The future of the Labour Party

[hibsbollah]

That’s fantasy stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not, it’s just a matter of degrees of independence. If there is no system of party whips there is more independent thought and issue by issue based analysis, it’s obvious.

[archie]

I know this is the Labour Party thread, but this comment struck me as rather strange. Do you really have nothing positive to say about Sturgeon? I can't imagine any reasonable person having this position. I've spoken to her, heard her speak, and she comes across to me as a completely genuine individual. So I wonder why you have nothing positive to say about her. Seems odd.

I think there will be a very interesting evaluation of FM after she has gone. Firstly, to hold power for so long is an impressive feat. I don't know how anyone could contest that. Early on she did really well connecting with people and coming over well, even if she was saying much the same thing. I think she also connected with UK journalists and foreign reporters. She is a very skilled operator. She also rules the party and the government absolutely. She is not scared to take out what she sees as internal opposition - sometimes brutally. But people are in no doubt who she is. Secondly, it is worth looking at achievements so far. I think this is less of a success story. I know some yessers only see independence as the measure, but I think that's an extremely high bar. I would say that this is where she compares less well than her predecessor. I belive this is because she is a tactician rather than a strategist. By that I mean looking for the short term advantage rather than the longer term game. I would cite three examples: the ending the exploitation of oil and gas; self ID, and the supreme Court. The oil and gas position reversed a long standing SNP trope, but didn't put anything in its place. The fact that Stephen Flynn openly criticises it is a clear sign that this is hurting in certain areas. It also led to the alliance with the greens, which in turn led to the self ID legislation. Whatever your views on it, is this really the battle you would have? Losing a Minister and possibly losing the stage 3 vote? And every time there is an awful case related to the issue the finger will be pointed at FM. Finally, the Supreme Court. This appears to have been driven out of necessity rather than as part of a broader strategy. Time will tell as to whether this helps or hinders, but my sense is that it won’t.

I think political opponents make a mistake in presenting politicians as being awful in every way. I suppose it's the nature of the beast, but if you don't understand your opponents strengths then you don't help yourself. So I would say that in many ways the FM is impressive. Did she make the best of what she inherited? I guess the jury is out.

[ronaldo7]

I have crossed swords with that man more than once, so im not a fan of him either:greengrin But I thought he dealt with that interview quite well. The biggest stumble was when he was challenged about HoL reform at the end and he responded 'well actually its been in our manifesto for about the last hundred years...'

Which probably isnt the best reply if you want to give people confidence you're going to deliver it.

He did a wee bit better than Sarah Boyack on the nine last night. It wasn't long ago when Scottish Labour were advocating unlimited borrowing powers. Not so much now though. We can run the Buroo if we want though.

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1599907630792773640

[Ozyhibby]

He did a wee bit better than Sarah Boyack on the nine last night. It wasn't long ago when Scottish Labour were advocating unlimited borrowing powers. Not so much now though. We can run the Buroo if we want though.

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1599907630792773640

Boyack had a shocker last night. I must say that the journalists on the Nine are usually very good in their questioning of all parties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

A million times better. You can’t take the politics out of politics. Nor should you. Democracy can be messy but it’s better than everything else.
Getting rid of the lords is about the only benefit to Scotland from yesterday but I’m sceptical that they are serious about it. There is no plan for what replaces it which tells me that it’s likely to be watered down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did Blair not promise to disband the Lords and ended up putting loads of his cronies into it instead.

[Santa Cruz]

Boyack had a shocker last night. I must say that the journalists on the Nine are usually very good in their questioning of all parties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sarah Boyack couldn't get a word in last night cos the journalist persisted in interrupting her mid sentence after every question he asked.

[Ozyhibby]

Sarah Boyack couldn't get a word in last night cos the journalist persisted in interrupting her mid sentence after every question he asked.

I think the journalist is entitled to do that the second he realises the interviewee is answering her own made up question instead of the one he asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

I think the journalist is entitled to do that the second he realises the interviewee is answering her own made up question instead of the one he asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh stop it, you tease!

[Santa Cruz]

I think the journalist is entitled to do that the second he realises the interviewee is answering her own made up question instead of the one he asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The viewer is entitled to hear the full answer to the question posed too. His style of interviewing was really irritating tbh.

[JeMeSouviens]

The viewer is entitled to hear the full answer to the question posed too. His style of interviewing was really irritating tbh.

I think this points to the fact that interviewing serving politicians or party spokespeople is now a complete waste of time. All you will ever get is the parroted "lines to take" that have been drummed into them. The interviewer has the choice of allowing the parrot or turning it into a bad tempered exchange with no answers at all. I'm not sure which is better tbh.

[Santa Cruz]

I think this points to the fact that interviewing serving politicians or party spokespeople is now a complete waste of time. All you will ever get is the parroted "lines to take" that have been drummed into them. The interviewer has the choice of allowing the parrot or turning it into a bad tempered exchange with no answers at all. I'm not sure which is better tbh.

I would agree, but she didn't even get adequate time to deliver any potential pre scripted answers. It's hard for viewers to form a view if they can't hear the answer. I'd prefer putting politicians head to head with members of the public, I've seen a number of them struggle with that over the years.

You've reminded me of that Paxman interview, where he repeated the same question umpteen times in pursuit of an answer. Can you remember who that was/what the q was? It was quite funny at the time.

[JeMeSouviens]

I would agree, but she didn't even get adequate time to deliver any potential pre scripted answers. It's hard for viewers to form a view if they can't hear the answer. I'd prefer putting politicians head to head with members of the public, I've seen a number of them struggle with that over the years.

You've reminded me of that Paxman interview, where he repeated the same question umpteen times in pursuit of an answer. Can you remember who that was/what the q was? It was quite funny at the time.

Michael Howard, who was Home Secretary at the time. The question was to do with prisons, I don't remember what specifically.

Edit: it was whether he "threatened to overrule" the prisons chief or not.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertainment-arts-27231922

[Santa Cruz]

Michael Howard, who was Home Secretary at the time. The question was to do with prisons, I don't remember what specifically.

:aok:

[Just Alf]

He can interrupt a lot but I think the clip is a bit edited to make it worse?

[He's here!]

'Potential criminality' at Labour's largest donor, two independent reports find (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/potential-criminality-at-labour-s-largest-donor-two-independent-reports-find/ar-AA153iSw)

[He's here!]

Latest Savanata poll shows Labour's voting intention lead over the Tories has dropped to just 11 points:

Savanta UK (@Savanta_UK) / Twitter (https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK)

[hibsbollah]

Wes Streeting, Yvette Cooper and the rest were out in force yesterday telling nurses they would NOT get a real terms pay rise under Labour.

No here's Streeting explaining he's going to attract 10's of thousands of people to the nursing profession and while using taxpayers' money to deliver even more profits to the private healthcare sector under the guise of being pragmatic.

Labour values?

[Santa Cruz]

It would be the easiest job to sit in opposition as Shadow Health Sec in WM and demand the UKGov pay nurses the 19% pay rise their Union is asking for. Wes Streeting hasn't done that and is being honest with voters by saying if he was the Health Sec right now he couldn't agree to take that amount of money out of the health budget due to the current economic climate. What he would do differently to the UKGov's latest Health Sec, is negotiate with the Union (something they're not doing) instead of scapegoating them in the hope public opinion turns on them. He also says he would be using every available bed in the Private Sector to bring people of the waiting lists. I can't imagine anyone waiting for treatment or an op would object to that. Worth noting this has been happening in Scotland for years, and our nurses have suspended their planned industrial action while considering whether to accept 7.5%.

Streeting has fairly recently recovered from kidney cancer, so has first hand experience of using the NHS. He makes good points about what he observed works well and could work better. He is imo as honest a politician as they get. He went as far as to say Labour voters won't like to hear this, but in order to improve and reform the NHS taxpayers are going to have to pay more.

He's centre left, not a fan of Corbyn - think this irks hard left voters. Personally think he comes across as being in touch with public opinion and capable of being objective enough to listen to opposing views, that's the way to win votes imo. I would like him to eventually replace Starmer and become the PM at some point.

[Jack]

It would be the easiest job to sit in opposition as Shadow Health Sec in WM and demand the UKGov pay nurses the 19% pay rise their Union is asking for. Wes Streeting hasn't done that and is being honest with voters by saying if he was the Health Sec right now he couldn't agree to take that amount of money out of the health budget due to the current economic climate. What he would do differently to the UKGov's latest Health Sec, is negotiate with the Union (something they're not doing) instead of scapegoating them in the hope public opinion turns on them. He also says he would be using every available bed in the Private Sector to bring people of the waiting lists. I can't imagine anyone waiting for treatment or an op would object to that. Worth noting this has been happening in Scotland for years, and our nurses have suspended their planned industrial action while considering whether to accept 7.5%.

Streeting has fairly recently recovered from kidney cancer, so has first hand experience of using the NHS. He makes good points about what he observed works well and could work better. He is imo as honest a politician as they get. He went as far as to say Labour voters won't like to hear this, but in order to improve and reform the NHS taxpayers are going to have to pay more.

He's centre left, not a fan of Corbyn - think this irks hard left voters. Personally think he comes across as being in touch with public opinion and capable of being objective enough to listen to opposing views, that's the way to win votes imo. I would like him to eventually replace Starmer and become the PM at some point.

The money to pay the nurses and other healthcare workers doesn't have to come from the NHS budget as alluded to later on in your post. In saying that, as often mentioned here, there are other taxes than making us all pay. Its almost inconceivable that those on the lowest incomes wouldn't contribute the most, even with Labour.

Another take on all this is that as the gap widens between public sector, including the healthcare workers, and private sector is that the public sector jobs become less and less appealing to those looking for a career. All those calling for more healthcare workers to be trained up in the UK, including Labour, need to bare that in mind.

If the wages are crap your potential nurses and all the others needing professional qualifications will be working in offices as solicitors or the like while those that don't need professional qualifications will be working anywhere but the public sector.

[neil7908]

It would be the easiest job to sit in opposition as Shadow Health Sec in WM and demand the UKGov pay nurses the 19% pay rise their Union is asking for. Wes Streeting hasn't done that and is being honest with voters by saying if he was the Health Sec right now he couldn't agree to take that amount of money out of the health budget due to the current economic climate. What he would do differently to the UKGov's latest Health Sec, is negotiate with the Union (something they're not doing) instead of scapegoating them in the hope public opinion turns on them. He also says he would be using every available bed in the Private Sector to bring people of the waiting lists. I can't imagine anyone waiting for treatment or an op would object to that. Worth noting this has been happening in Scotland for years, and our nurses have suspended their planned industrial action while considering whether to accept 7.5%.

Streeting has fairly recently recovered from kidney cancer, so has first hand experience of using the NHS. He makes good points about what he observed works well and could work better. He is imo as honest a politician as they get. He went as far as to say Labour voters won't like to hear this, but in order to improve and reform the NHS taxpayers are going to have to pay more.

He's centre left, not a fan of Corbyn - think this irks hard left voters. Personally think he comes across as being in touch with public opinion and capable of being objective enough to listen to opposing views, that's the way to win votes imo. I would like him to eventually replace Starmer and become the PM at some point.

I've read various figures around the damage leaving the EU had done to our economy, with one suggesting its costing us £40bn in tax annually. Perhaps a sensible policy in this area based on facts could help raise the money to fix the NHS and pay workers fairly? I appreciate that Streeting doesn't set Labour policy in this area but I'm just getting so tired of Labour trying to come up with all manner of ideas and ignoring the giant elephant defecating in the corner.

Surely one of the reasons we have tens of thousands of open vacancies is the wages are too low to attract people to jobs like nursing, and we can't bring in staff from Europe as we no longer have free movement.

There are lots of promises in the article about training more staff etc but they can't fill open jobs at the moment as health workers are too overworked and underpaid. Promises x number more staff is irrelevant if they can't fill the roles.

[hibsbollah]

It would be the easiest job to sit in opposition as Shadow Health Sec in WM and demand the UKGov pay nurses the 19% pay rise their Union is asking for. Wes Streeting hasn't done that and is being honest with voters by saying if he was the Health Sec right now he couldn't agree to take that amount of money out of the health budget due to the current economic climate. What he would do differently to the UKGov's latest Health Sec, is negotiate with the Union (something they're not doing) instead of scapegoating them in the hope public opinion turns on them. He also says he would be using every available bed in the Private Sector to bring people of the waiting lists. I can't imagine anyone waiting for treatment or an op would object to that. Worth noting this has been happening in Scotland for years, and our nurses have suspended their planned industrial action while considering whether to accept 7.5%.

Streeting has fairly recently recovered from kidney cancer, so has first hand experience of using the NHS. He makes good points about what he observed works well and could work better. He is imo as honest a politician as they get. He went as far as to say Labour voters won't like to hear this, but in order to improve and reform the NHS taxpayers are going to have to pay more.

He's centre left, not a fan of Corbyn - think this irks hard left voters. Personally think he comes across as being in touch with public opinion and capable of being objective enough to listen to opposing views, that's the way to win votes imo. I would like him to eventually replace Starmer and become the PM at some point.


Streeting now at war with the BMA as well as the nurses union. He's a cuckoo in the nest, a right wing ideologue. If this is what 'centre-left' looks like you can count me out. He may be the chosen one among Mandelson's cronies but he'll never be acceptable to the members or the voters either.

Wes Streeting claims BMA ‘hostile’ towards Labour’s NHS plans | Labour | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/11/wes-streeting-labour-bma-nhs-plans-gps)

[Santa Cruz]

Streeting now at war with the BMA as well as the nurses union. He's a cuckoo in the nest, a right wing ideologue. If this is what 'centre-left' looks like you can count me out. He may be the chosen one among Mandelson's cronies but he'll never be acceptable to the members or the voters either.

Wes Streeting claims BMA ‘hostile’ towards Labour’s NHS plans | Labour | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/11/wes-streeting-labour-bma-nhs-plans-gps)


I can't read the article linked. I did hear him being questioned about this on this morning's Kuenssberg's show. No idea if the article matches what he was asked. I didn't see anything wrong with the answers he provided re: this one issue this morning though.

He is accepted by the voters, he's an elected MP. :aok:

[Ozyhibby]

I can't read the article linked. I did hear him being questioned about this on this morning's Kuenssberg's show. No idea if the article matches what he was asked. I didn't see anything wrong with the answers he provided re: this one issue this morning though.

He is accepted by the voters, he's an elected MP. :aok:

He’s been elected on a Corbyn Labour Party ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

He’s been elected on a Corbyn Labour Party ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's been elected by the electorate.

[ronaldo7]

Streeting now at war with the BMA as well as the nurses union. He's a cuckoo in the nest, a right wing ideologue. If this is what 'centre-left' looks like you can count me out. He may be the chosen one among Mandelson's cronies but he'll never be acceptable to the members or the voters either.

