The Tories are back in power

[GC]

Just a matter of time now.

Good or bad?

[Jonnyboy]

Just a matter of time now.

Good or bad?

Sadly, these days it's a question of whether we get the Tories with the red rosettes or the Tories with the blue rosettes :boo hoo:

[GC]

Sadly, these days it's a question of whether we get the Tories with the red rosettes or the Tories with the blue rosettes :boo hoo:

I'm not as knowledgeable on politics as some on here, although I do have an interest in it so try and steer well away from the deep discussions but from what I can see of their policies they are certainly moving towards being one and the same.

[Mibbes Aye]

New Labour were influenced by Thatcherism and neo-liberalism as much as classical socialism but that's hardly anything other than what the electorate wanted, and it's naive to suggest otherwise.

It's easy to say that Blair/Brown were just the same old with a red rosette instead of a blue one, but anyone doing that misrepresents the underlying differences between an ideology that still acknowledged a sense of progressiveness and social justice and one which wanted to smash any sense of that to smithereens.

I never cease to be amazed by the number of folk who criticise New Labour for not delivering a socialist Utopia but seem ready to sign up to anything rightward of it as their sign of dissatisfaction. It makes their protest rather hollow IMO.

A minimum wage.

An explicit drive to cut child poverty and pensioner poverty.

Free nursery places for three and four year olds.

Child Tax Credits and Working Tax Credits - any of us who have benefitted from them know the difference they made.

Increases and increased flexibility to maternity leave and paternity leave.

Better rights for workers - guaranteed holidays, for example

Scrapping Section 28

That's just the headline stuff and it's the domestic stuff. But all of those were opposed by the Tories and they would reverse them if they thought they could, I'm convinced of that.

The world's changed since '97 and the Conservatives aren't the shambles of a torn and divisive wreck that they were then. But they're not any more progressive or 'compassionate' than they were then either. And they were never either of those to begin with...

I feel sorry for those who were too young to appreciate what long-term Conservative rule really meant for the society around them. For all the ills that pervade our life we don't deserve that again...

[The Harp Awakes]

The best thing that could possibly happen.........for Scotland.

A year or so of a Tory Westminster is part of Alex Salmond's game plan. Tory's in Westminster = a big increase in the SNP vote in 2011:thumbsup:

[RyeSloan]

Mibbes, top notch post...there is a lot in there (you missed out devolution btw) that simply would not have happened under a tory (be that thatcher or major) rule.

I'm far from being a Labour supporter but think sometimes the positive, popularist and dare i say it near socialist ideals, actions that they have enacted have been pretty landscape changing.

Thing is though is that life moves on and most of Labours good work was done early doors and since then and esp. since Brown came to power they have only been a party in power too long...all things change and party politics and political power are no different.

What really saddens me though is that there is no modernist party. Where is the vision and the ambition. Where is the desire to have a lean but mean public sector, where is the desire to have low taxation and freedom of choice married to a smart and efffective economy that empowers people and gives prosperity. Where is the national pride and the desire to work for the greater good while enriching the country and others....frankly where is the vision, where is the leadership???

[Pretty Boy]

New Labour were influenced by Thatcherism and neo-liberalism as much as classical socialism but that's hardly anything other than what the electorate wanted, and it's naive to suggest otherwise.

It's easy to say that Blair/Brown were just the same old with a red rosette instead of a blue one, but anyone doing that misrepresents the underlying differences between an ideology that still acknowledged a sense of progressiveness and social justice and one which wanted to smash any sense of that to smithereens.

I never cease to be amazed by the number of folk who criticise New Labour for not delivering a socialist Utopia but seem ready to sign up to anything rightward of it as their sign of dissatisfaction. It makes their protest rather hollow IMO.

A minimum wage.

An explicit drive to cut child poverty and pensioner poverty.

Free nursery places for three and four year olds.

Child Tax Credits and Working Tax Credits - any of us who have benefitted from them know the difference they made.

