The future of the Labour Party

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230501/2ae5ca54636c3bf91fe0f7faebb8c707.jpg

Bit of a Labour civil war brewing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Bit of a Labour civil war brewing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would doubt it. Ultimately if process was followed, and as far as I'm aware, it was, then there isn't much else to it.

What complicates things in this particular seat is that the local party really fancy their chances of taking the seat from the SNP in an election. Partly because of Ferrier, but also polling. As such it was high up on the 'most winnable seats' list and as such there was no shortage of interest in making it to the shortlist.

[Ozyhibby]

I would doubt it. Ultimately if process was followed, and as far as I'm aware, it was, then there isn't much else to it.

What complicates things in this particular seat is that the local party really fancy their chances of taking the seat from the SNP in an election. Partly because of Ferrier, but also polling. As such it was high up on the 'most winnable seats' list and as such there was no shortage of interest in making it to the shortlist.

Not ideal when your grassroots are saying they won’t campaign though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Not ideal when your grassroots are saying they won’t campaign though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the people who are unhappy speak for every local member, and I believe the unhappy ones had different ideas from each other about who they ultimately wanted as candidate. Anyway, the letter asks for the situation 'to be resolved' as I understand it. I can't imagine that will take long as the regulation they quoted is subordinate to rhe one next to it in the rulebook.

That's democracy I guess, great until people come along and make a mess of it :greengrin

[archie]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230501/2ae5ca54636c3bf91fe0f7faebb8c707.jpg

Bit of a Labour civil war brewing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What did you think of this? https://twitter.com/JoanMcAlpine/status/1652992842963329024

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1653320671378780161?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

I never saw that coming.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I don't think Starmer has ever got into first gear, he always seems to be in reverse.

Another pledge gone.

For the few, not the many is the new Labour slogan.

[SHODAN]

They've stuck a 100% Blairite in my constituency. Guess I'm voting Green or not at all.

[He's here!]

What did you think of this? https://twitter.com/JoanMcAlpine/status/1652992842963329024

Underlining what a control freak Sturgeon was.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/holyrood-sources/id1673972192?i=1000610718248

That rarest of things, a good Anas Sarwar interview.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I don't think Starmer has ever got into first gear, he always seems to be in reverse.

Another pledge gone.

For the few, not the many is the new Labour slogan.

You have to wonder why both parties appear not to want to be in Government following the next election. As if the UK economy is a hot potato that neither party wants to touch.

[archie]

I don't think Starmer has ever got into first gear, he always seems to be in reverse.

Another pledge gone.

For the few, not the many is the new Labour slogan.

I'm disappointed with this. I guess the honesty is commendable. Worse would be to go into an election with it and then dump it.

[ronaldo7]

I'm disappointed with this. I guess the honesty is commendable. Worse would be to go into an election with it and then dump it.

He went into the election for his leadership with all those pledges that have now been ditched. He should just step down then. 😆

[Santa Cruz]

He went into the election for his leadership with all those pledges that have now been ditched. He should just step down then. ��

I don't agree, the public don't elect party leaders, that's a small % of party members. Voters will decide when they launch their manifesto ahead of the G.E.

[ronaldo7]

I don't agree, the public don't elect party leaders, that's a small % of party members. Voters will decided when they launch their manifesto ahead of the G.E.

This was tongue in cheek, Santa. 🎅😉

[hibsbollah]

I'm disappointed with this. I guess the honesty is commendable. Worse would be to go into an election with it and then dump it.

I don’t know why anyone is surprised. A commitment to retain the Sure Start centres is also conspicuous by its absence.

It’s okay though, we all know that left wing votes don’t count, or they are worth less than Middle England votes, or Stevenage women’s votes or something. The main thing is to keep wrapping yourself in The Flag, talk about Our Country and Family and Law and Order and be so, so BUTCH.

[Santa Cruz]

This was tongue in cheek, Santa. 🎅😉

Right, bang to rights for being slow again :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

They've stuck a 100% Blairite in my constituency. Guess I'm voting Green or not at all.

Please swap. Ian Murray for your guy.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/holyrood-sources/id1673972192?i=1000610718248

That rarest of things, a good Anas Sarwar interview.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Small retraction. He goes on to imply devolution only works if the same party is in power in both the UK and Scotland. Shame because it was a good interview.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Small retraction. He goes on to imply devolution only works if the same party is in power in both the UK and Scotland. Shame because it was a good interview.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That could be construed to mean he wants the Tories to run Scotland when they're in power in England. Otherwise devolution won't work.

Cheers Anas.

[Santa Cruz]

Small retraction. He goes on to imply devolution only works if the same party is in power in both the UK and Scotland. Shame because it was a good interview.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you talking about the point he makes specifically in relation to the role of the Scotland Office?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Are you talking about the point he makes specifically in relation to the role of the Scotland Office?

Do you mean the offices set up by the UK Government to undermine devolution?

[Santa Cruz]

Do you mean the offices set up by the UK Government to undermine devolution?

No, the Scotland Office existed before devolution. Not sure if you've listened to the podcast. I'll wait for the OP to clarify thanks.

[Smartie]

Obviously devolution isn't going to work well with far right English nationalists in Westminster (as we have now) and Scottish nationalists at Holyrood.

I know Labour and the SNP have their differences (to put it mildly) but I don't know why it shouldn't work better with Labour at Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood. TBH I reckon the Labour Party could call a fair few of the SNP's bluffs by being reasonable to Scotland and being 100% committed to making devolution work. It's the greatest threat to the independence movement imo.

[Ozyhibby]

Are you talking about the point he makes specifically in relation to the role of the Scotland Office?

He said just before that that he believes devolution can only work when you have ‘good actors’ (can’t remember his exact words) on both sides. He was saying we need Labour in both places.
If devolution only works in such circumstances then it either needs scrapped or we need independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Obviously devolution isn't going to work well with far right English nationalists in Westminster (as we have now) and Scottish nationalists at Holyrood.

I know Labour and the SNP have their differences (to put it mildly) but I don't know why it shouldn't work better with Labour at Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood. TBH I reckon the Labour Party could call a fair few of the SNP's bluffs by being reasonable to Scotland and being 100% committed to making devolution work. It's the greatest threat to the independence movement imo.

Totally agree with the last bit. Proper devolution would hurt the SNP more than anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Obviously devolution isn't going to work well with far right English nationalists in Westminster (as we have now) and Scottish nationalists at Holyrood.

I know Labour and the SNP have their differences (to put it mildly) but I don't know why it shouldn't work better with Labour at Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood. TBH I reckon the Labour Party could call a fair few of the SNP's bluffs by being reasonable to Scotland and being 100% committed to making devolution work. It's the greatest threat to the independence movement imo.

Haven't Labour already established themselves as far right English nationalists as well? Keir Starmer must be wondering what else he needs to do and what other core Labour policy pledges he needs to u-turn on to drive the point home.

[Santa Cruz]

He said just before that that he believes devolution can only work when you have ‘good actors’ (can’t remember his exact words) on both sides. He was saying we need Labour in both places.
If devolution only works in such circumstances then it either needs scrapped or we need independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I might be wrong but think he said having bad faith actors on both sides was the problem. I think he was making an obvious point, that continuity that comes from having two gov's from the same party working together as opposed to thriving on conflict will achieve more in all areas of government.

He came across really well, I like how he gives credit to his political opponents where he thinks it due, and the empathy he showed Humza for the situation he's found himself in. Also recognises where Labour got things wrong and what they have to do. He's not underestimating his challenges. I'm going to try and remember to listen the Jeane Freeman podcast, she always struck me as being quite honest too.

[Ozyhibby]

I might be wrong but think he said having bad faith actors on both sides was the problem. I think he was making an obvious point, that continuity that comes from having two gov's from the same party working together as opposed to thriving on conflict will achieve more in all areas of government.

He came across really well, I like how he gives credit to his political opponents where he thinks it due, and the empathy he showed Humza for the situation he's found himself in. Also recognises where Labour got things wrong and what they have to do. He's not underestimating his challenges. I'm going to try and remember to listen the Jeane Freeman podcast, she always struck me as being quite honest too.

I agree he came across well. My point is the devolution settlement should be robust enough that the two government can act independently of each other or what is the point of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

I agree he came across well. My point is the devolution settlement should be robust enough that the two government can act independently of each other or what is the point of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's just a case of compromising and finding middle ground in most areas. I think with the SNP and Tory partie's that will never suit them as it won't win them votes. I just think the point scoring does nothing to help the people who most need it now, same applies to the leaders in WM who are trading personal insults on what seems like a weekly basis, find it all a bit tedious tbh.

[Jack]

Small retraction. He goes on to imply devolution only works if the same party is in power in both the UK and Scotland. Shame because it was a good interview.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great.

Scottish civil servants copy and paste English legislation into Scottish legislation ... whether its best for Scotland or not. Its what happened before.

Laboury should be honest saying they'd do away with devolution. They've shown time and again they've not really got to grips with it despite 'inventing' it!

[ronaldo7]

It's just a case of compromising and finding middle ground in most areas. I think with the SNP and Tory partie's that will never suit them as it won't win them votes. I just think the point scoring does nothing to help the people who most need it now, same applies to the leaders in WM who are trading personal insults on what seems like a weekly basis, find it all a bit tedious tbh.

Do you think Labour would have faired any better had they been in power in Scotland over the last 13 years?

The Tories don't normally listen to anyone apart from themselves.

[archie]

He said just before that that he believes devolution can only work when you have ‘good actors’ (can’t remember his exact words) on both sides. He was saying we need Labour in both places.
If devolution only works in such circumstances then it either needs scrapped or we need independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shock horror! Leader of Scottish Labour wants Labour to lead in Scotland and UK . The thing is devolution is working, despite claims here that Westminster wants to scrap it and the lack of commitment by the Scottish Government.

[archie]

Great.

Scottish civil servants copy and paste English legislation into Scottish legislation ... whether its best for Scotland or not. Its what happened before.

Laboury should be honest saying they'd do away with devolution. They've shown time and again they've not really got to grips with it despite 'inventing' it!

Jack. Is that the case that Scottish civil servants just copy and paste English legislation? What on earth are Scottish ministers thinking of?

[Ozyhibby]

Shock horror! Leader of Scottish Labour wants Labour to lead in Scotland and UK . The thing is devolution is working, despite claims here that Westminster wants to scrap it and the lack of commitment by the Scottish Government.

It’s ok to want that. He should want that. Saying devolution only works in those circumstances though is a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Do you think Labour would have faired any better had they been in power in Scotland over the last 13 years?

The Tories don't normally listen to anyone apart from themselves.

I think they would have had a better record in Gov with devolved issues as there full focus would have been on making the most of the devolved powers we have. Only suits one party in Scotland for devolution to be viewed as a failure imo.

[ronaldo7]

I think they would have had a better record in Gov with devolved issues as there full focus would have been on making the most of the devolved powers we have. Only suits one party in Scotland for devolution to be viewed as a failure imo.

Think of all that debt though. 😮

I think you'd have to look at their voting record on the policies which have already been implemented, many of which they voted against or abstained.

[Smartie]

I think they would have had a better record in Gov with devolved issues as there full focus would have been on making the most of the devolved powers we have. Only suits one party in Scotland for devolution to be viewed as a failure imo.

I disagree. It suits the Tories, who would abolish Holyrood and take all the power back to Westminster at the drop of a hat.

The Tories are "power back to Westminster" muscular unionism. Labour are devolution. SNP are independence. The rest are unfortunately largely irrelevant.

[ronaldo7]

RUTHERGLEN & HAMILTON WEST: interesting the postal ballots for this Labour selection are on first-past-the-post basis, rather than preferential, which is normal method. Some think this is to make it easier for Michael Shanks, who's thought to be the establishment candidate.

[Santa Cruz]

I disagree. It suits the Tories, who would abolish Holyrood and take all the power back to Westminster at the drop of a hat.

The Tories are "power back to Westminster" muscular unionism. Labour are devolution. SNP are independence. The rest are unfortunately largely irrelevant.

Why haven't the Tories done that then, they've had long enough?

[neil7908]

So today Starmer has been interviewed and confirmed he's dropping his pledge on tuition fees. Deeply disappointing but given the various about turns he's made, I'm not surprised.

His comments and new position on taxes are seriously troubling though. He hasn't committed to higher income taxes for the top 5 percent of earners, despite it being another one of his pledges. The language he's deploying on tax is very odd (if I'm being generous). Here's his back and forth:

"Webb then asked Starmer if he was arguing that putting taxes up for the rich would suppress growth. Starmer replied:

I actually think that the way to grow our economy is to have a different model for our economy.

Webb pressed him again. Would putting up taxes for the rich suppress the economy? Starmer replied:

I think it depends … I do agree with the principle that those with the broadest shoulders should pay more, pay their fair share.

But you are not going to enforce that, Webb suggested. Starmer replied:

That has been a principle and is of course an important principle.

But I am deliberately trying to shift the discussion because I do genuinely believe that the way to get our economy functioning again is to have a proper plan for growth. We haven’t had that for 13 years."

This sounds extraordinary like... Liz Truss.

Given the number of pledges he's dropped, and the tone he's adopting, I don't see how anyone on the left can vote for this guy. It's quite astonishing how slippery he's been since the leadership contest. Almost Boris levels of flip flops and turns.

Any policy or commitment he makes now is meaningless.

[Smartie]

Why haven't the Tories done that then, they've had long enough?

Because it would be deeply unpopular in Scotland and they'd possibly have an uprising on their hands. Their own supporters would probably be in favour of it (about a sixth or so of the electorate) but I'm pretty sure it would unify the other 2 in fairly vehement opposition.

Instead they're going for a nip here and a tuck there. A wee steal here, another pinch there, in the hope of undermining the whole thing when they can just say "well clearly it isn't working and you don't want it so we'll take the power back" when the time is right.

One of a number of reasons why we need to get the Tories tae...

[Santa Cruz]

Because it would be deeply unpopular in Scotland and they'd possibly have an uprising on their hands. Their own supporters would probably be in favour of it (about a sixth or so of the electorate) but I'm pretty sure it would unify the other 2 in fairly vehement opposition.

