The future of the Labour Party

[Jones28]

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

I'm 30 years old and it resonates for me, anecdotal perhaps, but her notoriety carries weight even now for me.

Even if it doesn't, a labour leader quoting a former Torie Prime minister is a complete fudge.

[archie]

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

Maybe so. Personally I think it's a mistake to obsess on Thatcher when there are Tory bogeyman closer to home.

[He's here!]

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!

I was actually agreeing with what Sturgeon said. As with Thatcher, her quote was valid regardless of personal views.

[Jones28]

I was actually agreeing with what Sturgeon said. As with Thatcher, her quote was valid regardless of personal views.

Couldn't resist a wee dig though eh?

Quite sad really. Polarisation that you seem to have bought in to in this instance.

[archie]

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?

He's trolling the Tories. It's like quoting Reagan at Republicans in the States.

[He's here!]

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

Citing Thatcher doesn't even have a shock value for many older folk. She was phenomenally popular in her pomp.

For a Labour leader to endorse something she said is going to raise hackles among some for sure but law and order is such a biggie among the electorate that I can see why he used it.

[Jones28]

He's trolling the Tories. It's like quoting Reagan at Republicans in the States.

Is he though?

[He's here!]

Couldn't resist a wee dig though eh?

Quite sad really. Polarisation that you seem to have bought in to in this instance.

You don't think Sturgeon is polarising?! She's arguably divided Scotland even more decisively than Thatcher did the UK.

[archie]

Is he though?

Of course he is. Quoting the Tory hero on law and order in a week when Johnson's mendacity was laid bare. Similar line at PMQs in response to Sunak jibe about being soft on crime.

[Jones28]

You don't think Sturgeon is polarising?! She's arguably divided Scotland even more decisively than Thatcher did the UK.

I didn't speculate, you could have made your point well enough without having a dig at Sturgeon.

IMO politics is too far gone without major reform in this country. Independence, Brexit, COVID, all of these issues have contributed.

Sturgeon? Meh, I want independence and vote SNP because I want independence. Sounds Brexity but I'll back the SNP until it comes unless something major changes. I think she overstayed her welcome, though I think she guided us through COVID well enough there were a few things they got wrong. I don't even bother with Gender Reform stuff, it's an issue that's so controversial and toxic I keep out of it.

[Hibbyradge]

I can't imagine anyone changing their mind and not voting Labour because Keir Starmer quoted Thatcher.

If anything, it further enhances his popularity with the people he's trying to win over from the Tories.

[JeMeSouviens]

Citing Thatcher doesn't even have a shock value for many older folk. She was phenomenally popular in her pomp.

For a Labour leader to endorse something she said is going to raise hackles among some for sure but law and order is such a biggie among the electorate that I can see why he used it.

:confused:

I'm 53 so just missed voting against her but as I remember even the vanishing band of Scots Tories weren't that keen, bar a few outliers like smarmy Michael Forsyth. Everybody else loathed her.

[JeMeSouviens]

I can't imagine anyone changing their mind and not voting Labour because Keir Starmer quoted Thatcher.

If anything, it further enhances his popularity with the people he's trying to win over from the Tories.

Maybe, but it's hardly going to do wonders for party unity. He must know a big chunk of his own membership don't trust him. He's going to need them come election time.

Also, what about the people he's trying to win over from the SNP?

[WeeRussell]

Maybe, but it's hardly going to do wonders for party unity. He must know a big chunk of his own membership don't trust him. He's going to need them come election time.

Also, what about the people he's trying to win over from the SNP?

Can only speak for myself but he could quote anyone from Hitler to Stanton and I wouldn’t change my stance on Keir Starmer. I just don’t believe his politics are for me.

However, what he says will matter to many, and I don’t believe it was a sensible thing to say… regardless of how immensely popular the great Thatcher was in her pomp 🙄

[Hibbyradge]

Maybe, but it's hardly going to do wonders for party unity. He must know a big chunk of his own membership don't trust him. He's going to need them come election time.

Also, what about the people he's trying to win over from the SNP?

He's not done anything specific to try to appeal to SNP voters up to now, quite the reverse given his comments about no deals under any circumstances with the SNP.

Presumably, and understandably, he feels getting the Red Wall seats back from the Tories is the priority.

[Kato]

He's trolling the Tories. It's like quoting Reagan at Republicans in the States.Agreed. The Tories will be raging that he can quote her at them to highlight their failing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

:confused:

I'm 53 so just missed voting against her but as I remember even the vanishing band of Scots Tories weren't that keen, bar a few outliers like smarmy Michael Forsyth. Everybody else loathed her.

Do you mean in Scotland? In the latter years of her premiership then yes, she'd pretty much burned her bridges here but IIRC the Tories in Scotland were still returning over 20 MPs and commanding over 30% of the vote during her earlier years.

More generally, the 1983 election landslide was (pre-Blair) by some distance the most decisive post-war win by any party (pretty sure she cruised to victory again in 87, despite the miners' strike) and the fact she was the longest serving PM of the 20th century underlines how popular she was at her height.

Even Alex Salmond acknowledged the economic plus points of Thatcherism: "One of the reasons Scotland didn't take to Lady Thatcher was because of our strong social conscience. The economic side we didn't mind so much."

I just think it's revisionist to claim she was roundly despised. Even today if you look at polling around the UK's most popular PMs she tends to figure quite highly.

[Kato]

Maybe so. Personally I think it's a mistake to obsess on Thatcher when there are Tory bogeyman closer to home.No. It is important to keep in the here and now that goes without saying. But it's also good to keep in mind she was the origins of what the Conservative Party is now, the whole neoliberal, low tax, low servies, syphon your profits abroad is her baby, grown to a greedy grasping adult which cares only for a very people.

Go to any city in the UK and you can see how the fabric of the country has been allowed to rot.

I can see the argument for Sturgeon being divisive constitutionally but Thatcher midwifed the physical destruction of communities, actively encouraged the erosion of anything municipal, gave the already rich the tools to evade tax and was as spiteful as she could be while doing so.

Her legacy is all around, visible and theoretical.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

He's trolling the Tories. It's like quoting Reagan at Republicans in the States.

100% he is, just like he did with his line previously about how his dad and Stanley Johnson had one thing in common.

This one was aimed firmly at Tory members and voters though.

Starmer is an educated man and a lawyer. He knows fine well that the line he references to Thatcher precedes her by around three hundred years and forms the basis of John Locke’s philosophy and Rousseau later. He also knows that Locke’s philosophy is rooted in Aristotle, making it over a couple of thousand years’ older than Thatcher.

This is Just differentiation. Reminding Tory voters that a vote for their party isn’t a vote for law and order as preached by their St Margaret, but a vote for a corrupt, venal, trivial bunch of opportunists and freeloaders.

[weecounty hibby]

I was actually agreeing with what Sturgeon said. As with Thatcher, her quote was valid regardless of personal views.

Thatcher was a complete and utter *******. Her quote aboutrule of law was ajoke. Her rule of law was things like during the battle of Orgreave. The massed ranks of police with no uniform numbers on their uniforms being allowed to batter striking miners and charge them with horses. I unfortunately lived through her whole time as PM and am delighted to say I cheered when I heard she was dead. The only disappointment of that was it was 20/30 years too late. A woman who hated tye working man particularly those in heavy industries (see coal, shipbuilding, steel and a host of other manufacturing jobs), unions, Scotland and a host of others. To hear a Labour leader quote her on the back of his refusal to even contemplate the Brexit issue and many other things he clearly believes the Tories have got right is frankly sickening. I'm not a Labour voter and I doubt I ever will be when they are just a tribute act if the real thing

[Bostonhibby]

Thatcher was a complete and utter *******. Her quote aboutrule of law was ajoke. Her rule of law was things like during the battle of Orgreave. The massed ranks of police with no uniform numbers on their uniforms being allowed to batter striking miners and charge them with horses. I unfortunately lived through her whole time as PM and am delighted to say I cheered when I heard she was dead. The only disappointment of that was it was 20/30 years too late. A woman who hated tye working man particularly those in heavy industries (see coal, shipbuilding, steel and a host of other manufacturing jobs), unions, Scotland and a host of others. To hear a Labour leader quote her on the back of his refusal to even contemplate the Brexit issue and many other things he clearly believes the Tories have got right is frankly sickening. I'm not a Labour voter and I doubt I ever will be when they are just a tribute act if the real thingYour views on the Milk Snatcher are the same as my own.

Horrible, heartless creature.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[archie]

Thatcher was a complete and utter *******. Her quote aboutrule of law was ajoke. Her rule of law was things like during the battle of Orgreave. The massed ranks of police with no uniform numbers on their uniforms being allowed to batter striking miners and charge them with horses. I unfortunately lived through her whole time as PM and am delighted to say I cheered when I heard she was dead. The only disappointment of that was it was 20/30 years too late. A woman who hated tye working man particularly those in heavy industries (see coal, shipbuilding, steel and a host of other manufacturing jobs), unions, Scotland and a host of others. To hear a Labour leader quote her on the back of his refusal to even contemplate the Brexit issue and many other things he clearly believes the Tories have got right is frankly sickening. I'm not a Labour voter and I doubt I ever will be when they are just a tribute act if the real thing

Yet the right to buy was taken up by nearly half a million Scots. So obviously not all of her policies were unpopular.

[archie]

No. It is important to keep in the here and now that goes without saying. But it's also good to keep in mind she was the origins of what the Conservative Party is now, the whole neoliberal, low tax, low servies, syphon your profits abroad is her baby, grown to a greedy grasping adult which cares only for a very people.

Go to any city in the UK and you can see how the fabric of the country has been allowed to rot.

I can see the argument for Sturgeon being divisive constitutionally but Thatcher midwifed the physical destruction of communities, actively encouraged the erosion of anything municipal, gave the already rich the tools to evade tax and was as spiteful as she could be while doing so.

Her legacy is all around, visible and theoretical.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I agree with you. I just think her memory doesn't resonate as it once did.

[Stairway 2 7]

Yet the right to buy was taken up by nearly half a million Scots. So obviously not all of her policies were unpopular.

Who's not going to take basically free money. It was also one of the worst decisions in uk political history, pre brexit. Personal gain for a chosen few, hardship for millions in every generation since and growing.

[Smartie]

Yet the right to buy was taken up by nearly half a million Scots. So obviously not all of her policies were unpopular.

We’ll see how that policy ages over time, when the beloved grandchildren of those who benefitted from that scheme realise they’ll never own their own home as the commoditisation of shelter means that all the property ends up in the ownership of a few.

[Mibbes Aye]

Who's not going to take basically free money. It was also one of the worst decisions in uk political history, pre brexit. Personal gain for a chosen few, hardship for millions in every generation since and growing.

Half a million Scots doesn’t really cut it as a ‘chosen few’. Given the sales led to an estimated £2 billion profit for those buying their homes in Scotland, then I think their families may not have been subject to ‘hardship’ in the same way you are suggesting either.

It was and has been textbook wealth accumulation, kickstarted by selling off the state’s assets. In this case a lot of people who maybe wouldn’t have considered themselves Conservatives benefitted personally. If that was an attempt to drive nails into the idea of social cohesion then it probably helped a great deal.

[weecounty hibby]

Yet the right to buy was taken up by nearly half a million Scots. So obviously not all of her policies were unpopular.

She was a complete and utter ******* but a shrewd politician. She knew that people with mortgages are more reluctant to go on strike. Sadly 30 years later the right to buy is now one of the main causes of people not being able to get a house.

[archie]

We’ll see how that policy ages over time, when the beloved grandchildren of those who benefitted from that scheme realise they’ll never own their own home as the commoditisation of shelter means that all the property ends up in the ownership of a few.

Well not really the few. Around 58% of Scotland's houses are owner occupied. 15% in the private rented sector and 23% social rented. The balance are unoccupied etc. Like it or not, the right to buy was very popular.

[archie]

She was a complete and utter ******* but a shrewd politician. She knew that people with mortgages are more reluctant to go on strike. Sadly 30 years later the right to buy is now one of the main causes of people not being able to get a house.

I'm not a fan of the right to buy. But the houses that were sold under it didn't disappear. Is your point that it's why people can't get a social rented house?

[archie]

Who's not going to take basically free money. It was also one of the worst decisions in uk political history, pre brexit. Personal gain for a chosen few, hardship for millions in every generation since and growing.
It was very popular.

