It’s David Cairns at the scotland office, hardly a leading figure, but the most senior so far. Oh and before you ask no relation.

Peter

It surely can’t be Miliband because after dithering so much already saying that you’re going to resign but not giving your name would just be ridiculous.

Rolling stones don’t gather moss, if they did they would stop, and so would Browns decline have.

Peter.

The 10p tax issue was merely the final nail in the coffin – not the main reason Labour are declining in popularity – it was the conference season last year that the electorate saw the difference in the two parties & the actions of Gordon Brown during the Tory conference by going to Iraq that started the slide – everything else afterwards was just a rolling stone gathering more and more moss!

“Nuclear power is a very minor issue, nuclear weapons almost a non-issue entirely.”

At the moment, in the UK as a whole, Nuclear power is a very minor issue, nuclear weapons almost a non-issue entirely.

Nuclear power companies now plan to put new generation capacity near to markets rather in remoter parts of Scotland. Surprisingly,they did not seem to know this until the SNP government was elected.

Nuclear weapons is a non-issue because government and press are not making it so.

Yet.

Not till after the referendum.

I think Iraq was a huge issue, but one which was contained by the fact that the only party that could realistically beat Labour had also supported the war.

It played very well for the LibDems under kennedy but they were to far behind to start with to win.

In an odd sense Blair got it right by fallowing te rules of the “project” and closing the gaps where labour was percieved to be weak. In defence terms that became keep the defence budget at Tory levels and fight any war the Tories would.

Back at the start when everyone was predicting a quick easy war the electoral calculation was that if Labour fought a war the Tories would then Tories couldn’t touch them, but if Labour didn’t back the war and the US but the Tories did, Labour would lose votes as it would again be portrayed as weak on defence.

Even though we didn’t get the quick clean war that the politicians had predicted in electoral terms Blairs principle opponent still couldn’t use it against him.

Peter.

Nuclear power is a very minor issue, nuclear weapons almost a non-issue entirely. The only thing that makes the public cite energy provision as a major concern is when prices rise. Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t hold up as an explanation (while they were certainly an important factor, they were not enough to lose the 2005 election, and thier impact is likely to be less, not more, at the next election as they fade into history).

If it comes under the “trampling poor people”, the 10p tax rate fiasco is the closest there to what actually happened.

Then there is the £100 billion give away to the banks. The Mega billion wealth transfer from Britain to the US, that is Trident and the New Nuclear power Stations that trident needs to supply the Plutonium for its Atom bombs.

These are the reasons that labour will lose the next election, its policies. Not its leader.

No one trusts the Tory’s nor wants them back in power. but the only way the down trodden, betrayed and abandoned voters, have to tell the well fed and privileged new Labour fat cats that we have had enough
of their lies.

can he please be put in the next alternative labour leaders poll?