Instead they're going for a nip here and a tuck there. A wee steal here, another pinch there, in the hope of undermining the whole thing when they can just say "well clearly it isn't working and you don't want it so we'll take the power back" when the time is right.

One of a number of reasons why we need to get the Tories tae...

Your first sentence has just outlined why the Tories wouldn't want to end devolution. There would never be a right time for them to do it. That was the only answer I was after. I'm not defending them btw, just think this reason gets used as a scaremongering tactic, that's all.

[ronaldo7]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-councillor-claims-rutherglen-hamilton-29869213?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar


Labour councillor claims Rutherglen and Hamilton West selection is 'undemocratic'


EXCLUSIVE: Rutherglen councillor Martin Lennon said he was 'shocked that the top three most popular candidates locally were all blocked' from standing.

[hibsbollah]

So today Starmer has been interviewed and confirmed he's dropping his pledge on tuition fees. Deeply disappointing but given the various about turns he's made, I'm not surprised.

His comments and new position on taxes are seriously troubling though. He hasn't committed to higher income taxes for the top 5 percent of earners, despite it being another one of his pledges. The language he's deploying on tax is very odd (if I'm being generous). Here's his back and forth:

"Webb then asked Starmer if he was arguing that putting taxes up for the rich would suppress growth. Starmer replied:

I actually think that the way to grow our economy is to have a different model for our economy.

Webb pressed him again. Would putting up taxes for the rich suppress the economy? Starmer replied:

I think it depends … I do agree with the principle that those with the broadest shoulders should pay more, pay their fair share.

But you are not going to enforce that, Webb suggested. Starmer replied:

That has been a principle and is of course an important principle.

But I am deliberately trying to shift the discussion because I do genuinely believe that the way to get our economy functioning again is to have a proper plan for growth. We haven’t had that for 13 years."

This sounds extraordinary like... Liz Truss.

Given the number of pledges he's dropped, and the tone he's adopting, I don't see how anyone on the left can vote for this guy. It's quite astonishing how slippery he's been since the leadership contest. Almost Boris levels of flip flops and turns.

Any policy or commitment he makes now is meaningless.

He won the leadership on the basis that 1. He was a ‘committed socialist’. Nope. 2 Support for Freedom of Movement. Gone 3. Support local selection of candidates. Done just the opposite 4 Nationalisation. Nope 5. Tax top 5% nope 6. corporation tax. Nope 7. Climate Justice radicalism Nope 8. Strengthen Union and workers rights. Nope. Sacked ministers for going on picket lines.

The truth is he’d never have won the leadership if he’d had an ounce of honesty about his real agenda. An absolute charlatan.

You’re right, it seems inconceivable that anyone on the Left can vote for him. Plenty will, of course whether because the individual concerned is Tribal Labour, who will defend this absolute **** if he shat on their own doorstep, went big game hunting with Donald Trump or went to war with Norway. Or some might just think the Tories must be defeated at all costs. An argument that has some validity. I still hope he beats the Tories as part of a slow movement towards a positive future. Some gradual change.

However when you look from man to pig and pig to man i just see Starmers stupid ****ing face.

[ronaldo7]

Angela Rayner in 2019 on tuition fees.

"It's been nine years since the Lib Dems betrayed students over tuition fees, don't let them fool you again. Labour will be different. We have pledged to abolish tuition fees. We mean it, I will be honoured to deliver this pledge in government."

That's told them Angela. 😂

[Ozyhibby]

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/16/company-conservative-donations-government-ppe-procurement-deal/

I could have put this in the Tory thread but was interested in knowing if the Labour Party have any intention of stopping the practise of companies who donate to political parties receiving govt contracts or will it still go on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

UCU taking it hard. Let down again.

Responding to Labour leader Keir Starmer's U-turn on pledging to abolish student tuition fees in England, UCU general secretary Jo Grady said:

'Keir Starmer repeatedly pledged to abolish the toxic system of tuition fees and in doing so was elected leader of the Labour party. It is deeply disappointing for him to now be reneging on that promise, a move which would condemn millions of future students to a life of debt. What we really need is a positive vision for higher education that puts staff and students first.

'The current, tuition fee reliant, model is broken. It has saddled students with decades of debt, turned universities from sites of learning into labyrinthine businesses obsessed with generating revenue and surpluses over all else, and led to staff pay and working conditions being degraded causing unprecedented industrial unrest.

'The country desperately needs a publicly funded higher education system.'

[Jack]

Jack. Is that the case that Scottish civil servants just copy and paste English legislation? What on earth are Scottish ministers thinking of?

They did during the last Labour administrations, it was known as Scottifying, and rather depressing. Whatever the Labour ministers were thinking of they didn't need to exercise their minds on their portfolio!

[SHODAN]

Please swap. Ian Murray for your guy.

Unfortunately mine's a Hearts man too.

[xyz23jc]

I think they would have had a better record in Gov with devolved issues as there full focus would have been on making the most of the devolved powers we have. Only suits one party in Scotland for devolution to be viewed as a failure imo.

Farcical statement! :rolleyes:

[Santa Cruz]

Farcical statement! :rolleyes:

It's not a statement, it's an answer to a q from a poster. :aok:

[neil7908]

I know he's a bit of a bogey man to a lot of people but Owen Jones is bang on the money in his description of Starmers deceit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/03/labour-tuition-fees-keir-starmer-political-party-british-democratic-history

[Kato]

What is left of Labour's policies?

Why would anyone believe that any new policies they announce will be adhered to?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

What is left of Labour's policies?

Why would anyone believe that any new policies they announce will be adhered to?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Indeed. At this point I have about as much trust in a Keir Starmer commitment or pledge as one from Boris.

All it takes is the wind to change direction and it'll be ditched, with the claim it was never a commitment in the first place.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What is left of Labour's policies?

Either everything or nothing, depending on how you read that. :wink:

[Kato]

Either everything or nothing, depending on how you read that. :wink:
Indeed. At this point I have about as much trust in a Keir Starmer commitment or pledge as one from Boris.

All it takes is the wind to change direction and it'll be ditched, with the claim it was never a commitment in the first place.


A casual voter probably doesn't notice but its a shan look.

I think he'd make a decent fist of the job as pm as all it takes is an attempt to manage the country in good faith, a quality absent in the current incumbents. Who knows in a month free tuition will be back in vogue again.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

A casual voter probably doesn't notice but its a shan look.

I think he'd make a decent fist of the job as pm as all it takes is an attempt to manage the country in good faith, a quality absent in the current incumbents. Who knows in a month free tuition will be back in vogue again.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I think the UK needs a bit more than a competent manager now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I think the UK needs a bit more than a competent manager now.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI was just saying in general terms just acting in good faith would helps, their "big projects" will make or break them.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

More u turn outrage incoming. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-signals-free-school-29872532

[archie]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230501/2ae5ca54636c3bf91fe0f7faebb8c707.jpg

Bit of a Labour civil war brewing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talking of civil war https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23497304.snp-councillors-complained-sex-pest-punished-party/#comments-anchor

[Ozyhibby]

More u turn outrage incoming. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-signals-free-school-29872532

Is that a u-turn? Didn’t think high schools had free meals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Is that a u-turn? Didn’t think high schools had free meals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2023/may/campaigners-warn-humza-yousaf-over-a-screeching-hand-brake-turn-on-extending-free-school-meals/

[McD]

Either everything or nothing, depending on how you read that. :wink:


hah I thought the same thing :greengrin

[Just Alf]

Is that a u-turn? Didn’t think high schools had free meals?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI note SNP being brought upon a Labour thread yet again?

I thought it was SNP disciples that did that what aboutery thing all the time?

Unless it's just trolling of course...

[archie]

I note SNP being brought upon a Labour thread yet again?

I thought it was SNP disciples that did that what aboutery thing all the time?

Unless it's just trolling of course...

Not trolling or whataboutery.

[cabbageandribs1875]

oops...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvMzT_HXoAQbX-1?format=jpg&name=large

[archie]

oops...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvMzT_HXoAQbX-1?format=jpg&name=large

It's a tweet from four years ago. I'm disappointed though. When's the 'hated' Council Tax getting scrapped?

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/carbdiem/status/1653664002021511170?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

What Labour are now fully behind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

More u turn outrage incoming. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-signals-free-school-29872532

Happy to be corrected, but did did Humza make a commitment to continue free school meals as part of his leadership campaign? If not then it doesn't compare with the points made on this thread RE Starmer.

The argument with Starmer is that he was elected leader based on a series of pledges he personally made to secure support. He has now abandoned the vast majority of those.

Humza is potentially (although nothing is confirmed) changing a policy put in place by another leader.

[archie]

Happy to be corrected, but did did Humza make a commitment to continue free school meals as part of his leadership campaign? If not then it doesn't compare with the points made on this thread RE Starmer.

The argument with Starmer is that he was elected leader based on a series of pledges he personally made to secure support. He has now abandoned the vast majority of those.

Humza is potentially (although nothing is confirmed) changing a policy put in place by another leader.

So that's alright then?

[ronaldo7]

Happy to be corrected, but did did Humza make a commitment to continue free school meals as part of his leadership campaign? If not then it doesn't compare with the points made on this thread RE Starmer.

The argument with Starmer is that he was elected leader based on a series of pledges he personally made to secure support. He has now abandoned the vast majority of those.

Humza is potentially (although nothing is confirmed) changing a policy put in place by another leader.

This is what the FM said

The first minister said he has asked his cabinet to review all future commitments to ensure they are effectively aimed at reducing poverty.

Mr Yousaf said previous universal policy commitments such as rolling out free school meals to all primary age children would stand.

Only yesterday he held a summit with a range of partners to discuss how best to tackle poverty in Scotland.

[archie]

This is what the FM said

The first minister said he has asked his cabinet to review all future commitments to ensure they are effectively aimed at reducing poverty.

Mr Yousaf said previous universal policy commitments such as rolling out free school meals to all primary age children would stand.

Only yesterday he held a summit with a range of partners to discuss how best to tackle poverty in Scotland.

He also said:

“I’ve got a 14 year old now. Should people be paying for her free school meals when I earn a First Minster’s salary?

“I don’t think that’s the right way to use that money. I think the better way to use the money is to target it to those that need it absolutely the most.”

That not just about school meals. It also signals a move from previous approaches around universalism. That's significant. It might be the right approach, but it is worthy of debate.

[neil7908]

So that's alright then?

Personally I disagree with the decision (if indeed it happens). But this is a thread about Labour. And there no relevance to the conversation about Starmer abandoning a raft of commitments he personally made.

[archie]

Personally I disagree with the decision (if indeed it happens). But this is a thread about Labour. And there no relevance to the conversation about Starmer abandoning a raft of commitments he personally made.
Well 'no relevance ' is quite the statement. Labour get thunderous denunciations while the SNP get a surfeit of understanding. Don't you think that's worthy of comment?

[JeMeSouviens]

Well 'no relevance ' is quite the statement. Labour get thunderous denunciations while the SNP get a surfeit of understanding. Don't you think that's worthy of comment?

Not on this thread. Is "whataboutery" all you have on this?

[hibsbollah]

Well 'no relevance ' is quite the statement. Labour get thunderous denunciations while the SNP get a surfeit of understanding. Don't you think that's worthy of comment?

There couldn’t be a more classic case of whataboutery if someone was looking for one :greengrin

Excellent use of ‘surfeit’ by the way.

[archie]

Not on this thread. Is "whataboutery" all you have on this?
It's not whataboutery. It's exposing hypocrisy. Surely u turns and local party issues should be treated equally? Examples of whataboutery would be, say, when the SNP offices got raided by the police with posters here responding by citing Michelle Mone.

[Hibrandenburg]

There couldn’t be a more classic case of whataboutery if someone was looking for one :greengrin

Excellent use of ‘surfeit’ by the way.

One man's Whatabouterist is another man's exposer of hypocrisy.

[neil7908]

It's not whataboutery. It's exposing hypocrisy. Surely u turns and local party issues should be treated equally? Examples of whataboutery would be, say, when the SNP offices got raided by the police with posters here responding by citing Michelle Mone.

I'm not sure it's worth engaging on this but I'll try again:

1) There is a thread for debating the SNP. This one is focusing on Labour
2) You can surely see how these things are different. Starmer personally made a series of pledges as part of his leadership campaign. He put these forward in order to secure his parties support and win the contest. He is now backing away almost entirely from the promises HE made.

Humza is (maybe) changing a policy that his predecessor put forward. These are completely different. If Humza had said during the SNP leadership that he was committed to retaining free schools meals it would be a very worthy comparison. But you are crying U turn based on a commitment from a previous leader. You see how they are different right?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I'm not sure it's worth engaging on this but I'll try again:

1) There is a thread for debating the SNP. This one is focusing on Labour
2) You can surely see how these things are different. Starmer personally made a series of pledges as part of his leadership campaign. He put these forward in order to secure his parties support and win the contest. He is now backing away almost entirely from the promises HE made.

Humza is (maybe) changing a policy that his predecessor put forward. These are completely different. If Humza had said during the SNP leadership that he was committed to retaining free schools meals it would be a very worthy comparison. But you are crying U turn based on a commitment from a previous leader. You see how they are different right?

Exactly. It's a false equivalency. Just like the SNP doing deals with the tories in 2007 to keep a functioning Government when Labour were sulking, then trying to equate that to the Labour/Tory council coalitions where the SNP had the highest vote share and were more than willing to work with Labour in those councils.

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000611469908

Excellent podcast on Starmer’s betrayal of young people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000611469908

Excellent podcast on Starmer’s betrayal of young people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did they ever find Sir Keir?

They were asking him to stand up. Maybe he's moved along, and taken his pledges with him. :greengrin

[archie]

Exactly. It's a false equivalency. Just like the SNP doing deals with the tories in 2007 to keep a functioning Government when Labour were sulking, then trying to equate that to the Labour/Tory council coalitions where the SNP had the highest vote share and were more than willing to work with Labour in those councils.

