One country that goes to the polls next year is Malawi.

In the last Malawi General Election in 2004, electoral voters rolls figures were inflated. Obviously this gave opportunity for the election to be manipulated, but it was charitably dismissed as just a shambles rather than a devious ploy to get elected.

This time round, the Malawi Government has put more money in to this election to try and prevent any such errors.

But there are worrying trends from neighbouring countries that are seen as stifling democracy. Foremost among these is Zimbabwe with its leader Robert Mugabe, whose party activists have been torturing and killing supporters of the opposing party.

Kenya has seen around 1500 people killed in its recent election.

And Malawi is not short of political tensions. Bakili Muluzi, ex-president was arrested after accusations that he was trying to stage a coup on President Bingu wa Mutharika. They both belonged to the same party (the UDF) but Mutharika left to form his own party (DPP).

So it has come as no surprise that the British High Commisioner to Malawi, Sir Richard Wildash, has added his weight to calls that the 2009 election is seen to be fair.

‘Nothing can so thoroughly undermine democracy as bad elections."

Such calls can be seen as international pressure on Malawi to run its elections properly. As Malawi is a Commonwealth country, Britain's voice remains important.

But Sir Richard Wildash is leaving his post in January 2009 at the latest.

Scheduled to take over is the ex-First Minister Jack McConnell.

What should normally happen with a changeover is that there would a short handover period. Jack would normally leave for Malawi now or in the autumn (at the latest) for this to take place.

Will it happen this autumn?

Probably not - despite Malawi's calls that any gap in the High Commisioner role would be unacceptable.

Despite the Westminster all-party Foreign Office Select Committee demanding that Jack McConnell be sent to Malawi soon.

With such a delicate General election taking place in 2009, it is vital that the new High Commissioner is in place when Sir Richard Wildash leaves.

So why the delay? Why has Jack not left or indicated his timetable?

Its obvious that the Labour Party want to delay Jack's departure as they feel that they won't be able to win the Motherwell and Wishaw seat; again putting pressure on Gordon Brown and his Labour Government.

Its a clear example of Labour putting its own party interest over that of the UKs and that of Malawi.

If the SNP won the seat, Holyrood parliamentary arithmetic would mean that they would then only need 1 other party's support to implement its policies.

Although the ex-First Minister's seat is looked on as rock solid - so was Glasgow East; in fact it was more so. In view of that the SNP would really fancy their chances at another upset.

Motherwell holds special significance for the SNP as it was the area that gave them their first seat to Westminster in 1945, held by Robert McIntyre who was later to lead the party. They would really be up for the challenge.

It may not be just the prospect of another SNP by-election triumph thats holding back Jack McConnell.

Sir Richard Wildash seems to be of the old school of British diplomats, always ready with a handy Latin quote.

In one speech to the Malawis, the number of Latin quotes were flying thick and fast:-

"As Seneca wrote:

"Non scholae sed vitae discimus" – that is, "We do not learn for school, but for life".

As Horace wrote:

"Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem"; that is, "Remember when life's path is steep to keep your mind even".

As Cicero wrote:

"Cura nihil aliud nisi ut valeas"; that is, "Pay attention to nothing except that you do well". "

There was many more quotes from Churchill to Bunyan to the French Renaissance essayist Montaigne.

Obviously something that the Malawis have come to expect from the British High Commissioners. A classical education from a public school, no doubt in true British Foreign Office style.

I may be wrong but I doubt Jack as an ex-maths teacher is versed in his Latin. Maybe that is holding him back from going!

Never mind. I'm sure his Malawi tenure will be more secure than that of most Labour Party MPs come next election:

Hodie adsit, cras absit.

And then he said "Get back into the kitchen" *hur hur*

One of my friends classmates had a wonderful time telling me yet another joke involving women and kitchens. Because as y'all know it is incredibly rare for a feminist to be told those jokes, and we find it such an original example of wit. *sigh*

A while back there was a lovely day, full of sunshine and happiness. For the first time in ages I could go outside without feeling I had to check my extremities for frostbite. My family decided it was the perfect day for a shopping trip. *sigh*

A combination of these two events got me to thinking.

We perused an entire store dedicated to kitchen appliances in an area with two dozen shops, most of them boutiques for tourists. It is the kind of place people like my family shop at for practice rather than to actually buy anything. Still it has a shop which focuses solely on the kitchen.

The stores contained an avocado slicer, event themed fridge magnets and glorified pipettes among other useless doodads. What the hell is wrong with us? I can stomach snazzy watches and room sized wardrobes but event themed fridge magnets?! Capitalism and consumerism is fucking crazy.

Perhaps I am a little fixated on the event themed fridge magnets. Yet, take something as simple as a cups. We have glasses, tea cups, coffee mugs, wine glasses, champagne flutes and sundry plastic novelty containers. There are even magnets that masquerade as cups. Do we really need all that?

