General Election 2015...

[steakbake]

Too close to call and everything to play for. Here we go again: disingenuous claims v disingenuous counter claims

My prediction: a hung parliament between Miliband and Cameron and a rerun in 12-18 months time between May and AN Other.

Given a choice between PM Cameron and PM Miliband, I have more faith in the abilities of Cameron, but that's far from a ringing endorsement and god help is with the Tories in power again, especially if propped up by UKIP.

Let spurious arguments reign supreme on the countdown to GE2015!

[lord bunberry]

I think we're looking at a 3 party coalition with the Tories/UKIP and maybe unionists in Northern Ireland on one side, and Labour/Lib Dems and the SNP on the other.
I can't see either coalition lasting 5 years and also think there will be a rerun within a couple of years. A right wing coalition would almost certainly mean an in out referendum on the EU, which may sway people's vote.

[RyeSloan]

Usual piecemeal arguments being brought out already.

No party has my support and they remind me of kids arguing over spilt milk...clearly it's too much to ask for any of them to be honest on spending plans and to admit that the UK faces some serious challenges that need some serious answers.

I would like to see someone come forward with a Canada style wholesale review of government activities and really look to reaffirm what the government is there to do and how it will do it. Not going my breath tho and fully expect hollow promises from all sides about 'protecting the NHS' without any real clue as to how they would do so and what they actually mean by that.

None the less I find the sparring quite entertaining and seriously struggle to see how Miliband can generate any serious momentum. He's on route to be routed in Scotland by the SNP and seems to have little to whack the Tories with in England. UKIP are a side show in terms of seats although they may create a few waves in specific constituencies...that said the rise of the smaller party continues and that can only damage the big two (Lib Dems must be facing a serious wipe out)

[Future17]

Too close to call and everything to play for. Here we go again: disingenuous claims v disingenuous counter claims

My prediction: a hung parliament between Miliband and Cameron and a rerun in 12-18 months time between May and AN Other.

Given a choice between PM Cameron and PM Miliband, I have more faith in the abilities of Cameron, but that's far from a ringing endorsement and god help is with the Tories in power again, especially if propped up by UKIP.

Let spurious arguments reign supreme on the countdown to GE2015!

My prediction is a minority government, which would last until early 2016 at best before another election was called.

The only outcome I can foresee which might prevent this is if the Tories ended up in a coalition with UKIP, but I think that is very unlikely.

[Sylar]

My prediction is a minority government, which would last until early 2016 at best before another election was called.

The only outcome I can foresee which might prevent this is if the Tories ended up in a coalition with UKIP, but I think that is very unlikely.

If that happens, I'm emigrating!

[Haymaker]

If that happens, I'm emigrating!

:agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

Articles are starting to appear floating a Tory-Lab pact to keep out UKIP and the SNP. Too many for it to be coincidence.

Vote Labour - get Tory ? :wink:

https://news.google.com/news/i/story?ncl=d-DpNl_OVuAX-vMoeECfM1SyWinJM&q=grand+coalition+cameron+miliband&lr=English&hl=en

[lord bunberry]

Articles are starting to appear floating a Tory-Lab pact to keep out UKIP and the SNP. Too many for it to be coincidence.

Vote Labour - get Tory ? :wink:

https://news.google.com/news/i/story?ncl=d-DpNl_OVuAX-vMoeECfM1SyWinJM&q=grand+coalition+cameron+miliband&lr=English&hl=en
That would be the funniest thing ever, imagine Cameron and Milliband sitting next to each other at PMQs

[Stranraer]

Tory minority government. I hope I'm wrong.

[steakbake]

Articles are starting to appear floating a Tory-Lab pact to keep out UKIP and the SNP. Too many for it to be coincidence.

Vote Labour - get Tory ? :wink:

https://news.google.com/news/i/story?ncl=d-DpNl_OVuAX-vMoeECfM1SyWinJM&q=grand+coalition+cameron+miliband&lr=English&hl=en

That would be unbelievable. Electoral suicide for Labour in Scotland. It won't happen.

[Future17]

That would be unbelievable. Electoral suicide for Labour in Scotland. It won't happen.

Murphy has already set about distancing Scottish Labour from HQ with his chat about London mansion tax paying for nurses in Scotland and the well-choreographed spat which followed. :wink:

[Stranraer]

My (former) Scottish constituency should be interesting. The only Tory seat in Scotland and the latest Scottish poll is showing that Murphy's leadership hasn't given Scottish Labour a bounce. My Irish constituency is all to predictable but Scotland will be interesting.

[ronaldo7]

Not much of surprise to see who was backing whom in the recent Branch office election. No Unions backing the Blairite.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/revealed-murphys-cash-backers.26228901

On the GE, I think we'll get a hung Parly with the Tories taking the lead to keep things on track, and we'll be back at it in 2016.

[hibsbollah]

Labour as largest party but short of an overall majority. There is no way there will be a Labour Tory coalition. Lib Dems and SNP with 30 MPs each will hold the balance of power.

[JeMeSouviens]

I see Murphy has employed fellow arch Blairites John Mcternan and Blair MacDougall to run slab's campaign. Interesting given their combined track record:

- lost Scotland (prevously unthinkable) to the SNP in 07
- lost lab leader for red hot favourite D Milliband
- lost Aus election for Labor in disastrous style
- managed to almost blow a 20% No lead and had to be bailed by G Brown

[Stranraer]

Latest poll has Lib Dems on 7 - 1 point above the Greens, worryingly UKIP are on 18 I just hope to God the by election victories were based on the individual former Tory MP's and by May they make no more gains.

[Mon Dieu4]

Latest poll has Lib Dems on 7 - 1 point above the Greens, worryingly UKIP are on 18 I just hope to God the by election victories were based on the individual former Tory MP's and by May they make no more gains.

I saw something on news night last week, they got a company to use all the latest polling information, it took into account various factors and ran it through the most up to date computer forecasting system

After running it lots of times 90% of the time it worked out as labour having the most seats, by about 8 or so over the Tories, SNP were next on 30 odd, lib dems about 22, UKIP only ended up with 3, as much as the media and polls like to whip people up into a frenzy this is about how I'd expect it to be, no way will UKIP get anywhere near 18 seats

[hibsbollah]

I saw something on news night last week, they got a company to use all the latest polling information, it took into account various factors and ran it through the most up to date computer forecasting system

After running it lots of times 90% of the time it worked out as labour having the most seats, by about 8 or so over the Tories, SNP were next on 30 odd, lib dems about 22, UKIP only ended up with 3, as much as the media and polls like to whip people up into a frenzy this is about how I'd expect it to be, no way will UKIP get anywhere near 18 seats

Thats how I'd expect it go. 'Mon the computer modelling.

[Stranraer]

I saw something on news night last week, they got a company to use all the latest polling information, it took into account various factors and ran it through the most up to date computer forecasting system

After running it lots of times 90% of the time it worked out as labour having the most seats, by about 8 or so over the Tories, SNP were next on 30 odd, lib dems about 22, UKIP only ended up with 3, as much as the media and polls like to whip people up into a frenzy this is about how I'd expect it to be, no way will UKIP get anywhere near 18 seats

I hope that is the case, 3 more UKIP MP's would be bad but not the end of the world. I'm wondering if Galloway will hold onto Bradford West, it's going to be interesting that's for sure, I'm hoping Dumfries shire, Clydesdale and Tweedale turns another colour!

[lucky]

Labour to be the biggest party but whether it can get an overall majority depends on Scotland. No way in hell will Labour go into collation with the Tories and I doubt that they would even consider the SNP

[JeMeSouviens]

Labour as largest party but short of an overall majority. There is no way there will be a Labour Tory coalition. Lib Dems and SNP with 30 MPs each will hold the balance of power.

I think the way fptp works it's really difficult for the SNP to finish on about 30. They are much more likely to either be way below that or will reach a tipping point that will see them surge past 40.

[JeMeSouviens]

Labour to be the biggest party but whether it can get an overall majority depends on Scotland. No way in hell will Labour go into collation with the Tories and I doubt that they would even consider the SNP

For an overall majority, either Lab or Con need about an 8% lead. Lab's average poll lead has all but evaporated. With the focus from now inevitably shifting even more to Milliband as pm I think they are odds on to trail in behind.

So hung parliament with Con as largest party.

[JeMeSouviens]

There are various online %ages to seats models, eg.http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

[hibsbollah]

For an overall majority, either Lab or Con need about an 8% lead.

Not necessarily. 326 is the magic number regardless of the difference between any two parties. So there's plenty of different scenarios dependent on how much the smaller parties can bring to the table.

[lucky]

For an overall majority, either Lab or Con need about an 8% lead. Lab's average poll lead has all but evaporated. With the focus from now inevitably shifting even more to Milliband as pm I think they are odds on to trail in behind.

So hung parliament with Con as largest party.

This election will be decided in the 100 or so marginals but with the added mix of Scotland. National polls are not accurate enough as supports varies in constituencies. The Lib Dems will poll better in areas than their 8% national poll rating. Here in Scotland the snp have a 17 point lead in the polls but no one expects that to hold or be replicated across Scotland

[degenerated]

I see Murphy has employed fellow arch Blairites John Mcternan and Blair MacDougall to run slab's campaign. Interesting given their combined track record:

- lost Scotland (prevously unthinkable) to the SNP in 07
- lost lab leader for red hot favourite D Milliband
- lost Aus election for Labor in disastrous style
- managed to almost blow a 20% No lead and had to be bailed by G Brown

The appointment of McTernan is yet another indication of how Scottish Labour appear to have misjudged the mood of Scottish people. On one hand we have Murphy telling us he is reaching out to yes voters and then on the other he appoints the man who reckons we are a mendicant nation of narrow, presbyterian and racist people.

Murphy, McDougall and McTernan - truly a triumverate of tits


a good list of links to the outspoken Mcternan's anti scottish, anti socialist and right wing views
http://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-labour-for-dummies-2015/

[snooky]

Miliband accuses Tories of letting down the working man. :faf:
The teapot/kettle story should be his next read.
What a walloper.

[Colr]

Miliband accuses Tories of letting down the working man. :faf:
The teapot/kettle story should be his next read.
What a walloper.


The working man? I'm sure he wrote an essay about him at uni.

[Colr]

For an overall majority, either Lab or Con need about an 8% lead. Lab's average poll lead has all but evaporated. With the focus from now inevitably shifting even more to Milliband as pm I think they are odds on to trail in behind.

So hung parliament with Con as largest party.

I'm not sure its that simple. I think because of the way wards are carved up, the Tories need a decent sized lead to take power whereas Labour can get in even if they poll under the Tories.

I recall Cameron tried to get the wards adjusted in 2010/11 but the Liberals - you know, the ones who are always banging on about getting a fairer voting system - blocked it

[lord bunberry]

Miliband accuses Tories of letting down the working man. :faf:
The teapot/kettle story should be his next read.
What a walloper.

I think it was 1997 that the Labour Party abandoned the working man

[Colr]

I think it was 1997 that the Labour Party abandoned the working man

Only if he's British. They're more interested in getting public school girls onto company boards these days.

[Stranraer]

Iain Dale's predicting a three way coalition. According to his research / study, the SNP will have 18 seats after the election.

[Hibby Bairn]

Anyone else sense an element of detachment to the General Election in Scotland after the referendum and all the debate it generated?

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/10/snp-set-to-double-its-vote-in-general-election-poll-finds

The media is trailing this poll as bad news for Labour, but it actually isnt. Not as catastrophic as recent polls, with only a 10% gap between the two and 25% still undecided.

I think there will be a 15 seat swing, not enough to threaten Labour as the biggest single party at a split Westminster.

[lord bunberry]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/10/snp-set-to-double-its-vote-in-general-election-poll-finds

The media is trailing this poll as bad news for Labour, but it actually isnt. Not as catastrophic as recent polls, with only a 10% gap between the two and 25% still undecided.

I think there will be a 15 seat swing, not enough to threaten Labour as the biggest single party at a split Westminster.

I still can't get my head around the fact that Milliband could be prime minister or that Ed Balls could be chancellor

[Geo_1875]

I still can't get my head around the fact that Milliband could be prime minister or that Ed Balls could be chancellor

It does beggar belief that Milliband could actually have any power. He just reminds me of Labour leaders of the 80's and 90's who were made for opposition. He only lacks the political fervour that they had.

[lord bunberry]

It does beggar belief that Milliband could actually have any power. He just reminds me of Labour leaders of the 80's and 90's who were made for opposition. He only lacks the political fervour that they had.

At least those guys in the 80s stood for something, Milliband comes across as an incompetent fool who will say anything to get elected. Ed Balls must be one of the most disliked politicians around. I can only hope that if elected they grow into the role.

[HiBremian]

Anyone else sense an element of detachment to the General Election in Scotland after the referendum and all the debate it generated?

Around 750,000 people, apparently..

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/poll-voter-numbers-in-general-election-could-fall-back-to-2010-levels.118124726

[RyeSloan]

It does beggar belief that Milliband could actually have any power. He just reminds me of Labour leaders of the 80's and 90's who were made for opposition. He only lacks the political fervour that they had.

It is even more bizarre that Labour think that this doesn't really matter...I think that they have seriously under estimated just how much people think Ed is, urmm how can I put it, a bit weird and how much that will impact their vote.

A labour leader unpopular in Scotland is a big problem for them and the SNP must be pi**ing themselves laughing....almost as much as the Tories.

Doesn't help that there policies are unclear at best and no one has a clue what Labour actually stands for any more.

Then you you have the other Ed...Balls by name, Balls by nature.

[Hibbyradge]

Labour don't want to win.

The next 5 years of austerity are going to be brutal.

The Tories can take the heat.

IMO, of course.

[allmodcons]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/10/snp-set-to-double-its-vote-in-general-election-poll-finds

The media is trailing this poll as bad news for Labour, but it actually isnt. Not as catastrophic as recent polls, with only a 10% gap between the two and 25% still undecided.

I think there will be a 15 seat swing, not enough to threaten Labour as the biggest single party at a split Westminster.

Bad news for Labour is that the fieldwork for this poll pre-dates some of the more 'scary' polls.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

[Stranraer]

So it seems Murphy's leadership has had next to no impact on Labour's polling in Scotland. I'm off to begin leafleting today in the hope that for the first time since 1997 my constituency will not elect a Unionist.

[Beefster]

Labour don't want to win.

The next 5 years of austerity are going to be brutal.

The Tories can take the heat.

IMO, of course.

I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think Labour were particularly desperate to win in 2010 either, seeing as everyone knew that it was going to be cuts and tax rises.

[RyeSloan]

I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think Labour were particularly desperate to win in 2010 either, seeing as everyone knew that it was going to be cuts and tax rises.

That's the spirit! Only look to form a government when you can tax and spend without consequence! Thank goodness Labour have seen sense at last ;-)

[snooky]

Labour don't want to win.

The next 5 years of austerity are going to be brutal.

The Tories can take the heat.

IMO, of course.

Brilliant!
At last I've found some common ground with those Red Tories.

[Hibbyradge]

Brilliant!
At last I've found some common ground with those Red Tories.

You don't want to win either? :wink:

[cabbageandribs1875]

oh dear, how embarrassing :rolleyes: is the union boy not getting a high enough salary

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/irn-bru-gate-how-jim-murphy-claimed-two-cans-costing-130-on-commons-expense.1423510943


Mr Murphy made two claims for Irn-Bru, dubbed "Scotland's other national drink", before April 30 last year totalling £1.30, according to Ipsa's response.

[danhibees1875]

oh dear, how embarrassing :rolleyes: is the union boy not getting a high enough salary

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/irn-bru-gate-how-jim-murphy-claimed-two-cans-costing-130-on-commons-expense.1423510943


Mr Murphy made two claims for Irn-Bru, dubbed "Scotland's other national drink", before April 30 last year totalling £1.30, according to Ipsa's response.

This hardly seems like a newsworthy story? I expensed a can of irn bru along with a fish supper the other week...

[Glory Lurker]

I see Jim Murphy is raising the issue of alcohol at football again. He does of course know that this is a devolved issue? Earlier in the week we had a play from Labour MPs on health matters. Again, of course, devolved.