Wes Streeting claims BMA ‘hostile’ towards Labour’s NHS plans | Labour | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/11/wes-streeting-labour-bma-nhs-plans-gps)

He's never been centre left, and never will be. He's a Mandelson puppet who goes on to attack his ex leader of going senile.

Horrible man.

[hibsbollah]

I can't read the article linked. I did hear him being questioned about this on this morning's Kuenssberg's show. No idea if the article matches what he was asked. I didn't see anything wrong with the answers he provided re: this one issue this morning though.

He is accepted by the voters, he's an elected MP. :aok:

That's a rather strange comment. Clearly I know he's a MP, which means he must have received the most votes in the constituency he was given by the Party. Obviously I meant he wont be acceptable to the national electorate, as he's being talked up as a potential successor to Sir Keir Starmer.

[Santa Cruz]

That's a rather strange comment. Clearly I know he's a MP, which means he must have received the most votes in the constituency he was given by the Party. Obviously I meant he wont be acceptable to the national electorate, as he's being talked up as a potential successor to Sir Keir Starmer.

You said "he'll never be acceptable to the members or the voters either". That's why I pointed out he already has been accepted by the voters. Nothing strange on my part, maybe you're wording was a bit confusing as it wasn't obvious to me what you have now added in your last sentence. It's a clearer now though. :aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

As is utterly predictable, Streeting's comments have raised the heckles of some people nationally. And as is equally predictable, the heckles will belong to two groups - those with a vested interest in GPs getting the absolute best terms and conditions, regardless of impact on anyone else; and those who have little or no understanding of how the NHS actually works, how health service delivery works or health economics in general.

This is going to be a long one but we have to start somewhere so let's start with the BMA. The BMA is a lobbying group, a vested interest group for doctors. And let's not forget they are not public sector workers. They are private contractors who are paid from the public purse to deliver a service. And let's not forget the BMA was massivley opposed to the creation of the NHS by nine or 10 to one. They only signed up when Bevan guaranteed them they could retain their more lucrative private practice, on their terms.

The BMA became a union, early 1970s I think. As a union it has been pretty successful - the average salary of its members is over £80,000 a year, many earn significantly more. For the majority of those who earn less, it is because they work reduced hours to commit to family time, or early semi-retirement. Any wrongdoing by GPs is investigated by their own peers. They do not have to share information they record about their patients except in extraordinary circumstances, which is detrimental to integrated woring.

Up until a few years ago, their public service work was agreed through a regularly-reviewed contract. The contract laid out precisely what the medics were prepared to do. Anything additional would cost more money. This was simply about cold, hard cash, not about improving lives.

For example, under this contract, GPs were asked to physically go into a care home once a month or so, to conduct an on-site surgery. This was helpful for the residents because it meant less disruption for them and they were bring seen in a familiar setting. It was helpful for care home staff because they weren't organising external GP appointments for all their residents, who may have been registered with a whole number of different GPs. It was helpful for the health service because having doctors present, essentially doing health checks or follow-ups allowed for early intervention or preventative work to take place, reducing the need for people to be admitted or readmitted to hospital. The sheer cost of admissions/readmissions, in terms of money, resource and most importantly the welfare and wellbeing of the person involved is almost unquantifiable.

The GPs did that but at a significant extra cost, because they are private contractors and when the job is off-spec that's what private contractors do, they charge more.

Another example, Scottish Government were keen to act on better diagnostic tools to identify people with dementia as early as possible. While doing so wasn't a cure, the amount of support and forward planning for the person and their loved ones, that could be done with an early diagnosis, was absolutely massive. GPs got a bounty for every new name they could add to the list.

I say all that was a few years ago because GPs stopped doing it. At the same time they strengthened their position about access to their files and who could scrutinise them. In some respects they were never going to manage these additional tasks anyway- a combination of early retirement and part-time woring, because they could, has decimated GP levels.

All that is why, if you contact a GP practice now you will have a very different experience from what used to be the case. Before getting anywhere near a health professional you will be screened by the practice manager or one of their admin staff - these people are not trained and qualified health professionals, though in fairness often have a real understanding of the lcoal population, especially in the smaller towns or rural communities.

If you do get past that stage, you will increasingly see an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP), not a doctor. ANPs are experienced nurses who have some additional training and some prescribing powers etc. Of course they don't earn as much as GPs and nor are they employed and paid for by GPs. The Government coughs up for that. And because ANPs are already experienced nurses, that means they are being taken from another part of the system creating a shortfall there.

And even before you contact the GP practice you will have been encouraged to speak to your pharmacist, who are skilled and qualified within their area of expertise and can carry some of the weight that GPs don't seem able to. Of course, commmunity pharmacists are private sector too.

Believe me, I could go on and on but suffice to say, the real story here is that the NHS was to an extent compromised from the outset because Bevan had to swallow the demands of medics to get it off the ground. I would happily nationalise the lot of them :greengrin but I'm not sure how practical that would be, at least in the short-term.

So, yes, the frothing at the mouth by some in reaction to Streeting doesn't seem to be based on a cogent grasp of what the NHS actually is. But then, that's to be expected from those who read and write about politics in bright crayon.

[Ozyhibby]

As is utterly predictable, Streeting's comments have raised the heckles of some people nationally. And as is equally predictable, the heckles will belong to two groups - those with a vested interest in GPs getting the absolute best terms and conditions, regardless of impact on anyone else; and those who have little or no understanding of how the NHS actually works, how health service delivery works or health economics in general.

This is going to be a long one but we have to start somewhere so let's start with the BMA. The BMA is a lobbying group, a vested interest group for doctors. And let's not forget they are not public sector workers. They are private contractors who are paid from the public purse to deliver a service. And let's not forget the BMA was massivley opposed to the creation of the NHS by nine or 10 to one. They only signed up when Bevan guaranteed them they could retain their more lucrative private practice, on their terms.

The BMA became a union, early 1970s I think. As a union it has been pretty successful - the average salary of its members is over £80,000 a year, many earn significantly more. For the majority of those who earn less, it is because they work reduced hours to commit to family time, or early semi-retirement. Any wrongdoing by GPs is investigated by their own peers. They do not have to share information they record about their patients except in extraordinary circumstances, which is detrimental to integrated woring.

Up until a few years ago, their public service work was agreed through a regularly-reviewed contract. The contract laid out precisely what the medics were prepared to do. Anything additional would cost more money. This was simply about cold, hard cash, not about improving lives.

For example, under this contract, GPs were asked to physically go into a care home once a month or so, to conduct an on-site surgery. This was helpful for the residents because it meant less disruption for them and they were bring seen in a familiar setting. It was helpful for care home staff because they weren't organising external GP appointments for all their residents, who may have been registered with a whole number of different GPs. It was helpful for the health service because having doctors present, essentially doing health checks or follow-ups allowed for early intervention or preventative work to take place, reducing the need for people to be admitted or readmitted to hospital. The sheer cost of admissions/readmissions, in terms of money, resource and most importantly the welfare and wellbeing of the person involved is almost unquantifiable.

The GPs did that but at a significant extra cost, because they are private contractors and when the job is off-spec that's what private contractors do, they charge more.

Another example, Scottish Government were keen to act on better diagnostic tools to identify people with dementia as early as possible. While doing so wasn't a cure, the amount of support and forward planning for the person and their loved ones, that could be done with an early diagnosis, was absolutely massive. GPs got a bounty for every new name they could add to the list.

I say all that was a few years ago because GPs stopped doing it. At the same time they strengthened their position about access to their files and who could scrutinise them. In some respects they were never going to manage these additional tasks anyway- a combination of early retirement and part-time woring, because they could, has decimated GP levels.

All that is why, if you contact a GP practice now you will have a very different experience from what used to be the case. Before getting anywhere near a health professional you will be screened by the practice manager or one of their admin staff - these people are not trained and qualified health professionals, though in fairness often have a real understanding of the lcoal population, especially in the smaller towns or rural communities.

If you do get past that stage, you will increasingly see an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP), not a doctor. ANPs are experienced nurses who have some additional training and some prescribing powers etc. Of course they don't earn as much as GPs and nor are they employed and paid for by GPs. The Government coughs up for that. And because ANPs are already experienced nurses, that means they are being taken from another part of the system creating a shortfall there.

And even before you contact the GP practice you will have been encouraged to speak to your pharmacist, who are skilled and qualified within their area of expertise and can carry some of the weight that GPs don't seem able to. Of course, commmunity pharmacists are private sector too.

Believe me, I could go on and on but suffice to say, the real story here is that the NHS was to an extent compromised from the outset because Bevan had to swallow the demands of medics to get it off the ground. I would happily nationalise the lot of them :greengrin but I'm not sure how practical that would be, at least in the short-term.

So, yes, the frothing at the mouth by some in reaction to Streeting doesn't seem to be based on a cogent grasp of what the NHS actually is. But then, that's to be expected from those who read and write about politics in bright crayon.

A friend of both ours has recently had treatment for cancer and his experience of the Scottish NHS was overwhelmingly positive except in the one place it mattered most, which was his GP. He is currently going through a complaints process. His GP managed to delay his diagnoses by about a year which with cancer is crucial.
So all of the above I can quite believe. What is the solution? Nationalise the GP’s? Slowly start opening NHS directly run GP practices? Doesn’t sound like it would be hard to compete with them on service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

As is utterly predictable, Streeting's comments have raised the heckles of some people nationally. And as is equally predictable, the heckles will belong to two groups - those with a vested interest in GPs getting the absolute best terms and conditions, regardless of impact on anyone else; and those who have little or no understanding of how the NHS actually works, how health service delivery works or health economics in general.

This is going to be a long one but we have to start somewhere so let's start with the BMA. The BMA is a lobbying group, a vested interest group for doctors. And let's not forget they are not public sector workers. They are private contractors who are paid from the public purse to deliver a service. And let's not forget the BMA was massivley opposed to the creation of the NHS by nine or 10 to one. They only signed up when Bevan guaranteed them they could retain their more lucrative private practice, on their terms.

The BMA became a union, early 1970s I think. As a union it has been pretty successful - the average salary of its members is over £80,000 a year, many earn significantly more. For the majority of those who earn less, it is because they work reduced hours to commit to family time, or early semi-retirement. Any wrongdoing by GPs is investigated by their own peers. They do not have to share information they record about their patients except in extraordinary circumstances, which is detrimental to integrated woring.

Up until a few years ago, their public service work was agreed through a regularly-reviewed contract. The contract laid out precisely what the medics were prepared to do. Anything additional would cost more money. This was simply about cold, hard cash, not about improving lives.

For example, under this contract, GPs were asked to physically go into a care home once a month or so, to conduct an on-site surgery. This was helpful for the residents because it meant less disruption for them and they were bring seen in a familiar setting. It was helpful for care home staff because they weren't organising external GP appointments for all their residents, who may have been registered with a whole number of different GPs. It was helpful for the health service because having doctors present, essentially doing health checks or follow-ups allowed for early intervention or preventative work to take place, reducing the need for people to be admitted or readmitted to hospital. The sheer cost of admissions/readmissions, in terms of money, resource and most importantly the welfare and wellbeing of the person involved is almost unquantifiable.

The GPs did that but at a significant extra cost, because they are private contractors and when the job is off-spec that's what private contractors do, they charge more.

Another example, Scottish Government were keen to act on better diagnostic tools to identify people with dementia as early as possible. While doing so wasn't a cure, the amount of support and forward planning for the person and their loved ones, that could be done with an early diagnosis, was absolutely massive. GPs got a bounty for every new name they could add to the list.

I say all that was a few years ago because GPs stopped doing it. At the same time they strengthened their position about access to their files and who could scrutinise them. In some respects they were never going to manage these additional tasks anyway- a combination of early retirement and part-time woring, because they could, has decimated GP levels.

All that is why, if you contact a GP practice now you will have a very different experience from what used to be the case. Before getting anywhere near a health professional you will be screened by the practice manager or one of their admin staff - these people are not trained and qualified health professionals, though in fairness often have a real understanding of the lcoal population, especially in the smaller towns or rural communities.

If you do get past that stage, you will increasingly see an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP), not a doctor. ANPs are experienced nurses who have some additional training and some prescribing powers etc. Of course they don't earn as much as GPs and nor are they employed and paid for by GPs. The Government coughs up for that. And because ANPs are already experienced nurses, that means they are being taken from another part of the system creating a shortfall there.

And even before you contact the GP practice you will have been encouraged to speak to your pharmacist, who are skilled and qualified within their area of expertise and can carry some of the weight that GPs don't seem able to. Of course, commmunity pharmacists are private sector too.

Believe me, I could go on and on but suffice to say, the real story here is that the NHS was to an extent compromised from the outset because Bevan had to swallow the demands of medics to get it off the ground. I would happily nationalise the lot of them :greengrin but I'm not sure how practical that would be, at least in the short-term.

So, yes, the frothing at the mouth by some in reaction to Streeting doesn't seem to be based on a cogent grasp of what the NHS actually is. But then, that's to be expected from those who read and write about politics in bright crayon.

Your pompous sneerings, like your little sign off below, are really childish and boring haven’t been missed on this board. Nobody really truly ever understands an issue as deeply as you, do they?

[Mibbes Aye]

A friend of both ours has recently had treatment for cancer and his experience of the Scottish NHS was overwhelmingly positive except in the one place it mattered most, which was his GP. He is currently going through a complaints process. His GP managed to delay his diagnoses by about a year which with cancer is crucial.
So all of the above I can quite believe. What is the solution? Nationalise the GP’s? Slowly start opening NHS directly run GP practices? Doesn’t sound like it would be hard to compete with them on service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's terrible news, I'm really sorry to hear that. For what it's worth, pass on my best to him.

[Ozyhibby]

That's terrible news, I'm really sorry to hear that. For what it's worth, pass on my best to him.

It’s all good just now. Gets tested every three months and it’s fingers crossed. Past the one year mark now.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

It’s all good just now. Gets tested every three months and it’s fingers crossed. Past the one year mark now.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:aok:

[archie]

Your pompous sneerings, like your little sign off below, are really childish and boring haven’t been missed on this board. Nobody really truly ever understands an issue as deeply as you, do they?

Bit harsh?

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/06/fix-british-politics-labour-westminster-regions

Brown starting to realise that his much heralded report hasn’t been that well received.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

A friend of both ours has recently had treatment for cancer and his experience of the Scottish NHS was overwhelmingly positive except in the one place it mattered most, which was his GP. He is currently going through a complaints process. His GP managed to delay his diagnoses by about a year which with cancer is crucial.
So all of the above I can quite believe. What is the solution? Nationalise the GP’s? Slowly start opening NHS directly run GP practices? Doesn’t sound like it would be hard to compete with them on service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can also vouch for much of what Mibbes Aye outlines there, most notably post-Covid. It's alarming to put it mildly.