We are also prey to the pervasive idea that we need a normal set of dishes and a nice set. The same goes for cutlery, place mats, coasters and salt shakers. What if we used half the time spent on buying this crap for ourselves? Because let's be honest, under patriarchy it is the women who are expected to buy these things. Not only that, they are expected to wash them and use all the above mentioned doodads to create food for the household. The upper echelons of the groups who sell this crap, the groups who make it, the groups who market it, those are the ones who profit. Of course, under patriarchy, they are predominantly men. -insert rant about how women perform the vast majority of unpaid labor-

I don't particularly care if my place mats and napkins don't match. I'm also not going to buy fifty little doodads. I can serve pasta with a spoon if I so choose. And no, I will not get back in the kitchen.

While he probably would have preferred to NOT spend most of the time talking about Winston Peters he did make a good point regarding the current situation.

Journalists across NZ are asking him to confirm whether he would use Winston Peters if National became the next government and he noted that to make that decision you have to first know all the facts.

Fronting with the facts in something that our current Prime Minister cannot get her Foreign Minister to do. It is unacceptable and an sad indictment on the state of governance in our country.

Gerry Brownlee listed 96 since June 20 in a press release last weekend, and The Herald had a story yesterday about Labour stacking the NZ Transport Agency with political allies.

It could be normal business, but it might also signal they've accpeted they're going to lose the election so they're doing what they can for their friends while they can.

Bill Ralston  points to another sign they're preparing for a loss:

Labour strategists have become dangerously obsessed with trying to demolish Key personally and portray his party as having a secret agenda to sell everything and return us all to some kind of capitalist serfdom.

It is role-reversal. Labour has adopted the negative approach usually taken by opposition parties, allowing National to take a more publicly palatable positive approach to the country's future.

It is like Labour has looked six months ahead and has already decided it's the opposition - and maybe it is right.

Fingers crossed.

Tory Leader David Cameron showed Senator Barack Obama some compassionate conservatism earlier today, before Obama departed the UK for the O Force One flight back to Chicago.  Apparently, the enormous fuzzy boom mike held by ABC News' Eric Kerchner was no discouragement to go WAY off the "confident, inevitable" script:

"You should be on the beach," Cameron told Obama. "You need a break. Well, you need to be able to keep your head together."

"You've got to refresh yourself," agreed Obama.

"Do you have a break at all?" asked Cameron.

"I have not," said Obama. "I am going to take a week in August. But I agree with you that somebody, somebody who had worked in the White House who -- not Clinton himself, but somebody who had been close to the process --  said that, should we be successful, that actually the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you're doing is thinking. And the biggest mistake that a lot of these folks make is just feeling as if you have to be -- "

"These guys just chalk your diary up," said Cameron, referring to a packed schedule.

"Right," Obama said. "In 15 minute increments …"

"We call it the dentist's waiting room," Cameron said. "You have to scrap that because you've got to have time."

"And, well, and you start making mistakes," Obama said, "or you lose the big picture. Or you lose a sense of, I think you lose a feel-- "

"Your feeling," interrupted Cameron. "And that is exactly what politics is all about. The judgment you bring to make decisions."

"That's exactly right," Obama said. "And the truth is that we've got a bunch of smart people, I think, who know ten times more than we do about the specifics of the topics. And so if what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything then you end up being a dilettante but you have to have enough knowledge to make good judgments about the choices that are presented to you."

Lesson: Barack Obama is just a man, not a divine being sent down to save us all.  DUH.

---Media Lizzy

I don't think it's as bad as all that. It's bad, certainly - I'm dreading a 1997-sized landslide for Tories at the next general election - but Labour lost to the Scottish Nationalists, who actually provided Labour's core voters with a left-of-centre alternative. The SNP proved themselves as a credible political force last year when they took Holyrood, and with a largely positive year in power up there, I'm not surprised they performed so strongly in their first Westminster test since then.

South of the border, Labour are still the only major (ostensibly) left-wing party traditional Labour voters have to vote for, so they'll do a better job of hanging on to their seats in northern cities and avoid a complete wipeout. But it's still clear that the core voters don't like the party any more. If Brown can't prove that he's on the side of the worker, many of them will not vote at all, or opt for the BNP, allowing the Tories or Lib Dems to sneak in in seats where Labour thought they had healthy majorities (cf Crewe and Nantwich, which was compounded by a poor campaign).

It's looking more and more likely that Labour are going to have to make some kind of lurch to the left to win back their heartlands. With Cameron having basically won back the Middle England voters who elected Blair in 1997, the next election is lost - it seems that if they want to avoid utter humiliation, Labour's job is to abandon their chase of the Daily Mail's favour and focus on working-class friendly policies. (So a slight modification of my opinion after the local elections.)

"Our Granduncle, who astuteness hall unalloyed happiness"

Equip provincial legislature, sphragistics-legged afloat a fishy soapbox.