Where is the caveat that " if you vote for us in May, it won't actually make any difference on these matters"? The self-styled "party of devolution" treating voters like mugs. Again.

[Future17]

I see Jim Murphy is raising the issue of alcohol at football again. He does of course know that this is a devolved issue? Earlier in the week we had a play from Labour MPs on health matters. Again, of course, devolved.

Where is the caveat that " if you vote for us in May, it won't actually make any difference on these matters"? The self-styled "party of devolution" treating voters like mugs. Again.

I don't like Murphy, but are you suggesting that the leader of a Scottish party should only campaign on reserved matters because there's a UK General Election in 3 months' time? Does the same apply to Nicola Sturgeon?

[Beefster]

oh dear, how embarrassing :rolleyes: is the union boy not getting a high enough salary

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/irn-bru-gate-how-jim-murphy-claimed-two-cans-costing-130-on-commons-expense.1423510943


Mr Murphy made two claims for Irn-Bru, dubbed "Scotland's other national drink", before April 30 last year totalling £1.30, according to Ipsa's response.

These stories, generally out of context, are a bit pathetic IMHO. I earn a decent wage but when I go away for work, I claim for every single thing (within set rules) as there is a policy of the employee not being out of pocket. I'm sure someone picking random items out of my expenses without context could make me look like a money-grabbing prick too.

Saying that I'm not a politician and the only folk who study my expenses are the finance folk and Mrs Beefster.

[hibsbollah]

These stories, generally out of context, are a bit pathetic IMHO. I earn a decent wage but when I go away for work, I claim for every single thing (within set rules) as there is a policy of the employee not being out of pocket. I'm sure someone picking random items out of my expenses without context could make me look like a money-grabbing prick too.

Saying that I'm not a politician and the only folk who study my expenses are the finance folk and Mrs Beefster.

I have to agree with you. The expenses pitchforks need to be put away, its getting ridiculous.

[Glory Lurker]

I don't like Murphy, but are you suggesting that the leader of a Scottish party should only campaign on reserved matters because there's a UK General Election in 3 months' time? Does the same apply to Nicola Sturgeon?

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I was trying to say is that Labour in Scotland is campaigning for the general election on devolved issues. They are not saying anything really about what we are being asked to vote for. It is wilful misdirection. "Vote Labour and we'll give you 1,000 more nurses than the SNP give you", is a classic example.

The SNP is campaigning on trying to ease austerity, and on delivering more powers for Scotland - actual issues up for grabs. It's not running about saying "Vote SNP and we'll build more schools". Labour is pretending it's about other things, simply to avoid the truth that it's all about getting Milliband in to power on the back of policies designed to woo Tory-sympathising voters in England. That might be uncomfortable for Labour up here, but that is what it's all about for them.

[degenerated]

These stories, generally out of context, are a bit pathetic IMHO. I earn a decent wage but when I go away for work, I claim for every single thing (within set rules) as there is a policy of the employee not being out of pocket. I'm sure someone picking random items out of my expenses without context could make me look like a money-grabbing prick too.

Saying that I'm not a politician and the only folk who study my expenses are the finance folk and Mrs Beefster.

To be fair the Irn Bru thing is a bit pathetic but he does himself no favours when he claims for things like tv licencing on his expenses.

[Moulin Yarns]

I have just received an email from the Labour Party asking me to vote Labour to "kick out the Tories and restore a fairer government to Britain".

So, it looks like Labour are asking us to vote tactically to defeat David Cameron and the Conservative party, rather than vote for us because we will do everything we can to make Britain Great.

Talk about negativity, thank goodness I'm a member of another party.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't like Murphy, but are you suggesting that the leader of a Scottish party should only campaign on reserved matters because there's a UK General Election in 3 months' time? Does the same apply to Nicola Sturgeon?

In a perfect world, none of the parties should be campaigning on matters that are devolved. Similarly, next year, all of the Scottish parties should be campaigning on only devolved matters.

It's something that rips my knitting at election times, both UK and Holyrood. However, it's the way of politics, and we probably have to suck it up, whilst being aware of the nonsense that some of the politicians use.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Anyone else sense an element of detachment to the General Election in Scotland after the referendum and all the debate it generated?

Yes, it's like the political landscape has completely changed. Most of what is being debated doesn't really relate to the issues we want to debate up here.

I am more interested in what Scotland can do to influence decisions that impact on us, rather than strategies for fixing a country has lost its way.

[Phil D. Rolls]

To be fair the Irn Bru thing is a bit pathetic but he does himself no favours when he claims for things like tv licencing on his expenses.

I believe he could have dodged that egg in Kirkcaldy, he clearly turns round sees what is going on, and then turns his back on the situation.

Less said about the woman, in the same town, who threw a chair at Sillars the day after.

Seems to me that there was a definite attempt to stir up the "fighting", in what was a fair, mature, and balanced discussion by the electorate.

[Beefster]

To be fair the Irn Bru thing is a bit pathetic but he does himself no favours when he claims for things like tv licencing on his expenses.

I'd be surprised if there were many MPs, of any colour, who have to claim for accommodation in London that don't also claim for a second TV licence.

[hibsbollah]

To be fair the Irn Bru thing is a bit pathetic but he does himself no favours when he claims for things like tv licencing on his expenses.

I think he'd probably be castigated for not keeping up to date with tv news while away from his constituency:confused:

[Mibbes Aye]

To be fair the Irn Bru thing is a bit pathetic but he does himself no favours when he claims for things like tv licencing on his expenses.

Like everyone else would or does?

Your attack on him seems a bit petty and vindictive.

Play the ball, not the man?

[marinello59]

I'd be surprised if there were many MPs, of any colour, who have to claim for accommodation in London that don't also claim for a second TV licence.

It's only wrong if it's not an SNP member doing it apparently.

[ronaldo7]

One of Murphy's pals giving him the once over.:greengrin

http://www.commentisntfree.com/you-meant-it-then/

[Mibbes Aye]

One of Murphy's pals giving him the once over.:greengrin

http://www.commentisntfree.com/you-meant-it-then/

Did you read the post before you linked it on here?

What a strange, nasty, weird, manky account being put forward by the author.

And why would you call him a pal of Murphy when the writer makes it clear he wasn't? It sounds like they never even met?

Still, play the man and not the ball, do you even realise you're being nose-led as if you had been told by a Rupert Murdoch paper?

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=Mibbes Aye;4305984]Did you read the post before you linked it on here?

What a strange, nasty, weird, manky account being put forward by the author.

And why would you call him a pal of Murphy when the writer makes it clear he wasn't? It sounds like they never even met?

Still, play the man and not the ball, do you even realise you're being nose-led as if you had been told by a Rupert Murdoch paper?

Thought I read he was one of his 62,000 friends. Mibbes you just missed it.

Take a chill MA. Evening Primrose might help.:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

[QUOTE=Mibbes Aye;4305984]Did you read the post before you linked it on here?

What a strange, nasty, weird, manky account being put forward by the author.

And why would you call him a pal of Murphy when the writer makes it clear he wasn't? It sounds like they never even met?

Still, play the man and not the ball, do you even realise you're being nose-led as if you had been told by a Rupert Murdoch paper?

Thought I read he was one of his 62,000 friends. Mibbes you just missed it.

Take a chill MA. Evening Primrose might help.:wink:

You not posting made-up things would do fine :wink: :greengrin

You can post good arguments, I've read them. That's a poor link though - that guy just sounds bitter, twisted and a bit desperate :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4305986]

You not posting made-up things would do fine :wink: :greengrin

You can post good arguments, I've read them. That's a poor link though - that guy just sounds bitter, twisted and a bit desperate :greengrin

And an ex mate by all accounts:wink: Seems he was even working with Jim in the 90's. He may well be bitter and twisted, but it might also be True.

Do you know how Jim is getting on with those NHS Stats? Or even the twitter posts he's deleted? Or even the Youtube vids deleted today?

This must just have been a wee mistake eh. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snp-jim-murphys-been-fiddling-nhs-statsand-deleting-his-tweets.1424188161

[Mibbes Aye]

[QUOTE=Mibbes Aye;4305990]

And an ex mate by all accounts:wink: Seems he was even working with Jim in the 90's. He may well be bitter and twisted, but it might also be True.

Do you know how Jim is getting on with those NHS Stats? Or even the twitter posts he's deleted? Or even the Youtube vids deleted today?

This must just have been a wee mistake eh. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snp-jim-murphys-been-fiddling-nhs-statsand-deleting-his-tweets.1424188161

Sounds like scraping the barrel to be honest :wink:

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4305994]

Sounds like scraping the barrel to be honest :wink:

Truth Hurts:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4305990]

And an ex mate by all accounts:wink: Seems he was even working with Jim in the 90's. He may well be bitter and twisted, but it might also be True.

Do you know how Jim is getting on with those NHS Stats? Or even the twitter posts he's deleted? Or even the Youtube vids deleted today?

This must just have been a wee mistake eh. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snp-jim-murphys-been-fiddling-nhs-statsand-deleting-his-tweets.1424188161

See bits in bold.

If truth hurts you should maybe prove it first :dunno:

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4305994]

See bits in bold.

If truth hurts you should maybe prove it first :dunno:

I never said the first link was the truth, I said it may be, as in Mibbes Aye:wink:

The Truth was about the link in the other post, you know, the one where Jim deletes his tweets and youtube vids re the NHS Stats:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4306007]

I never said the first link was the truth, I said it may be, as in Mibbes Aye:wink:

The Truth was about the link in the other post, you know, the one where Jim deletes his tweets and youtube vids re the NHS Stats:wink:

If you've got something to say then just say it.

Are you defending or agreeing with the link you put up?

If not, why did you post it?

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4306011]

If you've got something to say then just say it.

Are you defending or agreeing with the link you put up?

If not, why did you post it?

It's posted for information. People are big enough to make their own decisions and don't need to be told what to think/led by the nose by anyone, never mind Rupert Murdoch.

Make of it what you will. It's Free.

Good night. Enjoy that Evening Primrose:aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4306019]

It's posted for information. People are big enough to make their own decisions and don't need to be told what to think/led by the nose by anyone, never mind Rupert Murdoch.

Make of it what you will. It's Free.

Good night. Enjoy that Evening Primrose:aok:

It's not information though, is it?

It's nasty and scurrilous and beneath you.

You posted the link, are you defending it?

We had decent debate on the referendum. Take ownership of a rubbish link and all that goes with it or be honest, admit it's not representative of who you are and it's stuff you can't say and can't back up.

[marinello59]

And an ex mate by all accounts:wink: Seems he was even working with Jim in the 90's. He may well be bitter and twisted, but it might also be True.

Do you know how Jim is getting on with those NHS Stats? Or even the twitter posts he's deleted? Or even the Youtube vids deleted today?

This must just have been a wee mistake eh. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snp-jim-murphys-been-fiddling-nhs-statsand-deleting-his-tweets.1424188161

A nice wee bit of knockabout politics over the NHS there and Robison's accusation that he fiddled the figures, though misleading, is great fun. They were misread and Labour do kinda, sorta, maybe acknowledge that as being the case. Politicians of any colour never admit they get things wrong do they? :greengrin Of course he deleted his personal tweets etc, what politician wouldn't? He's made himself look an arse, he's hardly going to use his own youtube accounts to aid the mocking he deserves.
Labours counter claim that the real issue was transparency here seems to have borne fruit though as I think the figures will now be released in Scotland now the same as they have been in England so some good has come out of it.
As for the comments of Jim Murphy's ex mate, is spreading this sort of stuff about for information the way ahead for debate in Scotland? Heaven help us if it is because it wouldn't take to much effort to put something like that together for every single politician in the land. If a similar 'comment' piece comes out about Nicola Sturgeon will the people who are spreading the Murphy one also share that one in the interests of information . :greengrin

.

[ronaldo7]

A nice wee bit of knockabout politics over the NHS there and Robison's accusation that he fiddled the figures, though misleading, is great fun. They were misread and Labour do kinda, sorta, maybe acknowledge that as being the case. Politicians of any colour never admit they get things wrong do they? :greengrin Of course he deleted his personal tweets etc, what politician wouldn't? He's made himself look an arse, he's hardly going to use his own youtube accounts to aid the mocking he deserves.
Labours counter claim that the real issue was transparency here seems to have borne fruit though as I think the figures will now be released in Scotland now the same as they have been in England so some good has come out of it.
As for the comments of Jim Murphy's ex mate, is spreading this sort of stuff about for information the way ahead for debate in Scotland? Heaven help us if it is because it wouldn't take to much effort to put something like that together for every single politician in the land. If a similar 'comment' piece comes out about Nicola Sturgeon will the people who are spreading the Murphy one also share that one in the interests of information . :greengrin

.

First bit in bold I totally agree with and long overdue imo. What's the problem with shouting your results from the roof top when they're that good:wink:

Second bit in bold. Of course:agree: Politicians of all hues need to be held to account so when the say they've voted against Fracking aka Mararet Curren, when she acutally abstained (their's a difference), then people need to know.

Heaven forbid, we wouldn't want anyone as FM with a dodgy reputation now that we've got rid of Alex.

I'm sure if anyone has anything on Nicola Sturgeon, then it will be all over the MSM in the coming months. Then and only then will I be able to decide if it's acurate or not, just like the one I posted re Murphy to :stirrer:

Happy hunting guys, I'm off to visit a consultant at the NHS, all appointments on time, and they're dealing with things just Dandy.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4306021]

It's not information though, is it?

It's nasty and scurrilous and beneath you.

You posted the link, are you defending it?

We had decent debate on the referendum. Take ownership of a rubbish link and all that goes with it or be honest, admit it's not representative of who you are and it's stuff you can't say and can't back up.

Your blood pressure should have stabilised overnight I hope:greengrin

I reserve the right of the man in the link to post what he's said. Juis sui Charlie. I would also hope that if it's not true then Jim Murphy will have a writ ready and waiting this morning.

Who's to say it's true or not, I couldn't say, I didn't write it. Some parts seem to make sense and others may be a bit embellished.

Over to you MA:aok:

[marinello59]

First bit in bold I totally agree with and long overdue imo. What's the problem with shouting your results from the roof top when they're that good:wink:

Second bit in bold. Of course:agree: Politicians of all hues need to be held to account so when the say they've voted against Fracking aka Mararet Curren, when she acutally abstained (their's a difference), then people need to know.

Heaven forbid, we wouldn't want anyone as FM with a dodgy reputation now that we've got rid of Alex.

I'm sure if anyone has anything on Nicola Sturgeon, then it will be all over the MSM in the coming months. Then and only then will I be able to decide if it's acurate or not, just like the one I posted re Murphy to :stirrer:

Happy hunting guys, I'm off to visit a consultant at the NHS, all appointments on time, and they're dealing with things just Dandy.

Maybe you should read my post again as you seem to be seeing something there that wasn't. :greengrin
I wasn't attacking Nicola Sturgeon. I wasn't attacking the performance of the NHS in Scotland. I would be very surprised if anybody had anything on Sturgeon, I think she is as straight as politicians come and a very good First Minister for Scotland. However if somebody had the time and inclination they could put forward a very similar hatchet job as the one done on Murphy there by his 'pal'. You don't need to actually say anything of substance, just sneer and wink a lot. I take it you would happily share it here in the interests of providing information. And without comment obviously.

[RyeSloan]

One of Murphy's pals giving him the once over.:greengrin http://www.commentisntfree.com/you-meant-it-then/

I think murphy is a bit of an erse but that link is just bizarre....what a load of sh&&e.

[ronaldo7]

Maybe you should read my post again as you seem to be seeing something there that wasn't. :greengrin
I wasn't attacking Nicola Sturgeon. I wasn't attacking the performance of the NHS in Scotland. I would be very surprised if anybody had anything on Sturgeon, I think she is as straight as politicians come and a very good First Minister for Scotland. However if somebody had the time and inclination they could put forward a very similar hatchet job as the one done on Murphy there by his 'pal'. You don't need to actually say anything of substance, just sneer and wink a lot. I take it you would happily share it here in the interests of providing information. And without comment obviously.

Abso*****lutely:greengrin

[marinello59]

Abso*****lutely:greengrin

:greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

It's not information though, is it?

