The future of the Labour Party

[archie]

Just as arguably the EU would want to make an example of repentant Britain and reward the anti-Brexit Scotland coming back to the fold.

I really don't think non-standard terms are that big a deal, tbh, for either iScotland or a returning UK.

The big opt outs the UK had were:

- the Euro - but in practice there's no difference between de jure opt out Denmark and de facto opt out Sweden
- Schengen - but the UK/Ireland's offshore geography makes this something the rest aren't overly bothered about, imo
- the social chapter - Blair opted back in

and the UK had a financial rebate, nobody is reinstating that!

The Denmark opt out came after a referendum on Maastricht was lost. If you were cynical you could say it was a sweetener. I would like that explored formally as I think it would be a bad idea, for Scotland and the UK. I suspect the 'say you'll join but then don't tactic', as some suggest here, wouldn't work. I think it really helps on Schengen that Ireland isn't in it either. Having a member lobby for a position has to be good.

I think getting the UK back in would be a prize for the EU. I think getting Scotland in would be too. But not at any cost to their core principles. And as for rebates - forget it!

[archie]

You never answered why staying out the euro was so good for us?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've discussed this a lot. I think the system is far too rigid to encompass a wide range of economies operating at different levels. Whos interests is the Euro managed for - Germany or Greece? It's exactly the same argument that some independence supporters say about the policies around the pound favouring the City. To me it's akin (in some ways) to the gold standard, which had catastrophic impacts on the world economy. There's a reason that some countries sought opt outs.

[JeMeSouviens]

Fair points. What do you think the implications would be for the SNP?

I actually think it would act against support for indy because it would remove some of the people who just can't stand extremist governments like the current one. But I personally have never been a fan of the "pray for the worst WM govt ever to hasten indy" strand of thinking.

I don't think the reduction in size of the SNP's WM bloc would make much practical difference. If anything, they look pointless and impotent atm. Maybe they could gain some of that disproportionate influence you speak of? :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

I've discussed this a lot. I think the system is far too rigid to encompass a wide range of economies operating at different levels. Whos interests is the Euro managed for - Germany or Greece? It's exactly the same argument that some independence supporters say about the policies around the pound favouring the City. To me it's akin (in some ways) to the gold standard, which had catastrophic impacts on the world economy. There's a reason that some countries sought opt outs.

It’s been a stronger currency than the pound though. Had we been in it since the start we would be richer today than we are now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I've discussed this a lot. I think the system is far too rigid to encompass a wide range of economies operating at different levels. Whos interests is the Euro managed for - Germany or Greece? It's exactly the same argument that some independence supporters say about the policies around the pound favouring the City. To me it's akin (in some ways) to the gold standard, which had catastrophic impacts on the world economy. There's a reason that some countries sought opt outs.

In shock news, I agree with this. I think the idea of a single currency and macroeconomic policy across Europe's single market is a good one but it requires deeper political integration than is currently on offer. It's probably more likely this might get incrementally fixed if Britain stays out.

[archie]

It’s been a stronger currency than the pound though. Had we been in it since the start we would be richer today than we are now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's varied quite dramatically, but certainly the pound has been on a declining trend. https://www.chartoasis.com/gbp-eur-forex-chart-20-years-cop0/

But how would we have been richer?

There are advantages in not having an inflated currency - mainly making exports cheaper. There is an inflationary effect on imports of course. That's why the Chinese Govt keeps the Yuan artificially low.

[Ozyhibby]

It's varied quite dramatically, but certainly the pound has been on a declining trend. https://www.chartoasis.com/gbp-eur-forex-chart-20-years-cop0/

But how would we have been richer?

There are advantages in not having an inflated currency - mainly making exports cheaper. There is an inflationary effect on imports of course. That's why the Chinese Govt keeps the Yuan artificially low.

We import way more than we export though.

How would we be richer? The pound in my pocket is worth a lot less and I can buy less with it. Do you think that’s making me richer?
If we had joined the euro that would not have happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

We import way more than we export though.

How would we be richer? The pound in my pocket is worth a lot less and I can buy less with it. Do you think that’s making me richer?
If we had joined the euro that would not have happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Specifically how would being in the Euro make you richer? Is there not inflation in the Eurozone?

It would be nice to have more cash going on holiday, but would you like goods exported from Scotland to be 15-20% more expensive?

[Ozyhibby]

Specifically how would being in the Euro make you richer? Is there not inflation in the Eurozone?

It would be nice to have more cash going on holiday, but would you like goods exported from Scotland to be 15-20% more expensive?

Are the citizens of a country getting richer or poorer if their currency devalues?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Are the citizens of a country getting richer or poorer if their currency devalues?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDepends. Clearly it makes imports more expensive (and travelling abroad) but it makes it easier to sell exports so more likely to sustain jobs.

[Ozyhibby]

Depends. Clearly it makes imports more expensive (and travelling abroad) but it makes it easier to sell exports so more likely to sustain jobs.

Great, so how are our exports going? We must be having a bit of a boom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Great, so how are our exports going? We must be having a bit of a boom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're not, which is why we need to take steps to encourage them. Not being in the Euro gives us one of these tools. Again, how would being in the Euro make us richer?

[Ozyhibby]

We're not, which is why we need to take steps to encourage them. Not being in the Euro gives us one of these tools. Again, how would being in the Euro make us richer?

Say I had £100k in the bank at the launch of the euro I could have bought £140k euros.
How many euros could I buy with my £100k today?

You tell me, am I getting richer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Say I had £100k in the bank at the launch of the euro I could have bought £140k euros.
How many euros could I buy with my £100k today?

You tell me, am I getting richer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But that only applies if you need euros. What about people in export business who would lose their job with a too high exchange rate?

[Ozyhibby]

But that only applies if you need euros. What about people in export business who would lose their job with a too high exchange rate?

The vast majority of the country don’t work in export businesses and I need euros if I want to buy a German car.
I’m fascinated to know why you think devaluing the pound makes us richer? Should we devalue it further?
Yes or no, does devaluing the pound make us richer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

The vast majority of the country don’t work in export businesses and I need euros if I want to buy a German car.
I’m fascinated to know why you think devaluing the pound makes us richer? Should we devalue it further?
Yes or no, does devaluing the pound make us richer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say it made us richer. It's a basic tool to manage the economy. That's why I pointed to China. That's also why I linked it to the gold standard. All I said was that it helped export business. That has to be a good thing?

You said being in the Euro would make us richer. I asked you how and it seems to be about some exchange rate trickery. You are showing the pound depreciating against the euro with your savings example. But that can only happen if we aren't in the Euro. Now you quote the German car. Yes it's more expensive because of exchange rate issues. But you have alternatives. This article summarises: https://www.whatcar.com/news/every-car-made-in-the-uk/n25154 From the article: 'In the UK, the automotive industry supports 780,000 jobs and accounts for 10% of our exports. In 2021 alone, over 859,000 cars and 72,913 commercial vehicles were built here. This is not trivial.

[Ozyhibby]

I didn't say it made us richer. It's a basic tool to manage the economy. That's why I pointed to China. That's also why I linked it to the gold standard. All I said was that it helped export business. That has to be a good thing?

You said being in the Euro would make us richer. I asked you how and it seems to be about some exchange rate trickery. You are showing the pound depreciating against the euro with your savings example. But that can only happen if we aren't in the Euro. Now you quote the German car. Yes it's more expensive because of exchange rate issues. But you have alternatives. This article summarises: https://www.whatcar.com/news/every-car-made-in-the-uk/n25154 From the article: 'In the UK, the automotive industry supports 780,000 jobs and accounts for 10% of our exports. In 2021 alone, over 859,000 cars and 72,913 commercial vehicles were built here. This is not trivial.

So we are poorer and should buy inferior cars. Got it.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

So we are poorer and should buy inferior cars. Got it.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a bizarre interpretation.

[Mibbes Aye]

The vast majority of the country don’t work in export businesses and I need euros if I want to buy a German car.
I’m fascinated to know why you think devaluing the pound makes us richer? Should we devalue it further?
Yes or no, does devaluing the pound make us richer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you not guilty of seeing things from your perspective only? Many people can’t afford German cars. You are conflating ‘us’ and ‘me’.

The thing with economics and economic policies and decisions is that in an advanced society it’s not a zero-sum game. Things like the balance of trade or membership of the Euro will simultaneously have advantages and disadvantages, even at an individual level.

Anyway, German cars, WTF? Were you not just complaining the problem is we don’t manufacture things anymore :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Are you not guilty of seeing things from your perspective only? Many people can’t afford German cars. You are conflating ‘us’ and ‘me’.

The thing with economics and economic policies and decisions is that in an advanced society it’s not a zero-sum game. Things like the balance of trade or membership of the Euro will simultaneously have advantages and disadvantages, even at an individual level.

Anyway, German cars, WTF? Were you not just complaining the problem is we don’t manufacture things anymore :greengrin

I have a Japanese car. I was just using as an example.
Archie was saying that an advantage of a weak currency is it benefits exports. That is usually true but it hasn’t worked for us.
On the whole, if your currency is getting weaker then it’s because there is a lack of faith in it. People don’t want what we are selling.
My original point was in reply to Archie saying it was lucky we weren’t in the euro. The Euro has performed better than the pound since it’s launch.
Personally I’d be comfortable being in the Euro but can also see the benefit of having your own currency. The benefits of the pound are harder to spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

I have a Japanese car. I was just using as an example.
Archie was saying that an advantage of a weak currency is it benefits exports. That is usually true but it hasn’t worked for us.
On the whole, if your currency is getting weaker then it’s because there is a lack of faith in it. People don’t want what we are selling.
My original point was in reply to Archie saying it was lucky we weren’t in the euro. The Euro has performed better than the pound since it’s launch.
Personally I’d be comfortable being in the Euro but can also see the benefit of having your own currency. The benefits of the pound are harder to spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have our own currency? Why would you choose a Scottish currency over being in the Euro (if that was available)?

[Mibbes Aye]

I have a Japanese car. I was just using as an example.
Archie was saying that an advantage of a weak currency is it benefits exports. That is usually true but it hasn’t worked for us.
On the whole, if your currency is getting weaker then it’s because there is a lack of faith in it. People don’t want what we are selling.
My original point was in reply to Archie saying it was lucky we weren’t in the euro. The Euro has performed better than the pound since it’s launch.
Personally I’d be comfortable being in the Euro but can also see the benefit of having your own currency. The benefits of the pound are harder to spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A weak pound also benefits tourism. I keep getting told by Indy supporters that tourism and Scotch will see indyScotland right! I’m not actually arguing for a strong or weak pound, just pointing out that there are trade-offs with either, plus any policy move in economics can and does have unforeseen, unintended and undesirable consequences.

As for the Euro, I was keen in the late 90s and for a good period after. To some extent that was for political reasons rather than economic ones. I think a key point Archie is making or certainly I would make is that the Euro is a safer place the larger your economy. It’s neither good or bad, it’s just fact to say that as the U.K. we would have had far more influence on economic policy than we would as Scotland. That’s not to say we shouldn’t do it, just acknowledging a reality. The Euro operates hierarchically in practice.

