The reason is obvious: the Tories want to damage Labour, the Sun wants to do what the Tories want and Rupert Murdoch wants David Cameron, his boy, to stay in power.
Rup wants Cameron and Cameron wants cuts. So, just like his UK buddy and his AmerAusie mentor, Eck wants cuts. It's as simple as that.
Today's Sun Editorial gave the game away, the Sun supports the SNP because the SNP is:
" ...... tackling the economic crisis head-on by cutting public spending faster than anywhere else in the UK...."
Tory cuts. SNP cuts. Whatever and whoever, it's the man in the street that suffers, whether the cuts are made by the Tartan Tories or the real Tories.
Yawn... the Tartan Tories...
ReplyDeleteThe same tired old cliches from Labour...
I can see why you would prefer to stick to that than debate their policies though - given that SNP policy this week is likely to be Labour policy next week...
Here we go again Jim.
ReplyDeleteDo you ever address the point?
Why do you think the Sun is backing the Tories and the SNP?
My analysis: it's to help DC and damage Labour.
Yours?
Braveheart
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you need to learn to only write a single point if you only want to talk about a single point - otherwise I'm going to comment on the point that I think most salient in your post.
Regarding these cuts though? Labour would have imposed at least 80% of the Tory cuts - that's the analysis of the Guardian by the way. That leaves you complaining about cuts that your party would have made anyway... clever!
As for the Sun - What is your point? They gave Blair (Labour) unstinting support over 3 election campaigns. Remember their front page at the last Scottish election? - the one with the noose!
My analysis is that they've realised how lacking in talent a Scottish Labour front bench would be and decided that the SNP really are the best hope for an ambitious and forward looking administration...
The legacy of Brown and Blair's time in charge is such that Labour can't be trusted and the wannabes left behind just aren't up to the task for now.
Jim
Jim says
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that you need to learn to only write a single point if you only want to talk about a single point - otherwise I'm going to comment on the point that I think most salient in your post."
Good confession Jim, you'll seek to avoid any difficult questions that need facts and logic to answer.
It's a well known adoloscent tactic... "Ha ha, you said "and" instead of "but"... your whole argument falls and I win!!Ha ha. Nanananana.. not listening to all that other stuff I can't face let alone answer. Off to bed now. So there"
Anyway, since you ask I'll repeat it for the third time, so you can avoid answering for the third time....
My point about the Sun is that it backs the Tories first and foremost. The Sun couldn't care less about the SNP or its policies, it just wants to harm Labour to help the Tories.
And the Sun is happy to see the SNP behaving like the Tories, as the Sun says,
"...cutting public spending faster than anywhere else in the UK....".
That's my analysis. What's yours?
Braveheart
ReplyDeleteWhen I'm commenting on your posts I'm under no obligation to address only the bits you think important... if you don't want the rest of your post subject to scrutiny though, don't post the other bits.
In response to your 'question' so succintly posed (for the third time)
"That's my analysis. What's your?"
May I refer you back to the bit in my previous comment where I said...
"My analysis is..."
and ended that paragraph with
"...that they've realised how lacking in talent a Scottish Labour front bench would be and decided that the SNP really are the best hope for an ambitious and forward looking administration..."
Should I have done something more to help you find my analysis? I do hate it when I come across all ambiguous.
Can you explain though why the Sun was so unstinting in it's support for Blair (Labour) previously? and why was that ok? (feel free to answer or not, it's your blog!)
Jim
PS The irony of you saying
"It's a well known adoloscent tactic... "Ha ha, you said "and" instead of "but"... your whole argument falls and I win!!Ha ha. Nanananana.. not listening to all that other stuff I can't face let alone answer. Off to bed now. So there""
When you've quoted a single line
"...cutting public spending faster than anywhere else in the UK...."
from the Sun leader that said so much more... is just too funny, but thanks for giving me the motivation to look it up.
The truth is out there Who are the Tartan Tories?
ReplyDeletePoster for posterity.