Hope your friend stays well. My late father in law was similarly waylaid in his cancer treatment by a GP's misdiagnosis though we're talking a number of year ago now.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1602303496015196160?s=46&t=ZAW31u4F7oszzzpmEI4uGQ

Keir Starmer would rather keep the Tories in power than work with the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1602303496015196160?s=46&t=ZAW31u4F7oszzzpmEI4uGQ

Keir Starmer would rather keep the Tories in power than work with the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He really is a dafty.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1602303496015196160?s=46&t=ZAW31u4F7oszzzpmEI4uGQ

Keir Starmer would rather keep the Tories in power than work with the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there's more than a few things going on here.

Cameron was able to successfully portray a vote for Miliband as running the risk of Labour being in hock to the SNP - which undoubtedly swung some undecideds from Lab to Con. Labour clearly don't want to be tarnished by association again.

Plus,how would this actually work? Would the SNP suddenly start agreeing to vote with Labour on England-only issues? If they weren't then what benefit is there to Labour? And we know the SNP won't vote on English issues - as an example look how they refused to vote on a Labour amendment that would have defeated the Tories and helped stop a Grenfell fire happening again. If the SNP reversed gear on voting it would look very grubby and actually be an insult to the likes of the Grenfell bereaved, amongst many others, wouldn't it?

So, when you actually think about it, there is no valid reason for Labour to ry and court the SNP, as they wouldn't back Labour anyway - or if they did, they would be hypocrites who were more bothered about their own self-interest than for example, righting the wrongs of Grenfell.

And then you have to consider when the need for this would arise - the Tories can barely sustain themselves with a working majority of eighty or whatever. As I pointed out on another thread, their policy fault lines are splitting them asunder again and again and again. They will pay a heavy price for that come the GE.

What is very noticable since Starmer gave the SNP the KB was how their attacks at Westminster are now directed at both the main parties. Blackford had started doing it, Flynn continues. I'm tempted to say theres nothing like a separatist scorned but I think it is maybe more existential angst for them - a little bit scared that they might not all make it back to Westminster and the perks and benefits, especially when some of their unhelpful colleagues talk about the GE as a 'de facto' referendum - a pretendum, perhaps? :greengrin

[archie]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1602303496015196160?s=46&t=ZAW31u4F7oszzzpmEI4uGQ

Keir Starmer would rather keep the Tories in power than work with the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would he say Labour would do a deal with anyone in advance of an election? That makes no sense.

[archie]

He really is a dafty.

He's really not.

[He's here!]

I think there's more than a few things going on here.

Cameron was able to successfully portray a vote for Miliband as running the risk of Labour being in hock to the SNP - which undoubtedly swung some undecideds from Lab to Con. Labour clearly don't want to be tarnished by association again.

Plus,how would this actually work? Would the SNP suddenly start agreeing to vote with Labour on England-only issues? If they weren't then what benefit is there to Labour? And we know the SNP won't vote on English issues - as an example look how they refused to vote on a Labour amendment that would have defeated the Tories and helped stop a Grenfell fire happening again. If the SNP reversed gear on voting it would look very grubby and actually be an insult to the likes of the Grenfell bereaved, amongst many others, wouldn't it?

So, when you actually think about it, there is no valid reason for Labour to ry and court the SNP, as they wouldn't back Labour anyway - or if they did, they would be hypocrites who were more bothered about their own self-interest than for example, righting the wrongs of Grenfell.

And then you have to consider when the need for this would arise - the Tories can barely sustain themselves with a working majority of eighty or whatever. As I pointed out on another thread, their policy fault lines are splitting them asunder again and again and again. They will pay a heavy price for that come the GE.

What is very noticable since Starmer gave the SNP the KB was how their attacks at Westminster are now directed at both the main parties. Blackford had started doing it, Flynn continues. I'm tempted to say theres nothing like a separatist scorned but I think it is maybe more existential angst for them - a little bit scared that they might not all make it back to Westminster and the perks and benefits, especially when some of their unhelpful colleagues talk about the GE as a 'de facto' referendum - a pretendum, perhaps? :greengrin

I think pretenderendum is the correct term...

Couldn't agree more with what you say. Where's the benefit to Labour? In fact, I'm unclear how this is even a story. The 'no deal with the SNP' has been one of the issues upon which Starmer has been most decisive and he confirmed that stance long ago.

I think the 'separatist scorned' angle might carry more weight than you suggest. After all, this is yet another potential route to a referendum being closed, hence the concerted efforts to bracket Labour alongside the Tories.

In any case, as you say, Labour look unlikely to require any form of coalition come the next election.

[Ozyhibby]

I think pretenderendum is the correct term...

Couldn't agree more with what you say. Where's the benefit to Labour? In fact, I'm unclear how this is even a story. The 'no deal with the SNP' has been one of the issues upon which Starmer has been most decisive and he confirmed that stance long ago.

I think the 'separatist scorned' angle might carry more weight than you suggest. After all, this is yet another potential route to a referendum being closed, hence the concerted efforts to bracket Labour alongside the Tories.

In any case, as you say, Labour look unlikely to require any form of coalition come the next election.

Ooh, the return of ‘separatist’. That didn’t take long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

He's really not.

Aye he is

[archie]

Aye he is

I mean we could go on...

[Glory Lurker]

I mean we could go on...

Exactly. You say potato,I say potato.

[Glory Lurker]

I mean we could go on...

Come on, he thought he was head of prosecution for the whole of the UK. That's dafty chat, I'd say.

[neil7908]

Why would he say Labour would do a deal with anyone in advance of an election? That makes no sense.

He said "no deal with the SNP tattooed on my forehead". So it's clear this isn't a somewhat understandable reluctance to publicly state openness to a coalition before the election.

He's just saying no. Full stop. Unless you think he's lying?

[hibsbollah]

Ask your MP to support Free School Meals for All in Parliament (actionnetwork.org) (https://actionnetwork.org/letters/ask-your-mp-to-support-free-school-meals-in-parliament/?referrer=group-zarah-sultana)

If you think we should, ask your MP to support it.

[Santa Cruz]

Ask your MP to support Free School Meals for All in Parliament (actionnetwork.org) (https://actionnetwork.org/letters/ask-your-mp-to-support-free-school-meals-in-parliament/?referrer=group-zarah-sultana)

If you think we should, ask your MP to support it.

Is this for England's school pupils?

[Ozyhibby]

Is this for England's school pupils?

I guess it could be Scotland as well as I don’t think high school kids get it here, just primary school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

He said "no deal with the SNP tattooed on my forehead". So it's clear this isn't a somewhat understandable reluctance to publicly state openness to a coalition before the election.

He's just saying no. Full stop. Unless you think he's lying?

He's not lying.

But he might find himself forced to change his mind.

I'm pretty sure both the Tories and the Lib Dems ruled out any coalition deals before they did their coalition deal.

No political party will go into a GE saying that it's open to post election deals.

In the case of the SNP, Miliband was portrayed as being in Alex Salmond's pocket and that cost him dearly. Sturgeon is very unpopular south of the border so Starmer has to be even stronger on the no deal message than he would with, say, the Greens or the LDs.

[archie]

He's not lying.

But he might find himself forced to change his mind.

I'm pretty sure both the Tories and the Lib Dems ruled out any coalition deals before they did their coalition deal.

No political party will go into a GE saying that it's open to post election deals.

In the case of the SNP, Miliband was portrayed as being in Alex Salmond's pocket and that cost him dearly. Sturgeon is very unpopular south of the border so Starmer has to be even stronger on the no deal message than he would with, say, the Greens or the LDs.

Would the SNP ever consider a coalition to keep the Tories out that didn't require a referendum?

[Santa Cruz]

I guess it could be Scotland as well as I don’t think high school kids get it here, just primary school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I asked because if it was in relation to English kids, it would rightfully be raised at WM. If in relation to free meals for kids for Scottish/Welsh pupils the respective devolved Gov's would role this out as Education is a Devolved responsibility. Not all primary school children get it in Scotland yet, P6 &P7 pupils are still not included. The STUC raised including Secondary pupils in the free school meals initiative months ago. I think I read a pilot was being considered, which will be to late for this Winter.

[hibsbollah]

I asked because if it was in relation to English kids, it would rightfully be raised at WM. If in relation to free meals for kids for Scottish/Welsh pupils the respective devolved Gov's would role this out as Education is a Devolved responsibility. Not all primary school children get it in Scotland yet, P6 &P7 pupils are still not included. The STUC raised including Secondary pupils in the free school meals initiative months ago. I think I read a pilot was being considered, which will be to late for this Winter.

My understanding is it’s England legislation solely. Of course you have to expect that if successful (it’s only a first reading under the ten minute rule so early days), it will impact on how likely it would be to also become universal in Scotland and Wales also. High tides raise all ships and all that.

[Ozyhibby]

My understanding is it’s England legislation solely. Of course you have to expect that if successful (it’s only a first reading under the ten minute rule so early days), it will impact on how likely it would be to also become universal in Scotland and Wales also. High tides raise all ships and all that.

I would say there is close to zero chance this is happening in England.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Would the SNP ever consider a coalition to keep the Tories out that didn't require a referendum?

I don't think the SNP would consider a coalition deal full stop. Possibly a confidence and supply arrangement and promise to abstain on most if not all English votes.

[archie]

I don't think the SNP would consider a coalition deal full stop. Possibly a confidence and supply arrangement and promise to abstain on most if not all English votes.

The point I'm asking about is whether any deal should be contingent on a referendum?

[Santa Cruz]

My understanding is it’s England legislation solely. Of course you have to expect that if successful (it’s only a first reading under the ten minute rule so early days), it will impact on how likely it would be to also become universal in Scotland and Wales also. High tides raise all ships and all that.

We have our own legislation, the initiative has began. I share the same view as the STUC, this should be extended to every child in Scotland. The real shame is, it hasn't been. So if I was emailing anyone, it would be an MSP. I think parents/carers in England would be better off emailing Marcus Rashford personally re: this issue. It's like Kate Winslet said people need to start ruffling feathers, she mentioned Rashford.

[JeMeSouviens]

The point I'm asking about is whether any deal should be contingent on a referendum?

I don't think Labour would offer one. In a hung parliament, they could just govern as a minority with reasonable confidence the SNP wouldn't bring the government down. The SNP can still make things awkward short of voting no confidence.

[Santa Cruz]

He's not lying.

But he might find himself forced to change his mind.

I'm pretty sure both the Tories and the Lib Dems ruled out any coalition deals before they did their coalition deal.

No political party will go into a GE saying that it's open to post election deals.

In the case of the SNP, Miliband was portrayed as being in Alex Salmond's pocket and that cost him dearly. Sturgeon is very unpopular south of the border so Starmer has to be even stronger on the no deal message than he would with, say, the Greens or the LDs.

Agree. He's doing what they all do, he's being economical with the truth. He'd do a deal if he had to. Would say it'd be more likely with the LibDems. I can see floating voters lending their votes to them, possibly a high percentage who no longer have any belief in either Labour or Tory but will still want to exercise their right to vote.

[grunt]

Sturgeon is very unpopular south of the border so Starmer has to be even stronger on the no deal message than he would with, say, the Greens or the LDs.

Is there any evidence for this? I mean obviously she’s unpopular with the rabid right wing Tories, but do we know she’s unpopular with Labour supporters?

[archie]

I don't think Labour would offer one. In a hung parliament, they could just govern as a minority with reasonable confidence the SNP wouldn't bring the government down. The SNP can still make things awkward short of voting no confidence.
That makes sense.

[nonshinyfinish]

Is there any evidence for this? I mean obviously she’s unpopular with the rabid right wing Tories, but do we know she’s unpopular with Labour supporters?

Yeah, I'd be interested to see England-only polling as well. I live in England – my (anecdotal) impression is that folk on the progressive side of the spectrum mostly have a reasonably favourable view of Sturgeon. (And, again anecdotally, more so than Salmond in Miliband era.)

[Hibbyradge]

Is there any evidence for this? I mean obviously she’s unpopular with the rabid right wing Tories, but do we know she’s unpopular with Labour supporters?

I have no evidence of this, it's just my experience of talking to people.

Understandably, Sturgeon's exposure in rUK is nowhere near the level it is in Scotland and when we do see her, she's usually angry about something or saying things that don't appeal to the vast majority of people in England who value the union.

I think she's unpopular because she's a threat.

[ronaldo7]

I asked because if it was in relation to English kids, it would rightfully be raised at WM. If in relation to free meals for kids for Scottish/Welsh pupils the respective devolved Gov's would role this out as Education is a Devolved responsibility. Not all primary school children get it in Scotland yet, P6 &P7 pupils are still not included. The STUC raised including Secondary pupils in the free school meals initiative months ago. I think I read a pilot was being considered, which will be to late for this Winter.

What chance have we got getting this through when we can't even get pupils a hot bowl of soup in the winter.

Stirling council Labour and Tory councillors voted down a proposal to give each pupil a hot bowl of soup and a roll this winter. Education may be a devolved responsibility, and it would be nice to get the policy for P6 and 7 pupils completed, but we could all help put food in childrens bellies this winter.

[Santa Cruz]

What chance have we got getting this through when we can't even get pupils a hot bowl of soup in the winter.

Stirling council Labour and Tory councillors voted down a proposal to give each pupil a hot bowl of soup and a roll this winter. Education may be a devolved responsibility, and it would be nice to get the policy for P6 and 7 pupils completed, but we could all help put food in childrens bellies this winter.

Did this one Council not vote against it because they were advised by council officers it wasn't deliverable in the timescales proposed as there wasn't any planning for the work involved, i.e using stretched funding to cover the costs of food and recruiting additional staff to prepare and distribute?

It's a behind schedule manifesto pledge, given the current climate Central Gov should have this at the top of their priority list and provide the additional funding to all 32 LA's imo.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/free-school-meal-plan-scots-25663449

[ronaldo7]

Did this one Council not vote against it because they were advised by council officers it wasn't deliverable in the timescales proposed as there wasn't any planning for the work involved, i.e using stretched funding to cover the costs of food and recruiting additional staff to prepare and distribute?

It's a behind schedule manifesto pledge, given the current climate Central Gov should have this at the top of their priority list and provide the additional funding to all 32 LA's imo.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/free-school-meal-plan-scots-25663449

No.

It was a proposal to help those who are not eligible for free school meals to get a hot bowl of soup from Jan to March next year. It was for every secondary school kid and older primary kids. Surely the council could get £160,000 from their vast reserves to feed children? I suppose the Councillors need to make decisions on where their cash is put. I'd have thought children would come high up on the list.

[Santa Cruz]

No.

It was a proposal to help those who are not eligible for free school meals to get a hot bowl of soup from Jan to March next year. It was for every secondary school kid and older primary kids. Surely the council could get £160,000 from their vast reserves to feed children? I suppose the Councillors need to make decisions on where their cash is put. I'd have thought children would come high up on the list.

Is this hot soup initiative being universally rolled out across the other 31 LA's then, can't say I've read about it?