I absolutely get why you don't want to talk about it. But how is the SNP doing a deal with the Tories OK but Labour isn't? You introduce all this film flam, but surely it's a matter of principle?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I absolutely get why you don't want to talk about it. But how is the SNP doing a deal with the Tories OK but Labour isn't? You introduce all this film flam, but surely it's a matter of principle?

It's a matter of context. It is explained in the context. But you choose to ignore the context because it destroys your false equivalency.

[hibsbollah]

One man's Whatabouterist is another man's exposer of hypocrisy.

Don’t you expose yourself to me :grr:

[Mibbes Aye]

I know he's a bit of a bogey man to a lot of people but Owen Jones is bang on the money in his description of Starmers deceit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/03/labour-tuition-fees-keir-starmer-political-party-british-democratic-history

He's not a bogey man he is just an ill-educated slaver.

He talks about how radical things were under Attlee and how it delivered this green and promised land. What he neglects to mention is that Britain was broken by six years of total war and could only afford to rebuild as a consequence of eye-wateringly massive loans, from the USA primarily. Loans that would equate to around £800 billion in 2023 money. Loans and debt that took the UK until 2006 to pay off completely. Maybe Owen can check and see if Joe Biden is happy to lend the UK a trillion dollars?

In amongst the deifying of Attlee (a weakness of the trendy-pretendy Left, because they miss the point completely), Jones forgets that attlee's government was also 100% committed to NATO, 100% committed to ensuring Britain had nuclear capability and 100% committed to ensuring Britain had WMD capacity through the work at Porton Down. Maybe not quite what Jones had in mind? Jones also omits the fact that the nationalisation programme under Labour was essentially a peacetime extension of industries that had been state-run during the war anyway. That's the thing with inconvenient truths. They are inconvenient.

Attlee and his colleagues deserve massive respect and praise for what they achieved, but they also deserve better than for their record to be misrepresented by a Poundland political hack, using them as a proxy to have a go at the Labour Party.

[Ozyhibby]

Did they ever find Sir Keir?

They were asking him to stand up. Maybe he's moved along, and taken his pledges with him. :greengrin

It points out that the next election is really just going to be a choice of managers for the UK. Both Starmer and Sunak seem to be just offering competent administration. Such a shame when we are in the situation we are in.
Starmer will likely win but there is still a bit to go yet and what he wins and what difference it will make is not exactly clear. Unless something changes then a low turnout is pretty likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

Another home run for Surkeir.

The guys only quality is that he isn't a Conservative. He's like the Tories in Scotland. The only argument they're offering is that they're the other side.

[Kato]

He's not a bogey man je is just an ill-educated slaver.

He talks about how radical things were under Attlee and how it delivered this green and promised land. What he neglects to mention is that Britain was broken by six years of total war and could only afford to rebuild as a consequence of eye-wateringly massive loans, from the USA primarily. Loans that would equate to around £800 billion in 2023 money. Loans and debt that took the UK until 2006 to pay off completely. Maybe OWen can check and see if Joe Biden is happy to lend the UK a trillion dollars?

In amongst the deifying of Attlee (a weakness of the trendy-pretendy Left, because they miss the point completely), Jones forgets that attlee's government was also 100% committed to NATO, 100% committed to ensuring Britain had nuclear capability and 100% committed to ensuring Britain had WMD capacity through the work at Porton Down. Maybe not quite what Jones had in mind? Jones also omits the fact that the nationalisation programme under Labour was essentially a peacetime extension of industries that had been state-run during the war anyway. That's the thing with inconvenient truths. They are inconvenient.

Attlee and his colleagues deserve massive respect and praise for what they achieved, but they also deserve better than for their record to be misrepresented by a Poundland political hack, using them as a proxy to have a go at the Labour Party.Is Britain not broken now?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

My oh my, I take a brief absence from this thread and the frothing at the mouth from some posters would be enough to float a battleship. Or even a ferry!

So, let's clear a few things up.

First up, pretty much every poster who has been doing the most frothing (you now who you are) also has a history on here of attacking the Toreis over wasting billions on PPE or crashing the economy under Truss or finding other ways to ***** public money in the direction of their pals and donors. And they are abolutely right, it's true.

But these are real things, not just some empty slogans to make youself feel a bit better about your life, sent off into cyberspace with no consequence. These decisions by the Tories cost actual, real money. And whether it's been through industrial-scale waste and corruption around Covid, or boosting the already inflated pprofits of our energy giants or defence manufacturers, or through the near-fatal hit that Truss and Kwarteng delivered to the economy, these things have to be accounted for and have to be answered for. Someone has to pay the bill.

As things stand, it looks like Labour will be paying the bill. And damn straight, unless Labour can pretty much rock-solid guarantee the money will be there, when they come into power, then they should not be making unfunded commitments. Two reasons - firstly it is reckless, it is playing with people's lives/ Secondly - damn straight the Tories would be over it like a rash, with all the old 'spend all the money' claptrap, sidestepping the fact it is their fault in the first place.

Second up, Starmer talked about tuition fees and committed to abolition. That was before any of the factors mentioned above. So what does he do now? Pretend it will all be fine, 'vote for me anyway!'? Would that be honest? Or does he make clear he is not going into an election saying he will do something he doesn't know we can afford? You see, this is indicative of the level of debate shown by some on here. They're not interested in debate, they're just looking to throw barbs. If he is honest, complain. If he is dishonest, complain. Whatever he does, complain. For the SNP types on here I get why, they are desperately scrambling around trying to shift attention from the catastro**** of their own party. For the self-appointed 'champions of the Left', it is bitterness that the unelectable and unreliable got ousted and they are out of touch, people do prefer moderate, progressive, leftish-centrism.

Third up. let's take a step back, rewind the clock a few days or even a few weeks or months. If individually, we were all asked what our preferred option would be for student funding, regardless of political affiliation, what would people say? Havng been around these parts for long enough I suspect there would probably be a good number in favour of some form of tapered graduate tax, as something reasonably sustainable and based on 'ability-to-pay'. It certainly needs further discussion and let's be clear, at this moment in time, Labour are still discussing what the best option may be.

[Mibbes Aye]

Is Britain not broken now?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Yes, in a different way of course.

Are you suggesting we should ask Uncle Joe for a trillion bucks?

[Ozyhibby]

My oh my, I take a brief absence from this thread and the frothing at the mouth from some posters would be enough to float a battleship. Or even a ferry!

So, let's clear a few things up.

First up, pretty much every poster who has been doing the most frothing (you now who you are) also has a history on here of attacking the Toreis over wasting billions on PPE or crashing the economy under Truss or finding other ways to ***** public money in the direction of their pals and donors. And they are abolutely right, it's true.

But these are real things, not just some empty slogans to make youself feel a bit better about your life, sent off into cyberspace with no consequence. These decisions by the Tories cost actual, real money. And whether it's been through industrial-scale waste and corruption around Covid, or boosting the already inflated pprofits of our energy giants or defence manufacturers, or through the near-fatal hit that Truss and Kwarteng delivered to the economy, these things have to be accounted for and have to be answered for. Someone has to pay the bill.

As things stand, it looks like Labour will be paying the bill. And damn straight, unless Labour can pretty much rock-solid guarantee the money will be there, when they come into power, then they should not be making unfunded commitments. Two reasons - firstly it is reckless, it is playing with people's lives/ Secondly - damn straight the Tories would be over it like a rash, with all the old 'spend all the money' claptrap, sidestepping the fact it is their fault in the first place.

Second up, Starmer talked about tuition fees and committed to abolition. That was before any of the factors mentioned above. So what does he do now? Pretend it will all be fine, 'vote for me anyway!'? Would that be honest? Or does he make clear he is not going into an election saying he will do something he doesn't know we can afford? You see, this is indicative of the level of debate shown by some on here. They're not interested in debate, they're just looking to throw barbs. If he is honest, complain. If he is dishonest, complain. Whatever he does, complain. For the SNP types on here I get why, they are desperately scrambling around trying to shift attention from the catastro**** of their own party. For the self-appointed 'champions of the Left', it is bitterness that the unelectable and unreliable got ousted and they are out of touch, people do prefer moderate, progressive, leftish-centrism.

Third up. let's take a step back, rewind the clock a few days or even a few weeks or months. If individually, we were all asked what our preferred option would be for student funding, regardless of political affiliation, what would people say? Havng been around these parts for long enough I suspect there would probably be a good number in favour of some form of tapered graduate tax, as something reasonably sustainable and based on 'ability-to-pay'. It certainly needs further discussion and let's be clear, at this moment in time, Labour are still discussing what the best option may be.

So the Labour offer is ‘there is no money left, there’s nothing we can do’? Fair enough.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

So the Labour offer is ‘there is no money left, there’s nothing we can do’? Fair enough.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But every week Labour in the Scottish Parliament tell the Scottish Government to keep spending lots of money.

[Kato]

Yes, in a different way of course.

Are you suggesting we should ask Uncle Joe for a trillion bucks?No. Much of that post-war trillion bucks wasn't spent on within UK anyway, it was sent abroad in a vain attempt to hold onto colonial territories.

I think (hope) that Labour will form the next UK Govt. Its been royally (topical) hamstrung by the crooks in govt at the moment though and I don't know where the money will come from, apart from radical changes to the tax system.

I hope they are a success as there is every chance Labour will struggle to cope, be unable to do anything against the inevitable fomenting of trouble and bad faith from the right and be out of office in a couple of years.

Escaping those in the UK establishment who see the country and its population as their chattel and economical playthings is pretty hard. Whatever is was Labour built through the 40s -60s was easily trashed by the tories thus we live in a world where a social contract is sneered at as "loony leftism".

We will back with the Tories before the end of the decade and more "sovereign individuals" will be reaping that which they do not deserve.

I don't want independence because I think they SNP are great (they're not) - it's to get away from that establishment entitled culture and build something saner with more of a meritocracy.

The UK is goosed until it sees through that culture.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

My oh my, I take a brief absence from this thread and the frothing at the mouth from some posters would be enough to float a battleship. Or even a ferry!

So, let's clear a few things up.

First up, pretty much every poster who has been doing the most frothing (you now who you are) also has a history on here of attacking the Toreis over wasting billions on PPE or crashing the economy under Truss or finding other ways to ***** public money in the direction of their pals and donors. And they are abolutely right, it's true.

But these are real things, not just some empty slogans to make youself feel a bit better about your life, sent off into cyberspace with no consequence. These decisions by the Tories cost actual, real money. And whether it's been through industrial-scale waste and corruption around Covid, or boosting the already inflated pprofits of our energy giants or defence manufacturers, or through the near-fatal hit that Truss and Kwarteng delivered to the economy, these things have to be accounted for and have to be answered for. Someone has to pay the bill.

As things stand, it looks like Labour will be paying the bill. And damn straight, unless Labour can pretty much rock-solid guarantee the money will be there, when they come into power, then they should not be making unfunded commitments. Two reasons - firstly it is reckless, it is playing with people's lives/ Secondly - damn straight the Tories would be over it like a rash, with all the old 'spend all the money' claptrap, sidestepping the fact it is their fault in the first place.

Second up, Starmer talked about tuition fees and committed to abolition. That was before any of the factors mentioned above. So what does he do now? Pretend it will all be fine, 'vote for me anyway!'? Would that be honest? Or does he make clear he is not going into an election saying he will do something he doesn't know we can afford? You see, this is indicative of the level of debate shown by some on here. They're not interested in debate, they're just looking to throw barbs. If he is honest, complain. If he is dishonest, complain. Whatever he does, complain. For the SNP types on here I get why, they are desperately scrambling around trying to shift attention from the catastro**** of their own party. For the self-appointed 'champions of the Left', it is bitterness that the unelectable and unreliable got ousted and they are out of touch, people do prefer moderate, progressive, leftish-centrism.

Third up. let's take a step back, rewind the clock a few days or even a few weeks or months. If individually, we were all asked what our preferred option would be for student funding, regardless of political affiliation, what would people say? Havng been around these parts for long enough I suspect there would probably be a good number in favour of some form of tapered graduate tax, as something reasonably sustainable and based on 'ability-to-pay'. It certainly needs further discussion and let's be clear, at this moment in time, Labour are still discussing what the best option may be.

You’re awfully good at coming on here, criticising the standard of debate, with the implicit suggestion that you’re here now to improve things and to elevate proceedings. And you are calling ME self-appointed :faf: To be honest I hadn’t noticed your absence.

You will defend Labour leadership to the hilt no matter what they do. It’s never been more apparent.

[Hibrandenburg]

Don’t you expose yourself to me :grr:

Careful now, statements like that could turn this into a pun thread in a flash.

[hibsbollah]

Careful now, statements like that could turn this into a pun thread in a flash.

I’m just holding out for a suitably qualified poster to ‘help clear things up’ about how the Labour Party isn’t a Magic Money Tree. There’s just never one around when you want one.

[archie]

It's a matter of context. It is explained in the context. But you choose to ignore the context because it destroys your false equivalency.

It's either a principle or it isn't.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's either a principle or it isn't.

It's the difference between doing something you have to do and doing something through choice. In 2007 the SNP did what they had to do (thanks to Labour). In 2022 Labour in Scotland chose to form coalitions at council levels with the tories, when they had the option of working with the SNP instead.

In 2007, the SNP held their hand out to Labour and they rejected it. In 2022 the SNP held their hand out to Labour and they rejected it again. That's the only consistent thing here.

[archie]

It's the difference between doing something you have to do and doing something through choice. In 2007 the SNP did what they had to do (thanks to Labour). In 2022 Labour in Scotland chose to form coalitions at council levels with the tories, when they had the option of working with the SNP instead.

In 2007, the SNP held their hand out to Labour and they rejected it. In 2022 the SNP held their hand out to Labour and they rejected it again. That's the only consistent thing here.

Did the SNP hold out the hand to Labour? You could equally say lust for power at any cost led to SNP to do the deal with the Tories.

[Jack]

Did the SNP hold out the hand to Labour? You could equally say lust for power at any cost led to SNP to do the deal with the Tories.

What power did the SNP lust for?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Did the SNP hold out the hand to Labour? You could equally say lust for power at any cost led to SNP to do the deal with the Tories.

