The future of the Labour Party

[Mibbes Aye]

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.

I think you are reading way too much into this. A few 'unnamed sources'. An anonymous Labour councillor thinking about leaving the party - if they don't like the rules then they maybe should make a case for change or just leave, frankly. The policy is clear and the whole point of the article you linked to is a moan about it being 'enforced' effectively.

[Mibbes Aye]

While the front pages were full of Boris and Suella, the next story down was perhaps more relevant for all our futures, not just the Labour Party's.

Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, delivered a major policy speech in the US, while there forging links with the Democrats. The speech sets out Labour's policy on the economy and on business. Lots in there but the focus for me was the need to move on from the instability and insecurity we have had since the 2008 global crisis. The Tories have provided no answers in 13 years, they have made things worse. And a lot of that is because they can't articulate a positive and plausible vision for the future.

There were two particular takeaways from Reeves' speech and her paper. Reeves very clearly describes a real and critical need for the state to drive economic security and growth. In that respect the speech and policy are more FDR 1932 than Gordon Brown 1997, though I dont think GB would disagree with the scale of its ambition. The other big takeaway for me is that for too long the exonomic orthodoxy has been that growth is derived from only certain parts of the country (whether London and the South-East in UK terms, or the Central Belt in Scottish terms), Reeves' approach speaks to the whole nation, those areas written off or less-resourced

Ozyhibby, you will love it. Rachel Reeves also asks the very question you often do about why we don't manufacture anymore. Again, the mission is to create that productive capacity to make, do and sell more, with the state taking a more strategic and interventionist approach to support SMEs in particular.

This link takes you to the intro - from there you can open the policy in full.

https://labourtogether.uk/report/new-business-model-britain

[Stairway 2 7]

While the front pages were full of Boris and Suella, the next story down was perhaps more relevant for all our futures, not just the Labour Party's.

Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, delivered a major policy speech in the US, while there forging links with the Democrats. The speech sets out Labour's policy on the economy and on business. Lots in there but the focus for me was the need to move on from the instability and insecurity we have had since the 2008 global crisis. The Tories have provided no answers in 13 years, they have made things worse. And a lot of that is because they can't articulate a positive and plausible vision for the future.

There were two particular takeaways from Reeves' speech and her paper. Reeves very clearly describes a real and critical need for the state to drive economic security and growth. In that respect the speech and policy are more FDR 1932 than Gordon Brown 1997, though I dont think GB would disagree with the scale of its ambition. The other big takeaway for me is that for too long the exonomic orthodoxy has been that growth is derived from only certain parts of the country (whether London and the South-East in UK terms, or the Central Belt in Scottish terms), Reeves' approach speaks to the whole nation, those areas written off or less-resourced

Ozyhibby, you will love it. Rachel Reeves also asks the very question you often do about why we don't manufacture anymore. Again, the mission is to create that productive capacity to make, do and sell more, with the state taking a more strategic and interventionist approach to support SMEs in particular.

This link takes you to the intro - from there you can open the policy in full.

https://labourtogether.uk/report/new-business-model-britain

Put up a tweet of her ticket going over there, then quickly deleted it when they realised it showed she was in a £4k seat. I noticed you ripped lorna Slater for chartering a boat and not going with the public, I await the ripping

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-new-york-first-class-flight-b2343360.html

[Jack]

The Tories have provided no answers in 13 years, they have made things worse. And a lot of that is because they can't articulate a positive and plausible vision for the future.


Sorry for highlighting the tory bit on a Labour thread but ...

The torys have never cared for the future of the country only lining their own pockets. In the past that may have coincided with the economy doing well. Now they don't give a ****, its nothing less than theft.

[neil7908]

While the front pages were full of Boris and Suella, the next story down was perhaps more relevant for all our futures, not just the Labour Party's.

Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, delivered a major policy speech in the US, while there forging links with the Democrats. The speech sets out Labour's policy on the economy and on business. Lots in there but the focus for me was the need to move on from the instability and insecurity we have had since the 2008 global crisis. The Tories have provided no answers in 13 years, they have made things worse. And a lot of that is because they can't articulate a positive and plausible vision for the future.

There were two particular takeaways from Reeves' speech and her paper. Reeves very clearly describes a real and critical need for the state to drive economic security and growth. In that respect the speech and policy are more FDR 1932 than Gordon Brown 1997, though I dont think GB would disagree with the scale of its ambition. The other big takeaway for me is that for too long the exonomic orthodoxy has been that growth is derived from only certain parts of the country (whether London and the South-East in UK terms, or the Central Belt in Scottish terms), Reeves' approach speaks to the whole nation, those areas written off or less-resourced

Ozyhibby, you will love it. Rachel Reeves also asks the very question you often do about why we don't manufacture anymore. Again, the mission is to create that productive capacity to make, do and sell more, with the state taking a more strategic and interventionist approach to support SMEs in particular.

