The future of the Labour Party

[marinello59]

Religious bigotry in the labour party, never. 26508

The Free Church have claimed that Forbes has been the victim of religious bigotry from within the SNP. I’m not so sure she has but they obviously believe that to be the case.

[He's here!]

Some of the examples are laid out within the article itself. The only critical examination can come from the Labour Party itself into it's own party conduct, which they have refused to do.

It's a clear case of there being no evidence, as long as they aren't looking for it.

You mean like the whitewash internal investigation Baroness Chakrabarti launched into anti-semitism in the Labour Party?

[degenerated]

The Free Church have claimed that Forbes has been the victim of religious bigotry from within the SNP. I’m not so sure she has but they obviously believe that to be the case.Quite possibly, but shouldn't that be for one of the many anti SNP threads rather than a labour one. Just makes it look like whataboutery on here :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

You don't find it in the least bit concerning that one of the largest Muslim based charities in the UK has uncovered candidate selection bias based on religious grounds within the Labour Party?

Are you talking about MEND or the LMN?

Neither seem to be listed on the CharityCommission's register of charities, nor the Muslim Charity Forum, which is the umbrella body for UK Muslim charities?

And for MEND, didn't their CEO describe Israel as being the same as Nazi Germany?

[Mibbes Aye]

Heartening to see that John McDonnell has finally performed a complete and utter u-turn and is now backing Ukraine against Putin.

He may be part of a fringe sect within the party but he was the most senior Labour MP within it. Hopefully the remainder of the cult start removing the blinkers as well.

[grunt]

Well.


Asked whether the SNP's claim that Keir Starmer believes in Brexit more than the PM is true, the Labour leader's spokesman tells me that under Labour there will be "no return to the Single Market, no return to the Customs Union no return to freedom of movement."

[Hibbyradge]

Well.

What did you expect him to say given that he's trying to get Brexiteers to vote Labour?

How do you think the Tory press would frame it if he offered even the slightest possibility to a return to any part of the EU?

[grunt]

What did you expect him to say ...I expect him to be honest. Not too much to ask of a politician, is it?

[Hibbyradge]

I expect him to be honest. Not too much to ask of a politician, is it?

Yes. Of course it is.

[Glory Lurker]

There seems to be some belief that Starmer will volte face on his pro-Brexit utterances once he's PM, despite how often he repeats them. Following that logic you could just say that Sunak will give Scotland independence even though he says he's against it. Or any other politician do anything else they've shown no interest in. It's not good enough that Starmer's vociferous anti-EU opinions aren't challenged by Labour folk who deplore Brexit.

[Hibbyradge]

There seems to be some belief that Starmer will volte face on his pro-Brexit utterances once he's PM, despite how often he repeats them. Following that logic you could just say that Sunak will give Scotland independence even though he says he's against it. Or any other politician do anything else they've shown no interest in. It's not good enough that Starmer's vociferous anti-EU opinions aren't challenged by Labour folk who deplore Brexit.

I'd rather Labour in power than the Tories whether we're in the EU or not.

The time to make the arguments for returning to the EU is when Labour is in power and those arguments will be made, and loudly.

[Glory Lurker]

I'd rather Labour in power than the Tories whether we're in the EU or not.

The time to make the arguments for returning to the EU is when Labour is in power and those arguments will be made, and loudly.

I agree with your first sentence.

Everything Starmer does undermines your second. It's wishful thinking based on nothing.

[Hibbyradge]

I agree with your first sentence.

Everything Starmer does undermines your second. It's wishful thinking based on nothing.

The party conference and the PLP will make sure those arguments are made.

[Curried]

I think Starmer would be well-advised to cut out the comedy routine:

https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/1630902466962227202?s=20

[Mibbes Aye]

I agree with your first sentence.

Everything Starmer does undermines your second. It's wishful thinking based on nothing.

You don't win over a majority of the electorate by telling them they were wrong and you want to go against their wishes. That's just stupid. Or, in the case of some nationalists, it's their modus operandi :greengrin

Keir Starmer gets called many things on here and elsewhere, it's noticeable how the SNP have ramped up the attacks on him after he said he wasn't interested in a coalition and the polls started suggesting a big majority. One thing that can be said is that, unlike his predecessor he does have a real intellect on him.

Since Brexit and especially recently, polls have been increasingly showing buyers' remorse on the part of those who voted Leave. That was always going to happen once the realities sank in for people and for businesses. Holidays in Europe became more expensive and more hassle, trading with Europe became more expensive and more hassle. That will only increase.

Starmer is right to let the groundswell of public opinion build up into a clear and convincing majority who regret leaving the EU. And then ride that wave towards a more joined-up approach with Europe, without expending precious political capital. Bring the 'foot in both camp' voters back in, isolate the extremists.

And also take the opportunity for reform. I was 100% Remain but I know that the EU is not a perfect union and as one of the major players in the continent we can influence change to take it to a better place.

[Hibrandenburg]

We've got threads on both the SNP and Tories being lying *******s on here but for Labour to lie it's apparently a virtue. Weird.

[neil7908]

The party conference and the PLP will make sure those arguments are made.

And they will be ignored. He has purged any dissent and any Minister speaking out on Brexit will be binned. There may be support for it but not at a level in the party he'll care about. And there will always be another election to win. This fantasy that Starmer will suddenly turn on what he's said publicly on Brexit and other policies is just that - a fantasy.

I understand why he's doing what he's doing, but I'm a bit tired of serial liars in Government telling me they can make Brexit work. Whether they are wearing a blue or red rose it doesn't really matter at this point, and with Sunak in power, it's genuinely the case that Labour and the Tories policy on Brexit is identical.

After been told he'll bring back integrity to politics, I'm afraid I can't back someone who is indulging in Boris levels of boosterism on an issue that is so dear to me.

I would never vote Tory but Sunak is showing himself to be anything but a swivel eyed loon now he has the top job, and the distance between the two leaders on many polices appears to be narrowing every week.

[neil7908]

You don't win over a majority of the electorate by telling them they were wrong and you want to go against their wishes. That's just stupid. Or, in the case of some nationalists, it's their modus operandi :greengrin

Keir Starmer gets called many things on here and elsewhere, it's noticeable how the SNP have ramped up the attacks on him after he said he wasn't interested in a coalition and the polls started suggesting a big majority. One thing that can be said is that, unlike his predecessor he does have a real intellect on him.

Since Brexit and especially recently, polls have been increasingly showing buyers' remorse on the part of those who voted Leave. That was always going to happen once the realities sank in for people and for businesses. Holidays in Europe became more expensive and more hassle, trading with Europe became more expensive and more hassle. That will only increase.

Starmer is right to let the groundswell of public opinion build up into a clear and convincing majority who regret leaving the EU. And then ride that wave towards a more joined-up approach with Europe, without expending precious political capital. Bring the 'foot in both camp' voters back in, isolate the extremists.

And also take the opportunity for reform. I was 100% Remain but I know that the EU is not a perfect union and as one of the major players in the continent we can influence change to take it to a better place.

Have I misunderstood your last paragraph. Are you genuinely saying we'll be able to influence the EU to 'improve'... outside of the EU? It's the complete opposite. We have completely thrown away any influence we've had. The people and politicians of Europe laugh at us now. We aren't a serious country and no one is listening to anything we have to say at this point.

[hibsbollah]

We've got threads on both the SNP and Tories being lying *******s on here but for Labour to lie it's apparently a virtue. Weird.

It depends how much we’re interested in genuine democracy and accountability or whether it’s the usual tribal bollocks that we are exposed to from the usual suspects. For many, the end simply justifies the means. A desire for good governance just disappears when the rosette is the right colour.

[grunt]

You don't win over a majority of the electorate by telling them they were wrong and you want to go against their wishes. That's just stupid. Or, in the case of some nationalists, it's their modus operandi :greengrin

Keir Starmer gets called many things on here and elsewhere, it's noticeable how the SNP have ramped up the attacks on him after he said he wasn't interested in a coalition and the polls started suggesting a big majority. One thing that can be said is that, unlike his predecessor he does have a real intellect on him.

Since Brexit and especially recently, polls have been increasingly showing buyers' remorse on the part of those who voted Leave. That was always going to happen once the realities sank in for people and for businesses. Holidays in Europe became more expensive and more hassle, trading with Europe became more expensive and more hassle. That will only increase.

Starmer is right to let the groundswell of public opinion build up into a clear and convincing majority who regret leaving the EU. And then ride that wave towards a more joined-up approach with Europe, without expending precious political capital. Bring the 'foot in both camp' voters back in, isolate the extremists.

And also take the opportunity for reform. I was 100% Remain but I know that the EU is not a perfect union and as one of the major players in the continent we can influence change to take it to a better place.
Perfect post! I disagree with every word.

[Stairway 2 7]

We've got threads on both the SNP and Tories being lying *******s on here but for Labour to lie it's apparently a virtue. Weird.

My useless musings are

I think 70% of people on here will defend SNP no matter what ,10% are critical but approve 20% hate them no matter what. The tories it's 90% hate and the 10% that approve of them don't even try to defend them. Labour 70% attack all they do, 20% say they dislike this Labour version but its the only real alternative and 10% genuinely like starmers policies

[Hibbyradge]

We've got threads on both the SNP and Tories being lying *******s on here but for Labour to lie it's apparently a virtue. Weird.

That's because they're the parties in power.

Every party says what it thinks will attract voters. Whether they follow through on those promises is another matter altogether.

Circumstances and financial pressures can change even if the original manifesto was written earnestly.

We really should have a Lib Dems are lying ba****d's thread too. Remember tuition fees?

I've decided that Starmer is currently telling the truth.

I just think he'll change his mind.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I've decided that Starmer is currently telling the truth.

I just think he'll change his mind.

Change his mind about telling the truth?

[WhileTheChief..]

We really should have a Lib Dems are lying ba****d's thread too. Remember tuition fees?

... 'them?'!

[Hibbyradge]

Change his mind about telling the truth?

:hilarious

Change his mind about the EU, Single market, customs union etc etc.

[grunt]

:hilarious

Change his mind about the EU, Single market, customs union etc etc.And do you think that would fair to the people who voted for him and his policies?

[Pretty Boy]

And do you think that would fair to the people who voted for him and his policies?

I voted for the SNP because of their stance on land reform and council tax reform. The latter hasn't happened at all and the former is about 50% complete and almost totally stalled 16 years down the line.

I didn't feel it was 'unfair' that they didn't follow through on those pledges, albeit the failure to deliver them is part of the reason I stopped voting for them. Circumstances and priorities change and policy evolves with that. I don't think Salmond and Sturgeon lied in 2007 when they made pledges they have't delivered and have quietly dropped from, or significantly changed in, future manifestos, I think they changed their minds. Policy changed in a way I didn't like so I shifted my vote (or rather choose not to vote these days unless the SSP are standing a candidate in my constituency). That's broadly how democracy works and Starmer will be answerable to all of us if he shifts significantly in a way people don't like.

[grunt]

I voted for the SNP because of their stance on land reform and council tax reform. The latter hasn't happened at all and the former is about 50% complete and almost totally stalled 16 years down the line.

I didn't feel it was 'unfair' that they didn't follow through on those pledges, albeit the failure to deliver them is part of the reason I stopped voting for them. Circumstances and priorities change and policy evolves with that. I don't think Salmond and Sturgeon lied in 2007 when they made pledges they have't delivered and have quietly dropped from, or significantly changed in, future manifestos, I think they changed their minds. Policy changed in a way I didn't like so I shifted my vote (or rather choose not to vote these days unless the SSP are standing a candidate in my constituency). That's broadly how democracy works and Starmer will be answerable to all of us if he shifts significantly in a way people don't like.
Good post. But I submit there's a difference between having a manifesto that contains policies you want to implement, but you discover you are later unable to implement, and having a policy where you plan to later implement the polar opposite. Specially a policy as critical and high profile as rejoining the EU.

