More intriguiing are the questions over the party's unity, Bourne's leadership and his continued flirting with the separatists:
Mr Bourne called on fellow AMs to tell him if they were unhappy with his performance and insisted the Conservative group was not divided, but was in fact a “very strong, united team”.
Doesn't sound like it....
If there are people who feel there should be a change of leader they must tell me that, they mustn’t go around briefing exclusively to journalists.
and:
However, a senior Conservative figure said yesterday important questions remained about Mr Bourne’s leadership and that the party’s members in London were taking a very keen interest in the affair.
The source said: “I find the whole thing rather depressing and rather ridiculous.
“The press are focused on the Welsh Conservative members and the leader of the opposition and they are asking very legitimate questions. This has got to be cleared up one way or the other.
But it's this snippet which should be raising the real questions about his leadership:
He also described Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats as potential “dancing partners” in a future coalition and pledged to start discussions.
How on earth can you have an effective working administration consisting of two parties with diametrically opposed opinions on the future of the nation? (yes, I know.)
More pertinently, why on earth would a supposed Unionist even contemplate such a Faustian pact?
11 comments:
"why on earth would a supposed Unionist even contemplate such a Faustian pact?"
Why the surprise? The Scottish Conservatives cut a deal with the SNP over its first budget (and may do so again).
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Tories-deny-deal--with.4863790.jp
A more formal pact is the next step.
Also if being in governance with nationalism is such an anathema why are electoral pacts to counteract or prevent their electoral growth unacceptable?
The principle of the Tories allowing the budget through (and Labour voted it through as well!) is that they can screw out of the SNP some of their policies to be implimented.
If the SNP were to fall, then either
a) A minority Labour-Lib Dem coalition would take over and the Tories would be excluded from being able to get any major policy initiatives implimented
or
b) more likely Holyrood would face fresh elections and the possiblity of the SNP having a fresh mandate with an increase amount of seats.
Neither of them palatable to the Tories!
Aberdonian
"(and Labour voted it through as well!)"
AFAIK last year the tories voted for it and Labour abstained.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7229507.stm
"The principle of the Tories allowing the budget through (and Labour voted it through as well!) is that they can screw out of the SNP some of their policies to be implimented."
If that is the rationale surely a coalition pact would mean they could equally if not more so "screw out of the SNP" (or PC for that matter) "some of their policies".
The a claim doesn't entirely stand up to scrutiny, a minority Lab Lib government would need support to get a budget through although I accept arithmetic means the Greens and Independent MSP would be the most obvious route.
Don't know if b is as assured in 09as it looked in 08.
A Lab-Lb coalition would be less desperate for votes and could rely on the SNP to back some of its more left-wing policies.
Concerning the SNP being the largest party if a fresh election was called, whilst the "roll" was apparently halted at Glenrothes, due to the present economic firestorm Labour is not exactly going to benefit.
Particularly if there are mass redundancies due to the HBOS/Lloyds merger with the lingering question of "what if HBOS had been allowed to stand alone" as the P45s start piling in.
Maybe the votes will not go to the SNP but where? The Tories might hoover some up whilst some might go to the Lib Dems.
I am looking forward to the first comprehensive opinion polls this year for Holyrood to see if the Brown Bounce has put Labour ahead or that the squashing of the Nats has been exaggerated.
"I am looking forward to the first comprehensive opinion polls this year for Holyrood"
They will be interesting as will a comparable westminster poll, to see if the distinction some scottish voters seemed to draw between the two continues.
Apologies for the latest of replying:
Fair Deal:
Also if being in governance with nationalism is such an anathema why are electoral pacts to counteract or prevent their electoral growth unacceptable?
Electoral pacts don’t long-term prevent the electoral growth of your opponent, admitedly for the short-term they may temporarily counteract it. But for the long-term, the development of your own philosophy so that it offers as wide a variety of choice as possible and thus brings in as many people as possible under your political umbrella must be the ultimate solution. In other words, there’s no point in winning a seat via a pact, if the overall vote for your cause in the long-term diminishes as a result.
Why the surprise? The Scottish Conservatives cut a deal with the SNP over its first budget (and may do so again).
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Tories-deny-deal--with.4863790.jp
A more formal pact is the next step.
I’m not necessarily surprised, just arguing whether, as a Unionist party, it is the best tactic to support them in the position of power’; to paraphrase George Robertson has being in government "killed off the SNP stone dead"?
The principle of the Tories allowing the budget through (and Labour voted it through as well!) is that they can screw out of the SNP some of their policies to be implimented.
A lot of those policies (eg increasing the numbers of police) were hardly a vote loser for the SNP, it wasn't that much of a compromise on their part. And regarding the Scottish Conservatives, their pro-devolution (and helping out the SNP) has not helped them out at the ballot box or opinion polls has it since 1998?
True, but that is because the Tories despite their attempts are still seen as an "English Party" and the "Party of Thatcher".
Opinion polls tend to indicate that 10% would scrap home rule. Probably in attempt to get this vote, they would lose elements of their present vote and therefore end up the same or worse.
The Scottish Tories have only got themselves to blame on this issue although I am sympathetic for the need for there to be a right-of-centre party in Scotland. Unfortunately they caught themselves in the net of the constitution.
"diametrically opposed opinions on the future of the nation"
What nation is that then?. Many elements of the Tory party in Wales quite progressive in terms of seeking law making powers.
O'Neill
No worries about delay we all have other things to do.
"Electoral pacts don’t long-term prevent the electoral growth of your opponent, admitedly for the short-term they may temporarily counteract it."
That seems to present the electoral growth as an inevitability which it may not. Also this has the assumption of a long-term. Pacts may be necessary to arrest short-term developments and suck out momentum. The SNP will certainly present any growth in its number of MPs as momentum towards independence.
Dewi,
What nation is that then?.
The Uk of course!
Many elements of the Tory party in Wales quite progressive in terms of seeking law making powers.
They're conservatives, they're not supposed to be "progressive" if that means seeking to weaken the links with Westminster.
Fair Deal
That seems to present the electoral growth as an inevitability which it may not.
That's not really what I meant, obviously there's nothing inevitable in politics. Pacts are set up to counter a real or perceived threat; if it is real then the growth is already apparent, if it's perceived, then the setting up of pacts can give the appearance of panic and can actually bring that perception into reality.
Pacts may be necessary to arrest short-term developments and suck out momentum. The SNP will certainly present any growth in its number of MPs as momentum towards independence.
You seem to be arguing here for pro-Union pacts in Scotland as well as NI?
Post a Comment