This link takes you to the intro - from there you can open the policy in full.

https://labourtogether.uk/report/new-business-model-britain

We'll obviously need to see how this translates into policy when manifestos are being pulled together but I'm encouraged by a lot of the points being made here.

I was also really pleased to see Rayner mention "right to disconnect" type plans being looked at. Again, it's all a bit vague at the moment and it's unclear if it will make it into any kind of commitment but it's personally something I am glad is being championed.

[neil7908]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/24/labour-to-restore-whip-to-neil-coyle-after-suspension-over-drunken-abuse

Surely this guy shouldn't be allowed back in the party? Two complaints upheld, one involving racism and the other sexual harassment and he's back in?

Any other line of work and he'd gone.

It will be very interesting to see what happens to Diane Abbott now. I can't see how she can be anything other than reinstated after this. But we'll see.

[Mibbes Aye]

Put up a tweet of her ticket going over there, then quickly deleted it when they realised it showed she was in a £4k seat. I noticed you ripped lorna Slater for chartering a boat and not going with the public, I await the ripping

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-new-york-first-class-flight-b2343360.html

Well, I won’t delay your ripping. Lorna Slater’s private boat was paid for by the taxpayer. Rachel Reeves’ flight wasn’t :na na: :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Well, I won’t delay your ripping. Lorna Slater’s private boat was paid for by the taxpayer. Rachel Reeves’ flight wasn’t :na na: :greengrin

I wonder which special interest covered it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

While the front pages were full of Boris and Suella, the next story down was perhaps more relevant for all our futures, not just the Labour Party's.

Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, delivered a major policy speech in the US, while there forging links with the Democrats. The speech sets out Labour's policy on the economy and on business. Lots in there but the focus for me was the need to move on from the instability and insecurity we have had since the 2008 global crisis. The Tories have provided no answers in 13 years, they have made things worse. And a lot of that is because they can't articulate a positive and plausible vision for the future.

There were two particular takeaways from Reeves' speech and her paper. Reeves very clearly describes a real and critical need for the state to drive economic security and growth. In that respect the speech and policy are more FDR 1932 than Gordon Brown 1997, though I dont think GB would disagree with the scale of its ambition. The other big takeaway for me is that for too long the exonomic orthodoxy has been that growth is derived from only certain parts of the country (whether London and the South-East in UK terms, or the Central Belt in Scottish terms), Reeves' approach speaks to the whole nation, those areas written off or less-resourced

Ozyhibby, you will love it. Rachel Reeves also asks the very question you often do about why we don't manufacture anymore. Again, the mission is to create that productive capacity to make, do and sell more, with the state taking a more strategic and interventionist approach to support SMEs in particular.

This link takes you to the intro - from there you can open the policy in full.

https://labourtogether.uk/report/new-business-model-britain

Working my way through it now.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Well, I won’t delay your ripping. Lorna Slater’s private boat was paid for by the taxpayer. Rachel Reeves’ flight wasn’t :na na: :greengrin

Surely as a labour man you think it's totally abhorrent paying that from party funds. They can't go on about Sunaks wealth when they are paying for something most can't begin to imagine having. Sunak used a helicopter to Yorkshire from private funds and labour rightly attacked it. If she wasn't hiding anything she wouldn't have photoshopped out the class of the ticket

[Jack]

Rachel Reeves is a senior member of the Labour Party. To be fair, to her, if I was in her position on a business trip I'd expect business class for a flight that long. Who is actually paying for it will come out eventually in the Register of Interests.

The Green minister is an odd one. Bare in mind she will not have travelled alone. There will have possibly been 2 or 3 people from her Private Office and 2 or 3 civil servants whose brief covered the visit, maybe more if it covered more than one policy area. If public transport was used it could possibly include an overnight stay for the lot of them! The sums will have been done.

Incidentally I used the same argument while I worked with the Scottish Government. They put out a memo asking for outside the box ideas to improve business. I suggested they put me through my pilots licence and when ministers and/or senior officials were visiting the islands I could fly them in a hired aircraft. I did all the sums and there were savings. Sadly I never became the official Scottish Government pilot on the grounds that despite the cost savings public opinion would go nuts if these people were being flown about the place. Seems public opinion is the same for boats 😆

Another downside was that once you think outside the box some grey clouds aren't that keen on letting you back in 😆

I'm saying nothing about the time I suggested I should become the official Scottish Government astronaut!

[Mibbes Aye]

Surely as a labour man you think it's totally abhorrent paying that from party funds. They can't go on about Sunaks wealth when they are paying for something most can't begin to imagine having. Sunak used a helicopter to Yorkshire from private funds and labour rightly attacked it. If she wasn't hiding anything she wouldn't have photoshopped out the class of the ticket

Reeves’ flight wasn’t paid for out of party funds.