It's nasty and scurrilous and beneath you.

You posted the link, are you defending it?

We had decent debate on the referendum. Take ownership of a rubbish link and all that goes with it or be honest, admit it's not representative of who you are and it's stuff you can't say and can't back up.

It's obviously written in a very bitter tone, but at least some of it is verifiably true: Murphy climbed the NUS greasy pole opposing student loans and the abolition of grants, performed a volte face at the behest of the NuLab hierarchy. The suspension of NUS executive members and the early day motion are a matter of record. His record as an MP is all way out on the right of the labour party but suddenly he's "not a unionist", champions the mansion tax and is rarely seen out of his Scotland top.

As for not playing the man: he has put himself forward as a regional leader and aspires to be the First Minister in our regional government, of course his character* is up for discussion.


* imo, lower than a snake's belly.

[Mibbes Aye]

Your blood pressure should have stabilised overnight I hope:greengrin

I reserve the right of the man in the link to post what he's said. Juis sui Charlie. I would also hope that if it's not true then Jim Murphy will have a writ ready and waiting this morning.

Who's to say it's true or not, I couldn't say, I didn't write it. Some parts seem to make sense and others may be a bit embellished.

Over to you MA:aok:

Thanks :greengrin

Are you really comparing you posting that link to Charlie Hebdo? Really??

I'm glad you're acknowledging that you posted that one of "Murphy's pals" was giving him the once over.

And now you've agreed that actually, that maybe wasn't true. In fact you don't have a clue if it's true or not.

Fair comment?

For what it's worth, I think there's scope to reasonably debate any side in the forthcoming election but stuff like that just seems low, ad hominem or playing the man.

We're surely all worthy of better debate and wouldn't we be better for it?

[Moulin Yarns]

This week in the life of jolly Jim

http://williamduguid.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-man-who-would-be-king.html

:greengrin

[GlesgaeHibby]

This week in the life of jolly Jim

http://williamduguid.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-man-who-would-be-king.html

:greengrin

Or maybe, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the simplest explanation’s the most likely. The guy’s permanently off his tits on Irn Bru.

:faf::faf:

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm just back from hearing the excellent Iain MacWhirter talk about his new book, and politics in general. Very enjoyable and interesting.

Highly recommended.

http://www.cargopublishing.com/books/disunited-kingdom-how-westminster-won-a-referendum-but-lost-scotland/

If David Cameron was so set on English Votes Laws for English Laws, why was against Independence, because the latter leads to the former. any explanations?

[lord bunberry]

I'm just back from hearing the excellent Iain MacWhirter talk about his new book, and politics in general. Very enjoyable and interesting.

Highly recommended.

http://www.cargopublishing.com/books/disunited-kingdom-how-westminster-won-a-referendum-but-lost-scotland/

If David Cameron was so set on English Votes Laws for English Laws, why was against Independence, because the latter leads to the former. any explanations?
One of the reasons he was against independence was that as a Tory prime minister he would have had to resign if we'd voted yes. Self preservation is what drives most Westminster politicians imo.

[marinello59]

I'm just back from hearing the excellent Iain MacWhirter talk about his new book, and politics in general. Very enjoyable and interesting.

Highly recommended.

http://www.cargopublishing.com/books/disunited-kingdom-how-westminster-won-a-referendum-but-lost-scotland/

If David Cameron was so set on English Votes Laws for English Laws, why was against Independence, because the latter leads to the former. any explanations?

He's answering the West Lothian question. I don't see how that makes him any less of a Unionist.

[Moulin Yarns]

He's answering the West Lothian question. I don't see how that makes him any less of a Unionist.

Independence also answers the West Lothian question, but didn't fit the Tory agenda

[Stranraer]

Just looking at the averages on polling report, Labour's lead is on thin ice and they would be short of a majority by 18.

[Beefster]

Independence also answers the West Lothian question, but didn't fit the Tory agenda

It didn't fit the agenda of 55% of the Scottish electorate either.

Given devolution, the English having an exclusive say on exclusively English matters seems eminently sensible to me.

[marinello59]

Independence also answers the West Lothian question, but didn't fit the Tory agenda

Of course it doesn't, they are a Unionist party.:confused:

[ronaldo7]

Thanks :greengrin

Are you really comparing you posting that link to Charlie Hebdo? Really??

I'm glad you're acknowledging that you posted that one of "Murphy's pals" was giving him the once over.

And now you've agreed that actually, that maybe wasn't true. In fact you don't have a clue if it's true or not.

Fair comment?

For what it's worth, I think there's scope to reasonably debate any side in the forthcoming election but stuff like that just seems low, ad hominem or playing the man.

We're surely all worthy of better debate and wouldn't we be better for it?

Thanks for that bud:aok:

You know what I meant by the Juis sui Charlie comment. The guy is within his rights to post his (bitter) blog:wink: and Jim is within his rights to serve a writ if it's not true. No writ forthcoming as yet:wink:

Jim Murphy has said he's wanting to become the First Minister of Scotland. He's got a thick skin, and will have to endure the wrath of the folk he's stepped on the way up the greasy pole. Seems this guy is one of them, or maybe the guy just doesn't like ultra right wingers running the branch office.

Many things in the blog are definitely true, whilst others seem embellished, and downright rude, but as I said Jim's got a thick skin, and I've seen harsher comments on Mum's net:greengrin

I should have posted that it was one of Murphy's ex pal's...cause he sure doesn't seem like a pal now.

Since Murphy has decided to come back to Scotland and fight for the leadership of the branch office, I don't think he's been off my TV Screen, if it's not keepie uppies at Pittodrie, he's handing out leaflets at Hamilton, all with a BBC crew in tow. I'm sure they must take the same taxi, it would save on expenses though.

If he puts himself out there for election, he should be able to stand up to the fight, and it seems others will be in line to have a pop at him(duguids blog is much lighter though).

Re playing the man...All politicians need to be held to account, and I'm sure Jim's (ex) pal has had this one brewing for a while.

What's the betting he feels much, much better having got it off his chest after all these years.

FWIW I prefer the Greens approach to the appointment of Murphy.

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/greens-comment-on-murphy-election/

With Jim Murphy’s record as a staunch defender of the Iraq War, privatisation of public services and deep cuts to social security many Labour members and supporters will now be seeking a new political home, following many who have already done so. One in ten Scottish Green Party members is an ex-Labour Party member.

Have a good week end:aok:

[lord bunberry]

It didn't fit the agenda of 55% of the Scottish electorate either.

Given devolution, the English having an exclusive say on exclusively English matters seems eminently sensible to me.

That's 100% correct but why did Cameron wait till the day after the referendum to announce his answer to the west lothian question? Shameful fear tactics led to shameful electioneering. Why should any of us trust such a corrupt political system?

[Stranraer]

That's 100% correct but why did Cameron wait till the day after the referendum to announce his answer to the west lothian question? Shameful fear tactics led to shameful electioneering. Why should any of us trust such a corrupt political system?

We shouldn't. It's high time we as a nation rid ourselves of the unelected monarchy and Government that was rejected by Scots. The first step to do this is electing pro-indy MP's to Westminster, it's just a shame there aren't more Socialists standing.

[lord bunberry]

We shouldn't. It's high time we as a nation rid ourselves of the unelected monarchy and Government that was rejected by Scots. The first step to do this is electing pro-indy MP's to Westminster, it's just a shame there aren't more Socialists standing.
:top marks

[Beefster]

That's 100% correct but why did Cameron wait till the day after the referendum to announce his answer to the west lothian question? Shameful fear tactics led to shameful electioneering. Why should any of us trust such a corrupt political system?

I'm glad we agree that it's a sensible policy. Why is announcing it a day after the referendum shameful, fear tactics and corrupt? To be brutally honest, I don't think its remotely of interest to us anyway. If my MP loses her say on English NHS policy, my life won't change in the slightest.

It's probably electioneering but, given every single party participates in that, I'm not sure I see the issue with that either.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm glad we agree that it's a sensible policy. Why is announcing it a day after the referendum shameful, fear tactics and corrupt? To be brutally honest, I don't think its remotely of interest to us anyway. If my MP loses her say on English NHS policy, my life won't change in the slightest.

It's probably electioneering but, given every single party participates in that, I'm not sure I see the issue with that either.

NHS policy in England has a relevance to the NHS in Scotland due to the Barnett formula. Every penny spent by Westminster directly affect spending in Scotland. You know that.

[lord bunberry]

I'm glad we agree that it's a sensible policy. Why is announcing it a day after the referendum shameful, fear tactics and corrupt? To be brutally honest, I don't think its remotely of interest to us anyway. If my MP loses her say on English NHS policy, my life won't change in the slightest.

It's probably electioneering but, given every single party participates in that, I'm not sure I see the issue with that either.
Announcing it the day after the referendum was dishonest. When Brown gave his big speech and Cameron signed up to it why didn't he say then that it should be linked to English votes for English laws? As I said I think it's a sensible policy, but there's plenty of no voters who don't share that view. Many see it as their MP being a second class MP.

[Beefster]

Many see it as their MP being a second class MP.

Using that logic, every English MP has been second-class since 1999.

[snooky]

Using that logic, every English MP has been second-class since 1999.

Unworthy praise of 99% of all the UK troughdippers.

[lord bunberry]

Using that logic, every English MP has been second-class since 1999.

That's not true. Every MP at Westminster has been able to vote on every issue put forward by parliament. English votes for English MPs changes that. Westminster voted for devolution, so decisions made by holyrood are indirectly a result of an act of parliament at Westminster

[RIP]

The only thing I've noticed about Murphy to date is that he supports Ruth Davidson's proposal to bring booze into match time. Oh and of course he voted with them on Trident.

He's got no Labour policies of his own.

Tories in disguise

[Colr]

Veteran Labour MP Austin Mitchell has dismissed Ukip’s chances of winning the Great Grimsby constituency at the general election, saying that Labour would win the hotly contested seat “even” if it had selected a “raving alcoholic sex paedophile” as its candidate.

[hibsbollah]

'Prescott to Get Frontline Role in Election Campaign'.

I had to check it wasnt the first of April. I think they might be trying to lose.

[Pretty Boy]

http://nationalcollective.com/2015/02/22/labour-party-losing-britain/

This is quite an interesting critique of Labours manifesto and attempt at 'catch all' politics imo.

[hibsbollah]

http://nationalcollective.com/2015/02/22/labour-party-losing-britain/

This is quite an interesting critique of Labours manifesto and attempt at 'catch all' politics imo.

Thats an excellent article. By trying to please everyone they please noone. Inoffensive politics.

[marinello59]

http://nationalcollective.com/2015/02/22/labour-party-losing-britain/

This is quite an interesting critique of Labours manifesto and attempt at 'catch all' politics imo.

That has summed up today's Labour party perfectly for me. They're not red Tories, they are just hopelessly lost.

[snooky]

That has summed up today's Labour party perfectly for me. They're not red Tories, they are just hopelessly lost.

Apparently Scottish Labour have added the word "YES" to their election campaign. Some may think this a clever tactic. Personally, I see it a sorry cry for help from a species facing extinction.

[Moulin Yarns]

Apparently Scottish Labour have added the word "YES" to their election campaign. Some may think this a clever tactic. Personally, I see it a sorry cry for help from a species facing extinction.

Naw they huvnae.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-scraps-ill-fated-yes-for-labour-campaign.119018183

[The_Todd]

EVEL doesn't answer the West Lothian question at all, it just muddies it. A lot.

The UK Parliament is a UK-Wide legislative body, it also has the power to dissolve the devolved administrations at a whim. It's clearly not equal to Holyrood and to bar Scottish MPs from certain debates and votes would create a two-tier system where Scottish MPs are second class. In that case how could we have a Scottish Prime Minister again? Or any Scottish MPs in cabinet? A "union" where only English MPs are allowed to hold office isn't a "union" at all.

Yes, there's a problem here but it's not a problem of Scotland's making. Devolution is a good thing but executed poorly. There should be a devolved English parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments should be given equal power to Scotlands and the UK parliament should be reserved to UK-Wide issues. This is closer to federalism, and it's the only way the West Lothian question will be answered.

No to EVEL. Yes to English devolution and federalism.

[snooky]

Naw they huvnae.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/murphy-scraps-ill-fated-yes-for-labour-campaign.119018183

In motoring terms - from 3rd gear into reverse.

[Just Alf]

EVEL doesn't answer the West Lothian question at all, it just muddies it. A lot.

The UK Parliament is a UK-Wide legislative body, it also has the power to dissolve the devolved administrations at a whim. It's clearly not equal to Holyrood and to bar Scottish MPs from certain debates and votes would create a two-tier system where Scottish MPs are second class. In that case how could we have a Scottish Prime Minister again? Or any Scottish MPs in cabinet? A "union" where only English MPs are allowed to hold office isn't a "union" at all.

Yes, there's a problem here but it's not a problem of Scotland's making. Devolution is a good thing but executed poorly. There should be a devolved English parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments should be given equal power to Scotlands and the UK parliament should be reserved to UK-Wide issues. This is closer to federalism, and it's the only way the West Lothian question will be answered.

No to EVEL. Yes to English devolution and federalism.

:top marks

[Stranraer]

Scottish Labour's latest broadcast is baws. He wants to make Scotland the fairest "nation in the world". Start by opposing austerity dumba$$

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

He wants to make Scotland the fairest "nation in the world".

Thats a big switch from gingerest nation in the world!

[Stranraer]

Thats a big switch from gingerest nation in the world!

:faf: I shouldn't be talking to you HUTCHY until you get Chelsea Edge as your avatar :wink:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Never had the first idea who that was so, had to perform some Google "research"!

[RyeSloan]

Scottish Labour's latest broadcast is baws. He wants to make Scotland the fairest "nation in the world". Start by opposing austerity dumba$$

Didn't see it but I'm sure it would be a rather ham fisted effort on trying to reclaim some of the moral high ground the SNP have nearly occupied for some time. They have spun the 'Scotland is fairer more compassionate than <insert party or nation of choice>' very effectively.

[Stranraer]

Never had the first idea who that was so, had to perform some Google "research"!

What do you think HUTCHY? :greengrin

[snooky]

John Major says Labour are "shameful" for not ruling out a possible future coalition with the SNP.

Well said, Johnny Boy. :applause:

Who in their right mind would vote for any political party who would sleep with another just to get power?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

What do you think HUTCHY? :greengrin

I've seen worse. ;-)

[Beefster]

John Major says Labour are "shameful" for not ruling out a possible future coalition with the SNP.

Well said, Johnny Boy. :applause:

Who in their right mind would vote for any political party who would sleep with another just to get power?

Presumably that applies to the SNP (and probably every party) seeing as they haven't ruled out working with Labour in a coalition?

[lord bunberry]

Presumably that applies to the SNP (and probably every party) seeing as they haven't ruled out working with Labour in a coalition?
The SNP will never enter a coalition with Labour, the issue of trident is non negotiable. There's been talk of the SNP working with Labour, but it wouldn't be a formal coalition.

[emerald green]

John Major says Labour are "shameful" for not ruling out a possible future coalition with the SNP.

Well said, Johnny Boy. :applause:

Who in their right mind would vote for any political party who would sleep with another just to get power?

Exactly. The SNP would never do that now would they?

"The SNP would demand an extra £180bn of State spending as the price of supporting a minority Labour government if May's general election ends in a hung parliament." Source - The Independent.

Every vote for the SNP increases the chance of another Tory government. The SNP know that full well, and it suits their agenda right down to the ground.

If people want a Labour government they should vote Labour.

[HiBremian]

Exactly. The SNP would never do that now would they?

"The SNP would demand an extra £180bn of State spending as the price of supporting a minority Labour government if May's general election ends in a hung parliament." Source - The Independent.

Every vote for the SNP increases the chance of another Tory government. The SNP know that full well, and it suits their agenda right down to the ground.

If people want a Labour government they should vote Labour.

Judging by some of the comments here, coalition politics is clearly in its infancy in the UK.

[lord bunberry]

Exactly. The SNP would never do that now would they?

"The SNP would demand an extra £180bn of State spending as the price of supporting a minority Labour government if May's general election ends in a hung parliament." Source - The Independent.

