the huge worry for both Labour and the LibDems is that there are good reasons for wondering if Ashcroft’s methodology is actually underestimating the SNP. The practice of asking two separate voting intention questions, with only the results of the second being used for the headline results, has been criticised in some quarters. It’s a largely untested approach, and could theoretically lead to some respondents feeling “obliged” to give a different answer the second time around. If it turns out that the results of the first question are more reliable, Murphy and Kennedy are in deeper trouble than is being reported.

An even bigger concern is that Ashcroft weights his results by recalled vote from the 2010 General Election. That’s a largely discredited procedure in Scotland, because it’s known that many people who voted Labour or LibDem in 2010, but then switched to the SNP in 2011, get confused between the two votes. As a result, the SNP have been downweighted across the board in these polls. They would otherwise have been reported to be ahead in every single one of the 24 Scottish seats that have so far been surveyed.

Forget recent projections that the SNP might win 35 seats. On the basis of what we’re seeing now, the quirks of first-past-the-post could deliver a spectacular result that will make even the bolder projections of 50 seats look laughably tame."

[Cove_Sheep]

I can't believe people are so gullible. I took one look and immediately knew it was a hoax.

There are too many of these floating about. There are plenty of real ones which are heaps more effective to use

You can't believe people are so gullible?

Who is the real gullible one then?

[TartanJon]

An interesting piece by James Kelly in today's "The National" - do buy it.

"

THE biggest shortcoming of Lord Ashcroft’s original batch of Scottish constituency polls a few weeks ago was that (with the exception of Gordon) only regions with a higher than average Yes vote were covered. However wonderful the results were for the SNP, they didn’t – and couldn’t – exclude the possibility that incumbent MPs from the unionist parties were faring much better in the parts of Scotland that were responsible for the No victory last year.

There has also been increasing speculation of late that tactical anti-independence voting, particularly from those who normally vote Conservative, will save the bacon of Labour and the Liberal Democrats in a handful of affluent seats. It seems hard to credit, but the new set of Ashcroft polls have snatched away even these very small scraps of hope from the SNP’s opponents.

It’s true that, in line with the tactical voting theory, the Conservative vote is down in all of the seats surveyed, by anything between two and five per cent. And there is some limited evidence that a few voters are drifting to the party best placed to beat the SNP. Once respondents are invited to think about the candidates in their own constituency, a three per cent SNP lead in Jim Murphy’s seat is transformed into a wafer-thin Labour advantage of one per cent. But the assistance the Scottish Labour leader is getting is trivial, and isn’t sufficient to rescue him from what the Americans would call a “statistical tie”.

Although many will be shocked that Charles Kennedy finds himself trailing, in one respect he’s actually performing better than Murphy. When asked to consider their vote in the context of local circumstances, respondents in Ross, Skye and Lochaber slash the SNP’s lead from 15 per cent to five per cent. That looks very much like the effect of Kennedy’s personal popularity, rather than widespread tactical voting. So it could be that the LibDems will just about cling on in one seat other than Orkney and Shetland, but their prospects everywhere else look bleak in the extreme.

And the huge worry for both Labour and the LibDems is that there are good reasons for wondering if Ashcroft’s methodology is actually underestimating the SNP. The practice of asking two separate voting intention questions, with only the results of the second being used for the headline results, has been criticised in some quarters. It’s a largely untested approach, and could theoretically lead to some respondents feeling “obliged” to give a different answer the second time around. If it turns out that the results of the first question are more reliable, Murphy and Kennedy are in deeper trouble than is being reported.

An even bigger concern is that Ashcroft weights his results by recalled vote from the 2010 General Election. That’s a largely discredited procedure in Scotland, because it’s known that many people who voted Labour or LibDem in 2010, but then switched to the SNP in 2011, get confused between the two votes. As a result, the SNP have been downweighted across the board in these polls. They would otherwise have been reported to be ahead in every single one of the 24 Scottish seats that have so far been surveyed.