[ronaldo7]

What chance have we got getting this through when we can't even get pupils a hot bowl of soup in the winter.

Stirling council Labour and Tory councillors voted down a proposal to give each pupil a hot bowl of soup and a roll this winter. Education may be a devolved responsibility, and it would be nice to get the policy for P6 and 7 pupils completed, but we could all help put food in childrens bellies this winter.


Is this hot soup initiative being universally rolled out across the other 31 LA's then, can't say I've read about it?

Labour and Tory councillors in Stirling. :aok:

[ronaldo7]

Why can't the Labour run Welsh Government just put up taxes?


The nurses' strike planned for Wales will go ahead after the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) and Welsh government failed to come to a pay agreement.

Nurses in all but one health board in Wales will be striking this Thursday and 20 December.

The RCN said Health Minister Eluned Morgan had failed to put forward an increase to the current pay award.

The Welsh government said it could not make an increased pay offer without extra funding from the UK government.

[Ozyhibby]

Why can't the Labour run Welsh Government just put up taxes?


The nurses' strike planned for Wales will go ahead after the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) and Welsh government failed to come to a pay agreement.

Nurses in all but one health board in Wales will be striking this Thursday and 20 December.

The RCN said Health Minister Eluned Morgan had failed to put forward an increase to the current pay award.

The Welsh government said it could not make an increased pay offer without extra funding from the UK government.

I don’t think they are allowed to? Wales has worse devolution than we have. And it shows in their public services.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I don’t think they are allowed to? Wales has worse devolution than we have. And it shows in their public services.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/Brown666W/status/1602418218244644864/photo/1

https://twitter.com/Plaid_Cymru/status/1598431332320903168

[Santa Cruz]

Labour and Tory councillors in Stirling. :aok:

Why are you not questioning why this initiative is not even being proposed in the other 31 LA's, let alone rejected? Could it be none of them have adequate funding? :confused:

[Mibbes Aye]

No.

It was a proposal to help those who are not eligible for free school meals to get a hot bowl of soup from Jan to March next year. It was for every secondary school kid and older primary kids. Surely the council could get £160,000 from their vast reserves to feed children? I suppose the Councillors need to make decisions on where their cash is put. I'd have thought children would come high up on the list.

You should be wary of reading the National and taking it as a factual representation of the situation.

The ‘hot soup and a roll’ initiative was considered by the Council. Officers recommended against it. Amongst the reasons why was the need to recruit an additional part-time member of staff in every school to implement it. School facilities staff already run with a very high short- and long-term sickness rate. Officers also pointed out the challenges in recruiting people to do this for what, a matter of weeks? There were various other practical issues, as well as the question of uptake - it’s one thing to offer soup, it’s another thing to get a 10-12 year-old to have it! :greengrin

Nothing political here I’m afraid, just the practicalities of local government services. As far as it goes, the Council did also write-off £36,000 of school meal debt.

[ronaldo7]

Why are you not questioning why this initiative is not even being proposed in the other 31 LA's, let alone rejected? Could it be none of them have adequate funding? :confused:

I thought the Labour party were all for local decisions for local people? These are local councillors trying to get food into children's bellies.

Surely councillors can propose something in their area without the need for it to occur throughout the nation?

[ronaldo7]

You should be wary of reading the National and taking it as a factual representation of the situation.

The ‘hot soup and a roll’ initiative was considered by the Council. Officers recommended against it. Amongst the reasons why was the need to recruit an additional part-time member of staff in every school to implement it. School facilities staff already run with a very high short- and long-term sickness rate. Officers also pointed out the challenges in recruiting people to do this for what, a matter of weeks? There were various other practical issues, as well as the question of uptake - it’s one thing to offer soup, it’s another thing to get a 10-12 year-old to have it! :greengrin

Nothing political here I’m afraid, just the practicalities of local government services. As far as it goes, the Council did also write-off £36,000 of school meal debt.

That was the only thing I was worried about. :wink:

They recommended not to take it forward as it would have meant having to employ more people. :thumbsup:

[Santa Cruz]

I thought the Labour party were all for local decisions for local people? These are local councillors trying to get food into children's bellies.

Surely councillors can propose something in their area without the need for it to occur throughout the nation?

You never answered the question.

You're now talking about Labour Party manifesto pledges for a G.E. we haven't even had. I'm asking you why you are highlighting 1 LA out of 32, none of which are offering the initiative you mention. Bottom line is responsibility for funding of LA services comes via Central Gov. If they don't receive adequate funding they can't provide additional services.

We wouldn't even be going back and forward over a bowl of soup initiative in 1 LA if the national SNP manifesto pledge to provide free school meals to all primary kids had been met.

[weecounty hibby]

You never answered the question.

You're now talking about Labour Party manifesto pledges for a G.E. we haven't even had. I'm asking you why you are highlighting 1 LA out of 32, none of which are offering the initiative you mention. Bottom line is responsibility for funding of LA services comes via Central Gov. If they don't receive adequate funding they can't provide additional services.

We wouldn't even be going back and forward over a bowl of soup initiative in 1 LA if the national SNP manifesto pledge to provide free school meals to all primary kids had been met.

The roll out of free school meals to all will happen, slower than everyone wants but it will happen. I do think it's worth a mentioning when criticising the SG for this that Labour actually voted against it!! So voting against soup and a roll seems to fall in line with current Labour thinking

[grunt]

The ‘hot soup and a roll’ initiative was considered by the Council. Officers recommended against it. There's always a million and one reasons not to do something. So here's a post setting out some of them.


Amongst the reasons why was the need to recruit an additional part-time member of staff in every school to implement it.Aren't the schools already providing free school meals to those who qualify? How much more work would be required to add a pot of soup to the daily lunch menu?


School facilities staff already run with a very high short- and long-term sickness rate.Completely irrelevant, but I'll add it to the pot of reasons why this good thing can't be done.


There were various other practical issuesLoads of reasons. I'll not bother setting them out of course, but there were loads of other practical things getting in the way of doing this good thing.


....as well as the question of uptake - it’s one thing to offer soup, it’s another thing to get a 10-12 year-old to have it! :greengrinThis is the killer reason. It wouldn't have worked! These scallywags don't want soup anyway! Thank goodness we decided against providing it.


Nothing political here I’m afraidOther than your irrelevant comment about the National which hadn't even been mentioned on the topic.

[ronaldo7]

You never answered the question.

You're now talking about Labour Party manifesto pledges for a G.E. we haven't even had. I'm asking you why you are highlighting 1 LA out of 32, none of which are offering the initiative you mention. Bottom line is responsibility for funding of LA services comes via Central Gov. If they don't receive adequate funding they can't provide additional services.

We wouldn't even be going back and forward over a bowl of soup initiative in 1 LA if the national SNP manifesto pledge to provide free school meals to all primary kids had been met.

This was additional, yes, however, the local council can just raise taxes to pay for it. They have the powers. See where I'm going here.:aok:

Where the SLP adopt the position of attacking the SG on going local, and raising taxes, the Local SLP councillors vote against it.

All the while, the free meals which Labour voted against will continue to progress.

[Santa Cruz]

The roll out of free school meals to all will happen, slower than everyone wants but it will happen. I do think it's worth a mentioning when criticising the SG for this that Labour actually voted against it!! So voting against soup and a roll seems to fall in line with current Labour thinking

Labour voted against a Stage because they wanted amendments (which the SNP and Greens voted against), supported by other organisations, not just politicians. To give them their due at least they showed up for the vote. The FM and Patrick Harvie were no shows for the vote.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nicola-sturgeon-patrick-harvie-accused-27271140

[He's here!]

You should be wary of reading the National and taking it as a factual representation of the situation.

The ‘hot soup and a roll’ initiative was considered by the Council. Officers recommended against it. Amongst the reasons why was the need to recruit an additional part-time member of staff in every school to implement it. School facilities staff already run with a very high short- and long-term sickness rate. Officers also pointed out the challenges in recruiting people to do this for what, a matter of weeks? There were various other practical issues, as well as the question of uptake - it’s one thing to offer soup, it’s another thing to get a 10-12 year-old to have it! :greengrin

Nothing political here I’m afraid, just the practicalities of local government services. As far as it goes, the Council did also write-off £36,000 of school meal debt.

One of the primary schools I worked in had a parent council which funded an initiative to provide all kids with a cup of soup and a piece of bread to take out into the playground with them during the winter months. This was good, home-made quality soup but it simply wasn't popular with many kids so it didn't last. I used to enjoy getting a cup of the leftover soup but I wasn't the target consumer.

Free school meals, like the baby box initiative, sound good on paper but there are many children who simply don't require them. I get that by offering them to all you remove the stigma around kids who qualify for free meals but there are other ways round this. It's a costly way of doing things and sucks up funds which could be diverted elsewhere. As for introducing free school meals to secondary school pupils you'll find many prefer to head to the local shops at lunch as soon as they're allowed. Sure, they buy all sorts of sugary, unhealthy c**p there but it's the done thing.

[Ozyhibby]

One of the primary schools I worked in had a parent council which funded an initiative to provide all kids with a cup of soup and a piece of bread to take out into the playground with them during the winter months. This was good, home-made quality soup but it simply wasn't popular with many kids so it didn't last. I used to enjoy getting a cup of the leftover soup but I wasn't the target consumer.

Free school meals, like the baby box initiative, sound good on paper but there are many children who simply don't require them. I get that by offering them to all you remove the stigma around kids who qualify for free meals but there are other ways round this. It's a costly way of doing things and sucks up funds which could be diverted elsewhere. As for introducing free school meals to secondary school pupils you'll find many prefer to head to the local shops at lunch as soon as they're allowed. Sure, they buy all sorts of sugary, unhealthy c**p there but it's the done thing.

I would insist on kids staying on campus all day anyway. At least until s5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

The roll out of free school meals to all will happen, slower than everyone wants but it will happen. I do think it's worth a mentioning when criticising the SG for this that Labour actually voted against it!! So voting against soup and a roll seems to fall in line with current Labour thinkingAs ever, there's more to this than meets the eye
https://twitter.com/LabourStirling/status/1601339809209147394?s=20&t=pkYqmOrgD6qQ6z5s2WkHzg

[He's here!]

I would insist on kids staying on campus all day anyway. At least until s5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeh, me too.

[Santa Cruz]

Yeh, me too.

For what reason?

[neil7908]

He's not lying.

But he might find himself forced to change his mind.

I'm pretty sure both the Tories and the Lib Dems ruled out any coalition deals before they did their coalition deal.

No political party will go into a GE saying that it's open to post election deals.

In the case of the SNP, Miliband was portrayed as being in Alex Salmond's pocket and that cost him dearly. Sturgeon is very unpopular south of the border so Starmer has to be even stronger on the no deal message than he would with, say, the Greens or the LDs.

But.. it's lying then. Others do it, I get that and understand to an extent the why of it but can we agree that saying you absolutely won't do something under any circumstances when you actually would is a lie?

[Kato]

But.. it's lying then. Others do it, I get that and understand to an extent the why of it but can we agree that saying you absolutely won't do something under any circumstances when you actually would is a lie?Well yes but that's politics.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Well yes but that's politics.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

So it's OK for Boris to lie? As that's also politics presumably?

I feel down the rabbit hole a bit at times now. Tories lie and are branded disgraceful. Starmer says he wants to bring honesty back after the Tory lying but when he lies its politics...

[Kato]

So it's OK for Boris to lie? As that's also politics presumably?

I feel down the rabbit hole a bit at times now. Tories lie and are branded disgraceful. Starmer says he wants to bring honesty back after the Tory lying but when he lies its politics...

Leading up to an election every party will display confidence that they are going to win. Telling every one that you intend going into partnership with whoever beforehand somewhat dents that image and would be seen as stupidity if the given circumstances didn't play out. Once the election is done if their is no outright winner those circumstances can then play out, positions will change. That's politics.

Telling everyone you weren't at a party when you were at half a dozen, saying you were unaware that one of your pals being a groper when you knew, claiming that you bribe taking pal wasn't taking bribes when he was ..ad in. That's telling lies.


I'm sure we can agree there is a world of difference.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

But.. it's lying then. Others do it, I get that and understand to an extent the why of it but can we agree that saying you absolutely won't do something under any circumstances when you actually would is a lie?

No, he's not lying.

He has no intention of doing a deal with the SNP or anyone else.

I can see circumstances under which he might be forced to change his mind, but he might not.

I don't think it's very fair to call someone a liar because you think they might in the future.

[neil7908]

No, he's not lying.

He has no intention of doing a deal with the SNP or anyone else.

I can see circumstances under which he might be forced to change his mind, but he might not.

I don't think it's very fair to call someone a liar because you think they might in the future.

I'm not calling him anything. I'm responding to a post that said if they did do a deal later on it would just be politics.

This is all hypothetical and probably no point taking it further but I think it's important to be clear that he's not left any door open for a deal. Which is fine but the language is clear and if he does change his stance down line then I'll be calling him a liar.

[Ozyhibby]

For what reason?

Personally I feel it’s a duty of care thing. They are placed in your charge for 6 hours so they should be on campus. All their needs should be catered for. There is no need for them to be going to McDonalds.
You want to close the attainment gap, maybe we need to start feeding them properly so that they can focus properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Personally I feel it’s a duty of care thing. They are placed in your charge for 6 hours so they should be on campus. All their needs should be catered for. There is no need for them to be going to McDonalds.
You want to close the attainment gap, maybe we need to start feeding them properly so that they can focus properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree at Primary school level, not Secondary. They need some freedom during the school day and to learn to think for themselves without adults present at all times. I could go on, but think this is for another thread. :aok:

[Hibrandenburg]

No, he's not lying.

He has no intention of doing a deal with the SNP or anyone else.

I can see circumstances under which he might be forced to change his mind, but he might not.

I don't think it's very fair to call someone a liar because you think they might in the future.

If he knows that he might have to go back on his promise, then he's being deceitful at best. I want more from politicians, instead of trying to trick me into voting for them, I want them to lay out their vision and stick to it if elected.

[ronaldo7]

If he knows that he might have to go back on his promise, then he's being deceitful at best. I want more from politicians, instead of trying to trick me into voting for them, I want them to lay out their vision and stick to it if elected.

He set out a vision when he ran to become leader of the labour party and then went back on those pledges/promises.

His bum is now on fire. 🔥

[ronaldo7]

Labour in Wales decided not to raise taxes to pay for services or pay rises for nurses currently going on strike in Wales during the budget yesterday.

All areas of the UK are under the cosh just now with budgets getting hammered with inflationary costs.

I wonder how British labour in Scotland will respond to our budget cuts.

[Jack]

He set out a vision when he ran to become leader of the labour party and then went back on those pledges/promises.

His bum is now on fire. 🔥

Indeed in the the run up to his election as leader he made many promises most, if not all, have been broken. If he breaks his promises to his own Labour Party and they can no longer trust him why should the electorate?