Every vote for the SNP increases the chance of another Tory government. The SNP know that full well, and it suits their agenda right down to the ground.

If people want a Labour government they should vote Labour.
What if you don't want a Labour government? What if you want a strong SNP presence at Westminster fighting for scotland no matter who might be holding power. The thought of Edd Milliband being PM scares me more than continuing with Cameron.

[JeMeSouviens]

Exactly. The SNP would never do that now would they?

"The SNP would demand an extra £180bn of State spending as the price of supporting a minority Labour government if May's general election ends in a hung parliament." Source - The Independent.

Every vote for the SNP increases the chance of another Tory government. The SNP know that full well, and it suits their agenda right down to the ground.

If people want a Labour government they should vote Labour.

Whether Lab or SNP win the Scottish seats, the Lab+SNP total will be the same. Given that simple bit of arithmetic, could you explain how it makes the slightest bit of difference to the ability of a Tory govt to win a confidence vote whether folk here vote Lab or SNP? What could make things better for the Tories is Lab voters tactically switching to Con in the likes of Berwickshire or Gordon as they are being encouraged to do by various senior Lab figures (although not Lab as a party, at least for the moment).

[JeMeSouviens]

Exactly. The SNP would never do that now would they?

"The SNP would demand an extra £180bn of State spending as the price of supporting a minority Labour government if May's general election ends in a hung parliament." Source - The Independent.

Every vote for the SNP increases the chance of another Tory government. The SNP know that full well, and it suits their agenda right down to the ground.

If people want a Labour government they should vote Labour.

Note also that you selectively quoted, the 180bn would be spent across the UK as a whole, not just in Scotland, which is the spin it's getting in the UK press.

[snooky]

Whether Lab or SNP win the Scottish seats, the Lab+SNP total will be the same. Given that simple bit of arithmetic, could you explain how it makes the slightest bit of difference to the ability of a Tory govt to win a confidence vote whether folk here vote Lab or SNP? What could make things better for the Tories is Lab voters tactically switching to Con in the likes of Berwickshire or Gordon as they are being encouraged to do by various senior Lab figures (although not Lab as a party, at least for the moment).

That's kinda my thinking too. This 'a vote for the SNP' is a vote for the Tories is a piece of nonsense, IMO.

[over the line]

What if you don't want a Labour government? What if you want a strong SNP presence at Westminster fighting for scotland no matter who might be holding power. The thought of Edd Milliband being PM scares me more than continuing with Cameron.

I shudder to think how much more pain we will have to endure if Cameron and his vile colleagues continue on power after the next election. I think every disgruntled Labour voter, or Scottish Nats should swallow their pride and put their differences to one side and vote for the only realistic alternative to the vile Tories and all vote Labour. For all their faults, they are so much more preferable to Cameron and his heartless toffs!

[lord bunberry]

I shudder to think how much more pain we will have to endure if Cameron and his vile colleagues continue on power after the next election. I think every disgruntled Labour voter, or Scottish Nats should swallow their pride and put their differences to one side and vote for the only realistic alternative to the vile Tories and all vote Labour. For all their faults, they are so much more preferable to Cameron and his heartless toffs!
The Labour Party has been voting with the Tories most of the time. What difference will having a Labour government make? They're committed to austerity just like their mates across the chamber.

[hibsbollah]

I shudder to think how much more pain we will have to endure if Cameron and his vile colleagues continue on power after the next election. I think every disgruntled Labour voter, or Scottish Nats should swallow their pride and put their differences to one side and vote for the only realistic alternative to the vile Tories and all vote Labour. For all their faults, they are so much more preferable to Cameron and his heartless toffs!Sorry but ive been told to swallow this lie about the Labour Party all my life. The reality of Labour Government is let downs and disappointment. It was Labour who introduced the private sector to the NHS, cooked up the Iraq WMD dossier, let our housing stock atrophy, worsened child poverty, took a million pound donation from Ecclestone to allow tobacco advertising, and kept all of the Tory excesses in place. Their manifesto this year calls for nothing radical or suggests they have any horizons beyond twenty or thirty marginal seats in apocryphal 'Middle England'.

[HiBremian]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/universal-monsters/
Anyone with the slightest bit of internet-savvy can check the MSM in England and Scotland and see what a load of nonsense this "voteSNPgetTory/Labour" is. Propaganda in England says vote SNP get Red Ed. propaganda in Scotland says vote SNP get Cameron. Now how can both be right?

Two party politics is a thing of the past. Much more significant in my eyes is the progressive alliance being discussed between Greens, Plaid and SNP. The real question is, how far will the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee parties go to preserve their priveleged FPTP position.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HiBremian]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31776943



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31776943



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You would think that Labour politicians would have realised that the more they say "a vote for the SNP is a vote for David Cameron" the more people they seem to be turning away.
As that piece says neither Cameron or Milliband would admit it at this stage, but a joint government is looking more likely than ever.

[marinello59]

Sorry but ive been told to swallow this lie about the Labour Party all my life. The reality of Labour Government is let downs and disappointment. It was Labour who introduced the private sector to the NHS, cooked up the Iraq WMD dossier, let our housing stock atrophy, worsened child poverty, took a million pound donation from Ecclestone to allow tobacco advertising, and kept all of the Tory excesses in place. Their manifesto this year calls for nothing radical or suggests they have any horizons beyond twenty or thirty marginal seats in apocryphal 'Middle England'.

Labour bad.
SNP good.
Debate over? :devil:

[Moulin Yarns]

I shudder to think how much more pain we will have to endure if Cameron and his vile colleagues continue on power after the next election. I think every disgruntled Labour voter, or Scottish Nats should swallow their pride and put their differences to one side and vote for the only realistic alternative to the vile Tories and all vote Labour. For all their faults, they are so much more preferable to Cameron and his heartless toffs!

you can't get a fag paper between them. No thanks, change is required. Green or UKIP are the only alternative options for voters outside Scotland.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I shudder to think how much more pain we will have to endure if Cameron and his vile colleagues continue on power after the next election. I think every disgruntled Labour voter, or Scottish Nats should swallow their pride and put their differences to one side and vote for the only realistic alternative to the vile Tories and all vote Labour. For all their faults, they are so much more preferable to Cameron and his heartless toffs!

Heartless Toffs, Self Serving Schemies - the choice is yours. Basically, it's a choice about what accent the government speaks with?
Cos, there's no difference on policies.


Sorry but ive been told to swallow this lie about the Labour Party all my life. The reality of Labour Government is let downs and disappointment. It was Labour who introduced the private sector to the NHS, cooked up the Iraq WMD dossier, let our housing stock atrophy, worsened child poverty, took a million pound donation from Ecclestone to allow tobacco advertising, and kept all of the Tory excesses in place. Their manifesto this year calls for nothing radical or suggests they have any horizons beyond twenty or thirty marginal seats in apocryphal 'Middle England'.

Did they do anything about private education?

I now hate Labour as much as the Tories, and a vote for the SNP is the only way to get something out of the mess the UK has become. I too don't get this stuff about how voting SNP puts the Tories in. If that is all Labour have to offer, they don't deserve a vote.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You would think that Labour politicians would have realised that the more they say "a vote for the SNP is a vote for David Cameron" the more people they seem to be turning away.
As that piece says neither Cameron or Milliband would admit it at this stage, but a joint government is looking more likely than ever.

I wonder if they already know that they can't make sufficient progress in England to unseat the Tories.

The longer game is to blame the SNP for it - they traded well off that one in the 20 years after Thatcher got in.

The bottom line is that the Scottish result will not make any difference one way, or another to the UK parliament. The only way it would is if the Tories were to win seats from Labour or/and the SNP.

Scottish Labour in particular, is a gormless organisation, bereft of ideas, and staffed by incompetents, who have sunk to the level of boo boys.

[lord bunberry]

I wonder if they already know that they can't make sufficient progress in England to unseat the Tories.

The longer game is to blame the SNP for it - they traded well off that one in the 20 years after Thatcher got in.

The bottom line is that the Scottish result will not make any difference one way, or another to the UK parliament. The only way it would is if the Tories were to win seats from Labour or/and the SNP.

Scottish Labour in particular, is a gormless organisation, bereft of ideas, and staffed by incompetents, who have sunk to the level of boo boys.
I'm finding it harder and harder to work out what Labours strategy is. The UK electorate is looking around for alternatives to what's on offer, yet Labour only seem to want to give us more of the same. A shift to the left is what seems to be happening in other countries and imo that's were Labour should be right now.

[over the line]

you can't get a fag paper between them. No thanks, change is required. Green or UKIP are the only alternative options for voters outside Scotland.

Obviously I couldn't bring myself to vote UKIP and I don't think the Greens will be standing in Ellesmere Port. I think a trip to The Pearl of the Mersey would probably finish off most Greens, or at least make them soil themselves! :)

For all their obvious faults, I think Labour are the better option for me and for the North West of England. They definitely looked after this region better than the Tories.

[over the line]

Sorry but ive been told to swallow this lie about the Labour Party all my life. The reality of Labour Government is let downs and disappointment. It was Labour who introduced the private sector to the NHS, cooked up the Iraq WMD dossier, let our housing stock atrophy, worsened child poverty, took a million pound donation from Ecclestone to allow tobacco advertising, and kept all of the Tory excesses in place. Their manifesto this year calls for nothing radical or suggests they have any horizons beyond twenty or thirty marginal seats in apocryphal 'Middle England'.

Yes I agree, I dislike them for many of the same reasons, but for me and the area I live in, they are definitely the better option. Bit of a Hobson's choice admittedly, but I am trully dreading another 5 years of the current lot.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

[over the line]

The Labour Party has been voting with the Tories most of the time. What difference will having a Labour government make? They're committed to austerity just like their mates across the chamber.

I don't think Labour will be as harsh as the current lot, maybe they will commit to "austerity light", which would at least be a slight improvement. I just don't see there being a huge revolution in politics (as much as I think one is needed) and for me Labour are the slightly less s**** end of the political poo pole.

[Moulin Yarns]

Obviously I couldn't bring myself to vote UKIP and I don't think the Greens will be standing in Ellesmere Port. I think a trip to The Pearl of the Mersey would probably finish off most Greens, or at least make them soil themselves! :)

For all their obvious faults, I think Labour are the better option for me and for the North West of England. They definitely looked after this region better than the Tories.

I see your current MP is standing down, and Labour are putting up a councillor. It is interesting that your current Labour MP has gone from
16,036 majority in 1997 to 4,331 in 2010. Is that an indication of Labour looking after the region better?

[Pretty Boy]

Exactly. The SNP would never do that now would they?

"The SNP would demand an extra £180bn of State spending as the price of supporting a minority Labour government if May's general election ends in a hung parliament." Source - The Independent.

Every vote for the SNP increases the chance of another Tory government. The SNP know that full well, and it suits their agenda right down to the ground.

If people want a Labour government they should vote Labour.

Maybe it's about time Labour tried to get your final message out in Scotland.

Every time I see Jim Murphy on TV he's bleating on with 'dire warnings' about how a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Tories. How about Labour change tactic and move away from the negative campaigning that has seen them lose support in Scotland in a way that would have been unthinkable even 10 year ago. Why should I vote Labour? What are they offering me and people like me? What do they as a party now stand for? A bit more 'vote for us' rather that 'don't vote for them' wouldn't go amiss.

[Pretty Boy]

I shudder to think how much more pain we will have to endure if Cameron and his vile colleagues continue on power after the next election. I think every disgruntled Labour voter, or Scottish Nats should swallow their pride and put their differences to one side and vote for the only realistic alternative to the vile Tories and all vote Labour. For all their faults, they are so much more preferable to Cameron and his heartless toffs!

Nope not buying it.

For too long Labour have played the 'at least we're not the Tories card' and it won't work for me anymore.

The last Labour governement introduced many policies that wouldn't look out of place in a Conservative manifesto. Supporters will tell you it's the natural evolution of a leftist party, I'd call it something else entirely.

Their current manifesto is a mess of catch all politics and probably only second to Michael Foot when it comes to long winded suicide notes. I can't say another 5 years of Tory rule doesn't fill me with a little bit of dread but no more so than the thought of the shysters and gimmicks of Milibands Labour taking power.

[Hibbyradge]

Maybe it's about time Labour tried to get your final message out in Scotland.

Every time I see Jim Murphy on TV he's bleating on with 'dire warnings' about how a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Tories. How about Labour change tactic and move away from the negative campaigning that has seen them lose support in Scotland in a way that would have been unthinkable even 10 year ago. Why should I vote Labour? What are they offering me and people like me? What do they as a party now stand for? A bit more 'vote for us' rather that 'don't vote for them' wouldn't go amiss.

Positive electioneering doesn't work.

We're all programmed to look out for danger and threat - our amygdalae see to that - and we pay little attention to hopeful messages in comparison.

Fear is far more effective than simple persuasion.

You need only look back to September 18 for proof of that.

[hibsbollah]

Labour bad.
SNP good.
Debate over? :devil:

Ive never voted SNP in my life and don't intend to either. So there :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Labour bad.
SNP good.
Debate over? :devil:

Ive never voted SNP in my life and don't intend to either. So there :greengrin

[over the line]

I see your current MP is standing down, and Labour are putting up a councillor. It is interesting that your current Labour MP has gone from
16,036 majority in 1997 to 4,331 in 2010. Is that an indication of Labour looking after the region better?

I assume you are making the 1997-2010 comparison for the purpose of menace? ;)

I'm sure those kind of swings are reflected across many other run down northern towns. People were obviously disappointed and disillusioned with much the last Labour government did. But the last 5 years have been catastrophic for many hard done to northern towns and cities and I for one don't want another 5 years of it.

If there was a real and credible socialist alternative I would vote for them in a heartbeat, but there just isn't one. I suppose I would rather have a sickening punch to the stomach by Labour, than have my testicles stamped on by the Tories. Not a great choice but a choice nevertheless.

[Moulin Yarns]

I assume you are making the 1997-2010 comparison for the purpose of menace? ;)

I'm sure those kind of swings are reflected across many other run down northern towns. People were obviously disappointed and disillusioned with much the last Labour government did. But the last 5 years have been catastrophic for many hard done to northern towns and cities and I for one don't want another 5 years of it.

If there was a real and credible socialist alternative I would vote for them in a heartbeat, but there just isn't one. I suppose I would rather have a sickening punch to the stomach by Labour, than have my testicles stamped on by the Tories. Not a great choice but a choice nevertheless.


Not menace at all, what I am pointing out is that from a landslide victory your Labour MP has steadily been losing his majority, and there has to be a reason for it, such as the electorate are losing faith in his ability to represent them.

1992 majority 1989
1997 majority 16,032
2001 majority 10,861
2005 majority 6,486
210 majority 4,331

There's always the Liberal Democrats :wink:

It must be a difficult choice only having right of centre parties to vote for.

The working classes are now turning to UKIP because they are the party that is voicing the fears of the working man, loss of jobs to migrants, EU costing you money etc.

[JeMeSouviens]

Another senior Brit (ex-cabinet minister) floats the idea of a "grand coalition" of Lab-Con.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31776943

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Another senior Brit (ex-cabinet minister) floats the idea of a "grand coalition" of Lab-Con.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31776943

The Self Preservation Society is fast becoming fact rather than fiction.

[lord bunberry]

Would Salmond be the leader of the opposition if there was a coalition between Labour and the Tories?

[Kato]

"austerity light".


Really?

That's one of the funniest/most pathetic things I've heard and in politics in years, and there's been some **** shovelled in that time.

I don't envy your choice living down south as its boils down to either thieves, toff thieves or crackpots.

If Labour were serious about getting elected they'd be canvassing on a ticket of collecting taxes that are actually due but going into an election with the leader they have I don't even think they want to win.

[emerald green]

Whether Lab or SNP win the Scottish seats, the Lab+SNP total will be the same. Given that simple bit of arithmetic, could you explain how it makes the slightest bit of difference to the ability of a Tory govt to win a confidence vote whether folk here vote Lab or SNP? What could make things better for the Tories is Lab voters tactically switching to Con in the likes of Berwickshire or Gordon as they are being encouraged to do by various senior Lab figures (although not Lab as a party, at least for the moment).