[weecounty hibby]

Well not really the few. Around 58% of Scotland's houses are owner occupied. 15% in the private rented sector and 23% social rented. The balance are unoccupied etc. Like it or not, the right to buy was very popular.
No one is denying its popularity but the long term effects are being felt now. It was a way to get a quick buck. I actually wanted to buy my grans and my mums houses. Both lived in the same houses for 50 years. Both said no. They were adamant that cou cil houses were for working class folk and should t be sold to private buyers. Admirable in the extreme and right on so many levels. Probably lost me about 150k. But they were right. After the right to buy was stopped Both houses are still in housing association ownership and are rented out by families

[weecounty hibby]

I'm not a fan of the right to buy. But the houses that were sold under it didn't disappear. Is your point that it's why people can't get a social rented house?
Yes. Allied to the Tory and Labour govs of the past refusing to build affordable housing.

[Santa Cruz]

She was a complete and utter ******* but a shrewd politician. She knew that people with mortgages are more reluctant to go on strike. Sadly 30 years later the right to buy is now one of the main causes of people not being able to get a house.

RTB ended in Scotland in 2016. If it was such a bad policy, out of interest, why do you think Labour and the SNP didn't close the scheme earlier?

[archie]

RTB ended in Scotland in 2016. If it was such a bad policy, out of interest, why do you think Labour and the SNP didn't close the scheme earlier?

I don't want to jump in over Wee County, but it's important to be aware that, while it didn't formally end until 2016, it had been significantly curtailed over the previous 15 years. Discounts and eligibility were reduced over this period.

[Ozyhibby]

I have no problem in principle but the discounts were too high and everyone sold should have been replaced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

I have no problem in principle but the discounts were too high and everyone sold should have been replaced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But what would the replacements have been paid for with?

[Ozyhibby]

But what would the replacements have been paid for with?

The proceeds from the sale?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

I don't want to jump in over Wee County, but it's important to be aware that, while it didn't formally end until 2016, it had been significantly curtailed over the previous 15 years. Discounts and eligibility were reduced over this period.

That's correct. It could have been closed completley as soon as Labour came into Gov in WM and Holyrood (followed by the SNP), it wasn't. Even with a change to the original scheme, it was still removing social housing stock and it wasn't being replaced at the same pace afaik, to make more homes available for people on housing waiting lists.

[Glory Lurker]

The proceeds from the sale?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But that would have needed the discount to be pretty much removed, which would have meant no purchase.

It was an abhorrent scheme so it's a shame it wasn't priced so high nobody would have taken it up!

[Stairway 2 7]

It was very popular.

The bnp could come in power and offer everyone £10000 that would be popular too and uptake would be massive, it also means nothing.

[Santa Cruz]

But what would the replacements have been paid for with?

It was supposed to be the capital receipts held by local councils from the funds raised from RTB. I suspect due to lack of funding from central gov choices were made to spend it elsewhere to fund gaps in other essential services they provided.

[archie]

The proceeds from the sale?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It just wasn't enough. The discount related to years of tenancy and in many cases had no relationship to the debt on the house. A flat valued at £100,000 could be sold for as little as £30,000.

[Kato]

I agree with you. I just think her memory doesn't resonate as it once did.A prime minster from 30 years ago? Great insight, archie.

She resonates enough that when one of those brexit salesmen (won't to buy some sovereignty, fell off the back of a lorry) are on TV via zoom they will more than likely have a portrait of "blessed Margaret" on the wall. For some it's called something along the lines of "trolling the libs".

Speaks volumes that those who have lionised her the most recently are the most venal section of the most venal party.

Some of her policies were popular, so was brexit, so was Boris Johnson. Saatchi and Saatchi did a really efficient job and their legacy also survives on social media and among those who manipulate it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

A prime minster from 30 years ago? Great insight, archie.

She resonates enough that when one of those brexit salesmen (won't to buy some sovereignty, fell off the back of a lorry) are on TV via zoom they will more than likely have a portrait of "blessed Margaret" on the wall. For some it's called something along the lines of "trolling the libs".

Speaks volumes that those who have lionised her the most recently are the most venal section of the most venal party.

Some of her policies were popular, so was brexit, so was Boris Johnson. Saatchi and Saatchi did a really efficient job and their legacy also survives on social media and among those who manipulate it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk33 years to be precise. It's not me obsessing about her!

[Stairway 2 7]

Half a million Scots doesn’t really cut it as a ‘chosen few’. Given the sales led to an estimated £2 billion profit for those buying their homes in Scotland, then I think their families may not have been subject to ‘hardship’ in the same way you are suggesting either.

It was and has been textbook wealth accumulation, kickstarted by selling off the state’s assets. In this case a lot of people who maybe wouldn’t have considered themselves Conservatives benefitted personally. If that was an attempt to drive nails into the idea of social cohesion then it probably helped a great deal.

Your either half daft or a tory to not think it was a horrible decision. I mean the few as in tens of millions will be harmed because of it for the next 100 years. Half of all 25-34 year old now live with their parents still, that's 37% more than 10 years ago. There's no chance of a council house. Money rolls upwards in our capitalist system so a huge % of the profits from right to buy will have gone to our upper class as the economic gap grows

[archie]

It was supposed to be the capital receipts held by local councils from the funds raised from RTB. I suspect due to lack of funding from central gov choices were made to spend it elsewhere to fund gaps in other essential services they provided.

TBH the operation of the scheme was a major disincentive for councils to build. Which was the point. For many years housing associations were not covered by the right to buy, which is why a lot of focus was put on them to build.

[degenerated]

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?Many of them are still affected by it.

[Ozyhibby]

This thread should be all about the exciting plans Labour has for the UK?
We are only 18 months away from them taking power why waste time chatting about Thatcher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Many of them are still affected by it.We all live in Thatchers Britain.

Victorian Values - the have's and have nots.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Your either half daft or a tory to not think it was a horrible decision. I mean the few as in tens of millions will be harmed because of it for the next 100 years. Half of all 25-34 year old now live with their parents still, that's 37% more than 10 years ago. There's no chance of a council house. Money rolls upwards in our capitalist system so a huge % of the profits from right to buy will have gone to our upper class as the economic gap grows

I don't think mibbies aye is defending it as a policy. But nearly half a million Scots liked it. It has had a significant impact on housing access. I'm less clear how the profits have gone to the upper class.

[degenerated]

She was phenomenally popular in her pomp.

Not in your own country though.

[Smartie]

Well not really the few. Around 58% of Scotland's houses are owner occupied. 15% in the private rented sector and 23% social rented. The balance are unoccupied etc. Like it or not, the right to buy was very popular.

It was.

Give it a few years though.

[archie]

This thread should be all about the exiting plans Labour has for the UK?
We are only 18 months away from them taking power why waste time chatting about Thatcher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. But it wasn't me having a dose of the vapours because Starmer trolled the Tories by quoting Thatcher.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't think mibbies aye is defending it as a policy. But nearly half a million Scots liked it. It has had a significant impact on housing access. I'm less clear how the profits have gone to the upper class.

And let’s not forget how bad at being landlords councils were. The condition of a lot of the housing improved a lot after they were sold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

And let’s not forget how bad at being landlords councils were. The condition of a lot of the housing improved a lot after they were sold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a huge generalisation.

[Stairway 2 7]

I don't think mibbies aye is defending it as a policy. But nearly half a million Scots liked it. It has had a significant impact on housing access. I'm less clear how the profits have gone to the upper class.

It goes to the upper class through our system. The profits went to working classes, that working class are getting poorer every year due to tory governments. It was short term wealth that travels up. Every generation after it are absolutely ******. Next to no way for many to get on the housing ladder, no way to get a council house

The percentage of the population who are renting grows every year. Money to people with second homes or to letting companies. Exactly what the tories wanted

[weecounty hibby]

It just wasn't enough. The discount related to years of tenancy and in many cases had no relationship to the debt on the house. A flat valued at £100,000 could be sold for as little as £30,000.
Exactly this. My mums 2 bed mid terrace could have been bought for less than 12k at the time due to length pf time in it. My grans end terrace 3 bed was about 15k from memory. Similar houses in my mums street are going for about 110, my grans would probably be 130. So the council get 25k for 250k worth of houses. To build replacements for these would be a minimum of 100k each nowadays. So basically the Tory gov of the time were lining folks pockets at the expense of local authorities. Sounds familiar, just like selling off the assets like gas, elec, rail, telecoms etc etc

[archie]

It goes to the upper class through our system. The profits went to working classes, that working class are getting poorer every year due to tory governments. It was short term wealth that travels up. Every generation after it are absolutely ******. Next to no way for many to get on the housing ladder, no way to get a council house

The percentage of the population who are renting grows every year. Money to people with second homes or to letting companies. Exactly what the tories wanted

Right, but how does transferring wealth to renters through the right to buy end up with the upper class? I'm not getting it. Surely it is transferred by inheritance to the buyers family?

[Jack]

I wonder how many of these homes, bought through RTB, are now Buy to Let houses and how many of these owners have multiple former council houses?

[archie]

It goes to the upper class through our system. The profits went to working classes, that working class are getting poorer every year due to tory governments. It was short term wealth that travels up. Every generation after it are absolutely ******. Next to no way for many to get on the housing ladder, no way to get a council house

The percentage of the population who are renting grows every year. Money to people with second homes or to letting companies. Exactly what the tories wanted

The Tories wanted to break the link between housing options and local authorities. They were pretty successful in doing that.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yet the right to buy was taken up by nearly half a million Scots. So obviously not all of her policies were unpopular.

10% if the population isn't exactly a huge endorsement.

[Ozyhibby]

10% if the population isn't exactly a huge endorsement.

Surely more than 10% lived in those houses?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Your either half daft or a tory to not think it was a horrible decision. I mean the few as in tens of millions will be harmed because of it for the next 100 years. Half of all 25-34 year old now live with their parents still, that's 37% more than 10 years ago. There's no chance of a council house. Money rolls upwards in our capitalist system so a huge % of the profits from right to buy will have gone to our upper class as the economic gap grows

You are an excitable one aren’t you?

Do you think when I talked about it hammering nails into social cohesion I was being complimentary?

[archie]

10% if the population isn't exactly a huge endorsement.

Yes, but it's households, not individuals, so it's over 20% of households at the time it was brought in. I think that's a pretty thumping endorsement.

[Ozyhibby]

When it comes to housing, I’m more interested in parties future plans for getting houses built. Doesn’t appear to be much of that going around though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

10% if the population isn't exactly a huge endorsement.

Surely tou want to be using a percentage of eligible tenants here?

[Hibrandenburg]

Surely more than 10% lived in those houses?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aye many of them would never be able to move out because they could never afford their own.

[Stairway 2 7]

Right, but how does transferring wealth to renters through the right to buy end up with the upper class? I'm not getting it. Surely it is transferred by inheritance to the buyers family?

It simply has hence people's savings and wealth decreasing over the last 15 years. You don't have to get it it's simply happening and happened. Lots in assets but cash gets spent. Lots of that inheritance is now getting spent on rent as people have multiple children who are renting more each year.

One house sold wouldn't have paid for one house built but three would. They built pretty much none.

[Ozyhibby]

Aye many of them would never be able to move out because they could never afford their own.

I mean if 500k houses were sold then it’s much more than 10% of the population. There would be families of 4 and 5 people in each house. Not that many council houses were single occupancy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Yes, but it's households, not individuals, so it's over 20% of households at the time it was brought in. I think that's a pretty thumping endorsement.

I'm still not getting what that proves. Who isn't going to take free money even if you think it's stupid. Fact is their gain has meant their kids/grandkids are living with them when late 20% and renting more and more

[archie]

I'm still not getting what that proves. Who isn't going to take free money even if you think it's stupid. Fact is their gain has meant their kids/grandkids are living with them when late 20% and renting more and more

It was popular. That's all.

[JeMeSouviens]

It was popular. That's all.

Populist things are supposed to be.

[Santa Cruz]

TBH the operation of the scheme was a major disincentive for councils to build. Which was the point. For many years housing associations were not covered by the right to buy, which is why a lot of focus was put on them to build.

https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/money/what-is-the-right-to-buy-scheme-and-how-did-right-to-buy-work-in-scotland-3725451

[Santa Cruz]

And let’s not forget how bad at being landlords councils were. The condition of a lot of the housing improved a lot after they were sold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To give you an idea. Below tolerable standard figures here covering all housing tenures.

https://www.ukhousingreview.org.uk/ukhr22/tables-figures/pdf/22-026.pdf

[Stairway 2 7]

It was popular. That's all.