[ronaldo7]

SNP MP's now closer to the RMT position and striking workers than, Keir starmer, and labour.

So says Mick Lynch.

[Ozyhibby]

SNP MP's now closer to the RMT position and striking workers than, Keir starmer, and labour.

So says Mick Lynch.

https://twitter.com/jennygilruth/status/1552238434193969152?s=46&t=O8CXOKyF7Um2Us3RhaL0zA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I would agree at Primary school level, not Secondary. They need some freedom during the school day and to learn to think for themselves without adults present at all times. I could go on, but think this is for another thread. :aok:

I take your point and yes, on reflection I'd probably say they could be allowed out earlier than S5, but I largely agree with Oz re the duty of care and the attempts to improve Scotland's dietary habits via education. Not an easy sell to teenagers unfortunately.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221217/783f88f51585be05884d3b30ea0ab6d8.jpg

Better together.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221217/783f88f51585be05884d3b30ea0ab6d8.jpg

Better together.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a health and safety matter.

They can’t hold hot soup and be sent up chimneys at the same time.

[Stairway 2 7]

Things have to start changing for the tories. Where does it come, a year of recession, brexit mayhem, inflation ect

litics
@electpoliticsuk
·
14h
Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 51% (+4)
CON: 25% (-1)
LDM: 7% (-2)
REF: 6% (=)
GRN: 5% (-1)
SNP: 4% (-1)

Via
@Omnisis
, On 22 December,
Changes w/ 15 December.

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 49% (-1)
CON: 23% (-6)
LDM: 13% (+6)
GRN: 3% (=)

Via
@IpsosUK
, On 7-13 December,
Changes w/ 16 November.

[archie]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221217/783f88f51585be05884d3b30ea0ab6d8.jpg

Better together.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As posted before, this story isn't as is being spun https://twitter.com/LabourStirling/status/1601339809209147394?s=20&t=pkYqmOrgD6qQ6z5s2WkHzg

[Bostonhibby]

As posted before, this story isn't as is being spun https://twitter.com/LabourStirling/status/1601339809209147394?s=20&t=pkYqmOrgD6qQ6z5s2WkHzgI struggle with this one as well.

Surely there's a brand new start up business out there that could supply a bowl of soup via a web of hidden suppliers at a manufacturing cost of the price of one potato but sold via some sort of VIP lane for about £50 a bowl?

I'm pretty sure someone like that Mone person, Owen Paterson MP or Matt Hancock's pub landlord could step into the void.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Starmer's Christmas speech with the huge Union Flag carefully folded in the background to show mainly the red and white. :faf:

[Stairway 2 7]

Starmer's Christmas speech with the huge Union Flag carefully folded in the background to show mainly the red and white. :faf:

26351

26352

Get the flags in

[Hibrandenburg]

26351

26352

Get the flags in

Completely missing the point.

[Glory Lurker]

26351

26352

Get the flags in

While I'm not mad for flags either, at least Sturgeon is actually FM of the country and represents it functionally.

[greenlex]

It’s a health and safety matter.

They can’t hold hot soup and be sent up chimneys at the same time.

What’s wrong with gruel instead of soup? Might have shaved a few Bob off the bill.

[Ozyhibby]

26351

26352

Get the flags in

Probably best not to. If the No side make it about flags then they lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Probably best not to. If the No side make it about flags then they lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Generally I've found people who love flags are typically a bit weird

[Ozyhibby]

Generally I've found people who love flags are typically a bit weird

I just meant that for many No voters, their No vote was very transactional in nature. It was about fear of the unknown such as the currency, public spending, their pension etc. Whether justified or not, it’s very real and easy to stoke up.
If the No side want to make it about emotion and patriotism then I think that’s a massive mistake for them.
So keep waving that Union flag Keir.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

Generally I've found people who love flags are typically a bit weird

Trying to draw equivalence between regularly flying the Union Flag and other flags only has relevance if those other flags have the same political power and context as the Union Flag does. Otherwise it’s a false equivalence. Recently deceased Terry Hall could have explained it better than me.

[Bostonhibby]

Generally I've found people who love flags are typically a bit weirdI'm with you, especially the recent surge of our version of Trumpists who will insist on putting their beloved flag up upside down.

A joy to behold

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

While I'm not mad for flags either, at least Sturgeon is actually FM of the country and represents it functionally.

I'm not sure what your point is unless you're suggesting that people shouldn't display their country's flags if they're not in office? :confused:

Just as an aside, why does it bother folk that Starmer wants to show that he's proud to be British? He's also a British politician trying to harvest votes from people who are also proud to be British.

Just to be clear, although I understand why he does use the Union Flag, it annoys me a bit too, and I don't really know why.

[Pretty Boy]

I'm not sure what your point is unless you're suggesting that people shouldn't display their country's flags if they're not in office? :confused:

Just as an aside, why does it bother folk that Starmer wants to show that he's proud to be British? He's also a British politician trying to harvest votes from people who are also proud to be British.

Just to be clear, although I understand why he does use the Union Flag, it annoys me a bit too, and I don't really know why.

People won't like to hear it but Starmer has no need to go all out to capture the Scottish vote just now. He's going to win with a whopping majority without it. And people upset by a union flag in his office would find another reason not to vote for him if it was removed anyway.

I don't like it but his strategists clearly feel after Corbyn was painted as a dangerous anti British traitor that a lot of union flags will appeal to red wall brexiteers and other floating voters who like that sort of thing.

The test for Starmer in Scotland comes when he is PM and what inroads he can make. The SNP have always been wary of a Labour govt as they know, as unpalatable as the current incarnation may be to many, they aren't as easy to portray as the bogeyman as the Tories. It's why they have spent almost as much of the last decade attacking them as the Tories.

[Stairway 2 7]

Trying to draw equivalence between regularly flying the Union Flag and other flags only has relevance if those other flags have the same political power and context as the Union Flag does. Otherwise it’s a false equivalence. Recently deceased Terry Hall could have explained it better than me.

Nah there's obviously levels. Like someone with a confederate tattoo is more mental than someone with a usa flag and someone with none is less nuts than both.

Obviously exceptions. Also it's OK if your going to sports, a independence rally or a political leader as that's normal the world over. Imo obviously

[marinello59]

Probably best not to. If the No side make it about flags then they lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If ever a post exposed the myth that civic nationalism was ever a thing then this is it.
Oor flag is better than your flag. :greengrin

[James310]

If ever a post exposed the myth that civic nationalism was ever a thing then this is it.
Oor flag is better than your flag. :greengrin

I am still working out how we got from a Keir Starmer Christmas speech to it being about Yes or No and this mythical No/Better Together 2 campaign that isn't happening.

[Moulin Yarns]

I am still working out how we got from a Keir Starmer Christmas speech to it being about Yes or No and this mythical No/Better Together 2 campaign that isn't happening.

Promise? 😁

[James310]

Promise? 😁

What? That's there won't be a Better Together 2?

I am very confident there won't be one for a very long time if at all.

[Ozyhibby]

If ever a post exposed the myth that civic nationalism was ever a thing then this is it.
Oor flag is better than your flag. :greengrin

It’s an analysis. It’s my opinion on how the campaign would go. Not advocating anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

People won't like to hear it but Starmer has no need to go all out to capture the Scottish vote just now. He's going to win with a whopping majority without it. And people upset by a union flag in his office would find another reason not to vote for him if it was removed anyway.

I don't like it but his strategists clearly feel after Corbyn was painted as a dangerous anti British traitor that a lot of union flags will appeal to red wall brexiteers and other floating voters who like that sort of thing.

The test for Starmer in Scotland comes when he is PM and what inroads he can make. The SNP have always been wary of a Labour govt as they know, as unpalatable as the current incarnation may be to many, they aren't as easy to portray as the bogeyman as the Tories. It's why they have spent almost as much of the last decade attacking them as the Tories.

I agree with all of that.

[Ozyhibby]

People won't like to hear it but Starmer has no need to go all out to capture the Scottish vote just now. He's going to win with a whopping majority without it. And people upset by a union flag in his office would find another reason not to vote for him if it was removed anyway.

I don't like it but his strategists clearly feel after Corbyn was painted as a dangerous anti British traitor that a lot of union flags will appeal to red wall brexiteers and other floating voters who like that sort of thing.

The test for Starmer in Scotland comes when he is PM and what inroads he can make. The SNP have always been wary of a Labour govt as they know, as unpalatable as the current incarnation may be to many, they aren't as easy to portray as the bogeyman as the Tories. It's why they have spent almost as much of the last decade attacking them as the Tories.

Scotland is in a pretty crappy place when our votes are not needed by either party to win power in the UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Time will tell but this has always been my fear:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-pin-hopes-on-wooing-back-millions-of-undecided-voters-0tckccp5s

Tories grind through the rough time ahead with some hard right 'populist' policies, and the economy just begins picking up by the next election. With the press firmly behind the Tories, no matter how bad they are, I could see Labour falling short of a majority, or getting a small enough one that governing is impossible.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/01/welsh-labour-general-election-mark-drakeford-interview?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1672584733

Drakeford ready for election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/wes-streeting-labour-gps-government-nhs-b2257798.html?amp

Labour hints it would prevent GPs operating as ‘murky’ private businesses
Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting also said he would stop GPs being ‘the sole gatekeeper’ to the NHS.

GPs’ surgeries would be stopped operating as “murky” private businesses under Labour, the shadow health secretary has suggested, deepening a row with the doctors’ union.

Wes Streeting said he is “minded to phase out” the system of GP partnerships, where self-employed doctors act as contractors for the NHS.

[Smartie]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/wes-streeting-labour-gps-government-nhs-b2257798.html?amp

Labour hints it would prevent GPs operating as ‘murky’ private businesses
Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting also said he would stop GPs being ‘the sole gatekeeper’ to the NHS.

GPs’ surgeries would be stopped operating as “murky” private businesses under Labour, the shadow health secretary has suggested, deepening a row with the doctors’ union.

Wes Streeting said he is “minded to phase out” the system of GP partnerships, where self-employed doctors act as contractors for the NHS.

Not saying they’re wrong but it would be interesting to know how they plan to go about making these changes.

And surely they’ll only get doctors to co-operate if it’s in their financial interests to do so, which might end up being expensive for the taxpayer.

[ronaldo7]

Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis, and Wes Streeting taking money from MPM Connect. It seems it's a shell company. Where is the cash coming from?


https://news.sky.com/video/the-westminster-accounts-who-is-donating-money-to-mps-12782854

[Ozyhibby]

Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis, and Wes Streeting taking money from MPM Connect. It seems it's a shell company. Where is the cash coming from?


https://news.sky.com/video/the-westminster-accounts-who-is-donating-money-to-mps-12782854

Starmer already backing away from complete ban on second jobs. Getting into power can be lucrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Starmer already backing away from complete ban on second jobs. Getting into power can be lucrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't even make sense. They're not in power and have second jobs just now. It's up to the current Gov to legislate against 2nd jobs or more importantly multiple sources of income.

I'm not opposed to 2nd jobs if they have a professional capacity which brings knowledge and experience to their roles as politicians. In fact when you look at some of them it's blatantly obvious they've no experience of working anywhere let alone living in the real world, perhaps that's the problem.

[ronaldo7]

Starmer already backing away from complete ban on second jobs. Getting into power can be lucrative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get what he's saying. The likes of Phillipa Whitford who still works in the Health service along with some other MP'S should be able to continue to do so.

The likes of David Lammy taking cash from all over the place should be looked at.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis, and Wes Streeting taking money from MPM Connect. It seems it's a shell company. Where is the cash coming from?


https://news.sky.com/video/the-westminster-accounts-who-is-donating-money-to-mps-12782854

I love the smell of desperation in the morning!

MPM is two guys, long-standing Labour supporters and donors.

One is Peter Hearn, who is an accountant by trade and made his money starting up his own recruitment firm for top finance companies, that sort of thing. He has donated for years and he gave a lot of support to Yvette Cooper’s leadership campaign.

The other guy is Simon Murphy, another well-off donor who is behind the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station, one of the highest-profile brownfield redevelopments in years. There’s an interview with him here for you

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/conquering-everest-an-interview-with-simon-murphy-ceo-of-battersea-power-station-development-company

There was a series, I think on Channel 4, called ‘The Art of Architecture’ which looked at different projects in detail, one per episode. They did one on Battersea which I watched the other day, fascinating stuff and you get a real sense of how iconic those towers are.

As far as MPM itself goes, I think it’s just a vehicle for donating money, probably similar to whatever Petrie and STF had in place for Hibs. As far as I am aware their own names still have to be registered, and are, with the Electoral Commission.

[James310]

I love the smell of desperation in the morning!

MPM is two guys, long-standing Labour supporters and donors.

One is Peter Hearn, who is an accountant by trade and made his money starting up his own recruitment firm for top finance companies, that sort of thing. He has donated for years and he gave a lot of support to Yvette Cooper’s leadership campaign.

The other guy is Simon Murphy, another well-off donor who is behind the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station, one of the highest-profile brownfield redevelopments in years. There’s an interview with him here for you

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/conquering-everest-an-interview-with-simon-murphy-ceo-of-battersea-power-station-development-company

There was a series, I think on Channel 4, called ‘The Art of Architecture’ which looked at different projects in detail, one per episode. They did one on Battersea which I watched the other day, fascinating stuff and you get a real sense of how iconic those towers are.

As far as MPM itself goes, I think it’s just a vehicle for donating money, probably similar to whatever Petrie and STF had in place for Hibs. As far as I am aware their own names still have to be registered, and are, with the Electoral Commission.

Pesky facts eh! Not exactly covered in mystery if you found that information so easily.

[ronaldo7]

I love the smell of desperation in the morning!

MPM is two guys, long-standing Labour supporters and donors.

One is Peter Hearn, who is an accountant by trade and made his money starting up his own recruitment firm for top finance companies, that sort of thing. He has donated for years and he gave a lot of support to Yvette Cooper’s leadership campaign.

The other guy is Simon Murphy, another well-off donor who is behind the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station, one of the highest-profile brownfield redevelopments in years. There’s an interview with him here for you

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/conquering-everest-an-interview-with-simon-murphy-ceo-of-battersea-power-station-development-company

There was a series, I think on Channel 4, called ‘The Art of Architecture’ which looked at different projects in detail, one per episode. They did one on Battersea which I watched the other day, fascinating stuff and you get a real sense of how iconic those towers are.

As far as MPM itself goes, I think it’s just a vehicle for donating money, probably similar to whatever Petrie and STF had in place for Hibs. As far as I am aware their own names still have to be registered, and are, with the Electoral Commission.

Holding others to account not allowed for you then.

Fascinating that the Sky reporter couldn't get a hold of anyone in the "Company".

It looks like they've set up a shell company to syphon cash into the three MP's mentioned to the tune of over £345,000.

