91热爆

bbc.co.uk Navigation

McConnell comes out fighting

  • Brian Taylor
  • 20 Mar 07, 08:40 AM

After getting back from Labour's news conference on the SNP 100 days document, I can say that Jack McConnell was more combative - and potentially effective - than for some time.


Instead of reading out a pre-released document, he spoke with passion and force, plainly aware that Labour's campaign has flatlined to date.


Plainly, also, he sees some leverage in arguing that an SNP devolved administration would (deliberately) create conflict with Westminster. No, say the SNP, we'd stand for Scotland. This election is definitely warming up.

Comments   Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 09:14 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • derek barker wrote:

The political ghost McConnell makes a statement on behalf of a defunct new labour,void and empty of political spirit,unsure of who they are and who they represent?(McConnell comes out fighting) or is he just playing the political fear card,in the hope that holding a gun to the head of the electorate will be enough to secure a win.

  • 2.
  • At 09:35 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Clamjamfrie wrote:

Brian,

can you enlighten me on what Jack McConnell's plans for a first 100 days back in power for New Labour are?

I know you say he has come out fighting and he doesn't like SNP plans for their first 100 days...shock horror....but what are his plans? Has he published them somewhere?

  • 3.
  • At 10:37 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Colin wrote:

Having always regarded you as scrupulously fair, I was disappointed and saddened by your stint on Newsnight last night where you had obviously decided to join the other biased hyenas in the so-called political press pack in Scotland and distort the situation regarding the SNP's first 100 days. I always regarded your work above the partial rantings of that New Labour house journal, the English-owned Daily Record and the scurrilous Daily Mail. Sadly, I was wrong!!

Is anti-English sentiment in Scotland the biggest and easiest form of Racism affecting Scottish society today?

  • 5.
  • At 11:35 AM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Neil wrote:

While it could certainly be argued that some of the propsals outlined in the SNP's plans for the first 100 days of government are intended simply to cause conflict, is it not also possible that the proposals most likely to be rejected are intended as part of a negotiating strategy in order to put pressure on Westminster to accept more "reasonable" proposals so as to not hand a publicity victory to the SNP?

It may not work, and conflict with Westminster may not be undesirable for the SNP, but in 8 years when has the Lib/Lab coalition successfully negotiated with London for greater powers, representation in Europe or to protect resources allocated to Scotland, such as those withdrawn by the Treasury with the introduction of free personal care for the elderly?

  • 6.
  • At 12:24 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Dave Pickering, Edinburgh wrote:

For those who care about Scotland's future, it's got to be good news that the election campaign is at last beginning to warm up.

Let's hope, though, that our politicians stick by their words re positive campaigning and that we can get away from the depressingly negative tactics that seem to be driving the political agenda just now.

So many people are disillusioned with party politics, and our politicians have really got to take some of the responsibility for this. Come out fighting by all means, but let each Party concentrate on what they can offer the people of Scotland, not insult our intelligence with scare stories of what the bogeymen in other parties are proposing.

Let battle commence, and please, let's have a good clean fight!

PS: If we're dropping in football scores, surely Kilmarnock 1 Hibernian 5 is worthy of a small mention!

  • 7.
  • At 01:32 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Cameron wrote:

Conflict with Westminster? What [New] Labour nonsense is this?

I know Jack looked somewhat distressed - why wouldn't he be? Given that his no-change party effectively have nothing to offer on anything that *solely exists* to help drive a modern, green Scotland.

In fact, just in case Jack missed the boat on this one - there's bound to be a little exchanging of views. The SNP standing for an independent Scotland and all.

The language chosen by Labour politicians, when debating the future of Scotland, never ceases to amaze me.

Fearful words, whole sentences - that outline little more than impending doom for the nation. Shame, shame, shame on them.

Doom enough in a voiceless country having no say on Trident, Iraq and our place in Europe and the world at large.

'Chaos', 'turmoil' and 'conflict'? I half expect to see the words emblazoned on the New Labour backdrop at conference!

New Labour stagger me, truly. They seem to exist now to ponder fearful dialogue - on the back of SNP policy - than discuss any kind of future for the country.

To propagate fear and uncertainty - on top of their *own* people!

As an asides, I can only shudder at how this impacts the Scottish psyche as a whole, as the years tick by.

So curious. A party that claims to be acting for the country, whilst sullying anything that's really required to deliver the country.

A short-while ago these scaremongers would have us believe that Scotland is 'more of a target' for Bin Laden, should we vote SNP.