At the rate you are digging a hole she could have walked to the US in fairness 😀

[Just Alf]

We used to have regular meetings in London and worked out we could actually go to our offices in Amsterdam for a.little over half the price... it was bumped due the "optics" and tax reasons.

We ended up meeting in a wee pub near the Yorkshire moors where the owner just totted all our receipts up for meeting room hire, bed and breakfast, dinner, all our drink Inc some really decent whisky's and split the bill in equal shares for B&B, dinner and meeting room.
Including travel costs it was still cheaper for the company than us meeting in London and them paying B&B plus dinner and a drink to go with it.

[Just Alf]

Reeves’ flight wasn’t paid for out of party funds.

At the rate you are digging a hole she could have walked to the US in fairness [emoji3]I bet she could afford to buy a quite decent pen! :agree:

[Stairway 2 7]

Reeves’ flight wasn’t paid for out of party funds.

At the rate you are digging a hole she could have walked to the US in fairness 😀

Her excuse is a donor specifically wanted to pay for flights which I reckon is rubbish. Although if a donor wants to be paying 4-8k for something they usually want something in return.

Labour can't crow about bungs and second jobs when they are as bad. She was mocking rishi at PMQs for using his own money to buy a helicopter flight, if you can't see that makes her a hypocrite then your red rosette is covering your eyes.

Why did she tweet a doctored photo implying she was in economy then delete it completely
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1660629189186187264

[Mibbes Aye]

We'll obviously need to see how this translates into policy when manifestos are being pulled together but I'm encouraged by a lot of the points being made here.

I was also really pleased to see Rayner mention "right to disconnect" type plans being looked at. Again, it's all a bit vague at the moment and it's unclear if it will make it into any kind of commitment but it's personally something I am glad is being championed.

I think it is often forgotten by people that Rayner has a brief, in addition to being deputy leader. She has a portfolio for Future of Work and she and her team are developing some really good policies. I think they will resonate with voters.

[Ozyhibby]

Her excuse is a donor specifically wanted to pay for flights which I reckon is rubbish. Although if a donor wants to be paying 4-8k for something they usually want something in return.

Labour can't crow about bungs and second jobs when they are as bad. She was mocking rishi at PMQs for using his own money to buy a helicopter flight, if you can't see that makes her a hypocrite then your red rosette is covering your eyes.

Why did she tweet a doctored photo implying she was in economy then delete it completely
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1660629189186187264

So is it a secret who paid for it? Is this ‘dark money’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

So is it a secret who paid for it? Is this ‘dark money’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They will have been calling round donors last night asking if one is willing to write a cheque for 4k, it'll all come out when the police are in her garden.

The thing is it isn't even about the money or the flight. It is the hypocrisy plus doctoring a photo to make it look like you fly economy

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/24/labour-to-restore-whip-to-neil-coyle-after-suspension-over-drunken-abuse

Surely this guy shouldn't be allowed back in the party? Two complaints upheld, one involving racism and the other sexual harassment and he's back in?

Any other line of work and he'd gone.

It will be very interesting to see what happens to Diane Abbott now. I can't see how she can be anything other than reinstated after this. But we'll see.

I don’t know a huge amount about Coyle but I think the reporting that’s out there is inaccurate. I think it is unintentional, or at worst lazy journalism, no more than that though,

Coyle and Abbott were not expelled from the party, they lost the Labour whip.

For Coyle it was in relation to drunken, racist slurs in a House of Commons bar, I think around fifteen months ago. Completely unacceptable.

He admitted to having a massive drink problem - I think he was quoted as saying he was downing 15-20 pints of Stella a night, night after night, plus maybe shorts etc. He sought and undergoes counselling and stopped drinking. It doesn’t make up for what he said but at least it is a positive response to his personal demons coming out into the open.

The sexual harassment complaint dates back to 2019. I have no idea why it has taken so long to resolve, but it appears it has now. That was managed through the party’s own process. I don’t know anything more than that, other than what is reported widely as being the comment made by Coyle that led to the complaint. Again, no excuse whatsoever for harassment at any time or in any place.

As for Abbott, she was threatened with losing the whip before, over the NATO letter. She backed off then. This time, I don’t know - I think maybe a lot of people feel the Observer letter was written equally by the bottle and the pen. What doesn’t help is that her original story very quickly unravelled and made it look like she was lying.

[Stairway 2 7]

Surely no one would defend the racist *******. Having a drink problem is zero excuse he's only bringing it out to defend his sick remarks.

"In a statement published last year by Insider, Dyer, who is from a British Chinese background, said Coyle referred to China as “Fu Manchu” and told him he looked like he was involved in giving money to the Labour MP Barry Gardiner, who received large sums from a woman who later was accused of being a Chinese agent"

That isn't drunking ramblings that is thought out racism. He should have been prosecuted and as its been said he'd have been sacked from any other job

[grunt]

This is the Tories' attack on overseas students and removing their right to bring dependants.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-remove-right-some-overseas-students-bring-dependants-2023-05-23/

This move supported today by Labour. :confused:

Tell me what the difference is between Labour and Tory immigration policy?