Or from Labour's perspective it was a case of "not working with the SNP at any cost, even if it resulted in the SNP having to work with the tories to form a functioning government instead."

Or in the case of 2022, "not working with the SNP at any cost, even if it resulted in themselves working with the tories instead."

[archie]

What power did the SNP lust for?

Scottish Government!

[archie]

Or from Labour's perspective it was a case of "not working with the SNP at any cost, even if it resulted in the SNP having to work with the tories to form a functioning government instead."

Or in the case of 2022, "not working with the SNP at any cost, even if it resulted in themselves working with the tories instead."
I knew the SNP doing a deal with the Tories would be Labour's fault.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I knew the SNP doing a deal with the Tories would be Labour's fault.

Of course not. It was simply what they were hoping for when they rejected any kind of working relationship with the SNP. So they could then point to people such as yourself and say "hah, look what the SNP just did".

[archie]

Of course not. It was simply what they were hoping for when they rejected any kind of working relationship with the SNP. So they could then point to people such as yourself and say "hah, look what the SNP just did".

Do you not see the irony in what you are saying here? The last sentence is just made up.

[ronaldo7]

Let's lighten the mood a bit.

On the day the Labour party cling onto power in Edinburgh city council thanks to backing from the Tories.

This guy is caught on camera. :greengrin

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1654138907502452740

[Jack]

Scottish Government!

Did the torys say they'd give them it?

[Jack]

Let's lighten the mood a bit.

On the day the Labour party cling onto power in Edinburgh city council thanks to backing from the Tories.

This guy is caught on camera. :greengrin

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1654138907502452740

I'd have done the same!



Although I've never delivered leaflets 😆

[archie]

Did the torys say they'd give them it?

Here's an article after the fact in the Guardian with Anabel Goldie's perspective. https://www.google.com/search?q=annabelle+goldie+deal+with+snp&oq=annabelle+goldie+deal+with+snp&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i160l3.16670j1j4&client=ms-android-oneplus-rvo3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&asid=canwnhp/2

[Mibbes Aye]

You’re awfully good at coming on here, criticising the standard of debate, with the implicit suggestion that you’re here now to improve things and to elevate proceedings. And you are calling ME self-appointed :faf: To be honest I hadn’t noticed your absence.

You will defend Labour leadership to the hilt no matter what they do. It’s never been more apparent.

I've offered a different opinion on the discussion about Starmer and tutition fees.

You? Well, I'll let the bold highlights telll their own story :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

No. Much of that post-war trillion bucks wasn't spent on within UK anyway, it was sent abroad in a vain attempt to hold onto colonial territories.

I think (hope) that Labour will form the next UK Govt. Its been royally (topical) hamstrung by the crooks in govt at the moment though and I don't know where the money will come from, apart from radical changes to the tax system.

I hope they are a success as there is every chance Labour will struggle to cope, be unable to do anything against the inevitable fomenting of trouble and bad faith from the right and be out of office in a couple of years.

Escaping those in the UK establishment who see the country and its population as their chattel and economical playthings is pretty hard. Whatever is was Labour built through the 40s -60s was easily trashed by the tories thus we live in a world where a social contract is sneered at as "loony leftism".

We will back with the Tories before the end of the decade and more "sovereign individuals" will be reaping that which they do not deserve.

I don't want independence because I think they SNP are great (they're not) - it's to get away from that establishment entitled culture and build something saner with more of a meritocracy.

The UK is goosed until it sees through that culture.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I would agree or at least sympathesise with a lot of that.

I'm not persuaded about maintaining the colonial status quite to the same extent. Attlee was rather pragmatic and had set out his stall about the inevitablity of decolonisation when he was SoS for Dominion Affairs during the war. There were mixed messages however.

Indian independence in 1947 is often cited as the ultimate proof of a shift from Empire though I don't agree with that analysis. For a variety of reasons that shift was underway before the end of the war. Possibly the other big 'colonial' intervention during Attlee's time was in Malaya, which ultimately did little to stop secession. I am more inclined to believe that Malaya was as much driven by American pressure on London to tackle the Communist 'sphere of nfluence' than anything else, however.

For what it's worth, if you don't already have it, Bew's biography of Attlee is rather good. With that period and that administration, the biographies of the big figures are often the most illustrative route it. I read Michael Foot's biography of Aneurun Bevan a couple of years back and though it was very much of the time it was written, it was a very compelling read.

[hibsbollah]

Is Britain not broken now?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

This is the exact point. When economies are in tatters you have a choice to either a) invest or to b) pull up the drawbridge and cling to fiscal discipline. But we’ve had THIRTEEN YEARS of austerity, the public sector squeezed till the pips have squeaked. It’s not advanced economics but the case is being made by many that civil works, national recovery programmes, targeted stimulus packages aimed at the poor (remember them! They exist! And sometimes they even vote!) can be equally as successful now as they were for Atlee or FDR. You don’t have drill into how left wing Atlee was or wasn’t, how FDR wasn’t really a friend of the US leftie movement (he definitely WASNT), you just need to acknowledge that a political choice exists. A commitment to the green new deal is great, and one of the few remaining Starmermitments still there, but in both content and most importantly TONE, it’s all a bit well, scaredy.

Political choices ALWAYS exist. ‘There is no alternative’, as well as sounding a bit Thatchery (Cummings-y?), is just a stock response by every sophist reactionary that always crops up when these battles are fought.

[Mibbes Aye]

So the Labour offer is ‘there is no money left, there’s nothing we can do’? Fair enough.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've read my post twice now and still can't see where I say that.

I think it might be you mate :wink:

[Kato]

This is the exact point. When economies are in tatters you have a choice to either a) invest or to b) pull up the drawbridge and cling to fiscal discipline. But we’ve had THIRTEEN YEARS of austerity, the public sector squeezed till the pips have squeaked. It’s not advanced economics but the case is being made by many that civil works, national recovery programmes, targeted stimulus packages aimed at the poor (remember them! They exist! And sometimes they even vote!) can be equally as successful now as they were for Atlee or FDR. You don’t have drill into how left wing Atlee was or wasn’t, how FDR wasn’t really a friend of the US leftie movement (he definitely WASNT), you just need to acknowledge that a political choice exists. A commitment to the green new deal is great, and one of the few remaining Starmermitments still there, but in both content and most importantly TONE, it’s all a bit well, scaredy.

Political choices ALWAYS exist. ‘There is no alternative’, as well as sounding a bit Thatchery (Cummings-y?), is just a stock response by every sophist reactionary that always crops up when these battles are fought.It's only been austerity for some. There were 50 billionaires in the UK in 2010 , there are over 200 now - that's just the increase for those who have broken that number.

Money and profit is being generated but it sticks at the top.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Kato]

De colonisation was costly in itself.

Maintaining an overseas army/diplomatic presence in places we were never going to hold onto soaked up a lot of dough.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

De colonisation was costly in itself.

Maintaining an overseas army/diplomatic presence in places we were never going to hold onto soaked up a lot of dough.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Concentration camps for the Mau maus in Kenya don’t come cheap. Better off out of it.

[archie]

De colonisation was costly in itself.

Maintaining an overseas army/diplomatic presence in places we were never going to hold onto soaked up a lot of dough.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I think one of the issues with decolonising post ear was the US attitude. On one hand they hated colonialism (largely because of market access), but they also expected colonial powers to flex what muscle they had as part of the cold war. France in Vietnam, Britain in Malaysia and so on. But equally they were aghast at Suez. One on Wilson's better judgements was keeping us out of Vietnam.

But there is no doubt that colonialism is a costly business if you can't let go. When the Portuguese dictatorship collapsed in the 70s they were spending a third of their GDP on colonial wars .

[Mibbes Aye]

I think one of the issues with decolonising post ear was the US attitude. On one hand they hated colonialism (largely because of market access), but they also expected colonial powers to flex what muscle they had as part of the cold war. France in Vietnam, Britain in Malaysia and so on. But equally they were aghast at Suez. One on Wilson's better judgements was keeping us out of Vietnam.

But there is no doubt that colonialism is a costly business if you can't let go. When the Portuguese dictatorship collapsed in the 70s they were spending a third of their GDP on colonial wars .

And Salazar soending a fortune prior to that, transferring and housing political prisoners in Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Angola, Mozambique and the Azores.

[Kato]

I think one of the issues with decolonising post ear was the US attitude. On one hand they hated colonialism (largely because of market access), but they also expected colonial powers to flex what muscle they had as part of the cold war. France in Vietnam, Britain in Malaysia and so on. But equally they were aghast at Suez. One on Wilson's better judgements was keeping us out of Vietnam.

But there is no doubt that colonialism is a costly business if you can't let go. When the Portuguese dictatorship collapsed in the 70s they were spending a third of their GDP on colonial wars .Hence my point. A lot of, what was, our Marshal Plan loans were spent trying to hold onto imperial power and pretending to the Russians we were a superpower. The money spent in the UK rebuilding the country came from taxes in the main.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

My oh my, I take a brief absence from this thread and the frothing at the mouth from some posters would be enough to float a battleship. Or even a ferry!

So, let's clear a few things up.

First up, pretty much every poster who has been doing the most frothing (you now who you are) also has a history on here of attacking the Toreis over wasting billions on PPE or crashing the economy under Truss or finding other ways to ***** public money in the direction of their pals and donors. And they are abolutely right, it's true.

But these are real things, not just some empty slogans to make youself feel a bit better about your life, sent off into cyberspace with no consequence. These decisions by the Tories cost actual, real money. And whether it's been through industrial-scale waste and corruption around Covid, or boosting the already inflated pprofits of our energy giants or defence manufacturers, or through the near-fatal hit that Truss and Kwarteng delivered to the economy, these things have to be accounted for and have to be answered for. Someone has to pay the bill.

As things stand, it looks like Labour will be paying the bill. And damn straight, unless Labour can pretty much rock-solid guarantee the money will be there, when they come into power, then they should not be making unfunded commitments. Two reasons - firstly it is reckless, it is playing with people's lives/ Secondly - damn straight the Tories would be over it like a rash, with all the old 'spend all the money' claptrap, sidestepping the fact it is their fault in the first place.

Second up, Starmer talked about tuition fees and committed to abolition. That was before any of the factors mentioned above. So what does he do now? Pretend it will all be fine, 'vote for me anyway!'? Would that be honest? Or does he make clear he is not going into an election saying he will do something he doesn't know we can afford? You see, this is indicative of the level of debate shown by some on here. They're not interested in debate, they're just looking to throw barbs. If he is honest, complain. If he is dishonest, complain. Whatever he does, complain. For the SNP types on here I get why, they are desperately scrambling around trying to shift attention from the catastro**** of their own party. For the self-appointed 'champions of the Left', it is bitterness that the unelectable and unreliable got ousted and they are out of touch, people do prefer moderate, progressive, leftish-centrism.

Third up. let's take a step back, rewind the clock a few days or even a few weeks or months. If individually, we were all asked what our preferred option would be for student funding, regardless of political affiliation, what would people say? Havng been around these parts for long enough I suspect there would probably be a good number in favour of some form of tapered graduate tax, as something reasonably sustainable and based on 'ability-to-pay'. It certainly needs further discussion and let's be clear, at this moment in time, Labour are still discussing what the best option may be.

So if Starmer makes a commitment now, can I trust it will be delivered in government?

The criticism you have leveled at others has often been followed with examples of policies from Starmer to show how progressive he is. These policies are now largely in tatters.

Also, another post where any criticism of the leader is deemed to have come from hard left Trotskyists, or other undesirables. Previously it was Labour MPs who were under suspicion.

Fwiw, I joined the Labour Party nearly 20 years ago at the age of 19. I have voted Labour in every UK general election in my voting lifetime. Which includes voting for Blair, Brown, Miliband and yes Corbyn. Under your descriptions above, am I a 'champion of the left'? You have talked very generally in scathing terms about that motivation of others so I'm curious about where a lifelong Labour voter like me fits in.

Oh and I note you have said nothing about the turn around on taxing the top 5%. I'm disappointed with tuition fees but I can begrudgingly accept the decision.

However, the comments he made when pressed on this policy (I posted them earlier) do really worry me. We have ever widening inequality. The top 5% are getting richer and richer. And I don't think just 'growing the economy' is going to do it. His comments suggested higher taxes on the wealthy are bad for the economy, seemingly positioning himself alongside Liz Truss. And that really, really worries me.

[Mibbes Aye]

So if Starmer makes a commitment now, can I trust it will be delivered in government?

The criticism you have leveled at others has often been followed with examples of policies from Starmer to show how progressive he is. These policies are now largely in tatters.

Also, another post where any criticism of the leader is deemed to have come from hard left Trotskyists, or other undesirables. Previously it was Labour MPs who were under suspicion.

Fwiw, I joined the Labour Party nearly 20 years ago at the age of 19. I have voted Labour in every UK general election in my voting lifetime. Which includes voting for Blair, Brown, Miliband and yes Corbyn. Under your descriptions above, am I a 'champion of the left'? You have talked very generally in scathing terms about that motivation of others so I'm curious about where a lifelong Labour voter like me fits in.

Oh and I note you have said nothing about the turn around on taxing the top 5%. I'm disappointed with tuition fees but I can begrudgingly accept the decision.

However, the comments he made when pressed on this policy (I posted them earlier) do really worry me. We have ever widening inequality. The top 5% are getting richer and richer. And I don't think just 'growing the economy' is going to do it. His comments suggested higher taxes on the wealthy are bad for the economy, seemingly positioning himself alongside Liz Truss. And that really, really worries me.

You didn't like me ripping into Owen Jones after you talked him up, did you? :greengrin

The phrase I used was 'self-appointed champions of the Left' with the emphasis on 'self-appointed'. If you feel that cap fits you then you should wear it. You've certainly talked about the Left as if it is some homogenuous droup, while you decry Starmer for supposedly pushing them out.

More pertinently, you've been describing Starmer as being just like Liz Truss a couple of times now, and Boris before that. That's just a bit silly isn't it?

You are also talking nonsense about criticism. I think it was in respnse to one of your posts just the other day where I explained why I was unhappy with the improvement plan in response to Forde. There will have been other occasions but I'm really not interested in trawling back but you feel free.