33% of Scots agree with the Rwanda policy, kick on popular policy.

I don't think giving away free money is proof of a popular policy though

[Hibbyradge]

33% of Scots agree with the Rwanda policy, kick on popular policy.

I don't think giving away free money is proof of a popular policy though

I can't imagine getting free money would ever be unpopular.

[Bostonhibby]

I can't imagine getting free money would ever be unpopular.Agreed, you only have to look at the rush to get onto lord Deighton's fast track lane for certain privileged suppliers of all things PPE to appreciate that.



Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[blackpoolhibs]

I can't imagine getting free money would ever be unpopular.

I dont think i could accept any of the maroon pounds they were going on about the other week.:lolyam:

[archie]

To give you an idea. Below tolerable standard figures here covering all housing tenures.

https://www.ukhousingreview.org.uk/ukhr22/tables-figures/pdf/22-026.pdf

Below Tolerable Standard houses numbers are pretty low. Not surprising as it gives local authorities statutory grounds to intervene.

[archie]

33% of Scots agree with the Rwanda policy, kick on popular policy.

I don't think giving away free money is proof of a popular policy thoughOK, but nearly 500,000 were sold under the policy. I get the push/pull factors at play, but whatever the motivation people had to buy, it was popular.

[Santa Cruz]

Below Tolerable Standard houses numbers are pretty low. Not surprising as it gives local authorities statutory grounds to intervene.

Yes, was providing the OP with info.

[Hibrandenburg]

I mean if 500k houses were sold then it’s much more than 10% of the population. There would be families of 4 and 5 people in each house. Not that many council houses were single occupancy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know what you meant Oz, but I'm not sure all the kids growing up in bought council houses cared one way or the other at the time. At least until the time came to flee the nest and look for their own.

[J-C]

I know what you meant Oz, but I'm not sure all the kids growing up in bought council houses cared one way or the other at the time. At least until the time came to flee the nest and look for their own.

When it came to flee the nest they went to another council house, by selling the vast majority of council houses and not replacing them has caused this housing shortage where you'd get a council house for a few years and save or a mortgage. What we have now is a catch 22 situation where because of no council housing, the younger generation have to move into mid market rental, paying the equivalent of a mortgage and therefore unable to save money for a deposit. I do feel sorry for the younger generation trying to get their own property especially in expensive cities like Edinburgh.

[Ozyhibby]

When it came to flee the nest they went to another council house, by selling the vast majority of council houses and not replacing them has caused this housing shortage where you'd get a council house for a few years and save or a mortgage. What we have now is a catch 22 situation where because of no council housing, the younger generation have to move into mid market rental, paying the equivalent of a mortgage and therefore unable to save money for a deposit. I do feel sorry for the younger generation trying to get their own property especially in expensive cities like Edinburgh.

And the knock on effects are bigger than that. Because young couples can’t get secure housing at an affordable price, they put off having children. That inevitably results in them having less children which makes our demographic situation even worse. Our pensions, healthcare etc are all totally unaffordable going forward if we don’t solve that problem but we are sleepwalking into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

When it came to flee the nest they went to another council house, by selling the vast majority of council houses and not replacing them has caused this housing shortage where you'd get a council house for a few years and save or a mortgage. What we have now is a catch 22 situation where because of no council housing, the younger generation have to move into mid market rental, paying the equivalent of a mortgage and therefore unable to save money for a deposit. I do feel sorry for the younger generation trying to get their own property especially in expensive cities like Edinburgh.

It would be good if the rent was the same as a mortgage. The average rent for a 1 bedroom flat in Edin is just under 900 now. Hence they kids are often still in bought council house in their 30s with their parents.

[archie]

And the knock on effects are bigger than that. Because young couples can’t get secure housing at an affordable price, they put off having children. That inevitably results in them having less children which makes our demographic situation even worse. Our pensions, healthcare etc are all totally unaffordable going forward if we don’t solve that problem but we are sleepwalking into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a part to this equation that we don't talk about. For all the talk of house prices being too high, the people in these houses are quietly happy for that to continue, as are their kids who will inherit.

[Stairway 2 7]

There's a part to this equation that we don't talk about. For all the talk of house prices being too high, the people in these houses are quietly happy for that to continue, as are their kids who will inherit.

If it trickled down perfectly then the number of home owners would have stayed equal. Its not renters have increased massively and its expected to continue for the next 10 years. The younger generation are renting not buying they also aren't in council houses as there are none

[Ozyhibby]

There's a part to this equation that we don't talk about. For all the talk of house prices being too high, the people in these houses are quietly happy for that to continue, as are their kids who will inherit.

Yip. Very difficult to get elected saying you are going to reduce house prices. So we’ll just need to carry on now until the system breaks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Yip. Very difficult to get elected saying you are going to reduce house prices. So we’ll just need to carry on now until the system breaks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mass immigration of young people is our only hope. I've got a feeling that none of the two uk parties will campaign for that, stop the boats

[Ozyhibby]

Mass immigration of young people is our only hope. I've got a feeling that none of the two uk parties will campaign for that, stop the boats

We can also promote having more kids ourselves. Build more housing, provide free childcare, increase education spending etc.
There are lots of things can be done. Doing nothing seems to be the preferred model though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

I'm still not getting what that proves. Who isn't going to take free money even if you think it's stupid. Fact is their gain has meant their kids/grandkids are living with them when late 20% and renting more and more

Did anyone who bought their house think the policy was stupid? Most people are, at heart, aspirational. Who could blame folk for wanting to own their own home? The state of the nation nearly half a century later was unlikely to be uppermost in their thoughts.

Might be wrong but I think the policy was actually one originally proposed by Labour.

[archie]

If it trickled down perfectly then the number of home owners would have stayed equal. Its not renters have increased massively and its expected to continue for the next 10 years. The younger generation are renting not buying they also aren't in council houses as there are none

Not all young people are renting. But getting on the ladder is easier if you have some inheritance. The right to buy gave people wealth to leave that they wouldn't have otherwise had. That makes it harder to get on the ladder for people who don't have that leg up.

[archie]

Mass immigration of young people is our only hope. I've got a feeling that none of the two uk parties will campaign for that, stop the boats

What about young people here?

[Ozyhibby]

Not all young people are renting. But getting on the ladder is easier if you have some inheritance. The right to buy gave people wealth to leave that they wouldn't have otherwise had. That makes it harder to get on the ladder for people who don't have that leg up.

We need to build more houses. It’s as simple as that. We need to reform the planning system so that there is a presumption of yes as the starting point. We build far less houses than our European counterparts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

There's a part to this equation that we don't talk about. For all the talk of house prices being too high, the people in these houses are quietly happy for that to continue, as are their kids who will inherit.

Yep, the uncomfortable truth is that there are more people happy than unhappy with the current situation.

Although that will change as more and more is concentrated in the hands of fewer.

[Stairway 2 7]

Not all young people are renting. But getting on the ladder is easier if you have some inheritance. The right to buy gave people wealth to leave that they wouldn't have otherwise had. That makes it harder to get on the ladder for people who don't have that leg up.

Your talking hypotheticals I am looking at real world stats. The number of people renting has doubled in 15 years its expected to double again in 20. Everything else is just words

[Stairway 2 7]

What about young people here?

Their society will be destroyed in 40 years without immigration. An aging nation, no one to pay the pensions of the future, no house purchased to use as a pensions.

[grunt]

I just think her memory doesn't resonate as it once did.We were talking earlier about Thatcher.

https://twitter.com/BinxQuackery/status/1639332053576450069?s=20

[Pretty Boy]

When it came to flee the nest they went to another council house, by selling the vast majority of council houses and not replacing them has caused this housing shortage where you'd get a council house for a few years and save or a mortgage. What we have now is a catch 22 situation where because of no council housing, the younger generation have to move into mid market rental, paying the equivalent of a mortgage and therefore unable to save money for a deposit. I do feel sorry for the younger generation trying to get their own property especially in expensive cities like Edinburgh.

There's new mid market rents just about to be released at The Wisp. £1200 a month for a 3 bed, £1050 for a 2 bed.

Even for a couple earning close to the average wage that's a huge chunk of their income and you still have to factor in council tax, home insurance, bills etc. Mid market rent is not the solution to anything (I know you are saying as much, I'm agreeing).

[archie]

Your talking hypotheticals I am looking at real world stats. The number of people renting has doubled in 15 years its expected to double again in 20. Everything else is just words

Well there's nothing hypothetical about what I'm saying. Here's the latest stats. In 1979 39% of Scotland's housing was owner occupied. Now it's 58%. I think the doubling of people renting figure you quote might be in the private rented sector. If it's across housing as a whole there would be a major shift from owner occupation to renting.https://www.gov.scot/publications/housing-statistics-2020-2021-key-trends-summary/pages/6/

[archie]

We were talking earlier about Thatcher.

https://twitter.com/BinxQuackery/status/1639332053576450069?s=20

Yeah, but we've moved on to the real world.

[Pretty Boy]

Well there's nothing hypothetical about what I'm saying. Here's the latest stats. In 1979 39% of Scotland's housing was owner occupied. Now it's 58%. I think the doubling of people renting figure you quote might be in the private rented sector. If it's across housing as a whole there would be a major shift from owner occupation to renting.https://www.gov.scot/publications/housing-statistics-2020-2021-key-trends-summary/pages/6/

How does the trend look in recent times? Say the last 10-15 years? And then how does it look in under 40s?

[archie]

How does the trend look in recent times? Say the last 10-15 years? And then how does it look in under 40s?

I posted SG stats. I don't think these stats are broken down by age of buyer/renter.

[Pretty Boy]

I posted SG stats. I don't think these stats are broken down by age of buyer/renter.

But the trend shown in all age groups allows you to answer my 1st question. Since the early 00s ownership has been largely stagnant whilst those renting in all sectors is seeing a steady rise.

[Santa Cruz]

How does the trend look in recent times? Say the last 10-15 years? And then how does it look in under 40s?

I think your best bet to find those stats may be the 2011 census. I can't actually mind now how much detail was collected.

[archie]

This is a Spice briefing (these are prepared by the Scottish Parliament). It looks very thorough. https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2021/6/22/57e519e2-55b4-4c58-9723-1d41a5c2a0f0-1

The age of first time buyers is going up. I suspect there are a number of things associated with this: house prices, unstable economic situation, less access to mortgages on low deposits, tendencies for individuals to buy a home and constrained supply in high demand areas.

[Stairway 2 7]

Well there's nothing hypothetical about what I'm saying. Here's the latest stats. In 1979 39% of Scotland's housing was owner occupied. Now it's 58%. I think the doubling of people renting figure you quote might be in the private rented sector. If it's across housing as a whole there would be a major shift from owner occupation to renting.https://www.gov.scot/publications/housing-statistics-2020-2021-key-trends-summary/pages/6/

Your going back to before I was born. We know it went up but we're talking about future generations. Home ownership in the uk rose to when people could use right to buy to 72%, since the millennium it's fallin to 58% and its dropping at an alarming rate.

It's worse for the under 30s
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45084530.amp

This picture of rising house prices has led to a steep decline in home ownership between the generations.

At the age of 25, 40% of people born in 1969 owned their own home, compared with 15% of those born in 1989.

[archie]

Your going back to before I was born. We know it went up but we're talking about future generations. Home ownership in the uk rose to when people could use right to buy to 72%, since the millennium it's fallin to 58% and its dropping at an alarming rate.

It's worse for the under 30s
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45084530.amp

This picture of rising house prices has led to a steep decline in home ownership between the generations.

At the age of 25, 40% of people born in 1969 owned their own home, compared with 15% of those born in 1989.

Owner occupation in Scotland isn't falling.

[Stairway 2 7]

Owner occupation in Scotland isn't falling.

The % has, not the figure

[Jack]

I wonder how many of these homes, bought through RTB, are now Buy to Let houses and how many of these owners have multiple former council houses?

Panorama tonight. The program suggests that in London 40% of former social housing is now in the hands of private landlords.

What’s Gone Wrong with Our Housing?

