AS a non-member of the Labour Party I listened as an interested voter to Jim Murphy announcing his intent to run for the leadership ("Murphy announces leadership candidacy", The Herald, October 30).
He noted his concern wasn't "Left Labour" or "Right Labour" but "losing Labour". In that sentence he epitomised for me the reasons I can never again vote for a party dominated by his ilk. He was unashamedly stating he didn't care about the political slant of the party, he cared only about winning elections.
Moreover, to win elections at UK level the perceived wisdom is that Labour must appeal to Middle England and that no party of the Left is electable. In Scotland the narrative runs that to be elected the party needs to take back its traditional left-of-centre ground from the SNP, who now allegedly occupy that territory (in spite of a wash of right-wing policies such as cuts to corporation tax and the council tax freeze) - a clear internal conflict of interest.
Mr Murphy ignores this conflict and resultant harm as he goes on to talk of "self-harm" within Scottish Labour. I would humbly suggest that the greatest act of self-harm now is for it to remain in the shadow of a larger, power-at-all-costs party driven by opposing interests and to allow its henchmen to dominate. It is high time from this voter's perspective that not only must Scottish Labour elect a left-wing leader and develop a coherent left-of-centre approach, but also that it must break clean away from that larger party which will continue to seek election through pursuing a neo-liberal consensus while dominating its smaller sibling. Only then might it regain its purpose and some level of credibility.
Malcolm Home,
2 Bowmont Terrace, Dunbar.
WHILE endeavouring to promote the interests of Jim Murphy and Labour, Catherine MacLeod ("Game on for Labour if Murphy takes lead", The Herald, October 30 ) exposes Labour's deep ignorance of working people that explains their increasing alienation with Scottish voters.
It appears that Mr Murphy, while touring the country shouting through his megaphone at people in the street, discovered that the centre of (political) gravity had shifted from Westminster to Holyrood. So, it has only taken 15 years of devolution for this to impinge on London Labour's consciousness.
Ms MacLeod states that Mr Murphy is "hungry for power" - no-one can doubt this - and claims that he is "able to learn from experience". That is highly doubtful given his record. This unreconstructed worshipper at the altar of Tony Blair makes no apologies, despite the evidence, for the Iraq fiasco, advocates the retention of Trident and is all for tuition fees - how contradictory is that given his own university history?
Ms MacLeod accepts that Mr Murphy will win the overwhelming support of MPs and MSPs but will struggle to find any purchase with union members. This again shows the loss of identity of Labour; their elected members are of a political clique that cannot empathise with the very people who are the backbone of the party, in fact they actively seek to distance themselves from this group. And they wonder why they have lost the last two Scottish elections?
According to Ms MacLeod, Mr Murphy's only reason for contesting the Scottish leadership is to "regain the levers of power for Labour in Edinburgh and London". This is all they seem to care about: being in control. And with Mr Murphy, the ultimate party apparatchik, in charge of the Edinburgh branch office, his London bosses can get on with the real job of mirroring the Tories and awaiting their turn in the ministerial limousine, with a seat reserved for him if he can bring those pesky Jocks to heel.
James Mills,
29 Armour Square, Johnstone.
AS even the mighty Tesco has discovered to its cost, if you don't listen to the customer and base your strategy on shouting the same message with greater stridency you are destined to fail. If the referendum sent any message at all to those who control the Labour Party it is that voters are capable of making their own minds up about weighty matters even when they are bombarded with grossly distorted "facts" on which to base a decision.
Core Labour voters must, for example, be looking at revelations of "new" oil discoveries in the "empty" North Sea, savage proposed job losses in the banking and insurance sectors, corporate fracking rights to drill under their own homes and even the most loyal blinkered drones have to ask themselves: "Hang on a minute, did I not vote No to stop all that?"
I and my parents before me were formerly staunch supporters of the donkey with the red rosette until we and others started to pay attention to what he did and said once he went to Westminster. A gulf has grown between the major UK political parties and the voters, the reluctance of anyone rushing to fill Ms Lamont's role demonstrates that politicians are aware of this disenfranchisement. Politicians simply don't know how to make an archaic political system engage with an electorate which in the internet age is more enlightened and opinionated than they want it to be.
If Jim Murphy, or similar clone, gets the "white smoke" what that will simply mean is that yet another professional career politician will herd those remaining sheep closer together and all he will hear from them is a "baa-baa" noise because he doesn't even know the language they are speaking since he is a sheepdog. What the sheep could and should be asking each other is: "I recognise this new sheepdog, but who is the shepherd in the distance whistling his instructions?"
David J Crawford,
Flat 3/3, 131 Shuna Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article