Miliband Macho 138


Given that the absolute maximum share of the UK vote Labour might conceivably get is 36%, it is extraordinarily arrogant for Miliband to insist on the right to impose his full manifesto. Tactically, of course, he is trying to panic Scottish voters into supporting Labour lest they lose the chance to have him as PM. I can see no reason why this would suddenly become more successful than it has been so far.

Unionists have plainly twigged that next time we have a referendum, they will lose, even if it was next week. The near hysterical focus of unionists on not allowing another referendum, almost to the exclusion of all other argument, is very heartening. Independence is not only inevitable, it will be with us even sooner than the unionists fear.


138 thoughts on “Miliband Macho

1 3 4 5
  • Mary

    Director Overview Ian Hislop holds 4 appointments at 4 active companies, has resigned from 1 companies and held 0 appointments at 0 dissolved companies. Ian began his first appointment at the age of 31. |His longest current appointment spans 23 years and 1 months at PRESSDRAM LIMITED. The combined cash at bank value for all businesses where Ian holds a current appointment equals £1,124,004, with a combined total current assets value of £12,449,406 and total current liabilities of £10,680,524. Roles associated with Ian Hislop within the recorded businesses include: Director

    Read more at: http://companycheck.co.uk/director/900585222

    Plus a posh house.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155566/Ian-Hislop-plans-extend-4m-London-home-rejected.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    Then they left London for Kent

    http://www.allaboutyou.com/country/country-coastal-lifestyle/my-countryside-victoria-hislop

    In 2011, guests including troughers from the HoC received appearance fees of £1,500 per show. Now anyone’s guess. Hialop and Merton must get £shed loads.

  • fred

    “Was the USA started by nasty nationalists?”

    I thought I had answered, they were certainly nasty and they were certainly ethnic Nationalists.

  • Republicofscotland

    “Or the many countries that blossomed over the fall of the USSR.”

    “Name one.”
    _____________________

    The Baltic republics, forcibly reincorporated into the Soviet Union in 1944, pressed for independence, beginning with Estonia in November 1988 when the Estonian legislature passed laws resisting the control of the central government.

    Are you trying to be pedantic,over the use of USSR instead of Soviet Union.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

  • Anon1

    Mary

    If Private Eye publishes a story that puts the SNP in an unfavourable light, then you have to either refute it or learn to deal with it. Carrying out some pointless 5-minute investigation into the editor’s finances by way of typing his name into the website Company Check, as if that makes you some sort of Paul Foot of investigative journalism, and furnishing us with the bombshell that he lives in a big house, rather confirms that you are able to do neither.

  • Republicofscotland

    “Another answer to a question I never asked, Fred.
    Was the USA started by nasty nationalists?”
    _____________________________

    Juteman it’s a waste of time,Fred only answers,bits that suit his agenda,the ROI statement went right over his head.

    Many countries have gained independence since WWII, Fred doesnt piss and moan about them,only Scotland which means Fred is a fraud,bordering on anti-Scottish.

  • Kempe

    Pressdram publish Private Eye.

    One of Hislop’s main concerns with the new press regulation is that if a publication is sued for libel it has to pay the costs even if it wins. Anyone want to speculate on the effects on press freedom this might have?

    Regardless of people’s personal opinion of the ‘Eye and it’s editor Murdoch’s Scottish Sun is backing the SNP whilst it’s equivalent south of the border never misses an opportunity to slag off the party and its leader. If you can think of another reason why they might be doing that please share it.

  • Republicofscotland

    Weeks before the Scottish independence referendum the CEO of B&Q Kevin O’Byrne said if its a YES vote we’ll need to pause investment in Scotland.

    On the 31st of March this year B&Q said we’ll have to close 60 stores.

    http://munguinsrepublic.blogspot.co.uk

  • fred

    ” Fred is a fraud,bordering on anti-Scottish.”

    Fuck off and die retard cunt.

  • RobG

    Another oh well: when Scotland does become an independent country, which will happen sometime soon, hopefully all the trolls on this blog will “fuck off and die like a retard cunt”.

    Isn’t the British Establishment charming.

    Meanwhile the chocolate-box version of the UK, peddled by the likes of Cameron, Miliband and Farage, will melt in the mouths of those banged-up for daring to express a contrary opinion.

    People need to wake-up and understand what’s going on here. But instead we’ll probably get drooling over the birth of the latest royal parasite.

    God help Britain.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Spencer-Davis

    Old Mark
    01/05/2015 12:10pm

    “Quite so. My apologies, clearly my memory is at fault. I think I was misled by it falling on 1st May in 1978 and not in 1979, and my parents saying something about that.

    Funny, I’ve been persuaded of what I said for decades, and it’s not so.

    Kind regards,

    John”

    _________________________

    You should apologise to me as well, since I also pointed out your error (before Old Mark, I believe, not that it matters).