[The Tubs]

All other things being equal, is it not better to have a sought-after currency? Does it not mean the central bank can pump it out to boost the economy without having to worry too much about inflation? Does having a strong currency not usually correlate with producing goods and services that other countries want to buy and, therefore, you do not have to depend on transitory falls in the currency's value to increase exports? Of course this all only applies to functioning developed economies.

[Glory Lurker]

Labour are rubbish.

[archie]

All other things being equal, is it not better to have a sought-after currency? Does it not mean the central bank can pump it out to boost the economy without having to worry too much about inflation? Does having a strong currency not usually correlate with producing goods and services that other countries want to buy and, therefore, you do not have to depend on transitory falls in the currency's value to increase exports? Of course this all only applies to functioning developed economies.
It depends. If you are in recession probably not. In other circumstances, as you describe, it might be indicative of a strongly performing economy. The point for me is that the larger the area covered by the currency the harder it is to reflect the needs of all that area. It's been said about the UK, the Eurozone and the US. Tailoring policy for New York would be very different to that for Kentucky. I'm not arguing that we act like the Chinese. And I'm not arguing for a low pound. Just that right now it might not be a bad thing, given the state of the UK economy. It's a bummer when you go to Europe or the US, but there are bigger issues at play.

[The Tubs]

It depends. If you are in recession probably not. In other circumstances, as you describe, it might be indicative of a strongly performing economy. The point for me is that the larger the area covered by the currency the harder it is to reflect the needs of all that area. It's been said about the UK, the Eurozone and the US. Tailoring policy for New York would be very different to that for Kentucky. I'm not arguing that we act like the Chinese. And I'm not arguing for a low pound. Just that right now it might not be a bad thing, given the state of the UK economy. It's a bummer when you go to Europe or the US, but there are bigger issues at play.

So, other things being equal, in a functioning developed economy, it's better. It where the UK could easily have been if the last 80 years or so of choices hadn't been, on average, bad.

[archie]

So, other things being equal, in a functioning developed economy, it's better. It where the UK could easily have been if the last 80 years or so of choices hadn't been, on average, bad.

As I said, it depends on the circumstances at the time.

[grunt]

Not sure UK Labour have got the tone of this advert quite right ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtCRY3SaUAAr9n3?format=jpg&name=medium

[archie]

Not sure UK Labour have got the tone of this advert quite right ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtCRY3SaUAAr9n3?format=jpg&name=medium

That's a very odd ad.

[Hiber-nation]

That's a very odd ad.

That is pushing it way too far. Really poor stuff and I don't think we've heard the end of it.

[marinello59]

Not sure UK Labour have got the tone of this advert quite right ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtCRY3SaUAAr9n3?format=jpg&name=medium

That’s contemptible. Absolutely no need for that sort of attack. I hope Starmer apologises for it.

[Crunchie]

That is pushing it way too far. Really poor stuff and I don't think we've heard the end of it.
Gutter politics and this reeks of Rayner's doing, this doesn't strike me as something Starmer would do.

[degenerated]

Not sure UK Labour have got the tone of this advert quite right ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtCRY3SaUAAr9n3?format=jpg&name=mediumThat's an absolute shocker.

[hibsbollah]

That's an absolute shocker.

8 million views so far.
And Labour front desk aren’t backing down.

[ronaldo7]

Not sure UK Labour have got the tone of this advert quite right ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtCRY3SaUAAr9n3?format=jpg&name=medium

They want power. How they get there doesn't seem to matter to them. Disgusting ad.

[neil7908]

That’s contemptible. Absolutely no need for that sort of attack. I hope Starmer apologises for it.

This is a totally bizzare line of attack from Labour, especially after their (understandable) anger at Bojo for saying Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile.

As the saying goes never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and the pig likes it.

[marinello59]

There has been plenty of criticism from within Labour. Monica Lennon nails it.


Scottish Labour MSP Monica Lennon wrote: "Survivors of childhood sexual abuse deserve better from the criminal justice system and from their elected representatives.

" This ad is ill-judged. Those of us who want a Labour government deserve campaign materials we can be proud to take into our communities."

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230407/4d8ad5cf93ba4d186d9dce99bc71e7d3.jpg

A party with not a lot to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

8 million views so far.
And Labour front desk aren’t backing down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65211469

[JeMeSouviens]

I think "we're sorry, the intern got a shot of the computer" would be their best bet today.

[Hibrandenburg]

They want power. How they get there doesn't seem to matter to them. Disgusting ad.

Careful now, you'll be accused of being a yellow Tory. Criticising Labour is akin to being a Tory.

[archie]

They want power. How they get there doesn't seem to matter to them. Disgusting ad.

I hate the ad. But don't be so sanctimonious about political parties doing stuff to get power. Remember section 28/2a?

[Stairway 2 7]

Careful now, you'll be accused of being a yellow Tory. Criticising Labour is akin to being a Tory.

And criticising SNP or independence is akin to being a tory for many. Its all very boring. Anyone with an iota of knowledge knows Labour and SNP are miles away from this tory government and to say different is playing politics

[Stairway 2 7]

They need to win the middle ground or they aren't in power next year and are greeting from the sidelines, they cannot go to far and hurt their core support though. I'm sure they will be loving the publicity from this as polls show they are trusted on crime more than the tories for the first time in decades

https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1644278855098843141

KevinASchofield
SCOOP: Labour doubling down on the Sunak tweet row.

The party has also been talking to the Australian Labour Party and US Democrats.

"They told us to ignore the people who expect you to be kind losers and fight as viciously as the Conservatives

[Hibbyradge]

I hate the ad. But don't be so sanctimonious about political parties doing stuff to get power. Remember section 28/2a?

And remember Johnson implying that Starmer in some way facilitated Saville?

[grunt]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/07/keir-starmer-high-horse-politics-labour-rishi-sunak?CMP=share_btn_tw


The thing about political attack ads is that there will always be people, usually the ones who came up with them, who’ll sweep in to explain loftily that actually, the ad in question was a dark form of magic. “Hey, it’s not pretty, but politics is a bloodsport,” will be the position of some boring little inadequate whose other positions include banning bloodsports and having a number of views about where to get the best flat white in SW1.


If the sole tenor of your current brand is that the Tories are morally degenerate and iniquitous and that decency and truth-telling matter, there are those nutters among us who would argue that sinking to the same level is not a brilliant 4D chess move, but simply … sinking to the same level.

[archie]

I think "we're sorry, the intern got a shot of the computer" would be their best bet today.

That might be a defensive line, but I don't think this is casual at all. I really hate the ad and I wouldn't run it. But it's not stupid. Look on here, people who hate Labour are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that (indeed they will like opponents rushing to the aid of Rishi). The Tories are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that. The Guardian is shrieking about it. So what (and I say that as a subscriber)?

So what does it do? It fires an enormous shot across the bows of the Tories over Starmer and Saville claims. It also fires a shot over the bows of Tory attacks on Labour councils being soft on grooming gangs. And it positions Labour on crime.

And every time someone complains, the ad is shown again.

Do I like it? No. But is it just an error - I don't think so.

[Ozyhibby]

That might be a defensive line, but I don't think this is casual at all. I really hate the ad and I wouldn't run it. But it's not stupid. Look on here, people who hate Labour are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that (indeed they will like opponents rushing to the aid of Rishi). The Tories are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that. The Guardian is shrieking about it. So what (and I say that as a subscriber)?

So what does it do? It fires an enormous shot across the bows of the Tories over Starmer and Saville claims. It also fires a shot over the bows of Tory attacks on Labour councils being soft on grooming gangs. And it positions Labour on crime.

And every time someone complains, the ad is shown again.

Do I like it? No. But is it just an error - I don't think so.

I don’t like but I’m happy to excuse it because it’s my side.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

That might be a defensive line, but I don't think this is casual at all. I really hate the ad and I wouldn't run it. But it's not stupid. Look on here, people who hate Labour are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that (indeed they will like opponents rushing to the aid of Rishi). The Tories are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that. The Guardian is shrieking about it. So what (and I say that as a subscriber)?

So what does it do? It fires an enormous shot across the bows of the Tories over Starmer and Saville claims. It also fires a shot over the bows of Tory attacks on Labour councils being soft on grooming gangs. And it positions Labour on crime.

And every time someone complains, the ad is shown again.

Do I like it? No. But is it just an error - I don't think so.

I don’t hate Labour (though my respect for them seems to reduce every day) and I think the ad is appalling.

It will surely lead to bother for those involved. It’s a pretty clear insinuation that Sunak personally thinks paedophiles shouldn’t be in prison.

I’d have been a little less surprised to hear something like that from the tories.. who I do hate.

[Ozyhibby]

The ad lacks common decency. It says a lot about Starmer’s lust for power that he was willing to go for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/07/keir-starmer-high-horse-politics-labour-rishi-sunak?CMP=share_btn_tw

She is just the best writer on modern Britain today. Loving her work, (‘What just happened’ is a book I got for Christmas and has me chuckling every time I open it, including when the targets are politicians I like). And she pins down a few prevailing attitudes among all the Frank Underwood wanabees perfectly.

[Smartie]

That might be a defensive line, but I don't think this is casual at all. I really hate the ad and I wouldn't run it. But it's not stupid. Look on here, people who hate Labour are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that (indeed they will like opponents rushing to the aid of Rishi). The Tories are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that. The Guardian is shrieking about it. So what (and I say that as a subscriber)?

So what does it do? It fires an enormous shot across the bows of the Tories over Starmer and Saville claims. It also fires a shot over the bows of Tory attacks on Labour councils being soft on grooming gangs. And it positions Labour on crime.

And every time someone complains, the ad is shown again.

Do I like it? No. But is it just an error - I don't think so.

Those of us who have had to take grief over “divisive” politics probably just find it a bit hypocritical amongst a few hundred more suitable adjectives.

There’s no shortage of stuff to take Sunak and the Tories to task in so why go here? Is there no appeal in maintaining the moral high ground, leaving them looking desperate with their filthy Savile rubbish?

It’s vile, and it’s hard not to want to make the point that it sums up UK gutter politics.

[hibsbollah]

That might be a defensive line, but I don't think this is casual at all. I really hate the ad and I wouldn't run it. But it's not stupid. Look on here, people who hate Labour are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that (indeed they will like opponents rushing to the aid of Rishi). The Tories are shrieking about it. Labour won't care about that. The Guardian is shrieking about it. So what (and I say that as a subscriber)?

So what does it do? It fires an enormous shot across the bows of the Tories over Starmer and Saville claims. It also fires a shot over the bows of Tory attacks on Labour councils being soft on grooming gangs. And it positions Labour on crime.

And every time someone complains, the ad is shown again.

Do I like it? No. But is it just an error - I don't think so.

The Guardian were actually quite late to the party. It was tweeted around 9pm last night and by this morning The Telegraph, Huff, Indy, Sky were all over the story. The Mirror, The Daily Mail and The Guardian stayed away from the story until later this morning when it was apparent it was, actually a big deal to people and couldn’t be dodged. I think the left leaning outlets are keen to avoid criticism of Starmer unless it’s unavoidable. What explains The Mails reticence? Good question.