Millions of council houses were built after the war to help protect people from slum landlords. They used to be home to around a third of the UK population. Margaret Thatcher’s flagship right-to-buy policy boosted home ownership, but the council house sell-off is causing major problems 40 years on. Many former council properties are now in the hands of private landlords. In some parts of the country, rents are going through the roof, and slum landlords are back. Reporter Richard Bilton investigates what’s been happening, by telling the story of one housing estate in London.

[grunt]

Meanwhile, the Labour Party is the epitome of peace and harmony

https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/337542856_912830169920359_9136961730974940027_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=QsOqL9vykb0AX8f6_oG&_nc_ht=scontent-man2-1.xx&oh=00_AfD39K6k5p6DCQ6HFNW7ufvveIUahqtXbRCILg_ATjc2 Bg&oe=64262AAA

[Mibbes Aye]

Meanwhile, the Labour Party is the epitome of peace and harmony

https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/337542856_912830169920359_9136961730974940027_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=QsOqL9vykb0AX8f6_oG&_nc_ht=scontent-man2-1.xx&oh=00_AfD39K6k5p6DCQ6HFNW7ufvveIUahqtXbRCILg_ATjc2 Bg&oe=64262AAA

It certainly is. Jeremy Corbyn isn’t a Labour Party MP.

And as I think Starmer made clear, anyone with a problem with that, MPs or otherwise, knows where the door is.

[grunt]

It certainly is. Jeremy Corbyn isn’t a Labour Party MP.

And as I think Starmer made clear, anyone with a problem with that, MPs or otherwise, knows where the door is.Is Corbyn no longer a Labour Party member?

[He's here!]

Is Corbyn no longer a Labour Party member?

IIRC his membership was suspended but I think he got back in.

[ronaldo7]

Is Corbyn no longer a Labour Party member?

He's still a Labour party member, but stands as an Independent in the commons.

His pal, Sir Keir has stitched him up.

Keir Starmer in Feb 2020

The selections for Labour candidates needs to be more democratic and we should end NEC impositions of candidates. Local party members should select their candidates for every election.

Keir Starmer 2023 seems to have changed his mind on the above according to his motion to the NEC.

[Ozyhibby]

I think Starmer just announces Corbyn’s departure every few weeks so that he doesn’t have to talk about what his plans for the country are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

He's still a Labour party member, but stands as an Independent in the commons.

His pal, Sir Keir has stitched him up.

Keir Starmer in Feb 2020

The selections for Labour candidates needs to be more democratic and we should end NEC impositions of candidates. Local party members should select their candidates for every election.

Keir Starmer 2023 seems to have changed his mind on the above according to his motion to the NEC.

On the biggest day in your party’s history you are ferreting around for old quotes from Keir? I think someone craves the hand of firm leadership. Welcome aboard comrade :greengrin

I don’t recall the 2020 quote but let’s assume it is verbatim. Your post remains inaccurate.

What the NEC used to impose was all-women shortlists. They have stopped now, because the PLP is more than 50% women, so it can’t be justified legally. Do you have a problem with the Labour Party having imposed all-women shortlists, when it did?

CLPs still select their candidates. The NEC involvement comes at the long-listing stage and that’s an attempt to ensure the likes of Jared O’Mara and Claudia Webbe never get through the process again, with not enough scrutiny (but a load of support from Momentum)

It’s quality control, due diligence, whatever you like but let’s face it all of the parties have found themselves thinking WTF when they realise just who has managed to get a seat, under the radar.

[grunt]

I think Starmer just announces Corbyn’s departure every few weeks so that he doesn’t have to talk about what his plans for the country are.
:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I think Starmer just announces Corbyn’s departure every few weeks so that he doesn’t have to talk about what his plans for the country are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe speaking from inside an SNP bubble there, there’s plenty out there. Sadly it can get drowned out by the raging psychodramas that SNP and the Tories feel compelled to act out very publicly.

Two governments, each in office, each containing more that divides them than unites them.

[hibsbollah]

I think Starmer just announces Corbyn’s departure every few weeks so that he doesn’t have to talk about what his plans for the country are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:greengrin

Absolutely.

I was genuinely surprised this was being reported as news, I thought something almost identical was reported last week. Not surprising in the slightest. I’m sure Starmer was listening to some soft MOR rock and flexing his muscles in the mirror while dictating into a voice recorder, repeating ‘I’m so HARD’ to himself.

Jeremy, being a keen gardener, was hopefully outside all day in the beautiful weather as I was, and making the most of the extra hour of evening daylight.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Panorama tonight. The program suggests that in London 40% of former social housing is now in the hands of private landlords.

What’s Gone Wrong with Our Housing?

Millions of council houses were built after the war to help protect people from slum landlords. They used to be home to around a third of the UK population. Margaret Thatcher’s flagship right-to-buy policy boosted home ownership, but the council house sell-off is causing major problems 40 years on. Many former council properties are now in the hands of private landlords. In some parts of the country, rents are going through the roof, and slum landlords are back. Reporter Richard Bilton investigates what’s been happening, by telling the story of one housing estate in London.


i'm quite ashamed to admit to thinking at the time that was one good policy Thatcher introduced, the ONLY time i may add, and it took me a decade or more to actually think/realise about the damage that it did to Council Housing Stock years later

[grunt]

Two governments, each in office, each containing more that divides them than unites them.
How have you measured that, I wonder?

[Mibbes Aye]

How have you measured that, I wonder?

A trundle wheel and a sextant?

[Jones28]

i'm quite ashamed to admit to thinking at the time that was one good policy Thatcher introduced, the ONLY time i may add, and it took me a decade or more to actually think/realise about the damage that it did to Council Housing Stock years later

There’s no shame in thinking it was a good policy.

[Pretty Boy]

i'm quite ashamed to admit to thinking at the time that was one good policy Thatcher introduced, the ONLY time i may add, and it took me a decade or more to actually think/realise about the damage that it did to Council Housing Stock years later

I think it's a policy that in theory had merit. I'm certain there will be a great many people who, whatever they think of the rest of her politics, will hold a degree of gratitude to Thatcher for providing a route to home ownership for them.

I'd argue we need a government now with a genuine commitment to get people into home ownership. The figures are there, ownership grew quickly for several years but then it slowed and is now stagnating and has been for the best part of 2 decades. That's at it's worst in the younger generations. Worse still a huge disparity has opened up between average wage and average house price. The old tropes of 'give up your Starbucks latte', 'do without an iphone' or 'just work harder' don't cut it anymore, if they ever did. There's a further knock on effect in a social sense as young people delay having a family or put off the idea altogether because of the uncertainty of putting a roof over their head long term; a declining birth rate and an ageing population is a recipe for disaster.

There is no easy solution though. Among people who do own their homes there is always going to be resistance to any policy that drags down prices, even the most progressive of people aren't going to be supportive of placing themselves in negative equity. The nonsensical 40 or 50 year mortgage plan is a total non starter and only kicks the can down the road and schemes like mid market rent are now so expensive (as the rent is dictated by the market locally) that they barely serve their purpose to allow people to save.

It's a total mess and property has been popularised as a commodity rather than a basic need to such an extent that it's an unresolvable problem. To come back to my original point I think right to buy had merit had it married helping people into ownership along with the sold housing stock being replaced with high quality social housing to continue the cycle. That wasn't the case though and we now have a lack of social housing, unaffordable private rents and a large percentage of at least one generation frozen out of the buyers market. Answers on a postcard.

[Kato]

i'm quite ashamed to admit to thinking at the time that was one good policy Thatcher introduced, the ONLY time i may add, and it took me a decade or more to actually think/realise about the damage that it did to Council Housing Stock years laterSell something we paid for in the first place back to us with good odds that the ownership would be fleeting and it would end up part of someone's massive property portfolio. Twisted genius that.

"An English man's home is his castle."

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

On the biggest day in your party’s history you are ferreting around for old quotes from Keir? I think someone craves the hand of firm leadership. Welcome aboard comrade :greengrin

I don’t recall the 2020 quote but let’s assume it is verbatim. Your post remains inaccurate.

What the NEC used to impose was all-women shortlists. They have stopped now, because the PLP is more than 50% women, so it can’t be justified legally. Do you have a problem with the Labour Party having imposed all-women shortlists, when it did?

CLPs still select their candidates. The NEC involvement comes at the long-listing stage and that’s an attempt to ensure the likes of Jared O’Mara and Claudia Webbe never get through the process again, with not enough scrutiny (but a load of support from Momentum)

It’s quality control, due diligence, whatever you like but let’s face it all of the parties have found themselves thinking WTF when they realise just who has managed to get a seat, under the radar.

No ferreting required. So many of his reversals out there, it's like guddling salmon in a sink.

Painful to watch how the establishment hero puts the boot into an old man.

[Mibbes Aye]

No ferreting required. So many of his reversals out there, it's like guddling salmon in a sink.

Painful to watch how the establishment hero puts the boot into an old man.

So many that the first one you chose turned out to be way, way, way off the mark?

Anyway, no one wants a board that’s all ‘He said this’/‘Yeah, well she said that’ etc etc. We are better than that I hope.

But you should read the thread - today’s particular exchanges on here arose from Corbyn trying to “put the boot in”, not the other way around.

[ronaldo7]

So many that the first one you chose turned out to be way, way, way off the mark?

Anyway, no one wants a board that’s all ‘He said this’/‘Yeah, well she said that’ etc etc. We are better than that I hope.

But you should read the thread - today’s particular exchanges on here arose from Corbyn trying to “put the boot in”, not the other way around.

The one I chose was tweeted by starmer himself. He should own it. It seems he doesn't believe it anymore.

Looks like Corbyn will give labour a black eye in the next election now anyway.

[Mibbes Aye]

The one I chose was tweeted by starmer himself. He should own it. It seems he doesn't believe it anymore.

Looks like Corbyn will give labour a black eye in the next election now anyway.

Yeah, petrified :greengrin

[grunt]

It certainly is. Jeremy Corbyn isn’t a Labour Party MP. And as I think Starmer made clear, anyone with a problem with that, MPs or otherwise, knows where the door is.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsThFg4XsAAk-z5?format=jpg&name=900x900

[Mibbes Aye]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsThFg4XsAAk-z5?format=jpg&name=900x900

Is this what you meant by ‘debate’? :top marks

But seriously, there will be full-scale meltdown at Labour Central over this, panic stations, the lot :greengrinSeriously, did you type that yourself? Or had this anonymous group of ‘officers’ bottled it when it came to using official party stationery?

Said it before, will say it again, the CLPs select their candidates, the NEC are there to ensure they meet the standards expected of a Labour MP. The only person at fault here is Corbyn.

[ronaldo7]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsThFg4XsAAk-z5?format=jpg&name=900x900

If it's not got Sir Keir's thumb print, it won't be believed. :greengrin

Stop ferreting around. :wink:

[grunt]

Seriously, did you type that yourself? Or had this anonymous group of ‘officers’ bottled it when it came to using official party stationery?It was posted by the "Official Twitter account of Islington North Constituency Labour Party." Are you saying this is fake?

Amazing how fragile some Labour supporters get when there's the tiniest bit of news about the Precious Labour Party.

[Mibbes Aye]

It was posted by the "Official Twitter account of Islington North Constituency Labour Party." Are you saying this is fake?

Amazing how fragile some Labour supporters get when there's the tiniest bit of news about the Precious Labour Party.

When you usually post your graphs or the like there is something to identify its author. That just looked like a scanned photocopy or something, that’s all.

I don’t know what the fragile comment means, I’m more than happy for the NEC’s decision about Corbyn to be publicised as widely as possible. Just so as long as it is accurately publicised of course.

Here’s some more news in fact. Ed Miliband announced today that a Labour government would issue no more licences for oil or gas exploration in the North Sea. Now I think that actually might be doing the SNP a favour, as they are in a bit of a bind. Did the SNP not make spending commitments on the back of what there was left to exploit? Or did the Greens force them to abandon them? At least this way, Ed has demonstrated that the decision will be outwith the SNP’s competence, as it is a reserved matter. It’s all a bit opaque really (OPEC even)........

[grunt]

Ed Miliband announced today that a Labour government would issue no more licences for oil or gas exploration in the North Sea.
Good news from the Labour Party.

[Ozyhibby]

When you usually post your graphs or the like there is something to identify its author. That just looked like a scanned photocopy or something, that’s all.

I don’t know what the fragile comment means, I’m more than happy for the NEC’s decision about Corbyn to be publicised as widely as possible. Just so as long as it is accurately publicised of course.