"Slacken us this trimester, your feast."

Spirit, I myself echoes.

"Shrive us our tresssspasssessss"

And whole, for all that all hands knows the very model is inner self party at the epicentre.

"The clout and the luster."

Ah, beans, beans the comedy of humors mayapple.

"And give us ex obliquity," aforementioned Mr George, reciting the Sovereign's Evening devotions, aberrative they tiptoe from the our times well-understood"Inexhaustibility and immensely..."

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARPGREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP-flick-Babbittish-fossil-GRAAAAAAAAAMK!

"Sure"

Oh, melliferous Jesus, Yours truly modulation pretty, for shocking.

* Tomorrow, Ego shall go on a fortiori putting with regard to my socks and sandals and topic roundabout as representing a numeral in relation to foster spotting. Willowy total commitment prevail galvanize as regards the Friday numerate pertinent to amusement and extremity, and Them manifesto demanded nudism and/spread eagle stricken inna fence.

Ought butt possibly miscalculate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/24/labour.gordonbrown

A real classic of our time that has fallen under the radar somewhat, it does reveal why Roy was such a successful politician...

Roy Hattersley, we salute you!

I just hope it's not too late.

Senator Obama was in London today too. How exciting. I wish I could have seen him, but rather annoyingly it was made low-key since the government didn't want to seem biased towards the Democrats. Fair enough. The greetings in Berlin though, they were fantastic. I fully endorse Mr. Obama as the next President of the United States. I admit, I would have preferred Senator Clinton based primarily on her healthcare policies, however now we must unify the Democrat party and sail on through to the November elections.

On a slightly different note: weather has been fabulous here in England. I can feel my tan already...

As the PM is distinctly unpopular personally the notion that changing leaders would improve things are superficially attractive for Labour. Indeed, it seems from the news this weekend that some within Labour's ranks are actively talking this up. The idea is that if Labour get rid of the main drag on their popularity and change leaders that whilst they may be defeated it won't be such a bad defeat as is being indicated in the polls. I think that this is a delusion, and I think that changing leaders will make things infinitely worse. Now some may say that as a Conservative I wouldn't want Labour to denude my party of our greatest asset. So let me explain my reasoning on why I think that if Labour change leaders again they will face virtual annihilation.

All through this troubled period, the Prime Minister and a coterie of his colleagues have insisted that they are all just 'getting on with the job'. They have also stated that the PM as a previous Chancellor is well placed to oversee the government's response to the economic turbulence. This is a credible strategy and there will be a section of the public that will buy it. I think that if the Labour Party decide to oust Brown, then they will not be able to claim that they are just getting on with the job. They will look like they are more interested in personal survival and clinging to power than the good of the country. I suspect that in such a scenario the voting public would punish the Labour party severely.

In Canada in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives went from a very strong position to just 2 seats in the course of an election.  I would be very surprised if that happened in this country to Labour, but they could be reduced to fewer seats than at any time since the 1930's. If that occurred then I think Labour would be out of power for a generation. In Canada the party that was defeated returned in a reconstituted form 13 years later but couldn't command a majority. Labour has been the dominant alternative to the Conservative party for at least 75 years. The danger is that if Labour ditches Brown they could find themselves supplanted in that role rather quickly. Labour are likely to go down to a defeat at the next election, I suspect that if they are led by someone other than Gordon Brown then that defeat could be catastrophic!

Feotus at 31 weeks

It's been something of a busy week, both in baby-and non-baby-terms. Work has been hectic and we've also had an antenatal appointment with the midwife and our very first antenatal, class...

Some interesting facts about being 31 weeks pregnant:

• Tadpole now weighs just shy of 3.5lbs and measures about 16 inches from crown to foot (not much room in there for moving about these days!)
• Tad will most likely gain at least another 2lbs before being born (that's a lot of growing and filling out still to do)
• Tadpole's organs are continuing to mature and s/he will be passing water (practice for peeing once s/he's out in the world!)
• If Tadpole were to be born today, s/he would have a 95% chance of survival (this won't change again now until we hit 34 weeks)
• There are now 63 days left till our Estimated Due Date

The weather has been much hotter over the past week, which is not welcomed by me! Everyone else has been praying for a sunny, hot summer, whereas I'm favouring the idea of cooler temperatures, as I'm really feeling the heat now! The walk to work which, pre-pregnancy, took me 20-25 minutes, now takes 40 minutes and involves me stopping several times to rest a moment and have a drink of water. It also involves me arriving at work huffing and puffing and feeling rather tired! Still, in a way, I'm glad walking is my only way of getting to work, as the exercise can only be good for me and Tadpole, and occasionally a colleague spots me as they pass in their car and offers me a lift, which is sometimes rather welcome!