The Sun couldn't care less about the SNP or its policies, it just wants to harm Labour to help the Tories.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Sun is happy to see the SNP behaving like the Tories, as the Sun says,
"...cutting public spending faster than anywhere else in the UK....".
So do they care about SNP policies or not?
That's my analysis. What's yours?
It's obviously not the case that the Sun are backing the SNP because they think they'll be best for Scotland. I don't think anyone can sincerely believe that's their motive.
Who else can they back? Obviously not Labour, when they oppose them at UK level, and backing the Tories would be an unwise move commercially. It's the SNP by default. They have no other option.
As for the Gardham-Campbell theory you mention: what damage do you expect it to do to Miliband if the SNP win? I can't see how it would extend beyond the odd embarrassing question in an election night interview.
"My point about the Sun is that it backs the Tories first and foremost."
ReplyDeleteApart from all those rather recent years when it was fervently and loudly Labour, of course.
I suspect the recent Ipsos Mori poll overstates the likely outcome of the election for the SNP. But it isn't half fun to watch Labour supporters running around like headless panicking chickens in the meantime.
Incidentally, if you're so anti-Tory, why would you rather have your country regularly run by them on account of English votes, rather than have an independent Scotland run by left-of-centre parties in perpetuity?
ReplyDelete(Generously, if inaccurately, identifying Labour as left-of-centre for the sake of argument, that is.)
It's funny how I've never encountered a Labourite with an answer for that one.
Incidentaly, if the SNP is so anti-Tory, why are they always in bed with each other?
ReplyDelete"an independent Scotland run by left-of-centre parties in perpetuity?"
ReplyDeletePerpetuity? That's quite a promise, even for a nationalist. And ludicrous, and it answers your own question: nothing is in perpetuity. Things change. If you want a left of centre government you should be voting for Labour now rather than waiting forever for Eck to get round to maybes aye maybes naw holding his referendum?
So you can't answer it either?
ReplyDeleteLabour voted with the Tories more often in the last four years than the SNP did. So why are YOU always in bed with them?
"Perpetuity? That's quite a promise, even for a nationalist. And ludicrous, and it answers your own question: nothing is in perpetuity."
ReplyDeleteTrue, but Scotland has rejected the Tories for 50 years now. That's longer than I've been alive, and there are absolutely no signs of even the slightest movement in that direction. What makes you imagine independence would make the country suddenly lurch to the right?
"rather than waiting forever for Eck to get round to maybes aye maybes naw holding his referendum?"
Hang on, it's hard to keep track of Labour's U-turns. Are you now saying you're impatient for a referendum again?
"Things change. If you want a left of centre government you should be voting for Labour now"
Why? (1) Labour aren't left of centre*, and (2) even if they were I'd still rather a competent SNP left-of-centre government than a useless Labour one led by total idiots like Gray, Kerr, Baker and Baillie.
* http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
Calm down. NO SHOUTING on this blog. Please.
ReplyDeleteScotland has been rejecting the nats for 70 years....
ReplyDeleteI didn't say anything about sudden lurches to te right. But perpetuity is a long time...and presumably the right would get their bite some time...
ReplyDelete"bring it on". But Eck will not. What will you say if the SNP is in government again and in 5 years there's been no referendum...
ReplyDeleteScotland free in 2333 :)
So no answers to any of the questions, then?
ReplyDeleteby gum you're busy.
ReplyDeletewhat questions not answered?
""bring it on". But Eck will not."
ReplyDeleteTell you what - if the SNP get a majority next month, either alone or with the support of any other pro-referendum party, I bet you £500 that the referendum bill will be passed in the term of the Parliament. Game?
Only the Unionist parties are scared of the voice of the people of Scotland.
"what questions not answered?"
ReplyDelete1. "If you're so anti-Tory, why would you rather have your country regularly run by them on account of English votes, rather than have an independent Scotland run by left-of-centre parties in perpetuity?"