My post yesterday seems to have hit a raw nerve with some. I don't usually get involved in political arguments / debates, because I know you can't really win as political opinions are so often very entrenched. No matter what you say it ends up in an argument, or you end up going round and round in circles. Life's too short. So, here I am! :greengrin As you asked me to explain myself, I'll try. Here goes.

What I'm trying to say is that if the Labour party are to win an overall majority, or even secure the highest number of MPs at Westminster, after the general election, I believe (just my humble opinion) that they would have to retain all/most of their seats in Scotland. That is looking very unlikely, sadly IMHO. Thus my belief that if Labour is wiped out in Scotland by people voting SNP then there is a much lesser chance of Labour forming the next government at Westminster, and a greater chance therefore that the Tories will return to power. Is that simple enough?

Who are "the various senior Lab figures" you are referring to BTW? I may have missed that?


Note also that you selectively quoted, the 180bn would be spent across the UK as a whole, not just in Scotland, which is the spin it's getting in the UK press.

I wasn't deliberately being selective in my quote at all, unlike certain politicians I could name. Honest. Where did I say it would be spent just in Scotland? I wish! £180bn spent just in Scotland. Wow, that would be great eh?

I agree the £180bn would be spent across the UK. I just assumed that would be taken as read.

Anyway, let's not pretend that all political parties don't use spin, even the SNP.

Hope this helps clear things up.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I assume you are making the 1997-2010 comparison for the purpose of menace? ;)

I'm sure those kind of swings are reflected across many other run down northern towns. People were obviously disappointed and disillusioned with much the last Labour government did. But the last 5 years have been catastrophic for many hard done to northern towns and cities and I for one don't want another 5 years of it.

If there was a real and credible socialist alternative I would vote for them in a heartbeat, but there just isn't one. I suppose I would rather have a sickening punch to the stomach by Labour, than have my testicles stamped on by the Tories. Not a great choice but a choice nevertheless.

Is this the natural progression from "hard working families"?

The rhetoric I pick up from England, is a lot of people are frustrated, but don't have a scooby what to do about it, other than accept the downtrodden mantle. That said, I'd rather they continue to vote fro the red tories than UKIP.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Another senior Brit (ex-cabinet minister) floats the idea of a "grand coalition" of Lab-Con.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31776943

It's reverse psychology by the Tories, playing up the panto villain role, knowing that the Scots will also do the opposite of what they are told to do.

[over the line]

Really?

That's one of the funniest/most pathetic things I've heard and in politics in years, and there's been some **** shovelled in that time.

I don't envy your choice living down south as its boils down to either thieves, toff thieves or crackpots.

If Labour were serious about getting elected they'd be canvassing on a ticket of collecting taxes that are actually due but going into an election with the leader they have I don't even think they want to win.

Unfortunately "austerity light" is the best we can hope for down here. I am beginning to think that the North West of England should have an independence referendum itself, what with all the shale gas wealth potential we have.

[over the line]

Is this the natural progression from "hard working families"?

The rhetoric I pick up from England, is a lot of people are frustrated, but don't have a scooby what to do about it, other than accept the downtrodden mantle. That said, I'd rather they continue to vote fro the red tories than UKIP.

It won't get any better for the north of England whilst the countries entire economic prosperity is based around having a "successful" London. Some very rich people are getting even richer and the general population of London are clinging onto their shirt tales. Whilst the rest of the country either declines, stagnates or just about bumbles along. No doubt we need a big and fundamental change, but what to and how I don't know.

Although I was against an iS at the time, I'm beginning to think that the rest of the UK should unite and break from the south east of England. I think we would all be better served by a government that wasn't so obsessed with London and the SE.

[lucky]

On my way home from the Scottish Labour conference and talking to senior figures in the party there is no way in hell Labour will go into collation with the SNP never mind their southern counterparts

[over the line]

Not menace at all, what I am pointing out is that from a landslide victory your Labour MP has steadily been losing his majority, and there has to be a reason for it, such as the electorate are losing faith in his ability to represent them.

1992 majority 1989
1997 majority 16,032
2001 majority 10,861
2005 majority 6,486
210 majority 4,331

There's always the Liberal Democrats :wink:

It must be a difficult choice only having right of centre parties to vote for.

The working classes are now turning to UKIP because they are the party that is voicing the fears of the working man, loss of jobs to migrants, EU costing you money etc.

There is no doubt that the last Labour government pumped loads of regeneration money into the NW of England and things did improve here in that respect. I think one of the big problems that they ignored/created was they allowed the areas industries to dwindle. The area lost loads of well paid manufacturing jobs and the government did very little to address/prevent this. Now we have huge unemployment again and a lot of people see a bleak future ahead. Even the industries that remain are not providing the quality of employment they used to. I left Vauxhall motors 12 years ago, they are now recruiting people on more that £2 an hour less than I was on back then. It is grim up north, of that there is no doubt, but what is the answer, I really don't know? (Not UKIP or the Lib Dems that's for sure!)

[emerald green]

The longer game is to blame the SNP for it - they traded well off that one in the 20 years after Thatcher got in.

Yes, and the SNP certainly played a very significant part in helping to bring that about by helping to bring down the Callaghan government in 1979, heralding in four consecutive election victories for the Tories.

When the SNP withdrew support for the Scotland Act (1978), a vote of no confidence was held and passed by one vote on 28 March 1979, forcing Callaghan to call a general election. Thatcher and the Tories won. The SNP weren't commonly referred to as the "Tartan Tories" for no good reason.

[snooky]

It won't get any better for the north of England whilst the countries entire economic prosperity is based around having a "successful" London. Some very rich people are getting even richer and the general population of London are clinging onto their shirt tales. Whilst the rest of the country either declines, stagnates or just about bumbles along. No doubt we need a big and fundamental change, but what to and how I don't know.

Although I was against an iS at the time, I'm beginning to think that the rest of the UK should unite and break from the south east of England. I think we would all be better served by a government that wasn't so obsessed with London and the SE.
Interesting last paragraph, EPH.
I think the majority of Scots voting SNP are more wanting independence from London rather than the UK.
Freedom come all ye.

[Phil D. Rolls]

On my way home from the Scottish Labour conference and talking to senior figures in the party there is no way in hell Labour will go into collation with the SNP never mind their southern counterparts

edit: But has anybody told head office? Ed Miliband refuses to rule out pact with SNP (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/ed-miliband-refuses-to-rule-out-pact-with-snp-1-3712205); Tories "fear" Lab/SNP Alliance (http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/mcmess.jpg)



.

Their southern counterparts? You people are just not listening.

I've picked up on the attempt to try and link Scottish nationalism to the far right. All the stuff about how the saltire is everybody's flag etc.

How come nobody wants to vote for you? Is it something to do with the only thing you are offering is negativity?

By the way, I reckon Labour needs to give up on this vote SNP get Tories nonsense. A quick look at the polls would tell them that people are more bothered about Milliband getting in, than Cameron.

Either way, Scotland needs somebody to fight its corner. I don't think Jim Murphy is that man. He comes across as clueless, and a lightweight.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes, and the SNP certainly played a very significant part in helping to bring that about by helping to bring down the Callaghan government in 1979, heralding in four consecutive election victories for the Tories.

When the SNP withdrew support for the Scotland Act (1978), a vote of no confidence was held and passed by one vote on 28 March 1979, forcing Callaghan to call a general election. Thatcher and the Tories won. The SNP weren't commonly referred to as the "Tartan Tories" for no good reason.

The Callaghan government was primarily brought down by the fact that it didn't have enough of its own MPs, I thought. Then there was the deal with Ian Paisley's unionists that fell through because he was given a pen with green ink to sign the document.

As for the next four governments being the SNPs fault. Well,I didn't know that they'd had a hand in writing the 1983 manifesto, or in organising Kinnock's campaign - remember the one at Sheffield (alright!! ah said alright!!!).

There is one lesson that Labour can go back to. The SNP paid the price for what happened in 1979. Labour will pay the price for what happened in 2014.

The fact is, I wasn't a nationalist, until it became obvious that Labour had no plan for Scotland - other than to have a pretendy parliament run along the lines of Strathclyde Council. It was only when the SNP started to run Scotland as a country, rather than a region - not "The Best small Country in the World", but "The Best Country in the World", that I started to see Labour wasn't working.

Murphy's bumbling, frightened performance yesterday sums up the extent to which Labour has fallen. The man looked like he didn't have a clue what was going on - every time there was a joke he was looking for a prompt from the audience to tell him how to react. An arselicker that has risen without a trace.

Kezia Dugdale was acting like an excited candidate in a by election, rather than a deputy leader. Totally taken to bits by the BBC bloke in an interview where she confirmed that people in private lets won't be getting housing benefit (she confirmed it by the simple act of trying to avoid answering).

Then there is the Lidl element - Curran, Jamieson et. al. Who think that all poor people need is someone who speaks the Scots language like they're in the Broons. "Michty, thon Tories is fair crummaching ma clunge hen".

The only guy who gave a joined up message was the trade union bloke that lost out in the leadership contest. At least he had a vision for what he wanted to deliver.

Sorry, if you think the SNPs time in the wilderness was a long time. You ain't seen nothing yet!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Interesting last paragraph, EPH.
I think the majority of Scots voting SNP are more wanting independence from London rather than the UK.
Freedom come all ye.

Have to say, I wouldn't fancy taking on the mess that England has become, as part of a severence. I think we're already too far down different roads, for it to be a wise move.

Where would the capital be?

[Hibrandenburg]

Their southern counterparts? You people are just not listening.

I've picked up on the attempt to try and link Scottish nationalism to the far right. All the stuff about how the saltire is everybody's flag etc.

How come nobody wants to vote for you? Is it something to do with the only thing you are offering is negativity?

I keep hearing the same crap from Labour supporters that refuse to consider voting for another party because of reasons of loyalty. I wish these folks would realize that politics isn't football, there's no obligation to support a party through thick and thin simply because it's what you've always done.

The SNP is probably an unfortunate name for a party that is more left wing than the mainstream left wing party. Policies like nuclear disarmament, alternative energy and giving the vote in the referendum to foreign nationals living in Scotland are hardly policies of a right wing party. It's the "National" in the SNP that confuses those who are too thick or lazy to scratch below the surface that loses the SNP so many votes, that and party loyalty to a party that its self has become all that its founding members despised.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I keep hearing the same crap from Labour supporters that refuse to consider voting for another party because of reasons of loyalty. I wish these folks would realize that politics isn't football, there's no obligation to support a party through thick and thin simply because it's what you've always done.

The SNP is probably an unfortunate name for a party that is more left wing than the mainstream left wing party. Policies like nuclear disarmament, alternative energy and giving the vote in the referendum to foreign nationals living in Scotland are hardly policies of a right wing party. It's the "National" in the SNP that confuses those who are too thick or lazy to scratch below the surface that loses the SNP so many votes, that and party loyalty to a party that its self has become all that its founding members despised.

I can almost forgive the crap innuendo from English politicians. They've never paid much attention to Scotland as a country, and knowing the name of the main party shows a level of interest in foreign affairs above what you expect.

What is pitiful to see is the bitter, reactionary stance of the SLP. Like you say, it draws from the worst aspects of football rivalry. Hate the opposition, rather than change what your own team does.

The fact is society has moved on from Labour. The old three tier definition of class has changed. Labour politicians (most of whom have never done a real job), cling to the past imagining a world of workers running out of factory gates, and mums buying the tea at the local Co-Op.

Their "working class" in reality, is the people passed over and given money to keep quiet. The people who now depend on benefits, because Labour, with 13 years of power under their belt couldn't do anything to give them more meaningful lives.

Middle aged women reduced to the charade of trying to fake an illness, so that they can provide for themselves. 16 year old girls who see pregnancy as a career path.

Yet how do they propose to solve this? More of the same - they seem to think that all is needed is to create an "us and them" siege mentality. edit: Barrhead Travel Reaps Rewards of Backing Better Together (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-labour-pledges-1-600-to-scots-teenagers-1-3712303).

They patronise working people with glib statements like "hard working families", and "1000 more nurses", like it's OK for people to work 50 hour weeks, and there's a shop somewhere that you can just pick up a 1000 nurses as a job lot.

They bleat about food banks, and vulnerable people, failing to realise that both are the result of their failure to bring about a fairer society. To me their biggest worry is that a fairer society would see them without a group of people to control.

I truly hope they are shafted at the election. A lying, patronising, self - serving group of numpties. They should stop thinking about the next first minister and start thinking about first aid.

[bawheid]

You've had your weetabix this morning Mr Rolls. Superb set of posts.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You've had your weetabix this morning Mr Rolls. Superb set of posts.

I was too knackered to go out yesterday, so I had the misfortune of watching the Scottish Labour Conference. A sad, rag tag collection of people living in the past, and for whom the penny has not dropped yet.

Murphy / Dugdale - the dream team (on So You Think You're Cleverer Than a Seven Year Old).

14503
Ah've won Bully's Special
Prize!

[bawheid]

I agree. My only concern is that like the referendum campaign, the converted on this forum are all preaching to each other. I just hope it translates into what the polls are suggesting in May.

Labour are a shambles. There's actually nothing there at all. It's sad because a real Scottish Labour Party would no doubt attact more support than the centreist rubbish that's being foisted upon us by London HQ so as not to scare Middle England.

I really hope they're wiped off the map in May. Then the good guys within the party (e.g. Neil Findlay) might get the chance to try and build it back from its roots.

[HiBremian]

I keep hearing the same crap from Labour supporters that refuse to consider voting for another party because of reasons of loyalty. I wish these folks would realize that politics isn't football, there's no obligation to support a party through thick and thin simply because it's what you've always done.

The SNP is probably an unfortunate name for a party that is more left wing than the mainstream left wing party. Policies like nuclear disarmament, alternative energy and giving the vote in the referendum to foreign nationals living in Scotland are hardly policies of a right wing party. It's the "National" in the SNP that confuses those who are too thick or lazy to scratch below the surface that loses the SNP so many votes, that and party loyalty to a party that its self has become all that its founding members despised.

Much of that crap eminates from Labour's refusal to understand the modern world. Their followers, as Phil D says, harp back to the old days and the old values and the old enemies as if nothing has changed. Yet back-tracking on Labour's greatest achievements under Attlee began even before he was out of government. They can't get beyond the word "nationalist" when discussing Scottish independence, as if it is still the same movement that existed in the 1930s. Meanwhile their leaders have increasingly become the "professional" products of the Westminster sausage machine, churning out apparatchiks whose view of the world is limited to the possibilities allowed by an entrenched and powerful establishment class. Above all, their economic ideology - austerity - is driven by this logic. Austerity has been shown in every country not to work. Its supposed raison d'etre, to bring down public debt (debt that was introduced to bail out the banks, remember), has only caused that debt to rise dramatically. Listen for a few minutes to Varoufakis's economic analysis and you might understand. And all on the backs of the 99%.

But for me it isn't all bad Labour good SNP. There are good people in the Labour Party who understand these wider issues, and what they mean for the future of their party. One of them lives in my old town of Darlington and has developed the "Pasokification" thesis now being widely discussed:
http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/01/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-pasokification/
There are many others like him, I know. And their view is that the future for Labour lies in clear progressive coalitions with anti-austerity, pro-renewables parties. They may be a minority within the LP, but if the dinosaurs get their way after the GE and form a pro-austerity coalition with the Tories, I reckon pasokification will hit Labour in England just as it already has in Scotland, and big time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GlesgaeHibby]

Their southern counterparts? You people are just not listening.

I've picked up on the attempt to try and link Scottish nationalism to the far right. All the stuff about how the saltire is everybody's flag etc.

How come nobody wants to vote for you? Is it something to do with the only thing you are offering is negativity?

By the way, I reckon Labour needs to give up on this vote SNP get Tories nonsense. A quick look at the polls would tell them that people are more bothered about Milliband getting in, than Cameron.

Either way, Scotland needs somebody to fight its corner. I don't think Jim Murphy is that man. He comes across as clueless, and a lightweight.

Spot on the money. Labour seem to think that we just don't get it yet, and if they keep on shouting the same message at us, eventually we'll understand.