I chose a lovely, soft green paint for the nursery last weekend, as well as a very sweet Winnie the Pooh (original, not Disney!) border, and Dale spent Sunday decorating Tadpole's room. When he was done, Dale had to admit it looked much better - more like a nursery and less like an abandoned office room!

We had our first antenatal class on Wednesday afternoon, where we got to meet a bunch of other almost-parents whose estimated due dates are within a few weeks of our. Everyone in our class is a first-timer, which is rather nice, as we all get to experience this for the first time together. However, I was really surprised at just how unprepared many of them seemed - not to brag or anything, but Dale and I were pretty much stars of the show when it came to knowing what's going to be happening throughout and after labour. Many of the mums-in-waiting didn't even realise that they had to birth their placenta after the baby and I think we were the only ones who had given any serious thought to a birth plan! Everyone was really lovely and I'm looking forward to our second class next week, even though Dale won't be able to come as it's in the morning this time (being a Postie, he won't be able to accompany me, so I'll be flying solo on this occasion).

On Thursday afternoon we had another midwife appointment - just a regular check-up to make sure everything's progressing as it should. My bump was measured and found to be 30.5cm (which is spot on as I was 30.5 weeks pregnant!), so I guess I'm not so monstrously huge as I though - I just feel that way because I'm not used to being quite this large and round! I'll admit to being rather fond of my bump, which I think looks like I'm trying to smuggle a beach ball - I spend a lot of time stroking my belly and talking to Tadpole, just letting him/her know what's going on in our day-to-day lives and letting him/her know how loved s/he is - I figure letting Tad know all this stuff can only be good in the long run! And Dale loves "bump watching" too - in the evenings, when Tadpole is at his/her most active, Dale will get right up close and watch the undulations or chase a stray foot as it glides across my belly, making Tad kick back at him. He also seems to think its great fun to blow raspberries on my tummy - I'm not quite sure how Tadpole takes that!

Tad is definitely reacting to certain types of music. If we play Rammstein or Queen or Dream Theater (our favourite bands) then the activity in my tummy definitely picks up. And there are certain songs that seem to illicit a stronger reaction too - last night Tad was going crazy over the soundtrack to Highlander!

My hypnobirthing book has arrived and I'm about half-way through it. It seems to have some very interesting ideas and offers up some nice relaxation techniques to try, so I think I'll give some of them a shot. I might even order the CD that goes with the programme if I can, as it can help to follow a relaxation guide rather than having to think it all out in order in your head. I also got another book called Childbirth Without Fear by Grantly Dick-Read (which is the book that inspired Marie Mongan to develop the hypnobirthing programme) and I plan to  read it very soon, as I'm becoming increasingly enamoured of having as natural and drug-free a birthing experience as possible. I really must ask my Mam about her experience of giving birth to me and my sister. She'll be away on holiday for a couple of weeks, but when she gets back I really must ask...

And yes, as declared last weekend, I am having my peaceful weekend! I have turned down several invitations for today and tomorrow in order to be able to do whatever I want whenever I want and not have to think about being anywhere at a set time to do anything in particular. I plan to head out briefly later on to buy Dale's anniversary present, but other than that, I'm just going to go with the flow and try to get a bit of rest, as that's something that has been sorely lacking of late! It's bizarre how much in-demand I've been this year. Not that I'm usually particularly unpopular, but since I got pregnant, my social engagements seem to have increased in number significantly and I can't actually remember the last weekend I had where I didn't have to be somewhere. It's nice to get some "me time". Perhaps I'll finally get a chance to try out those pregnancy Pilates and yoga DVDs I bought some time ago and still haven't taken out of the cellophane wrapper despite my best intentions!

Hurray for Glasgow East

Apparently some commenter objected to his personal attack on Margaret Curran. He then responds explaining why he gave up civility on party politics, particularly in relation to the Labour Party. Why Margaret Curran is the cheerleader for a party which supports torture.

Margaret Curran is a lot better off than thousands of very real women, who were just as human as her, and whose lives the illegal wars of New Labour have destroyed.

It is worth remembering that Labours appalling policies haven't just attacked the poorest members of society in Glasgow East or Dundee East, but throughout the world too, mainly in the name of "The War On Terror".

Just for once, that early morning emptiness in my stomach resulted not from urgent need for a bowl of organic muesli drenched in soya milk, but the realisation that the Tories are now almost certain to form the next two or three governments, minimum.

If a stronghold like Glasgow East can topple that easily, the outlook for 2010 is surely a Labour defeat of 1931 proportions. Those who need a recap of the relevant history could do no better than turn to a book by Ralph Miliband - hey, whatever became of his two boys? - that tells how a governing party was reduced to a rump of just 46 MPs.

I agree that Labour are likely to lose the next election. However, any predictions for elections after that amount to nothing more that guesswork.

Eventually Labour recovered, of course. Miliband notes on page 192 of Parliamentary Socialism: ''Though powerless in parliament, Labour had retained massive support in the country, most of it, obviously, from within the ranks of the organised working class.'