[Mibbes Aye]

This is the Tories attack on overseas students and removing their right to bring dependants.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-remove-right-some-overseas-students-bring-dependants-2023-05-23/

This move supported today by Labour. :confused:

Tell me what the difference is between Labour and Tory immigration policy?

Is it that Labour are going to stop unscrupulous employers from hiring foreign workers and paying them 20% less than the going rate?

That was announced yesterday :agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

Surely no one would defend the racist *******. Having a drink problem is zero excuse he's only bringing it out to defend his sick remarks.

"In a statement published last year by Insider, Dyer, who is from a British Chinese background, said Coyle referred to China as “Fu Manchu” and told him he looked like he was involved in giving money to the Labour MP Barry Gardiner, who received large sums from a woman who later was accused of being a Chinese agent"

That isn't drunking ramblings that is thought out racism. He should have been prosecuted and as its been said he'd have been sacked from any other job

How can you wield two shovels and still type? :greengrin

I dont think anyone on here or anywhere is defending Coyle, you just made that up. Unless you are referring to the Independent Experts Panel, which has responsibility for such issues within the Westminster estate and which found a “very marked abuse of alcohol was at the root of events”. Still, they are just independent and experts and all.

Racism is inexcusable, completely. But if you want to talk about prosecuting him then I think you are looking for the CPS thread, not the Labour one :wink:

[grunt]

Is it that Labour are going to stop unscrupulous employers from hiring foreign workers and paying them 20% less than the going rate? That was announced yesterday :agree:
Do you agree that mature students from overseas attending UK universities will no longer be able to bring their spouses? That seems to be what Labour agreed to today.

[Stairway 2 7]

How can you wield two shovels and still type? :greengrin

I dont think anyone on here or anywhere is defending Coyle, you just made that up. Unless you are referring to the Independent Experts Panel, which has responsibility for such issues within the Westminster estate and which found a “very marked abuse of alcohol was at the root of events”. Still, they are just independent and experts and all.

Racism is inexcusable, completely. But if you want to talk about prosecuting him then I think you are looking for the CPS thread, not the Labour one :wink:

Starmer could come in your house smash you and then crap in your tea pot and you'd would defend it. Defending is the wrong word making excuses is better. Alcohol might be the route of him shouting it but no court in the land would let you use that is sn excuse. How many people have been prosecuted for being racist when drunk Google will show you dozens

Mum given police caution and sacked for calling a bouncer a black man when drunk
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-given-police-caution-sacked-28914932.amp

It's a disgrace Labour hasn't sacked him for being a racist, I'm sure you'll agree

[Mibbes Aye]

Do you agree that mature students from overseas attending UK universities will no longer be able to bring their spouses? That seems to be what Labour agreed to today.

I don’t agree, I think you’ve got it wrong. If I’m mistaken then I’m happy to apologise, I’m not trying to pointscore.

I think if you go into the detail, it is meant to apply to undergrads (generally not mature students) and there is scope for special circumstances. For postgrads doing research degrees, which is what we really want, they are still able to bring dependants.

I think the aim is to tighten up on a genuine problem, which is people using the student visa route, just then to drop out of education and into work.

There is also a question mark over why the number of successful applications has shot up. Four years ago, the total number of dependant student visas was 6% of the number of student visas. Last year, it had gone up to 28%.

[Mibbes Aye]

Starmer could come in your house smash you and then crap in your tea pot and you'd would defend it. Defending is the wrong word making excuses is better. Alcohol might be the route of him shouting it but no court in the land would let you use that is sn excuse. How many people have been prosecuted for being racist when drunk Google will show you dozens

Mum given police caution and sacked for calling a bouncer a black man when drunk
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-given-police-caution-sacked-28914932.amp

It's a disgrace Labour hasn't sacked him for being a racist, I'm sure you'll agree

You lost me at tea pot :greengrin

[grunt]

I think the aim is to tighten up on a genuine problem, which is people using the student visa route, just then to drop out of education and into work.
You appear to be repeating an IEA / Tufton St. lie. I'm sure you didn't intend to. Here's what an expert said:

https://twitter.com/saucepieces/status/1660986465990463489?s=20

[Just Alf]

You lost me at tea pot :greengrinThe tea pot is worrying me... :-)

[Mibbes Aye]

You appear to be repeating an IEA / Tufton St. lie. I'm sure you didn't intend to. Here's what an expert said:

https://twitter.com/saucepieces/status/1660986465990463489?s=20

I never said anything about students staying on after their studies??? So you are absolutely correct, I didn’t intend to repeat a lie - but mostly because I didn’t.