Here’s some more news in fact. Ed Miliband announced today that a Labour government would issue no more licences for oil or gas exploration in the North Sea. Now I think that actually might be doing the SNP a favour, as they are in a bit of a bind. Did the SNP not make spending commitments on the back of what there was left to exploit? Or did the Greens force them to abandon them? At least this way, Ed has demonstrated that the decision will be outwith the SNP’s competence, as it is a reserved matter. It’s all a bit opaque really (OPEC even)........

Oil exploration licenses always reserved(of course) and nobody pretended otherwise?
Since cop26 SNP has opposed new licenses.

As for Corbyn, you’ll be delighted to know it is well publicised. Every two weeks or so.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Oof! What exactly is Anas Sarwar's position on Jeremy Corbyn? Hard to say exactly because it seems to change. What is his position now, I wonder?

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1640716955022934021?s=20

[neil7908]

When you usually post your graphs or the like there is something to identify its author. That just looked like a scanned photocopy or something, that’s all.

I don’t know what the fragile comment means, I’m more than happy for the NEC’s decision about Corbyn to be publicised as widely as possible. Just so as long as it is accurately publicised of course.

Here’s some more news in fact. Ed Miliband announced today that a Labour government would issue no more licences for oil or gas exploration in the North Sea. Now I think that actually might be doing the SNP a favour, as they are in a bit of a bind. Did the SNP not make spending commitments on the back of what there was left to exploit? Or did the Greens force them to abandon them? At least this way, Ed has demonstrated that the decision will be outwith the SNP’s competence, as it is a reserved matter. It’s all a bit opaque really (OPEC even)........

Ed Miliband announced it today, but we know of course that means little in 2 years time. Posters have listed off numerous things Starmer promised years ago that got jettisoned as soon as it looked like it would not go down well with red wall voters and the like.

So they can announce all they like - we'll see what happens if they ever make it to government.

[Mibbes Aye]

Oil exploration licenses always reserved(of course) and nobody pretended otherwise?
Since cop26 SNP has opposed new licenses.

As for Corbyn, you’ll be delighted to know it is well publicised. Every two weeks or so.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you promise? It’s just that some weeks back, you were on here blethering about MPM Connect and despite the rather painfully dull explanation you were suggesting it was something bigger and “it doesn’t look like it is going away” 😀

As for the oil, I remember now. Sturgeon promised last conference that an independent Scotland would have an oil and gas wealth fund. So, trying to buy yes votes today with the promise of jam tomorrow. Except this jam has that particular flavour of irreversible climate change.

[Mibbes Aye]

Ed Miliband announced it today, but we know of course that means little in 2 years time. Posters have listed off numerous things Starmer promised years ago that got jettisoned as soon as it looked like it would not go down well with red wall voters and the like.

So they can announce all they like - we'll see what happens if they ever make it to government.

Yeah, down with that sort of thing. Ed should just say nothing. Oh, hang on, a minute ago Labour were being criticised for not saying what they intend to do 😀

[ronaldo7]

Sir Keir's motion has been passed by the NEC, 22 votes to 11. A split party by all accounts.

Nicola Jukes, TSSA Labour NEC member, said: “TSSA is deeply dismayed by today's NEC vote which passed this wholly undemocratic motion.

“We strongly believe in the democratic right of Labour members, in the constituency parties (CLPs) to choose their own candidates. Today’s motion regarding Jeremy Corbyn was a cowardly move by the leadership and flies in the face of both Labour values and our democratic principles.

“The passing of this motion, on top of so many disappointing actions under Keir Starmer’s leadership, will prompt difficult discussions about Labour affiliation within our union. This is not what we need in the face of a Tory government bearing down on working people.

[DaveF]

Yeah, down with that sort of thing. Ed should just say nothing. Oh, hang on, a minute ago Labour were being criticised for not saying what they intend to do 😀

Are you mates with Ed? Your sneering levels would be through the roof if people on here were talking about Humza, Dougie and that other twat in the Lib Dems whose name escapes me.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sir Keir's motion has been passed by the NEC, 22 votes to 11. A split party by all accounts.

Nicola Jukes, TSSA Labour NEC member, said: “TSSA is deeply dismayed by today's NEC vote which passed this wholly undemocratic motion.

“We strongly believe in the democratic right of Labour members, in the constituency parties (CLPs) to choose their own candidates. Today’s motion regarding Jeremy Corbyn was a cowardly move by the leadership and flies in the face of both Labour values and our democratic principles.

“The passing of this motion, on top of so many disappointing actions under Keir Starmer’s leadership, will prompt difficult discussions about Labour affiliation within our union. This is not what we need in the face of a Tory government bearing down on working people.

I don’t think 22-11 is a split party (was it not 14?). Now 48-52 though......:greengrin

If TSSA wants to disaffiliate then they obviously are free to, but that will be for their members to decide, not Ms Jukes. And of course, if they aren’t affiliated she wouldn’t be entitled to her place on the NEC. Not sure she would be missed, mind you.

[Mibbes Aye]

Are you mates with Ed? Your sneering levels would be through the roof if people on here were talking about Humza, Dougie and that other twat in the Lib Dems whose name escapes me.

Are you sure your issue is with me calling him Ed and you’re not repressing something else :confused:

I referred to him as Ed because it was a lot less typing on a handheld device than typing Ed Miliband. Or at least it was until just now.

In the interest of party balance I often refer to the new FM as Humza. I’m not mates with him, before you ask :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I don’t think 22-11 is a split party (was it not 14?). Now 48-52 though......:greengrin

If TSSA wants to disaffiliate then they obviously are free to, but that will be for their members to decide, not Ms Jukes. And of course, if they aren’t affiliated she wouldn’t be entitled to her place on the NEC. Not sure she would be missed, mind you.

11 NEC members going against the Leader...That's a split.

[grunt]

11 NEC members going against the Leader...That's a split.No, no, no, nothing to see here.

[Mibbes Aye]

No, no, no, nothing to see here.

No, just democracy and good governance.

You know, governance? That’s what you don’t call it when your just-left leader shares the same front door as your CEO and the police are investigating alleged fraud and you have the aforementioned CEO lying.

[grunt]

No, just democracy and good governance.

You know, governance? That’s what you don’t call it when your just-left leader shares the same front door as your CEO and the police are investigating alleged fraud and you have the aforementioned CEO lying.
Looks like I touched a nerve! :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Looks like I touched a nerve! :greengrin

Au contraire, my debating chum. I welcomed the NEC decision today, Corbyn isn’t a Labour MP, won’t be standing as a Labour MP. Any howls and gnashing of the teeth by his acolytes or other wannabes and entryists are sweet soul music (as eminent Labour grandee Arthur Conley nearly said)

The compare and contrast with the SNP (lack of) governance was really just to help you understand how serious parties remain accountable 😀

[grunt]

Serious parties have just the 1 Scottish MP. That's what makes them serious. And he's a complete walloper.

[Mibbes Aye]

Serious parties have just the 1 Scottish MP. That's what makes them serious. And he's a complete walloper.

Take away the wallopers and every party would be short of a few parliamentarians 😀

[DaveF]

Are you sure your issue is with me calling him Ed and you’re not repressing something else :confused:

I referred to him as Ed because it was a lot less typing on a handheld device than typing Ed Miliband. Or at least it was until just now.

In the interest of party balance I often refer to the new FM as Humza. I’m not mates with him, before you ask :greengrin

Repressing something else, no.

I quite enjoy your posts as every one I read takes me further and further from ever voting Labour again.

[Mibbes Aye]

Repressing something else, no.

I quite enjoy your posts as every one I read takes me further and further from ever voting Labour again.

So, we’re okay with the “Ed” thing then?

[Kato]

Au contraire, my debating chum. I welcomed the NEC decision today, Corbyn isn’t a Labour MP, won’t be standing as a Labour MP. Any howls and gnashing of the teeth by his acolytes or other wannabes and entryists are sweet soul music (as eminent Labour grandee Arthur Conley nearly said)

The compare and contrast with the SNP (lack of) governance was really just to help you understand how serious parties remain accountable [emoji3]Serious parties remain accountable by lurching to the right?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Serious parties remain accountable by lurching to the right?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

The right?

Like ending non-dom status ‘right’?

Like scrapping charitable status for fee-paying schools ‘right’?

Or creating a state-owned low carbon energy giant ‘right’?

Or bringing the railways back under state control as their franchises expire ‘right’?

The only lurching around here belongs to the two parties in office, each feuding away about culture war issues, stumbling from one self-inflicted crisis to another.

[grunt]

Or bringing the railways back under state control as their franchises expire ‘right’?


https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-u-turns-on-leadership-election-pledge-to-renationalise-railways-12658870

[Kato]

The right?

Like ending non-dom status ‘right’?

Like scrapping charitable status for fee-paying schools ‘right’?

Or creating a state-owned low carbon energy giant ‘right’?

Or bringing the railways back under state control as their franchises expire ‘right’?

The only lurching around here belongs to the two parties in office, each feuding away about culture war issues, stumbling from one self-inflicted crisis to another.

You do realise that none of the things you have listed have actually happened, right?

Promises from Labour are a plenty and mostly unrequited. Which is why Scotland turned their back on them years ago. Their greatest skill was taking people for granted.

No need for Labour to join in the Tories/SNP culture wars they have their very own in house tug of war.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-u-turns-on-leadership-election-pledge-to-renationalise-railways-12658870Oh look. A gob stopper plunged into the hole to stop the gum bumping.



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

said it a few times now, Momentum need to split from the new centre-right pro-brexit promise-breaking Starmer :agree:

be a working mans party again, get yer soul back, get yer party back Keir Starmer accused of ‘behaving like Putin’ as Corbyn officially blocked from standing for Labour (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/keir-starmer-accused-of-behaving-like-putin-as-corbyn-officially-blocked-from-standing-for-labour/ar-AA19aX4P?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c9e1005f70924fe9ac4200e7c92a00ea&ei=11)


Starmer is a liar


horrible seeing what's happened to 'New' Labour since Bliar

[Mibbes Aye]

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-u-turns-on-leadership-election-pledge-to-renationalise-railways-12658870

You at the back, do keep up

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-announce-plan-re-nationalise-25106955.amp

[Mibbes Aye]

You do realise that none of the things you have listed have actually happened, right?

Promises from Labour are a plenty and mostly unrequited.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

You do realise Labour isn’t in office so it makes it somewhat tricky to execute policy? FFS in Scotland the SNP seem to struggle to execute policy and they are in office!

Also I don’t think promises go unrequited. I think you mean love?

[Kato]

You do realise Labour isn’t in office so it makes it somewhat tricky to execute policy? FFS in Scotland the SNP seem to struggle to execute policy and they are in office!

Let's see what happens then. Any future Labour Govt will have all the levers of power, unlike the local govt powers of the SNP.

Every societal change made by any Labour govt has been undone by the Torys with ease, to the point where disparity is back to pre WW2 levels and the municipal structures built by a socialist Labour Party are all in the hands of privateers.

So let's see, if they actually get it together to win.


Also I don’t think promises go unrequited. I think you mean love?

....deliberate- I know you love a chance at showing off your pedantry ;.)

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Let's see what happens then. Any future Labour Govt will have all the levers of power, unlike the local govt powers of the SNP.

Every societal change made by any Labour govt has been undone by the Torys with ease, to the point where disparity is back to pre WW2 levels and the municipal structures built by a socialist Labour Party are all in the hands of privateers.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

In fairness the old Liberals did a fair bit of work on municipalities, extending the franchise etc before the Labour Party was even founded.

I half agree with the point about the Tories. Most of what was delivered by the Attlee government went unchanged when the Tories got back in, similarly Heath didn’t try to overturn things Wilson had done. Whether he could was another matter but nevertheless, it was less binary, less black and white, more shades of grey. Probably why you got people like Reggie Maudling - hard to see that now!

Things became more pronounced from the mid-70s obviously. Which means Labour just has to try harder to make things stick when in power. So, Sure Start has been eviscerated, which tells you all, in one barbaric act, you need to know about 21st century Conservatism. But the national minimum wage stuck and that led to the real living wage becoming a pressure point, despite the Tories trying to play clever with labels.

So yes, keeping on, keeping fighting, eyes on the prize, pushing the boulder up the mountain, whatever form of words it takes. Because they will push back three steps for every one you take, given the chance.