[Stairway 2 7]

Good post. But I submit there's a difference between having a manifesto that contains policies you want to implement, but you discover you are later unable to implement, and having a policy where you plan to later implement the polar opposite. Specially a policy as critical and high profile as rejoining the EU.

I don't think we'll rejoin the EU, just the barriers will go down one by one until we're in an agreement like Norway

[Ozyhibby]

I don't think we'll rejoin the EU, just the barriers will go down one by one until we're in an agreement like Norway

Almost certainly where we will end up. Following the rules but not making the rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Good post. But I submit there's a difference between having a manifesto that contains policies you want to implement, but you discover you are later unable to implement, and having a policy where you plan to later implement the polar opposite. Specially a policy as critical and high profile as rejoining the EU.

Yeah, imagine if you voted a certain way because you were promised that was the only way to guarantee continued EU membership and exactly the opposite happens. That would be outrageous.

[One Day Soon]

Yeah, imagine if you voted a certain way because you were promised that was the only way to guarantee continued EU membership and exactly the opposite happens. That would be outrageous.

That sounds quite a lot like holding a once in a lifetime binding referendum on your constitutional future and then refusing to accept the result from day one afterwards and demanding another go. That would be outrageous.

[Hibrandenburg]

That sounds quite a lot like holding a once in a lifetime binding referendum on your constitutional future and then refusing to accept the result from day one afterwards and demanding another go. That would be outrageous.

That old myth sounds like nothing of the sort, if Scotland had refused the result of the referendum then there would probably still be British soldiers on the streets.

To use an old German football quote "after the vote is before the vote.

[grunt]

That sounds quite a lot like holding a once in a lifetime binding referendum on your constitutional future and then refusing to accept the result from day one afterwards and demanding another go. That would be outrageous.:greengrin

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That sounds quite a lot like holding a once in a lifetime binding referendum on your constitutional future and then refusing to accept the result from day one afterwards and demanding another go. That would be outrageous.

If the result had been refused, we wouldn't still (unfortunately in my opinion) still be getting dragged down with the rest of the UK. If by "refused", you actually mean having the right to ask the question again. Well the electorate here in Scotland voted to have the question asked again. It won't be asked again though, because of some staunch unionist with a hammer put into a position of authority not by the electorate.

[One Day Soon]

If the result had been refused, we wouldn't still (unfortunately in my opinion) still be getting dragged down with the rest of the UK. If by "refused", you actually mean having the right to ask the question again. Well the electorate here in Scotland voted to have the question asked again. It won't be asked again though, because of some staunch unionist with a hammer put into a position of authority not by the electorate.


Is that right? Amazing that 'some staunch unionist' didn't stop the first Referendum from happening in 2014 eh? It's almost like there was a Scotland wide franchise, we voted and decided and since then people who never accepted the result have been looking for any means possible to rerun it until the Scottish people get the answer right.

[Kato]

Is that right? Amazing that 'some staunch unionist' didn't stop the first Referendum from happening in 2014 eh? It's almost like there was a Scotland wide franchise, we voted and decided and since then people who never accepted the result have been looking for any means possible to rerun it until the Scottish people get the answer right.

It's not a "rerun" if the terms of being part of this union have changed.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Is that right? Amazing that 'some staunch unionist' didn't stop the first Referendum from happening in 2014 eh? It's almost like there was a Scotland wide franchise, we voted and decided and since then people who never accepted the result have been looking for any means possible to rerun it until the Scottish people get the answer right.

Perhaps we should never have a "re-run" of elections then either? The SNP have been in power since 2007, winning every election in Scotland since. Clearly they're the settled will of the Scottish people. That should be it for a generation.

[archie]

Perhaps we should never have a "re-run" of elections then either? The SNP have been in power since 2007, winning every election in Scotland since. Clearly they're the settled will of the Scottish people. That should be it for a generation.

You do know elections and referenda are different?

[Ozyhibby]

You do know elections and referenda are different?

True. We are allowed one but not the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

True. We are allowed one but not the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. We've had three in the last 12 years.

[grunt]

Not true. We've had three in the last 12 years.And our views were roundly ignored in the last one. Your point?

[archie]

And our views were roundly ignored in the last one. Your point?

No they weren't - the majority got their way. Bummer, but that's how it works.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

No they weren't - the majority got their way. Bummer, but that's how it works.

Yet, the so called majority that got their way, can't agree on what that "way" actually was, or what it was supposed to look like. Which would explain why there's now a very clear majority who would now vote to reverse that decision. But the career politicians have got what they wanted out of it, so Sunak, Starmer and the rest of the gang will never put the question to the electorate again.

[archie]

Yet, the so called majority that got their way, can't agree on what that "way" actually was, or what it was supposed to look like. Which would explain why there's now a very clear majority who would now vote to reverse that decision. But the career politicians have got what they wanted out of it, so Sunak, Starmer and the rest of the gang will never put the question to the electorate again.
You've highlighted the weakness of binary referenda. A simple binary question is going to have a huge spread of opinion behind those voting for each side. I do take issue with the assertion that career politicians got what they wanted out of it. The remain campaign was the most establishment campaign I've ever seen. No significant political party was in favour of leave. Maybe the fact it was so establishment is why remain lost.

[grunt]

No they weren't - the majority got their way. Bummer, but that's how it works.This is why we should be independent.

[Kato]

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1631311295822671875?t=2qjlNBUrk_i1K7-5Nm-xBQ&s=19

Tories raging, in their own unemotional, people-machine, psychopathic way.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/starmer-urged-to-act-after-councillor-greg-marshall-barred-from-contesting-red-wall-broxtowe-seat

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/starmer-urged-to-act-after-councillor-greg-marshall-barred-from-contesting-red-wall-broxtowe-seat

Another popular Labour candidate blocked by the parliamentary Labour Party for having Labour views. Keir Hardie would have been blocked under Starmers leadership.

[archie]

This is why we should be independent.

Why?

[archie]

Another popular Labour candidate blocked by the parliamentary Labour Party for having Labour views. Keir Hardie would have been blocked under Starmers leadership.

You really are terrified of a Labour victory.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You really are terrified of a Labour victory.

Why would I be terrified of a Labour victory when they'll be no Labour victory? Labour giving up being Labour in order to get into government isn't a Labour victory. The tories have won regardless of which party name gets in.

[Kato]

Why would I be terrified of a Labour victory when they'll be no Labour victory? Labour giving up being Labour in order to get into government isn't a Labour victory. The tories have won regardless of which party name gets in.Agreed. When Blair and Brown promised to continue Tory fiscal policy, which won over Rupert Murdoch enough to support Blair it was obvious New Labour weren't Labour.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Agreed. When Blair and Brown promised to continue Tory fiscal policy, which won over Rupert Murdoch enough to support Blair it was obvious New Labour weren't Labour.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14467674.former-mep-quits-snp-sturgeons-endorsement-sun/

https://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/scottish-sun-supports-scottish-nationalists-its-no-shock/

[Kato]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14467674.former-mep-quits-snp-sturgeons-endorsement-sun/

https://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/scottish-sun-supports-scottish-nationalists-its-no-shock/....and?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

Another popular Labour candidate blocked by the parliamentary Labour Party for having Labour views. Keir Hardie would have been blocked under Starmers leadership.


How do you know why he was blocked? What are 'Labour views'? How often do you visit Keir Hardie with your time machine?

[archie]

....and?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

The SNP won over Rupert Murdoch. Is that OK?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14467674.former-mep-quits-snp-sturgeons-endorsement-sun/

Good job staying on topic.

Nicola Sturgeon may have endorsed The Sun at a time when The Sun was endorsing support for the SNP, but Keir Starmer has actively written for The Sun.

[One Day Soon]

Why would I be terrified of a Labour victory when they'll be no Labour victory? Labour giving up being Labour in order to get into government isn't a Labour victory. The tories have won regardless of which party name gets in.


You are a card.

[One Day Soon]

Good job staying on topic.

Nicola Sturgeon may have endorsed The Sun at a time when The Sun was endorsing support for the SNP, but Keir Starmer has actively written for The Sun.


Your mental gymnastics are quite the performance. BTW, how do you inactively write for the Sun?

[archie]

Good job staying on topic.

Nicola Sturgeon may have endorsed The Sun at a time when The Sun was endorsing support for the SNP, but Keir Starmer has actively written for The Sun.

Hand in hand https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9577383/nicola-sturgeon-scottish-sun-phone-prof-yes-campaign/

[Stairway 2 7]

Good job staying on topic.

Nicola Sturgeon may have endorsed The Sun at a time when The Sun was endorsing support for the SNP, but Keir Starmer has actively written for The Sun.

The correct answer is Starmer and Sturgeons stances on the sun are vile

[Kato]

The SNP won over Rupert Murdoch. Is that OK?Looked like the other way around to me.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

The correct answer is Starmer and Sturgeons stances on the sun are vileCorrect.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Hand in hand https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/9577383/nicola-sturgeon-scottish-sun-phone-prof-yes-campaign/

I'm not seeing anything here about Nicola Sturgeon writing articles for The Sun.

[archie]

Looked like the other way around to me.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

So the SNP allowed itself to be won over by Rupert Murdoch? That's worse.

[archie]

I'm not seeing anything here about Nicola Sturgeon writing articles for The Sun.

She did. Just as any politician with ambitions to win does.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The correct answer is Starmer and Sturgeons stances on the sun are vile

I agree. I just view one as being measurably more vile than the other. I wonder how much Keir Starmer was paid?

[archie]

I'm not seeing anything here about Nicola Sturgeon writing articles for The Sun.

She posed for their front cover holding the paper!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

She did. Just as any politician with ambitions to win does.

No she didn't.

[archie]

I agree. I just view one as being measurably more vile than the other. I wonder how much Keir Starmer was paid?

Who and why?

[archie]

No she didn't.

She has.

[Kato]

So the SNP allowed itself to be won over by Rupert Murdoch? That's worse.I don't see what point you are making here.

Blair's New Labour wasn't really the Labour Party and he wooed Murdoch for support from The Sun and in doing so promised to keep to the Tory Partys fiscal policy.

What have the SNP got to do with this?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

She posed for their front cover holding the paper!

This is true, but she hasn't written articles for The Sun.

I believe the image you're referring to is the following image, where she holds up the paper with a front cover that is clearly backing the SNP. I didn't agree with her doing it, but at the same time I understand from a purely political point of view why she did it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChU7WlaWIAAyzwV.jpg

[archie]

I don't see what point you are making here.

Blair's New Labour wasn't really the Labour Party and he wooed Murdoch for support from The Sun and in doing so promised to keep to the Tory Partys fiscal policy.

What have the SNP got to do with this?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Because they wooed the Sun too!

[archie]

This is true, but she hasn't written articles for The Sun.

I believe the image you're referring to is the following image, where she holds up the paper with a front cover that is clearly backing the SNP. I didn't agree with her doing it, but at the same time I understand from a purely political point of view why she did it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChU7WlaWIAAyzwV.jpg
I'll try and find one, but given some SNP members resigned over the Sun engagement they clearly weren't as relaxed about it as you are.Yet if Keir Starmer does it...

[Kato]

Because they wooed the Sun too!Did they? Show proof. Blairs meetings with Murdoch were publicised at the time and were commonly known.

And also. I'm failing to understand what it has to do with the discussion.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Did they? Show proof. Blairs meetings with Murdoch were publicised at the time and were commonly known.

And also. I'm failing to understand what it has to do with the discussion.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

https://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-salmonds-tv-offer-tycoon-rupert-murdoch-1665833

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I'll try and find one, but given some SNP members resigned over the Sun engagement they clearly weren't as relaxed about it as you are.Yet if Keir Starmer does it...

Who says I was relaxed about it? I don't have to like what she did in order to understand why she did it. Keir Starmer wrote an opinion piece in The Sun and seeing as he really had nothing to gain politically from doing so, it's difficult to see how it would have been for anything other than money.