What I will say is that one of the most senior figures in Labour, in some respects more important than Starmer, makes a set-piece speech with a policy paper to back it up. Some posters seem interested in engaging with that, others well it is the same old story sadly.

[Mibbes Aye]

The tea pot is worrying me... :-)

And me. It’s Le Creuset! I would have cut a 2l plastic bottle in half if I had known this was on the cards:

[Ozyhibby]

I never said anything about students staying on after their studies??? So you are absolutely correct, I didn’t intend to repeat a lie - but mostly because I didn’t.

What I will say is that one of the most senior figures in Labour, in some respects more important than Starmer, makes a set-piece speech with a policy paper to back it up. Some posters seem interested in engaging with that, others well it is the same old story sadly.

Too late for me to engage, got side tracked by the amazing bbq weather and a 6 pack of moretti.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Too late for me to engage, got side tracked by the amazing bbq weather and a 6 pack of moretti.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:greengrin

Wasn't a swipe at you, I'm sure you will have a glance when it best suits. I will venture out for some evening sum in the garden myself I think.

[grunt]

I think the aim is to tighten up on a genuine problem, which is people using the student visa route, just then to drop out of education and into work.


I never said anything about students staying on after their studies??? So you are absolutely correct, I didn’t intend to repeat a lie - but mostly because I didn’t.
Maybe you're speaking a different language to me.

[Mibbes Aye]

Maybe you're speaking a different language to me.

I think it's me and everyone else :confused:

[grunt]

I think it's me and everyone else :confused:No just you.

[grunt]

Can any of the Labour supporters on here please explain the Labour policy on immigration?

[Hibrandenburg]

Can any of the Labour supporters on here please explain the Labour policy on immigration?

Stephen Kinnock was on TV explaining it yesterday, it sounded much like the Tory policy in that it was designed to satisfy the average red/blue wall Gammon's need to mistrust Johnny Foreigner, with the exception that Labour refuse to name their immigration numbers quota.

[Ozyhibby]

Can any of the Labour supporters on here please explain the Labour policy on immigration?

It should be immigration is good for the country and we’d like more of it. Certainly Scotland does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

No just you.

Well this is top-level debate isn’t it :greengrin

I will try once more and keep it simple.

Completing your studies is one thing. Dropping out is not the same thing. I really can’t make it any clearer.

[Ozyhibby]

Well this is top-level debate isn’t it :greengrin

I will try once more and keep it simple.

Completing your studies is one thing. Dropping out is not the same thing. I really can’t make it any clearer.

Haven’t followed the debate but in my opinion, completion of a degree here should come with a right to stay here and pay tax here. That shouldn’t be controversial. We should welcome smart people.
And not completing your degree will mean the loss of those rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Can any of the Labour supporters on here please explain the Labour policy on immigration?

I think you are mistaking “Labour supporters on here” with “Grunt’s personal researchers”.

And I know you can’t mean me because you claim not to understand my posts :greengrin

But FWIW, the final policies for the manifesto will be formalised at autumn conference. They are still with the National Policy Forum for fleshing out and agreeing. That’s just typical party process.

Starmer previewed some of the broader thinking in his CBI speech last November.

[Mibbes Aye]

Haven’t followed the debate but in my opinion, completion of a degree here should come with a right to stay here and pay tax here. That shouldn’t be controversial. We should welcome smart people.
And not completing your degree will mean the loss of those rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hear what you are saying, and my general instincts are very much disposed to a ‘contributory society’.

In this particular case the poster was criticising Labour for agreeing with the Tories on enforcing tighter regulations on student visas. He is wrong. Labour were calling for that for ages and with very good reason.

[grunt]

Completing your studies is one thing. Dropping out is not the same thing. I really can’t make it any clearer.
So your use of the two words "drop out" was intended to imply dropping out during the course, as opposed to "drop out of education into work" which I took to mean taking a job after completion of the studies. And you think you "can't make it any clearer"?

I think that what you said was open to interpretation, but you'd rather insult me than admit it.

[grunt]

In this particular case the poster was criticising Labour for agreeing with the Tories on enforcing tighter regulations on student visas. He is wrong. Labour were calling for that for ages and with very good reason.
"The poster" here. Can you please help me to understand what the very good reason is for enforcing tighter regulations on student visas? Because unless I can discover this very good reason, it just seems to me that Starmer is simply seeking the Tory racist xenophobe vote.

[Hibbyradge]

So your use of the two words "drop out" was intended to imply dropping out during the course, as opposed to "drop out of education into work" which I took to mean taking a job after completion of the studies. And you think you "can't make it any clearer"?

I think that what you said was open to interpretation, but you'd rather insult me than admit it.

I've thought better of it...

[grunt]

Starmer previewed some of the broader thinking in his CBI speech last November.
Thank you, I understood that. Looking at the speech, it seems that Starmer was offering two different viewpoints:

Cake: (immigration is bad)


But our common goal must be to help the British economy off its immigration dependency to start investing more in training workers who are already here.