The difference between now and then is that in many constituencies Labour exists largely on paper and working class organisation is at its weakest since the second world war. In short, Labour as we know it may never recover from the coming meltdown.

This is not surprising. Since 1997 Labour have concentrated on pleasing floating voters in marginal constituencies, on the principle that their heartlands have nowhere else to go and can safely be ignored. And the heartlands in their turn are now realising that Labour doesn't represent them any more and are starting to turn to the SNP (Glasgow East) or independents (Blaenau Gwent). And many former Labour voters are either staying at home or voting for minor parties or extremists (such as the BNP).

Should Brown go? I don't think that would make much difference. All of the politicians with a realistic shot of becoming Labour leader are indelibly linked to the ancien regime; swapping one New Labourite in a dark suit for another isn't going to undo the damage New Labourism has wrought.

This is probably right. After 1997, the Tories kept replacing their leader in the vain hope that if they did it often enough the voters would like them again. Whoever is Labour's leader at the next general election will have to fight it on Labour's record. And what is that record? Labour have spent lots of money on hospitals, but the quality of treatment and waiting times in the NHS don't seem to have improved (at least, I can't detect any improvement). They've spent loads of money on education, yet school leavers are no better educated than they were -- on the contrary the opposite seems to have happened as the system becomes increasingly dumbed down from GCSE level to postgraduate level.

(The weakness of the educational system is particularly worrying when you consider the rise of China and other far-Eastern countries; Britain must either go as high-tech as possible, as quick as possible, or it'll have to compete on price with lean and mean low-wage economies. If we don't watch out, they'll eat our lunch -- and the way food prices are going, that may not be just a figure of speech.)

What of equality and social inclusion? Income inequality as measured by the gini coefficient is higher now than when Labour came into power. House prices in proportion to average earnings are also higher than when Blair entered office, even taking into account the recent downturn in them. So if you're poor or can't afford to buy a house, Labour have done bugger all for you.

So overall I think Labour's record is crap. The only thing they've really achieved is reducing the rule of law and making Britain a more illiberal society. And the only reason I'm not pleased by the mess they're in is I don't think the Tories would be any better. Cameron talks a good line of bullshit, but that's all he can do, as far as I can tell.

Most commentators seem to agree that it says nothing about the support for Scottish independence.

I disagree:

One report in the course of the campaign struck me.

It said that SNP activists were extremely encouraged by the number of Labour voters in Glasgow East - whether they switched or not - who wanted Scotland to be independent.

It also said that Glasgow East constituents gave the highest percentage of 'Scottish' as nationality on their last census return forms:- 96 % ; compared to only 4 % who thought of themselves as British.

People vote for political parties for a number of reasons.

For Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to assume that people who vote for them don't want an independent Scotland are living in cloud cuckoo land.

(The reverse that all the SNP voters don't want independence is true as well. Only a vast vast majority want independence! In the Glasgow East election for instance they no doubt picked up votes from unionists wanting the discredited London Labour Government out.

If unionists really believe that the SNP is a single issue party then they would need to believe that all the SNP voters want independence.

If not, maybe those who have actually read the SNP manifesto and discovered it wasn't just one page long with the single word 'Independence' then maybe they would realise that a referendum is probably the best way of finding out true public opinion.

Of course, the convention given by unionists is that the SNP need at least 50% of the Scottish MPs in Westminster or a majority of MSPs favouring independence in Holyrood to make independence happen.

Whichever happens first - by weight of numbers or by referendum - is fine by me!)

Ah but what about the polls they say - clutching to some selective polls that says that Scots don't want it.

Equally nationalists are just as guilty of clutching to their polls that say Scots do want it.

As with most polls on independence it depends on how the question is phrased. Here's a guide to the poll results.

The truth is until that question is asked formally in a referendum we won't even have a real measure of public opinion to go on.

Look at the dodgy polling results for Glasgow East for instance.

The last one from Progressive Scottish Opinion only four days before the result put Labour on 52% and the SNP on 35 %.

As you can see that poll was utter rubbish, given that the SNP have just won the seat!

Polls are wrong a lot of the time. Its a fact. If they weren't we wouldn't have expensive elections in this country - we'd just phone up a few hundred folk in the constituency and then appoint the appropriate MP, MSP or councillor. No need for hustings, election budgets, PR etc. but just a small dent in the phone bill.

Glasgow East shows that there is now no safe seat for Labour even in its west central Scotland heartlands.

The fact that residents considered themselves Scottish not British, and that many Labour supporters favoured independence made switching to the SNP all that easier.

For that reason alone, given a bit of good fortune and a SNP impetus to change things for the better in Glasgow East, it gives the nationalists a great chance to secure the seat in the next Westminster election.

Labour must now fear a domino effect in Scotland that could decimate them politically.