Increases and increased flexibility to maternity leave and paternity leave.

Better rights for workers - guaranteed holidays, for example

Scrapping Section 28

That's just the headline stuff and it's the domestic stuff. But all of those were opposed by the Tories and they would reverse them if they thought they could, I'm convinced of that.

The world's changed since '97 and the Conservatives aren't the shambles of a torn and divisive wreck that they were then. But they're not any more progressive or 'compassionate' than they were then either. And they were never either of those to begin with...

I feel sorry for those who were too young to appreciate what long-term Conservative rule really meant for the society around them. For all the ills that pervade our life we don't deserve that again...

:thumbsup: Absolutely fantastic post and pretty much sums up the reason why my X went in the Labour box on Thursday and will do so again at the next general election regardless of what the witch hunt in the media tells me.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Just a matter of time now.

Good or bad?

Bad. There is a bunch of crazies in the Tory Party, and Cameron has a full time job keeping them out of the public eye. Just wait till they get back in power, and Brown will seem an OK guy.

[GlesgaeHibby]

:thumbsup: Absolutely fantastic post and pretty much sums up the reason why my X went in the Labour box on Thursday and will do so again at the next general election regardless of what the witch hunt in the media tells me.

I think that is a foolish approach. Yes I agree with real Labour values, but sadly the Labour party are so out of touch with them these days. They are completely inept at governing, and under their stewardship the gap between the rich and poor has got wider. They have set up a horrible borrowing culture in the UK, because the fool that is in charge just now decided to keep on borrowing through the good times rather than saving.

I hate the tory party, I hate what they stand for, BUT I wouldn't re-elect somebody who is doing a bad job. Labour need to re discover what they are about, they are meant to be a progressive party. The labour party should be judged on how well they are serving the poorest members of our society, and sadly on that they are failing.

Whether we like it or not, Labour have no hope of winning the next general election. Lets hope the Tories only have a 4-year rule and in that period Labour seriously get their act together.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think that is a foolish approach. Yes I agree with real Labour values, but sadly the Labour party are so out of touch with them these days. They are completely inept at governing, and under their stewardship the gap between the rich and poor has got wider. They have set up a horrible borrowing culture in the UK, because the fool that is in charge just now decided to keep on borrowing through the good times rather than saving.

I hate the tory party, I hate what they stand for, BUT I wouldn't re-elect somebody who is doing a bad job. Labour need to re discover what they are about, they are meant to be a progressive party. The labour party should be judged on how well they are serving the poorest members of our society, and sadly on that they are failing.

Whether we like it or not, Labour have no hope of winning the next general election. Lets hope the Tories only have a 4-year rule and in that period Labour seriously get their act together.

What Gordon Brown borrowed all that money? I thought it was home owners - and I didn't hear any of them complain when they were down at DFS and B&Q every other week, or trotting around in their 4x4s that they don't need.

I agree that the poorest haven't been helped, but the poor will always be poor. I am disgusted that home owners and the banks were given wads of cash, because they hit hard times.

The thing is the though when you are really poor, every week is about survival, so the loss of luxuries isn't necessarily something that concerns you.

Hate to stand up for them, because they have been so incompetent in many ways. However, they have made progress on a lot more things than the Tories did during their dictatorship.

[Mibbes Aye]

Mibbes, top notch post...there is a lot in there (you missed out devolution btw) that simply would not have happened under a tory (be that thatcher or major) rule.

I'm far from being a Labour supporter but think sometimes the positive, popularist and dare i say it near socialist ideals, actions that they have enacted have been pretty landscape changing.

Thing is though is that life moves on and most of Labours good work was done early doors and since then and esp. since Brown came to power they have only been a party in power too long...all things change and party politics and political power are no different.