I won't defend something I don't believe in, but I will respond to reasoned points. And I probably will respond when I see petty, lazy, ill-informed posturing, masquerading as comment. Sadly there's quite a lot of that and tellingly, it seems to be from people who claim they hate the Tories but would rather try and pick away at Labour and Starmer at any opportunity.

[Hibrandenburg]

Looks like Labour tactics of out Torying the Tories has paid off in the Council elections. They've won lots of former UKIP voters from the Tories up North.

[hibsbollah]

Looks like Labour tactics of out Torying the Tories has paid off in the Council elections. They've won lots of former UKIP voters from the Tories up North.

Lots of anecdotal stuff about insufficient voter ID stopping people from casting their votes, and no recording of these incidences when they do take place so no actual clue about the scale of this self created problem (or opportunity in the Tory case). Looks like a thumping for the Tories in the councils overnight. A place like Stoke on Trent should never have been anything else but Labour, and without Brexit it wouldn’t have been.

[Bristolhibby]

Lots of anecdotal stuff about insufficient voter ID stopping people from casting their votes, and no recording of these incidences when they do take place so no actual clue about the scale of this self created problem (or opportunity in the Tory case). Looks like a thumping for the Tories in the councils overnight. A place like Stoke on Trent should never have been anything else but Labour, and without Brexit it wouldn’t have been.

I’d imagine come the next General Election Labour will repeal it straight away. Pointless law which is blatant gerrymandering by the Tories to gain a marginal advantage (in a system that they already enjoy an advantage anyway).

J

[One Day Soon]

Morning lads. :-)

[hibsbollah]

I’d imagine come the next General Election Labour will repeal it straight away. Pointless law which is blatant gerrymandering by the Tories to gain a marginal advantage (in a system that they already enjoy an advantage anyway).

J

:agree: It’s straight out of the US NeoCon right playbook; make it harder to vote for the wrong demographics. Trump advisor and all round nut Steve Bannon was speaking to the Tories about this years ago when he had his oar in during the Leave debate. It’s mad that a Student matriculation card is insufficient ID to vote.

[Bristolhibby]

:agree: It’s straight out of the US NeoCon right playbook; make it harder to vote for the wrong demographics. Trump advisor and all round nut Steve Bannon was speaking to the Tories about this years ago when he had his oar in during the Leave debate. It’s mad that a Student matriculation card is insufficient ID to vote.

Yet an oap buss pass is legit.

J

[archie]

Looks like Labour tactics of out Torying the Tories has paid off in the Council elections. They've won lots of former UKIP voters from the Tories up North.

You know this how?

[archie]

:agree: It’s straight out of the US NeoCon right playbook; make it harder to vote for the wrong demographics. Trump advisor and all round nut Steve Bannon was speaking to the Tories about this years ago when he had his oar in during the Leave debate. It’s mad that a Student matriculation card is insufficient ID to vote.
It absolutely is. It's also one of those ones that's hard to defend against. 'Why don't you want to protect the integrity of elections.' They might be cynical and mendacious, but they're no daft.

[cabbageandribs1875]

andrea loathsome, voter ID was essential


no it freakin wasn't, only one case of voter fraud at last election

[hibsbollah]

The big winners last night were the ‘NOC’ party :greengrin Lib Dems taking councils off Tories in posh rural counties. Lab nicking back some of the post industrial towns.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230505/40c24f0b91d602ea3d312aa9bf0e3e27.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

It absolutely is. It's also one of those ones that's hard to defend against. 'Why don't you want to protect the integrity of elections.' They might be cynical and mendacious, but they're no daft.

The only way to deal with voter suppression is well funded non-partisan ‘voter drives’ like we see in the US. Unfortunately you’d need the ‘progressive’ parties in UK politics to work on this together at a local and national level (as well as actually being progressive in a meaningful sense in the first place) and that’s not going to happen in the current climate.

[hibsbollah]

John Curtice being (I hope not maliciously) misleading on the voter ID issue on the bbc. The fact that the turnout held up quite well against 2019 obviously does NOT necessarily mean that the new voter ID requirements didn’t impact the anti Tory vote. That should be logically obvious to everyone, there is more than one element affecting turnout! Turnout may have been even higher without the new restrictions. Went unchallenged.

[Pretty Boy]

Is Voter ID a thing in other countries?

I've not really looked into it and I'm hoping for a quick answer here rather than doing the graft myself tbh. However the cesspit on Twitter seems to suggest the UK was previously an outlier within Europe in that we didn't require photo ID when voting and apparently this is commonplace across much of the rest of Europe and beyond. Others suggest this is an outright lie, others suggest it's broadly true but free government ID is easier to come by in these countries and finally there are those opposed to such free ID as it's a form of coercion and control.

[Moulin Yarns]

John Curtice being (I hope not maliciously) misleading on the voter ID issue on the bbc. The fact that the turnout held up quite well against 2019 obviously does NOT necessarily mean that the new voter ID requirements didn’t impact the anti Tory vote. That should be logically obvious to everyone, there is more than one element affecting turnout! Turnout may have been even higher without the new restrictions. Went unchallenged.

He is also saying that the Labour vote has not increased over the last elections, rather that the Conservative's has dropped. Other parties, libdems and Greens also benefiting from the Tory losses.

[archie]

Is Voter ID a thing in other countries?

I've not really looked into it and I'm hoping for a quick answer here rather than doing the graft myself tbh. However the cesspit on Twitter seems to suggest the UK was previously an outlier within Europe in that we didn't require photo ID when voting and apparently this is commonplace across much of the rest of Europe and beyond. Others suggest this is an outright lie, others suggest it's broadly true but free government ID is easier to come by in these countries and finally there are those opposed to such free ID as it's a form of coercion and control.

We don't have identity cards in the same way that other countries do, which makes it more of an issue here.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I’d imagine come the next General Election Labour will repeal it straight away. Pointless law which is blatant gerrymandering by the Tories to gain a marginal advantage (in a system that they already enjoy an advantage anyway).

J

I'm not so sure they will tbh. Not if they're the new party of the rich and privileged. In which case, the policy will actually benefit them.

[Moulin Yarns]

We don't have identity cards in the same way that other countries do, which makes it more of an issue here.

We don't need an ID card, all the relevant information on an individual is already available to the authorities through passport and DVLA data.

[hibsbollah]

Is Voter ID a thing in other countries?

I've not really looked into it and I'm hoping for a quick answer here rather than doing the graft myself tbh. However the cesspit on Twitter seems to suggest the UK was previously an outlier within Europe in that we didn't require photo ID when voting and apparently this is commonplace across much of the rest of Europe and beyond. Others suggest this is an outright lie, others suggest it's broadly true but free government ID is easier to come by in these countries and finally there are those opposed to such free ID as it's a form of coercion and control.

I suppose the short answer is yes, almost all EU countries have a national identity card, but that it doesn’t have a material question to the question at hand. All countries have different cultures and behaviours around showing ID which have built up over decades or sometimes centuries. The general post war consensus in all countries is you make the voting process as straightforward and universal as possible, and consistent with national behaviours to ensure maximum suffrage. It’s irrelevant that Belgians have ID cards and need them to vote, they also have rights attached to them such as being used as passports to certain territories, and all Belgians must vote by law anyway. It’s a whole different relationship. ID cards aren’t part of an UK experience.

When you impose new requirements on people that aren’t part of your normal national behaviour, you’re stopping that universalism.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

John Curtice being (I hope not maliciously) misleading on the voter ID issue on the bbc. The fact that the turnout held up quite well against 2019 obviously does NOT necessarily mean that the new voter ID requirements didn’t impact the anti Tory vote. That should be logically obvious to everyone, there is more than one element affecting turnout! Turnout may have been even higher without the new restrictions. Went unchallenged.

Can Labour really be considered an "anti tory" vote though? It's the hard line tory voters that Keir Starmer is pandering to now and appears to be successful in doing so. In which case, the voter ID implementation by the tories will actually benefit Keir Starmer.

[hibsbollah]

He is also saying that the Labour vote has not increased over the last elections, rather that the Conservative's has dropped. Other parties, libdems and Greens also benefiting from the Tory losses.

The best recent Labour performance in council elections was under Corbyn in 2018, when it was 41%-31% vs May, then in successive years it went from neck and neck in 2019 and 2020, a Tory lead 36%-29% in 2021 when Boris was killing Covid, and then Starmers Labour were the biggest party again last year 35%-30%. All cribbed in short order from wiki :greengrin

All of this is conditional on understanding that lots of people vote in council elections on the state of their potholes and local candidates, and extrapolation into national elections is a bit dicey. And that’s vote share not seats. But yeah Curtice is right, looks like Labours vote share is about the same so far as last years local elections.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230505/dac72427a8b0e71ba226c199e613d8d7.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nonshinyfinish]

All of this is conditional on understanding that lots of people vote in council elections on the state of their potholes and local candidates, and extrapolation into national elections is a bit dicey.

A friend of mine who's never voted Tory and would never ever vote for them at national level was considering voting for them yesterday in exactly the situation you describe, because of their position on a specific local issue. I took some grim amusement in the fact that he didn't vote at all in the end because he would have needed to go home to get ID…

[archie]

We don't need an ID card, all the relevant information on an individual is already available to the authorities through passport and DVLA data.

Which is great if you have a passport or driving licence.

[hibsbollah]

Can Labour really be considered an "anti tory" vote though?

Yes. I think you’re overstating your case a bit.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Yes. I think you’re overstating your case a bit.

Sorry, but I don't see it. I don't see how a party that is actively pandering to people with pro-tory views can be considered an "anti-tory" vote. Just seems illogical to me.

[Santa Cruz]

Which is great if you have a passport or driving licence.

Quite a big difference in costs. I think, but would have to check, there's eligibility for free citizen cards, there's no eligible groups for a free passport or driving licence. Not having verifiable photographic ID can be a barrier to gaining employment.

[Hibrandenburg]

You know this how?

That was the analysis from Sky News this morning from Sam Coates.

[hibsbollah]

NHS ID badges also not sufficient ID, so nurses have reported being turned away last night.

[McD]

NHS ID badges also not sufficient ID, so nurses have reported being turned away last night.


utterly ridiculous. IDs that are sufficient to gain access to sensitive information, be around and treat people with controlled drugs, but not vote.

[Moulin Yarns]

Which is great if you have a passport or driving licence.

Or a bus pass.

For context, I lost my good old green paper driving licence and had to get a replacement photo driving licence and they used the photo from my passport. The point being that the data is all linked.

[Ozyhibby]

Would it be fair to say these results are decent but not amazing for Labour?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Would it be fair to say these results are decent but not amazing for Labour?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If gaining 60% of the councillors that tories have lost is seen as decent,

[JeMeSouviens]

utterly ridiculous. IDs that are sufficient to gain access to sensitive information, be around and treat people with controlled drugs, but not vote.

IDs that put you in a demographic that favours Lab. Blatant stuff.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65496724?at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=68C5E27E-EB59-11ED-8B51-BA12D99D5CC3&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics&at_ptr_name=twitter

They haven’t got their own thread so I thought I’d put it here. I reckon if the Lib Dem’s offer a new eu referendum they could do very very well next year.
The public don’t seem all that thrilled about Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[heretoday]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65496724?at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=68C5E27E-EB59-11ED-8B51-BA12D99D5CC3&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics&at_ptr_name=twitter

They haven’t got their own thread so I thought I’d put it here. I reckon if the Lib Dem’s offer a new eu referendum they could do very very well next year.
The public don’t seem all that thrilled about Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what Labour should be offering if they had any honesty.

[weecounty hibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65496724?at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=68C5E27E-EB59-11ED-8B51-BA12D99D5CC3&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics&at_ptr_name=twitter

They haven’t got their own thread so I thought I’d put it here. I reckon if the Lib Dem’s offer a new eu referendum they could do very very well next year.
The public don’t seem all that thrilled about Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a good point. I was just thinking why don't the lib dems have a lying *******s thread. Rich pickings with ACH and Willie at the moment.

[Glory Lurker]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65496724?at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_link_id=68C5E27E-EB59-11ED-8B51-BA12D99D5CC3&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics&at_ptr_name=twitter

They haven’t got their own thread so I thought I’d put it here. I reckon if the Lib Dem’s offer a new eu referendum they could do very very well next year.
The public don’t seem all that thrilled about Labour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They chucked the EU thing a good while back. They are the natural second home for non-red wall Tories so they couldn't be seen to be remoaners, even if they were traditionally the most pro-EU party. It's all just about enabling the Tories for them.

[archie]

Would it be fair to say these results are decent but not amazing for Labour?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lot of traditional Labour councils not up for election, e.g.London.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's a good point. I was just thinking why don't the lib dems have a lying *******s thread. Rich pickings with ACH and Willie at the moment.

Because they're so irrelevant that people only vote for them tactically to keep other parties out.

[Jack]

Will voter ID be required in Scotland?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Will voter ID be required in Scotland?

I don't think it applies to Scotland. Not yet anyway.

[Santa Cruz]

Will voter ID be required in Scotland?

Reads like photo ID will be required for the GE and by-elections.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/voter-id/accepted-forms-photo-id

[Ryan91]

Will voter ID be required in Scotland?

Currently only for WM elections, Scottish Parliament and Council elections not covered by the law

[Jack]

Cheers guys.

I suspect we'll be bombarded with adverts and stuff nearer the time.

[Just Alf]

Cheers guys.

I suspect we'll be bombarded with adverts and stuff nearer the time.Yeah ... stuff like this posted earlier :-/




Tories lying in their Local Election campaign leaflets. Where's the electoral oversight?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuoBah2WIAI5E1g?format=jpg&name=small

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230505/e77dd6d28314e4d97375babb9f7631e1.jpg

Would be a good result if Lib Dem’s made PR a condition of coalition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230505/e2f4240c276eabd4da81a26b21a2b6da.jpg
The Sky prediction is slightly different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

They chucked the EU thing a good while back. They are the natural second home for non-red wall Tories so they couldn't be seen to be remoaners, even if they were traditionally the most pro-EU party. It's all just about enabling the Tories for them.