Eating the cake: (immigration is not always bad)


We won’t ignore the need for workers to come to this country. We can’t have a situation, as we did with HGV drivers, where temporary shortages threaten to cripple entire sectors of our economy.

Migration is part of our national story – always has been, always will be and the Labour Party will never diminish the contribution it makes to our economy, to public services, to your businesses and our communities.

So having read the speech, I still have no idea what his policy is on immigration. But it sounds a lot like the Conservative policy.

[Ozyhibby]

Khan today compared Sunak with a supply teacher. Nice bit of political commentary that would have been better if Starmer had made it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

So your use of the two words "drop out" was intended to imply dropping out during the course, as opposed to "drop out of education into work" which I took to mean taking a job after completion of the studies. And you think you "can't make it any clearer"?

I think that what you said was open to interpretation, but you'd rather insult me than admit it.

I don’t think it is polite or in keeping with the forum rules to question if you are at it, or stupid, or both - so I won’t.

All I will say is that pretty much the whole world hears the expression “university drop-out” and thinks it means someone who leaves without finishing their studies, often barely starting in fact.

Apart from you it appears.

[Mibbes Aye]

"The poster" here. Can you please help me to understand what the very good reason is for enforcing tighter regulations on student visas? Because unless I can discover this very good reason, it just seems to me that Starmer is simply seeking the Tory racist xenophobe vote.

Because student visas have become increasingly used as a route for trafficking people in as illegal workers. I’ve done my best to keep it simple for you.

[Mibbes Aye]

Khan today compared Sunak with a supply teacher. Nice bit of political commentary that would have been better if Starmer had made it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s a bit of a low-rent post for you Ozy. Can’t touch Labour on policy so you’re left with that 😂

[Ozyhibby]

I don’t think it is polite or in keeping with the forum rules to question if you are at it, or stupid, or both - so I won’t.

All I will say is that pretty much the whole world hears the expression “university drop-out” and thinks it means someone who leaves without finishing their studies, often barely starting in fact.

Apart from you it appears.

And as a pair of university drop outs, we both should know. [emoji6][emoji23]
I agree with you that you residency here should absolutely depend on completing an accredited degree level course.
There is plenty to disagree with Labour on but I don’t see much in this. My problem with Labour is the centralisation instinct they have in retaining power in London. I would have those same problems if I was from Sheffield or Newcastle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

And as a pair of university drop outs, we both should know. [emoji6][emoji23]
I agree with you that you residency here should absolutely depend on completing an accredited degree level course.
There is plenty to disagree with Labour on but I don’t see much in this. My problem with Labour is the centralisation instinct they have in retaining power in London. I would have those same problems if I was from Sheffield or Newcastle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whoa there, I dropped out twice before I found my calling. That’s expertise 😂

[Ozyhibby]

Whoa there, I dropped out twice before I found my calling. That’s expertise [emoji23]

[emoji23] True and you did go to a more prestigious institution than myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

And as a pair of university drop outs, we both should know. [emoji6][emoji23]
I agree with you that you residency here should absolutely depend on completing an accredited degree level course.
There is plenty to disagree with Labour on but I don’t see much in this. My problem with Labour is the centralisation instinct they have in retaining power in London. I would have those same problems if I was from Sheffield or Newcastle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You will be heartened that Rachel Reeves was so critical of the whole focus on small parts of the country like London. She is saying clearly that things need to be better, the economy needs restructured to allow for more intelligent state intevention and no region left behind.

I feel like I'm knocking at an open door here Ozy. Get on board the Labour Love Train with Keir and Ange!

Remember, you don't need no ticket, but please don't miss this train at the station
Cause if you miss it, I feel sorry, sorry for you! :greengrin




https://youtu.be/_BlkTSKqE_8

[marinello59]

While the front pages were full of Boris and Suella, the next story down was perhaps more relevant for all our futures, not just the Labour Party's.

Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, delivered a major policy speech in the US, while there forging links with the Democrats. The speech sets out Labour's policy on the economy and on business. Lots in there but the focus for me was the need to move on from the instability and insecurity we have had since the 2008 global crisis. The Tories have provided no answers in 13 years, they have made things worse. And a lot of that is because they can't articulate a positive and plausible vision for the future.

There were two particular takeaways from Reeves' speech and her paper. Reeves very clearly describes a real and critical need for the state to drive economic security and growth. In that respect the speech and policy are more FDR 1932 than Gordon Brown 1997, though I dont think GB would disagree with the scale of its ambition. The other big takeaway for me is that for too long the exonomic orthodoxy has been that growth is derived from only certain parts of the country (whether London and the South-East in UK terms, or the Central Belt in Scottish terms), Reeves' approach speaks to the whole nation, those areas written off or less-resourced

Ozyhibby, you will love it. Rachel Reeves also asks the very question you often do about why we don't manufacture anymore. Again, the mission is to create that productive capacity to make, do and sell more, with the state taking a more strategic and interventionist approach to support SMEs in particular.