2. "Labour voted with the Tories more often in the last four years than the SNP did. So why are YOU always in bed with them?"
3. "Vote Labour now? Why? (1) Labour aren't left of centre, and (2) even if they were I'd still rather a competent SNP left-of-centre government than a useless Labour one led by total idiots like Gray, Kerr, Baker and Baillie."
I'm off out for a picnic, so take your time.
question 1 answered: perpetuity a ridiculous promise.
ReplyDeleteIf you want more: we live in a democracy, the Tories have been sharing power for one year in the last 14. Labour has been in power 13 of those 14 years. Seems ok to me. Anyway, in a democracy you accept the vote of the people and you get beaten occasionally. Nothing happens in perpetuity, as you seem to believe...
here's a question for you: why do you believe that there would be left of centre governments forever....
2. Did they? Where? on what subjects?
3. not a question....
"question 1 answered: perpetuity a ridiculous promise"
ReplyDeletePathetic. Not an answer at all. "Perpetuity" clearly isn't meant absolutely literally, but it's almost impossible to imagine a Conservative victory in Scotland in my lifetime or yours. You know that as well as I do, but you use it as an excuse to dodge the question because it's a question no Labourite can answer.
The reason for that, of course, is that you don't like to admit that you hate the SNP *more* than you hate the Tories, because it blows away your whole pretence of socialist values. All impartial analysts judge the SNP more left-wing than Labour, never mind more left-wing than the Tories, but you'd gladly accept regular Tory governments voted in by English votes rather than have an independent Scotland that would almost certainly be perpetually governed by parties to the left of the Tories, and if not always then certainly for a very large majority of the time.
And why do you gladly accept all these Tory governments and the appalling destruction they wreak? For no better reason than your petty, bitter, blind hatred of the SNP. You don't give a damn about the people, just your territorial feud.
"the Tories have been sharing power for one year in the last 14. Labour has been in power 13 of those 14 years."
And that's just *laughably* pathetic. Talk about selective memory. I can do it too - in the last 32 years, the Tories have been in power for 19, almost 50% more than Labour. Pick almost any number at random, go back that many years and you'll find Tories in power more than Labour.
Once again, you'd rather be governed by Tories 2/3 of the time than by parties of the left all the time. Keir Hardie would spit in your face.
"Did they? Where? on what subjects? "
Sigh. It's a matter of public record. Check the Scottish Government website. Labour voted with the Tories significantly more often than the SNP did. And you know perfectly well on which subjects - minimum pricing, trams, supermarket tax, budgets etc etc.
Once again, though, you just dodge the question like a coward, because you know the answer is too embarrassing - you did it purely out of hatred of the SNP, and from jealousy and shame that they're now far to the left of your sellout part of capitalist neoliberals, and hold onto the principles New Labour betrayed when they expunged the word "socialism" from the party's constitution.
"not a question...."
Yes it is. The clue is the question mark at the end. You said I should be voting Labour if I wanted a government of the left. I gave you the reasons why not, and asked you for your reasons why I was wrong. In a massive shock stunning absolutely everyone everywhere, you dodged the question and ran away.
Ho hum. The funny thing is, I honestly think Labour still don't understand why they're losing.
"...you did it purely out of hatred of the SNP, ..."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you guys always have to think everybody hates you? Read my profile.
"Labour voted with the Tories significantly more often than the SNP did."
So the opposition voted against the government... that's a crime?... but the government budget was saved by cosy-Tory deals, and that's ok? Double and triple standards IMO.
And now the Tories are protecting the SNP in return for a promise that the SNP will not pursue "independence" and that's all right by you..... Funny old world.
" 3. "Vote Labour now? Why? (1) Labour aren't left of centre, and (2) even if they were I'd still rather a competent SNP left-of-centre government than a useless Labour one led by total idiots like Gray, Kerr, Baker and Baillie."
I'm off out for a picnic, so take your time. "
it's not a question.
Did you enjoy your picnic? (that is a question...)...