As for the SNP, just like the administrations before them I think they have huge power over what really matters in life. Clue - it’s not woad, tartan and misplaced resentment. The things that really affect us - the schools our children go to, what they are taught and in what conditions, the care our elderly parents or grandparents receive, to support them with dignity, the hospitals we all use, from cradle to grave, the state of the roads we drive on and the streets we walk on, the police who help keep those streets safe and around a million and one other things, are all massively centralised in SG. I don’t mean that as a criticism here, I just mean to highlight that they have enormous power, directly or through the health boards and councils who ultimately answer to them. And it is power that impacts on us all daily.

[WeeRussell]

Clue - it’s not woad, tartan and misplaced resentment.

You could almost make one miss James310.

[Mibbes Aye]

You could almost make one miss James310.

You said ‘almost’ :blushie::love ya!:

[Kato]

In fairness the old Liberals did a fair bit of work on municipalities, extending the franchise etc before the Labour Party was even founded.

I half agree with the point about the Tories. Most of what was delivered by the Attlee government went unchanged when the Tories got back in, similarly Heath didn’t try to overturn things Wilson had done. Whether he could was another matter but nevertheless, it was less binary, less black and white, more shades of grey. Probably why you got people like Reggie Maudling - hard to see that now!

Things became more pronounced from the mid-70s obviously. Which means Labour just has to try harder to make things stick when in power. So, Sure Start has been eviscerated, which tells you all, in one barbaric act, you need to know about 21st century Conservatism. But the national minimum wage stuck and that led to the real living wage becoming a pressure point, despite the Tories trying to play clever with labels.

So yes, keeping on, keeping fighting, eyes on the prize, pushing the boulder up the mountain, whatever form of words it takes. Because they will push back three steps for every one you take, given the chance.

As for the SNP, just like the administrations before them I think they have huge power over what really matters in life. Clue - it’s not woad, tartan and misplaced resentment. The things that really affect us - the schools our children go to, what they are taught and in what conditions, the care our elderly parents or grandparents receive, to support them with dignity, the hospitals we all use, from cradle to grave, the state of the roads we drive on and the streets we walk on, the police who help keep those streets safe and around a million and one other things, are all massively centralised in SG. I don’t mean that as a criticism here, I just mean to highlight that they have enormous power, directly or through the health boards and councils who ultimately answer to them. And it is power that impacts on us all daily.Cash is power, MA. Aspirations alone can't pay for what is needed.

Its hard to recognise the Conservative Party today against the personalities before Thatcher. Even she sidelined the type of fascisty loon which make up the whole of the Cabinet we have today. Back then they maintained a semblance of municipal concern as we were still living in a "homes fit for heroes" post War concensus and they were living to show capitalism was a batter system than communism. With the USSR no longer all pretence has been dropped and the venal Victorian attitude came back. Everything left in our country is up for sale.

Starmer is certainly wearing their Union Jack brexity clothes and gives off a John Major era vibe, ie neoliberalism with a "concerned" emoji.

For him to turn the country around he has to be and convince the population that it is correct that something radical is required country should be turned around as the fabric we have is in tatters. Keeping the cycle of money upward while applying sticking players a la Brown/Blair just means the venal are happy to tread water and dig deeper on regaining power. There is nothing in his language that tells me the broadbrush of history is about to take on a new hue, but let's see.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

woad, tartan and misplaced resentment.

Just to say if.you think that goes to make up any part of my mindset you are way, way off. I also don't think that anyone else on here is all that dewy eyed about Scotlands culture.

But I bet over the next seven days you'll see Starmer in front of the butcher's apron.

Who is he trying to appeal to?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Just to say if.you think that goes to make up any part of my mindset you are way, way off. I also don't think that anyone else on here is all that dewy eyed about Scotlands culture.

But I bet over the next seven days you'll see Starmer in front of the butcher's apron.

Who is he trying to appeal to?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

He is trying to pre-empt Tory attack lines. They draw a straight path from him to Corbyn and then they don’t need to do a thing - Corbyn supplies the ammo with his ‘NATO are aggressors against Putin’ waffle.

More importantly I think he, like Blair, mistakenly or not, wants to mark a difference between being patriotic and being nationalistic. I say mistakenly in the sense that Labour allowed itself to be boxed in here. Ernest Bevin would never have allowed it :greengrin

But more than that, I think it is just stealth tactics. He can be portrayed as the liberal leftie lawyer from Islington because that (nearly) is what he is, and that doesn’t help him. Place a couple of Union flags strategically, while reminding everyone about how Boris and the rest are up to their necks in dodgy roubles. Get into power and then start start producing tractors and drinking potato vodka!

[Stairway 2 7]

Just to say if.you think that goes to make up any part of my mindset you are way, way off. I also don't think that anyone else on here is all that dewy eyed about Scotlands culture.

But I bet over the next seven days you'll see Starmer in front of the butcher's apron.

Who is he trying to appeal to?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I disagree. There is loads of my nationalism is good your's is bad on here. We probably don't register when our FM talks in front of a saltire, but notice a UJ next to a UK leader.

Flags are for bams borders too

[grunt]

You at the back, do keep up

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-announce-plan-re-nationalise-25106955.amp:greengrin Two months between the articles. That's quite the u-turn. Can you do a u-turn on the trains? What is the policy today, anyone know?

[Mibbes Aye]

:greengrin Two months between the articles. That's quite the u-turn. Can you do a u-turn on the trains? What is the policy today, anyone know?

Not a u-turn. State control of the railways has always been there, it’s just the manner and in which it happens that is up for debate.

Personally I am against the taxpayer buying out contracts from profit makers if avoidable. In this instance, given the state of the economy it is preferable to take them on when the franchises expire.

[grunt]

Not a u-turn. State control of the railways has always been there, it’s just the manner and in which it happens that is up for debate.

Personally I am against the taxpayer buying out contracts from profit makers if avoidable. In this instance, given the state of the economy it is preferable to take them on when the franchises expire.You obviously know more than I do. I based my comments on the content of the Sky News article which said,


Sir Keir Starmer has suggested Labour would drop its pledge to renationalise the railways, despite repeated promises to do so. The Labour leader insisted he took a "pragmatic" approach when asked about whether he would place rail, energy and water companies back under public ownership. His view appears to have changed since he became leader in 2020, when he pledged to re-nationalise the sectors during his campaign. Labour's 2017 and 2019 manifestos under Jeremy Corbyn also promised it. Reads like a u-turn to me.

[Hibbyradge]

You obviously know more than I do. I based my comments on the content of the Sky News article which said,

Reads like a u-turn to me.

That's a good thing, right?

[Mibbes Aye]

You obviously know more than I do. I based my comments on the content of the Sky News article which said,

Reads like a u-turn to me.

I don’t know if I know more than you. What I do know is that the Sky article you’ve pasted in uses a bit of sophistry to try and turn something bland into something it’s not.

”Starmer has suggested...”.
Actually he has done no such thing, the Sky journo is choosing that word to try and steer the reader

”His view appears...”
The journo is now leading you to an inference based on what they want you to think

That’s not a u-turn. That’s a journo manufacturing a news story when there’s not one. Now I’m not suggesting as discerning an eye as yours would miss that trick, but some people will.

Journos get paid to produce content, stories. Sky, like the others, wants to be seen as paying roughly equal attention so they have to conjure up content. They can’t rely on Yvette Cooper dancing and laughing if a plane takes off for Rwanda, or it turning out that Rachel Reeves made a zillion out of selling dodgy PPE so they go to the old Corbyn stuff and they go to hoary old suggestions about policy that never really changed.

I mean really, is that the best they/you have got? No lying to the HoC or cosying up to ex-KGB hoods? No fortunate absent-mindedness about one’s spouse and loans to the party/missing funds/missing members?

[grunt]

”Starmer has suggested...”.
Actually he has done no such thing, the Sky journo is choosing that word to try and steer the reader

”His view appears...”
The journo is now leading you to an inference based on what they want you to think

That’s not a u-turn. That’s a journo manufacturing a news story when there’s not one. Now I’m not suggesting as discerning an eye as yours would miss that trick, but some people will.

Journos get paid to produce content, stories. Sky, like the others, wants to be seen as paying roughly equal attention so they have to conjure up content. They can’t rely on Yvette Cooper dancing and laughing if a plane takes off for Rwanda, or it turning out that Rachel Reeves made a zillion out of selling dodgy PPE so they go to the old Corbyn stuff and they go to hoary old suggestions about policy that never really changed.

So you're telling me that the media twist stories to fit their agenda? Now *that's* big news! Maybe you could tell some of your other anti-SNP posters on here, as they seem to think that all the lies they read about the SNP are true. Maybe even you yourself have at times fallen prey to this media deception.

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

[archie]

So you're telling me that the media twist stories to fit their agenda? Now *that's* big news! Maybe you could tell some of your other anti-SNP posters on here, as they seem to think that all the lies they read about the SNP are true. Maybe even you yourself have at times fallen prey to this media deception.

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

Any examples?

[Mibbes Aye]

So you're telling me that the media twist stories to fit their agenda? Now *that's* big news! Maybe you could tell some of your other anti-SNP posters on here, as they seem to think that all the lies they read about the SNP are true. Maybe even you yourself have at times fallen prey to this media deception.

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

We are not getting anywhere �� unless you are seriously suggesting you posted some Corbynite self-pitiers as part of a labyrinthine plot to convince me that the print and TV media are out to get the SNP! Because it was your post about Islington that prompted our exchanges to this point.

I don’t really look at any Scottish papers bar the regional one for me, which is apolitical really. The Guardian I read and their coverage of the SNP has seemed reasonable and proportionate, though tends to come from one or two writers at most, so it is as much their view as the paper’s. Their columnists tend to report on what happens in Scottish politics within a broader context of UK politics, which again seems fair enough.

I also read through the Telegraph. It’s a different planet. Their columnists are scathing about the SNP but they have always been like that about Labour too. Though interestingly they have given space to senior Labour folk like Analiese Dods to write pieces which play to a universal audience of working mothers. I suspect they are positioning so as not to appear too much as backing the wrong side come the GE.

I also usually have a quick swatch of the Daily Mail just to see what the real scaries are saying. They rarely mention the SNP but gave a lot of coverage to Humza’s victory, including a piece about his family. I read it twice and still wasn’t seeing anything racist or derogatory, it did feel like a straight bat.

As for the Beeb it used to be that whoever was in office disliked them. Thatcher didn’t like them. Alastair Campbell loathed a lot of them. think that still is the case though I was struck by just how many of their news presenters are Conservatives. But they are entitled to support who they support and they generally aren’t stupid and know the opprobrium they will attract if they show favour when working. Richard Sharp quite clearly shouldn’t be anywhere near the BBC.

As for the Beeb and the SNP I genuinely don’t see bias, or if there is it is engulfed by the waves of paranoia. When you are in office you generate more news and in all likelihood more negative news. That’s how it goes and whoever it is just has to suck it up.

[Santa Cruz]

So you're telling me that the media twist stories to fit their agenda? Now *that's* big news! Maybe you could tell some of your other anti-SNP posters on here, as they seem to think that all the lies they read about the SNP are true. Maybe even you yourself have at times fallen prey to this media deception.

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

Here's an opportunity for you to end any media deception that channel 4 could be perceived to be guilty of when reporting about the SNP. Quite liked the Scotland correspondent, heaven help him if he's joining the BBC :greengrin

https://itnpeopleportal.my.salesforce-sites.com/recruit/fRecruit__ApplyJob?vacancyNo=VN151

[grunt]

As for the Beeb and the SNP I genuinely don’t see bias, or if there is it is engulfed by the waves of paranoia.
"I don't see it but if it's there it's your fault for being paranoid". Bye.

[hibsbollah]

"I don't see it but if it's there it's your fault for being paranoid". Bye.

Quite.

When we look at the individuals at the top of the mainstream media news structure, we have a list of Tory appointees and Tory donors. all from the upper echelons of society. Journalism has one of the highest % of privately educated of any profession, north of 40%. And the muddy interpersonal links are hardly a secret these days, as the recent Boris-Richard Sharp loan thing makes clear.
Then there was Tim Davie, former Conservative candidate in London as Head of News during the Corbyn Newsnight Russian hat mock-up ****show period. The appointees are appointed based on who they are and who they know, the editorial policy then follows.