[hibsbollah]

Because they wooed the Sun too!

I don’t pretend to know much about the current ideological makeup of the SNPs support, but I think a Labour leaders interaction with that particular newspaper sets traditional Labour members off more than other party members because of their prominent role in dividing the Labour movement more widely in the late twentieth century, breaking strikes at Wapping being one example, as well as their role in embedding racism and rampant creepy misogyny and blaming and dividing the left.

Hillsborough and Thatcherism were easy for all of us to hate the Sun for, but what they really went after in terms of negative editorial policy was the Unions and the Left. The Sun has a triggering, visceral effect on me, I’m not bothered about admitting it. ‘Red’ Ed Miliband was pictured holding it too, just weeks before the bacon sandwich thing. These things matter.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I don’t pretend to know much about the current ideological makeup of the SNPs support, but I think a Labour leaders interaction with that particular newspaper sets traditional Labour members off more than other party members because of their prominent role in dividing the Labour movement more widely in the late twentieth century, breaking strikes at Wapping being one example, as well as their role in embedding racism and rampant creepy misogyny and blaming and dividing the left.

Hillsborough and Thatcherism were easy for all of us to hate the Sun for, but what they really went after in terms of negative editorial policy was the Unions and the Left. The Sun has a triggering, visceral effect on me, I’m not bothered about admitting it. ‘Red’ Ed Miliband was pictured holding it too, just weeks before the bacon sandwich thing. These things matter.

You're on top form as usual. :aok:

[archie]

Who says I was relaxed about it? I don't have to like what she did in order to understand why she did it. Keir Starmer wrote an opinion piece in The Sun and seeing as he really had nothing to gain politically from doing so, it's difficult to see how it would have been for anything other than money.

OK - so an opinion piece I the largest circulation paper in the UK and you think he did it for the money! Here's a left perspective on SNP and Murdoch. https://leftfootforward.org/2015/04/the-sun-stoops-to-new-lows-with-its-scottish-front-page/

[archie]

I don’t pretend to know much about the current ideological makeup of the SNPs support, but I think a Labour leaders interaction with that particular newspaper sets traditional Labour members off more than other party members because of their prominent role in dividing the Labour movement more widely in the late twentieth century, breaking strikes at Wapping being one example, as well as their role in embedding racism and rampant creepy misogyny and blaming and dividing the left.

Hillsborough and Thatcherism were easy for all of us to hate the Sun for, but what they really went after in terms of negative editorial policy was the Unions and the Left. The Sun has a triggering, visceral effect on me, I’m not bothered about admitting it. ‘Red’ Ed Miliband was pictured holding it too, just weeks before the bacon sandwich thing. These things matter.

I think in some ways you are right. As we see here SNP supporters don't seem to care about the SNP's wooing of Murdoch.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I think in some ways you are right. As we see here SNP supporters don't seem to care about the SNP's wooing of Murdoch.

Despite telling you repeatedly that I didn't like what she did? I've never declared support for any political party on here either. But you crack on.

[archie]

Despite telling you repeatedly that I didn't like what she did? I've never declared support for any political party on here either. But you crack on.

But you have a hatred of Labour, something that links you, the SNP and Rupert Murdoch!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But you have a hatred of Labour, something that links you, the SNP and Rupert Murdoch!

I can't have a hatred for something that no longer exists.

[archie]

I can't have a hatred for something that no longer exists.

What about Mussolini? Or conscription? Spangles?

[Mibbes Aye]

Another popular Labour candidate blocked by the parliamentary Labour Party for having Labour views. Keir Hardie would have been blocked under Starmers leadership.

You need to brush up on your knowledge of Labour governance. Any blocking was by the NEC. More than half of which comes from the Constituency Labour Parties and the trade unions. Starmer has a seat but there but he is outnumbered by the amount of Labour councillors.

[Mibbes Aye]

Agreed. When Blair and Brown promised to continue Tory fiscal policy, which won over Rupert Murdoch enough to support Blair it was obvious New Labour weren't Labour.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yeah, that Sure Start and lifting pensioners and children out of poverty and creating a guaranteed minimum wage, that really taught those lefties didn't it? :rolleyes:

[Pretty Boy]

Yeah, that Sure Start and lifting pensioners and children out of poverty and creating a guaranteed minimum wage, that really taught those lefties didn't it? :rolleyes:

The whole sticking to Tory fiscal policy was just playing politics. Blair knew the attacks on him would be 'Labour can't be trusted with the economy'. Saying he would stick to the Tory plan removed his (external) opponents biggest weapon.

It worked. He won 2 landslides in a row and after the 2001 victory the spending taps were turned on in a way that hadn't been seen for a generation or 2. Plenty can be said about the sustainability of it, how it was financed and the long term cost but in the short term it changed a lot of people's lives for the better.

[Ozyhibby]

The whole sticking to Tory fiscal policy was just playing politics. Blair knew the attacks on him would be 'Labour can't be trusted with the economy'. Saying he would stick to the Tory plan removed his (external) opponents biggest weapon.

It worked. He won 2 landslides in a row and after the 2001 victory the spending taps were turned on in a way that hadn't been seen for a generation or 2. Plenty can be said about the sustainability of it, how it was financed and the long term cost but in the short term it changed a lot of people's lives for the better.

Could have funded an lot more schools and hospitals as well had he not decided to bomb the **** out of Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-salmonds-tv-offer-tycoon-rupert-murdoch-1665833That's 2011, archie. The Sun had been printing pro-SNP front pages for a while before then. So Salmond wasn't wooing Mordoch then, more like some conjugal rights or a dirty weekend - before Salmond got into bed with Putin obvs.

What I will say for the staunch jambo and good friend of the Lithuanian consulate is didn't park the main plank of his party's very existence.

Blair allowed the continuation of Tory Party fiscal policy, ie the upward movement of UK capital to rich. In the UKs case by using the magic banks and Islands conjured up and legitimised over the previous thirty years by a variety of govts but unleashed by Thatcher.

Fair enough they mitagated some effects by merely being interested in managing the country, unlike the current govt, but sadly in some areas that just meant better benefits. Him and Blair deregulated the banks even further and that isn't a labour party.

That's what Blair wooed Murdoch with.

The Tories we have now just accelerated their "managed decline", and given they had sold everything we owned they wooed russian billions and went over a barrel for them. Blair left the door open on that scam.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Pretty Boy]

Could have funded an lot more schools and hospitals as well had he not decided to bomb the **** out of Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed.

And as the hard hitting Independent front page after his resignation made clear that will always overshadow any other legacy he may have had. As it should.

Domestically though he was the best PM in my lifetime and it's not even remotely close (albeit the calibre of the opposition is hardly a who's who of talent).

[Mibbes Aye]

Have I misunderstood your last paragraph. Are you genuinely saying we'll be able to influence the EU to 'improve'... outside of the EU? It's the complete opposite. We have completely thrown away any influence we've had. The people and politicians of Europe laugh at us now. We aren't a serious country and no one is listening to anything we have to say at this point.

I think you have misunderstood, and I will try and word it more clearly. I outlined my analysis of Starmer's strategy. It's my view, no more than that.

That future leads us back to increased co-operation with Europe whatever that may look like.

Crucially, I think his critics here suffer from a blind spot - entrenched thinking and inability to think more broadly, the perenial hallmark of wannabes and entryists on the left, and nationalists to some degree as well.

The history of Europe as an institution is that of a constant evolution, with ever-changing ideals and priorities. The 'original six' of the ECSC was borne arguably out of a need for economic regeneration following two total wars that had ravaged those nations in the forty years previous. The other bonus was that it tied the economic fortunes of those combatants together, thus reducing the risk of any further repeat.

This developed from the late fifties into the EEC and its supporting infrastructure (ECJ etc), but still with clear national priorities dominating - the French vetoing of Britain for example. Come the late seventies and into the eighties we had the creation of the European Parliament and major enlargement. The nineties had Mastricht and the revival of debate about a common foreign and defence policy. The 2000s saw more enlargement, then Lisbon, arguably the first major existential crisis for the EU and the global economic crash, that sowed the seeds for populism and nationalism to bloom again. And so on.

So yes, the EU isn't static, and were we to rejoin it would be different to what we left. And it will continue to change. As things stand there seems a clear economic case for trade between the UK and EU in both directions, for example. Both sides will ultimately want to find a way of working together. Pragmatism will ultimately triumph here.

But looking beyond the here and now, we can consider population shift for example. The UK took a significant hit in the workforce from Brexit, especially in social care. That is contributing to huge pressures just now. But longer-term we will see (are already seeing) mass population displacement due to climate change or due to war and civil strife largely arising from access to resources. That's not something the EU as an institution is geared up for just now. In fact it will all too easily fuel resentment and xenophobia in many parts of Europe as the numbers of displaced and impoverished seek sanctuary.

There's a will to work together, but it won't be the same as before. In some ways the complete cluster**** that Brexit has caused might well convince soft Leavers never to countenance such folly again and confine the flag-wrapped sovereignty-aggrieved to the margins where they belong apologies to any flag-wrapped sovereignty grievants for exercising their democrsatic right to be angry about something :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Could have funded an lot more schools and hospitals as well had he not decided to bomb the **** out of Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We were bombing Iraq siince the first Gulf war, enforcing the no-fly zone and denying them strike capability IIRC. 'Tony' shedded a lot of munitions over Kosovo too. And Sierra Leone, best not to leave them out.

Anyway, you will excuse me for calling it out as a lazy comparison. The physical state of hospitals and schools was appalling when Labour took office. That's on the Tories and needed fixing as a priority.

[Kato]

Yeah, that Sure Start and lifting pensioners and children out of poverty and creating a guaranteed minimum wage, that really taught those lefties didn't it? :rolleyes:

No problem admitting that. Those were great policies which helped people. Benefits really though weren't they. The minimum wage really just became "in work benefits". No municipal plan or massive projects to kick start some kind of lasting effect on post industrial communities. More than a few PFI projects, which still goes on the NHS spend to this day. Starmer seems to hint at using climate change industries to kick start the UKs economy and I hope he does but Blair had nothing. Credit card boom, tick, dodgy mortgage bonanza, tick, a lot of the profit from both those heading off untaxed somewhere, tick. The system isn't Labour's creation but they were happy to facilitate and loosen the legalities. I don't doubt Blairs altruistic actions were heart felt but he left a whole load of crap waiting for the fan to be turned on.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

The whole sticking to Tory fiscal policy was just playing politics. Blair knew the attacks on him would be 'Labour can't be trusted with the economy'. Saying he would stick to the Tory plan removed his (external) opponents biggest weapon.

It worked. He won 2 landslides in a row and after the 2001 victory the spending taps were turned on in a way that hadn't been seen for a generation or 2. Plenty can be said about the sustainability of it, how it was financed and the long term cost but in the short term it changed a lot of people's lives for the better.

:agree:

For those who claim to see little difference between New Labour and the Conservatives, I can only imagine they have a deliberate memory gap. The Tories had weaponised the economy in 1979 and onwards to massive success, even as far on as 1992, when Kinnock and key others had done the hard yards bringing the party back from the dead.

And similarly the Tories managed to weaponise it again through Cameron and Osborne, with very astute tactics around portraying Brown as stale, complacent and 'maxing out the nation's credit card'/'not fixing the roof when it was sunny'. It was a liberty but it stuck and Brown's campaign couldn't respond effectively.

Still, it was tactics, as they clearly showed there was no strategy underpinning it. Powerful nevertheless.

[Stairway 2 7]

Comparing labour to the Tories as no different on here is simply bar far the worst take, its bizarre.