Looking at the tweet itself once more, it’s the kind of thing you see a lot in US politics where they buy local TV ad space to go for the jugular ‘soft on crime’ personal attack ad. The racial subtext of it after Bravermans intervention at the weekend though, that was the thing that made me squirm.

[Stairway 2 7]

Labour double down

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1644339059215548416

[ronaldo7]

I hate the ad. But don't be so sanctimonious about political parties doing stuff to get power. Remember section 28/2a?

You've got to learn to roll with the punches mate. When central office sends out a distasteful ad, best to tell it how it is.

It's disgusting.

[archie]

You've got to learn to roll with the punches mate. When central office sends out a distasteful ad, best to tell it how it is.

It's disgusting.

I've said I hate it. But it's good sometimes to look beyond the knee jerk and try and understand what's happening.

[archie]

I don’t like but I’m happy to excuse it because it’s my side.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which bit of 'I really hate it' don't you get?

[grunt]

Which bit of 'I really hate it' don't you get?
I think it was the "but" that tripped you up.

[archie]

She is just the best writer on modern Britain today. Loving her work, (‘What just happened’ is a book I got for Christmas and has me chuckling every time I open it, including when the targets are politicians I like). And she pins down a few prevailing attitudes among all the Frank Underwood wanabees perfectly.

I agree with you about her as a writer and largely agree with her analysis. I'm pushing back on the 'it must have been an intern what done it narrative'.

[archie]

I think it was the "but" that tripped you up.

The 'but' related to me thinking it wasn't an error. So no trip up there.

[grunt]

The 'but' related to me thinking it wasn't an error. So no trip up there.
I was talking about this "but". So many buts it can get quite confusing.


I hate the ad. But don't be so sanctimonious about political parties doing stuff to get power. Remember section 28/2a?

[neil7908]

Labour double down

https://mobile.twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1644339059215548416

Starmer really can't get his story straight. First he was the great unifier of the Labour Party, ready to carry on the legacy of his friend Jeremy Corbyn. And we know how that has turned out.

Then he was on a crusade to restore civility and honestly to politics. And look how this is turning out.

[archie]

I was talking about this "but". So many buts it can get quite confusing.

So it wasn't a qualifier on my views on the ad.

[grunt]

So it wasn't a qualifier on my views on the ad.
The problem is that when you continually qualify your opinions, people can start to doubt the strength of your declared views. You posted twice about hating the ad, both times your comments were qualified.

[archie]

The problem is that when you continually qualify your opinions, people can start to doubt the strength of your declared views. You posted twice about hating the ad, both times your comments were qualified.

They really weren't. The qualifier related to comments here that it was an error and my view that some of the responses were rather sanctamonious.

[JeMeSouviens]

I agree with you about her as a writer and largely agree with her analysis. I'm pushing back on the 'it must have been an intern what done it narrative'.

That wasn’t my version of the narrative, it was my suggestion for how they could reverse out of it.

[neil7908]

I really want to see what Starmer has to say about this. I hope he gets properly grilled on this as its clear it hasn't been done by an overzealous spin doctor. Given the furore, the fact a minister has been sent to defend it and doubling down on the original ad, this was planned and intended.

After all the fuss Starmer (correctly) made about Boris mixing him up with Savile, I have no idea how he can defend this with a straight face. And if he tries to run anything down the line on honesty, civility in politics etc then he's going to come across as a massive hypocrite.

[Stairway 2 7]

Seems they will both be going against each other on the same subject. Samantha Smith was abused by grooming gangs she's now running for council elections as a tory, front and centre is Labour councils being soft on grooming. Lee Anderson was sent to campaign with her today

https://mobile.twitter.com/SamanthaTaghoy/status/1644412823143948300

[Glory Lurker]

Playing to the red wall.

Oh, how fantastic it is, my future decided by a bunch of reactionary xenophobes. Can't say anything to upset them, can we?

[Ozyhibby]

Playing to the red wall.

Oh, how fantastic it is, my future decided by a bunch of reactionary xenophobes. Can't say anything to upset them, can we?

And that’s all that matters to him. So long as he wins he doesn’t mind what he has to become to get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

Careful now, you'll be accused of being a yellow Tory. Criticising Labour is akin to being a Tory.

Now you mention that, it feels like there’s a very prominent poster (or two) of the last few days MIA all of a sudden.

[Crunchie]

And that’s all that matters to him. So long as he wins he doesn’t mind what he has to become to get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your last sentence could sum up any political party, especially your own. It's a sign of the times I suppose.

[hibsbollah]

Now you mention that, it feels like there’s a very prominent poster (or two) of the last few days MIA all of a sudden.

https://youtu.be/wcKDdfCSCho

[archie]

And that’s all that matters to him. So long as he wins he doesn’t mind what he has to become to get there.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI could take this more seriously if you weren't a supporter of one of the most ruthlessly power hungry political parties we've seen.

[Ozyhibby]

I could take this more seriously if you weren't a supporter of one of the most ruthlessly power hungry political parties we've seen.

Absolute nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/simonlightwood/status/1644275231807135747?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour mp telling lies? Surely not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Absolute nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not much of a refutation there!

How about;

Then Ferociously anti -EEC - Now Ferociously pro - EU

Then Exploiting fears about gay rights - Now very pro LGBTI+ etc.

Then Anti Nato Now pro NATO

Then Pro fossil fuel extraction Now Anti fossil fuel extraction But Future maybe pro fossil fuel extraction

Then Protest the Pope's visit Now a welcoming Scotland?

You could make claims about any political party. But the idea that the SNP hasn't had wild policy shifts to gain power is fanciful.

[Ozyhibby]

Not much of a refutation there!

How about;

Then Ferociously anti -EEC - Now Ferociously pro - EU

Then Exploiting fears about gay rights - Now very pro LGBTI+ etc.

Then Anti Nato Now pro NATO

Then Pro fossil fuel extraction Now Anti fossil fuel extraction But Future maybe pro fossil fuel extraction

Then Protest the Pope's visit Now a welcoming Scotland?

You could make claims about any political party. But the idea that the SNP hasn't had wild policy shifts to gain power is fanciful.

So just a normal political party then? [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

So just a normal political party then? [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So just the same as everybody else? I mean these are pretty fundamental shifts.

[Ozyhibby]

So just the same as everybody else? I mean these are pretty fundamental shifts.

Labour’s shift on Brexit has been pretty fundamental, has it not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scorrie]

The Labour ad is shocking and in my view, no need for it. The next election appears to be a race to the bottom. Awful

[WeeRussell]

Not much of a refutation there!

How about;

Then Ferociously anti -EEC - Now Ferociously pro - EU

Then Exploiting fears about gay rights - Now very pro LGBTI+ etc.

Then Anti Nato Now pro NATO

Then Pro fossil fuel extraction Now Anti fossil fuel extraction But Future maybe pro fossil fuel extraction

Then Protest the Pope's visit Now a welcoming Scotland?

You could make claims about any political party. But the idea that the SNP hasn't had wild policy shifts to gain power is fanciful.

Highlighting ‘shifts’ between a number of decades (and essentially different parties) isn’t the same as Oz’s allegations of Keir Starmer doing anything to gain power.

Every political party in the world will have changed with the times.

But I’m sure you already realise that. Or would if you wanted to.

[archie]

Highlighting ‘shifts’ between a number of decades (and essentially different parties) isn’t the same as Oz’s allegations of Keir Starmer doing anything to gain power.

Every political party in the world will have changed with the times.

But I’m sure you already realise that. Or would if you wanted to.
The section 28/2a campaign was led by Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP is pro-NATO but their Government partner is anti-NATO. The fossil fuel vacillating is still going on. So maybe not so dim and distant past. Why were these changes made? To help them gain power.

But I'm sure you already realise that. Or would if you wanted to!

[archie]

Labour’s shift on Brexit has been pretty fundamental, has it not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How?

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1644801741735559170?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Better Together return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1644801741735559170?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Better Together return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. Time and time again on here the very idea that the Tories and Labour are in anyway similar is dismissed as ludicrous.

And now we have the most senior Tory in Scotland saying this.

[archie]

Indeed. Time and time again on here the very idea that the Tories and Labour are in anyway similar is dismissed as ludicrous.

And now we have the most senior Tory in Scotland saying this.

Rejected by Labour. A pretty obvious trap.

[Ozyhibby]

Rejected by Labour. A pretty obvious trap.

Of course it is.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Of course it is.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It really is.

[Glory Lurker]

And again, it's all about winning the votes of swivelled-eyed, red wall, Brexit lovers.

What a country we live in!

[archie]

And again, it's all about winning the votes of swivelled-eyed, red wall, Brexit lovers.

What a country we live in!

What is?

[Ozyhibby]

Labour will return the favour by putting up a couple of paper candidates in Tory target seats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Labour will return the favour by putting up a couple of paper candidates in Tory target seats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop making things up and go to bed!

[Ozyhibby]

Stop making things up and go to bed!

[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/807559/Kezia-Dugdale-Nicola-Sturgeon-SNP-Scottish-independence-poll-Ruth-Davidson/amp

Of course it’s not a new thing. They have been tipping a wink to each others supporters for a while now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Rejected by Labour. A pretty obvious trap.

Sorry, I'm not not sure I understand your point.

[Jack]

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1644801741735559170?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Better Together return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair he's probably looked at the polls and seen that no-one is voting tory anyway ... at least in Scotland.

[marinello59]

To be fair he's probably looked at the polls and seen that no-one is voting tory anyway ... at least in Scotland.

:agree:
Labour wont be making pacts with anyone, they don’t need to. It’s all about getting the Tories out, if Douglas Ross wants to help with removing his own party from power Labour won’t be stopping him. :greengrin

[He's here!]

:agree:
Labour wont be making pacts with anyone, they don’t need to. It’s all about getting the Tories out, if Douglas Ross wants to help with removing his own party from power Labour won’t be stopping him. :greengrin

In Scotland it's all about getting the SNP out, or at least significantly diluting their influence. Scottish votes kept the Tories in power at Westminster in 2017 but they're highly unlikely to do so in 2024 so he's spot on in looking beyond party lines here IMHO.

Mind you, the SNP are currently doing a great job of making themselves look unelectable so that will also hopefully help Labour.

[Ozyhibby]

:agree:
Labour wont be making pacts with anyone, they don’t need to. It’s all about getting the Tories out, if Douglas Ross wants to help with removing his own party from power Labour won’t be stopping him. :greengrin

Of course they won’t. Just like they weren’t going into coalitions in councils.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1644644024010063872?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Keir Starmer, man of principle. Whichever principles he thinks you want him to have.
I suspect videos like that will become Tory party attack ads in run up to next election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Sorry, I'm not not sure I understand your point.

The Tories proposed it.

[archie]

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1644644024010063872?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Keir Starmer, man of principle. Whichever principles he thinks you want him to have.
I suspect videos like that will become Tory party attack ads in run up to next election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 'flexible' approach to principles has served the SNP well.

[He's here!]