What really saddens me though is that there is no modernist party. Where is the vision and the ambition. Where is the desire to have a lean but mean public sector, where is the desire to have low taxation and freedom of choice married to a smart and efffective economy that empowers people and gives prosperity. Where is the national pride and the desire to work for the greater good while enriching the country and others....frankly where is the vision, where is the leadership???

I agree about devolution being a landmark policy that wouldn't have happened under the Tories in the past. I deliberately didnt include it though as I think it wasn't as progressive a measure as it could have been.

As a consequence of devolution in Scotland we got (amongst other things) free personal care, protection for women breastfeeding in public, mental health legislation which changed the landscape for care and treatment and pushed us miles ahead of England and Wales, and the Land Reform Act which to my mind is a hugely unheralded and under-rated piece of redistributive legislation. All very worthy things which the Tories wouldn't have touched with a bargepole.

I think that real vision would have been a process of regional devolution however, where the likes of Edinburgh and the Lothians was re-established as a political and economic entity, likewise Greater Glasgow. That's the sort of level that works, that's close enough to the population to be effective and meaningful, while having the size to make big, positive changes in lots of people's lives and create the economies of scale needed to flourish.

As long as we have a Holyrood there's no chance of that though, as the regional authorities would be too much of a challenge to the executive and to the legislature. I think we blew the opportunity to create the best and most effective system of government and governance, sacrificed on an altar of emotion-fuelled nationalism where getting a Parliament was more important than what we would actually do with it.

Just my personal opinion :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I agree about devolution being a landmark policy that wouldn't have happened under the Tories in the past. I deliberately didnt include it though as I think it wasn't as progressive a measure as it could have been.

As a consequence of devolution in Scotland we got (amongst other things) free personal care, protection for women breastfeeding in public, mental health legislation which changed the landscape for care and treatment and pushed us miles ahead of England and Wales, and the Land Reform Act which to my mind is a hugely unheralded and under-rated piece of redistributive legislation. All very worthy things which the Tories wouldn't have touched with a bargepole.

I think that real vision would have been a process of regional devolution however, where the likes of Edinburgh and the Lothians was re-established as a political and economic entity, likewise Greater Glasgow. That's the sort of level that works, that's close enough to the population to be effective and meaningful, while having the size to make big, positive changes in lots of people's lives and create the economies of scale needed to flourish.

As long as we have a Holyrood there's no chance of that though, as the regional authorities would be too much of a challenge to the executive and to the legislature. I think we blew the opportunity to create the best and most effective system of government and governance, sacrificed on an altar of emotion-fuelled nationalism where getting a Parliament was more important than what we would actually do with it.

Just my personal opinion :greengrin

I know that since devolution, the NHS in Scotland, and the NHS in England are very much two seperate beasts. Scotland's mental health legislation is far more progressive than that in England. In fact many outisders feel that the English are actually regressive in the way their system is going.

I attribute this to the fact that Scotland, as a smaller country, finds it easier to pull together all the different schools of thought, and reach a sane (excuse the pun) consensus. England just seems to be too big a place to make any progress.

Smaller, on the whole, seems to be better. I'm not sure that I would like it to get down to the level of Glasgow and Edinburgh making decisions on health care though. Some projects and initiatives require a critical mass, and I reckon on something like care of the elderly, for example, economies of scale can be obtained by keeping it national.

Sorry I'm so vague, I am talking off the top of my head here, would am interested in what people have to add.

[Ed De Gramo]

The best thing that could possibly happen.........for Scotland.

A year or so of a Tory Westminster is part of Alex Salmond's game plan. Tory's in Westminster = a big increase in the SNP vote in 2011:thumbsup:

***** the SNP :agree:

Salmond and his band of hypocrites can all GTF :bye:

[steakbake]

A tory government would unquestionably be bad. But to be honest, I don't think there will be much difference between "New" Labour and "New" Tories. The only difference I can see is that there are at least Labour MPs from Scotland, whereas the Tories have what, 2 Scottish MPs? It is depressing however, that there are some people who can only ever imagine perpetual labour government and are willing to keep on voting Labour no matter how badly they are doing.