This link takes you to the intro - from there you can open the policy in full.

https://labourtogether.uk/report/new-business-model-britain


This is encouraging stuff, a return to grown up politics and the start of fleshing out what Labour will stand for at the next election. You don’t have to agree with it all to see that Labour are starting to show what they will do differently. I look forward to similar serious proposals coming out from the other major parties as we get closer to the General Election. There is no rush though, they have a while yet to get their proposals and message out there. Time for the endless blame games to end and our politicians… all of them… to treat us as adults and show us how they intend to take the UK forwards.

[grunt]

Because student visas have become increasingly used as a route for trafficking people in as illegal workers. I’ve done my best to keep it simple for you.
What evidence do you have of this? Here's Madeleine Sumption seemingly disproving your claims.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1660997678245855232?s=20

[grunt]

I don’t think it is polite or in keeping with the forum rules to question if you are at it, or stupid, or both - so I won’t.

All I will say is that pretty much the whole world hears the expression “university drop-out” and thinks it means someone who leaves without finishing their studies, often barely starting in fact.

Apart from you it appears.
You really are a very condescending poster aren't you? Because I didn't go to University that means it's ok to **** on me? You didn't use the phrase "university drop out" you said "drop out of education and into work", which seems entirely normal to me. But presumably your higher education means that you interpret words differently to us lesser mortals?

[Hibbyradge]

You really are a very condescending poster aren't you? Because I didn't go to University that means it's ok to **** on me? You didn't use the phrase "university drop out" you said "drop out of education and into work", which seems entirely normal to me. But presumably your higher education means that you interpret words differently to us lesser mortals?

"Drop out" means "don't complete".

[Mibbes Aye]

You really are a very condescending poster aren't you? Because I didn't go to University that means it's ok to **** on me? You didn't use the phrase "university drop out" you said "drop out of education and into work", which seems entirely normal to me. But presumably your higher education means that you interpret words differently to us lesser mortals?

Have a word with yourself. It matters not a jot to me whether you went to university or not, and it certainly doesn't make you a better or worse person either way.

But you have repeatedly pushed this point that I was somehow misleading when I talked about 'dropping out' or 'drop out'. That's utter nonsense. If you can't deal with being in the wrong then that's your issue but its got abolutely nothing to do with whether you went to university and everything to do with your attitude.

[Mibbes Aye]

What evidence do you have of this? Here's Madeleine Sumption seemingly disproving your claims.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1660997678245855232?s=20
.
In your link, Sumption is asked about people who completed their studies. :brickwall This isn't about people who completed their studies!

There is genuine concern that traffickers use the student and student dependant visa system to bring people to the UK who are then exploited.

The University of Nottingham's Rights Lab is seen as one of, if not the best of, the world's research platforms on modern slavery. They were warning about the dangers and the exploitation for ages, based on what they found. They publicly called on UK universities to take this issue as seriously as possible, last year. Try doing some research.

Rights Lab's work, involving many academics and researchers, is reinforced by the work of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, who were saying similar last year, loudly and clealy. The Observatory is again chock-full of academics and researchers. It is valued as being authoritative and independent, almost like an IFS but for immigration. Interestingly, you mentioned Sumption, who is very active within the department.

You can Google the details yourself, you don't need spoon-fed. The important thing is that we have the voices of many independent researchers and academics with genuine expertise, coming from evidence-based positions, saying this is a problem.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This is encouraging stuff, a return to grown up politics and the start of fleshing out what Labour will stand for at the next election.

Sorry, I don't agree. The few things that have came from Labour under Starmer that have actually sounded decent have been backtracked on, while they've doubled down on things that should have alarm bells ringing.

This so called "grown up politics" is really just more of the same thing we've seen under the Conservatives. Their idea of "grown up politics" is big business and a filter down economic model that simply doesn't work (and isn't intended to either).

[grunt]

"Securonomics". FFS. Gibberish from start to finish.

https://twitter.com/RevBluesSusie/status/1662759494911160321?s=20

[grunt]

Rights Lab's work, involving many academics and researchers, is reinforced by the work of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, who were saying similar last year, loudly and clealy. The Observatory is again chock-full of academics and researchers. It is valued as being authoritative and independent, almost like an IFS but for immigration. Interestingly, you mentioned Sumption, who is very active within the department.
You'd think if it was such a huge problem Sumption would have mentioned it when she had the chance on national TV.

[grunt]

Have a word with yourself. It matters not a jot to me whether you went to university or not, and it certainly doesn't make you a better or worse person either way.