Forget recent projections that the SNP might win 35 seats. On the basis of what we’re seeing now, the quirks of first-past-the-post could deliver a spectacular result that will make even the bolder projections of 50 seats look laughably tame."

It wasn't that long ago we laughed at there being no Tories or more pandas than Tories in Scotland but we are staring at the death of the Labour Party in Scotland in the space of two years.That's what you call people power!

[aaid]

It wasn't that long ago we laughed at there being no Tories or more pandas than Tories in Scotland but we are staring at the death of the Labour Party in Scotland in the space of two years.That's what you call people power!

Labour has been dying in Scotland since 1997.

Edited March 5, 2015 by aaid

[TartanJon]

Labour has been dying in Scotland since 1997.

No it hasn't. More people voted for Labour in 2010 than in 1997,2001 & 2005.

[aaid]

No it hasn't. More people voted for Labour in 2010 than in 1997,2001 & 2005.

Labour in Scotland has been dying since 1997 - possibly even earlier - it's just that it hadn't been diagnosed but that's when the disease took hold.

Holding Holyrood in complete contempt and treating it as a second best, sending all their "talent" to Westminster.

A steady decline in party membership over the years, being completely complacent about Westminster seats and their huge majorities.

Policy shifting consistently towards the right to focus on winning marginals in "Middle England" and slowly alienating their traditional core support.

None of this has happened overnight.

Labour's attitude in Scotland over the last 20 years or so can best be described as hubris.

[phart]

Everything is dying.

[neilser]

Saw Murphy on tv yesterday evening saying that the projected SNP vote would mean Cameron was back as PM.

This is the same that was bumming up the union just a few months back telling us that we better together. How the can he now be complaining about the prospect of Scotland delivering 50 SNP MPs and getting a Tory PM when this is the very system that he advocates?

[Broon2]

Labour in Scotland has been dying since 1997 - possibly even earlier - it's just that it hadn't been diagnosed but that's when the disease took hold.

Holding Holyrood in complete contempt and treating it as a second best, sending all their "talent" to Westminster.

A steady decline in party membership over the years, being completely complacent about Westminster seats and their huge majorities.

Policy shifting consistently towards the right to focus on winning marginals in "Middle England" and slowly alienating their traditional core support.

None of this has happened overnight.

Labour's attitude in Scotland over the last 20 years or so can best be described as hubris.

Excellent summation

[Toepoke]

Saw Murphy on tv yesterday evening saying that the projected SNP vote would mean Cameron was back as PM.

He also said "we are all scunnered" (or something like that).

His hair also appears to be going whiter by the week...

[86glebestreet]

Saw Murphy on tv yesterday evening saying that the projected SNP vote would mean Cameron was back as PM.

This is the same that was bumming up the union just a few months back telling us that we better together. How the can he now be complaining about the prospect of Scotland delivering 50 SNP MPs and getting a Tory PM when this is the very system that he advocates?

He mentions that every time ye see him, does ma nut in

[Toepoke]

He mentions that every time ye see him, does ma nut in

He said it again on GMS this morning.

It also struck me that if he had an American accent he'd sound just like HAL from 2001.

"Daisy, Daisy..."

[Wine bibber]

Saw Murphy on tv yesterday evening saying that the projected SNP vote would mean Cameron was back as PM.

This is the same that was bumming up the union just a few months back telling us that we better together. How the can he now be complaining about the prospect of Scotland delivering 50 SNP MPs and getting a Tory PM when this is the very system that he advocates?

Your right Neilser he never said were better together just with a Labour party in government .He meant the whole political system which includes a Tory PM.And in the period of better together in the run up to the referendum we had Cameron as Tory PM.A Tory government is actually an essential part of what he believes in.

[Bristolhibby]

Jim Murphy ‏@jimmurphymp 38m38 minutes ago

On way to Glasgow Caledonian Uni to set out Scottish Labour's opposition to tuition fees in Scotland.