Tory government in the UK parliament will probably increase the SNP vote in Scotland. I'm not confident that it would lead to full scale independence. A period of UK tory government might result in the Unionist parties in Scotland being forced in to a position to argue for more powers coming north to such a point where we are effectively independent in all but name. We can see that happening already with discussions about the financing of Scotland and the Barnett formula. The end result would be Scotland raising its own finance to pay for Scottish Government's policies, which as others here have said, diverge in many ways from English/Welsh policies.

I think the current Labour government is untenable in the medium to long term. It has been pieced together by Brown whose authority is nearly non-existent and any number of upsets will probably result in the knives coming out for him. He is in such a weak position that there are some people he has had to keep in place in the cabinet because for them to go would mean the end for Brown. He's also appointed unelected people to his Cabinet because there is literally no MP that he can put in their place.

Next week's Westminster motion put forward by the SNP to disolve parliament and call a general election could be unexpectedly close and depending on what happens over the next few days, might actually come off. I would imagine that an October 09 UK general election is looking more likely than Brown hanging on till June 2010.

[Jack]

I think that is a foolish approach. Yes I agree with real Labour values, but sadly the Labour party are so out of touch with them these days.

I think you nearly got it right. :wink:

I would go further and say politicians are out of touch.

Years ago a politician was someone who entered politics having ‘lived a little’. Nowadays too many have left school and done a university degree probably in politics. Their researchers and assistants have done likewise.

They are basically a self perpetuating industry and as we have seen recently a rather self indulgent and nepotistic at that.

They are there not for the good of the country and its people but to feather their own nests and that of their own type.

[GC]

***** the SNP :agree:

Salmond and his band of hypocrites can all GTF :bye:

See if your going to make a contribution to a thread Gramo, try and make it worthwhile instead of you usual nonsense please.

Either that or just keep it quiet.

[Ed De Gramo]

See if your going to make a contribution to a thread Gramo, try and make it worthwhile instead of you usual nonsense please.

Either that or just keep it quiet.

Who made you boss?

Someone mentioned the SNP and I gave my response to it....is this not a messageboard?

[GC]

Who made you boss?

Someone mentioned the SNP and I gave my response to it....is this not a messageboard?

Try giving a reasonable argument then!

Why are they a band of hypocrites?

[steakbake]

See if your going to make a contribution to a thread Gramo, try and make it worthwhile instead of you usual nonsense please.

Either that or just keep it quiet.

Let the man say what he wants.

If that's the best argument he can come up with, then I don't think he's in much danger of causing the nationalists too many sleepless nights about not attracting his support.

[Ed De Gramo]

Try giving a reasonable argument then!

Why are they a band of hypocrites?

They changed their minds over tramworks....they spent so long bigging it up...then had a change of heart only to find out that the works had already started.

Their leader is a bumbling oaf...he's slagged of Westminster for their overspending....whilst he gives the thumbs up to an advert slagging Westminster that cost almost 600K...

Also trying to brainwash people into thinking Independence is the way forward....at the moment Scotland wouldn't survive on it's own and that'll be the way forward for at least another good few years...

[ancient hibee]

It's interesting isn't it that every Labour Government has left office with higher unemployment than when it started and the West of Scotland which during my lifetime has been solidly under local labour government and with mostly labour MPs suffers frrom the highest levels of deprivation in Western Europe and yet it's the Tories that don't care about ordinary folk.Hmm?

[GC]

They changed their minds over tramworks....they spent so long bigging it up...then had a change of heart only to find out that the works had already started. - I'll look into this and get back to you.