Agree with your points on loyalty too. It's bizarre. I would love to see a strong Labour party, that had strong policies, and held labour values. It would be healthy too for the Scottish Government to have credible opposition! Instead of fighting for something, all they have done during the referendum and during this campaign so far is fight against something - showing a real deep hatred of the SNP.

[BroxburnHibee]

It seems to me that Labour using the negative crap is a bizarre policy!

Unless they think it worked in the referendum.

Scotland has consistently voted Labour in yet how many times has it got a Labour government?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I agree. My only concern is that like the referendum campaign, the converted on this forum are all preaching to each other. I just hope it translates into what the polls are suggesting in May.

Labour are a shambles. There's actually nothing there at all. It's sad because a real Scottish Labour Party would no doubt attact more support than the centreist rubbish that's being foisted upon us by London HQ so as not to scare Middle England.

I really hope they're wiped off the map in May. Then the good guys within the party (e.g. Neil Findlay) might get the chance to try and build it back from its roots.

I feel that an effective opposition at Holyrood could have prevented the shambles of Police Scotland and The Anti Sectarian legislation. They are so sh*t they can't even do second place well.


It seems to me that Labour using the negative crap is a bizarre policy!

Unless they think it worked in the referendum.

Scotland has consistently voted Labour in yet how many times has it got a Labour government?

Well they elected Mr. Negativity as their leader, so I think they might just think they're onto something. Expect to see an upsurge in the sale of Irn Bru crates (bariatric compatible) as the dinosaurs in the West take to the streets to save their meal tickets.

Also expect to see cynical rabble rousing in the hope that they can get the BBC to cover punch ups on the campaign trail. That old tactic of winding up the opposition and crying "foul" when you get a rise out of them.

What I hope to see in this campaign is Murphy to be completely humiliated by a succession of interviewers, and in a head to head debate with Sturgeon (aka The Wee Lassie With the Tin Helmet), Davidson and Harvie. Three people - whether you agree with their policies, or not - who have grasped the fundamental change in Scottish politics, against a guy that isn't much good at anything.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JttnYYcIVfA

When uh'm gaun roon the doors likes, fowk say tae is.....Davie how come you're no
Prime Minister - yer the brightest boay in Bonnyrig.


I agree. My only concern is that like the referendum campaign, the converted on this forum are all preaching to each other. I just hope it translates into what the polls are suggesting in May.

Labour are a shambles. There's actually nothing there at all. It's sad because a real Scottish Labour Party would no doubt attact more support than the centreist rubbish that's being foisted upon us by London HQ so as not to scare Middle England.

I really hope they're wiped off the map in May. Then the good guys within the party (e.g. Neil Findlay) might get the chance to try and build it back from its roots.

Labour is a car crash - having looked at who they are putting in front of the cameras, they don't stand a snowball's chance. Not even Broon can save them this time.

There was a time when the thought of no Tory MPs in Scotland was unthinkable. Well, it's time for us to think the unthinkable about this anachronistic bunch of reactionaries - desperately cling to the privilege they have gained by ensuring that other people are kept needy and subservient.

It's going to take a hell of a turnaround in two months, and that turnaround won't be achieved with the squad they are stuck with. Like other institutions that thought Scotland owed them a living, they are about to learn a sore lesson.

The sad thing is that nobody wanted it to come to this, but they have been such a horrible bunch of people the last ten years, or so. Rather than listen to what people were saying, what the polls were saying, what the election results were saying, they bashed on with the "youse dae whit yer telt" philosophy.

The toys really went out of the pram, once they realised that "ra punters" wisnae daein whit they wis telt.

[emerald green]

The Callaghan government was primarily brought down by the fact that it didn't have enough of its own MPs, I thought. Then there was the deal with Ian Paisley's unionists that fell through because he was given a pen with green ink to sign the document.

As for the next four governments being the SNPs fault.

Sorry, if you think the SNPs time in the wilderness was a long time. You ain't seen nothing yet!

I didn't say that the next four Tory governments was the SNP's fault. Where did I say their time in the wilderness was a long time? They were basically a fringe party most of that time that most people didn't give the time of day to.


I keep hearing the same crap from Labour supporters that refuse to consider voting for another party because of reasons of loyalty. I wish these folks would realize that politics isn't football, there's no obligation to support a party through thick and thin simply because it's what you've always done.

The SNP is probably an unfortunate name for a party that is more left wing than the mainstream left wing party. Policies like nuclear disarmament, alternative energy and giving the vote in the referendum to foreign nationals living in Scotland are hardly policies of a right wing party. It's the "National" in the SNP that confuses those who are too thick or lazy to scratch below the surface that loses the SNP so many votes, that and party loyalty to a party that its self has become all that its founding members despised.

Who are you to lecture anyone as to which political party they wish to show loyalty to, just because you happen to disagree with how they wish to vote? I suppose you would be quite happy to consider voting Tory or UKIP in that case presumably? Please don't tell me you would.

The SNP's policy on nuclear disarmament is a myth. They just want it moved away from the Clyde and dumped elsewhere. They have signed up for the NATO alliance, which has the use of nuclear weapons IIRC. If there's a nuclear holocaust we are all toast whether Trident is on the Clyde or not.

Why no vote for Scottish ex-pats, yet they gave the vote to foreign nationals? I disagree with that completely I'm afraid. People born and raised in Scotland who happen to be working or living abroad have far more right to a say in Scotland's future than someone who has hardly been in this country five minutes.


I can almost forgive the crap innuendo from English politicians. They've never paid much attention to Scotland as a country, and knowing the name of the main party shows a level of interest in foreign affairs above what you expect.

What is pitiful to see is the bitter, reactionary stance of the SLP. Like you say, it draws from the worst aspects of football rivalry. Hate the opposition, rather than change what your own team does.

The fact is society has moved on from Labour. The old three tier definition of class has changed. Labour politicians (most of whom have never done a real job), cling to the past imagining a world of workers running out of factory gates, and mums buying the tea at the local Co-Op.

Their "working class" in reality, is the people passed over and given money to keep quiet. The people who now depend on benefits, because Labour, with 13 years of power under their belt couldn't do anything to give them more meaningful lives.

Middle aged women reduced to the charade of trying to fake an illness, so that they can provide for themselves. 16 year old girls who see pregnancy as a career path.

Yet how do they propose to solve this? More of the same - they seem to think that all is needed is to create an "us and them" siege mentality.

They patronise working people with glib statements like "hard working families", and "1000 more nurses", like it's OK for people to work 50 hour weeks, and there's a shop somewhere that you can just pick up a 1000 nurses as a job lot.

They bleat about food banks, and vulnerable people, failing to realise that both are the result of their failure to bring about a fairer society. To me their biggest worry is that a fairer society would see them without a group of people to control.

I truly hope they are shafted at the election. A lying, patronising, self - serving group of numpties. They should stop thinking about the next first minister and start thinking about first aid.

The bit in bold. That sounds just like you. Just read the rest of your post and you will see what I mean.

Labour has its faults, but I genuinely believe it is trying to rectify them. If you think the SNP is the answer to all the ills of the world then that's where we have to disagree I'm afraid.

I don't think individual political parties have the power to influence things in any great fundamental way in a global economy driven by financial markets and economies they have absolutely no control over.

You need to calm down mate and lighten up a wee bit if you don't mind me saying. Time for me to head off to Easter Road. Hopefully we can at least agree that we both hope for a Hibs win today.

[PiemanP]

I'm based down in London and will be voting Conservatives. Love them or loathe them (I know for most it's the latter :greengrin) I think they've done a pretty decent job over their tenure given the mess they were left with. Far from perfect, of course, but I believe they've done better than any other party would've done given the same awful hand of cards.

The thought of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls(up) running the country is worrying so it's great to see the SNP polling so well and hopefully taking away 30+ of their seats. That said, a Labour/SNP coalition sounds nearly as bad...

UKIP have done well recently but I can't see them winning more than a handful of seats from the South East in the GE.

[Colr]

It's reverse psychology by the Tories, playing up the panto villain role, knowing that the Scots will also do the opposite of what they are told to do.

I agree. This is just one of a number of statements put out to undermine Milliband's credibility in England. In the event, a minority administration for a short period is the likely outcome.

[Colr]

I'm based down in London and will be voting Conservatives. Love them or loathe them (I know for most it's the latter :greengrin) I think they've done a pretty decent job over their tenure given the mess they were left with. Far from perfect, of course, but I believe they've done better than any other party would've done given the same awful hand of cards.

The thought of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls(up) running the country is worrying so it's great to see the SNP polling so well and hopefully taking away 30+ of their seats. That said, a Labour/SNP coalition sounds nearly as bad...

UKIP have done well recently but I can't see them winning more than a handful of seats from the South East in the GE.

I'm in London as well but Conservatives don't poll well in my ward. Personally, I'm no great fan of the stuffed shirt Cameron but Milliband is a bit scarey. My overarching feeling is, though, that the last thing we need at this stage in the economic recovery is a change in government. It's too disruptive.

[heretoday]

So Ed Miliband wants to enshrine TV debates in law? Great. If he outlawed TV debates I'd be happier, though not much.

To think that I used to give donations to Labour in the hope that they would come up with a manifesto worth voting for.

Not any more. My cash and vote will go somewhere else next time.

[Beefster]

Is this thread in danger of becoming another referendum-style navel gazer where SNP = good, everyone/thing else = bad?

[Glory Lurker]

[QUOT E=Beefster;4319917]Is this thread in danger of becoming another referendum-style navel gazer where SNP = good, everyone/thing else = bad?[/QUOTE]

But that's just an irrefutable fact, is it no? What's your point, caller? :greengrin

[snooky]

I'm based down in London and will be voting Conservatives. Love them or loathe them (I know for most it's the latter :greengrin) I think they've done a pretty decent job over their tenure given the mess they were left with. Far from perfect, of course, but I believe they've done better than any other party would've done given the same awful hand of cards.

The thought of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls(up) running the country is worrying so it's great to see the SNP polling so well and hopefully taking away 30+ of their seats. That said, a Labour/SNP coalition sounds nearly as bad...

UKIP have done well recently but I can't see them winning more than a handful of seats from the South East in the GE.


You forgot your hat --> :tin hat:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is this thread in danger of becoming another referendum-style navel gazer where SNP = good, everyone/thing else = bad?

No, it's Labour that is fighting the referemdum sgsin. Nationalist comment is restricted to how we can make the present mess better for Scotland,

[Hibrandenburg]

Is this thread in danger of becoming another referendum-style navel gazer where SNP = good, everyone/thing else = bad?

I hope so.

They just can't help themselves!

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/scottishpolitics/6361733/Dinoslurs.html

[Phil D. Rolls]

I didn't say that the next four Tory governments was the SNP's fault. Where did I say their time in the wilderness was a long time? They were basically a fringe party most of that time that most people didn't give the time of day to.



Who are you to lecture anyone as to which political party they wish to show loyalty to, just because you happen to disagree with how they wish to vote? I suppose you would be quite happy to consider voting Tory or UKIP in that case presumably? Please don't tell me you would.

The SNP's policy on nuclear disarmament is a myth. They just want it moved away from the Clyde and dumped elsewhere. They have signed up for the NATO alliance, which has the use of nuclear weapons IIRC. If there's a nuclear holocaust we are all toast whether Trident is on the Clyde or not.

Why no vote for Scottish ex-pats, yet they gave the vote to foreign nationals? I disagree with that completely I'm afraid. People born and raised in Scotland who happen to be working or living abroad have far more right to a say in Scotland's future than someone who has hardly been in this country five minutes.



The bit in bold. That sounds just like you. Just read the rest of your post and you will see what I mean.

Labour has its faults, but I genuinely believe it is trying to rectify them. If you think the SNP is the answer to all the ills of the world then that's where we have to disagree I'm afraid.

I don't think individual political parties have the power to influence things in any great fundamental way in a global economy driven by financial markets and economies they have absolutely no control over.

You need to calm down mate and lighten up a wee bit if you don't mind me saying. Time for me to head off to Easter Road. Hopefully we can at least agree that we both hope for a Hibs win today.

I think hate is maybe too strong a word. But Scottish Labour have to accept that they have scunnered a lot of people, and they deserve all the scorn that comes their way. As for trying to put things right, time will tell on that one - but it seems to have taken them a long time to realise what was wrong - under the current leadership, all I suspect we'll get is more of the same.

It's pretty clear though, that they don't like people criticising them. Can you blame people for being angry at the lies and patronising that they have given us?

I don't think the SNP is the answer to the world's faults, but I do think being seperate from the UK is. Time for Labour to acknowledge the new political landscape, instead of clininging to the past.

[HiBremian]

Is this thread in danger of becoming another referendum-style navel gazer where SNP = good, everyone/thing else = bad?

FWIW, my advice to Nicola Sturgeon is to strengthen the progressive alliance with the Greens and Plaid to the extent that any talk of an "arrangement" is channelled through that alliance, rather than the SNP on its own. This would remove some of this indyref navel gazing from the debate, and focus instead on the federalism shared by all three parties. It would also give progressive voters in England and Wales some hope that their vote could make a big difference to the outcome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

The Grauniad - what a scream! :rolleyes:

14509

[Phil D. Rolls]

The Grauniad - what a scream! :rolleyes:

14509

My gast is flabbered! WTF?

[Moulin Yarns]

The Grauniad - what a scream! :rolleyes:

14509


My gast is flabbered! WTF?

Where are the sheep? I was promised sheep, or goats at a push :wink:

[Peevemor]

My gast is flabbered! WTF?


It wouldn't bother me if it was funny.

[CropleyWasGod]

My son works in the media in London.

He says that most people he works with are repulsed by it. He refuses to be offended by it, and sees it as another example of some media trying to stir up anit-Scots feelings ahead of the Election.

[JeMeSouviens]

My post yesterday seems to have hit a raw nerve with some. I don't usually get involved in political arguments / debates, because I know you can't really win as political opinions are so often very entrenched. No matter what you say it ends up in an argument, or you end up going round and round in circles. Life's too short. So, here I am! :greengrin As you asked me to explain myself, I'll try. Here goes.

What I'm trying to say is that if the Labour party are to win an overall majority, or even secure the highest number of MPs at Westminster, after the general election, I believe (just my humble opinion) that they would have to retain all/most of their seats in Scotland. That is looking very unlikely, sadly IMHO. Thus my belief that if Labour is wiped out in Scotland by people voting SNP then there is a much lesser chance of Labour forming the next government at Westminster, and a greater chance therefore that the Tories will return to power. Is that simple enough?


It's simple but it doesn't answer the question. Hypothetically, say Tories have 310 seats, Labour 300 and SNP 30. Tories try to proceed as minority gov. They have to face a vote of confidence. If SNP vote against, the only way they can stay in office is if Lab vote for them. Actually, maybe I see your point: I wouldn't put it past the current Labour party either. :rolleyes:

But don't take my word for it, here's parliament's website. Read this and tell me how the Tories as largest party get to be the government if Lab+SNP > 323 and neither will vote for Cameron?

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/



Does the party with the most seats form a Government?

In order to form a Government, a party must be able to command a majority in the House of Commons on votes of confidence and supply. This majority can include support from other political parties, whether or not there is a formal coalition arrangement.

In a situation of no overall control the Government in power before the General Election gets the first chance at creating a government. If they cannot do so, the Prime Minister will resign.

Does the Prime Minister have to resign?

The Prime Minister only has to resign if it is clear that they cannot command a majority of the House of Commons on votes of confidence or supply. This would be the case if the incumbent government fails to make a deal with one or more of the other parties, or if they lose a confidence motion in the House of Commons. The first parliamentary test would be the vote on any amendment to the Queen’s Speech.




Who are "the various senior Lab figures" you are referring to BTW? I may have missed that?


Ex-MPs, now "noble" Lords, Fatty Foulkes and Lewis Moonie. Aberdeen Councillor Willie Young, East Lothian Labour chair and member of SLab ploicy forum Robert McNeill.



I wasn't deliberately being selective in my quote at all, unlike certain politicians I could name. Honest. Where did I say it would be spent just in Scotland? I wish! £180bn spent just in Scotland. Wow, that would be great eh?