One of the reasons the SNP wanted a referendum in 2010 was to show just how well they could govern Scotland. Now that was a prime reason for the vote switch; a popular Scottish SNP Government versus an unpopular London Labour Government.

Now that the SNP have succeeded in Glasgow East, a former Labour stronghold held since 1922, it shows just how popular this SNP Government is.

Part 1 of the plan accomplished.

Part 2 is the referendum.

And all this unionist claptrap of neverendums is just that. Claptrap!

They quote Quebec as a place of neverendums. Quebec has had two referendums for independence in its entire history. Once in 1980 and again in 1995. That's it. Neverendums? Claptrap!

They quote John Mason when he said "When you are asking someone to marry you, sometimes you have to persist." on his view on referendums - if - and thats a big improbable if - the SNP lost the 2010 referendum.

What do they think he was going to say?

"Oh well, we've lost a referendum, might as well disband the SNP!"

Cloud cuckoo land again by the unionists.

All that would mean is that the SNP and the other independence parties would need to try harder to convince people.

The issue might be kicked into the long grass for a while, but the political football will always return to the field of play so long as there are nationalists on the park.

But that's all conjecture.

Right now, the nationalists are cruising the political match, banging goals in for fun. Unionist team captain Gordon Brown has done nothing but score o.g.s!

Glasgow East has seen another unionist red carded and time is running out.

Gordon Brown has refused claims that he should demand a General Election after Labour's humiliating defeat in the Glasgow East by-election, a seat which they held for 50 years. Brown is fast becoming one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in history, but he still insists that he is 'the right man for the job' stating 10 years of economic growth under his belt as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here is a man, who truely believes he did a fantastic job at running the economy. But did he really?

Some people might talk about the fact that Gordon Brown pioneered the introduction of the Tax Credit system. Minister's will claim that this system brought millions of people out of poverty. But what we won't hear is how when the Government overpaid thousands of people by hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds this was then mercilessly clawed back. Leaving many in a worse of position.

My mother was one unfortunate person. She was overpaid by WTC for over 2 years, through no fault of her own- 100% their fault, but it didn't stop them garnishing her £14,000 yearly wage by £100 a month. To date she has paid around £3000 back but continues to recieve letters asking for more ridiculous sums of money. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown lets people who earn MILLIONS of pounds claim NON-DOMICILED status and avoid paying tax. Good managment?

Everyone knows the world economy affects the UK economy. Fair enough. But, did the prudent chancellor Brown save anything for a rainy day? No! He borrowed more, and more, and more! Now he has even had to break the golden rule he set himself not to borrow over 40% GDP. Why DID Alastair Darling have to cut the 10p tax rate? To BOOST Tax of course, because the Government were skint.

Let's not even get into the myriad of financial sleaze surrounding this government. We all know the feeling of being sick to our stomach at the thought of people taking our money and living the highlife while we work more hours than the rest of Europe and still have the highest social poverty.

Now that Labour have lost the Glasgow East seat, the rest of Labour MP's are shifting in their's with the realisation that the man in charge is leading them down the garden path to the big gate of unemployment. The New Labour experiment is over. They have alienated the unions, the workers, the working class...who do they have left? Brown knows the answer to that question already and that is why he will not concede to calling an election in the near future.

Gordon Brown has fought to get New Labour up and running, he was THE main creator of this party. He waited while Tony Blair took the main job and put up with his bolshi wife and rabble of kids. He has waited TEN YEARS! If you waited for something for that long, would you let it go easily? No. He knows he made a mess of it, he knows Tony made a mess of it. But almost with the same mentality as Robert Mugabe, he believes he is ENTITLED to be there, that he 'is the best man for the job!'.

Lets hope he is not far wrong, because if he's wrong, we are all in trouble!

The only action Brown can take to stop the villagers lighting the pitchforks is to reinstate the 10p tax rate, cut the Tax credit debt, fire Caroline Flint, cut the fuel duty and LISTEN to people. Will that happen? What do you think??

The New York Times reports:

«The loss was reckoned the party’s worst electoral defeat in Scotland for 20 years. Labor’s Margaret Curran polled 10,912 votes _ 19 percent below Labor’s tally in the 2005 general election — while the Scottish National Party’s John Mason won 11,277, 26 percent higher than in 2005. »

Full article HERE.

I have drawn the parallel between the Labor Party (the one represented by Tony Blair during the onset of the Iraq War) and the GOP (led by Bush to ruin).  I also believe that Gordon Brown is a perfect example of what could happen to John McCain if he wins. I highly doubt either Brown or McCain has the talent or skill to right the many wrongs of their more charming predecesors and fix the negative reputations of their parties.

I think it would be better for McCain to avoid Brown's fate so he can spend his 70s playing golf in Arizona in peace insted of stressing over the demise of his brand of politics.