All within the rules I'm sure, just that the rules stink, and those Labour supporters are up to their necks in it, along with your current flavour of the month.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/10/labour-mps-defend-taking-donations-from-little-known-company?CMP=twt_gu&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium#Echobox=1673359338

Story doesn’t seem to be going away. The ‘it is all within the rules’ defence reminds of the expenses scandal all those years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/10/labour-mps-defend-taking-donations-from-little-known-company?CMP=twt_gu&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium#Echobox=1673359338

Story doesn’t seem to be going away. The ‘it is all within the rules’ defence reminds of the expenses scandal all those years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yvette Cooper's office provided a response to the reporter yesterday but said he wasn't to use it.

Clear and transparent from them. I think not. It was then allowed to be aired. 🙈

The company is clearly not what it says it is with only two directors, no staff, offices etc.

Thems the rules though. As David Lammy would say...kerching

[Stairway 2 7]

Sunak needs to start swinging soon

@electpoliticsuk
·
Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+1)
CON: 25% (=)
LDM: 9% (=)
REF: 7% (=)
GRN: 5% (-1)
SNP: 5% (=)

Via
@YouGov
, On 10-11 January,
Changes w/ 5 January.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://archive.ph/UlgMc

NHS is being run for doctors rather than patients and needs a decade to fix, says Labour’s Wes Streeting

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230116/c35e63831eb83573a6fb2315ccb170e3.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230116/c35e63831eb83573a6fb2315ccb170e3.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh Ozy, what are you like?

I'm sure Keir Starmer won't feel any better for having a positive approval rating with the public, rather than a negative approval rating like Sunak - 16 points' difference in that polling wasn't it?

And he also won't feel any better for Labour polling 20 points clear of the Tories either. Again.

[Stairway 2 7]

Starmer usually pretty week in Westminster, but hammered Sunak today. More ambulance strikes coming up

@BethRigby
Starmer: It's 12.03pm. If someone dials an ambulance for a suspected heart attack, when can they expect it to come?
Sunak asks Labour why won't back minimum service levels legislation. Starmer retorts 'don't deflect' and asks the Q again #PMQs

Starmer goes in on ambulance delays. Soon after #PMQS ambulance workers are set to announce decision on further strikes, and it's likely that there will be more strike days to come. So these exchanges in the HoC are likely to make the evening news bulletins

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Keir Starmer says he would rather sit next to Piers Morgan than Jeremy Corbyn at the footie:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-says-he-would-rather-sit-next-to-piers-morgan-than-jeremy-corbyn_uk_63c95806e4b04d4d18dd056b

Pretty trivial and petty in the scheme of things, but it really does sum up his mentality.

[neil7908]

Keir Starmer says he would rather sit next to Piers Morgan than Jeremy Corbyn at the footie:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-says-he-would-rather-sit-next-to-piers-morgan-than-jeremy-corbyn_uk_63c95806e4b04d4d18dd056b

Pretty trivial and petty in the scheme of things, but it really does sum up his mentality.

This sums up everything I hate about Starmer.

[hibsbollah]

This sums up everything I hate about Starmer.

I want to be the unifying force between both wings of the Party, I believe he said during the leadership campaign :aok:

Piers Morgan. Seriously?

[Hiber-nation]

Keir Starmer says he would rather sit next to Piers Morgan than Jeremy Corbyn at the footie:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-says-he-would-rather-sit-next-to-piers-morgan-than-jeremy-corbyn_uk_63c95806e4b04d4d18dd056b

Pretty trivial and petty in the scheme of things, but it really does sum up his mentality.

This bothers me far far more than it should.

[Jones28]

Keir Starmer says he would rather sit next to Piers Morgan than Jeremy Corbyn at the footie:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-says-he-would-rather-sit-next-to-piers-morgan-than-jeremy-corbyn_uk_63c95806e4b04d4d18dd056b

Pretty trivial and petty in the scheme of things, but it really does sum up his mentality.

He’s a fud

[neil7908]

I want to be the unifying force between both wings of the Party, I believe he said during the leadership campaign :aok:

Piers Morgan. Seriously?

Yup. To be fair, given how he's handled Corbyn and the left of the party in general, and the massive lie you've referenced above, I'm not surprised he doesn't want to sit next to him. He should be thoroughly ashamed and embarrassed. Those are much harder emotions to handle than severe annoyance from sitting next to Morgan.

Still, doesn't exactly strike me as the serious, adult behaviour from a PM in waiting. A bit more banter Boris.

I think I might also see if I can get in touch with his PR team and suggest that at this point the take the only logical step left to show the public he's not Jeremy Corbyn - get something to that effect tattooed on his forehead.

[WeeRussell]

Keir Starmer says he would rather sit next to Piers Morgan than Jeremy Corbyn at the footie:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-says-he-would-rather-sit-next-to-piers-morgan-than-jeremy-corbyn_uk_63c95806e4b04d4d18dd056b

Pretty trivial and petty in the scheme of things, but it really does sum up his mentality.

Well I for one will accept being sat next to Kier Starmer and Piers Morgan as an excuse for not buying a ticket for Sunday.

[hibsbollah]

Well I for one will accept being sat next to Kier Starmer and Piers Morgan as an excuse for not buying a ticket for Sunday.

:faf: If I spy those two next to me in the west lower I swear I will do time.

[cabbageandribs1875]

exactly Mr Lynch, where is the labour front bench :agree: https://www.facebook.com/reel/2454537451365411/?s=single_unit

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1621276068211482625?s=46&t=vxnj4Qe7zkfKy3acNzA_zw
Fair play to Starmer for admitting he would rather see the Tories in Downing Street than work with the SNP. Very candid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1621276068211482625?s=46&t=vxnj4Qe7zkfKy3acNzA_zw
Fair play to Starmer for admitting he would rather see the Tories in Downing Street than work with the SNP. Very candid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's exactly what he needs to say, although he didn't quite say what you've written.

I don't believe him, though. In fact, I'm hoping it comes to pass.

[archie]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1621276068211482625?s=46&t=vxnj4Qe7zkfKy3acNzA_zw
Fair play to Starmer for admitting he would rather see the Tories in Downing Street than work with the SNP. Very candid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He doesn't need to do a deal with the SNP. If Labour were in a minority, the SNP would have a choice -support Labour or the Tories. What do you think the SNP would do?

[Hibbyradge]

He doesn't need to do a deal with the SNP. If Labour were in a minority, the SNP would have a choice -support Labour or the Tories. What do you think the SNP would do?

What if the Tories were the largest minority party?

That's looking unlikely just now but a week's a long time etc etc

[Ozyhibby]

He doesn't need to do a deal with the SNP. If Labour were in a minority, the SNP would have a choice -support Labour or the Tories. What do you think the SNP would do?

I think they would vote Starmer into Downing Street. His programme for govt would then need to exactly match the snp priorities though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

What if the Tories were the largest party?

That's looking unlikely just now but a week's a long time etc etcDo you think the SNP would vote in the Tories?

[Ozyhibby]

Do you think the SNP would vote in the Tories?

Absolutely not. Starmer would be in Downing Street. Not sure what he’d do when he got there though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Do you think the SNP would vote in the Tories?

The Tories could decide to govern as a minority. The opposition would then be blamed for causing another election which they obviously would.

[James310]

Absolutely not. Starmer would be in Downing Street. Not sure what he’d do when he got there though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pass the things that you just said the SNP would vote for?

[Jack]

He doesn't need to do a deal with the SNP. If Labour were in a minority, the SNP would have a choice -support Labour or the Tories. What do you think the SNP would do?

Why does Labour have such an intransigent view of working with the SNP on any level?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

A minority Labour Government would collapse rapidly, it would be in their interest to form a fully functional government.

[archie]

Why does Labour have such an intransigent view of working with the SNP on any level?

They have worked together at a local level. I suspect at a national level the SNP would be pretty intransigent in their demand for a referendum. In terms of pre election messaging, there's advantages for the SNP in saying they would work with Labour, but no obvious advantage for Labour. I think, as I said in an earlier post, Labour don't need to do a deal at Westminster. The SNP would have to vote them down, which would be a tricky position to be in.

[Ozyhibby]

Pass the things that you just said the SNP would vote for?

Yes I’m sure it would all be plain sailing. Every bill that Labour put forward, the SNP would look for concessions for Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

They have worked together at a local level. I suspect at a national level the SNP would be pretty intransigent in their demand for a referendum. In terms of pre election messaging, there's advantages for the SNP in saying they would work with Labour, but no obvious advantage for Labour. I think, as I said in an earlier post, Labour don't need to do a deal at Westminster. The SNP would have to vote them down, which would be a tricky position to be in.

Obviously Labour aren't going to openly campaign over the idea of forming a coalition with the SNP at national level. However, if the election result shows that they require SNP seats to form the next Government, you can bet your life that they will take them.

I can't see Labour pulling another 1979 stunt. Not this time. People are far more clued up to these things now.

[James310]

Yes I’m sure it would all be plain sailing. Every bill that Labour put forward, the SNP would look for concessions for Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Labour would say no, and then what? Vote for the Tories which is something you said they would not do, abstain which is effectively a vote for the Tories. Labour can just tell them to do one. It's pretty simple really.

But I am confident they won't even need the SNP as they will pretty easily have an overall majority, the best thing would be them winning seats in Scotland that gave them that overall majority. At 2019 GE they got 19% vote share, last poll had 31% and winning seats from both Tories and SNP.

But remember the SNP will have lost the de facto referendum so they won't really be in a position to demand anything having lost yet another Independence referendum.

[Hibbyradge]

Why does Labour have such an intransigent view of working with the SNP on any level?

Ed Milliband was portrayed as being in Alex Salmond's pocket. Sturgeon is hated down here, much more than Salmond was so a similar accusation next election would definitely hurt Labour.

https://i.postimg.cc/K8ysct28/2e3f4b0f-f8db-4aae-8e61-42affc16f61a-best-Size-Available.jpg

[Hiber-nation]

Ed Milliband was portrayed as being in Alex Salmond's pocket. Sturgeon is hated down here, much more than Salmond was so a similar accusation next election would definitely hurt Labour.



I've heard you say that before but my daughter who lives in London says NS is very well respected. Might be different in your neck of the woods of course.

[Hibbyradge]

I've heard you say that before but my daughter who lives in London says NS is very well respected. Might be different in your neck of the woods of course.

I don't know about London but I'm in a Tory constituency and I've only ever heard people slating her.

You can just imagine the opinions and attitudes of the red wall constituencies which voted for Brexit and for the Tories last time. Those are the people Labour need to win back.

[neil7908]

And Labour would say no, and then what? Vote for the Tories which is something you said they would not do, abstain which is effectively a vote for the Tories. Labour can just tell them to do one. It's pretty simple really.

But I am confident they won't even need the SNP as they will pretty easily have an overall majority, the best thing would be them winning seats in Scotland that gave them that overall majority. At 2019 GE they got 19% vote share, last poll had 31% and winning seats from both Tories and SNP.

But remember the SNP will have lost the de facto referendum so they won't really be in a position to demand anything having lost yet another Independence referendum.

Are you happy with a Labour victory given Starmer's support for gender self declaration? It is seems like he supports the very policy that has caused so much concern over on that thread. Given those comments I'd think this would be of significant concern?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I'm in a Tory constituency and I've only ever heard people slating her.

Do they slate her constructively? Or is it the usual "wee Jimmy Krankie" nonsense massaged into their brains by the Daily Express and Mail?

[Hibbyradge]

Do they slate her constructively? Or is it the usual "wee Jimmy Krankie" nonsense massaged into their brains by the Daily Express and Mail?

It's not constructive, just nasty.

[James310]

Are you happy with a Labour victory given Starmer's support for gender self declaration? It is seems like he supports the very policy that has caused so much concern over on that thread. Given those comments I'd think this would be of significant concern?

I think he will have seen what's gone on and unlike here they will come to a compromise that meets the majority of needs for all impacted parties. Lessons will have been learned. He would be a fool not to.

[Just_Jimmy]

I've heard you say that before but my daughter who lives in London says NS is very well respected. Might be different in your neck of the woods of course. Shes hated, the usual "crankie" stuff. There's a nasty racist undertone to it.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-64512690

Seems remarkable that this person was able to become an MP.

[hibsbollah]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-64512690

Seems remarkable that this person was able to become an MP.

It’s my cousins constituency. He won it from Nick Clegg in 2017, due to the surge in support that Corbyn generated for Labour at that election, and which you and many others like to pretend didn’t happen :greengrin Unfortunately he turned out to have a bit of a problem with the old Charlie.

[Kato]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-64512690

Seems remarkable that this person was able to become an MP.Without looking at who it is...it seems remarkable that many of those currently sitting in the HoC were able to become MP's.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Without looking at who it is...it seems remarkable that many of those currently sitting in the HoC were able to become MP's.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Can't argue with that.

I've sometimes wondered, but never made the effort to read up on it, but how well resourced are political parties in general when it comes to folk stepping forward to stand for election? I can't imagine it appeals to too many folk.

[marinello59]

Further signs that the Tories are facing a wipeout in the next election?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/10/labour-wins-west-lancashire-byelection-with-big-majority

[ronaldo7]

It looks like Ian Lavery(ex Labour chairman) is next on Dan Niedle's tax investigations.

When this guy gets his claws in, it's not normally a good outcome.

Nadhim Zahawi can vouch for that.

[CropleyWasGod]

Can't remember what thread this was discussed on 😀

BBC News - Ban on Edinburgh lap dancing clubs overturned after judicial review
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-64596835

[Bostonhibby]

I don't know about London but I'm in a Tory constituency and I've only ever heard people slating her.

You can just imagine the opinions and attitudes of the red wall constituencies which voted for Brexit and for the Tories last time. Those are the people Labour need to win back.Very much the same in rural Lincolnshire where the Nasty party could put up a coffee table as a candidate and they'd vote for it if they said it was leading the war against Russia or was going to get crowns put onto pint glasses.

I'm no fan of Sturgeon but compared to the majority of leaders and politicians down here she has a bit more intelligence and integrity about her.

She is loathed by the majority of people I hear talking about the subject but their discussions rarely get much deeper than shallow repetitive "jokes" or whatever has recently appeared in the Daily Mail. Not really members of the local debating society.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Can't remember what thread this was discussed on 😀

BBC News - Ban on Edinburgh lap dancing clubs overturned after judicial review
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-64596835

Good news. Someone in an office somewhere I'm sure well intentioned thought this was helping women. Redundancies wasn't helping anyone. I wouldn’t add any more but glad it's overturned

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64640069

No way back for Corbyn. Would he stand as an independent or is it time to retire? Guessing he must be into his 70s.

[neil7908]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64640069

No way back for Corbyn. Would he stand as an independent or is it time to retire? Guessing he must be into his 70s.

I desperately hope he stands - I'm sure he would win comfortably.

[neil7908]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64640069

No way back for Corbyn. Would he stand as an independent or is it time to retire? Guessing he must be into his 70s.