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1644644024010063872?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Keir Starmer, man of principle. Whichever principles he thinks you want him to have.
I suspect videos like that will become Tory party attack ads in run up to next election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://order-order.com/2023/04/07/new-keir-starmer-sat-on-the-sentencing-council-that-determined-guidelines-for-sexual-assault-of-children/

Significant mis-step by Labour with those Sunak ads?

[Glory Lurker]

What is?

That ad.

[Hibrandenburg]

https://order-order.com/2023/04/07/new-keir-starmer-sat-on-the-sentencing-council-that-determined-guidelines-for-sexual-assault-of-children/

Significant mis-step by Labour with those Sunak ads?

The vile decent into 1930's demonisation of the opposition in Westminster is disgusting. Both the right and so called left have nothing to offer except reasons not to vote for each other. How anyone can think that Scotland is better being bound to this mess is baffling and it's only going to get worse.

[Stairway 2 7]

The vile decent into 1930's demonisation of the opposition in Westminster is disgusting. Both the right and so called left have nothing to offer except reasons not to vote for each other. How anyone can think that Scotland is better being bound to this mess is baffling and it's only going to get worse.

Sturgeon said she hates the tories, I agree with her like but pots kettles.

The ads are awful but I'm not against Labour taking off the gloves, should have happened 12 years ago. They can be polite and take all the punches then stay in opposition with the moral high ground comfort blanket. Be more like Sturgeon f the tories

[Ozyhibby]

The 'flexible' approach to principles has served the SNP well.

Ah, your talking about a whole party. I’m talking about one man in three years.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Ah, your talking about a whole party. I’m talking about one man in three years.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think this is the slam dunk you think it is.

[neil7908]

Sturgeon said she hates the tories, I agree with her like but pots kettles.

The ads are awful but I'm not against Labour taking off the gloves, should have happened 12 years ago. They can be polite and take all the punches then stay in opposition with the moral high ground comfort blanket. Be more like Sturgeon f the tories

That's all well and good but Starmer has made a big song and dance about how terrible opposition smears against him are and how he will bring honesty and integrity back to politics.

Labour should be scooshing this election. The fact they are resorting to this stuff reflects very poorly on their leader and how confident they are in winning. Which is in itself quite telling.

I could see a decent chunk of voters shifting to Lib Dems if this is the road they want to go down.

The other point here, and one that gets trotted out a lot about Labour, is that Starmer is making them a ruthless machine designed to win. But that in power they will behave completely differently. But history tells us that doesn't happen - how you campaign is how you govern.

[Stairway 2 7]

That's all well and good but Starmer has made a big song and dance about how terrible opposition smears against him are and how he will bring honesty and integrity back to politics.

Labour should be scooshing this election. The fact they are resorting to this stuff reflects very poorly on their leader and how confident they are in winning. Which is in itself quite telling.

I could see a decent chunk of voters shifting to Lib Dems if this is the road they want to go down.

The other point here, and one that gets trotted out a lot about Labour, is that Starmer is making them a ruthless machine designed to win. But that in power they will behave completely differently. But history tells us that doesn't happen - how you campaign is how you govern.

The number down south that are that angry with this that they move from a Labour vote to Lib dem will be tiny, the number jumping to tory smaller. They might win voters in the middle though.

The majority of voters are baked in and don't change, swing voters are who decide elections

[Hibrandenburg]

Sturgeon said she hates the tories, I agree with her like but pots kettles.

The ads are awful but I'm not against Labour taking off the gloves, should have happened 12 years ago. They can be polite and take all the punches then stay in opposition with the moral high ground comfort blanket. Be more like Sturgeon f the tories

Can't agree with any of that. Now that Labour have joined the Tories in the downward spiral into the hate stakes quagmire, the less likely we're going to emerge from this perpetual state of populism. Westminster politics is ****ed.

[ronaldo7]

Of course they won’t. Just like they weren’t going into coalitions in councils.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop it. They only vote together and give each other provost jobs to appease the voters. 😂

[archie]

Stop it. They only vote together and give each other provost jobs to appease the voters. ��

Talking of voting with Tories, I thought the SNP wanted Margaret Ferrier to resign, but at Westminster they voted with Tories to give her a lighter punishment. Curious. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/30/margaret-ferrier-should-be-suspended-from-commons-for-30-days-for-covid-breach-says-committee

[archie]

Can't agree with any of that. Now that Labour have joined the Tories in the downward spiral into the hate stakes quagmire, the less likely we're going to emerge from this perpetual state of populism. Westminster politics is ****ed.

Of course the SNP are so above the fray. I can see why you are desperate to talk about this and confect issues around cartoons rather than address more immediate issues.

[Kato]

Talking of voting with Tories, I thought the SNP wanted Margaret Ferrier to resign, but at Westminster they voted with Tories to give her a lighter punishment. Curious. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/30/margaret-ferrier-should-be-suspended-from-commons-for-30-days-for-covid-breach-says-committee...and that affects the overall governance of the UK in what way, compared to a regional leader of a part of it clearly calling for tactical voting in elections.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Of course the SNP are so above the fray. I can see why you are desperate to talk about this and confect issues around cartoons rather than address more immediate issues.Nothing to do with that... just a few short weeks ago when Sturgeon announced she was stepping down both the Tories and Labour hardly had a good word to say about her even on a personal level, both went on about her being all about divisive politics and campaigning.

Yet here we are, their true colours are showing. Once more a dead cat chucked on the table and the real issues are getting sidelined

[archie]

...and that affects the overall governance of the UK in what way, compared to a regional leader of a part of it clearly calling for tactical voting in elections.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well there are a number of odd aspects to it. The FM says she should resign and he's looking forward to a bye election. But the SNP at Westminster choose to vote in away that would mean she didn't have to stand down. Even curiouser, the SNP vote with Tories who support Johnson and want to avoid bye election for him. Why would the SNP do that? I'm sure you'll agree it's very odd..

[archie]

Nothing to do with that... just a few short weeks ago when Sturgeon announced she was stepping down both the Tories and Labour hardly had a good word to say about her even on a personal level, both went on about her being all about divisive politics and campaigning.

Yet here we are, their true colours are showing. Once more a dead cat chucked on the table and the real issues are getting sidelined
Well it appears that quite a lot of people on her side don't have a good word either.

[ronaldo7]

Talking of voting with Tories, I thought the SNP wanted Margaret Ferrier to resign, but at Westminster they voted with Tories to give her a lighter punishment. Curious. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/30/margaret-ferrier-should-be-suspended-from-commons-for-30-days-for-covid-breach-says-committee

Oh dear, and you accuse others of deflection. 😂

[Kato]

Well there are a number of odd aspects to it. The FM says she should resign and he's looking forward to a bye election. But the SNP at Westminster choose to vote in away that would mean she didn't have to stand down. Even curiouser, the SNP vote with Tories who support Johnson and want to avoid bye election for him. Why would the SNP do that? I'm sure you'll agree it's very odd..Politicians are gonna politic is the answer to your question.

My question was about the matter of degree it makes to the unitary state. Which you completely failed to comprehend going by your answer.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

yes Mr Ross, we know exactly why Baillie kept her seat :agree:

Phantom Power on Twitter: "Douglas Ross openly admits he won his seat with Labour’s help and Tories got Jackie Baillie elected. The Scottish unionist party exists in all but name. https://t.co/7LFqCHdLo8" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1644989606415269897?t=LlZuKdssvJoWwWsAXpO41g&s=19&fbclid=IwAR3kfP7AZNzdfo0rD2NlQ0AKu87c-JOpvMKgL1bKkobEJWtfkF8OQynrlfU)



i do like that other Acronym for BLiS though, SLUG how very apt https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2020/04/10/two-faced-scottish-labour-and-free-school-meals/

could maybe add another word to make is SLUGS

[Hibrandenburg]

Of course the SNP are so above the fray. I can see why you are desperate to talk about this and confect issues around cartoons rather than address more immediate issues.

I've yet to see SNP authorised adverts accusing other party individuals of protecting paedophiles. I consider the surge to the right and the 1930's style of political demonisation to be an immediate issue, I'm surprised you as a socialist don't.

[Stairway 2 7]

I've yet to see SNP authorised adverts accusing other party individuals of protecting paedophiles. I consider the surge to the right and the 1930's style of political demonisation to be an immediate issue, I'm surprised you as a socialist don't.

Sturgeon said she hated the tories, you'll agree that is demonisation and as you say it hate stakes quagmire?

[marinello59]

Can't agree with any of that. Now that Labour have joined the Tories in the downward spiral into the hate stakes quagmire, the less likely we're going to emerge from this perpetual state of populism. Westminster politics is ****ed.

So is Holyrood with the lying incompetents in charge there. Depressing isn’t it?

[Kato]

Sturgeon said she hated the tories, you'll agree that is demonisation and as you say it hate stakes quagmire?Context. She said detest the Torys and their policies. Remarks clearly confined to the Party.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Context. She said detest the Torys and their policies. Remarks clearly confined to the Party.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I'm not saying she didn't and already said I agree with her, not getting the point.

[Kato]

I'm not saying she didn't and already said I agree with her, not getting the point.Ok. Soz

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Context. She said detest the Torys and their policies. Remarks clearly confined to the Party.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

She had to clarify it.

[grunt]

She had to clarify it.Only because the media and opposition were too stupid to understand what she meant.

[archie]

Politicians are gonna politic is the answer to your question.

My question was about the matter of degree it makes to the unitary state. Which you completely failed to comprehend going by your answer.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

No I understand why you were trying to minimise it. I think it's odd that the SNP would vote with Tories trying to help Johnson. I thought you would be all over it given your critique of voting with the Tories and in apparent contradiction to the views of the party leader. But clearly you're not bothered.

[archie]

Only because the media and opposition were too stupid to understand what she meant.

So not a failure of communication then?

[archie]

Oh dear, and you accuse others of deflection. 😂

How is the SNP choosing to vote with the Tories who are trying to protect Johnson not relevant in a thread criticising people voting with the Tories?

[Hibrandenburg]

Sturgeon said she hated the tories, you'll agree that is demonisation and as you say it hate stakes quagmire?

Nope, I hate the Tories and everything they stand for and all for legitimate reasons. Nicola Sturgeon will also have her reasons. Hating a party and their odious ideology is not the same as demonising an individual and portraying them as defenders of paedophilia. Surely you can see the difference?

Edit: I see you're not the only one who can't differentiate.

[Kato]

She had to clarify it.She was asked about it but it was pretty plain who she was referring to at exactly the time she said it.

Being asked about it and "had to clarify it" aren't exactly the same thing if you have ears.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

So not a failure of communication then?No. A failure of people's lugs.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Nope, I hate the Tories and everything they stand for and all for legitimate reasons. Nicola Sturgeon will also have her reasons. Hating a party and their odious ideology is not the same as demonising an individual and portraying them as defenders of paedophilia. Surely you can see the difference?

Edit: I see you're not the only one who can't differentiate.

Your doing backflips to say dear leader wasn't adding to the "hate stakes" as you called it, by literally saying she hated the tories.