1 million children brought out of poverty during labour's spell, 750,000 of them back in now

[Mibbes Aye]

No problem admitting that. Those were great policies which helped people. Benefits really though weren't they. The minimum wage really just became "in work benefits". No municipal plan or massive projects to kick start some kind of lasting effect on post industrial communities. More than a few PFI projects, which still goes on the NHS spend to this day. Starmer seems to hint at using climate change industries to kick start the UKs economy and I hope he does but Blair had nothing. Credit card boom, tick, dodgy mortgage bonanza, tick, a lot of the profit from both those heading off untaxed somewhere, tick. The system isn't Labour's creation but they were happy to facilitate and loosen the legalities. I don't doubt Blairs altruistic actions were heart felt but he left a whole load of crap waiting for the fan to be turned on.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I think it's just differing perspectives. The kind of 'lasting effect' for me was the investment in Sure Start, tackling child poverty, fixing the literally falling down schools. That is what helps make step change for cohorts of the population. Although in fairness I think Blair and Brown lifted their strategy directly from George Benson, the well-known redistributionist and occasional soul legend :greengrin.

The minimum wage was fiercely resisted, seems crazy now but employers and the press were talking about catastrophe, mass unemployment etc etc.
I think its less well-recognised achievement was to make an easier argument for the living wage. There is a lot of talk about how to 'fix' social care and it often relates to pay, which isn't unreasonable. A number of years back the SG directed additional monies to local authorities to pay social care staff ore, to bring them up to living wage. This was non-council care staff, councils by and large had already adopted the living wage for their own staff. That whole process would have been more difficult, without the NMW paving the way.

[McD]

Yet, the so called majority that got their way, can't agree on what that "way" actually was, or what it was supposed to look like. Which would explain why there's now a very clear majority who would now vote to reverse that decision. But the career politicians have got what they wanted out of it, so Sunak, Starmer and the rest of the gang will never put the question to the electorate again.


so called majority?

[Hibbyradge]

I can't have a hatred for something that no longer exists.

What was the name of your most previous incarnation on here?

High on Hibs or something?

Genuine question.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

so called majority?

Not a single constituency in Scotland, not one.

[Jack]

You really are terrified of a Labour victory.

They'll not get a victory in Scotland. They're not even the opposition at the moment.

Once again Scotlands wishes will be frustrated.

[One Day Soon]

:agree:

For those who claim to see little difference between New Labour and the Conservatives, I can only imagine they have a deliberate memory gap. The Tories had weaponised the economy in 1979 and onwards to massive success, even as far on as 1992, when Kinnock and key others had done the hard yards bringing the party back from the dead.

And similarly the Tories managed to weaponise it again through Cameron and Osborne, with very astute tactics around portraying Brown as stale, complacent and 'maxing out the nation's credit card'/'not fixing the roof when it was sunny'. It was a liberty but it stuck and Brown's campaign couldn't respond effectively.

Still, it was tactics, as they clearly showed there was no strategy underpinning it. Powerful nevertheless.

Brown stuck to Ken Clark’s spending plans for the first two years of Labour government. After that it was a public spending monsoon. The argument that Labour was no different to the Tories is just risible. I’m fact it’s so daft that it’s hard not to conclude that anyone arguing that position is just trolling in bad faith. The list of things Labour did that the Tories never would is pretty lengthy. Perhaps those who argue otherwise can explain how and why the likes of Benn, Skinner, Mullins and a host of others on the left stayed in this supposedly Tory party?

[hibsbollah]

Brown stuck to Ken Clark’s spending plans for the first two years of Labour government. After that it was a public spending monsoon. The argument that Labour was no different to the Tories is just risible. I’m fact it’s so daft that it’s hard not to conclude that anyone arguing that position is just trolling in bad faith. The list of things Labour did that the Tories never would is pretty lengthy. Perhaps those who argue otherwise can explain how and why the likes of Benn, Skinner, Mullins and a host of others on the left stayed in this supposedly Tory party?

You mean Antony Wedgewood Benn, Dennis Skinner, George Lansbury and these chaps existed BEFORE Jeremy Corbyn and all these Trotskyite entrists barged their way in in 2015? It almost sounds like the Left of the Labour Party has always been a thing and always will.

But surely that would be rewriting history.

[One Day Soon]

You mean Antony Wedgewood Benn, Dennis Skinner, George Lansbury and these chaps existed BEFORE Jeremy Corbyn and all these Trotskyite entrists barged their way in in 2015? It almost sounds like the Left of the Labour Party has always been a thing and always will.

But surely that would be rewriting history.

You know as well as I do that the Labour Party has been more or less in a permanent state of internal warring between right and left at one level or another since not long after its creation. And the entryists pre-date even my first time around as a new member in the early 1980s when Militant were at their height. And yet all those figures and more on the left stayed in Labour, because it’s nothing like the Tories, is the only parliamentary party interested in anything like social justice and the defence of the weakest in society and periodically does actually manage to get into power. It’s a pity about Corbyn, a more able and brighter left leader would have been interesting to see up against Johnson.

[Ozyhibby]

I think it's just differing perspectives. The kind of 'lasting effect' for me was the investment in Sure Start, tackling child poverty, fixing the literally falling down schools. That is what helps make step change for cohorts of the population. Although in fairness I think Blair and Brown lifted their strategy directly from George Benson, the well-known redistributionist and occasional soul legend :greengrin.

The minimum wage was fiercely resisted, seems crazy now but employers and the press were talking about catastrophe, mass unemployment etc etc.
I think its less well-recognised achievement was to make an easier argument for the living wage. There is a lot of talk about how to 'fix' social care and it often relates to pay, which isn't unreasonable. A number of years back the SG directed additional monies to local authorities to pay social care staff ore, to bring them up to living wage. This was non-council care staff, councils by and large had already adopted the living wage for their own staff. That whole process would have been more difficult, without the NMW paving the way.

The minimum wage was resisted the same way the deposit return scheme is now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

You know as well as I do that the Labour Party has been more or less in a permanent state of internal warring between right and left at one level or another since not long after its creation. And the entryists pre-date even my first time around as a new member in the early 1980s when Militant were at their height. And yet all those figures and more on the left stayed in Labour, because it’s nothing like the Tories, is the only parliamentary party interested in anything like social justice and the defence of the weakest in society and periodically does actually manage to get into power. It’s a pity about Corbyn, a more able and brighter left leader would have been interesting to see up against Johnson.

I disagree with the assertion that Labour is the same as the Tories. That’s overly simplistic. What is different this time round is the nation first flag grabbing rhetoric and the enthusiastic culture wars stuff which is an unhappy development. If we’re talking about brightness, intelligence and ability to think laterally, Starmers positioning is none of those things.

We’ll see how it plays out. I think a properly charismatic Macron type technocrat candidate with a party of deserters behind him might emerge that splinters the two party system like it did in France. Hey, Tony Blair could even do the job :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

iirc they played things can only get better the last time centre-right labour won an election, **** look how that turned out


they should play a line from bohemian rhapsody if centre-right Sir Starmer wins :music:any way the wind blows

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/332097653_3499778490258234_5227801814767184412_n.j pg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=-8DUxkwGLE8AX9lUQ_o&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfA0XJc0_ZBLOfQluCD-RzUgOmVfADVRlHh6016AAj6BWw&oe=64062542

[archie]

I disagree with the assertion that Labour is the same as the Tories. That’s overly simplistic. What is different this time round is the nation first flag grabbing rhetoric and the enthusiastic culture wars stuff which is an unhappy development. If we’re talking about brightness, intelligence and ability to think laterally, Starmers positioning is none of those things.

We’ll see how it plays out. I think a properly charismatic Macron type technocrat candidate with a party of deserters behind him might emerge that splinters the two party system like it did in France. Hey, Tony Blair could even do the job :greengrin

You could have written the flag grabbing rhetoric and culture wars about Scotland. I don't accept your analysis, but do you think the same of the SNP?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You could have written the flag grabbing rhetoric and culture wars about Scotland. I don't accept your analysis, but do you think the same of the SNP?

Difference being. The SNP have always identified themselves as a party of Scottish Independence. Where as Labour have always prided themselves as a party of unity. A bit of flag grabbing rhetoric can be expected from the SNP, while being completely out of character for the Labour Party.

[hibsbollah]

You could have written the flag grabbing rhetoric and culture wars about Scotland. I don't accept your analysis, but do you think the same of the SNP?

The flag grabbing? Unlike some, I’m consistent, I dislike it wherever I see it.

[archie]

Difference being. The SNP have always identified themselves as a party of Scottish Independence. Where as Labour have always prided themselves as a party of unity. A bit of flag grabbing rhetoric can be expected from the SNP, while being completely out of character for the Labour Party.
So it's ok for the SNP but not Labour?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So it's ok for the SNP but not Labour?

The point is that it's out of character for Labour and shows a very clear shift in political direction, while the SNP have generally been consistent in that regard.

[archie]

The point is that it's out of character for Labour and shows a very clear shift in political direction, while the SNP have generally been consistent in that regard.

So are you saying the SNPs wrapping in flags is good or bad?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So are you saying the SNPs wrapping in flags is good or bad?

I wouldn't describe the SNP as being "wrapped in flags". You may be conflating the independence movement with the SNP as a political entity? I would say the SNP as a party are relatively tame when it comes to the use of flags.

[marinello59]

The point is that it's out of character for Labour and shows a very clear shift in political direction, while the SNP have generally been consistent in that regard.

Alex Salmond used to make a point of saying that the Saltire was a flag for all Scots regardless of where they stood on the constitution. That changed under Sturgeon who was much happier to see her policies wrapped in the flag, it’s much harder to separate it now from Yes then it was a decade ago.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Alex Salmond used to make a point of saying that the Saltire was a flag for all Scots regardless of where they stood on the constitution. That changed under Sturgeon who was much happier to see her policies wrapped in the flag, it’s much harder to separate it now from Yes then it was a decade ago.

How does a politician wrap a party policy up in a flag? Can you provide examples of this?

Anybody in Scotland regardless of who they are, their background, where they're from etc. Is free to fly the Saltire as they wish. The same could even be said for the Union Jack in Scotland.

[archie]

That's 2011, archie. The Sun had been printing pro-SNP front pages for a while before then. So Salmond wasn't wooing Mordoch then, more like some conjugal rights or a dirty weekend - before Salmond got into bed with Putin obvs.

What I will say for the staunch jambo and good friend of the Lithuanian consulate is didn't park the main plank of his party's very existence.

Blair allowed the continuation of Tory Party fiscal policy, ie the upward movement of UK capital to rich. In the UKs case by using the magic banks and Islands conjured up and legitimised over the previous thirty years by a variety of govts but unleashed by Thatcher.

Fair enough they mitagated some effects by merely being interested in managing the country, unlike the current govt, but sadly in some areas that just meant better benefits. Him and Blair deregulated the banks even further and that isn't a labour party.

That's what Blair wooed Murdoch with.

The Tories we have now just accelerated their "managed decline", and given they had sold everything we owned they wooed russian billions and went over a barrel for them. Blair left the door open on that scam.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Or this https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/25/alex-salmond-rupert-murdoch-ties

[neil7908]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/keir-starmer-considers-sue-gray-labour-chief-of-staff

What do folk think of this? I honestly think it's a weird appointment

[Mibbes Aye]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/keir-starmer-considers-sue-gray-labour-chief-of-staff

What do folk think of this? I honestly think it's a weird appointment

My thoughts are twofold.

Starmer is preparing for government after a long Labour absence. When Blair was in his position he appointed Jonathan Powell. The common factor with Gray and Powell is they were very experienced civil servants who understood Whitehall.

Secondly, the Tories are absolutely frothing at the mouth about this, particularly Rees-Mogg. Even if Starmer is just doing it for that alone then it's probably worth it :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

My thoughts are twofold.

Starmer is preparing for government after a long Labour absence. When Blair was in his position he appointed Jonathan Powell. The common factor with Gray and Powell is they were very experienced civil servants who understood Whitehall.

Secondly, the Tories are absolutely frothing at the mouth about this, particularly Rees-Mogg. Even if Starmer is just doing it for that alone then it's probably worth it :greengrin

Isn't it a bit of a risky appointment?

I know they must have thought it through, but doesn't it give ammunition to his opponents?