Anyway, due to my political geekiness, I have watched the Glasgow East byelection campaign with foam coming out of my mouth; unable to eloquently express my joy at being able to watch such an important political event right at my front door (or at least through my bathroom window if I was to squint a little bit and ignore the trees, since I am actually about 8 miles away from where the election was being held. Thrilling, nonetheless).

The election was held yesterday - July 24th 2008 - in the Glasgow East constituency after the retirement of Labour MP David Marshall. The seat has long been a Labour stronghold, and many expected the seat to land back in Labour's lap, regardless of the party itself falling apart at the seams. However, the battle for the seat was seen as neck-and-neck between Labour and the ever-strengthening SNP from the beginning. I won't go into all the details of the campaign - look them up on the net.  The views of Gordon "Prime Ministers don't do byelections [regardless of contradictory precedents]" Brown and Alex "I visited 12 times during the campaign" Salmond are particularly delightful.

All you need to know is that the SNP candidate John Mason rightfully won the seat, with a majority of 365 votes. This should have massive repercussions for the Labour government both in Scotland and in Westminster, possibly even leading to the resignation of one Gordon Brown.

Anyway, I had my own theories on this election. As far as I could see, Labour were up to their old, underhand tricks. I'm really sick of their bullshit. Their entire campaign during the general election (in which their arses were kicked) centred around how the SNP will have us all hanged, drawn and quartered instead of working as an effective government. During the byelection, Labour did not seem to have the same doom-mongerer's voice, and I genuinely think that Margaret Curran put up a good fight; promising to give Glasgow East a voice. However, Curran is already already an MSP and although her Holyrood constituency is located within her proposed MP constituency, I disagree with any politician who believes they can do both jobs at the same time.

I was also dismayed at Labour's choice of candidate - Margaret CURRAN - after the Scottish Socialist Party chose Frances CURRAN as theirs. Was the Labour campaign team actually trying to confuse the electorate? Evidently, yes they were! Labour had released flyers making sure that the voters of Glasgow East knew to tick the third box down for the Labour candidate, not the second box with Frances Curran's name. This tactic I agree with - prevent any Labour own goals; however,the cynical side of me thinks they were trying to gain as many SSP own goals as they possibly could.

However, I watched the announcement of the winner on television lastnight (which overran by about two hours), and there were parallels with the general election results; particularly the demand for a recount due to spolied votes. Spolied votes in this instance, seemed to be a term coined by the Labour party referring to the hypothetical situation of the aforementioned Labour own goals. Margaret Curran's team - unhappy with the number of votes which went to the SSP - sugested a recount to make sure that no ballot papers which were meant to land in the M. Curran pile had ended up in the F. Curran pile.

The whole thing just seemed littered with underhand tactics. I think that watching votes come in is a very uneasy feeling. It could have just be nerves or apprehension or full-on excitement, but I have felt very uneasy when watching any election results - particularly this byelection and the Holyrood general election last year. Politics is important to me, and who we vote into power can have huge repercussions on our daily lives. Keep in mind that Hitler's national socialist party was voted into power. These are very different circumstances to 1930s Germany; and even though I give my support to Alex Salmond's socialism-friendly nationalist party, I refuse to turn a blind eye to the party - just in case.

In closing, I must mention what a joy it was watching Nicola Sturgeon sitting next to Douglas Alexander (Wendy's brother), with live interview footage interspersed with live footage from Central Quay, where the results were being announced (thank you, BBC Scotland). King Sturge was on top form, ready for a fight, whereas Alexander, much like his sister (and most other Labour politicians) had no spine and not a leg to stand on. I'm not even sure how he managed to prop himself up in his chair.

THE NEW Statesman's website is carrying an article giving my initial reaction to, and thoughts on, Glasgow East, for anyone who's interested.

A rough rough if ever I saw one...
I like the idea that there are oxygen masks in the ceiling all over Number 10, that drops down when things get rough.

It might be a shock result but is anyone surprised?

I'm not going to go into Labour's terminal decline in Scotland today.

I've already posted quite a bit on Labour's slapstick election campaign too.

No. Today should be about celebrating the SNP's magnificient win.

A justified result for the SNP's brilliant campaign team and candidate John Mason.

A win that delivered the promised 'political earthquake'. (Yet another SNP promise delivered!)

An earthquake with tremors felt around the world:-

The USA: New York Times and Time magazine
Canada: The National Post
India : Top News
South Africa : News 24
Australia : Sydney Morning Herald
France: France 24
Spain: EITB 24

to name but a few countries coverage.

Now thats what I call putting Scotland on the world stage!

To do it permanently, independence is the next step.

Bring it on!

On the cheerier side, Tory candidate Davena Rankin pushed the Lib Dems into fourth place. But it is a small prize to take away from this vote.

Read it - it's extremely funny, especially the bits about the Milibands!

Now, when was the last time I saw "Brains" wandering about in South Shields?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Tagline: Just like Glasgow East didn't happen.