[Kato]

Your doing backflips to say dear leader wasn't adding to the "hate stakes" as you called it, by literally saying she hated the tories.She literally didn't say the word "hate" though.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

She literally didn't say the word "hate" though.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Detest is probably harder, good on her. Labour should have been saying similar the last decade. Starmer stands there like a wet fart when they are giving out bile. Say what a huge proportion of the country are thinking, that they are horrible *****

[Hibrandenburg]

Your doing backflips to say dear leader wasn't adding to the "hate stakes" as you called it, by literally saying she hated the tories.

You've still not grokked the difference between hating a political party and wrongly demonising an individual as akin to a paedophile have you?

[Stairway 2 7]

You've still not grokked the difference between hating a political party and wrongly demonising an individual as akin to a paedophile have you?

Demonising an individual as akin to a pedophile has literally just been made up by you. They said they were poor in prosecuting. I often say our courts are poor at prosecuting all rapists, I'm not comparing them or saying they defend rapists

[Hibrandenburg]

Demonising an individual as akin to a pedophile has literally just been made up by you. They said they were poor in prosecuting. I often say our courts are poor at prosecuting all rapists, I'm not comparing them or saying they defend rapists

No, but the Labour Party and Boris Johnson are drawing the parallels and hoping people come to a certain conclusion. I'll leave it here, you either can't or won't admit to seeing the difference between hating a political ideology and falsely smearing an individual.

[marinello59]

Demonising an individual as akin to a pedophile has literally just been made up by you. They said they were poor in prosecuting. I often say our courts are poor at prosecuting all rapists, I'm not comparing them or saying they defend rapists

I agree, it was a really distasteful poster but nowhere close to accusing Sunak of being akin to a peadophile. A strand on the left would rather attack Labour though than see the Tories binned. It’s an affliction neither the Tories or the SNP suffer from, they concentrate on ruthlessly winning elections rather than self indulgently congratulating themselves on their own political purity. It’s a flaw that results in the working class people they claim to care about being abandoned again and again.

[Pretty Boy]

I agree, it was a really distasteful poster but nowhere close to accusing Sunak of being akin to a peadophile. A strand on the left would rather attack Labour though than see the Tories binned. It’s an affliction neither the Tories or the SNP suffer from, they concentrate on ruthlessly winning elections rather than self indulgently congratulating themselves on their own political purity. It’s a flaw that results in the working class people they claim to care about being abandoned again and again.

Sadly it's always been thus.

Too many on the left allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

[Stairway 2 7]

No, but the Labour Party and Boris Johnson are drawing the parallels and hoping people come to a certain conclusion. I'll leave it here, you either can't or won't admit to seeing the difference between hating a political ideology and falsely smearing an individual.

Not smeared poor rishi just said he's soft on crime. But you were politics is heating up the hate stakes. I say Sturgeon was doing that far more for her comments than labour's advert and I'm all for it. Hopefully there's an advert tomorrow calling them racist, immigrant hating **** bags

[Stairway 2 7]

I agree, it was a really distasteful poster but nowhere close to accusing Sunak of being akin to a peadophile. A strand on the left would rather attack Labour though than see the Tories binned. It’s an affliction neither the Tories or the SNP suffer from, they concentrate on ruthlessly winning elections rather than self indulgently congratulating themselves on their own political purity. It’s a flaw that results in the working class people they claim to care about being abandoned again and again.

The advert was pish and a dog whistle I agree. There seems to be a section of snp supporters that hate Labour equal or more than the tories, yes some in the left two. It's weird imo. The only thing I can put it to is fearing a Labour victory makes independence less likely.

[Hibbyradge]

I agree, it was a really distasteful poster but nowhere close to accusing Sunak of being akin to a peadophile. A strand on the left would rather attack Labour though than see the Tories binned. It’s an affliction neither the Tories or the SNP suffer from, they concentrate on ruthlessly winning elections rather than self indulgently congratulating themselves on their own political purity. It’s a flaw that results in the working class people they claim to care about being abandoned again and again.

Spot on, JR.

[Ozyhibby]

The advert was pish and a dog whistle I agree. There seems to be a section of snp supporters that hate Labour equal or more than the tories, yes some in the left two. It's weird imo. The only thing I can put it to is fearing a Labour victory makes independence less likely.

Like you say, it’s a dog whistle. They see an Asian PM and know there is a race issue regarding Asian grooming gangs. The details aren’t important. So long as they can make the connection. Job done.
It’s not about hating anyone. I call it as I see it. And to be honest, it might work for them. In the seats they need to win, that might be just what they need.
If the SNP ever start that I would stop voting for them. Labour supporters might feel different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

I agree, it was a really distasteful poster but nowhere close to accusing Sunak of being akin to a peadophile. A strand on the left would rather attack Labour though than see the Tories binned. It’s an affliction neither the Tories or the SNP suffer from, they concentrate on ruthlessly winning elections rather than self indulgently congratulating themselves on their own political purity. It’s a flaw that results in the working class people they claim to care about being abandoned again and again.

It’s an interesting swivel by you and a few other posters here. Three quarters of this post is just attacking ‘the Left’ in quite cliched terms, ‘self indulgent’, ‘purity’, when that really isn’t the story at all, it’s a sense of genuine disbelief from across the political spectrum (including from that hammer of political correctness David Blunkett) that the attack ad was 1. Smearing a political opponent that makes it less likely that YOUR OWN justifiable complaints about political smears will standup 2. A ethnic minority/child abuse subtext that in the wake of Braverman/Rotherham you have to be blind to miss 3. Stupid politics. And this is the ‘forensic human rights lawyer’ :dunno:

Aside from the last man standing when the bell rings and the referee raises the glove, I don’t get a sense that he knows what he wants to be.

[ronaldo7]

How is the SNP choosing to vote with the Tories who are trying to protect Johnson not relevant in a thread criticising people voting with the Tories?

It’s a thread about the future of the Labour Party, so I suppose the Tories should figure somewhere.

[archie]

It’s a thread about the future of the Labour Party, so I suppose the Tories should figure somewhere.

Only in as much as the shrieking about if Labour vote with the Tories. Yet when the SNP do it...

[cabbageandribs1875]

is this true, surely not

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/340863172_1396070597601995_1140549632285262495_n.j pg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=AtStJOcOJHgAX8h6xWz&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBgXfHpiihUDEQla5Ul86ppD_IPvHmKXWriag5DXDX-CQ&oe=6438B278

jeezo, between him and Charles Lynton(Blair) what's going on with Labour leaders past and present, surely this is all fake :dunno:

https://twitter.com/FBNHistory/status/1551629830159998979

[Pretty Boy]

The rumours about Blair and the cottaging conviction have been doing the rounds since at least the mid 00s. Actual evidence has been thin on the ground in the intervening 15-20 years though.

[archie]

is this true, surely not

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/340863172_1396070597601995_1140549632285262495_n.j pg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=AtStJOcOJHgAX8h6xWz&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBgXfHpiihUDEQla5Ul86ppD_IPvHmKXWriag5DXDX-CQ&oe=6438B278

jeezo, between him and Charles Lynton(Blair) what's going on with Labour leaders past and present, surely this is all fake :dunno:

https://twitter.com/FBNHistory/status/1551629830159998979

Indeed it is https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

[archie]

The rumours about Blair and the cottaging conviction have been doing the rounds since at least the mid 00s. Actual evidence has been thin on the ground in the intervening 15-20 years though.

Actual evidence i.e. none. Do you seriously think that the media would have ignored it and the likes of Guido Fawkes keep quiet?

[Pretty Boy]

Actual evidence i.e. none. Do you seriously think that the media would have ignored it and the likes of Guido Fawkes keep quiet?

No.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Tony Blair and the paedophile connection - UK Politics: General Chat - Home (forumbox.co.uk) (https://www.forumbox.co.uk/forum/thread/49407-tony-blair-and-the-paedophile-connection/)

my goodness why o why are they all lying, that's bad of them

GUILTY: Tony Blair “Forced” boys in Public Toilets – 1974 and 1983 – Crazz Files (https://crazzfiles.com/guilty-tony-blair-forced-boys-in-public-toilets-1974-and-1983/)



there's an absolute ton of stuff about Blair/chums of Blair, establishment etc all over the internet


but it's blessed Tony Blair he's a good man, isn't he

[Stairway 2 7]

The Starmer Blair nonsense from tory non sites is really something else, jeez

[stantonhibby]

Tony Blair and the paedophile connection - UK Politics: General Chat - Home (forumbox.co.uk) (https://www.forumbox.co.uk/forum/thread/49407-tony-blair-and-the-paedophile-connection/)

my goodness why o why are they all lying, that's bad of them

GUILTY: Tony Blair “Forced” boys in Public Toilets – 1974 and 1983 – Crazz Files (https://crazzfiles.com/guilty-tony-blair-forced-boys-in-public-toilets-1974-and-1983/)



there's an absolute ton of stuff about Blair/chums of Blair, establishment etc all over the internet


but it's blessed Tony Blair he's a good man, isn't he

You'll copy and paste any old tripe eh? Unless it's anything remotely negative about SNP. I think you're the only person on here who would call a politician 'blessed' btw.....Nicola of course

[Pretty Boy]

Has the Holy Ground on hibs.net finally jumped the shark?

[Hiber-nation]

Has the Holy Ground on hibs.net finally jumped the shark?

Blinkered individuals with agendas, blatant trolling, links to utter nonsense posted just to get a reaction.

It's really depressing to see how low it has sunk.

[cabbageandribs1875]

You'll copy and paste any old tripe eh? Unless it's anything remotely negative about SNP. I think you're the only person on here who would call a politician 'blessed' btw.....Nicola of course


what on earth are you on about ?

[archie]

Tony Blair and the paedophile connection - UK Politics: General Chat - Home (forumbox.co.uk) (https://www.forumbox.co.uk/forum/thread/49407-tony-blair-and-the-paedophile-connection/)

my goodness why o why are they all lying, that's bad of them

GUILTY: Tony Blair “Forced” boys in Public Toilets – 1974 and 1983 – Crazz Files (https://crazzfiles.com/guilty-tony-blair-forced-boys-in-public-toilets-1974-and-1983/)



there's an absolute ton of stuff about Blair/chums of Blair, establishment etc all over the internet


but it's blessed Tony Blair he's a good man, isn't he
This too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_sightings

[WeeRussell]

Blinkered individuals with agendas, blatant trolling, links to utter nonsense posted just to get a reaction.

It's really depressing to see how low it has sunk.

Somewhat in line with the state of politics and political media, and probably not a coincidence.

Maybe with the exception of trolls. A few of them are pretty prolific regardless and have been for some time.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Keir Starmer doubling down in his favourite paper, the Daily Mail. Claiming that he "stands by every word" that Labour have came out with, including that utterly disgusting tweet.

His rhetoric is becoming increasingly more authoritarian as he pushes his police state ideology harder and harder. It's genuinely worrying that there are still people who don't see it or don't see a problem with it.

If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.

The fundamental issue with Keir Starmer's Party's rhetoric here about not all sex offenders receiving prison time under the tories, is that it's a direct result of guidelines that were put in place by the CPS back in 2012. Guidelines that were put in place when Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions. Guidelines that he didn't object to at the time.