Here's what Ken Livingstone stood up in Parliament and said about him in 1996

That this House condemns the intolerant and dictatorial behaviour of the President of the National Union of Students, Mr Jim Murphy, who has unconstitutionally suspended NUS Vice President, Clive Lewis, because he took part, in a personal capacity, in an open debate at Queen Mary and Westfield College on the issues raised by the Campaign for Free Education; further notes that along with President Elect, Douglas Trainer, both men have warned NUS Executive member, Rose Woods, that if she attends the Scottish launch of the Campaign for Free Education she too will be suspended from the NUS Executive; reminds Mr Murphy and Mr Trainer that freedom of speech is a right in the United Kingdom, that they have no power to overturn the results of elections that went against their preferred candidates and that, whilst these methods are a common practice in dictatorships around the world, they are not acceptable behaviour from someone such as Mr Murphy who is putting himself forward as suitable for election to the House of Commons.

OOFFT!

Great spot. This should be trotted out across all media outlets and follow Jim around today.

Very Stalinist.

J

[aaid]

Your right Neilser he never said were better together just with a Labour party in government .He meant the whole political system which includes a Tory PM.And in the period of better together in the run up to the referendum we had Cameron as Tory PM.A Tory government is actually an essential part of what he believes in.

That's self-evidently nonsense, that anyone in the Labour Party believes that there should be a Tory government. There may be certain people that feel a deal with the SNP would be a step too far - looking solely at the future of SLab - but that's a different argument.

What they can't do on the basis of being Better Together is to try and cast the Scottish electorate and their representatives as being somehow not able to have a say on how the UK should be governed purely because they don't like who they are voting for, and that applies to all the Unionist parties.

[Wine bibber]

Exactly it is self evidently nonsense.And voting for "better together" exposes it as such.These are the same people.They believe in the same

[Bristolhibby]

Edit - double post

Edited March 6, 2015 by Bristolhibby

[Flora MaDonald]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/record-view-scottish-vote-decide-5282533

Funnily enough, the Daily Heil says the opposite!

[Bristolhibby]

That's self-evidently nonsense, that anyone in the Labour Party believes that there should be a Tory government. There may be certain people that feel a deal with the SNP would be a step too far - looking solely at the future of SLab - but that's a different argument.

What they can't do on the basis of being Better Together is to try and cast the Scottish electorate and their representatives as being somehow not able to have a say on how the UK should be governed purely because they don't like who they are voting for, and that applies to all the Unionist parties.

Very much this. They (the UK public) can't say that part of that's UKs political representatives are not valid because of what they believe in.

We are better together after all.

Really looking forward to the train smash that is coming. British politics has needed compromise for along time.

Roll on the GE.

J

[caledonian1]

Murphy was horrendous on GMS this morning......repeatedly ignoring questions and simply talking over the presenter "a vote for the SNP is a vote for Cameron...blah blah"....that he will guaranteee an extra 1000 nurses in scotland if labour get in power at westminster (despite it being devolved and Labour not in power in Scotland)

it was quite pleasing to hear how bad he was and I am sure he was pretty close to losing it when questioned further on his own future ambitions

[Jacobite]

Murphy was horrendous on GMS this morning......repeatedly ignoring questions and simply talking over the presenter "a vote for the SNP is a vote for Cameron...blah blah"....that he will guaranteee an extra 1000 nurses in scotland if labour get in power at westminster (despite it being devolved and Labour not in power in Scotland)

it was quite pleasing to hear how bad he was and I am sure he was pretty close to losing it when questioned further on his own future ambitions

Heard that as well.It was like the questions didn't matter as he wasn't going to answer them. He just kept repeating the biggest party forms the government which is a lie.

[Wine bibber]

No doubt Murphy has been told if we had voted for SNP and independence in the 70's the Tory party would have been consigned to the history books in the villains and @astards section.If we continue to vote SNP at every opportunity this will happen.Without the SNP (and others) there will always be a good chance of a Tory government in Scotland.Perhaps if someone reminds him of this every day it may eventually sink in before he dies.