I genuinely don't know.

[Mibbes Aye]

Isn't it a bit of a risky appointment?

I know they must have thought it through, but doesn't it give ammunition to his opponents?

I genuinely don't know.

I think I know where you are coming from but if she does become CoS, she won't be that public a face.

All the coverage is here and now, and it draws attention to the fact that Boris Johnson is facing a parliamentary inquiry - the Tories can't complain about her without having to bring that in.

Getting your opponents to highlight their own faults for you is astute.

[Santa Cruz]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/keir-starmer-considers-sue-gray-labour-chief-of-staff

What do folk think of this? I honestly think it's a weird appointment

Simon Stevens who was the CEO of NHS England took up the job under a Tory Gov, he used to be a policy advisor for the Labour Party years prior to that. He spoke at a number of UKGov briefings at the height of the pandemic. I thought he was really impressive at the time. Many would have known he was ex Labour but he was still able to carry out his role remaining impartial and supporting a Party he'll likely never vote for. He's in the HoL's now as a crossbencher.

Don't know if this answers your question, but think it's very likely Sue Gray was able to do her job very professionally, remaining politically impartial before deciding to work with Labour. It's also highly possible I'm missing the point on what you think's weird and my post isn't even relevant btw :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Simon Stevens who was the CEO of NHS England took up the job under a Tory Gov, he used to be a policy advisor for the Labour Party years prior to that. He spoke at a number of UKGov briefings at the height of the pandemic. I thought he was really impressive at the time. Many would have known he was ex Labour but he was still able to carry out his role remaining impartial and supporting a Party he'll likely never vote for. He's in the HoL's now as a crossbencher.

Don't know if this answers your question, but think it's very likely Sue Gray was able to do her job very professionally, remaining politically impartial before deciding to work with Labour. It's also highly possible I'm missing the point on what you think's weird and my post isn't even relevant btw :greengrin

I believe the concern isn’t that she won’t be good at her job, rather that the optics can give Boris’ chums the ability to cast doubt on the integrity of the partygate allegations as a whole.

[archie]

I believe the concern isn’t that she won’t be good at her job, rather that the optics can give Boris’ chums the ability to cast doubt on the integrity of the partygate allegations as a whole.

But it does mean they have to talk about partygate. What I think you'll see is the Tories trying to make out it was all about Sue Gray and quietly ignoring that it was the police who issued the FPNs.

[neil7908]

I believe the concern isn’t that she won’t be good at her job, rather that the optics can give Boris’ chums the ability to cast doubt on the integrity of the partygate allegations as a whole.

That was kinda my thoughts but good to get a bit of background on similar appointments in the past. Maybe it's not so odd. Does feel like it will just feed Boris and his cronies victim narrative but he does seem largely an irrelevance now.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But it does mean they have to talk about partygate. What I think you'll see is the Tories trying to make out it was all about Sue Gray and quietly ignoring that it was the police who issued the FPNs.

The best they can do is blame Sue Gray for letting them off the hook.

[Santa Cruz]

I believe the concern isn’t that she won’t be good at her job, rather that the optics can give Boris’ chums the ability to cast doubt on the integrity of the partygate allegations as a whole.

Cheers, wasn't sure if I had misunderstood. Just my opinion, but I don't think they should be concerned about how the appointment is viewed. It should be more important for them to have people in post who have the best credentials. If the Tory's want to cast doubt on Sue Gray's credibility, Labour can just quote back to them the reasons BJ provided for himself believing she was the best person to carry out the investigation.

[nonshinyfinish]

You do know elections and referenda are different?


You've highlighted the weakness of binary referenda.

Not important, but the plural is 'referendums'.

(https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/referendum-conundrum-referenda-or-referendums/FF2D4AAE426D7FCB68FE0056A1D4C78E)

[archie]

Not important, but the plural is 'referendums'.

(https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/referendum-conundrum-referenda-or-referendums/FF2D4AAE426D7FCB68FE0056A1D4C78E)

Thank you!

[One Day Soon]

Simon Stevens who was the CEO of NHS England took up the job under a Tory Gov, he used to be a policy advisor for the Labour Party years prior to that. He spoke at a number of UKGov briefings at the height of the pandemic. I thought he was really impressive at the time. Many would have known he was ex Labour but he was still able to carry out his role remaining impartial and supporting a Party he'll likely never vote for. He's in the HoL's now as a crossbencher.

Don't know if this answers your question, but think it's very likely Sue Gray was able to do her job very professionally, remaining politically impartial before deciding to work with Labour. It's also highly possible I'm missing the point on what you think's weird and my post isn't even relevant btw :greengrin

And how in this context do the Tories justify that dim tw4t David Frost moving from being a senor civil servant adviser on Brexit to being a Tory Lord and Minister in very short order?

[Glory Lurker]

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/keir-starmer-considers-sue-gray-labour-chief-of-staff

What do folk think of this? I honestly think it's a weird appointment

It's pwopa norty.

[McD]

Not a single constituency in Scotland, not one.


But under the auspices of that particular referendum, a majority was achieved. Nothing so called’ about it. You can debate how it was achieved (dodgy as), you can debate how honestly or good/bad faith it was carried out, but using a phrase like ‘so called’ just makes it sound like conspiracy theory stuff, which isn’t to your usual standard of debate (I mean that as a compliment btw).

I voted remain, just to be clear

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/chairmanmoet/status/1631714987088699394?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Why Sue grey ended up at Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

https://twitter.com/chairmanmoet/status/1631714987088699394?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Why Sue grey ended up at Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a complete ****. I hope those establishment ********s have it shoved right up them by Gray when she’s running Downing Street.

[neil7908]

I've just seen that Rupa Huq has had the whip reinstated.

Here's Starmer a couple of weeks ago:

"Firstly, that under my leadership there will zero tolerance of antisemitism, of racism, of discrimination of any kind."

[hibsbollah]

I've just seen that Rupa Huq has had the whip reinstated.

Here's Starmer a couple of weeks ago:

"Firstly, that under my leadership there will zero tolerance of antisemitism, of racism, of discrimination of any kind."

I have no problem with what Huq said about Kwarteng, ‘superficially black’ refers to outward skin colour, it COULD be perceived as saying Kwarteng isn’t really black because of his politics but equally could be just a description of his skin colour. Clumsy but not tantamount to racism and certainly a lot of the reaction was hysterical and clearly politically motivated.

Obviously this is being seen from the context of Corbyns treatment, but I think we all know that’s an internal political decision and has nothing to do with genuine process or natural justice. It’s not even worthy of discussion . But case by case Huq hasn’t done anything to justify a prolonged whip suspension.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I've just seen that Rupa Huq has had the whip reinstated.

Here's Starmer a couple of weeks ago:

"Firstly, that under my leadership there will zero tolerance of antisemitism, of racism, of discrimination of any kind."

After allowing Darren Rodwell to maintain his position as Council Leader in Barking and Dagenham, what choice did Starmer really have?

[Berwickhibby]

I have no problem with what Huq said about Kwarteng, ‘superficially black’ refers to outward skin colour, it COULD be perceived as saying Kwarteng isn’t really black because of his politics but equally could be just a description of his skin colour. Clumsy but not tantamount to racism and certainly a lot of the reaction was hysterical and clearly politically motivated.

Obviously this is being seen from the context of Corbyns treatment, but I think we all know that’s an internal political decision and has nothing to do with genuine process or natural justice. It’s not even worthy of discussion . But case by case Huq hasn’t done anything to justify a prolonged whip suspension.

Seems regardless what shirt you wear in the House of Commons you can do what you like. Patrick Grady anyone

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Seems regardless what shirt you wear in the House of Commons you can do what you like. Patrick Grady anyone

Would that be the same Patrick Grady that the MET concluded that they would take no action against following an investigation?

[He's here!]

I have no problem with what Huq said about Kwarteng, ‘superficially black’ refers to outward skin colour, it COULD be perceived as saying Kwarteng isn’t really black because of his politics but equally could be just a description of his skin colour. Clumsy but not tantamount to racism and certainly a lot of the reaction was hysterical and clearly politically motivated.

Obviously this is being seen from the context of Corbyns treatment, but I think we all know that’s an internal political decision and has nothing to do with genuine process or natural justice. It’s not even worthy of discussion . But case by case Huq hasn’t done anything to justify a prolonged whip suspension.

His skin is black full stop surely, not just 'outwardly'. What does his politics have to do with it? Black people are not bound to a particular political code. Have recent Tory cabinets not been the most ethnically diverse ever? How about some of the most brutal dictators in history? Not exactly champions of Socialism.

[hibsbollah]

His skin is black full stop surely, not just 'outwardly'. What does his politics have to do with it? Black people are not bound to a particular political code. Have recent Tory cabinets not been the most ethnically diverse ever? How about some of the most brutal dictators in history? Not exactly champions of Socialism.

This is kind of what I mean about deliberately interpreting something a certain way for political benefit.

[Berwickhibby]

Would that be the same Patrick Grady that the MET concluded that they would take no action against following an investigation?

Still a predator that got away with it … but as he is SNP that makes it ok

[He's here!]

This is kind of what I mean about deliberately interpreting something a certain way for political benefit.

What political benefit is being gained by pointing out there's no such thing as being 'superficially black'? There are no two ways about it. It's just plain wrong whoever (politician or otherwise) makes such a remark about a black person.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Still a predator that got away with it … but as he is SNP that makes it ok

Were you there that night?

He may or may not be guilty, but unless it's proven that he is, he can't be treated as such. The same applies to every individual and rightfully so.

[archie]

Were you there that night?

He may or may not be guilty, but unless it's proven that he is, he can't be treated as such. The same applies to every individual and rightfully so.

You have a remarkable tolerance until it comes to the Labour Party. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/29/snp-restores-whip-to-mp-patrick-grady-after-sexual-assault-suspension?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Stairway 2 7]

Were you there that night?

He may or may not be guilty, but unless it's proven that he is, he can't be treated as such. The same applies to every individual and rightfully so.

What a hill to die on. He's a creep who was 36 touching a 19 year old who he held a position of power over. He admitted he was inappropriate

The national
"A report into his conduct said that the Glasgow North MP “made an unwanted sexual advance to the complainant that included the touching and stroking of the complainant’s neck, hair, and back”.

The recommendation that he should be suspended for two days came from the Independent Expert Panel (IEP), which looks at cases of sexual misconduct

The IEP said the former chief whip’s behaviour marked a “significant breach” of Parliament’s sexual misconduct policy in a ruling on Tuesday.

In a personal statement to the Commons, Grady said: “I am profoundly sorry for my behaviour and I deeply regret my actions and their consequences."

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You have a remarkable tolerance until it comes to the Labour Party. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/29/snp-restores-whip-to-mp-patrick-grady-after-sexual-assault-suspension?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The people i've mentioned within the Labour Party were people who were actually caught out in the open, either for what they have said or for what they have done. That's not the same as an allegation. I'm not defending Grady here, i'm defending the difference between guilty and allegation. Two very important distinctions when it comes to law.

[archie]

The people i've mentioned within the Labour Party were people who were actually caught out in the open, either for what they have said or for what they have done. That's not the same as an allegation. I'm not defending Grady here, i'm defending the difference between guilty and allegation. Two very important distinctions when it comes to law.
So the independent parliamentary inquiry doesn't count?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So the independent parliamentary inquiry doesn't count?

An inquiry is not a legal investigation. The MET took on the investigation and came to the conclusion that no further action was required. If there was sufficient evidence of any wrong doing, don't you think they would have taken further action? I'm not saying that i'm convinced he is innocent, just that the burden of proof is on the accuser, who never really pushed for any legal action to be taken.

[archie]

An inquiry is not a legal investigation. The MET took on the investigation and came to the conclusion that no further action was required. If there was sufficient evidence of any wrong doing, don't you think they would have taken further action? I'm not saying that i'm convinced he is innocent, just that the burden of proof is on the accuser, who never really pushed for any legal action to be taken.And the police involvement in the Labour Party cases you gleefully cite?