    Surely you don’t think you’ll get me to stop surveying your posts by pretending to ignore me? 🙂

    Kind regards,

    Habbabkuk

  • lysias

    The troll “surveys” our past posts, while at the same time he pesters us to reveal information about ourselves.

  • Mary

    Just sharing what was previously known to me Anon1. Glad to have been of help.

  • Mary

    PS I preferred your red avatar. Why the change in e-mail address? Habbabkuk’s too! Strange coincidence in the timing. I think we should be told as the pair of you carry out your interrogations so frequently here.

  • Mary

    Chimera like, Anon1 is now Anon on Craig’s ‘Tories Back Jim Murphy’.

  • Jon

    Fred,

    Alright, well that’s a more substantial answer (I recall I asked you about this before, perhaps last year, and I don’t think we got very far). For the avoidance of doubt, yes: I want to understand your position. I wasn’t being disingenuous when I asked you to clarify it.

    There is a danger of turning Scotland into Northern Ireland if we carry on creating divisions. My criticism is of the SNP, their tribalist beliefs, their policies.

    Well, I don’t agree with the comparison with Northern Ireland. It is my honest opinion that (a) the indyref was conducted mostly with positivity, and there was little genuine racism motivating either side*, (b) Scotland is embracing the ballot box and not the gun, and is nowhere near the religiously-inspired hatred that fuelled paramilitary organising in NI.

    (* I have criticisms of the unionist campaign, mostly that it was rather negative, but I don’t think it was motivated by anti-Scottish racism).

    I do not approve of centralisation, I don’t approve of the named guardian, I don’t approve of the National Identity Database, I don’t approve of arming the police, I don’t approve of the attacks on individual liberties, I don’t approve of their policies which transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. I don’t approve of their policies like council tax freezes which hit the weakest and most vulnerable in society.

    Well, I agree with most of that, but I am not sure how it helps make your point about the SNP. I acknowledge you’ve earlier said you don’t think they are left of centre (though you did not explain why you think that). Don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think they are the radical left. But I think their broad policy positions on progressive taxation and getting rid of Trident are important politically (and in today’s political atmosphere, those policies are radical, even though they should not be).

    In any case, your commentary about opposing centralisation would have you opposing other (nominally) left of centre parties, such as Labour, but I don’t see you attacking Labour with the same vehemence. On your set of measures above, they do not fare at all well.

    We also disagree on the suggestion that the SNP is the slippery road to fascism, a charge I believe you have made a number of times here. I just don’t see any evidence of that, and I think we’d need to see endorsement of specifically fascist positions from SNP spokespeople before I could believe it. Generally organisations containing people who endorse such positions (BNP, Golden Dawn, etc) out themselves pretty quickly: there’s a slip of the tongue about attitudes to foreigners and so forth that only belong on the extreme right. But we haven’t seen that sort of mistake from the SNP at all, which leads me to suggest that, in fact, there is no-one in the party that subscribes to fascist ideology.

    And could you explain why my criticism of the Scottish government is always met with personal abuse and attacks here?

    I am not in favour of you being attacked. However, since you have been frequently resorting to unpleasant and misogynstic language to abuse others, I don’t think you are in a ideal position to complain. Arguments about “who started it” are not of interest to me, incidentally. I want to see more people put a stop to fights here, not perpetuate them.

    To summarise, we agree broadly that nationalism can be a dangerous thing, and that there are many examples of an angry strain of nationalism turning into violence and hatred. But the evidence of my own eyes says these things are not happening in Scotland, and that there is no current chance of things going in that direction. I would not support the SNP if I thought there was a risk of it.

  • Jon

    Juteman,

    Private Eye is part of the establishment. When the state is threatened, as in last years referendum, their true beliefs were laid bare.

    Has PE taken a specifically unionist position? I read it nearly every fortnight, and I confess I have not detected that. Now, they regularly satirise Salmond, and that is part of their policy: no-one is safe. If someone writes in to say that the nice First Minister is a lovely chap and helps the poor, Private Eye will mock him just the same. It’s what they do.

    They had a great cover of Salmond meeting the Queen recently, with each of them sharing the same speech bubble: “After the voting is finished, someone comes to me and asks to form a government”. Now, I thought that was very funny, and I think SNP supporters should laugh at it too. Is that an attack on the legitimacy of the SNP? (That’s mostly a rhetorical question, but to be honest I thought it could be seen as a commentary on her legitimacy too!)

    I’d not apply to Private Eye a label of “radical”, but your suggestion that they run an Establishment paper does not stand up to scrutiny. Their work on NHS whistleblowing, international tax evasion and MoD bribery in Saudi Arabia (to name just three that come to mind) were genuine examples of serious, high-minded investigative journalism. I’d venture as far as to say that Private Eye is doing more to expose the normalised amorality of the system in which we live than all the other national papers, perhaps with the exception of the Morning Star. I think Private Eye deserves a significantly increased readership.

  • Mary

    As I said before, I concur with Juteman on P. Eye. The same as HIGNFY. A pretence, an illusion of satire. Satire is long dead in this country.

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.