It doesn’t take a lot of rummaging to see what’s going on at the bbc. And watching it is the final judgement of course.

And, then the print medias editorial policy is determined by the billionaire moguls political stance in each case, which is permanent and insidious. Why would it be any different?

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65116568

Labour going for a council tax freeze. Wonder where they got that idea?[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65116568

Labour going for a council tax freeze. Wonder where they got that idea?[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For a year and funded. Spot the difference?

[Ozyhibby]

For a year and funded. Spot the difference?

Are you saying the SNP never funded all those years of council tax freezes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

For a year and funded. Spot the difference?

Windfall tax is needed for energy firms but I wouldn't necessarily spend it there I'd put it on gas prices, via public owned company

[archie]

Are you saying the SNP never funded all those years of council tax freezes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes.

[Pretty Boy]

Are you saying the SNP never funded all those years of council tax freezes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funded or otherwise they were a ****ing disaster for a lot of local services and they had a disproportionately negative impact on the most vulnerable in society who require such services.

It was a crappy, populist policy when the SNP did it and I feel broadly the same now Labour are doing it.

It's neither progressive nor does it have any real value in terms of redistribution.

[Hibbyradge]

Are you saying the SNP never funded all those years of council tax freezes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't the councils have to find "efficiencies" to pay for the freeze? :dunno:

[Eaststand]

Quite.

When we look at the individuals at the top of the mainstream media news structure, we have a list of Tory appointees and Tory donors. all from the upper echelons of society. Journalism has one of the highest % of privately educated of any profession, north of 40%. And the muddy interpersonal links are hardly a secret these days, as the recent Boris-Richard Sharp loan thing makes clear.
Then there was Tim Davie, former Conservative candidate in London as Head of News during the Corbyn Newsnight Russian hat mock-up ****show period. The appointees are appointed based on who they are and who they know, the editorial policy then follows.

It doesn’t take a lot of rummaging to see what’s going on at the bbc. And watching it is the final judgement of course.

And, then the print medias editorial policy is determined by the billionaire moguls political stance in each case, which is permanent and insidious. Why would it be any different?

Aye, but the next question for you will likely be, apart from all those clear as day facts that you listed, what facts do you have.

GGTTH

[archie]

Aye, but the next question for you will likely be, apart from all those clear as day facts that you listed, what facts do you have.

GGTTH

No so fast. This is just a critique of ownership. The facts needed are how this translates to 'lies' as was claimed earlier.

[hibsbollah]

No so fast. This is just a critique of ownership. The facts needed are how this translates to 'lies' as was claimed earlier.

When a falsehood becomes a lie and/or a deception isn’t easy to pin down, because you can’t prove intention. But there have been and continue to be falsehoods, that’s surely without dispute. And when those falsehoods always seem to centre around the same targets, and those targets threaten the interests of the people who make the news…follow the crumbs and you’ll find it.

But let’s be honest, if you have right wing politics you’re going to be less likely to notice and find unusual or objectionable a right wing editorial policy. We’re back to the ‘Rangers fans also complain refs are against them, so therefore all refs are honest as the day is long and bias doesn’t exist!’ argument.

[archie]

When a falsehood becomes a lie and/or a deception isn’t easy to pin down, because you can’t prove intention. But there have been and continue to be falsehoods, that’s surely without dispute. And when those falsehoods always seem to centre around the same targets, and those targets threaten the interests of the people who make the news…follow the crumbs and you’ll find it.

But let’s be honest, if you have right wing politics you’re going to be less likely to notice and find unusual or objectionable a right wing editorial policy. We’re back to the ‘Rangers fans also complain refs are against them, so therefore all refs are honest as the day is long and bias doesn’t exist!’ argument.

OK. Let's develop this. What would you cite as falsehoods, deliberate or otherwise, as opposed to opinion or spin?

[archie]

OK. Let's develop this. What would you cite as falsehoods, deliberate or otherwise, as opposed to opinion or spin?

Just to start this off I would totally accept Hillsborough, which was the police feeding lies to the sun. Miners strike as well. But I read lot here on lies during the referendum or the Brexit vote. Another poster talked about lies about the SNP. It's these areas that I find it harder to pin down what they are

[wookie70]

Just to start this off I would totally accept Hillsborough, which was the police feeding lies to the sun. Miners strike as well. But I read lot here on lies during the referendum or the Brexit vote. Another poster talked about lies about the SNP. It's these areas that I find it harder to pin down what they are

For me the biggest lie on Brexit was that those voting to leave knew what that vote meant.6 years later we are still at the point that hasn't really been finalised.

Bizarrely the biggest hint of truth came from the demented pencil who said it would be 50 years before benefit was seen. I think that is a massive stretch and unlikely to be true but at least I wouldn't describe it as a deliberate falsehood. The £350M a week on a bus was a lie from my point of view but I can see how a defence can be mounted that it technically wasn't. Yes, it never directly said that £350M would go to the NHS and perhaps that amount was the gross amount we sent but it is printed large on a bus with the clear intention to deceive. Perhaps deception would be a better word than lie. My definition of a lie is when the speaker of the words is deliberately trying to deceive, others will disagree. This definition of lie would be how I viewed many of the statements around Brexit.

Right wing politicians in particular speak in deceptions. Other politicians aren't much better. They will use tiny parts of a picture to defend an appalling record or to demonstrate their point of view and they know full well that the intension is to deceive. Yesterday's DPMQs demonstrated that very well. The DPM wasn't lying but boy was he being deceptive and the whole charade becomes counter-productive. I think we are nowhere near seeing the worst of this either. Deception works, particularly when it comes to an uneducated and lazy electorate in a voting situation. As Social Media becomes more and more influential money will buy the biggest and best deceptions and we clearly saw that with Brexit where the electorate believed a narrative that was simply rubbish and are now coming to their senses(blind spots still exist with many on immigration) when the reality that was always going to be starts to hit them. It won't stop them being fooled next time though but a new set of frontmen and women may be required for those paying the deception bills to win. To me the biggest deception is that there is still what most would describe as democracy. There is only really power and money until workers start to fight back. We are seeing democracy in France, no chance do we see it in the UK.

[cabbageandribs1875]

what's that Miliband all about eh j on Twitter: "Miliband chucking Corbyn under the bus despite the fact the reasoning being used to block his candidature also applying to himself https://t.co/u0XltFLGqU" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1640651943914659840?fbclid=IwAR0MKUJ4Vh40RpQeGxqjP 7f6cfK9rvlmXjLFs6qdTtaayWIEUS4chcngWEI)


imagine that snake having yer back, pfftt

[WhileTheChief..]

How do you guys on the left cope with being so damn perfect in everything go you say or do. It’s hugely impressive.

The rest of us can’t discuss things properly or are too thick to understand what’s going on in our country apparently.

[wookie70]

How do you guys on the left cope with being so damn perfect in everything go you say or do. It’s hugely impressive.

The rest of us can’t discuss things properly or are too thick to understand what’s going on in our country apparently.

If that is in reference to my comment about an uneducated electorate it applies to many on the left too. It is a clumsy description on my part but basically means the electorate doesn't really have the energy or inclination to read much below the headline. For instance I read all the manifestos before casting a vote in a general election. I then decide on what matches my view most closely and what I believe will be carried out if that party gets in power. So with the Tory manifesto I read it, can agree with some things but don't believe a word based on past experience and their character. My view is most voters don't get beyond the nonsense written in election flyers which often attack others rather than say what that party would do. Therefore the electorate are lazy and uneducated imo on the matters they are casting their vote. They may be hugely intelligent in other ways but really don't engage with the matters being decided by their vote and because they don't do detail a Johnson like character fools them easily
I don't think I mentioned the right side of politics being lazy or uneducated so if that struck a chord with you then you will need to ask why.

[hibsbollah]

OK. Let's develop this. What would you cite as falsehoods, deliberate or otherwise, as opposed to opinion or spin?

Cloud Flare error messages mean I’m not doing as long responses on here because I’m on the iPhone not the laptop. But that’s probably a relief for some :greengrin

But briefly and without links, the Corbyn Was a Czech Spy story in 2018 is a nice example. Complete nonsense of course. There WAS a source who used to work for Czech intelligence, but one look at his past and an interview would tell you he had no credibility at all, he also claimed to have organised Live Aid, said that Corbyn knew what clothes Thatcher wore at #10, and all sorts. Despite this, what we used to describe as Fleet Street ran this for days, picked up by the bbc, who sent a hack out to rural Czechia to establish that they were dealing with a fantasist. But any basic fact-checking would have told you this wasn’t a story you could run with UNLESS you weren’t really interested in veracity, you just wanted a smear job. They knew fine well the guy was a nut and the story was nothing more than pub talk. So in that respect, and in the respect that matters, that’s a lie.

And if you have any kind of memory, it’s a pattern of behaviour of trying to say Labour Will Sell Us Out To the Russians. They tried the same with Kinnock, and they ran a story about a then ancient Michael Foot in the 1990s which the SundayTimes had to pay Foot substantial personal damages for. But by that point the damage is done, the seed of doubt is planted and any apology is tucked away on page 58. It doesn’t matter that Corbyn was calling out Putin’s behaviour way before anyone else bothered noticing or caring, or the real concerns about national security and Russia is around Boris Johnson and Medvedev and other oligarchs and Tory donors.

Newsnights Corbyn Russian Hat episode? Is it lie, spin, caricature, humour? It’s not really relevant. The important thing is it’s a pattern. There are two ways to avoid this media bias if you’re a leader of the Labour Party; come up against a Tory Party opponent who are in such abject chaos that even the billionaire class and their compliant media turn against them (as happened in late era John Major and more recently when Truss Tanked the Economy, and 2. Make them believe that the Labour Party isn’t a threat to billionaire classes interests anymore.

You don’t have to be a fan of Corbyn to think that’s problematic.

[Kato]

How do you guys on the left cope with being so damn perfect in everything go you say or do. It’s hugely impressive.

The rest of us can’t discuss things properly or are too thick to understand what’s going on in our country apparently.

Nobody is stopping you giving us the benefit of your wisdom.

Tell us what is so great about being on the right.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

How do you guys on the left cope with being so damn perfect in everything go you say or do. It’s hugely impressive.

The rest of us can’t discuss things properly or are too thick to understand what’s going on in our country apparently.

And if the above two replies aren’t enough - here’s some more attention for you.

[grunt]

But I read lot here on lies during the referendum or the Brexit vote. ... It's these areas that I find it harder to pin down what they are
Are you kidding me?

Just about every word uttered by the Leave side was a lie. This has been shown time and time again since the referendum. Take a look at the Brexit thread on here (https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?339801-Brexit-What-Now). Lie after lie after lie. And you "find it harder to pin down what they are"?

Try this:


https://youtu.be/-Q8xM8-XkRA

[He's here!]

Are you kidding me?

Just about every word uttered by the Leave side was a lie. This has been shown time and time again since the referendum. Take a look at the Brexit thread on here (https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?339801-Brexit-What-Now). Lie after lie after lie. And you "find it harder to pin down what they are"?

Try this:


https://youtu.be/-Q8xM8-XkRA

I didn't vote for Brexit but IIRC the SG's White Paper on independence was also littered with falsehoods.

[Kato]

I didn't vote for Brexit but IIRC the SG's White Paper on independence was also littered with falsehoods.So the SNPs lies are obvious to you but the Brexit lies, not so much?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I didn't vote for Brexit but IIRC the SG's White Paper on independence was also littered with falsehoods.

Better Together told the biggest whopper of them all though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

I didn't vote for Brexit but IIRC the SG's White Paper on independence was also littered with falsehoods.

You see this is the issue with people shouting 'lies' at anything they don't like. There weren't falsehoods in the White Paper. Was their spin, interpretation and opinion? Maybe. But actual lies? I don't agree. Equally, when Better Together said that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote no, it was absolutely correct. The subsequent Brexit vote doesn't make the original statement a lie.

[Jack]

Tory lies?

Fill your boots!

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

[Jones28]

I didn't vote for Brexit but IIRC the SG's White Paper on independence was also littered with falsehoods.

There's another thread where you can tell us all about that.

[grunt]

There's another thread where you can tell us all about that.
Good point. Quite what all this has to do with the Labour Party ...

[Jones28]

Good point. Quite what all this has to do with the Labour Party ...