[Stairway 2 7]

An inquiry is not a legal investigation. The MET took on the investigation and came to the conclusion that no further action was required. If there was sufficient evidence of any wrong doing, don't you think they would have taken further action? I'm not saying that i'm convinced he is innocent, just that the burden of proof is on the accuser, who never really pushed for any legal action to be taken.

Grady admitted being inappropriate with a 19 year old he had a position of power over, **** bag

[TrumpIsAPeado]

And the police involvement in the Labour Party cases you gleefully cite?

What police involvement in what Labour Party cases are you referring to? I called out a few Labour councillors and candidates who were caught out saying and doing questionable things. Things that are on record btw, not allegations.

[archie]

What police involvement in what Labour Party cases are you referring to? I called out a few Labour councillors and candidates who were caught out saying and doing questionable things. Things that are on record btw, not allegations.

Grady admitted it and apologised. The fact that you will defend a sexual harasser of a 19yo while slamming people who have acknowledged mistakes in language, and in one of the cases apologised and voluntarily undertook racism awareness training, suggests (at best) a lack of impartiality. You might find this interesting https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23220926.victim-blasts-stephen-flynn-returning-whip-patrick-grady/

[Berwickhibby]

Grady admitted it and apologised. The fact that you will defend a sexual harasser of a 19yo while slamming people who have acknowledged mistakes in language, and in one of the cases apologised and voluntarily undertook racism awareness training, suggests (at best) a lack of impartiality. You might find this interesting https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23220926.victim-blasts-stephen-flynn-returning-whip-patrick-grady/

There are some on here would defend a SNP MP/MSP if they were caught drowning kittens then nominate them for a medal for their service to mice 🙄

[hibsbollah]

What political benefit is being gained by pointing out there's no such thing as being 'superficially black'? There are no two ways about it. It's just plain wrong whoever (politician or otherwise) makes such a remark about a black person.

Of course there is :faf:

Saying you are superficially black means you have black skin. Negative inferences can be drawn by using that terminology, and that’s why he was punished for saying it, and in this case there probably was negative inferences because it’s ****ing Kwasi Kwarteng we’re talking about.

[He's here!]

Of course there is :faf:

Saying you are superficially black means you have black skin. Negative inferences can be drawn by using that terminology, and that’s why he was punished for saying it, and in this case there probably was negative inferences because it’s ****ing Kwasi Kwarteng we’re talking about.

Can't agree. No-one would describe somebody as superficially black intending it as anything other than derogatory. There are no conflicting inferences to be drawn.

I thought it was a female MP who got suspended btw?

[grunt]

Can't agree. No-one would describe somebody as superficially black intending it as anything other than derogatory. There are no conflicting inferences to be drawn.
So would you place reliance on anything said by someone who described Sunak's team as "a coconut cabinet"?

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/03/union-jacks-labour-party-campaign-purview-right?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1678124941

This must be the right kind of nationalism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/03/union-jacks-labour-party-campaign-purview-right?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1678124941

This must be the right kind of nationalism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you even read the article? It's about reclaiming the union flag from the far right.

[He's here!]

So would you place reliance on anything said by someone who described Sunak's team as "a coconut cabinet"?

Macwhirter was rightly censured for that and lost his post at the Herald. Like Huq (who rightly had the whip withdrawn), he apologised and remains a good writer IMHO.

[grunt]

Macwhirter was rightly censured for that and lost his post at the Herald. Like Huq (who rightly had the whip withdrawn), he apologised and remains a good writer IMHO.
This doesn't look anything like an apology to me.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-a-tweet-got-me-sacked/

[Ozyhibby]

This doesn't look anything like an apology to me.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-a-tweet-got-me-sacked/

He’s found a place where racism is more accepted, especially if you are happy to churn out anti SG articles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Macwhirter was rightly censured for that and lost his post at the Herald.
I should add (should have thought about it earlier) that getting sacked by the Herald, a paper that this week photoshopped a bible into Kate Forbes hand and displayed it on their masthead, is a pretty low bar.

[archie]

I should add (should have thought about it earlier) that getting sacked by the Herald, a paper that this week photoshopped a bible into Kate Forbes hand and displayed it on their masthead, is a pretty low bar.

I agree with you about the Kate Forbes picture. I'm sure you will have the same abhorrence about all these National covers https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/the-alistair-carmichael-of-world-football

[grunt]

I agree with you about the Kate Forbes picture. I'm sure you will have the same abhorrence about all these National covers https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/the-alistair-carmichael-of-world-football
I don't read the National so I followed your link. It's not very pretty but making Johnson up as The Joker is significantly different to passing off your photo of Kate Forbes as a genuine photo, don't you think?

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-05/28/11/enhanced/webdr14/enhanced-6523-1432826063-2.png?downsize=700%3A%2A&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto

[Ozyhibby]

Did you even read the article? It's about reclaiming the union flag from the far right.

Ah, so it is the right kind of nationalism.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

I don't read the National so I followed your link. It's not very pretty but making Johnson up as The Joker is significantly different to passing off your photo of Kate Forbes as a genuine photo, don't you think?

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-05/28/11/enhanced/webdr14/enhanced-6523-1432826063-2.png?downsize=700%3A%2A&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto

You might be right. I think in the 'post truth' world it's better if papers don't use photoshop at all.

[archie]

Ah, so it is the right kind of nationalism.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkOh Ozy you're a trier! Here's a quote from the article:

'More importantly, the national identity the flag represents has moved on too. Britain is the most successful multiracial democracy in the world. Blood and soil nationalism is weaker in the UK than in any other big European democracy. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is of Indian descent. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is of Pakistani descent. The first minister of Scotland might soon be too.'

[Ozyhibby]

Oh Ozy you're a trier! Here's a quote from the article:

'More importantly, the national identity the flag represents has moved on too. Britain is the most successful multiracial democracy in the world. Blood and soil nationalism is weaker in the UK than in any other big European democracy. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is of Indian descent. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is of Pakistani descent. The first minister of Scotland might soon be too.'

So time to rally round the flag? Fair enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

So time to rally round the flag? Fair enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that's not what it's saying, is it!

[He's here!]

This doesn't look anything like an apology to me.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-a-tweet-got-me-sacked/

He issued an apology in the wake of his departure from the Herald which I'm sure can be found easily enough. FWIW I don't think he or Huq are necessarily racist for using such rhetoric but both what they said/tweeted was ill-advised.

[J-C]

Oh Ozy you're a trier! Here's a quote from the article:

'More importantly, the national identity the flag represents has moved on too. Britain is the most successful multiracial democracy in the world. Blood and soil nationalism is weaker in the UK than in any other big European democracy. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, is of Indian descent. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is of Pakistani descent. The first minister of Scotland might soon be too.'

Tell me what individual nation does the union flag represent? Pretty sure all 4 nations have their own individual flag, I remember seeing them at the commonwealth games.

[archie]

Tell me what individual nation does the union flag represent? Pretty sure all 4 nations have their own individual flag, I remember seeing them at the commonwealth games.

Well you would at the Commonwealth Games because various parts of the UK have individual representation, including IoM, channel Isles etc. Obviously the Union Flag is the flag of the UK.

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't read the National so I followed your link. It's not very pretty but making Johnson up as The Joker is significantly different to passing off your photo of Kate Forbes as a genuine photo, don't you think?

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-05/28/11/enhanced/webdr14/enhanced-6523-1432826063-2.png?downsize=700%3A%2A&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto

i have genuinely never seen a front cover of the National before, only the odd article linked to on here.

But I think they are onto something with the ‘do-your-own’ Rorschach Test in the masthead.

And before anyone feels upset, that applies to both sides of the independence argument and the undecideds :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Bringing it back on topic :greengrin, I note that Labour have asked the ex-TUC chief Frances O’Grady to lead a review on finally addressing the gender pay gap. The stats on it are sobering, despite it being fifty years since Labour introduced the Equal Pay Act.

Boosting its cause amongst those who don’t care about pay equality, the shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves is describing it as a key driver of economic growth, which certainly feels better than some sort of trickledown nonsense that we would get from Sunak, Truss or Johnson.

As ever, the proof will be in the pudding but having an experienced woman trades unionist leading is certainly the right signal to be sending out.

[J-C]

Well you would at the Commonwealth Games because various parts of the UK have individual representation, including IoM, channel Isles etc. Obviously the Union Flag is the flag of the UK.

I would class it as a unitary state with a constitutional monarchy, made up of 4 individual nations.

[archie]

I would class it as a unitary state with a constitutional monarchy, made up of 4 individual nations.

Care to develop that a bit more? What does 'nation' mean in that context?

[J-C]

Care to develop that a bit more? What does 'nation' mean in that context?

A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

[archie]

A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

So it doesn't have to be a nation on the sense of a legal entity that would, day, be in the UN?

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/timesscotland/status/1635211995732426753?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Remember when Labour used to be for redistribution?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://twitter.com/timesscotland/status/1635211995732426753?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Remember when Labour used to be for redistribution?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can’t really argue with her logic. Economic growth broadens the tax take, so that you can have additional public investment and poverty reduction without increasing personal taxation. Blair and Brown managed it. But I accept the doing is harder than the saying.

What I hadn’t realised until I read this was that the point at which Scots pay more income tax than the English is at £28,000 p.a. That’s not exactly squeezing the rich, is it?

Probably just as well we get such value for money. Oh, hold on...:greengrin

[archie]

A progressive tax system is, of course, the right approach. But there is limited scope in Scotland to promote this because of the relatively limited number of higher rate tax payers. 75% of Scottish tax payers earn less than £39,200. So the space to 'squeeze the rich' is fairly limited. It's a tricky balance https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-income-tax-distributional-analysis-2022-2023/

[Ozyhibby]

You can’t really argue with her logic. Economic growth broadens the tax take, so that you can have additional public investment and poverty reduction without increasing personal taxation. Blair and Brown managed it. But I accept the doing is harder than the saying.

What I hadn’t realised until I read this was that the point at which Scots pay more income tax than the English is at £28,000 p.a. That’s not exactly squeezing the rich, is it?

Probably just as well we get such value for money. Oh, hold on...:greengrin

Free education, free buss travel for u22’s and pensioners, free prescriptions etc etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Free education, free buss travel for u22’s and pensioners, free prescriptions etc etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, using public money to give free prescriptions to people on higher or middle incomes is redistributionist?

[Kato]

So, using public money to give free prescriptions to people on higher or middle incomes is redistributionist?Proportionately to incomes?

Yes.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Proportionately to incomes?

Yes.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Spending public money on people who could afford to do without it takes away public money that could be spent on those who need it more.

[Kato]

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Spending public money on people who could afford to do without it takes away public money that could be spent on those who need it more.

Wasn't clear what I meant, sorry.

If prescriptions were £7 each a poorer family would miss that more than a rich family.

I suppose they are sticking to the NHS maxim, the part that says "for all".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Wasn't clear what I meant, sorry.

If prescriptions were £7 each a poorer family would miss that more than a rich family.

I suppose they are sticking to the NHS maxim, the part that says "for all".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Universality can be an important defence against future tory govts. Hard to cut something that everyone uses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Wasn't clear what I meant, sorry.

If prescriptions were £7 each a poorer family would miss that more than a rich family.

I suppose they are sticking to the NHS maxim, the part that says "for all".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

We have a whole swathe of taxation and benefits that are based on income. Why not do the same with prescriptions, tuition fees, etc etc

Because it's a middle-class bribe. Everybody likes something for nothing, even if they can easily afford it.

(Spoiler alert - I'm going to argue the opposite of this in my next post :greengrin)

[archie]

Universality can be an important defence against future tory govts. Hard to cut something that everyone uses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Personally I wouldn't have prescription charges. In England there are lots of exemptions, but such a bureaucracy to run the system. But you do have to accept that universalism also leads to middle class welfare. And with that support that could go to poorer people doesn't.