After Sir George Mathewson's comments he's branded 'indulgent'. Eh? That's just an 'amazing' comment from Mr. Blair. How rattled are these people?

It seems any kind of negative imagery will do. I imagine the new 'poll tax' jibe was intened again to inject more fear and hesitancy into the voting Scottish public - another proud Labour blow against self-belief.

Please Jack. No one is marching to Gretna by torchlight in June...

...but I do think New Labour should stand-by their own standard - 'Chaos', 'turmoil' and 'conflict' - and raise it aloft.

As ever, I have serious concerns with any party that preaches apprehensiveness, panic, phobia and consternation to their own electorate...

As a party that actually denies the will of the people [in Scotland *and* England] I can now only conclude they scarcely have a moral right to preach anything at all.

  • 8.
  • At 01:55 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • interested by-stander wrote:

I woiuld rather 100 days of Alex Salmond than four more years of Jack McConnell.

Can the First Minister point to particular examples of success in discussions with Westminster/ Whitehall? Have the provisions of the various protocols been implemented? What of the report from our office in Brussels on whitehall ignoring Scotalnd in the EU context and our lack of impact there?

Yet more posturing and faux indignation from McConnell. Not because Salmond has set out what a real First Minister should be doing to stand up to Gordon Brown, but because he knows he has only 45 days left in office before the backbenches of the Scottish Parliament beckon. Labour went for 'broke' and now find themselves broken. Roll on 3 May.

  • 10.
  • At 03:24 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • Cam wrote:

As the other parties must now accept that independence is on the cards should they not start preparing their policies and programmes for such an eventuality even if they don路t advocate it ?
It would not be healthy to have a one dominant party democracy (South Africa is an example).
(Another who is delighted to see Hibs 5 Kilmarnock 1 in print-not that I have anything against the latter,just affection for the former!)

  • 11.
  • At 07:11 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • wee folding bike wrote:

It must have come as a shock to Toom Tabard... sorry, Jack McConnell, to hear that it is possible to stand up to his masters in London. My goodness, how many long time Labour bams would lose cushy numbers if the SNP did that kind of thing? Chaos indeed.

Freedom is not cheap.

  • 12.
  • At 11:28 PM on 20 Mar 2007,
  • THScot wrote:

Brian....the only concern in Scotland about the SNP is coming from the Scottish Labour Party (who know that they will lose the majority in the Commons if they lose Scotland)and the English Conservatives (who know they will lose any Tory votes in Scotland). The Lib Dems are an irrelevance...

  • 13.
  • At 12:33 AM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • Robbie wrote:

What a shame it is to see a political party with absolutely no positive outlook for it's electorate. We know they don't want more powers for the Scottish Parliament - they have currently passed 78 "Legislative Consent Motions" aka Sewel Motions since forming government with the Lib Dems in Scotland. Jack McConnell seems to think that less work is more work yet there is so much work to be done.

Labour are preaching negativity, pessimism, cynicism, despair and distrust. The SNP are looking to the future; they have policies and ideas designed to push the barrow of Scotland forward and bring stability and prosperity to a country that needs it like no other.

Even if independence is the ultimate SNP goal at least they want it for all of the right reasons. The SNP's vision of a successful Scotland is one that we all long for whether it is part of the United Kingdom or not.

The Scottish Labour Party has no vision, no ambition. No offer of making Scotland better. Just pure, plain, pessimism.

What hope is there for our country when pessimism is all our government stands for?

  • 14.
  • At 05:22 AM on 21 Mar 2007,
  • Somerferg wrote:


I expect nothing else from the pro-unionist press and their minions. Its the usual dire warnings of doom and gloom for Scotland if they have the nerve to demand more than just crumbs from the master's table. Well, we'll see, I detect a shift in the mood of Scotland brought about in no small way by the incompentance of the current administration in both Holyrood and London. Joke McConnell is for the high jump and the closer we get to May the more vicious he and his numpties will get. Pity for him that this smokescreen will not deflect attention away from his party's lack of policies to make things better for Scotland.

  • 15.
  • At 01:15 AM on 22 Mar 2007,
  • John Knox wrote:

Negative politicking? What's the problem with it? Actually, it's what people like. Ask the journalists. 10,000 planes take off safely? No story. Godsakes, grow up. We want the real stuff. Not because we're negative or juvenile but because our instincts know that the flaws are where to attack; that's where the interest lies. That's where the vulnerabilities are. Stuff your positive veneer!

Post a comment

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
    

The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

91热爆.co.uk