The Tories traditionally go back home for general elections. Not sure if they will do this time. Time will tell.

[Glory Lurker]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230505/e77dd6d28314e4d97375babb9f7631e1.jpg

Would be a good result if Lib Dem’s made PR a condition of coalition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not rounding on you, Oz, honest!

How well did they do getting PR into the deal the last time? It wasn't even the method they favoured. They were too busy jumping in the Tories bed to care.

[neil7908]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230505/e77dd6d28314e4d97375babb9f7631e1.jpg

Would be a good result if Lib Dem’s made PR a condition of coalition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have Labour not ruled out a coalition? Or just one with the SNP?

[Ozyhibby]

Have Labour not ruled out a coalition? Or just one with the SNP?

Just with the SNP. On those numbers they can go to the Lib Dem’s anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Just with the SNP. On those numbers they can go to the Lib Dem’s anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like he has also ruled out one with the Lib Dems as well:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/18/starmer-rules-out-even-informal-post-election-deal-with-lib-dems

Although I think it's safe to assume this will go the same way as support for remain, tuition fees etc.

[Hibbyradge]

Have Labour not ruled out a coalition? Or just one with the SNP?

Of course they've ruled out a coalition, any coalition.

Which party goes into a GE saying they'd enter a coalition with anyone?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Pamela Nash (former Labour MP who advised people to vote Conservative last year) has been made the Scottish Labour candidate for Motherwell and Wishaw. :applause:

Wonder how Labour will silence their disgruntled membership over this one?

[ronaldo7]

Pamela Nash (former Labour MP who advised people to vote Conservative last year) has been made the Scottish Labour candidate for Motherwell and Wishaw. :applause:

Wonder how Labour will silence their disgruntled membership over this one?

They'll be happy she pipped the LOL candidate to the post.

[neil7908]

Of course they've ruled out a coalition, any coalition.

Which party goes into a GE saying they'd enter a coalition with anyone?

Erm...

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/lib-dems-open-to-working-with-other-parties-ed-davey-coalition-government

I'm not expecting Labour to warmly embrace this idea. Of course they want votes. But Starmer has categorically ruled it out. I understand ruling it out with SNP but with the Lib Dems? He's now put himself in yet another position where he'll potentially have to do a massive u turn and go back on another commitment he's made.

I thought one of his things was integrity and honesty being brought back into politics after years of Tories lies and deceit?

[xyz23jc]

Erm...

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/lib-dems-open-to-working-with-other-parties-ed-davey-coalition-government

I'm not expecting Labour to warmly embrace this idea. Of course they want votes. But Starmer has categorically ruled it out. I understand ruling it out with SNP but with the Lib Dems? He's now put himself in yet another position where he'll potentially have to do a massive u turn and go back on another commitment he's made.

I thought one of his things was integrity and honesty being brought back into politics after years of Tories lies and deceit?

They aren't called LIEBOUR for nothing! :wink::greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Erm...

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/lib-dems-open-to-working-with-other-parties-ed-davey-coalition-government

I'm not expecting Labour to warmly embrace this idea. Of course they want votes. But Starmer has categorically ruled it out. I understand ruling it out with SNP but with the Lib Dems? He's now put himself in yet another position where he'll potentially have to do a massive u turn and go back on another commitment he's made.

I thought one of his things was integrity and honesty being brought back into politics after years of Tories lies and deceit?

Ok. I should have said "which party with hopes to win an overall majority".

[neil7908]

Ok. I should have said "which party with hopes to win an overall majority".

OK, but he's categorically stated he ain't doing a deal. He could have fudged it and left a wee bit of wiggle room
But he hasn't. So again, it'll be just another promise, pledge, commitment etc Starmer has made that will be rowed back when it's no longer convenient.


Again, his whole bit is how much of an honest guy he is.

And there is just no need to go so hard here. That's the bit that gets me. It's so easy to brush off the question, equovocate etc.

[Hibbyradge]

OK, but he's categorically stated he ain't doing a deal. He could have fudged it and left a wee bit of wiggle room
But he hasn't. So again, it'll be just another promise, pledge, commitment etc Starmer has made that will be rowed back when it's no longer convenient.


Again, his whole bit is how much of an honest guy he is.

And there is just no need to go so hard here. That's the bit that gets me. It's so easy to brush off the question, equovocate etc.

First of all, you're criticising him for something he hasn't done.

In any case, it's got nothing to do with honesty. He has no intention of doing a deal with anyone so he's ruled it out and he's absolutely right to do so.

If a leader was to go into a GE saying that they'd be willing to share power, it would make them look extremely weak and uncertain.

It would also encourage people to vote for the LDs or Greens.

Finally, you'd be happy if he fudged his answer. Isn't that dishonest?

[neil7908]

First of all, you're criticising him for something he hasn't done.

In any case, it's got nothing to do with honesty. He has no intention of doing a deal with anyone so he's ruled it out and he's absolutely right to do so.

If a leader was to go into a GE saying that they'd be willing to share power, it would make them look extremely weak and uncertain.

It would also encourage people to vote for the LDs or Greens.

Finally, you'd be happy if he fudged his answer. Isn't that dishonest?

Happy to put a pin in this one and see what happens come election. Maybe it won't come to this but I am not convinced that if Labour fall short of a majority, that he would seek another election.

But your right, I'm speculating.

[grunt]

Unhappy with the Tories' new anti-protest legislation?
Don't look to Labour to repeal it. It would be too much work.

https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1655172977120428034?s=20

[grunt]

Labour's Streeting says he will not apologise for Labour ditching commitment to end university tuition fees

https://t.co/tJ9i0xXfa7

[Ozyhibby]

Labour's Streeting says he will not apologise for Labour ditching commitment to end university tuition fees

https://t.co/tJ9i0xXfa7

Biggest concern is if they win and introduce in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Biggest concern is if they win and introduce in Scotland.It's devolved, no? Or do you mean, if they win in Scotland?

[Ozyhibby]

It's devolved, no? Or do you mean, if they win in Scotland?

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Labour hopeful in Rutherglen and Hamilton West 'by election' seat has campaign footage from Aberdeen (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-hopeful-in-rutherglen-and-hamilton-west-by-election-seat-has-campaign-footage-from-aberdeen/ar-AA1aXeAD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=933a5f5948484fb993e29c7ebafab1b2&ei=44)


Tissera said: “I have been asked about providing more sport facilities in Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the reason for the picture of Aberdeen FC was to highlight to the members that AFC have worked very hard with The Dennis Law Trust and the Cruyff Foundation to provide 3 Cruyff courts in Aberdeen.


aye ok :faf: in-between touting herself for other areas around the west of scotland

[Mibbes Aye]

Biggest concern is if they win and introduce in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why no tuition fees for Scottish students is the best approach.

For a start, it isn't what it claims to be. Scottish universities have to impose a cap on the number of Scottish students they take, depending on the fees funding they get from SG. This means that you can be Scottish, have the indicative grades and be nowhere near getting onto the course you want in Scotland. And if you go elsewehere in the UK to pursue it, you don't take funding with you.

What you can do is study elsewhere in the UK and take out a loan for your fees. But consider this, there aren't caps on rUK fee-paying students at Scottish universities, but you are not allowed that option if you are Scottish.

I think you must agree, it hardly seems a fair solution and I imagine there must be something more equitable, involving deferred fees or graduate tax. But of course it is not a policy based on equity, it is a 'sounds good on the label' policy like the council tax freeze. And then once you start picking at it you see it in its true form, warts and all.

Anyway, my gut instinct would be to reinstate fees and taper the return through deferred fees or taxation (a lot easier said than done). There is no shortage of longitudinal evidence to show the positive effect on life chances from having a degree or post-graduate degree.

More importantly, if there was money to be freed up or even gained from all this, I would be looking to pump it into supports and provision for the 0-5 age group. That's where so much of our future lives is shaped and again, there is countlee evidence to back that up.

[Mibbes Aye]

Labour hopeful in Rutherglen and Hamilton West 'by election' seat has campaign footage from Aberdeen (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-hopeful-in-rutherglen-and-hamilton-west-by-election-seat-has-campaign-footage-from-aberdeen/ar-AA1aXeAD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=933a5f5948484fb993e29c7ebafab1b2&ei=44)


Tissera said: “I have been asked about providing more sport facilities in Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the reason for the picture of Aberdeen FC was to highlight to the members that AFC have worked very hard with The Dennis Law Trust and the Cruyff Foundation to provide 3 Cruyff courts in Aberdeen.


aye ok :faf: in-between touting herself for other areas around the west of scotland


It's pretty lame to post that and omit the second paragraph where she puts into context why it might be relevant for South Lanarkshire.

Still, I think you probably knew that :wink:

[marinello59]

Labour hopeful in Rutherglen and Hamilton West 'by election' seat has campaign footage from Aberdeen (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-hopeful-in-rutherglen-and-hamilton-west-by-election-seat-has-campaign-footage-from-aberdeen/ar-AA1aXeAD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=933a5f5948484fb993e29c7ebafab1b2&ei=44)


Tissera said: “I have been asked about providing more sport facilities in Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the reason for the picture of Aberdeen FC was to highlight to the members that AFC have worked very hard with The Dennis Law Trust and the Cruyff Foundation to provide 3 Cruyff courts in Aberdeen.


aye ok :faf: in-between touting herself for other areas around the west of scotland

She is a very good Aberdeen councillor and would make an excellent MP. I can’t see what difference being picured at Pittodrie makes unless she was trying to pass it off as Rutherglen. :greengrin:

[Ozyhibby]

I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why no tuition fees for Scottish students is the best approach.

For a start, it isn't what it claims to be. Scottish universities have to impose a cap on the number of Scottish students they take, depending on the fees funding they get from SG. This means that you can be Scottish, have the indicative grades and be nowhere near getting onto the course you want in Scotland. And if you go elsewehere in the UK to pursue it, you don't take funding with you.

What you can do is study elsewhere in the UK and take out a loan for your fees. But consider this, there aren't caps on rUK fee-paying students at Scottish universities, but you are not allowed that option if you are Scottish.

I think you must agree, it hardly seems a fair solution and I imagine there must be something more equitable, involving deferred fees or graduate tax. But of course it is not a policy based on equity, it is a 'sounds good on the label' policy like the council tax freeze. And then once you start picking at it you see it in its true form, warts and all.

Anyway, my gut instinct would be to reinstate fees and taper the return through deferred fees or taxation (a lot easier said than done). There is no shortage of longitudinal evidence to show the positive effect on life chances from having a degree or post-graduate degree.

More importantly, if there was money to be freed up or even gained from all this, I would be looking to pump it into supports and provision for the 0-5 age group. That's where so much of our future lives is shaped and again, there is countlee evidence to back that up.

I think loading up young people with debt at 7% interest at a time when the can’t buy houses and face falling wages over the last 13 years would be a disgrace. Most graduates now owe significantly more than the debt was when they graduated.
Graduates tend to do better than non graduates over their careers and there fore already pay for their education through higher taxes.
I personally think young people in this country are getting a very raw deal as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Anyway, my gut instinct would be to reinstate fees and taper the return through deferred fees or taxation.Is that Labour policy?


There is no shortage of longitudinal evidence to show the positive effect on life chances from having a degree or post-graduate degree.

... I would be looking to pump it into supports and provision for the 0-5 age group. That's where so much of our future lives is shaped and again, there is countlee evidence to back that up.Which is it? I'm confused. You say both are positive.

[grunt]

I think loading up young people with debt at 7% interest at a time when the can’t buy houses and face falling wages over the last 13 years would be a disgrace.
It's the Labour way.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think loading up young people with debt at 7% interest at a time when the can’t buy houses and face falling wages over the last 13 years would be a disgrace. Most graduates now owe significantly more than the debt was when they graduated.
Graduates tend to do better than non graduates over their careers and there fore already pay for their education through higher taxes.
I personally think young people in this country are getting a very raw deal as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that until the change to thresholds in England, three quarters didn’t pay anything at all back. What Labour would do, in England, would be to ensure that where repayments were made, it wasn’t hammering those at the bottom end of the delayers.

As for your point on tax, the impact should fall heavier on those with the broadest shoulders. Mind you, I can see why you wouldn’t like that, with your small-government, low-tax instincts 😀

But more importantly, given your last sentence, why are you unwilling to look at alternatives to a system that currently offers a cohort of Scottish students a very raw deal?

[Ozyhibby]

I think that until the change to thresholds in England, three quarters didn’t pay anything at all back. What Labour would do, in England, would be to ensure that where repayments were made, it wasn’t hammering those at the bottom end of the delayers.

As for your point on tax, the impact should fall heavier on those with the broadest shoulders. Mind you, I can see why you wouldn’t like that, with your small-government, low-tax instincts [emoji3]

But more importantly, given your last sentence, why are you unwilling to look at alternatives to a system that currently offers a cohort of Scottish students a very raw deal?

I’m not sure how free could be described as a raw deal? And we tax higher earners more in Scotland to cover the cost of such things.
Currently in England, graduates debts are rising faster than they can pay it back. I can’t see why we would want that here?
Your not selling it to me? I’m struggling to see what benefit it would bring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

First of all, you're criticising him for something he hasn't done.

In any case, it's got nothing to do with honesty. He has no intention of doing a deal with anyone so he's ruled it out and he's absolutely right to do so.

If a leader was to go into a GE saying that they'd be willing to share power, it would make them look extremely weak and uncertain.

It would also encourage people to vote for the LDs or Greens.

Finally, you'd be happy if he fudged his answer. Isn't that dishonest?

Well this has come around again quite quickly;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/09/keir-starmer-refuses-to-rule-out-lib-dem-coalition-after-next-election

The response here is exactly what I was alluding to earlier and what I would have expected. It also shows why I found it so puzzling that he explicitly ruled it out a year ago. It's another reversal from a previous commitment.

I'm going to be generous here and suggest he's learning on the job but I hope he has stopped making commitments that he isn't able to keep.