[Mibbes Aye]

Universality can be an important defence against future tory govts. Hard to cut something that everyone uses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've posted on this, on here, before. Various Labour governments made various benefits universal because those who don't need it are less likely to complain about it if they receive it anyway.

The question at any given time is around the trade-off, which is very contextual or subjective. Is universality a middle-class bribe to woo votes? Or is it a stealth tactic to protect a vital benefit from cuts? Or somewhere in between that shifts, depending on the population's overall sense of their own economic circumstances?

A good illustration of the complexity is pensions. The state pension is non-means tested but some would argue that if your income and wealth is high then you shouldn't be entitled to it. Pension credits are means-tested but seem to be pretty sacrosanct.

Child benefit isn't means-tested but has been weaponised by the right-wing press since at least the 1980s, portraying it as incentivising feckless, workless families sponging off the state.

So universal can be good or it can be bad because it is non-redistributionist or it can be bad for encouraging a lifestyle that doesn't contribute to society. Take your pick........

[Santa Cruz]

I've posted on this, on here, before. Various Labour governments made various benefits universal because those who don't need it are less likely to complain about it if they receive it anyway.

The question at any given time is around the trade-off, which is very contextual or subjective. Is universality a middle-class bribe to woo votes? Or is it a stealth tactic to protect a vital benefit from cuts? Or somewhere in between that shifts, depending on the population's overall sense of their own economic circumstances?

A good illustration of the complexity is pensions. The state pension is non-means tested but some would argue that if your income and wealth is high then you shouldn't be entitled to it. Pension credits are means-tested but seem to be pretty sacrosanct.

Child benefit isn't means-tested but has been weaponised by the right-wing press since at least the 1980s, portraying it as incentivising feckless, workless families sponging off the state.

So universal can be good or it can be bad because it is non-redistributionist or it can be bad for encouraging a lifestyle that doesn't contribute to society. Take your pick........

Child Benefit isn't universal. There are different eligibilty rules for single or couple parent(s)/carer(s) earning more than 50k. Do you mean tax credits?

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-tax-charge

[Mibbes Aye]

Child Benefit isn't universal. There are different eligibilty rules for single or couple parent(s)/carer(s) earning more than 50k. Do you mean tax credits?

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-tax-charge

No, didn't mean tax credits, just didn't mention HICBC to avoid complicating it!

Technically it is universal but over the 50K threshold you face incremental clawback through HICBC, which IIRC eventually reaches 100% at 60K, as you suggest.

But making AVCs to your pension scheme attracts tax relief and if you can do so as to bring your adjustable net income down to 50K, then you can claim full CB and gain on the tax relief on your pension contribution, which isn't insignificant. You have to be in a position to afford the deferral but if you can it is essentially a pension bonus.

[Santa Cruz]

No, didn't mean tax credits, just didn't mention HICBC to avoid complicating it!

Technically it is universal but over the 50K threshold you face incremental clawback through HICBC, which IIRC eventually reaches 100% at 60K, as you suggest.

But making AVCs to your pension scheme attracts tax relief and if you can do so as to bring your adjustable net income down to 50K, then you can claim full CB and gain on the tax relief on your pension contribution, which isn't insignificant. You have to be in a position to afford the deferral but if you can it is essentially a pension bonus.

Not even going to pretend I understood what any of this means :greengrin no need to explain further as my CB, which basically covers school dinner money costs, ends soon anyway :aok:

[He's here!]

No, didn't mean tax credits, just didn't mention HICBC to avoid complicating it!

Technically it is universal but over the 50K threshold you face incremental clawback through HICBC, which IIRC eventually reaches 100% at 60K, as you suggest.

But making AVCs to your pension scheme attracts tax relief and if you can do so as to bring your adjustable net income down to 50K, then you can claim full CB and gain on the tax relief on your pension contribution, which isn't insignificant. You have to be in a position to afford the deferral but if you can it is essentially a pension bonus.

Yes, that's right. Anyone who earns over 50k can also simply opt out of receiving the benefit.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-rest-is-politics/id1611374685?i=1000604227142

Interesting listen on the build up to the Iraq war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Labour councillor, disgusting PoS, they're as vile as their Blue Brethern

(1) ��������������������������Patrick_Woodside.� �️*�� on Twitter: "Labour councillor: https://t.co/2UG4Y4DrlZ" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/pjwoodside/status/1635472334621376512?t=7GVZU-suLRN-ek5CWCzDzg&s=19&fbclid=IwAR0Y761vIx-YSSL44ox9YTT9Mj2c1B2hMrtEDZqfXV7xYH0u-uGLDIpZtis)

[Stairway 2 7]

Labour councillor, disgusting PoS, they're as vile as their Blue Brethern

(1) ��������������������������Patrick_Woodside.� �️*�� on Twitter: "Labour councillor: https://t.co/2UG4Y4DrlZ" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/pjwoodside/status/1635472334621376512?t=7GVZU-suLRN-ek5CWCzDzg&s=19&fbclid=IwAR0Y761vIx-YSSL44ox9YTT9Mj2c1B2hMrtEDZqfXV7xYH0u-uGLDIpZtis)

I don't even understand stand it seems weird and racist but I don't get it.

Although regardless politicians person behaviour doesn't fall on the party. That's why I didn't put up anything about the snp Lanarkshire councilor who stood down this week for being a creep. Same goes for even tories.

[Hibbyradge]

I don't even understand stand it seems weird and racist but I don't get it.

Although regardless politicians person behaviour doesn't fall on the party. That's why I didn't put up anything about the snp Lanarkshire councilor who stood down this week for being a creep. Same goes for even tories.

The whole tweet is bonkers, but the 9/11 option is particularly baffling.

[degenerated]

The whole tweet is bonkers, but the 9/11 option is particularly baffling.He's unhinged. I remember him getting himself onto just about every debate programme on radio and TV in 2014 and generally frothing at the mouth, shouting and finger pointing at people. 26541

[neil7908]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/17/labour-accused-still-not-engaging-hierarchy-racism-claims

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/336674616_100418089676661_4448564942840670162_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=5rJvaD2vz2EAX_pe6PJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCm-uNkbotYaqzgJ8bKHYgmrCJvGMGtXxiNkLFqeGcUnA&oe=641BADB3

[Mibbes Aye]

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/336674616_100418089676661_4448564942840670162_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=5rJvaD2vz2EAX_pe6PJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfCm-uNkbotYaqzgJ8bKHYgmrCJvGMGtXxiNkLFqeGcUnA&oe=641BADB3

:faf:

Your fear betrays you, young padawan.

With the Nats now joining in the Tories’ attacks on Starmer, are we seeing living proof of the old adage “My enemies’ enemies are my friend”?

Truly we do have an anti-growth coalition in these fair isles, the SNP and the Tories. I think I will christen them “the Snories” :greengrin

[grunt]

With the Nats now joining in the Tories’ attacks on Starmer, are we seeing living proof of the old adage “My enemies’ enemies are my friend”? Truly we do have an anti-growth coalition in these fair isles, the SNP and the Tories.
How do you make the connection from criticising Labour to being anti-growth???

[Mibbes Aye]

How do you make the connection from criticising Labour to being anti-growth???

It was originally meant to be a bridge to allow me to use my newly-coined and rather fabulous insult of ‘the Snories’. But it stands up nevertheless.

SNP have shifted tack at Westminster and now seek to condemn Labour. Just like the Tories. Shared enemy (shared fear to be honest). So, they are united once again in having a go at Labour. that’s where the ‘Coalition’ bit came from.

The Tories are crashing on growth. The SNP set up and funded their Scottish Growth Commission. The IFS called it out for what it is. Ten years of worse austerity to get back to where we started. That’s where the ‘Anti-Growth’ bit came from.

I was going to call it the Coalition against Growth, but then I remembered that Liz Truss had coined the term “Anti-Growth Coalition”. And given she opposes Labour, presided over adminstrative chaos and would run down public services given the opportunity, then the connection was fairly obvious :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

It was originally meant to be a bridge to allow me to use my newly-coined and rather fabulous insult of ‘the Snories’. But it stands up nevertheless.

SNP have shifted tack at Westminster and now seek to condemn Labour. Just like the Tories. Shared enemy (shared fear to be honest). So, they are united once again in having a go at Labour. that’s where the ‘Coalition’ bit came from.

The Tories are crashing on growth. The SNP set up and funded their Scottish Growth Commission. The IFS called it out for what it is. Ten years of worse austerity to get back to where we started. That’s where the ‘Anti-Growth’ bit came from.

I was going to call it the Coalition against Growth, but then I remembered that Liz Truss had coined the term “Anti-Growth Coalition”. And given she opposes Labour, presided over adminstrative chaos and would run down public services given the opportunity, then the connection was fairly obvious :greengrin

You're conflating tight public spending with the absence of economic growth. Entirely different things.

1. The IFS didn't say "worse austerity" (or actually even austerity if you read it properly), they said a continuation of UK spending.
2. iScotland can only spend at UK levels and be sustainable in a decade if the economy grows.


Like "Snories" though. :aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

You're conflating tight public spending with the absence of economic growth. Entirely different things.

1. The IFS didn't say "worse austerity" (or actually even austerity if you read it properly), they said a continuation of UK spending.
2. iScotland can only spend at UK levels and be sustainable in a decade if the economy grows.


Like "Snories" though. :aok:

Details.......:greengrin

[grunt]

It was originally meant to be a bridge to allow me to use my newly-coined and rather fabulous insult of ‘the Snories’. But it stands up nevertheless.

SNP have shifted tack at Westminster and now seek to condemn Labour. Just like the Tories. Shared enemy (shared fear to be honest). So, they are united once again in having a go at Labour. that’s where the ‘Coalition’ bit came from.

The Tories are crashing on growth. The SNP set up and funded their Scottish Growth Commission. The IFS called it out for what it is. Ten years of worse austerity to get back to where we started. That’s where the ‘Anti-Growth’ bit came from.

I was going to call it the Coalition against Growth, but then I remembered that Liz Truss had coined the term “Anti-Growth Coalition”. And given she opposes Labour, presided over adminstrative chaos and would run down public services given the opportunity, then the connection was fairly obvious :greengrinThe best jokes are always the ones you have to explain at length.

[Mibbes Aye]

The best jokes are always the ones you have to explain at length.

Probably why the SNP’s attempts at running public services have taken 16 years then.

[Ozyhibby]

Probably why the SNP’s attempts at running public services have taken 16 years then.

Still manage to do better than Labour in wales though. Or the Tories in England. Or em….nobody in NI.
Would be good if the opposition could show us how it’s done instead of telling us we can’t do it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Still manage to do better than Labour in wales though. Or the Tories in England. Or em….nobody in NI.
Would be good if the opposition could show us how it’s done instead of telling us we can’t do it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An extra £2000 per head helps.

[Ozyhibby]

An extra £2000 per head helps.

It’s good we agree that the SNP provides the best public services.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

An extra £2000 per head helps.

Didn't you say that was needs-based, geographic challenges etc? :wink:

[archie]

Didn't you say that was needs-based, geographic challenges etc? :wink:

More accurately I justified it on that basis! BTW did I pick up that you had been unwell? If so what meds are you on. They're good! I hope you’re feeling better.

[Mibbes Aye]

Didn't you say that was needs-based, geographic challenges etc? :wink:

Although within that, NHS Lothian have argued for years, with a reasonable degree of justification, that the way SG spreads the health money (N-RAC; basically along the lines of what you described above) treated them unfavourably. Everyone has a sob story I guess :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Still manage to do better than Labour in wales though. Or the Tories in England. Or em….nobody in NI.
Would be good if the opposition could show us how it’s done instead of telling us we can’t do it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats the spirit! When Hibs get beat 2-0 it is all fine so long as HOMFC got beat 3-0

[Ozyhibby]

Thats the spirit! When Hibs get beat 2-0 it is all fine so long as HOMFC got beat 3-0

To be fair though, HOMFC are not asking me to support them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

More accurately I justified it on that basis! BTW did I pick up that you had been unwell? If so what meds are you on. They're good! I hope you’re feeling better.