[neil7908]

The Guardian reporting that Starmers personal approval ratings have now dropped below Sunak, based on recent polling from Ipsos

[archie]

Keir Starmer doubling down in his favourite paper, the Daily Mail. Claiming that he "stands by every word" that Labour have came out with, including that utterly disgusting tweet.

His rhetoric is becoming increasingly more authoritarian as he pushes his police state ideology harder and harder. It's genuinely worrying that there are still people who don't see it or don't see a problem with it.

If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.

The fundamental issue with Keir Starmer's Party's rhetoric here about not all sex offenders receiving prison time under the tories, is that it's a direct result of guidelines that were put in place by the CPS back in 2012. Guidelines that were put in place when Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions. Guidelines that he didn't object to at the time.

My goodness what a hyperbolic piece. 'The Daily Mail - Keir Starmer's favourite paper'; 'his police state ideology'; 'if we think things have been bleak under the Tories you ain't seen nothing yet'.

I get you are scared. The problem with this stuff is that people just don't believe it. It's like the demon eyes campaign that the Tories ran against Blair. It just didn't work. If you are going negative it has to be plausible. Lurching from Starmer being a colourless technocrat to ruthless oppressor just won't connect with people.

[Ozyhibby]

My goodness what a hyperbolic piece. 'The Daily Mail - Keir Starmer's favourite paper'; 'his police state ideology'; 'if we think things have been bleak under the Tories you ain't seen nothing yet'.

I get you are scared. The problem with this stuff is that people just don't believe it. It's like the demon eyes campaign that the Tories ran against Blair. It just didn't work. If you are going negative it has to be plausible. Lurching from Starmer being a colourless technocrat to ruthless oppressor just won't connect with people.

They all start out as technocrats.[emoji6][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The problem with this stuff is that people just don't believe it.

Indeed. But just because people refuse to believe it, doesn't make it untrue.

[archie]

Indeed. But just because people refuse to believe it, doesn't make it untrue.

OK, let's follow the logic. By your reckoning Starmer will unleash terror if Labour wins the election. Therefore people should vote Tory to save us from this terror. You can see how unhinged that looks. All on the basis of zero evidence. Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Even Ozyhibby is laughing at it.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Therefore people should vote Tory to save us from this terror.

That's not what I've said though. What I am saying is that it's going to be an utter disaster regardless of which party wins. They are both singing from the same hymn sheet and a prepared to use the same deceitful tactics to win. Any party that will lie to and cheat the public in order to get into power, will lie to and cheat the public when they're in power as well.

[archie]

That's not what I've said though. What I am saying is that it's going to be an utter disaster regardless of which party wins. They are both singing from the same hymn sheet and a prepared to use the same deceitful tactics to win. Any party that will lie to and cheat the public in order to get into power, will lie to and cheat the public when they're in power as well.

'We will scrap the hated Council Tax' https://workersliberty.org/story/2017-07-26/snp-goes-back-promise-scrap-council-tax

[archie]

That's not what I've said though. What I am saying is that it's going to be an utter disaster regardless of which party wins. They are both singing from the same hymn sheet and a prepared to use the same deceitful tactics to win. Any party that will lie to and cheat the public in order to get into power, will lie to and cheat the public when they're in power as well.

You said: 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.'. The only interpretation of that is that Labour will be worse than the Tories. So logic dictates that you believe people in Britain should vote Tory in the next general election. Interesting to see you out batting for Rishi.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

'We will scrap the hated Council Tax' https://workersliberty.org/story/2017-07-26/snp-goes-back-promise-scrap-council-tax

Not sure why you're bringing the SNP up in this thread, i'm not exactly on here defending the SNPs reversal on Council Tax. The whole "my party is bad, but the others are bad as well" sums up just how far the bar has fallen in UK politics.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You said: 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.'. The only interpretation of that is that Labour will be worse than the Tories. So logic dictates that you believe people in Britain should vote Tory in the next general election. Interesting to see you out batting for Rishi.

Well no. Because it's absolutely conceivable that the tories themselves are going to be even worse than they have been following the next general election should they win. I believe things are going to get much worse regardless of the election result.

[archie]

Not sure why you're bringing the SNP up in this thread, i'm not exactly on here defending the SNPs reversal on Council Tax. The whole "my party is bad, but the others are bad as well" sums up just how far the bar has fallen in UK politics.

But you said: 'Any party that will lie to and cheat the public in order to get into power, will lie to and cheat the public when they're in power as well.'So surely it's relevant?

[archie]

Well no. Because it's absolutely conceivable that the tories themselves are going to be even worse than they have been following the next general election should they win. I believe things are going to get much worse regardless of the election result.

But you said this: 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.' so which is it?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But you said: 'Any party that will lie to and cheat the public in order to get into power, will lie to and cheat the public when they're in power as well.'So surely it's relevant?

It is. Thanks for backing up my point.


But you said this: 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.' so which is it?

Which can still mean the tories being even worse than they have been following the 2024 election.

[hibsbollah]

But you said this: 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.' so which is it?

You’re digging away semantically, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with his logic; that cumulatively we’re on a race to the bottom with authoritarian policies becoming increasingly everyday and extreme as the analytics guys keep saying that’s the best way to win over ‘middle England’ ‘Stevenage man’ or whatever mythical creature the policy wonks come up with next. It is possible that on current policy trajectories Labour could come up with a Rwanda-esque policy themselves. Why not? They are not objecting to it on the grounds of morality, they are objecting to it on the grounds of unworkability (not sure this is a word but hey ho).

FWIW I disagree with the analysis, I still think the current manifestation of the Tories needs to be defeated as a priority. But dear me SurKeer makes it hard.

[Smartie]

I think there's a fair point to be made in that if you lose faith in the game, it matters less who wins it.

FWIW I'm in absolutely no doubt that the Tories, particularly this iteration of them, need to be defeated.

But if in order to win that means dog whistle pish about your Asian rival being tolerant of paedophilia then the whole contest ends up being devalued and you need to be suspicious of what someone might actually end up doing when in power, if they're prepared to stoop that low.

[archie]

You’re digging away semantically, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with his logic; that cumulatively we’re on a race to the bottom with authoritarian policies becoming increasingly everyday and extreme as the analytics guys keep saying that’s the best way to win over ‘middle England’ ‘Stevenage man’ or whatever mythical creature the policy wonks come up with next. It is possible that on current policy trajectories Labour could come up with a Rwanda-esque policy themselves. Why not? They are not objecting to it on the grounds of morality, they are objecting to it on the grounds of unworkability (not sure this is a word but hey ho).

FWIW I disagree with the analysis, I still think the current manifestation of the Tories needs to be defeated as a priority. But dear me SurKeer makes it hard.

Hold on. It's not digging away semantically. It's exposing a rediculous and unsubstandiated smear on the Labour Party. TBF the poster has a lot of previous on this. And the logic is flawed. The rest of your post is lots of conjecture. Lots of things are possible with any party. But if you want to be credible you do need evidence. As for Rwanda, I don't agree with your assertion. Here's a piece from Starmer's apparent favourite newspaper (no citation) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11254061/Labour-says-CANCEL-Rwanda-migrant-deportation-scheme.html

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Hold on. It's not digging away semantically. It's exposing a rediculous and unsubstandiated smear on the Labour Party. TBF the poster has a lot of previous on this. And the logic is flawed. The rest of your post is lots of conjecture. Lots of things are possible with any party. But if you want to be credible you do need evidence. As for Rwanda, I don't agree with your assertion. Here's a piece from Starmer's apparent favourite newspaper (no citation) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11254061/Labour-says-CANCEL-Rwanda-migrant-deportation-scheme.html

What evidence are you not seeing?

Keir Starmer's party is accusing Rishi Sunak of not wanting people guilty of sexually assaulting children to go to prison.

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1643973886311297028/photo/1

This is despite Keir Starmer being on the very prosecution board who pushed for greater leniency towards child sex offenders back in 2012. Something that he himself was in support of on that board. Here is a snippet of Emily Thornberry on BBC Radio 4 yesterday when questioned about it by Justin Webb.

https://www.whyp.it/tracks/87781/justin-webb-emily-thornberry-bbcr4-10-04-23-2?token=xMWPt

[archie]

What evidence are you not seeing?

Keir Starmer's party is accusing Rishi Sunak of not wanting people guilty of sexually assaulting children to go to prison.

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1643973886311297028/photo/1

This is despite Keir Starmer being on the very prosecution board who pushed for greater leniency towards child sex offenders back in 2012. Something that he himself was in support of on that board. Here is a snippet of Emily Thornberry on BBC Radio 4 yesterday when questioned about it by Justin Webb.

https://www.whyp.it/tracks/87781/justin-webb-emily-thornberry-bbcr4-10-04-23-2?token=xMWPt

You see what you want to see. I don't like the ad. But the determiniation to extrapolate this into a hyperbolic frenzy are something to behold. You said 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.' All from an ad.

But you're not acting in good faith. Remember the exchanges where you said Patrick Grady had done nothing wrong despite his apologising? Remember the exchanges where you said it was disgusting that Starmer wrote an article for the Sun but it was understandable when Nicola appeared on the front page holding the paper? That suggests that you are pursuing another agenda, which is driven by fear of a Labour victory.

[WeeRussell]

I think there's a fair point to be made in that if you lose faith in the game, it matters less who wins it.

FWIW I'm in absolutely no doubt that the Tories, particularly this iteration of them, need to be defeated.

But if in order to win that means dog whistle pish about your Asian rival being tolerant of paedophilia then the whole contest ends up being devalued and you need to be suspicious of what someone might actually end up doing when in power, if they're prepared to stoop that low.

Spot on, smartie 👍

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You see what you want to see. I don't like the ad. But the determiniation to extrapolate this into a hyperbolic frenzy are something to behold. You said 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.' All from an ad.

But you're not acting in good faith. Remember the exchanges where you said Patrick Grady had done nothing wrong despite his apologising? Remember the exchanges where you said it was disgusting that Starmer wrote an article for the Sun but it was understandable when Nicola appeared on the front page holding the paper? That suggests that you are pursuing another agenda, which is driven by fear of a Labour victory.

Perhaps you're seeing what you want to see or refusing to see what you don't want to see?

My criticism of the Labour Party goes far beyond that tweet and ultimately comes from the total sum of the rhetoric coming out of the party these days.

Once again, you're claiming that I've done or said something that I haven't. I never said Patrick Grady didn't do anything wrong. I said that I wouldn't automatically label somebody as being guilty of a crime until they are adjudged to have committed a crime in a court of law, as I believe it sets a dangerous precedent for society to do so. In any case, this is not relevant to the topic of this thread and if you want to discuss this further then I suggest raising it in the relevant thread.

[WeeRussell]

what a hyperbolic piece.

The problem with this stuff is that people just don't believe it.

If you are going negative it has to be plausible.

Lurching.

That poor kettle.

[grunt]

Perhaps you're seeing what you want to see or refusing not to see what you don't want to see?
Ok. I'm now officially confused.