Their leader is a bumbling oaf...he's slagged of Westminster for their overspending....whilst he gives the thumbs up to an advert slagging Westminster that cost almost 600K... - Political campaigning Gramo, every major political party will have spent around that figure on an advert, possible more. I'm not saying it is correct for anyone to be spending that amount of cash but surely this is not a charge that you can lay solely at the SNP is it? In that case then all politcal leaders could be called "bumbling oafs":wink:

Also trying to brainwash people into thinking Independence is the way forward....at the moment Scotland wouldn't survive on it's own and that'll be the way forward for at least another good few years... - They are a nationalist party, their sole aim is an independent Scotland, of course they are going to push this, I'm yet to see anyone who has been brainwashed so far, who knows, there may be some people out there without the capactiy to think for themseles that could be taken in, you might know some also:wink: but in the main everyone knows what they are about and you can decide for yourself if independence is the way forward, what makes you so sure Scotland could not survive on it's own?

See above.

[Sir David Gray]

***** the SNP :agree:

Salmond and his band of hypocrites can all GTF :bye:

I really cannot take the SNP too seriously. On the one hand they go on about how Scotland should not be ruled by Westminster, (fair enough you might think, I actually don't have a problem with the idea of being independent from the rest of the UK) but on the other hand, one of the first things they would do with a newly independent Scotland would be to apply for membership to the EU.

So, instead of being ruled from Westminster, we would be ruled from Brussels and Strasbourg.

It's not really how I would define true independence.

Anyway, back to the thread title.

From my own perspective, whether the Tories getting in again would be good or bad, remains to be seen. Labour has been in power since I was nine years old, so it is all I have ever really known. I know that there are a lot of people in Scotland (there's a few in my own family) who will never vote Conservative, mainly due to how the Scots were treated during Margaret Thatcher's leadership.

But I wasn't around then so my perceptions of them aren't clouded by what happened back then. That's not to say that I support the Tories, i'm more of an independent, but I'm probably not as anti-Conservative as other Scottish people are, for that very reason.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's interesting isn't it that every Labour Government has left office with higher unemployment than when it started and the West of Scotland which during my lifetime has been solidly under local labour government and with mostly labour MPs suffers frrom the highest levels of deprivation in Western Europe and yet it's the Tories that don't care about ordinary folk.Hmm?

Not sure why anyone should be surprised. Philosophically, whether you take them as a conservative Conservative party or as a neo-liberal Conservative party, or indeed as an amalgam of the two, they're fundamentally disposed towards the responsibilising of individuals for wider social issues outwith their control.

They take away the safety net but basically ensure that if someone falls it's 'their fault' rather than the outcomes of an ideology that believes there's nothing wrong with the needs of the few being prioritised over the needs of the many.

[Mibbes Aye]

I know that since devolution, the NHS in Scotland, and the NHS in England are very much two seperate beasts. Scotland's mental health legislation is far more progressive than that in England. In fact many outisders feel that the English are actually regressive in the way their system is going.

I attribute this to the fact that Scotland, as a smaller country, finds it easier to pull together all the different schools of thought, and reach a sane (excuse the pun) consensus. England just seems to be too big a place to make any progress.

Smaller, on the whole, seems to be better. I'm not sure that I would like it to get down to the level of Glasgow and Edinburgh making decisions on health care though. Some projects and initiatives require a critical mass, and I reckon on something like care of the elderly, for example, economies of scale can be obtained by keeping it national.

Sorry I'm so vague, I am talking off the top of my head here, would am interested in what people have to add.

Nothing to stop a Glasgow and a Lothians and a Grampian and a Tayside super-authorities (for example) teaming up to create a de facto national 'critical mass' though. If it created the economies the appetite would be there. At the end of the day, the broad, strategic direction of say, Department of Health and the Scottish Government isn't really different to any great degree. Local variations and differences in emphasis is all.

I think your point about older people's care is apposite. It's a responsibility of the local authorities to ensure the care and all thirty-two are signed up through COSLA to a joint negotiating stance on care home fees for example. Very localised issues dealt with on an aggregated basis.