Starmer on becoming leader less than 3 years ago:

"I want to pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn, who led our party through some really difficult times, who energised our movement and who's a friend as well as a colleague.

And to all of our members, supporters and affiliates I say this: whether you voted for me or not I will represent you, I will listen to you and I will bring our party together."

Starmer today:

"What I said about the party changing, I meant, and we are not going back, and that is why Jeremy Corbyn will not stand as a Labour candidate at the next general election."

And

Labour was "unrecognisable from 2019 and it will never go back… if you don't like that, if you don't like the changes we have made, I say the door is open and you can leave", Sir Keir said.

[heretoday]

I've heard you say that before but my daughter who lives in London says NS is very well respected. Might be different in your neck of the woods of course.

Most people I talk to in Sussex wish Sturgeon was in Downing St!

[Mibbes Aye]

I desperately hope he stands - I'm sure he would win comfortably.


Starmer on becoming leader less than 3 years ago:

"I want to pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn, who led our party through some really difficult times, who energised our movement and who's a friend as well as a colleague.

And to all of our members, supporters and affiliates I say this: whether you voted for me or not I will represent you, I will listen to you and I will bring our party together."

Starmer today:

"What I said about the party changing, I meant, and we are not going back, and that is why Jeremy Corbyn will not stand as a Labour candidate at the next general election."

And

Labour was "unrecognisable from 2019 and it will never go back… if you don't like that, if you don't like the changes we have made, I say the door is open and you can leave", Sir Keir said.

Well said Starmer.

EHRC issued a damning report on anti-semitism in the party in 2020, most especially around Corbyn’s office interfering with complaints. Corbyn didn’t like it, or rather the likes of Murphy and Milne didn’t like it and Corbyn then went out and said EHRC had exaggerated things. His refusal to withdraw those comments cost him the whip.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Well said Starmer.

EHRC issued a damning report on anti-semitism in the party in 2020, most especially around Corbyn’s office interfering with complaints. Corbyn didn’t like it, or rather the likes of Murphy and Milne didn’t like it and Corbyn then went out and said EHRC had exaggerated things. His refusal to withdraw those comments cost him the whip.

It would seem that Starmer thinks that Amnesty International has "exaggerated things", in it's report on Israel being an apartheid state, considering his comments refusing to accept the outcome of the report. Comment's he refuses to withdraw.

Why is it one rule for him and different rule for Jeremy Corbyn?

[neil7908]

Well said Starmer.

EHRC issued a damning report on anti-semitism in the party in 2020, most especially around Corbyn’s office interfering with complaints. Corbyn didn’t like it, or rather the likes of Murphy and Milne didn’t like it and Corbyn then went out and said EHRC had exaggerated things. His refusal to withdraw those comments cost him the whip.

And what about the other comments:

"And to all of our members, supporters and affiliates I say this: whether you voted for me or not I will represent you, I will listen to you and I will bring our party together."

Versus

Labour was "unrecognisable from 2019 and it will never go back… if you don't like that, if you don't like the changes we have made, I say the door is open and you can leave".

Also, he was in the shadow cabinet in 2019 - is he therefore distancing his 2023 self from his 2019 self??!! Will 2025 Starmer disavow 2023 Starmer when it comes to governing the country? That's the bit that worries me.

[Ozyhibby]

It would seem that Starmer thinks that Amnesty International has "exaggerated things", in it's report on Israel being an apartheid state, considering his comments refusing to accept the outcome of the report. Comment's he refuses to withdraw.

Why is it one rule for him and different rule for Jeremy Corbyn?

To be fair, amnesty tried to blame Ukraine for casualties in the war with Russia. I wouldn’t give them the time of day these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

And what about the other comments:

"And to all of our members, supporters and affiliates I say this: whether you voted for me or not I will represent you, I will listen to you and I will bring our party together."

Versus

Labour was "unrecognisable from 2019 and it will never go back… if you don't like that, if you don't like the changes we have made, I say the door is open and you can leave".

Also, he was in the shadow cabinet in 2019 - is he therefore distancing his 2023 self from his 2019 self??!! Will 2025 Starmer disavow 2023 Starmer when it comes to governing the country? That's the bit that worries me.

I don't see your 'versus'. The first quote you've used is pretty much accurate, in context. So is the second one, in context. Of course if you want to remove the context and juxtapose two statements for false effect then feel free but that would be facile.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't see your 'versus'. The first quote you've used is pretty much accurate, in context. So is the second one, in context. Of course if you want to remove the context and juxtapose two statements for false effect then feel free but that would be facile.

Starmer doing the right thing politically. The left tend to make a lot of noise but what the don’t bring to the table in a GE is votes. And if nobody votes for you then it doesn’t really matter what you think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

I don't see your 'versus'. The first quote you've used is pretty much accurate, in context. So is the second one, in context. Of course if you want to remove the context and juxtapose two statements for false effect then feel free but that would be facile.

What's the context? He said when elected he wanted to bring the party together. Now if you don't like what he's done you can leave. His attitude to any dissenting voice in Labour is completely night and day from what he was elected on.

Also, as I've said, he was a senior shadow cabinet minister in 2019. You wouldn't guess that with the way he's positioned himself though. What happened to cabinet collective responsibility?

He will literally say and do whatever to get elected. See his positions on Brexit now versus 2019.

[hibsbollah]

Starmer on becoming leader less than 3 years ago:

"I want to pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn, who led our party through some really difficult times, who energised our movement and who's a friend as well as a colleague.

And to all of our members, supporters and affiliates I say this: whether you voted for me or not I will represent you, I will listen to you and I will bring our party together."

Starmer today:

"What I said about the party changing, I meant, and we are not going back, and that is why Jeremy Corbyn will not stand as a Labour candidate at the next general election."

And

Labour was "unrecognisable from 2019 and it will never go back… if you don't like that, if you don't like the changes we have made, I say the door is open and you can leave", Sir Keir said.

It’s easy to consider giving up at times like these, if you consider yourself a socialist or of the Left more broadly. Tony Benn at the end of his life reflected that the battles and arguments that are fought are never ending, they just repeat themselves throughout history and you just have to remember that and dust yourself down and keep going. Fight the good fight and remember there are millions who agree with what you agree with and if they do, just keep making the right arguments because they have validity.

[neil7908]

It’s easy to consider giving up at times like these, if you consider yourself a socialist or of the Left more broadly. Tony Benn at the end of his life reflected that the battles and arguments that are fought are never ending, they just repeat themselves throughout history and you just have to remember that and dust yourself down and keep going. Fight the good fight and remember there are millions who agree with what you agree with and if they do, just keep making the right arguments because they have validity.

👍

[Mibbes Aye]

What's the context? He said when elected he wanted to bring the party together. Now if you don't like what he's done you can leave. His attitude to any dissenting voice in Labour is completely night and day from what he was elected on.

Also, as I've said, he was a senior shadow cabinet minister in 2019. You wouldn't guess that with the way he's positioned himself though. What happened to cabinet collective responsibility?

He will literally say and do whatever to get elected. See his positions on Brexit now versus 2019.

I think what we are witnessing now and recently is a collective reality check for this random collection of entryists, ragtag and bobtail single-issue types drawn in by Momentum and a hard Left core who all saw Labour as a suitable host for their posturing and pretendy-politicking.

Unfortunately for them, the grown-ups came home, chucked out those who didn't live there and set a few ground rules for future conduct.

It's tough but it was entirely forseeable - a lot of the people I described above hate Labour more than they dislike the Tories.

[neil7908]

I think what we are witnessing now and recently is a collective reality check for this random collection of entryists, ragtag and bobtail single-issue types drawn in by Momentum and a hard Left core who all saw Labour as a suitable host for their posturing and pretendy-politicking.

Unfortunately for them, the grown-ups came home, chucked out those who didn't live there and set a few ground rules for future conduct.

It's tough but it was entirely forseeable - a lot of the people I described above hate Labour more than they dislike the Tories.

Fair enough. But just say that at the start then. Why make a show of being all about unity only to turn round and do the opposite? He's been in the Corbyn shadow cabinet for years so surely he knows what's going on in the party and the type of people who have become members.

As a left wing floater voter I simply don't feel he is trust worthy. I have no doubt he will govern better than the Tories but that's about the best I can say for him and its hardly a high bar to set.

[One Day Soon]

It’s easy to consider giving up at times like these, if you consider yourself a socialist or of the Left more broadly. Tony Benn at the end of his life reflected that the battles and arguments that are fought are never ending, they just repeat themselves throughout history and you just have to remember that and dust yourself down and keep going. Fight the good fight and remember there are millions who agree with what you agree with and if they do, just keep making the right arguments because they have validity.


The number of things I agreed with Tony Benn over are pretty limited but this is absolutely true. It's never over, the job is never done. It never will be. Regardless of who is in power, and how that power swings within and beyond parties, the importance of opposing constructively and questioning power is at least as important as the exercising of power itself if not considerably more so.

[Hibbyradge]

Good move from him.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/16/keir-starmer-visits-kyiv-labour-backing-ukraine?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Mibbes Aye]

Good move from him.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/16/keir-starmer-visits-kyiv-labour-backing-ukraine?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

:agree:

Although he is taking a risk.

He will have Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and their ilk firing off a round-robin letter denouncing him as “a running-dog of the eastward-expansionist NATO aggressors” :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

:agree:

Although he is taking a risk.

He will have Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and their ilk firing off a round-robin letter denouncing him as “a running-dog of the eastward-expansionist NATO aggressors” :greengrin

I think he’ll be praying for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqTuCXt5C6Q

[hibsbollah]

The number of things I agreed with Tony Benn over are pretty limited but this is absolutely true. It's never over, the job is never done. It never will be. Regardless of who is in power, and how that power swings within and beyond parties, the importance of opposing constructively and questioning power is at least as important as the exercising of power itself if not considerably more so.

I’m glad you can see that. It’s fundamental to a proper understanding of what’s going on that one can see that Our Side how loosely defined does not have a monopoly of wisdom. All there seems to be these days is ad hominem attacks on contributions because of the identity of the writer. I got pelters for continuing to tell people that Boris Johnson’s ‘a dream of Rome’ is a brilliant read despite who he is.(this is distinct from editorial policy; I know what the evil spawns of Lord Rothermere are going to say before they say it so I don’t extend this thinking to the Daily Mail, although I do like to read it sometimes to remind myself we’re living through the total collapse of British empire identity and culture).

[weecounty hibby]

The Labour councillors in Glasgow have shown themselves up again. Walked out of the budget meeting along with their tory chums. They could have proposed amendments and voted them through as the numbers are in there favour. But they'd rather abdicate any and all responsibility so they can shout SNP bad. Well done to the SNP councillors for actually doing what they were elected to do, make the incredibly tough decisions and try to protect jobs and services as best they can. This just a day after Starmer proclaims that Labour are no longer the party of protest. Absolute jokers one and all

[Ozyhibby]

The Labour councillors in Glasgow have shown themselves up again. Walked out of the budget meeting along with their tory chums. They could have proposed amendments and voted them through as the numbers are in there favour. But they'd rather abdicate any and all responsibility so they can shout SNP bad. Well done to the SNP councillors for actually doing what they were elected to do, make the incredibly tough decisions and try to protect jobs and services as best they can. This just a day after Starmer proclaims that Labour are no longer the party of protest. Absolute jokers one and all

DUP style walkouts.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqTuCXt5C6Q

That was so cringey-bad it was actually making me laugh :greengrin.

Got any more? It’s always nice to start the weekend with a smile.

[Mibbes Aye]

The Labour councillors in Glasgow have shown themselves up again. Walked out of the budget meeting along with their tory chums. They could have proposed amendments and voted them through as the numbers are in there favour. But they'd rather abdicate any and all responsibility so they can shout SNP bad. Well done to the SNP councillors for actually doing what they were elected to do, make the incredibly tough decisions and try to protect jobs and services as best they can. This just a day after Starmer proclaims that Labour are no longer the party of protest. Absolute jokers one and all

You are misquoting Starmer. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional.

As for Glasgow, the Labour Group are trying to make it a case of refusing to accept the real cuts that SG are making to local public services. They are trying to portray the SNP group as doing their master’s budding and not standing up for Glasgow.

I’m not convinced they have got their pitch right - there is certainly unhappiness amongst SNP councillors across the country at the SG cuts, so common ground exists. I suspect they, or a certain few, are hoping it will land in the same way striking public sector worker discontent has. Basically, we know we have a job to do but SG have been making it more and more intolerable for years and enough is enough.

As I say, I’m not convinced of the approach but ultimately their electorate will decide and Glasgow’s Glasgow!

[Mibbes Aye]

DUP style walkouts.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There isn’t a thread about this already, but seeing as you mentioned it

I surely am not the only person in the world who believes it slightly more than a coincidence that the DUP found a reason to walk out of power-sharing, oh, say roughly the same time a Catholic nationalist first minister was due to take office.

Whether it’s in the hierarchy, the rank and file or both. I don’t believe for a second they will allow democracy to trump their bigotry and unwillingness to relinquish power.

[hibsbollah]

That was so cringey-bad it was actually making me laugh :greengrin.

Got any more? It’s always nice to start the weekend with a smile.

Ah! The ad absurdum argument. A nice device to avoid the issues raised.

[Mibbes Aye]

Ah! The ad absurdum argument. A nice device to avoid the issues raised.

It was quicker than disparaging the woman ‘interviewer’ who came across like she was presenting an example-based seminar on leading questions, for five year-olds. But just as true.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It was quicker than disparaging the woman ‘interviewer’ who came across like she was presenting an example-based seminar on leading questions, for five year-olds. But just as true.

So what points did she make that you dispute and why?

Seemed pretty accurate to me. But then again, I listen to what the person is actually saying, rather than belittling the person in order to avoid doing so.

[One Day Soon]

I’m glad you can see that. It’s fundamental to a proper understanding of what’s going on that one can see that Our Side how loosely defined does not have a monopoly of wisdom. All there seems to be these days is ad hominem attacks on contributions because of the identity of the writer. I got pelters for continuing to tell people that Boris Johnson’s ‘a dream of Rome’ is a brilliant read despite who he is.(this is distinct from editorial policy; I know what the evil spawns of Lord Rothermere are going to say before they say it so I don’t extend this thinking to the Daily Mail, although I do like to read it sometimes to remind myself we’re living through the total collapse of British empire identity and culture).

Don't get me wrong, I'll continue to defend the politics I support to the hilt and to face up to those attacking it from positions to either the left or right of it (when I can be arsed that is, I'm way too long in the tooth to want to spend to much or indeed any time indulging ar5eholes, the hard of thinking and the glib of thinking). And sometimes the ad hominem is just a useful shortcut for expressing where you are going to end up in policy/political terms anyway. But it is important to challenge and be challenged. 'Debate' by 5hitty fax machine/propaganda sheet assertion is largely why I stopped contributing to or even taking an interest in most Holy Ground threads a good while back. And we're in the process of ending up back in the UK and Scottish party political position we were inevitably going to eventually anyway. I hope when power comes calling again that Labour use it wisely in Edinburgh and London. So, so much to do.