[archie]

That poor kettle.

So do you agree with the original poster?

[archie]

Perhaps you're seeing what you want to see or refusing to see what you don't want to see?

My criticism of the Labour Party goes far beyond that tweet and ultimately comes from the total sum of the rhetoric coming out of the party these days.

Once again, you're claiming that I've done or said something that I haven't. I never said Patrick Grady didn't do anything wrong. I said that I wouldn't automatically label somebody as being guilty of a crime until they are adjudged to have committed a crime in a court of law, as I believe it sets a dangerous precedent for society to do so. In any case, this is not relevant to the topic of this thread and if you want to discuss this further then I suggest raising it in the relevant thread.

Listen. I get it - you hate Labour. You would rather have a Tory government. I get it.

[WeeRussell]

So do you agree with the original poster?

I agree with Hibsbollah and Smartie’s replies on the matter.

[ronaldo7]

I agree with Hibsbollah and Smartie’s replies on the matter.

Agree, and bring back James. 😂

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Listen. I get it - you hate Labour. You would rather have a Tory government. I get it.

There is no Labour Party to hate. Keir Starmer has purged Labour from the Labour Party. It's values have been well and truly binned for the sheer pursuit of power.

[archie]

I agree with Hibsbollah and Smartie’s replies on the matter.

So not the original poster?

[archie]

There is no Labour Party to hate. Keir Starmer has purged Labour from the Labour Party. It's values have been well and truly binned for the sheer pursuit of power.

Right...

[Stairway 2 7]

Your a wrongin if you aren't that bothered whether the tories or Labour win

[WeeRussell]

So not the original poster?

Sorry Archie, my feeding time shift is over.

[WeeRussell]

Agree, and bring back James. 😂

😁

It’s like he’s never been away!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Your a wrongin if you aren't that bothered whether the tories or Labour win

That is your opinion. Personally I think people who still believe there's a democratic choice have not done their research, but that's my own opinion.

[archie]

Sorry Archie, my feeding time shift is over.

I think that's meant to be a reference to trolling? Have I got that right?

[J-C]

Agree, and bring back James. 😂

Beat me to it, just going to post this.😁

[J-C]

😁

It’s like he’s never been away!

Maybe James had a second PC 😆

[hibsbollah]

I think that's meant to be a reference to trolling? Have I got that right?

That’s pure speculation.
I’d assumed Russ worked at Edinburgh Zoo and was actually posting on his break.

[archie]

So over the last 24 hours in the Hibs Net twilight zone we've had:

- Keir Starmer defended Jimmy Saville (debunked)

- Tony Blair was done for cottaging and it was covered up (evidence - 'it's all over the internet')

- Thatcher said Blair was her greatest achievement (source may be a Dorset Tory MP who attended a dinner party with Thatcher)

- Keir Starmer's favourite paper is the Daily Mail (source - inside poster's head)

- If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet. (referencing a Labour victory)

- There is no Labour Party.

- On the Rwanda policy and Labour 'They are not objecting to it on the grounds of morality, they are objecting to it on the grounds of unworkability.' (They have condemned it as unethical)

And so it goes on.

And to think people here accuse me of trolling!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Keir Starmer's favourite paper is the Daily Mail (source - inside poster's head)

Why does Keir Starmer write articles for the Daily Mail?

[hibsbollah]

So over the last 24 hours in the Hibs Net twilight zone we've had:

- Keir Starmer defended Jimmy Saville (debunked)

- Tony Blair was done for cottaging and it was covered up (evidence - 'it's all over the internet')

- Thatcher said Blair was her greatest achievement (source may be a Dorset Tory MP who attended a dinner party with Thatcher)

- Keir Starmer's favourite paper is the Daily Mail (source - inside poster's head)

- If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet. (referencing a Labour victory)

- There is no Labour Party.

- On the Rwanda policy and Labour 'They are not objecting to it on the grounds of morality, they are objecting to it on the grounds of unworkability.' (They have condemned it as unethical)

And so it goes on.

And to think people here accuse me of trolling!

That’s a bit of a rant.

I can only respond to the bit aimed at me which was the final point. If you follow the Labour Party’s responses to and statements on the Rwanda policy, there is a clear strategy of talking about the ‘unworkability’ or ‘chaos’ in the ‘delivery’ or such like. If you have managed to find a source or quote from someone near the front bench saying ‘Rwanda is wrong and unethical and we would never do that’, I’m confident that’s about 5% of their content on the subject. As you would expect, because that’s their strategy.

But nice job trying to lump legitimate criticisms with clearly bonkers conspiracy theories. It’s a bit transparent and I recognise the posting style.

[WeeRussell]

That’s pure speculation.
I’d assumed Russ worked at Edinburgh Zoo and was actually posting on his break.

Those Pandas aren’t going to shift themselves!

[archie]

That’s a bit of a rant.

I can only respond to the bit aimed at me which was the final point. If you follow the Labour Party’s responses to and statements on the Rwanda policy, there is a clear strategy of talking about the ‘unworkability’ or ‘chaos’ in the ‘delivery’ or such like. If you have managed to find a source or quote from someone near the front bench saying ‘Rwanda is wrong and unethical and we would never do that’, I’m confident that’s about 5% of their content on the subject. As you would expect, because that’s their strategy.

But nice job trying to lump legitimate criticisms with clearly bonkers conspiracy theories. It’s a bit transparent and I recognise the posting style.

The shadow Home secretary criticised the policy as unethical at the Labour Party conference. Here's Labour's initial response in this report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61110237

Now you critique Labour also highlighting the cost, unworkability and chaos arising from the policy. But not citing their unethical criticism gives the impression that they are only objecting on practicality grounds rather than morality. That's just not true. And in any event, it's legitimate to criticise on a range of grounds to show the policy is useless. I'm passionately opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds. I also think it's not effective in combatting crime. The second point doesn't invalidate the first.

As for this 'But nice job trying to lump legitimate criticisms with clearly bonkers conspiracy theories. It’s a bit transparent and I recognise the posting style.
' I have you down as someone who is passionate, informed and can be in your face. All good. But the quote is a bit smeary - not your usual style.

[ronaldo7]

So over the last 24 hours in the Hibs Net twilight zone we've had:

- Keir Starmer defended Jimmy Saville (debunked)

- Tony Blair was done for cottaging and it was covered up (evidence - 'it's all over the internet')

- Thatcher said Blair was her greatest achievement (source may be a Dorset Tory MP who attended a dinner party with Thatcher)

- Keir Starmer's favourite paper is the Daily Mail (source - inside poster's head)

- If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet. (referencing a Labour victory)

- There is no Labour Party.

- On the Rwanda policy and Labour 'They are not objecting to it on the grounds of morality, they are objecting to it on the grounds of unworkability.' (They have condemned it as unethical)

And so it goes on.

And to think people here accuse me of trolling!

Are you doing a daily update? It'll save me looking through all the threads.

[hibsbollah]

The shadow Home secretary criticised the policy as unethical at the Labour Party conference. Here's Labour's initial response in this report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61110237

Now you critique Labour also highlighting the cost, unworkability and chaos arising from the policy. But not citing their unethical criticism gives the impression that they are only objecting on practicality grounds rather than morality. That's just not true. And in any event, it's legitimate to criticise on a range of grounds to show the policy is useless. I'm passionately opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds. I also think it's not effective in combatting crime. The second point doesn't invalidate the first.

As for this 'But nice job trying to lump legitimate criticisms with clearly bonkers conspiracy theories. It’s a bit transparent and I recognise the posting style.
' I have you down as someone who is passionate, informed and can be in your face. All good. But the quote is a bit smeary - not your usual style.

I don’t think it’s ‘smeary’ (although i don’t actually know what that word actually means, doesn’t sound nice though), I just think it’s a bit cheap to merely list a load of different posters different opinions on the same subject and try to portray them as “Look! Lots of Mad Opinions Here!’. That’s a bit dishonest. And yes, I’ve seen that debating style before.

[Stairway 2 7]

So over the last 24 hours in the Hibs Net twilight zone we've had:

- Keir Starmer defended Jimmy Saville (debunked)

- Tony Blair was done for cottaging and it was covered up (evidence - 'it's all over the internet')

- Thatcher said Blair was her greatest achievement (source may be a Dorset Tory MP who attended a dinner party with Thatcher)

- Keir Starmer's favourite paper is the Daily Mail (source - inside poster's head)

- If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet. (referencing a Labour victory)

- There is no Labour Party.

- On the Rwanda policy and Labour 'They are not objecting to it on the grounds of morality, they are objecting to it on the grounds of unworkability.' (They have condemned it as unethical)

And so it goes on.

And to think people here accuse me of trolling!

Indeed it's been bizarre

[archie]

Are you doing a daily update? It'll save me looking through all the threads.

I thought the tumbling down the rabbit hole of the last 24 hours was worthy of comment. But no daily digest.

[s.a.m]

Why does Keir Starmer write articles for the Daily Mail?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circul ation

Starmer, or anyone else who wants to win an election, has to win over the readers of the Mail, The Sun and the Mail on Sunday and users of their online sites, whatever they think of them, because they're extremely popular. I personally have misgivings about Starmer, but if I was hazarding a guess about why he did an article for the Mail, 'trying to reach middle England' seems like a more likely reason than, 'It's my fave!'.

Incidentally, the circulation figures are only complete up until 2020, because a number of publications, including the Sun , the Times and the Telegraph have stopped providing circulation figures.

[ronaldo7]

I thought the tumbling down the rabbit hole of the last 24 hours was worthy of comment. But no daily digest.

Booo. 😭

[Stairway 2 7]

That is your opinion. Personally I think people who still believe there's a democratic choice have not done their research, but that's my own opinion.

That is completely my opinion. You mean you're research is good others is wrong. I just put some facts Labour took 600,000 thousand children out of poverty and the tories have put 900,000 children back in. The graphs don't match the economy in anyway, its a systematic choice. You might not see a difference but they kids put back into poverty do.

Labour are pretty crap as are all political parties. But if you don't prefer them to the Tories then you don't care about the people unfortunately at the bottom in the uk. I want independence personally but I'll be celebrating if the tories are voted out

[archie]

I don’t think it’s ‘smeary’ (although i don’t actually know what that word actually means, doesn’t sound nice though), I just think it’s a bit cheap to merely list a load of different posters different opinions on the same subject and try to portray them as “Look! Lots of Mad Opinions Here!’. That’s a bit dishonest. And yes, I’ve seen that debating style before.

I included your comment because it missed a vital point that was central - Labour have criticised the policy on ethical grounds. It's not like you to distort positions by omission.

[Kato]

I don’t think it’s ‘smeary’ (although i don’t actually know what that word actually means, doesn’t sound nice though), I just think it’s a bit cheap to merely list a load of different posters different opinions on the same subject and try to portray them as “Look! Lots of Mad Opinions Here!’. That’s a bit dishonest. And yes, I’ve seen that debating style before.Archie thinks everyone else is a victim of "group think".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Archie thinks everyone else is a victim of "group think".

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

What do you base that on?

[archie]

Booo. 😭

Think of the fun you'll have!