Sigh. I've wasted enough of my time on your evasion.
ReplyDelete"Vote Labour now? Why?"
The question that neither you nor the rest of Labour have no answer for.
Oh, that's the question. Easy.
ReplyDeleteIn the short term, Labour builds schools and hospitals and employs more doctors and nurses and teachers while the SNP builds no schools or hospitals and sacks doctors and nurses and teachers.
In the long run because Labour doesn't want to destroy the country and its economy and social fabric pursuing "independence", while the SNP does want all these foolish things.
Straightforward really.... :)
What total codswallop sums up the Scottish branch of London Labour rhetoric tell lies often enough and pray that some of it sticks. Thank goodness honest Scots are waking up to the incessant lies and changing their allegiance. Oops
ReplyDeletewhich part is the lie?
ReplyDeleteHow many teachers did Lab/Libdem administration employ in there 8 years?
ReplyDeleteNone. Why? Councils employ teachers not Government.
Labour's manifesto of 2003 we will build GARL in the time of this parliament when Iain Gray became transport minister.
1980's vote Labour to fight the Tories instead they just lay down and had there tums tickled.
Poverty in Scotland has increased for decades under Labour's dominance as big busines is more important to the hierarchy.
Under Labour Scotland gets poorer should be your banner.
Ohdearohdearohdear @ CH
ReplyDelete"How many teachers did Lab/Libdem administration employ in there 8 years? None. Why? Councils employ teachers not Government."
Oh dear CH. If that's your level of argument you've lost already.
Government employs nobody dierectly apart from civil servants. By your logic if unemeployment increased to 100% or fell to 0% or there were no teachers or twice as menay as needed, governments would take neither blame nor praise.
Now that's just silly.
"In the short term, Labour builds schools and hospitals and employs more doctors and nurses and teachers while the SNP builds no schools or hospitals and sacks doctors and nurses and teachers."
ReplyDeleteYour words talking nonsense as usual. I'll leave you in your bubble with your flown in activists.
So. Which part is the lie?
ReplyDeleteYou haven't said, so I presume none ...
..unless you can say. Which part is the lie?
nurses...
ReplyDeletehttp://qutisclinics.co.uk/blog/2011/01/07/unprecedented-number-of-new-nurses-out-of-work-in-scotland/
teachers
ReplyDeletehttp://qutisclinics.co.uk/blog/2011/01/07/unprecedented-number-of-new-nurses-out-of-work-in-scotland/
doctors
ReplyDeletehttp://heritage.scotsman.com/scotland/Scottish-Election-2011--Health.6744551.jp
And we all know that the SNP at Holyrood has not commissioned and built one school in its four years in office, being happy to claim to have "completed" the hundreds financed by Labour and the local authorities before the SNP took over.
ReplyDeleteHospitals? not one completed, although they have (belatedly) commissioned the Southern General.
'Scottish Labour' is a blatant lie as there is no such thing it is the Scottish branch of the Labour party that is why an "urgent" appeal for help was sent out by the party's Ulster secretary Boyd Black, after a plea from London HQ.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't even be truthful about your name the the northern branch of Labour word is taken in the same vane.
so CH, you can't day which part of it is a lie, so it's all true?
ReplyDeletesay not day
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, isn't it a lovely day today?
ReplyDeleteWell, not bad, it was a wee bit smirry here earlier, but it's clearing up now....
ReplyDeleteWhat's this I see on the horizon...??? a referendum on "independence"...the SNP taking responsibility for its actions and not blaming anyone else....
Naw, it's just a mirage.....
Sorry, that should have been neverendum...
ReplyDeleteGubbed! Blootered! Stuffed! Ho, ho, ho!
ReplyDeleteEd is sending up his big hitters to sort out its northern outpost who let his London party down.
ReplyDeleteCH, why do you guys always talk Scotland down..?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, didn't the nats call Eck back from Harrods Food Hall .... ?
ReplyDeleteSame thing....