I haven't read the Johnson book you mentioned and I'm not likely to unless I get to by accident because I just couldn't bring myself to line his pockets by so much as a penny. He is a good writer though, a very good writer. Which really is extremely irritating.

[Mibbes Aye]

So what points did she make that you dispute and why?

Seemed pretty accurate to me. But then again, I listen to what the person is actually saying, rather than belittling the person in order to avoid doing so.

She didn’t make any points, she was asking the ‘questions’. Are you sure you were listening? :greengrin

Saying that, the questions were roughly along the lines of

“So, is Keir Starmer horrible or do you think he is really, really nasty?”

Posed to a man who was suspended from the Labour Party for telling people to vote Class War rather than Labour.

That’s what made it laughable. Although my funny bone was twitching as soon as I saw the link screenshot said “Starmer Has NO Integrity” :faf:

As I say, keep them coming :agree:

[TrumpIsAPeado]

She didn’t make any points, she was asking the ‘questions’. Are you sure you were listening? :greengrin

Saying that, the questions were roughly along the lines of

“So, is Keir Starmer horrible or do you think he is really, really nasty?”

Posed to a man who was suspended from the Labour Party for telling people to vote Class War rather than Labour.

That’s what made it laughable. Although my funny bone was twitching as soon as I saw the link screenshot said “Starmer Has NO Integrity” :faf:

As I say, keep them coming :agree:

Well if you had actually taken the time to watch it properly. I'm sure you would have noticed the examples of sheer hypocrisy from Keir Starmer and his very selective way of dealing with what he deems to be be antisemitism, while conveniently overlooking racism towards black members and politicians within his own party, as long as the racism comes from his loyal 'right of centrists'.

But if it doesn't suit your political position you'll simply act like the issue isn't there, despite being there for all to see. Which is a real shame.

[He's here!]

She didn’t make any points, she was asking the ‘questions’. Are you sure you were listening? :greengrin

Saying that, the questions were roughly along the lines of

“So, is Keir Starmer horrible or do you think he is really, really nasty?”

Posed to a man who was suspended from the Labour Party for telling people to vote Class War rather than Labour.

That’s what made it laughable. Although my funny bone was twitching as soon as I saw the link screenshot said “Starmer Has NO Integrity” :faf:

As I say, keep them coming :agree:

It had the feel of a Socialist version of GB News.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Maurice Mcleod, Lauren Townsend, Leigh Drennan and Jeremy Corbyn, all blocked from standing for Labour by the parliamentary party machine.

Reason's include Lauren Townsend liking a tweet from Nicola Sturgeon about testing negative for Covid and Maurice Mcleod liking a tweet from Caroline Lucas about the impact of Brexit on the NHS. (No, really...) Candidates who just happen to be on the left.

Meanwhile in the constituency of Barking, Labour have Darren Rodwell standing as a candidate, despite being caught on film making racist jokes at a Black Lives Matter event. In the constituency of Glasgow, Frank McAveety has been allowed to stand, despite being caught making sexual remarks about a school aged girl. In the constituency of Hartlepool you have Paul Williams who describes Saudi Arabia as a "modern, progressive country" (tell that to all of the slave workers and victims of public executions). In Rother Valley, there's Dominic Beck standing as a candidate. A councillor who resigned following the Casey Report into the councils failure in tackling countless acts of sexual abuse towards young girls in Rotherham.

Of course, these candidates just so happen to be on the right of the party and presumably as long as they don't like sensible tweets from politicians of left leaning parties, it's perfectly ok for them to be racist, sexually excited around school girls or to believe that a city that continues to be constructed on the backs of slavery is somehow modern and progressive.

It's blatantly obvious to anybody who is paying attention to what is going on here that Labour has taken a very dark turn under Keir Starmer. Sure, they'll win the next election by a landslide. But who is actually winning the election? If it's Labour in name only, then there's absolutely nothing to get excited about.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64689391

Starmer to reiterate 'no deal with SNP under any circumstances'.

[James310]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64689391

Starmer to reiterate 'no deal with SNP under any circumstances'.

I think he is pretty safe saying that now, especially after the recent polls.

My Seat Model:

LAB: 30 (+29)
SNP: 21 (-27)
CON: 3 (-3)
LDM: 5 (+1)

Changes w/ GE2019.

[hibsbollah]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64689391

Starmer to reiterate 'no deal with SNP under any circumstances'.

That’s not surprising. The man has wrapped himself in more Union jacks in the last year than Ian Murray’s Last Night of the Proms suit and William Boyne c/o The London Bar, put together.

[archie]

That’s not surprising. The man has wrapped himself in more Union jacks in the last year than Ian Murray’s Last Night of the Proms suit and William Boyne c/o The London Bar, put together.

Have you seen an All Under One Banner March? The reality is that there is nothing in it for the Labour Party in indicating that they would do a deal with the SNP.

[hibsbollah]

Have you seen an All Under One Banner March? The reality is that there is nothing in it for the Labour Party in indicating that they would do a deal with the SNP.

We know that the Mandelstarmer campaign is motivated by not giving the Tory press ammunition, and since one of the Tory attack lines is ‘Labour will Sell out the UK to Sturgeon’, it fits the ‘pads up and defend like Boycott facing a West Indian fast bowler’ playbook and is not in the least surprising or worth anyone gnashing their teeth about. The flag thing is just me making a joke at my local MPs expense.

[archie]

We know that the Mandelstarmer campaign is motivated by not giving the Tory press ammunition, and since one of the Tory attack lines is ‘Labour will Sell out the UK to Sturgeon’, it fits the ‘pads up and defend like Boycott facing a West Indian fast bowler’ playbook and is not in the least surprising or worth anyone gnashing their teeth about. The flag thing is just me making a joke at my local MPs expense.
I'm sure the concern about Tory attacks is one thing. But the bigger picture is surely how Labour play in Scotland in a general election. If people are torn between voting Labour or SNP, then why make it 'safer' to vote SNP with the prospect of a pact? Also, a lot of Labour voters in Scotland don't want it. Certainly more than those who it is purported want independence. Because of the FPTP system, Labour is very underrepresented in numbers of MPs. In many seats small swings could make a huge difference. And finally, it's possible that the SNP would move to the right after the leadership election. It looks like Ash Regan would be the real left candidate- with the others it's much less clear. So on what basis would Labour do a deal? And would the SNP really vote with the Tories?

[One Day Soon]

Maurice Mcleod, Lauren Townsend, Leigh Drennan and Jeremy Corbyn, all blocked from standing for Labour by the parliamentary party machine.

Reason's include Lauren Townsend liking a tweet from Nicola Sturgeon about testing negative for Covid and Maurice Mcleod liking a tweet from Caroline Lucas about the impact of Brexit on the NHS. (No, really...) Candidates who just happen to be on the left.

Meanwhile in the constituency of Barking, Labour have Darren Rodwell standing as a candidate, despite being caught on film making racist jokes at a Black Lives Matter event. In the constituency of Glasgow, Frank McAveety has been allowed to stand, despite being caught making sexual remarks about a school aged girl. In the constituency of Hartlepool you have Paul Williams who describes Saudi Arabia as a "modern, progressive country" (tell that to all of the slave workers and victims of public executions). In Rother Valley, there's Dominic Beck standing as a candidate. A councillor who resigned following the Casey Report into the councils failure in tackling countless acts of sexual abuse towards young girls in Rotherham.

Of course, these candidates just so happen to be on the right of the party and presumably as long as they don't like sensible tweets from politicians of left leaning parties, it's perfectly ok for them to be racist, sexually excited around school girls or to believe that a city that continues to be constructed on the backs of slavery is somehow modern and progressive.

It's blatantly obvious to anybody who is paying attention to what is going on here that Labour has taken a very dark turn under Keir Starmer. Sure, they'll win the next election by a landslide. But who is actually winning the election? If it's Labour in name only, then there's absolutely nothing to get excited about.


What is your preferred party?

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64689391

Starmer to reiterate 'no deal with SNP under any circumstances'.

Nothing new in that though and it's possibly a good positioning move by Starmer. He will remember Alex Salmond at his most bellicose, headbutting the air and saying that he would write Ed Milliband the notes on how to do a deal with the SNP.

[grunt]

Only a Labour government can deliver the change that Scotland needs.

Apparently English Labour knows what Scotland needs. Ian Murray's going to be busy.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1627343180160184320?s=20

[Glory Lurker]

Apparently English Labour knows what Scotland needs. Ian Murray's going to be busy.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1627343180160184320?s=20

I don't pay him any attention unless it's about Scotland and he's not had much to say about us. But when he does it is just words. His preface to Brown's latest intervention was completely policy free. It was just buzzwords. He's done it again. We've listened (no that again!) to why Scotland's gone cold on Labour and learned (sigh). That can only mean they're going to going to give more credence to independence, I take it? That's why they lost the votes.

[James310]

Apparently English Labour knows what Scotland needs. Ian Murray's going to be busy.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1627343180160184320?s=20

You seem worried. Ian looks like he will have lots of help.

Scottish Westminster Voting Intention:

SNP: 38.2%
LAB: 35.4%
CON: 15.5%
LDM: 5.6%
GRN: 2.7%

My Seat Model:

LAB: 30 (+29)
SNP: 21 (-27)
CON: 3 (-3)
LDM: 5 (+1)

[Ozyhibby]

I don't pay him any attention unless it's about Scotland and he's not had much to say about us. But when he does it is just words. His preface to Brown's latest intervention was completely policy free. It was just buzzwords. He's done it again. We've listened (no that again!) to why Scotland's gone cold on Labour and learned (sigh). That can only mean they're going to going to give more credence to independence, I take it? That's why they lost the votes.

Browns constitution paper was an embarrassment for Scottish Labour. Basically an argument for the status quo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Scottish Westminster Voting Intention
And yet somewhat different polling from Survation. Who knows how it will turn out? Long time until another WM election.

[Ozyhibby]

And yet somewhat different polling from Survation. Who knows how it will turn out? Long time until another WM election.

Might not be long till a Scottish election though.[emoji1696]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

And yet somewhat different polling from Survation. Who knows how it will turn out? Long time until another WM election.A long time given the acceleration of this govts ****show.


Voter ID becomes a reality in the next election.
I wonder how many of those polled will actually vote.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Starmer is going to "fix" Brexit apparently. I wonder if his fix will only cost us £50bn per year rather than the £100bn or whatever its costing us now?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What is your preferred party?

Neither of them.

[One Day Soon]

Neither of them.


More than two parties are available...

[TrumpIsAPeado]

More than two parties are available...

Only two parties that are ultimately relevant as far as UK politics goes and they both feel like one party.

[archie]

Only two parties that are ultimately relevant as far as UK politics goes and they both feel like one party.

What do you mean?

[Stairway 2 7]

Only two parties that are ultimately relevant as far as UK politics goes and they both feel like one party.

Only people who have an agenda or don't follow policies say that. They are centre/centre right vs strong right wing

Look at public sector wages on a graph from labour to tories taking over. It goes from constant growth to dropping, the same goes for benefits. I don't like Starmer but trying to bring in national power company, nationalising rail, raising top tax by 5%, abolishing universal credit sanctions, reverse corporation tax rise ect

They are two right wing for me but they really aren't the same

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Only people who have an agenda or don't follow policies say that. They are centre/centre right vs strong right wing

Look at public sector wages on a graph from labour to tories taking over. It goes from constant growth to dropping, the same goes for benefits. I don't like Starmer but trying to bring in national power company, nationalising rail, raising top tax by 5%, abolishing universal credit sanctions, reverse corporation tax rise ect

They are two right wing for me but they really aren't the same

It's not that I just don't like Keir Starmer, I genuinely don't trust him at all and have seen nothing from his antics as Labour leader so far to convince me otherwise.

[Stairway 2 7]

It's not that I just don't like Keir Starmer, I genuinely don't trust him at all and have seen nothing from his antics as Labour leader so far to convince me otherwise.

Oh no I agree, they are bad but they are not them

[Stairway 2 7]

Labour wants to buy Scotland's 27,000 homes that are long term empty and sell them for £1. Owners have to be on low income, a first time buyer and live there for 5 years


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-labour-holyrood-edinburgh-nhs-amazon-b2284584.html

[Ozyhibby]

Labour wants to buy Scotland's 27,000 homes that are long term empty and sell them for £1. Owners have to be on low income, a first time buyer and live there for 5 years


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-labour-holyrood-edinburgh-nhs-amazon-b2284584.html

Sounds like a good idea.[emoji106] Also proposing a bit of centralising by merging all the health boards into just three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Labour wants to buy Scotland's 27,000 homes that are long term empty and sell them for £1. Owners have to be on low income, a first time buyer and live there for 5 years


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-labour-holyrood-edinburgh-nhs-amazon-b2284584.html

Michelle Mone and dozens of Tory MPs and donors are currently putting all their assets in their partner's or children's names and popping round to the Job Centre to sign on.

[CropleyWasGod]

Labour wants to buy Scotland's 27,000 homes that are long term empty and sell them for £1. Owners have to be on low income, a first time buyer and live there for 5 years


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-labour-holyrood-edinburgh-nhs-amazon-b2284584.html

The SNP can trump that. They can go to 600,000.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sounds like a good idea.[emoji106] Also proposing a bit of centralising by merging all the health boards into just three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regionalising, not centralising.

At the moment we have separate NHS Boards for Orkney, the Shetlands and the Western Isles. There's a fair amount of duplication there in back-office functions, each has its own chief executive and senior management teams etc etc.

A Board that encompasses those three areas and what is currently NHS Highland and NHS Grampian, maybe with a bit of tweaking geographically as you come down either coastline would be straightforward enough. Some public sector agencies already employ the North-West-East model.

The critical part is ensuring localism and genuine devolution of decision-making to communities at sub-local authority level.

[MKHIBEE]

Only people who have an agenda or don't follow policies say that. They are centre/centre right vs strong right wing

Look at public sector wages on a graph from labour to tories taking over. It goes from constant growth to dropping, the same goes for benefits. I don't like Starmer but trying to bring in national power company, nationalising rail, raising top tax by 5%, abolishing universal credit sanctions, reverse corporation tax rise ect

They are two right wing for me but they really aren't the same
It’s like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The end result will be the same. What the country needs is change, not cosmetic rearranging which is all Starmer has indicated, and I have little confidence he will deliver that. The man is a fraud in my opinion and shouldn’t be anywhere near Downing Street.

[Pretty Boy]

Labour wants to buy Scotland's 27,000 homes that are long term empty and sell them for £1. Owners have to be on low income, a first time buyer and live there for 5 years


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-labour-holyrood-edinburgh-nhs-amazon-b2284584.html

That's fairly radical and exactly what I want to hear from a Labour Party. It's the kind of policy that could well win my vote.