I think it does have an element of relevance to the Labour party as they seemingly have set their stall out to not re-visit Brexit, even though we know for a fact that the campaign was based on absolute nonsense like the above advert.

[grunt]

I think it does have an element of relevance to the Labour party as they seemingly have set their stall out to not re-visit Brexit, even through we know for a fact that the campaign was based on absolute nonsense like the above advert.
Another good point. You're on a roll this morning. :agree:

[WeeRussell]

You see this is the issue with people shouting 'lies' at anything they don't like. There weren't falsehoods in the White Paper. Was their spin, interpretation and opinion? Maybe. But actual lies? I don't agree. Equally, when Better Together said that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote no, it was absolutely correct. The subsequent Brexit vote doesn't make the original statement a lie.

Yep. Just because they told us to vote no to guarantee our EU status, and then proceeded to crash us out of the EU against our will a few months later, and now try to block any path back in, doesn’t mean any lies were told.

All unfortunate coincidence with no untruths.

[archie]

Yep. Just because they told us to vote no to guarantee our EU status, and then proceeded to crash us out of the EU against our will a few months later, and now try to block any path back in, doesn’t mean any lies were told.

All unfortunate coincidence with no untruths.

Which bit of 'vote no to guarantee our EU status' was untrue?

[archie]

Are you kidding me?

Just about every word uttered by the Leave side was a lie. This has been shown time and time again since the referendum. Take a look at the Brexit thread on here (https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?339801-Brexit-What-Now). Lie after lie after lie. And you "find it harder to pin down what they are"?

Try this:


https://youtu.be/-Q8xM8-XkRA

Ok it's a 251 page thread. I think there is an issue with differentiating lie with opinion or potential. In particular discussions around consititutional questions are loaded with assertion, opinion and speculation. That's because they are impossible to verify until the change being promoted happens - often many years afterwords. That does not make them lies.

[WeeRussell]

Which bit of 'vote no to guarantee our EU status' was untrue?

The bit where if we voted no we’d be guaranteed to keep our EU status.

[grunt]

Ok it's a 251 page thread. I think there is an issue with differentiating lie with opinion or potential. In particular discussions around consititutional questions are loaded with assertion, opinion and speculation. That's because they are impossible to verify until the change being promoted happens - often many years afterwords. That does not make them lies.
You want lies? Ok, top of my head:


the whole £350m issue was a lie - it didn't cost that, we got benefits worth many times that, it was never going to the NHS
food will be cheaper
wine will be cheaper
energy will be cheaper
we'll get rid of red tape - red tape is actually protecting us, and we didn't get rid of it we've now got 2 x as much
Turkey will join the EU and send millions of immigrants to the UK
immigrants are flooding the NHS - the opposite was the case, immigrants NHS workers were holding the NHS together
we can have better environmental laws (see **** in rivers)
no one is talking about leaving the single market
we'll still be able to live, work and retire in the EU
easiest deal in history
they need us more than we need them
German car manufacturers want our market
we'll get a trade deal with the US
we can make our own laws (we always could)
the European court is in charge of our laws (96% of EU laws we had voted for)

[WeeRussell]

Ok it's a 251 page thread. I think there is an issue with differentiating lie with opinion or potential. In particular discussions around consititutional questions are loaded with assertion, opinion and speculation. That's because they are impossible to verify until the change being promoted happens - often many years afterwords. That does not make them lies.

Just so we’re clear on how to categorise falsehoods.. was the NHS bus slogan a lie, opinion or potential?

[WeeRussell]

You want lies? Ok, top of my head:


the whole £350m issue was a lie - it didn't cost that, we got benefits worth many times that, it was never going to the NHS
food will be cheaper
wine will be cheaper
energy will be cheaper
we'll get rid of red tape - red tape is actually protecting us, and we didn't get rid of it we've now got 2 x as much
Turkey will join the EU and send millions of immigrants to the UK
immigrants are flooding the NHS - the opposite was the case, immigrants NHS workers were holding the NHS together
we can have better environmental laws (see **** in rivers)
no one is talking about leaving the single market
we'll still be able to live, work and retire in the EU
easiest deal in history
they need us more than we need them
German car manufacturers want our market
we'll get a trade deal with the US
we can make our own laws (we always could)
the European court is in charge of our laws (96% of EU laws we had voted for)


Aye, but where are the lies?

What have the romans ever done for us!

[Jones28]

Just so we’re clear on how to categorise falsehoods.. was the NHS bus slogan a lie, opinion or potential?

It was a lie.

It ignored how much we benefitted from EU membership. It's now been compounded by how perilous a situation our NHS is in.

[Kato]

Just so we’re clear on how to categorise falsehoods.. was the NHS bus slogan a lie, opinion or potential?

It was a slogan, portraying itself as opinion about the potential, which turned out to be a lie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

It was a slogan, portraying itself as opinion about the potential, which turned out to be a lie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Nonsense. The NHS have already received that money, Jacob Reece Mogg said so last month on Newsnight.

[He's here!]

You see this is the issue with people shouting 'lies' at anything they don't like. There weren't falsehoods in the White Paper. Was their spin, interpretation and opinion? Maybe. But actual lies? I don't agree. Equally, when Better Together said that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote no, it was absolutely correct. The subsequent Brexit vote doesn't make the original statement a lie.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/white-paper-unravelling/twelve-of-the-faults-in-the-scottish-governments-independence-white-paper

'Wrong/inaccurate' is the terminology used here.

Of course the biggest 'inaccuracy' was the projected income from North Sea oil revenues.

[grunt]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/white-paper-unravelling/twelve-of-the-faults-in-the-scottish-governments-independence-white-paper

'Wrong/inaccurate' is the terminology used here. Of course the biggest 'inaccuracy' was the projected income from North Sea oil revenues.

Hmm. :rolleyes:


Immigration – the Scotland Analysis paper on Borders and Citizenship makes clear that an independent Scotland could not have a very different immigration policy from the continuing UK and also be part of a Common Travel Area with the continuing UK

EU membership – the Scottish Government assert that an independent Scotland would not have to apply to join the EU, and could have “continued membership” just by amending the existing EU treaties. This is wrong, it has never been done before and the EU Commission and the Spanish Prime Minister have ruled it out.

[wookie70]

Just so we’re clear on how to categorise falsehoods.. was the NHS bus slogan a lie, opinion or potential? It was two statements placed together to deceive

[WeeRussell]

It was a slogan, portraying itself as opinion about the potential, which turned out to be a lie.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

It’s all getting a bit confusing now. Maybe we should just leave them to it - perhaps the tories really do care about us all, after all lying is just what politicians do eh.

Oh and something about the SNP.

[grunt]

Which complete idiot is in charge of communications at the Labour Party??

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1641735497289482241?s=20

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsidaTMX0AE1GPb?format=jpg&name=large

[Mibbes Aye]

Which complete idiot is in charge of communications at the Labour Party??

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1641735497289482241?s=20

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsidaTMX0AE1GPb?format=jpg&name=large

They got you sharing it on social media 😂

[Hibbyradge]

Another good point. You're on a roll this morning. :agree:

The second point invalidates his first. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

Which bit of 'vote no to guarantee our EU status' was untrue?

:faf: We voted no and are out of the EU. That was some guarantee.

[archie]

:faf: We voted no and are out of the EU. That was some guarantee.

You know, of course, that Scotland would have been out of the EU had their been a yes vote. So the statement was absolutely correct. The fact that there was a subsequent Brexit vote in no way invalidates the previous statement.

[Ozyhibby]

You know, of course, that Scotland would have been out of the EU had their been a yes vote. So the statement was absolutely correct. The fact that there was a subsequent Brexit vote in no way invalidates the previous statement.

If we weren’t back in by now we would at the very least have access to the SM and CU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

If we weren’t back in by now we would at the very least have access to the SM and CU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe. But it doesn't make the statement wrong.

[WeeRussell]

Maybe. But it doesn't make the statement wrong.

I could almost, just almost, understand you trying to say they weren’t lying. But how was the statement claiming our EU status was guaranteed by voting no, not wrong, when we are now out of the EU?!

So we were guaranteed to stay in the EU. We just aren’t in the EU.

[Ozyhibby]

I could almost, just almost, understand you trying to say they weren’t lying. But how was the statement claiming our EU status was guaranteed by voting no, not wrong, when we are now out of the EU?!

So we were guaranteed to stay in the EU. We just aren’t in the EU.

It’s playing with words and it’s pointless arguing over.
If you want to be in the EU going forward then Indy is the only option. If you want to stay out then sticking with the UK is your choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

I could almost, just almost, understand you trying to say they weren’t lying. But how was the statement claiming our EU status was guaranteed by voting no, not wrong, when we are now out of the EU?!

So we were guaranteed to stay in the EU. We just aren’t in the EU.

Did voting no guarantee we would stay in the EU? Yes. Did voting yes mean we would leave the EU? Yes. Did these statements mean that would remain in perpetuity. Of course not. Both were statements of fact at the time.

[weecounty hibby]

It’s playing with words and it’s pointless arguing over.
If you want to be in the EU going forward then Indy is the only option. If you want to stay out then sticking with the UK is your choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that is the key for independence. How do we turn the 50% who want independence into the 72% that want to rejoin the EU. Every major political party in the UK is now a brexit party. Only the SNP and independence will get Scotland into Europe.

[archie]

It’s playing with words and it’s pointless arguing over.
If you want to be in the EU going forward then Indy is the only option. If you want to stay out then sticking with the UK is your choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not playing with words. It's an absolute statement of fact. The rest of your post is an opinion.

[Hibrandenburg]

You know, of course, that Scotland would have been out of the EU had their been a yes vote. So the statement was absolutely correct. The fact that there was a subsequent Brexit vote in no way invalidates the previous statement.

You do know that there was no guarantee that Scotland would have had to leave the EU after independence?

[Ozyhibby]

You do know that there was no guarantee that Scotland would have had to leave the EU after independence?

Correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

You do know that there was no guarantee that Scotland would have had to leave the EU after independence?

Evidence?

[archie]

Correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evidence?

[archie]

I've got a game to get to, so here's a contemporary news story https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-scotland-independence-eu-idUKKBN0H31FK20140908

The key reason why Scotland would have to leave (putting aside issues like Catalonia) is that the terms would be different to the UKs. The opt outs being an obvious one.

[Ozyhibby]

I've got a game to get to, so here's a contemporary news story https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-scotland-independence-eu-idUKKBN0H31FK20140908

The key reason why Scotland would have to leave (putting aside issues like Catalonia) is that the terms would be different to the UKs. The opt outs being an obvious one.

Since most of the opt outs seem to involve being able to curb workers rights then I think it would have been good to get rid of them.
Again, arguing over what is in the past and not provable either way is pointless.
I want back in the EU now and Indy is the only way to get that. It’s all I need to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

You do know that there was no guarantee that Scotland would have had to leave the EU after independence?

So guarantees from the UK government are worthless?

[WeeRussell]

So guarantees from the UK government are worthless?

Nah it’s cool. They are absolutely correct at the time and nobody’s fault if they mean absolutely nothing a few months later.

[archie]

So guarantees from the UK government are worthless?

It wasn't a guarantee from the UK Government.

[archie]

Nah it’s cool. They are absolutely correct at the time and nobody’s fault if they mean absolutely nothing a few months later.

This makes no sense at all. It was a statement of fact at the time. The fact that there was a subsequent referendum has no bearing on that.

[Jack]

It wasn't a guarantee from the UK Government.

So the unionists campaigning for no had nothing to do with the UK government?

[Hibrandenburg]

This makes no sense at all. It was a statement of fact at the time. The fact that there was a subsequent referendum has no bearing on that.

Not true, the Tories announced they would hold a referendum on EU membership the year before the independence Referendum. You can't guarantee something that you already know is not your's to give.

[archie]

So the unionists campaigning for no had nothing to do with the UK government?

It was a cross party campaign.

[archie]

Not true, the Tories announced they would hold a referendum on EU membership the year before the independence Referendum. You can't guarantee something that you already know is not your's to give.

That's not the full story though. Cameron said there would be a referendum if they won the next election. That was held in 2015. So the line of causality isn't as clear as you suggest. It's also a misframing of the position. It wasn't the UK saying Scotland would need to apply - it was the EU. In addition, you are suggesting that the guarantee was broken. It was a statement of fact at the time. Your argument seems to be that EU membership would continue in perpetuity. That makes no sense.