Hehe, yeah, on the mend, thanks. Opiates ftw :wink:

[grunt]

Thats the spirit! When Hibs get beat 2-0 it is all fine so long as HOMFC got beat 3-0That doesn't really work though, does it? If Hibs get beat it means that someone was better, which is not the case here. A more fitting analogy is if the SG completes a round of golf with a score of say 68, that's better than England, Wales and NI who complete the same round with higher scores (say 72, 74 and 80). And you're complaining that Scotland should have had a lower score, because ... reasons.

[Hibbyradge]

That doesn't really work though, does it? If Hibs get beat it means that someone was better, which is not the case here. A more fitting analogy is if the SG completes a round of golf with a score of say 68, that's better than England, Wales and NI who complete the same round with higher scores (say 72, 74 and 80). And you're complaining that Scotland should have had a lower score, because ... reasons.

I think his point is that Scotland's score was just slightly less bad than the opponents'.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think his point is that Scotland's score was just slightly less bad than the opponents'.

Yeah. I think Grunt was hoisted by his own petard there. The best golfing analogies are always the ones you have to explain at length.

[Ozyhibby]

I admit it would be great if someone was offering better than slightly less worse than the rest but that just isn’t the case just now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I admit it would be great if someone was offering better than slightly less worse than the rest but that just isn’t the case just now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s a balance to be found where informed criticism doesn’t provoke people wrapping themselves in a saltire.

[grunt]

I think his point is that Scotland's score was just slightly less bad than the opponents'.This makes no sense. Who did Hibs lose to in this analogy? Who did Hearts lose to? Meaningless.


Yeah. I think Grunt was hoisted by his own petard there. The best golfing analogies are always the ones you have to explain at length.Nice try. I didn't have to explain it, it was just 39 words, none of them longer than 8 letters. Surely you could work that one out on your own? Where have I had to explain it?


I admit it would be great if someone was offering better than slightly less worse than the rest but that just isn’t the case just now. Eh? that's exactly what you suggested in your post that MA replied to! Except he didn't challenge your view on SG relative performance, instead he kicked in with a meaningless analogy which doesn't work. He said:


Thats the spirit! When Hibs get beat 2-0 it is all fine so long as HOMFC got beat 3-0

[Hibrandenburg]

Thats the spirit! When Hibs get beat 2-0 it is all fine so long as HOMFC got beat 3-0

To be fair, Hibs don't give them their takings and then get an allowance back.

[Mibbes Aye]

To be fair, Hibs don't give them their takings and then get an allowance back.

To be fair, neither does HMG. We pay tax as U.K. citizens remember, not as some tithe. We were UK citizens before devolution and remain so post-devolution.

[degenerated]

Thats a bit of a concern26553

[cabbageandribs1875]

Lab lead drops from 23pts to 10pts

LAB 45% (-5)
CON 35% (+8)
LD 7% (-2)
SNP 4% (+1)
GRN 4% (-)
REF 3% (-1)
Lab 329 seats (+127), Con 245 seats (-120)
DeltaPollUK (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FDeltapollUK%3F fbclid%3DIwAR0oUWK-T9wG37-gGnSlemWeyvXKpLR7wvAceZv7anMHYIQDVzexHsurLR8&h=AT0qVPeDKN8NkQ0A6JD3asUy2dJIHCOf2xRH3FZlM4Jv99ji 1CvIq5bapjpy4jurftGbkGcrzQE17wSfrNY-2YVF3a7R53ck1vAvH8GXX4Wxe85OYte6lWZpsyVgJ6Wphz63&__tn__=-UK*F&c[0]=AT0eM4NEOtOMVcY3M8Q6zDKOQJW6HIMxlk8L7xfO95YjGbYgy dtSG2at8BErH907fkYsdxTbVC3zUhimEChn7DSCHBRlv2xh6-b2hAbLJGplf_R3D1peZ09kMJ1KE483YoYUh_uLmVq812XAkgdv 75PdetE44jU-ROrFMVjttLkRG-dPDSt9lA3Y0LJ21nOe2pOGLsEVFKmj43MF6c3UFrvTauhh&c[1]=AT0eM4NEOtOMVcY3M8Q6zDKOQJW6HIMxlk8L7xfO95YjGbYgy dtSG2at8BErH907fkYsdxTbVC3zUhimEChn7DSCHBRlv2xh6-b2hAbLJGplf_R3D1peZ09kMJ1KE483YoYUh_uLmVq812XAkgdv 75PdetE44jU-ROrFMVjttLkRG-dPDSt9lA3Y0LJ21nOe2pOGLsEVFKmj43MF6c3UFrvTauhh), 17-20 Mar (+/- since 10-13 Mar


Starmer needs to maybe start getting a "stop the boats" banner made, stick it beside his big **** off union jack props he started using to tempt that moderate Tory vote

[Stairway 2 7]

As I said on the other thread I don't know why people are getting excited about this one poll when the other 6 done in the last week have a much bigger gap, nearer 25pts. Poll of polls are better but at the same time even that isn't too accurate. Next few might be interesting

electpoliticsuk
·
8h
Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 45% (+3)
CON: 20% (-3)
GRN: 13% (+3)
LDM: 9% (+1)
REF: 6% (-1)
SNP: 5% (+1)

Via
@PeoplePolling
, On 17 March,
Changes w/ 8 March.

@electpoliticsuk
·
Mar 18
Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 44% (=)
CON: 29% (=)
LDM: 8% (=)
REF: 7% (-1)
GRN: 6% (+1)
SNP: 3% (=)

Via
@OpiniumResearch
, On 15-17 March,
Changes w/ 8-10 March.

Omnosis 21pts yougov 23pts

[Hibbyradge]

This makes no sense.

I was referring to your golf analogy.

68 is a brilliant golf round. No-one is doing brilliantly at health care.

[Jack]

I was referring to your golf analogy.

68 is a brilliant golf round. No-one is doing brilliantly at health care.

Might have just been playing the front 9 😆

[Hibbyradge]

Might have just been playing the front 9 😆

The way I've been playing recently, it still applies! :greengrin

[Jones28]

Starmer quoting Margaret Thatcher. We are really seriously ****ed.

https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1638908435054878721?s=20

[JeMeSouviens]

Starmer quoting Margaret Thatcher. We are really seriously ****ed.

https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1638908435054878721?s=20

There's just no need. :bitchy:

[Stairway 2 7]

Who's his speech writer. They couldn't find another quote on law without using that bag. Starmer's a clown for not questioning it either

[Stairway 2 7]

Post budget

@electpoliticsuk

Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 49% (+3)
CON: 23% (-4)
LDM: 10% (-1)
GRN: 6% (=)
REF: 6% (=)
SNP: 3% (-1)

Via
@YouGov
, On 21-22 March,
Changes w/ 15-

[archie]

As an aside, nobody aged under 54 could have voted for Thatcher. Shows how time moves on.

[Jones28]

As an aside, nobody aged under 54 could have voted for Thatcher. Shows how time moves on.

Time moves on, so the Labour party can quote a Conservative icon in a speech?

[He's here!]

Who's his speech writer. They couldn't find another quote on law without using that bag. Starmer's a clown for not questioning it either

It's a quote the vast majority of the electorate will agree with though, irrespective of who said it. I don't imagine he agreed to use it without some serious thought, but it hardly means he's aligning himself with Thatcher. Could be he's trying to dilute the polarising nature of today's politics that Sturgeon alluded to in her Beth Rigby interview (she herself being responsible for much of the polarisation of course), where the 'plague' of social media has made finding common ground almost impossible. As she said, the distinction between objective facts and subjective opinion has all but disappeared.

[Jones28]

It's a quote the vast majority of the electorate will agree with though, irrespective of who said it. I don't imagine he agreed to use it without some serious thought, but it hardly means he's aligning himself with Thatcher. Could be he's trying to dilute the polarising nature of today's politics that Sturgeon alluded to in her Beth Rigby interview (she herself being responsible for much of the polarisation of course), where the 'plague' of social media has made finding common ground almost impossible. As she said, the distinction between objective facts and subjective opinion has all but disappeared.

Come on, you can't disregard the person that said the quote.

If was trying to unify the electorate could he not have used a quote from any number of figures who weren't, say, one of the most controversial and hated Prime Ministers we've ever had?

[Kato]

It's a quote the vast majority of the electorate will agree with though, irrespective of who said it. I don't imagine he agreed to use it without some serious thought, but it hardly means he's aligning himself with Thatcher. Could be he's trying to dilute the polarising nature of today's politics that Sturgeon alluded to in her Beth Rigby interview (she herself being responsible for much of the polarisation of course), where the 'plague' of social media has made finding common ground almost impossible. As she said, the distinction between objective facts and subjective opinion has all but disappeared.Maybe, just maybe he was quoting their heroine back at them re law and order, given their disregard for such in recent years.

But you see it aimed at Sturgeon, natch.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

It's a quote the vast majority of the electorate will agree with though, irrespective of who said it. I don't imagine he agreed to use it without some serious thought, but it hardly means he's aligning himself with Thatcher. Could be he's trying to dilute the polarising nature of today's politics that Sturgeon alluded to in her Beth Rigby interview (she herself being responsible for much of the polarisation of course), where the 'plague' of social media has made finding common ground almost impossible. As she said, the distinction between objective facts and subjective opinion has all but disappeared.

Think you're at the ham but I'll bite. I wouldn’t start a medical lecture saying Dr Harold Shipman said "always study even at the weekends and you know what he was right "

There also will never be Wallace Mercer quotes on the walls of Easter Road, even if they are correct

[Stairway 2 7]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Miners_Strike/status/1638985825974210567

Miners Strike
@Miners_Strike
The "rule of law" at the #BattleOfOrgreave

There has yet to be a full inquiry into the events that day

[archie]

Time moves on, so the Labour party can quote a Conservative icon in a speech?

The point is that, while that resonates for older people, citing Thatcher doesn't have the shock factor that it once had.

[grunt]

It's a quote the vast majority of the electorate will agree with though, irrespective of who said it. I don't imagine he agreed to use it without some serious thought, but it hardly means he's aligning himself with Thatcher. Could be he's trying to dilute the polarising nature of today's politics that Sturgeon alluded to in her Beth Rigby interview (she herself being responsible for much of the polarisation of course), where the 'plague' of social media has made finding common ground almost impossible. As she said, the distinction between objective facts and subjective opinion has all but disappeared.
Roll up, roll up! See the amazing trickery! See how criticism of Saint Keir Starmer is immediately turned into criticism of Nasty Nicola Sturgeon! Before your very eyes! Blink and you'll miss it. Such sleight of hand as you've never seen before. Be amazed!

[grunt]

The point is that, while that resonates for older people, citing Thatcher doesn't have the shock factor that it once had.
You think the legacy of Thatcher disappeared when people stopped voting for her? You think the youth of today aren't aware of the damage she caused, aren't aware of her reputation?

[archie]

You think the legacy of Thatcher disappeared when people stopped voting for her? You think the youth of today aren't aware of the damage she caused, aren't aware of her reputation?

From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience chatting to younger people about Thatcher reveals some sort of folk memory, but not the visceral feelings that she once caused. There's been 8 prime ministers since then.

[Stairway 2 7]

The point is that, while that resonates for older people, citing Thatcher doesn't have the shock factor that it once had.

No chance. I'm mid 30s so was born near the end of her time as pm, not old enough to be directly effected but everyone my age knows she is a c. We have parents and watch TV movies. My group chats were going mad with celebration when she popped her clogs and half of my mates and football teammates weren't political. I can't speak for people much younger than me but they don't vote as much as the rest so Starmer should have definitely been wiser. I think you underestimate the hatred a large part of the public have for her