Why don't politicians know when to quit?!

1. John Mason (SNP) - 11,277
2. Margaret Cuuran (Lab) - 10,912
3. Davena Rankin (Cons) - 1,639
4. Ian Robertson (LD) - 915
5. Frances Curran (SSP) - 555
6. Tricia McLeish (Solidarity)- 512
7. Dr Eileen Duke (Scottish Greens) - 232
8. Chris Creighton (Ind) - 67
9. Hamish Howitt (Freedom 4 Choice)- 65

Up until Last night Labour had held the Glasgow East seat (and it's predecessors) for some 50 years it hardly surprising then that the SNP should be celebrating the 22% swing which delivered the seat to their candidate John Mason by no more than a few hundred votes.  That this is a great victory for SNP is beyond question, that the 3rd safest Labour seat in Scotland (26th in the UK) could be lost to the SNP must have die hard Labourites in either a state of panic ... or maybe more likely, based on recent history, a state of denial.

I was listening to David Cairns (who I believe was managing the Labour campaign) on Radio Scotland this morning talking about the defeat and that Labour would be 'listening' to the electorate - haven't we heard that before recently?  He was attempting to play up what Labour is doing for the hard-pressed consumer by attempting to paint the autumn freeze in fuel duty as a tax cut (what tosh) and also attempting to make the 10p tax band thing sound like anything other than a complete farce ... to be honest though, he didn't really sound like he believed the rhetoric himself.  So why should we, the electorate, believe it either.

I don't think we can hold David Cairns responsible for the loss though, despite the 22% swing, this was never going to be an easy take and the best case scenario was going to be a marginal victory.  On the day it didn't go their way, but why, who was responsible?

Whoever it was Labour is now in absolute free-fall, I know that that has been said before, but it is absolutely beyond doubt now.  Labour may have one shot at recovery, but it's a long shot and it may well be beyond recovery - more of that in a moment though.  It's easy to point to Gordon Brown and say, "it's him", but I actually believe that the problem with Labour is far more deep rooted than that, the 'New Labour' project has utterly failed and the party is now left flailing somewhere Right of Centre, hemorrhaging the Tory support that they courted back in the beginning of their reign, and discovering that their traditional core vote have realised that they have been betrayed by 'the peoples party'.

Gordon Brown Defiant

The question now is, can Gordon Brown survive this setback?  His statement this morning was predictably defiant promising that there is:

a brighter future that we can build ...

And that his party must:

Have confidence that not only do we have the right policies but that when the time comes we will be able to persuade the British people.

This sort of thing is to be expected, as is the inevitable reshuffle predicted to occur following the summer recess in which it is expected that Des Brown, Scottish Secretary, will lose his position.  I will also be watching for another Brown to be standing down, one G. Brown, and I would be comfortable to suggest he'll be gone before Christmas.

If Gordon Brown doesn't stand down (and possibley even if he does) then we can expect to see a raft of populist and ill conceived policies aimed at minimising Labour losses in the approaching General Election.  Ironically, all such actions would do is open them to further attack as the notion that they are prudent in governance is thrown in their collective faces.  Yet, this is coming at a time when the Treasury is loosening it's fiscal rules to allow greater borrowing.  Not a good combination in my mind ... are we to be paying for the death throws of Labour's current administration through excessive borrowing aimed at saving a few votes?

A Labour Long-Shot

If Labour is to have any real chance at the next General Election Gordon Brown really must be removed.  Further than this though, Labour have to take a punt, and not any punt, a punt on a long-shot.

New Labour have failed ... there simply isn't room for two conservative parties.  If Labour are to recover they must do so quickly and they must do so by returning their party to the Left, where it belongs, taking onboard socialist values and applying them to the modern era.  Labour's core strength was always that it was the party of the masses, of the people at large and yet it is these very people who it has abandoned in pursuit of big business and party funding.

I would go further than this though, I would suggest that this all needs to happen at great pace and that immediately on the back of the change a General Election must be called.  Further even than that though I would suggest Labour must fight it as if they were an opposition party!  They must acknowledge the mistakes of the past and regard them as the actions of another party, maybe their tag line could be:

Don't blame us, we were hijacked!  Vote 'New Old Labour' ...

Ok, maybe that's not going to be it, but you get the idea.  The Labour Party must be just that, and drop the 'new'.

Obviously none of this will happen, and it would be a long-shot, but the end of Gordon Brown must be the beginning of a new party for Labour otherwise whatever they do they won't be able to shake off the chains of Blair and Brown.

Personally, I don't care, but the notion of another decade of Conservative rule off the back of a decade of 'Labour branded conservative' rule terrifies me.

Anyway, congratulations to the SNP on a well deserved victory in Glasgow East, may they build on it for the benefit of all Scots, but not least of all those of Glasgow East who have been so neglected.  Maybe the SNP are right, maybe ...

... IT'S TIME