For obvious historical reasons, we have tie-ins to a sense of Scotland. Separate legislation in a number of key areas reinforces this. Making local government structures more analogous to NHS (and policing) structures wouldn't necessarily contribute to a sense of Scottishness but would be far more effective IMO. But they wouldn't sit comfortably alongside a Scottish Government as an executive or a legislature (or indeed a judiciary). Something would have to give and if we're serious about fitting the structure around people rather than the people around the structure, then to my mind that suggests dispensing with ideas of the nation-state and being more pragmatic.

[richard_pitts]

I agree with all of Mibees Aye and it kept me voting Labour for a long time, even with the likes of the Gulf War in mind. I also think it's laughable that Labour can be regarded as the Tories in disguise. New Labour was actually the second most redistributive government in the history of British Politics based largely on the 10p tax rate for the lowest earners.

I think as a Party of Government you have to balance what you believe in with what is achievable in the political climate you operate in. Politics is the art of the possible and the Labour Party even in the 1940s was a gradualist and moderate party and it's worth remembering that for all it's posturing and ideological purity the Lib Dems and the hard left have delivered ****all since 1945.

As a Labour supporter you must effectively balance your ideology against the difficult business of achieving change. It is thus a blancing exercise between your conscience versus what has actually been delivered. In 2001 and 2005 I voted Labour because I felt they did more good than harm.

Now a number of things tipped me over the edge I'm afraid and I have left the Labour Party and cannot vote for them. I left the Lib Dems to join them and might go back although the way they treated Kennedy disgusted me, but that is another story. I forced myself to vote at the Euros and only did so for the sake of stopping the BNP. As a left-of-centre progressive I actually feel that nobody represents me anymore


In reaching the above conclusions I considered this:


The Gulf War
ID Cards
The War Against Terror (T.W.A.T for short)
CCTV everywhere
Personal debt
The abolition of the 10p tax rate (Why??)
Ever-growing surveilance - believe me they are watching you
30 days detention without trial
Race relations / immigration - why is Labour trying to out-do the Tories? Not standing up has caused the rise of the BNP
Peter Mandelson
Alistair Campbell
Spin replacing substance
David Kelly - He was murdered for sure
Tony Blair - WTF was a Labour Prime Minister doing so far up George W Bush?
Cherie Blair, the thinking man's Posh Spice - obnoxious stick insect with an irritatingly high opinion of herself shared by few others :bitchy:
Expenses - Remember Blair proclaiming they would be "Whiter than white?"
"An ethical foreign policy" resulting in the Saudi BAE fiasco where a corruption enquiry in seriously dodgy dealings by BAE was halted because it threatened British jobs.
Cool Britannia, neddery and Clebrity sh*te
Gordon Brown - where is your vision? What do you actually believe?

[Lucius Apuleius]

Why do we not, especially at local government level, scrub political parties altogether? If everybody was independent then they could vote for what they believe in and what would benefit their constituency rather than follow the party line. It would also force people to actually vote for the person they think will do them most good rather than blindly vote the same as ma daddy did coz a dinnae understand anything aboot it.

[Peevemor]

Why do we not, especially at local government level, scrub political parties altogether? If everybody was independent then they could vote for what they believe in and what would benefit their constituency rather than follow the party line. It would also force people to actually vote for the person they think will do them most good rather than blindly vote the same as ma daddy did coz a dinnae understand anything aboot it.

:top marks

[da-robster]

Why do we not, especially at local government level, scrub political parties altogether? If everybody was independent then they could vote for what they believe in and what would benefit their constituency rather than follow the party line. It would also force people to actually vote for the person they think will do them most good rather than blindly vote the same as ma daddy did coz a dinnae understand anything aboot it.

While in principle I agree I think it may be hard to actually get anything done in practice.

[Saorsa]

***** the SNP :agree:

Salmond and his band of hypocrites can all GTF :bye:Better voting for beige party candidates as long as they have a big pair eh :wink:

[Ed De Gramo]

Better voting for beige party candidates as long as they have a big pair eh :wink:

:greengrin

As if.....i've decided not to vote anymore....all politicians are **** and are not worthy of my vote....