I agree the £180bn would be spent across the UK. I just assumed that would be taken as read.

Anyway, let's not pretend that all political parties don't use spin, even the SNP.

Hope this helps clear things up.

Ok, cool.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It wouldn't bother me if it was funny.


My son works in the media in London.

He says that most people he works with are repulsed by it. He refuses to be offended by it, and sees it as another example of some media trying to stir up anit-Scots feelings ahead of the Election.

It doesn't offend me - I just wonder where the humour is supposed to be. I'm wondering if I'm missing something, because it just seems to be childish name calling.

Does this man get paid for these drawings?

[CropleyWasGod]

It doesn't offend me - I just wonder where the humour is supposed to be. I'm wondering if I'm missing something, because it just seems to be childish name calling.

Does this man get paid for these drawings?

I've been a fan of Steve Bell in the past.

I think the issue is.... substitute "Scots" with Muslim, Romanian, black or even Irish... and think of the ****-storm.

The "humour" is in the lazy stereotyping, the kind of which appeals to a certain audience. However, having been a Scot for many years :greengrin, incest isn't something that we've ever been associated with as a race. That part puzzles me.

[emerald green]

It's simple but it doesn't answer the question. Hypothetically, say Tories have 310 seats, Labour 300 and SNP 30. Tories try to proceed as minority gov. They have to face a vote of confidence. If SNP vote against, the only way they can stay in office is if Lab vote for them. Actually, maybe I see your point: I wouldn't put it past the current Labour party either. :rolleyes:

But don't take my word for it, here's parliament's website. Read this and tell me how the Tories as largest party get to be the government if Lab+SNP > 323 and neither will vote for Cameron?

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/





Ex-MPs, now "noble" Lords, Fatty Foulkes and Lewis Moonie. Aberdeen Councillor Willie Young, East Lothian Labour chair and member of SLab ploicy forum Robert McNeill.



Ok, cool.

OK I get that, but what I'm trying to get across is that I don't think the hypothetical scenario you describe will apply should Labour be wiped out completely in Scotland. There will be no vote of confidence required.

The Tories will IMHO win an outright majority. The only way that might not happen is if UKIP gains lots of seats at the expense of both the Tories and Labour, and then who knows what happens then? I don't think this is covered in the hypothetical situation you have outlined.

Anyway, who knows? It's all ifs and buts, and as one wise politician once said "a week is a long time in politics".

I note the names you mention. I wouldn't give any credence to what p**** breaks says. The others I can't comment on. I'll just have to take your word on those.

Time for me to bow out now.

[Kato]

I've been a fan of Steve Bell in the past.

I think the issue is.... substitute "Scots" with Muslim, Romanian, black or even Irish... and think of the ****-storm.

The "humour" is in the lazy stereotyping, the kind of which appeals to a certain audience. However, having been a Scot for many years :greengrin, incest isn't something that we've ever been associated with as a race. That part puzzles me.

Not my words but someone described Steve Bell as a -

".......sneery Metropolitan. Sometimes people like that, who normally try to be so right on, allow their mask to slip and their inert sense of condescension shines through."


I just think he's a twat who draws not very funny cartoons for other twats.

Live and let live though, eh.

[CropleyWasGod]

Not my words but someone described Steve Bell as a -

".......sneery Metropolitan. Sometimes people like that, who normally try to be so right on, allow their mask to slip and their inert sense of condescension shines through."


I just think he's a twat who draws not very funny cartoons for other twats.

Live and let live though, eh.

Je suis pas Steve Bell. :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

I've been a fan of Steve Bell in the past. I think the issue is.... substitute "Scots" with Muslim, Romanian, black or even Irish... and think of the ****-storm. The "humour" is in the lazy stereotyping, the kind of which appeals to a certain audience. However, having been a Scot for many years :greengrin, incest isn't something that we've ever been associated with as a race. That part puzzles me.

Well said.

I think Scots like many people are happy to have a laugh at themselves and even their stereotype but must admit that this cartoon caused a bit of a whoosh moment...incest? Really?

[Colr]

FWIW, my advice to Nicola Sturgeon is to strengthen the progressive alliance with the Greens and Plaid to the extent that any talk of an "arrangement" is channelled through that alliance, rather than the SNP on its own. This would remove some of this indyref navel gazing from the debate, and focus instead on the federalism shared by all three parties. It would also give progressive voters in England and Wales some hope that their vote could make a big difference to the outcome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Progressive?

[Kato]

Well said.

I think Scots like many people are happy to have a laugh at themselves and even their stereotype but must admit that this cartoon caused a bit of a whoosh moment...incest? Really?

It's a take on Thomas Beecham's quote - ""Try everything once except incest and folk dancing."

I admit I don't quite get the relationship betwen the quote and the context of the SNP, unless Bell just sees the SNP as parochial. Even then only the snobbiest toff would find some humour in the cartoon. Huge mis-judgement in taste.

[Stranraer]

Sunday's polls have the red and blue Tories tied and the Greens only 1 point behind the Liberal Democrats. UKIP seem pretty static on the low teens, I just hope it worsens before May the 7th. Why Ed Miliband is going around acting like a hard man in regards to the debates is beyond me, I think he's the worst speaker our of all three "major" party leaders.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's a take on Thomas Beecham's quote - ""Try everything once except incest and folk dancing."

I admit I don't quite get the relationship betwen the quote and the context of the SNP, unless Bell just sees the SNP as parochial. Even then only the snobbiest toff would find some humour in the cartoon. Huge mis-judgement in taste.

I think the implication is that the SNP would do anything for power.

However, once you get down to that level of explaining the "joke", it just ain't funny any more.

[JeMeSouviens]

OK I get that, but what I'm trying to get across is that I don't think the hypothetical scenario you describe will apply should Labour be wiped out completely in Scotland. There will be no vote of confidence required.

The Tories will IMHO win an outright majority. The only way that might not happen is if UKIP gains lots of seats at the expense of both the Tories and Labour, and then who knows what happens then? I don't think this is covered in the hypothetical situation you have outlined.

Anyway, who knows? It's all ifs and buts, and as one wise politician once said "a week is a long time in politics".

I note the names you mention. I wouldn't give any credence to what p**** breaks says. The others I can't comment on. I'll just have to take your word on those.

Time for me to bow out now.

Just to labour (groan!) the point some more: the potential SLab wipeout makes no difference because the Tories won't win any of those seats*. Whether it's SLab 45 + SNP 14 or SLab 14 + SNP 45, the SNP+Lab total remains the same and the Tories get no closer to an overall majority. How the Scots vote is irrelevant to that. The SLab mantra about voting SNP and getting Tory is, in a word, pish. They just hope we are thick enough to ignore the obvious arithmetic.


*Ironically, the only thing that will mean Scotland helping them to a majority is Unionist tactical voting that might give them a chance in the likes of Berwickshire or Gordon.

[steakbake]

Just to labour (groan!) the point some more: the potential SLab wipeout makes no difference because the Tories won't win any of those seats*. Whether it's SLab 45 + SNP 14 or SLab 14 + SNP 45, the SNP+Lab total remains the same and the Tories get no closer to an overall majority. How the Scots vote is irrelevant to that. The SLab mantra about voting SNP and getting Tory is, in a word, pish. They just hope we are thick enough to ignore the obvious arithmetic.


*Ironically, the only thing that will mean Scotland helping them to a majority is Unionist tactical voting that might give them a chance in the likes of Berwickshire or Gordon.

I got a Labour leaflet the other day. It tells me that the only way to save the NHS is to vote for them.

1. The health service is devolved in Scotland.

2. That was the matra for voting no in September - and people duly did. So why is the health service still in the kind of peril that only Labour can fix?

[Kato]

I got a Labour leaflet the other day. It tells me that the only way to save the NHS is to vote for them.



1. The health service is devolved in Scotland.



2. That was the matra for voting no in September - and people duly did. So why is the health service still in the kind of peril that only Labour can fix?


Plaitudes. Dumb words strung aimlessly together in an attempt to invoke fear.

A complete lack of imagination and accountability.

[bawheid]

Plaitudes. Dumb words strung aimlessly together in an attempt to invoke fear.

A complete lack of imagination and accountability.

But it works. This type of stuff got Better Together over the line (just) in September. Why wouldn't they continue with the same theme?

It's only when enough people see past all this pish that it'll stop. Social media is good at cutting through a lot of this type of stuff, but loads of people don't use Facebook, Twitter and the Hibs.net Holy Ground.

The same boring old rosette wearers trotting out the same old lines, desperate to keep their little share of power. The talk of a 'Grand Coalition' is just more evidence that red and blue at Westminster will do anything they can to hold on to their cosy little existence. Think they might get a shock in May.

[emerald green]

Just to labour (groan!) the point some more: the potential SLab wipeout makes no difference because the Tories won't win any of those seats*. Whether it's SLab 45 + SNP 14 or SLab 14 + SNP 45, the SNP+Lab total remains the same and the Tories get no closer to an overall majority. How the Scots vote is irrelevant to that. The SLab mantra about voting SNP and getting Tory is, in a word, pish. They just hope we are thick enough to ignore the obvious arithmetic.


*Ironically, the only thing that will mean Scotland helping them to a majority is Unionist tactical voting that might give them a chance in the likes of Berwickshire or Gordon.

Just because the Tories don't win any of the 59 seats in Scotland (lets just assume that) does not mean they cannot win, or get closer to, an overall majority (or alternatively win the largest number of seats & continue their coalition with the Lib Dems). There are another 591 seats in the UK. How does anyone know who will win those 591 seats?

The only other UK party that can realistically get more seats than the Tories is the Labour party (unless there is a landslide for UKIP...). If Labour is wiped out in Scotland the chances of that happening become very remote I would say, and the greater the liklihood of another Tory and/or Tory/LibDem government.

[emerald green]

I got a Labour leaflet the other day. It tells me that the only way to save the NHS is to vote for them.

1. The health service is devolved in Scotland.

2. That was the matra for voting no in September - and people duly did. So why is the health service still in the kind of peril that only Labour can fix?

It wasn't. Over 2 million "people" voted No in Scotland for all sorts of reasons. I'm sorry if that didn't meet with your approval.

Maybe you can answer your own question. Why is the health service in peril and needing fixed if health has been devolved to the Scottish government?

[cabbageandribs1875]

sooo 'crate boy' murphy wants to bribe the young kids leaving school with his one and a half grand bribes for their votes eh........sleaze bag that he is

[Moulin Yarns]

It wasn't. Over 2 million "people" voted No in Scotland for all sorts of reasons. I'm sorry if that didn't meet with your approval.

Maybe you can answer your own question. Why is the health service in peril and needing fixed if health has been devolved to the Scottish government?

In May we are voting for a UK Parliament and it is the NHS in England that is in peril. Through the Barnett consequential that the NHS in Scotland would suffer

[JeMeSouviens]

Just because the Tories don't win any of the 59 seats in Scotland (lets just assume that) does not mean they cannot win, or get closer to, an overall majority (or alternatively win the largest number of seats & continue their coalition with the Lib Dems). There are another 591 seats in the UK. How does anyone know who will win those 591 seats?

The only other UK party that can realistically get more seats than the Tories is the Labour party (unless there is a landslide for UKIP...). If Labour is wiped out in Scotland the chances of that happening become very remote I would say, and the greater the liklihood of another Tory and/or Tory/LibDem government.

I'm not sure it can be put any simpler so I have to assume you're wilfully missing the point out of party loyalty/propaganda.

If the Tories have a majority with no seats in Scotland then every vote cast in Scotland is irrelevant. We could return 59 Lab MPs, there would still be a Tory majority.

[Hibby Bairn]

I'm not sure it can be put any simpler so I have to assume you're wilfully missing the point out of party loyalty/propaganda.

If the Tories have a majority with no seats in Scotland then every vote cast in Scotland is irrelevant. We could return 59 Lab MPs, there would still be a Tory majority.

Yes. But it is not a Scottish election. it is a UK election.

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes. But it is not a Scottish election. it is a UK election.

Eh?

[Hibby Bairn]

Eh?

Sorry. Didn't read thread properly!

[snooky]

Alas, Labour is naebody's bairn now.
The right never ever wanted them and the left don't want them for turning right.

IMO.

[Hibrandenburg]

Not my words but someone described Steve Bell as a -

".......sneery Metropolitan. Sometimes people like that, who normally try to be so right on, allow their mask to slip and their inert sense of condescension shines through."


I just think he's a twat who draws not very funny cartoons for other twats.

Live and let live though, eh.

Imagine the uproar if a Scottish paper posted a cartoon insinuating that child molestation was an inherent part of being English based on Saville, Glitter and all the rest of the recent allegations? There'd be hell to pay.

[ronaldo7]

OK I get that, but what I'm trying to get across is that I don't think the hypothetical scenario you describe will apply should Labour be wiped out completely in Scotland. There will be no vote of confidence required.

The Tories will IMHO win an outright majority. The only way that might not happen is if UKIP gains lots of seats at the expense of both the Tories and Labour, and then who knows what happens then? I don't think this is covered in the hypothetical situation you have outlined.

Anyway, who knows? It's all ifs and buts, and as one wise politician once said "a week is a long time in politics".

I note the names you mention. I wouldn't give any credence to what p**** breaks says. The others I can't comment on. I'll just have to take your word on those.

Time for me to bow out now.

Robert James McNeill was a Labour party grandee in belter land.

Wings have done a bit of digging after he advised Labour voters to vote Tory/Lib dem. http://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-labours-new-policy-vote-tory/

14511

[steakbake]

It wasn't. Over 2 million "people" voted No in Scotland for all sorts of reasons. I'm sorry if that didn't meet with your approval.

Maybe you can answer your own question. Why is the health service in peril and needing fixed if health has been devolved to the Scottish government?

No, actually you are wrong: it was one of the reasons that Scottish Labour very strongly put forward as a reason for staying in the UK.

Personally, I think the NHS isn't in crisis as such, only it's trying to provide a service that no politician of any colour has the balls to admit it cannot realistically achieve any more.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No, actually you are wrong: it was one of the reasons that Scottish Labour very strongly put forward as a reason for staying in the UK.

Personally, I think the NHS isn't in crisis as such, only it's trying to provide a service that no politician of any colour has the balls to admit it cannot realistically achieve any more.

People's expectations of the NHS are unrealistic. It can't provide EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY wants. Politicians constantly bleating about the crisis does nothing for the morale of those working in it.

Here's an idea, why not take the money proposed to hire 1000 new nurses (something that happens through staff turnover anyway), and use it to pay a realistic wage to those already there. It's a no brainer, retaining staff is surely preferable to a constant merry go round?

[Hibrandenburg]

People's expectations of the NHS are unrealistic. It can't provide EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY wants. Politicians constantly bleating about the crisis does nothing for the morale of those working in it.

Here's an idea, why not take the money proposed to hire 1000 new nurses (something that happens through staff turnover anyway), and use it to pay a realistic wage to those already there. It's a no brainer, retaining staff is surely preferable to a constant merry go round?

In the private sector rotating staff like a merry go round is a great way to keep wages down. Keeping an artificially held pool of unemployed people also is great for keeping wages down, big companies don't pay towards upkeep of the unemployed it's us the working low paid taxpayer who does so it's win/win for big concerns.

[JeMeSouviens]

Polling update:

UK as a whole - the Labour lead has steadily eroded to the point where Lab-Con are more or less dead level or even Con nudging slightly ahead, eg. last 3 polls:

Populus – CON 32, LAB 33, LD 9, UKIP 15, GRN 6
Ashcroft – CON 34, LAB 30, LD 5, UKIP 15, GRN 8
YouGov – CON 35, LAB 31, LD 8, UKIP 14, GRN 6

We are still in hung parliament territory but if the trends of Lab decline and drift from UKIP to Con continue, the Tories might well sneak a majority in May.


Scotland - the SNP are still miles ahead

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Slide13.jpg

[steakbake]

People's expectations of the NHS are unrealistic. It can't provide EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY wants. Politicians constantly bleating about the crisis does nothing for the morale of those working in it.