[Mibbes Aye]

I’m not sure how free could be described as a raw deal? And we tax higher earners more in Scotland to cover the cost of such things.
Currently in England, graduates debts are rising faster than they can pay it back. I can’t see why we would want that here?
You’re not selling it to me? I’m struggling to see what benefit it would bring.

Free isn’t free for everybody though. It’s free within the constraints of where SG sets the cap. There is no such cap for rUK students wishing to study in Scotland and if you are Scottish you can’t opt-in to paying, unlike an English student wishing to study here.

As for your ‘debts are rising higher than can be paid’ claim, what does that even mean? Only a quarter of people were paying back loans under the old threshold and they would have been the highest earners.

Ultimately my point is that ‘free tuition’ isn’t actually what it is made out to be. I have demonstrated why. I have described my own view and I’m happy for that to be critiqued.

But you know and I know this hasn’t come up because you wanted to discuss the merits of higher education funding in Scotland. It is a clumsy tool to have a go at Starmer. But all that Labour is saying is that it wants to consider the fairest approach to funding (in England). And like social care funding it is one of those topics that seems to attract a lot of empty vessels (not directed at you, I hasten to add)

[Ozyhibby]

Free isn’t free for everybody though. It’s free within the constraints of where SG sets the cap. There is no such cap for rUK students wishing to study in Scotland and if you are Scottish you can’t opt-in to paying, unlike an English student wishing to study here.

As for your ‘debts are rising higher than can be paid’ claim, what does that even mean? Only a quarter of people were paying back loans under the old threshold and they would have been the highest earners.

Ultimately my point is that ‘free tuition’ isn’t actually what it is made out to be. I have demonstrated why. I have described my own view and I’m happy for that to be critiqued.

But you know and I know this hasn’t come up because you wanted to discuss the merits of higher education funding in Scotland. It is a clumsy tool to have a go at Starmer. But all that Labour is saying is that it wants to consider the fairest approach to funding (in England). And like social care funding it is one of those topics that seems to attract a lot of empty vessels (not directed at you, I hasten to add)

I think the best way to fund this is higher taxation for higher earners. It’s simple and doesn’t require the bureaucracy of a loans system. And it doesn’t load up the balance sheet of young people with debt before they even start out in life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I think the best way to fund this is higher taxation for higher earners. It’s simple and doesn’t require the bureaucracy of a loans system. And it doesn’t load up the balance sheet of young people with debt before they even start out in life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's a fair point of view. I'm not even 100% certain what mine is today - it's a bit like social care funding, I think it is something that evolves - but it definitely, probably, involves some form of taxation.

I'm not sold on funding free tuition for some (but not all) Scottish students in Scotland by means of general taxation though.

I pay higher rate and am happy with the principle of that. I can even just about accept that my tax money may be used by the government of the day in a manner to which I'm opposed. Because that's the nature of our democratic system. Won't like it, will live wiith it.

What I really recoil at is paying for poor development and execution of policy, expecially policy that either through laziness or disingenuousness purports to be something it clearly isn't.

I think free tuition is flawed policy, masquerading as a 'good thing'. It may be a 'good thing' for some but the flaws negatively impact on others for no good reason

Given Scotland has a child poverty rate somewhere between 20 and 25%, depending on the source, then I think there is a much stronger case for focusing attention and scant resource on that.

[grunt]

I think free tuition is flawed policy, masquerading as a 'good thing'. It may be a 'good thing' for some but the flaws negatively impact on others for no good reason
Can I ask why this only applies to higher education? We provide free tuition to primary and secondary students, so why not tertiary education? Serious question.

[grunt]

Well this has come around again quite quickly;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/09/keir-starmer-refuses-to-rule-out-lib-dem-coalition-after-next-election

The response here is exactly what I was alluding to earlier and what I would have expected. It also shows why I found it so puzzling that he explicitly ruled it out a year ago. It's another reversal from a previous commitment.
I've been trying to understand why Starmer would be amenable to a coalition with the LibDems but not with the SNP. You'd have thought that the SNP would be closer to Labour policy-wise. :confused:

I can only assume that he thinks the price of coalition with SNP would be agreement to a second referendum, which he can't afford to agree to. He doesn't want to be the PM that oversees the end of the UK.

Does that make sense?

[Ozyhibby]

I've been trying to understand why Starmer would be amenable to a coalition with the LibDems but not with the SNP. You'd have thought that the SNP would be closer to Labour policy-wise. :confused:

I can only assume that he thinks the price of coalition with SNP would be agreement to a second referendum, which he can't afford to agree to. He doesn't want to be the PM that oversees the end of the UK.

Does that make sense?

I think the SNP should stop talking about doing any deals with Labour. It’s pointless until ballots are counted.
I also think Starmer would do a deal with Sinn Fein if it got him into Downing Street.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

I've been trying to understand why Starmer would be amenable to a coalition with the LibDems but not with the SNP. You'd have thought that the SNP would be closer to Labour policy-wise. :confused:

I can only assume that he thinks the price of coalition with SNP would be agreement to a second referendum, which he can't afford to agree to. He doesn't want to be the PM that oversees the end of the UK.

Does that make sense?

The Libdems have a track record of jumping into bed with anyone and will backtrack on any previous commitments to party or voters as if their manifesto was written with invisible/fading ink for a seat in or near Cabinet.

In that respect they have much in common with the current Labour leadership.

[One Day Soon]

I think the SNP should stop talking about doing any deals with Labour. It’s pointless until ballots are counted.
I also think Starmer would do a deal with Sinn Fein if it got him into Downing Street.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A deal with the SNP is not going to happen in any circumstances. Probably not even if they were to rule out the demand for a second referendum for the duration of the next parliament.

[One Day Soon]

The Libdems have a track record of jumping into bed with anyone and will backtrack on any previous commitments to party or voters as if their manifesto was written with invisible/fading ink for a seat in or near Cabinet.

In that respect they have much in common with the current Labour leadership.


And yet they've just explicitly ruled out doing a deal with the Tories, as has Starmer over doing a deal with the SNP.

Try harder.

[Jack]

And yet they've just explicitly ruled out doing a deal with the Tories, as has Starmer over doing a deal with the SNP.

Try harder.

I'll wait. Probably won't have to wait long.

[JimBHibees]

And yet they've just explicitly ruled out doing a deal with the Tories, as has Starmer over doing a deal with the SNP.

Try harder.

Suppose people are going on the basis of the number of deals with the tories in local councils

[Hibrandenburg]

And yet they've just explicitly ruled out doing a deal with the Tories, as has Starmer over doing a deal with the SNP.

Try harder.

Has Starmer made the "This Laddie is for turning" speech yet?

[One Day Soon]

Has Starmer made the "This Laddie is for turning" speech yet?

What are you talking about?

[Ozyhibby]

I think that's a fair point of view. I'm not even 100% certain what mine is today - it's a bit like social care funding, I think it is something that evolves - but it definitely, probably, involves some form of taxation.

I'm not sold on funding free tuition for some (but not all) Scottish students in Scotland by means of general taxation though.

I pay higher rate and am happy with the principle of that. I can even just about accept that my tax money may be used by the government of the day in a manner to which I'm opposed. Because that's the nature of our democratic system. Won't like it, will live wiith it.

What I really recoil at is paying for poor development and execution of policy, expecially policy that either through laziness or disingenuousness purports to be something it clearly isn't.

I think free tuition is flawed policy, masquerading as a 'good thing'. It may be a 'good thing' for some but the flaws negatively impact on others for no good reason

Given Scotland has a child poverty rate somewhere between 20 and 25%, depending on the source, then I think there is a much stronger case for focusing attention and scant resource on that.

Still more Scots than ever going to uni. I expect that figure will rise over next couple of years as 2006-10 was a mini baby boom.

https://www.gov.scot/news/more-scottish-students-than-ever-in-scotlands-universities/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk kit

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1657720814999928832?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

British votes for ….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1657720814999928832?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

British votes for ….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And herein lies the problem of posters searching for a tweet or a headline they like, rather than making their own point.

Because here's two other links that are are probably as reputable, but they tell a very different story.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/labour-considers-plans-to-let-eu-nationals-and-16-year-olds-vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65590121

The chances of getting decent discussion on here, debate even, are stymied when it just becomes a hyperlink war. FFS, there was a SNP supporter on here a few weeks ago linking to the Morning Star Online, to have a dig at Starmer :greengrin

I don't dounbt for a second there are people on here who are passionate in their beliefs, but also articulate enough to explore a topic without it descending into the Battle of Other People's Words.

There is a place for links, where they offer an important or challenging perspective - this evening I posted one to an interview with Scotland's C&YP Commissioner, who has a very clear brief and a very clear view of the landscape. But I used it to make a broader point, not just a 'hit and run' hyperlink.

[Ozyhibby]

And herein lies the problem of posters searching for a tweet or a headline they like, rather than making their own point.

Because here's two other links that are are probably as reputable, but they tell a very different story.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/labour-considers-plans-to-let-eu-nationals-and-16-year-olds-vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65590121

The chances of getting decent discussion on here, debate even, are stymied when it just becomes a hyperlink war. FFS, there was a SNP supporter on here a few weeks ago linking to the Morning Star Online, to have a dig at Starmer :greengrin

I don't dounbt for a second there are people on here who are passionate in their beliefs, but also articulate enough to explore a topic without it descending into the Battle of Other People's Words.

There is a place for links, where they offer an important or challenging perspective - this evening I posted one to an interview with Scotland's C&YP Commissioner, who has a very clear brief and a very clear view of the landscape. But I used it to make a broader point, not just a 'hit and run' hyperlink.

🥱


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Getting things back on topic, there has been a fair amount going on for Momentum in recent months. A big drop in membership seems to have brought them financially close to the point of being unable to continue, though I understand they made efforts to get more money in, at least enough to keep the metaphorical bailiffs from the door.

Latest talk from them is of retrenchment and moving on from Corbyn and focusing on local government. So, is this one more loop in a death spiral? Or something more strategic? I struggle to see that. The challenge for them is that their only chance of exercising any power would be through a Labour win, but Labour is essenially rejecting them, so 'only chance' has become 'no chance'.

You write off zealots at your peril but it is hard to see the next while being anything other than a spell in the barren wastelands for their senior figures. Fortunately they will have the torch of self-righteous indignation to keep them warm :greengrin

[connerg]

Nothing worse then Scottish people wanting Scotland to fail. Gees me the boak.

[superfurryhibby]

And herein lies the problem of posters searching for a tweet or a headline they like, rather than making their own point.

Because here's two other links that are are probably as reputable, but they tell a very different story.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/14/labour-considers-plans-to-let-eu-nationals-and-16-year-olds-vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65590121

The chances of getting decent discussion on here, debate even, are stymied when it just becomes a hyperlink war. FFS, there was a SNP supporter on here a few weeks ago linking to the Morning Star Online, to have a dig at Starmer :greengrin

I don't dounbt for a second there are people on here who are passionate in their beliefs, but also articulate enough to explore a topic without it descending into the Battle of Other People's Words.

There is a place for links, where they offer an important or challenging perspective - this evening I posted one to an interview with Scotland's C&YP Commissioner, who has a very clear brief and a very clear view of the landscape. But I used it to make a broader point, not just a 'hit and run' hyperlink.

Good post.

[Ozyhibby]

Good post.

Yes, failure to pass a bill the UK govt stopped us from passing. Terrible.
Labour will of course have passed this legislation in Wales?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Starmer on EU citizens voting.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/keir-starmer-says-it-feels-wrong-eu-citizens-living-in-uk-cant-vote?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Ozyhibby]

Starmer on EU citizens voting.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/15/keir-starmer-says-it-feels-wrong-eu-citizens-living-in-uk-cant-vote?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Results from focus groups mustn’t be back yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Results from focus groups mustn’t be back yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or to be accurate, you jumped the gun, doing exactly what I was talking about - finding a tweet or a headline, any tweet or headline - that said what you wanted to see. Regardless of whether it bore any resemblance to reality.

I don’t know if you ever catch the ‘Tomorrow’s front page’ section on Sky News or the BBC”s online “What the front pages are saying” page.

Both featured the Mail and the Express basically calling Starmer a traitor who was trying to undo and reverse Brexit, by letting ‘foreigners’ vote in ‘our’ elections. Which just serves to highlight how ridiculous it is to link to a single tweet or headline and suggest it is the be all and end all.

[Stairway 2 7]

Or to be accurate, you jumped the gun, doing exactly what I was talking about - finding a tweet or a headline, any tweet or headline - that said what you wanted to see. Regardless of whether it bore any resemblance to reality.

I don’t know if you ever catch the ‘Tomorrow’s front page’ section on Sky News or the BBC”s online “What the front pages are saying” page.

Both featured the Mail and the Express basically calling Starmer a traitor who was trying to undo and reverse Brexit, by letting ‘foreigners’ vote in ‘our’ elections. Which just serves to highlight how ridiculous it is to link to a single tweet or headline and suggest it is the be all and end all.
It wasn't a tweet it was a financial Times article saying Starmer is rowing back on letting Europeans vote only after a number of years. You might not agree with the article but your rabid defence is over the top. It seems you like articles that are positive to Labour but try and mock articles that are negative.

The biggest problem with the forum is blinkered people who treat their political party like a football team to be defended at all costs. Actually that's a poor comparison as people regularly rip hibs in general hibs chat section

[Mibbes Aye]

It wasn't a tweet it was a financial Times article saying Starmer is rowing back on letting Europeans vote only after a number of years. You might not agree with the article but your rabid defence is over the top. It seems you like articles that are positive to Labour but try and mock articles that are negative.

The biggest problem with the forum is blinkered people who treat their political party like a football team to be defended at all costs. Actually that's a poor comparison as people regularly rip hibs in general hibs chat section

It was a tweet I was referring to, the article was secondary but that’s not actually important. And I actually wasn’t disagreeing with it, more pointing out that anyone can find any line by a random and present it as if it is authorative.

I think your point about party loyalties and blinkers is misplaced. Ozyhibby is usually pretty good at criticising the SNP if he feels like criticising them. Similarly, I have been critical on here about Labour, most recently over their response to Forde, when that came up on the thread.