[GC]

:greengrin

As if.....i've decided not to vote anymore....all politicians are **** and are not worthy of my vote....

Have you decided not to answer the question I asked in my reply to you Gramo?

[Ed De Gramo]

Have you decided not to answer the question I asked in my reply to you Gramo?

gathering my facts first.....:greengrin

[GC]

gathering my facts first.....:greengrin

Ach jeez, do you have to?

Might actualy be better having that debate on another thread as this is regarding the Tories and not the SNP and Scotland's possible independence.

[Jonnyboy]

:greengrin

As if.....i've decided not to vote anymore....all politicians are **** and are not worthy of my vote....

I'm sure those who fought for you to have that right will be spinning in their graves! The stock answer to your statement is if you don't vote, don't bother moaning about anything politicians do as you've forfeited that right :wink:

[Big Ed]

It's interesting isn't it that every Labour Government has left office with higher unemployment than when it started and the West of Scotland which during my lifetime has been solidly under local labour government and with mostly labour MPs suffers frrom the highest levels of deprivation in Western Europe and yet it's the Tories that don't care about ordinary folk.Hmm?

In response to your glib, sarcastic post, I would like to draw your attention to Mibbes aye's articulate and well thought out response to the OP. I'd also like to ask whether you think that the population of the West of Scotland, that you used as an example of Labour government ineptitude, will be doing handstands at the thought of the reactionary non event that is George Osborne, helping them, as the prospective Chancellor of the Exchequer, out of their squalor?
BTW I did not vote for Labour at the European elections.

[ancient hibee]

In response to your glib, sarcastic post, I would like to draw your attention to Mibbes aye's articulate and well thought out response to the OP. I'd also like to ask whether you think that the population of the West of Scotland, that you used as an example of Labour government ineptitude, will be doing handstands at the thought of the reactionary non event that is George Osborne, helping them, as the prospective Chancellor of the Exchequer, out of their squalor?
BTW I did not vote for Labour at the European elections.

Frankly I couldn't care less who you voted for.Nor do I understand what is glib or sarcastic in pointing out that the people in the West of Scotland have been consistently betrayed by the politicians they voted for.

[Dashing Bob S]

I doubt i'll vote at the next election, or if so it'll be for the SNP. I'm no longer concerned whether or not Labour or Tory win in Westminster. I can see a lot of unrest either way as things will get rough over the next couple of years economically, and neither party can really influence the global economy worse. There will probably be more riots and despair if the Tories get in, as they have a constituency of very wealthy upper-class supporters who will expected to be rewarded with a big slice of the cake (as Bush did immediately in his first term in the USA). This means less for everyone else, and as the cake is declining, a lot of social unrest/riots in the streets/crime rising. I don't this would be avoided under New Labour, but it probably won't happen to the same extent.

However, the general impact on the lives of most people in the UK, won't be radically different, whoever gets in.

So sad that the USA have a President who is inspiring, idealistic and pragmatic, while we get the same sad bunch of goons who fill me with about as much excitment as the prospect of a Gary MacKay speech at a Sheraton Hotel sportsman's dinner.

[Ed De Gramo]

I'm sure those who fought for you to have that right will be spinning in their graves! The stock answer to your statement is if you don't vote, don't bother moaning about anything politicians do as you've forfeited that right :wink:

True...but I bet those spinning in their graves would be outraged to hear about all the politicians screwing every single tax payer who they fought to get the vote for :wink:

[Big Ed]

Frankly I couldn't care less who you voted for.Nor do I understand what is glib or sarcastic in pointing out that the people in the West of Scotland have been consistently betrayed by the politicians they voted for.

If you don't understand what is glib and sarcastic about your post, I suggest that you read it again.