Here's an idea, why not take the money proposed to hire 1000 new nurses (something that happens through staff turnover anyway), and use it to pay a realistic wage to those already there. It's a no brainer, retaining staff is surely preferable to a constant merry go round?

I think this is right on the money. Something which grinds my gears about politics is this constant game of brag where one party says it'll recruit 1,000 nurses and the other one in response says it will recruit 1,100 - then five years down the line, they squabble over the figures as to whether the target has been met or not. Or that say only 90% of people get seen within 4 hours, while the A&E staff spend their time sorting out the chaotic lives of their regular, sometimes daily, customers who actually need a social worker or psychiatrist or addiction treatment or mental health support, not a nurse or a doctor.

Everyone wants a fully accessible service, 24 hours a day without paying anything more for it. On the one hand, a politician will tell you our NHS is the jewel in the crown of our national culture - that it's the envy of the world - yet in the same breath will tell you that if their party isn't running it, then it's being ruined.

It's the stuff of pantomime.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Coalitions with the SNPare bad, but if it's with Labour it's not so bad.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-labours-new-policy-vote-tory/

How stupid do they think electors actually are? East Lothian Council is a Tory/Lab coalition - but apparently a coalition between the SNP and Tories is not such a good thing. Kind of tells you what the Red Tories will do to cling onto their allowances.

Hard to lighten up when this sort of lying is going on. If only Labour would stick to policies they might win the voters respect.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think this is right on the money. Something which grinds my gears about politics is this constant game of brag where one party says it'll recruit 1,000 nurses and the other one in response says it will recruit 1,100 - then five years down the line, they squabble over the figures as to whether the target has been met or not. Or that say only 90% of people get seen within 4 hours, while the A&E staff spend their time sorting out the chaotic lives of their regular, sometimes daily, customers who actually need a social worker or psychiatrist or addiction treatment or mental health support, not a nurse or a doctor.

Everyone wants a fully accessible service, 24 hours a day without paying anything more for it. On the one hand, a politician will tell you our NHS is the jewel in the crown of our national culture - that it's the envy of the world - yet in the same breath will tell you that if their party isn't running it, then it's being ruined.

It's the stuff of pantomime.

Add "vulnerable people" and "hard working families" and it's a full set.

[Bristolhibby]

I think this is right on the money. Something which grinds my gears about politics is this constant game of brag where one party says it'll recruit 1,000 nurses and the other one in response says it will recruit 1,100 - then five years down the line, they squabble over the figures as to whether the target has been met or not. Or that say only 90% of people get seen within 4 hours, while the A&E staff spend their time sorting out the chaotic lives of their regular, sometimes daily, customers who actually need a social worker or psychiatrist or addiction treatment or mental health support, not a nurse or a doctor.

Everyone wants a fully accessible service, 24 hours a day without paying anything more for it. On the one hand, a politician will tell you our NHS is the jewel in the crown of our national culture - that it's the envy of the world - yet in the same breath will tell you that if their party isn't running it, then it's being ruined.

It's the stuff of pantomime.

I think one thing we can ALL agree on is outsourcing it to profit making companies is the WRONG thing to do.

No way should Profit be near Health. And defence while we are at it.
There are some things that Government, should just do. It's their reason for being.

And I agree about the social service slashing of budgets being a contributor to the NHS strain. There are people in hospital because no one else will look after them. That makes no sense.

Peeps if we want somthing we have to pay for it. Taxes should go up and services will improve. Don't fall for the snake oil salesman routine at the moment (cut budgets and everything will remain the same) because it won't.

J

[Kato]

People's expectations of the NHS are unrealistic. It can't provide EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY wants. Politicians constantly bleating about the crisis does nothing for the morale of those working in it.

Here's an idea, why not take the money proposed to hire 1000 new nurses (something that happens through staff turnover anyway), and use it to pay a realistic wage to those already there. It's a no brainer, retaining staff is surely preferable to a constant merry go round?

We could just Nationalise the hospitals built using the con-trick that is/was PFI.

http://www.nhsforsale.info/privatisation-list/surgery/the-great-pfi-swindle.html

[Phil D. Rolls]

We could just Nationalise the hospitals built using the con-trick that is/was PFI.

http://www.nhsforsale.info/privatisation-list/surgery/the-great-pfi-swindle.html

I'm all for that - turn round to the likes of RBS and Barclays, and let them see what it's like when people welch on deals. Basically, "we don't have any money, what are you going to do about it?" - it worked for them.

[RyeSloan]

I think one thing we can ALL agree on is outsourcing it to profit making companies is the WRONG thing to do. No way should Profit be near Health. And defence while we are at it. There are some things that Government, should just do. It's their reason for being. And I agree about the social service slashing of budgets being a contributor to the NHS strain. There are people in hospital because no one else will look after them. That makes no sense. Peeps if we want somthing we have to pay for it. Taxes should go up and services will improve. Don't fall for the snake oil salesman routine at the moment (cut budgets and everything will remain the same) because it won't. J

Nope we can't all agree on that ;-)

Believe it or not profit making companies can be more efficient and cost less than centrally controlled politically driven public bodies.

There is more than one way to slice a cake and there is more than one way to provide public health services...it doesn't have to be through 100% publicly owned and operated services.

The problem you have with the NHS is the huge vested interests within it...every change appears to be resisted and we end up with elements purporting to support the delivery of service but ultimately who are trying to protect their own terms and conditions. There is no black and white of course but to suggest that there is no scope for effective contracting of health care to 3rd party service providers is just bonkers in my mind.

I am fortunate enough to have private health insurance through my work...I know the size of the premiums and they are significantly smaller than the percentage of tax that is taken to fund the NHS. Sure I understand that the NHS tax portion covers the millions that don't contribute for one reason or another but none the less the level of service received for the premium paid would suggest that the private companies involved can still make margins while maintaining reasonable levels of premiums.

Privatise the whole of the NHS, maybe not.
An idealogical opposition to private health provision in some shape or form, not from me.

On the more general point of the general election...well it will surprise no one here when I say none of the political parties are anywhere near my thoughts on the whole shebang. That still all purport to being the answer and that more government and more laws and more meddling will solve our ills. Until one party comes out and dares to suggest that maybe this is NOT the case and they will examine every area of government influence to ascertain if it's actually needed and/or is cost effective I will be struggling to find any desire to put an X in the box for any of them.

[Kato]

I'm all for that - turn round to the likes of RBS and Barclays, and let them see what it's like when people welch on deals. Basically, "we don't have any money, what are you going to do about it?" - it worked for them.

If they complained a Press Release with a simple "Diddums", would do for me.

[ballengeich]

I think one thing we can ALL agree on is outsourcing it to profit making companies is the WRONG thing to do.

No way should Profit be near Health.


Aren't GP practices independent companies reliant on profits?

[Mathias Jack]

Aren't GP practices independent companies reliant on profits?

In a word...yes. All of them are, in effect, sub-contractors. Like any business they're reliant on profits.

For example, if you're a smoker they'll invite you to attend your practice for a smoking cessation clinic. If you attend, they'll get paid for it. Profits first, health second.

I know that because I work in the department that pays them :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Aren't GP practices independent companies reliant on profits?

They are normally partnerships rather than companies.

They are "reliant on profit" in the same way that any self-employed person is. It's their livelihood.

[ballengeich]

They are normally partnerships rather than companies.

They are "reliant on profit" in the same way that any self-employed person is. It's their livelihood.

I've no objection to them making money for themselves whether they're companies or partnerships. The point I was putting forward (for discussion) is that our normal point of access to the NHS is through private businesses. Similarly, we accept that a prescription is usually made up by a chemist working for a large profit-making company. Everyone accepts this, even those who campaign against privatisation apparently unaware that these basic services are already outside public ownership.

[emerald green]

No, actually you are wrong: it was one of the reasons that Scottish Labour very strongly put forward as a reason for staying in the UK.

Personally, I think the NHS isn't in crisis as such, only it's trying to provide a service that no politician of any colour has the balls to admit it cannot realistically achieve any more.

Yes I agree, but I think we are at cross purposes here. What I meant was that the NHS wasn't the only reason, which is what I thought you were suggesting. My fault if I got that wrong.

Strangely enough, I agree with your second sentence too. I think the NHS is doing really well to cope with an ever increasing workload and the demands placed upon it by a rapidly ageing population, particularly so in Scotland.

[HiBremian]

Progressive?

Very much so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[emerald green]

I'm not sure it can be put any simpler so I have to assume you're wilfully missing the point out of party loyalty/propaganda.

If the Tories have a majority with no seats in Scotland then every vote cast in Scotland is irrelevant. We could return 59 Lab MPs, there would still be a Tory majority.

Nope. I'm not willfully missing the point at all, and yes I do have a loyalty to the party I've supported all my adult life, unlike many others it seems. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but loyalty just doesn't seem to be valued much these days.

I don't believe Labour is the be all and end all, and the SNP certainly aren't either. In fact, no political party is. I wouldn't trust most politicians as far as I could throw them. I just happen to believe that the founding principles of the Labour party were closest to mine, and generations of my family before me. They are the best out of a very bad bunch at this moment in time.

Anyway, despite what you may think , or are implying, I do get the point you make in the second sentence of your post.

The point I'm making is the more seats Labour win in Scotland the better, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't seem to go down too well on this Forum though.

[marinello59]

Very much so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It depends on your definition of progressive. With every major party falling over themselves to describe their stance as progressive it's nothing more than a meaningless buzzword now. Basically they are all trying to stake a claim as the nice party.

[Bristolhibby]

In a word...yes. All of them are, in effect, sub-contractors. Like any business they're reliant on profits.

For example, if you're a smoker they'll invite you to attend your practice for a smoking cessation clinic. If you attend, they'll get paid for it. Profits first, health second.

I know that because I work in the department that pays them :wink:

"Profits first, health second".

One sentence encapsulating my thoughts.

How can one provide a healthcare service when you are ultimately driven by shareholder wealth?

J

[HiBremian]

It deirnds on your definition of progressive. With every major party falling over themselves to describe their stance as progressive it's nothing more than a meaningless buzzword now. Basically they are all trying to stake a claim as the nice party.

Maybe the word has a clearer political meaning in Germany than the UK ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

I've no objection to them making money for themselves whether they're companies or partnerships. The point I was putting forward (for discussion) is that our normal point of access to the NHS is through private businesses. Similarly, we accept that a prescription is usually made up by a chemist working for a large profit-making company. Everyone accepts this, even those who campaign against privatisation apparently unaware that these basic services are already outside public ownership.

I agree with what you say.

My post missed out my last comment, which was:-

That apart, your point stands. :greengrin

[s.a.m]

In a word...yes. All of them are, in effect, sub-contractors. Like any business they're reliant on profits.

For example, if you're a smoker they'll invite you to attend your practice for a smoking cessation clinic. If you attend, they'll get paid for it. Profits first, health second.

I know that because I work in the department that pays them :wink:

To be fair, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the way that the contract relationship between the NHS and GPs works, in the instance you've given (and in many other similar interventions), your health isn't coming second to the GP's profit. You both benefit. That's why they are incentivised this way.

If you're suggesting that they don't care, and wouldn't encourage you to stop smoking if they weren't given an additional payment for it, I'm sure you're right in some cases. There will be plenty of other GPs who do, and who didn't get to pick how the system works, or which health objectives are pursued, or the mechanisms in place to pursue them.

[Phil D. Rolls]

To be fair, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the way that the contract relationship between the NHS and GPs works, in the instance you've given (and in many other similar interventions), your health isn't coming second to the GP's profit. You both benefit. That's why they are incentivised this way.

If you're suggesting that they don't care, and wouldn't encourage you to stop smoking if they weren't given an additional payment for it, I'm sure you're right in some cases. There will be plenty of other GPs who do, and who didn't get to pick how the system works, or which health objectives are pursued, or the mechanisms in place to pursue them.

I'm happy with the GP system. Additional payments do act as an incentive.GPs are very focussed on money making. For example they are pais extra for prescribing some drugs.

[Kato]

Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but loyalty just doesn't seem to be valued much these days.
. .....

. I just happen to believe that the founding principles of the Labour party were closest to mine, and generations of my family before me..


Understand your stance mate but on the point of loyalty: The current bunch in the Labour Party have zero loyalty to it's traditional voter base, or as it sees it now "ballot fodder".

They also have zero loyalty to those values you mention. They know how to parrot them and blah, blah, blah, some kind of version of them but in reality they are just as stuck in the rut of blind allegiance to Thatcherism as Osborne and his ilk. Careerist ingrates the lot of them, even though some are so stupid to not see themselves as they are.

They don't deserve your vote, if you value it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Nope. I'm not willfully missing the point at all, and yes I do have a loyalty to the party I've supported all my adult life, unlike many others it seems. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but loyalty just doesn't seem to be valued much these days.

I don't believe Labour is the be all and end all, and the SNP certainly aren't either. In fact, no political party is. I wouldn't trust most politicians as far as I could throw them. I just happen to believe that the founding principles of the Labour party were closest to mine, and generations of my family before me. They are the best out of a very bad bunch at this moment in time.

Anyway, despite what you may think , or are implying, I do get the point you make in the second sentence of your post.

The point I'm making is the more seats Labour win in Scotland the better, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't seem to go down too well on this Forum though.


Understand your stance mate but on the point of loyalty: The current bunch in the Labour Party have zero loyalty to it's traditional voter base, or as it sees it now "ballot fodder".

They also have zero loyalty to those values you mention. They know how to parrot them and blah, blah, blah, some kind of version of them but in reality they are just as stuck in the rut of blind allegiance to Thatcherism as Osborne and his ilk. Careerist ingrates the lot of them, even though some are so stupid to not see themselves as they are.

They don't deserve your vote, if you value it.

I would go further and say if you are loyal to the founding principles of the original Labour party you have a choice of 2 parties, The SSP and the Scottish Green Party. If, on the other hand, you are voting Labour through blind loyalty that is close to following Hibs for the same reasons.

[Beefster]

"Profits first, health second".

One sentence encapsulating my thoughts.

How can one provide a healthcare service when you are ultimately driven by shareholder wealth?

J

The quality of the healthcare service drives any profits. I know of several folk who would say that the best healthcare they have ever received was when they either paid for it themselves or where referred to a private provider through the NHS.

The NHS (or private providers, for that matter) don't have a monopoly on decent care. For all the good it does, the NHS also messes up lives every day without being profit-driven. IMHO, the objection to private healthcare providers is more about dogma than anything. Nurses and doctors provide as good care as they can, irrespective of their bosses' aims.

[JeMeSouviens]

Nope. I'm not willfully missing the point at all, and yes I do have a loyalty to the party I've supported all my adult life, unlike many others it seems. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but loyalty just doesn't seem to be valued much these days.

I don't believe Labour is the be all and end all, and the SNP certainly aren't either. In fact, no political party is. I wouldn't trust most politicians as far as I could throw them. I just happen to believe that the founding principles of the Labour party were closest to mine, and generations of my family before me. They are the best out of a very bad bunch at this moment in time.

Anyway, despite what you may think , or are implying, I do get the point you make in the second sentence of your post.

The point I'm making is the more seats Labour win in Scotland the better, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't seem to go down too well on this Forum though.

It's fine by me (can't speak for anyone else) although I don't agree.

Making the point that you want everyone to vote Lab rather than SNP to ensure a Lab majority is fine.

Making the point that you want everyone to vote Lab rather than SNP to stop a Con majority is misguided/misleading.

[Peevemor]

The Scotsman at it again

http://www.scotsman.com/news/andrew-whitaker-who-will-salmond-bring-to-book-1-3715144

Andrew Whitaker ripping the pish out of Salmond's book, even though he hasn't read it. :rolleyes:

[steakbake]

The Scotsman at it again

http://www.scotsman.com/news/andrew-whitaker-who-will-salmond-bring-to-book-1-3715144

Andrew Whitaker ripping the pish out of Salmond's book, even though he hasn't read it. :rolleyes:

"Of course, we have yet to see the content of Mr Salmond’s book on the referendum, much less his memoirs further down the road and for that reason it’s arguably not entirely fair to pre-judge how the former first minister will tell his tale."

Half way through the article, the commentator/journalist exposes the truth of the situation...