I think what maybe makes it look different is that I am not aware of any other Labour Party member who posts on here regularly. But there are a good number of posters who feel the need to rip into Labour and/or Starmer. No one is forcing me to read or post on here, no complaint from me, but if I see something that I believe is wrong or made-up or even just stupid, I tend to challenge that. And that’s not uncommon so it can get a bit busy :greengrin But as I said, no one forces me to do it and no doubt a good number would live happily without reading my views.

The danger of that though is that this place just becomes an echo chamber. And an echo chamber unconnected to reality. And actually quite a nasty place. I sometimes wish there were more self-declaring Tories on here, just to spark more debate. I’m never one to pass up an opportunity to highlight Tory misdoings but the thread about them on here sometimes just reads like a bucket of hate. I’m not sure what that says about us for posting on it.

[Kato]

It was a tweet I was referring to, the article was secondary but that’s not actually important. And I actually wasn’t disagreeing with it, more pointing out that anyone can find any line by a random and present it as if it is authorative.

I think your point about party loyalties and blinkers is misplaced. Ozyhibby is usually pretty good at criticising the SNP if he feels like criticising them. Similarly, I have been critical on here about Labour, most recently over their response to Forde, when that came up on the thread.

I think what maybe makes it look different is that I am not aware of any other Labour Party member who posts on here regularly. But there are a good number of posters who feel the need to rip into Labour and/or Starmer. No one is forcing me to read or post on here, no complaint from me, but if I see something that I believe is wrong or made-up or even just stupid, I tend to challenge that. And that’s not uncommon so it can get a bit busy :greengrin But as I said, no one forces me to do it and no doubt a good number would live happily without reading my views.

The danger of that though is that this place just becomes an echo chamber. And an echo chamber unconnected to reality. And actually quite a nasty place. I sometimes wish there were more self-declaring Tories on here, just to spark more debate. I’m never one to pass up an opportunity to highlight Tory misdoings but the thread about them on here sometimes just reads like a bucket of hate. I’m not sure what that says about us for posting on it.Is saying people vote for the SNP because they like dressing up in woad "nasty"?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

It was a tweet I was referring to, the article was secondary but that’s not actually important. And I actually wasn’t disagreeing with it, more pointing out that anyone can find any line by a random and present it as if it is authorative.

I think your point about party loyalties and blinkers is misplaced. Ozyhibby is usually pretty good at criticising the SNP if he feels like criticising them. Similarly, I have been critical on here about Labour, most recently over their response to Forde, when that came up on the thread.

I think what maybe makes it look different is that I am not aware of any other Labour Party member who posts on here regularly. But there are a good number of posters who feel the need to rip into Labour and/or Starmer. No one is forcing me to read or post on here, no complaint from me, but if I see something that I believe is wrong or made-up or even just stupid, I tend to challenge that. And that’s not uncommon so it can get a bit busy :greengrin But as I said, no one forces me to do it and no doubt a good number would live happily without reading my views.

The danger of that though is that this place just becomes an echo chamber. And an echo chamber unconnected to reality. And actually quite a nasty place. I sometimes wish there were more self-declaring Tories on here, just to spark more debate. I’m never one to pass up an opportunity to highlight Tory misdoings but the thread about them on here sometimes just reads like a bucket of hate. I’m not sure what that says about us for posting on it.

It wasn't a tweet. It was a thread by the author of the article the article was the main point of the tweet. If you disagree with the article fair enough. A less nasty would have been, I disagree with the article I don't think it's a row back, yes the Europeans will have to be here a few years but that is better than what we have now..

Instead you went on the attack saying what you think is good posting. I found out something from both articles and sway towards its still a great move by Labour that will face pushback.

[grunt]

I’m never one to pass up an opportunity to highlight Tory misdoings but the thread about them on here sometimes just reads like a bucket of hate. I’m not sure what that says about us for posting on it.
I post a lot on that thread. I post when they say or do something which I consider wrong. I hate them and what they've done to this country and to the lives and livelihoods of the people in it. That's what it says about me.

[Mibbes Aye]

Is saying people vote for the SNP because they like dressing up in woad "nasty"?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I don’t think any comments I’ve made about woad or flag twirling were nasty and I can’t recall anyone saying so at the time but I can’t speak for how other people feel.

In fairness, I have spoken with more malice and venom about entryists and hypocrites in my own party.

[Kato]

I don’t think any comments I’ve made about woad or flag twirling were nasty and I can’t recall anyone saying so at the time but I can’t speak for how other people feel.

In fairness, I have spoken with more malice and venom about entryists and hypocrites in my own party.But you are seeking to portray people who vote SNP as unthinking cosplayers with such comments, no.

Do you think that's fair?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

But you are seeking to portray people who vote SNP as unthinking cosplayers with such comments, no.

Do you think that's fair?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

You would have to find me a post and I will try and remember.

Can you be an ‘unthinking cosplayer’? Surely the penny drops when you put the cos on :confused:

[Kato]

You would have to find me a post and I will try and remember.

Can you be an ‘unthinking cosplayer’? Surely the penny drops when you put the cos on :confused:You have actually said it a few times, it just seemed an odd narrow caricature, like Labour voters wearing whippets and having a flat cap on a lead.

Both portrayals seek to show an unthinking person.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

this is what BLiS will bring to a council near you if you vote in a Right Wing party trying to out-Tory the Tories :agree:

Bid to stop privatisation of care homes in Labour-run West Lothian | The National (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23524221.bid-launched-scrap-privatisation-care-homes-west-lothian/?ref=eb&nid=1948)


COUNCILLORS in West Lothian will be forced to state their position on a bid to privatise local care homes in the area as a row over the plans deepens.

The plans by West Lothian's Integration Joint Board’s (IJB) would also see all care-at-home services in the area privatised.

The bid has caused outrage amongst the local community and trade unions The GMB, Unite and Unison, who represent social care staff working in the area.

[Kato]

this is what BLiS will bring to a council near you if you vote in a Right Wing party trying to out-Tory the Tories :agree:

Bid to stop privatisation of care homes in Labour-run West Lothian | The National (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23524221.bid-launched-scrap-privatisation-care-homes-west-lothian/?ref=eb&nid=1948)


COUNCILLORS in West Lothian will be forced to state their position on a bid to privatise local care homes in the area as a row over the plans deepens.

The plans by West Lothian's Integration Joint Board’s (IJB) would also see all care-at-home services in the area privatised.

The bid has caused outrage amongst the local community and trade unions The GMB, Unite and Unison, who represent social care staff working in the area.

Nibble, nibble, nibble.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Jack]

In fairness, I have spoken with more malice and venom about entryists and hypocrites in my own party.

What ever happened to the Labour Party?

It seems there are now more levels of lesser members and destain for them than there are in the Indian caste system.

[Mibbes Aye]

this is what BLiS will bring to a council near you if you vote in a Right Wing party trying to out-Tory the Tories :agree:

Bid to stop privatisation of care homes in Labour-run West Lothian | The National (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23524221.bid-launched-scrap-privatisation-care-homes-west-lothian/?ref=eb&nid=1948)


COUNCILLORS in West Lothian will be forced to state their position on a bid to privatise local care homes in the area as a row over the plans deepens.

The plans by West Lothian's Integration Joint Board’s (IJB) would also see all care-at-home services in the area privatised.

The bid has caused outrage amongst the local community and trade unions The GMB, Unite and Unison, who represent social care staff working in the area.



Except your first line is incorrect (and a wee bit silly TBH)

The council in West Lothian didn't make these proposals, they came from the IJB, a separate body and legal entity funded by WLC and NHS Lothian, but with its own chief officer and board. The board are a mixture of NHS non-executive directors appointed by Scottish ministers; councillors reflecting the make-up of the admiinistration; and various senior health and social work professionals responsible for services in that area).

I have to admit, I'm really surprised that the National would be so misleading, it has ambitions to be treated as a serious read does it not?

Anyway, beyond all the opportunities for misrepresenting other political parties here, it probably is worth remembering that we are talking about services that support people's loved ones, whether at home or in a home, with the most fundamental aspects of personal and intimate care. People who are valuable for who they are and vulnerable for where they find themselves.

The National bandies about words like provatisation and that really doesn't help matters. Some of the absolute best and absolute worst care exists or has been present in all sectors, whether council/NHS, third sector, or private sector.

Around two-thirds of care home places are in the private sector in Scotland. That's something like a 20% increase in the last ten years. Around half of home care is in the private sector in Scotland. Again, that is a bigger proportion from ten years ago.

Why? Local government in particular has faced massive and ongoing pressure on finances, but has to meet its statutory requirements. Those requirements don't specify whether they deliver care at home in-house or commission it from an external provider. And demand is rising year-on-year as the population ages longer and ages longer in ill-health.

It used to be the case that provate sector providers were around half the on-costs of local authority. SG sought to level out the pay differentials (right in intent if flawed in delivery). It is still the case however that the cost is significantly less than delivering in-house. So what does the IJB do? It has to ensure services are being delivered and if it can't secure the funding from the council and the health board to keep doing what they were doing, then they have to do something different. And of course because demand keeps growing they have to do something differently anyway.

[Mibbes Aye]

What ever happened to the Labour Party?

It seems there are now more levels of lesser members and destain for them than there are in the Indian caste system.

I was showing nice and illustrating that I'm not unwilling to be critical of my own party and some of its 'supporters'. Don't turn it into something it isn't.

[Jack]

I was showing nice and illustrating that I'm not unwilling to be critical of my own party and some of its 'supporters'. Don't turn it into something it isn't.

I wasn't just writing about you.

[Mibbes Aye]

I wasn't just writing about you.

Fair enough, I read it as me because you quoted me specifically, but all good.

As for Labour it's been non-stop internal fighting since before it was oficially formed! Different but similar, down the years. I particularly find the post-Attlee through to mid-seventies period fascinating. The division was much more nuanced but still full of disagreement about dogma and doctrine. Real 'how many comrades can dance on the head of a pin' stuff. :greengrin

[Andy Bee]

Except your first line is incorrect (and a wee bit silly TBH)

The council in West Lothian didn't make these proposals, they came from the IJB, a separate body and legal entity funded by WLC and NHS Lothian, but with its own chief officer and board. The board are a mixture of NHS non-executive directors appointed by Scottish ministers; councillors reflecting the make-up of the admiinistration; and various senior health and social work professionals responsible for services in that area).

I have to admit, I'm really surprised that the National would be so misleading, it has ambitions to be treated as a serious read does it not?

Anyway, beyond all the opportunities for misrepresenting other political parties here, it probably is worth remembering that we are talking about services that support people's loved ones, whether at home or in a home, with the most fundamental aspects of personal and intimate care. People who are valuable for who they are and vulnerable for where they find themselves.

The National bandies about words like provatisation and that really doesn't help matters. Some of the absolute best and absolute worst care exists or has been present in all sectors, whether council/NHS, third sector, or private sector.

Around two-thirds of care home places are in the private sector in Scotland. That's something like a 20% increase in the last ten years. Around half of home care is in the private sector in Scotland. Again, that is a bigger proportion from ten years ago.

Why? Local government in particular has faced massive and ongoing pressure on finances, but has to meet its statutory requirements. Those requirements don't specify whether they deliver care at home in-house or commission it from an external provider. And demand is rising year-on-year as the population ages longer and ages longer in ill-health.

It used to be the case that provate sector providers were around half the on-costs of local authority. SG sought to level out the pay differentials (right in intent if flawed in delivery). It is still the case however that the cost is significantly less than delivering in-house. So what does the IJB do? It has to ensure services are being delivered and if it can't secure the funding from the council and the health board to keep doing what they were doing, then they have to do something different. And of course because demand keeps growing they have to do something differently anyway.

Good save my friend. :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Good save my friend. :greengrin

:greengrin

[neil7908]

I find this position really weird when the party leader hasn't actually ruled out a coalition with the Lib Dems after the next election at a national level:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/21/labour-accused-of-meddling-after-vetoing-local-authority-coalition-plans

[SHODAN]

Yeah, I'm not voting for a party who are clearly aiming to privatise the NHS (under the dogwhistle of "reform"), especially when the Shadow ****ing Health Secretary has been receiving donations from private health care executives.

Honestly, it's pretty terrifying.

[Mibbes Aye]

I find this position really weird when the party leader hasn't actually ruled out a coalition with the Lib Dems after the next election at a national level:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/21/labour-accused-of-meddling-after-vetoing-local-authority-coalition-plans

Are you only finding something “really weird” because you want to, rather than the facts of the matter?

Local coalitions go to the NEC for approval, nothing new there. It’s to provide a degree of consistency and due diligence. Party policy allows for coalitions - not that you could readily make that out from the article or your wording.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yeah, I'm not voting for a party who are clearly aiming to privatise the NHS (under the dogwhistle of "reform"), especially when the Shadow ****ing Health Secretary has been receiving donations from private health care executives.

Honestly, it's pretty terrifying.

There isn’t a party at Westminster or Holyrood who are more trustworthy on the NHS than Labour. They brought it into being and they brought it back from the brink after the last extended period of Tory rule.

To suggest otherwise is facile.

[grunt]

there isn’t a party at westminster or holyrood who are more trustworthy on the nhs than labour. They brought it into being and they brought it back from the brink after the last extended period of tory rule.

To suggest otherwise is facile.:faf:

[neil7908]

Are you only finding something “really weird” because you want to, rather than the facts of the matter?

Local coalitions go to the NEC for approval, nothing new there. It’s to provide a degree of consistency and due diligence. Party policy allows for coalitions - not that you could readily make that out from the article or your wording.

I think it's really weird that they seem to be in a position where they would rather risk letting the Tories back in than join like minded parties.

We keep getting told (correctly) that getting the Tories out is no. 1 priority given the damage to the country. Is that not the case at local level as well? Because it appears Labour councillors are on the verge of resigning. It may be 'policy' but of doesn't strike me as a particularly clear, effective or well enforced one from the examples in the article.

Just citing 'policy' doesn't work doesn't make something right or well thought out.

[grunt]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fw4ezYzWwAAoFDL?format=png&name=900x900

[Jones28]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fw4ezYzWwAAoFDL?format=png&name=900x900

Head banging. :brickwall