[RyeSloan]

Nothing to stop a Glasgow and a Lothians and a Grampian and a Tayside super-authorities (for example) teaming up to create a de facto national 'critical mass' though. If it created the economies the appetite would be there. At the end of the day, the broad, strategic direction of say, Department of Health and the Scottish Government isn't really different to any great degree. Local variations and differences in emphasis is all.

I think your point about older people's care is apposite. It's a responsibility of the local authorities to ensure the care and all thirty-two are signed up through COSLA to a joint negotiating stance on care home fees for example. Very localised issues dealt with on an aggregated basis.

For obvious historical reasons, we have tie-ins to a sense of Scotland. Separate legislation in a number of key areas reinforces this. Making local government structures more analogous to NHS (and policing) structures wouldn't necessarily contribute to a sense of Scottishness but would be far more effective IMO. But they wouldn't sit comfortably alongside a Scottish Government as an executive or a legislature (or indeed a judiciary). Something would have to give and if we're serious about fitting the structure around people rather than the people around the structure, then to my mind that suggests dispensing with ideas of the nation-state and being more pragmatic.


I like this idea...not one I have seen too often and certainly not one I have seen articulated so well.

Considering some of the structural issues the NHS has and does suffer (not to mention it's methods of staffing) I'm not sure it's the best example to use but I've never seen the Scottish Parliament feeling 'threatened' by effective local government before. Might be because local councils here are so inept that the thought of them running the country turns me even colder than Salmond does (and he's pretty chilly!).

Still the idea of essentially a federal Scotland with the main powers being held at a regional level is a good one...would certainly be something that would interest me if the SNP were to say spell this out as the potential future of an independent Scotland, sadly nothing of such detail or imagination will ever come to pass.

[Nando™]

Better voting for beige party candidates as long as they have a big pair eh :wink:
:hilarious

I mind that day:thumbsup:

[ancient hibee]

If you don't understand what is glib and sarcastic about your post, I suggest that you read it again.

I have read it again and can only say-

fact 1 each time a labour government has lost office unemployment has been higher than when it came in;

fact 2 the West of Scotland has some of the worst areas of deprivation in western europe despite being solidly represented by labour politicians both nationall and locally for generations.

Now as a kindness perhaps you will be good enough to explain what's glib and sarcastic about that.

[Mibbes Aye]

I have read it again and can only say-

fact 1 each time a labour government has lost office unemployment has been higher than when it came in;

fact 2 the West of Scotland has some of the worst areas of deprivation in western europe despite being solidly represented by labour politicians both nationall and locally for generations.

Now as a kindness perhaps you will be good enough to explain what's glib and sarcastic about that.

Have you got the actual figures for that? Be interesting to see them....

The Attlee government came in during the Second World War. We had conscription and the suchlike in force and as such I don't think any meaningful rate could be defined. Demobilisation on the scale of switching from a 'total war' economy couldn't do anything but create unemployment, especially in a country materially and economically exhausted from six years of conflict on a global scale.

The Wilson governments of 1964-1970 probably saw a rise in unemployment but I would guess that it was marginal, within the context of the period and continued a trend that had been set in the latter half of the Conservative administrations of 1951-1964 (and perhaps earlier) as the downsizing of heavy industry started to take effect.

Of course I would be surprised if any of the post-War Labour governments came anywhere near the record levels of unemployment we saw under Thatcher in the 1980s. In fact, unemployment at its worst under the Tories probably exceeded the combined levels of the departing Labour governments in 1951, 1970 and 1979.

[Big Ed]

It's interesting isn't it that every Labour Government has left office with higher unemployment than when it started and the West of Scotland which during my lifetime has been solidly under local labour government and with mostly labour MPs suffers frrom the highest levels of deprivation in Western Europe and yet it's the Tories that don't care about ordinary folk.Hmm?

The first bit that I have highlighted for you is glib the second is sarcastic. That was kind of me wasn't it?