[archie]

Those Pandas aren’t going to shift themselves!

When it read that initially I missed the critical 'f'!

[hibsbollah]

Those Pandas aren’t going to shift themselves!

Yes they will. They just eat shoots and leaves.

Sorry :sad:

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That is completely my opinion. You mean you're research is good others is wrong. I just put some facts Labour took 600,000 thousand children out of poverty and the tories have put 900,000 children back in. The graphs don't match the economy in anyway, its a systematic choice. You might not see a difference but they kids put back into poverty do.

Labour are pretty crap as are all political parties. But if you don't prefer them to the Tories then you don't care about the people unfortunately at the bottom in the uk. I want independence personally but I'll be celebrating if the tories are voted out

I'm not questioning the point you made about Labour taking 600,000 children out of poverty under Tony Blair. I would however question why it's in anyway relevant to Keir Starmer. Even if Keir Starmer had a genuine motive to take children out of poverty under his leadership, the economic landscape that he'll be walking into as prime minister is going to be drastically different to the one that Tony Blair walked into. He's not going to have anywhere near the level of manoeuvrability over the economy that Tony Blair did back in the 90s. Keir Starmer knows this, which may explain why he's not really committing to any policy that will make a difference.

[hibsbollah]

I included your comment because it missed a vital point that was central - Labour have criticised the policy on ethical grounds. It's not like you to distort positions by omission.

I conceded right at the start of this that they might have done so. I hadn’t noticed. But it’s overwhelmingly drowned out by the less important complaint that it’s somehow ‘chaotically managed’, as if Yvette Cooper with a clipboard could send them off away from our shores in a much more managerial way. Which frankly isn’t good enough for me.

[archie]

I conceded right at the start of this that they might have done so. I hadn’t noticed. But it’s overwhelmingly drowned out by the less important complaint that it’s somehow ‘chaotically managed’, as if Yvette Cooper with a clipboard could send them off away from our shores in a much more managerial way. Which frankly isn’t good enough for me.
We'll have to disagree on this.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm not questioning the point you made about Labour taking 600,000 children out of poverty under Tony Blair. I would however question why it's in anyway relevant to Keir Starmer. Even if Keir Starmer had a genuine motive to take children out of poverty under his leadership, the economic landscape that he'll be walking into as prime minister is going to be drastically different to the one that Tony Blair walked into. He's not going to have anywhere near the level of manoeuvrability over the economy that Tony Blair did back in the 90s. Keir Starmer knows this, which may explain why he's not really committing to any policy that will make a difference.

I already said the graph on child poverty doesn't mirror the shape of the economy in that time, its a systematic choice.

The imf and bank of England has the economy growing by about 2% each year for 4 years after this one, they might be a bit out but there will be growth. Inflation is also going to be around 2%. The next 6 years is going to be milk and honey compared to the previous 6. If Labour gets in it'll be 2 terms

[Stairway 2 7]

I conceded right at the start of this that they might have done so. I hadn’t noticed. But it’s overwhelmingly drowned out by the less important complaint that it’s somehow ‘chaotically managed’, as if Yvette Cooper with a clipboard could send them off away from our shores in a much more managerial way. Which frankly isn’t good enough for me.

Yvette Cooper was calling it unethical and they have said they won't send anyone to Rwanda. Hopefully they get in so no one can be deported there. Another policy difference that won't make a difference to people on this board but will be life changing to those it affects

[WeeRussell]

Yes they will. They just eat shoots and leaves.

Sorry :sad:

Don’t apologise… I considered the exact same line 😁

[WeeRussell]

When it read that initially I missed the critical 'f'!

Ah. They definitely don’t need any assistance with that!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I already said the graph on child poverty doesn't mirror the shape of the economy in that time, its a systematic choice.

The imf and bank of England has the economy growing by about 2% each year for 4 years after this one, they might be a bit out but there will be growth. Inflation is also going to be around 2%. The next 6 years is going to be milk and honey compared to the previous 6. If Labour gets in it'll be 2 terms

Even if the IMF projections are accurate and that still remains to be seen. That is still a pitifully slow recovery. I wouldn't go anywhere near as far to call the next 6 years "milk and honey" compared to the previous 6. A 2% yearly growth projection is not going to lift 900,000+ children out of poverty.

[archie]

I conceded right at the start of this that they might have done so. I hadn’t noticed. But it’s overwhelmingly drowned out by the less important complaint that it’s somehow ‘chaotically managed’, as if Yvette Cooper with a clipboard could send them off away from our shores in a much more managerial way. Which frankly isn’t good enough for me.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[Stairway 2 7]

Even if the IMF projections are accurate and that still remains to be seen. That is still a pitifully slow recovery. I wouldn't go anywhere near as far to call the next 6 years "milk and honey" compared to the previous 6. A 2% yearly growth projection is not going to lift 900,000+ children out of poverty.

You said things will be much worse, your now saying 2% per year isn't enough. It will be milk and honey when you include inflation being near 2% compared to being over 10%

[hibsbollah]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

On which bit?

[hibsbollah]

Another policy difference that won't make a difference to people on this board

How do you know that?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You said things will be much worse, your now saying 2% per year isn't enough. It will be milk and honey when you include inflation being near 2% compared to being over 10%

Yes, but it's going to be 2% inflation on top of the inflation that is already hurting people. It's deflation that we need, not lower levels of inflation on top of what we're already dealing with. Not sure how it's going to be milk and honey when the current level of inflation that is already hurting people now is still going to in place in the following years, just with slower increases on top of it.

[archie]

On which bit?

That Labour have critiqued the Rwanda policy on ethical grounds and that it's legitimate to also critique the policy on practical ground too.

[Stairway 2 7]

How do you know that?

You reckon there's someone in the political section of a hibs message board who might be sent to Rwanda if the tories win. I'd say its a ****** miniscule chance but aye you never know

[hibsbollah]

You reckon there's someone in the political section of a hibs message board who might be sent to Rwanda if the tories win. I'd say its a ****** miniscule chance but aye you never know

Well, I was born overseas, so migration policy is something I keep an eye on and am quite concerned about. I’ve already seen some subtle changes like how I apply for documentation as an overseas born person in the last few years. I’d imagine (well in fact I know there are) people on here who have family friends colleagues who are directly affected by migration policy. Not necessarily asylum claims but they are inextricably linked.

Not everyone that’s interested in political issues does so from a position of lofty ivory tower detachment.

[Stairway 2 7]

Yes, but it's going to be 2% inflation on top of the inflation that is already hurting people. It's deflation that we need, not lower levels of inflation on top of what we're already dealing with. Not sure how it's going to be milk and honey when the current level of inflation that is already hurting people now is still going to in place in the following years, just with slower increases on top of it.

Deflation isn't going to happen. Wages are estimated to grow faster than inflation from around November, that's an estimate obviously but even if it's months out things will get better than now financially from next year for most. I've said this before previously but you're estimates of what's going to happen to the uk economy and public finances don't match pretty much any estimate I've seen. Perhaps you're right, hedge the economy and you'll make a killing

[hibsbollah]

That Labour have critiqued the Rwanda policy on ethical grounds and that it's legitimate to also critique the policy on practical ground too.

But I had explained that I wasn’t denying that fact. In the first sentence.

[Stairway 2 7]

Well, I was born overseas, so migration policy is something I keep an eye on and am quite concerned about. I’ve already seen some subtle changes like how I apply for documentation as an overseas born person in the last few years. I’d imagine (well in fact I know there are) people on here who have family friends colleagues who are directly affected by migration policy. Not necessarily asylum claims but they are inextricably linked.

Not everyone that’s interested in political issues does so from a position of lofty ivory tower detachment.

Eh that's a different subject all together that's not the Rwanda policy. I said Labour not sending people to Rwanda would have a life changing difference to those involved in that policy.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Deflation isn't going to happen. Wages are estimated to grow faster than inflation from around November, that's an estimate obviously but even if it's months out things will get better than now financially from next year for most. I've said this before previously but you're estimates of what's going to happen to the uk economy and public finances don't match pretty much any estimate I've seen. Perhaps you're right, hedge the economy and you'll make a killing

Well of course, I hope you're right about this. I would hedge the economy if I had a bolt to hedge it with.

[hibsbollah]

Eh that's a different subject all together that's not the Rwanda policy. I said Labour not sending people to Rwanda would have a life changing difference to those involved in that policy.

It’s not a different subject at all. Migration and Asylum are inextricably linked. I don’t know why you’d think otherwise.

[Stairway 2 7]

Well of course, I hope you're right about this. I would hedge the economy if I had a bolt to hedge it with.

The last time we discussed this the imf said uk economy was going to recede .6% tjis year, they have updated today to 0.3%. Still crap but the hedge would have lost money. I think the 0.3% will shrink also personally

[Stairway 2 7]

It’s not a different subject at all. Migration and Asylum are inextricably linked. I don’t know why you’d think otherwise.

Who said they aren't. Fact is I said labour saying they won't send anyone to Rwanda will make a huge difference to those who the tories would send to Rwanda, you came back talking about you were born overseas. That's magic but I'm not sure it changes the fact that labour not sending people to Rwanda is a positive thing for those involved

[hibsbollah]

Who said they aren't. Fact is I said labour saying they won't send anyone to Rwanda will make a huge difference to those who the tories would send to Rwanda, you came back talking about you were born overseas. That's magic but I'm not sure it changes the fact that labour not sending people to Rwanda is a positive thing for those involved

You ACTUALLY said ‘Another policy difference that won't make a difference to people on this board’ (cut n paste).

THATS where you’re wrong.

See the difference?

[Stairway 2 7]

You ACTUALLY said ‘Another policy difference that won't make a difference to people on this board’ (cut n paste).

THATS where you’re wrong.

See the difference?
The Rwanda policy won't personally effect anyone on this board, I concede that that is a presumption. Labour cancelling might not personally effect us but its huge to those it concerns

[hibsbollah]

The Rwanda policy won't personally effect anyone on this board, I concede that that is a presumption. Labour cancelling might not personally effect us but its huge to those it concerns

I understand what you intended to post, but what you actually posted wasn’t that, so it’s going to cause confusion.

[Stairway 2 7]

I understand what you intended to post, but what you actually posted wasn’t that, so it’s going to cause confusion.

Depends who's reading it I suppose

[TrumpIsAPeado]

There seems to be a fair bit of pedantic behaviour on here from all sides involved which takes the focus away from the debate itself. Members purposefully misinterpreting things and putting words into other members mouths in order to make straw-man arguments that deviate away from the core focus of the discussion.

[hibsbollah]

There seems to be a fair bit of pedantic behaviour on here from all sides involved which takes the focus away from the debate itself. Members purposefully misinterpreting things and putting words into other members mouths in order to make straw-man arguments that deviate away from the core focus of the discussion.

Fair comment.

[Ozyhibby]

I think Starmer’s offer to the public is dull managerial competence. He doesn’t want to offer much difference from the Tories in case it costs him votes. He won’t be nearly as bad as the Tories and hopefully he wins but it’s not going to be massive change either. It’s just muddling along best we can. And that’s enough for lots of people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk