Just a quick post to welcome Labour Hame to the Scottish blogosphere.
The brainchild of Tom Harris and billed as wanting ‘Scottish Labour’s voice to be heard again but first we need to know what we’re for and what we want to say.’, it looks like the site is aimed at being a catch all party blog from grassroots, through council and Holyrood up to Westminster level. A Scottish Labour home basically, if that wasn’t clear from the title! A big ask for a single website but if it draws out online debate on the Labour side of the Scottish divide, something that we feel we’ve done rather successfully here a Better Nation, then it is to be welcomed.
So go and have a look. Yours truly even got a spot amidst the flurry of today’s opening posts, speculating on why I hadn’t been inspired to vote Labour in my 12 years of being of voting age.
We wish them all the best and look forward to probably locking horns in the future!
#1 by rlemkin on June 6, 2011 - 3:44 pm
Sadly Jeff it looks like Scottish Labour doesn’t want you! 😉
#2 by DougtheDug on June 6, 2011 - 4:09 pm
The brainchild of Tom Harris and billed as wanting ‘Scottish Labour’s voice to be heard again but first we need to know what we’re for and what we want to say.’
Labour in Scotland first need to know who they are.
If ‘Scottish Labour’ means those in the British Labour party who reside in Scotland that’s fine but if it implies that Labour in Scotland are in anyway a separate party from the rest of the British party then they are going to start off on a continuing falsehood.
I can help Tom with the two questions he poses:
what we’re for:
Labour are for the Union, the British establishment and the retention of a career path which terminates in the Lords.
what we want to say
Labour will say what they’ve been saying for years. Scotland is not big enough, rich enough or smart enough to run itself and we should be grateful that the English give us subsidies.
#3 by Tony on June 6, 2011 - 9:39 pm
Lol! Good stuff.
My comment never passed muster.
All I said on Kezia’s thread was along the lines that I’d heard tell she was the future of labour, but on the evidence provided all I could see was contradictory guff not in keeping with democracy.
#4 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 6, 2011 - 4:19 pm
Yes thanks for this site.I have just posted a message after Kazia Dugdale’s contribution.I told her,that in spite of voting yes in two referendums,devolution is not my settled will.I just saw it as a step in the right direction.I told her that since many opinion polls indicated that both independence and unionism were minority positions,we could not possibly know the settled will of the Scottish people unless we had a referendum.I respect different views from mine,I just disagree with Kazia.She has to learn to examine the basis for conclusions and to respect her opponents.I hope that Labour Hame can achieve a more balanced level of critique.
#5 by DougtheDug on June 6, 2011 - 4:34 pm
The initial contributions from the three Labour contributors are not themselves hilarious but the theme is, especially for a new Labour site.
Despite all the Labour talk of the SNP being, “distracted”, by constitutional matters all three have posted on devolution and the union.
#6 by Jeff on June 6, 2011 - 4:36 pm
That is a tremendous point that was certainly lost on me even as I read through the posts.
If Scots aren’t interested in independence, then why is Scottish Labour fixated on it? Fine question Doug.
Over to you Mr Tom Harris & co…
#7 by Aidan Skinner on June 6, 2011 - 6:40 pm
Maybe because those are the issues that have the SNP has chosen to put on the agenda by picking a fight over the Supreme Court and the Crown Estate and it was the central plank of the first debate in the new session?
There’s also a lack of anything substantive on any other issue so far, so until Kenny MacAskill actually figures out what his anti-sectarianism legislation will *be*…
#8 by Angus McLellan on June 6, 2011 - 10:49 pm
Nothing of substance? I disagree. Even previously dull statutory instruments demand our full attention in this brave new whatever-it-is.
Take SSI 2011 No. 264 for example. Aren’t the losers here part of Ed Miliband’s “squeezed middle”, and shouldn’t Labour be standing up to these Tartan Tory cuts? Maybe not, but there is an elephant in the room wants acknowledging, and perhaps even something doing about it, before Labour sets off on a lengthy quest for a new position on the constitution. I’m not suggesting hair shirts and public self-flagellation, just a hint that something will be done.
#9 by Aidan Skinner on June 7, 2011 - 12:39 am
Eh, ending payments to both the SNP and Labour councillors in Glasgow for sitting on the boards of ALOs is just a good idea. 😉
#10 by Dubbieside on June 7, 2011 - 1:39 pm
Maybe you would be so kind as to remind us how many councillors from each party are paid to sit on boards of ALOs.
I used to think they were dominated by Labour councillors, but it looks like I was mistaken.
#11 by Doug Daniel on June 7, 2011 - 10:37 am
I would say the press and unionist parties have been doing all the running in regards to independence. The SNP have only really made noises in regards to the referendum when prompted to by unionists saying we need two referendums, or that we need to hold the referendum NOW, and the likes. Obviously there has been a lot written about independence in the blogosphere, but that’s hardly new. The press and politicians who have indulged in the naval-gazing have been predominantly unionist, mainly because they’re trying to work out how to ruin the referendum as they probably realise the SNP will make a very convincing – and POSITIVE – case for independence, which will be hard to combat for the unionist camp.
#12 by Aidan Skinner on June 7, 2011 - 12:25 pm
Yep, that dastardly naval gazing unionist Jim Sillars started it with independence lite..
#13 by Dubbieside on June 7, 2011 - 1:42 pm
Which cabinet post does Jim Sillars hold?
Is he in a position to influence SNP thinking, or does he just express his own opinion in newspaper articles?
#14 by An Duine Gruamach on June 6, 2011 - 6:30 pm
Well, they said nobody was interested in a referendum until about a month ago. Then they demanded that we have one right now, and then loudly shouting to the few who still listen that in fact we need two. Shouldn’t surprise anyone…
It may also be that they want to avoid talking about things like weapons of mass destruction, their opposition to voting reform, the lack of action on the Lords in their thirteen years of power, desperately illiberal security legislation, illegal wars and the privatisation of public services. If I were Labour I might want to talk about other things as well.
#15 by douglas clark on June 6, 2011 - 7:27 pm
It is also quite amusing that at least one of their commentators want everyone else to ‘go away’.
Off topic, I assume this is an issue both for the Greens and the SNP?
http://tinyurl.com/5tuj8xj
#16 by David Gray on June 6, 2011 - 8:39 pm
Well, I hope the website brings out some good debate. Mind you, as regards the name and the aesthetic of the website I am not so sure. ‘LabourHame’ justs makes me think that someone does not know how to spell home. Plus, a tartan banner – save me the stereotype; however, the website will mature given time I am sure.
DougtheDug made a good point in post 4 – the initial focus on the constitution. However, given the context of electoral defeat and the prospect of a referendum, it is not a debate the website can ignore.
#17 by Dubbieside on June 7, 2011 - 2:46 pm
Looks like just more Labour navel gazing.
One contributor asked to give positive reasons for staying in the union gave this reply,
“Positive reasons for staying in the union? I’ve always felt that there is one huge, overarching compulsion for it and that is that we continue to reap the benefits of our investments.
The UK has been the brand and the geography into which Scots have invested our toil, our invention and our human capital, for centuries. The assets that we have created together include London, Manchester and all the other economic powerhouses of the UK – not just those in Scotland”
Well from Maryhill to Methil I can just see the masses saying we better get out and vote no in this referendum. We would not want to loose the economic powerhouses including London and Manchester, that our toil, our invention and our human capital created.
What a compelling argument for retaining the union, I think not.