But you have repeatedly pushed this point that I was somehow misleading when I talked about 'dropping out' or 'drop out'. That's utter nonsense. If you can't deal with being in the wrong then that's your issue but it's got abolutely nothing to do with whether you went to university and everything to do with your attitude.My attitude? :faf:

[Ozyhibby]

https://nation.cymru/news/first-minister-warns-uk-could-break-apart-unless-it-is-rebuilt-as-a-solidarity-union/

Labour would do well to listen to Drakeford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1663197914456260609?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Has Starmer ambushed Sarwar?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1663197914456260609?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Has Starmer ambushed Sarwar?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feeding off Tory scraps my friend? :greengrin

Offshore oil and gas is reserved. Sarwar was against Cambo and makes the case all the time for a transition that doesn’t hang the workers out to dry.

Personally I would love it if all parties went a step further. Words won’t fix the climate emergency - hot air is exactly the problem!

[Ozyhibby]

Feeding off Tory scraps my friend? :greengrin

Offshore oil and gas is reserved. Sarwar was against Cambo and makes the case all the time for a transition that doesn’t hang the workers out to dry.

Personally I would love it if all parties went a step further. Words won’t fix the climate emergency - hot air is exactly the problem!

Everyone is against oil and gas until it comes to naming exact dates and putting plans into action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://nation.cymru/news/first-minister-warns-uk-could-break-apart-unless-it-is-rebuilt-as-a-solidarity-union/

Labour would do well to listen to Drakeford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drakeford has a good few views similar to mine although we diverge on some things. In fairness, I think a Welsh-born perspective will be different to mine (which may be what he is suggesting anyway). The relationship between individual and state, and how that links to ideas of nationality or nationhood is something that should always be contested. I’m not sure Drakeford isn’t being too simplistic, or bound to convention.

That’s why I’m not convinced of the heft or breadth of his thinking. I don’t always agree with Brown’s analysis but he comes with a richness of intellect that still tramples over most of today’s crop.

[Mibbes Aye]

Everyone is against oil and gas until it comes to naming exact dates and putting plans into action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Although I’m naturally cautious of those who pretend significant change is simple, or dumb it down. That’s how we end up with the likes of Trump, BoJo, Brexit and all the rest.

[cabbageandribs1875]

some still can't quite see it, yet :agree: desperately trying to out-Tory the Tories

(1) The New Statesman on Twitter: ""Starmer is cautiously ending the liberal progressive politics that has dominated the Labour Party for three decades." https://t.co/QD5WhUoj06" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1662174161689559041?t=cneB84uHGlFRwrKXPbg7GQ&s=19&fbclid=IwAR2nr_rtKCyeYPGy_tRBH73day5huIJokblcRsGqU BMlelXIB4wt3UzBKrs)



Starmer and Streeting will finally destroy the NHS :agree: then some labour voters will scratch their heids proclaiming, eh, how did we let that happen

(1) EveryDoctor on Twitter: "Wes Streeting's financial links to the private healthcare sector since the last General Election wouldn't fit into one screenshot�� So we've popped them all below�� If this concerns you, please RT this thread�� https://t.co/YeC6t8Zz6Y" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/EveryDoctorUK/status/1663547526417620993)

[Mibbes Aye]

some still can't quite see it, yet :agree: desperately trying to out-Tory the Tories

(1) The New Statesman on Twitter: ""Starmer is cautiously ending the liberal progressive politics that has dominated the Labour Party for three decades." https://t.co/QD5WhUoj06" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1662174161689559041?t=cneB84uHGlFRwrKXPbg7GQ&s=19&fbclid=IwAR2nr_rtKCyeYPGy_tRBH73day5huIJokblcRsGqU BMlelXIB4wt3UzBKrs)



Starmer and Streeting will finally destroy the NHS :agree: then some labour voters will scratch their heids proclaiming, eh, how did we let that happen

(1) EveryDoctor on Twitter: "Wes Streeting's financial links to the private healthcare sector since the last General Election wouldn't fit into one screenshot�� So we've popped them all below�� If this concerns you, please RT this thread�� https://t.co/YeC6t8Zz6Y" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/EveryDoctorUK/status/1663547526417620993)

There's only one party that is equipped and motivated to fix the health system. And it has always been Labour. That's why the public as a whole has consistently polled as trusting them more than any others. I don't think people are stupid - unlike what your first line suggests.

Your first link is a guy who is self-styled 'Blue Labour'. They cite Frank Field as their inspiration and many are a bit anti-immigrant. The fact he is claiming the politics of New Labour and the politics of Corbyn as the same is quite a challenging position to argue

Your second link is to EveryDoctor, who have quite a lot to say for themselves but not very much about themselves. Like how much work they actually do in NHS hospitals (I think the answer is 'not that much').

[Ozyhibby]

There's only one party that is equipped and motivated to fix the health system. And it has always been Labour. That's why the public as a whole has consistently polled as trusting them more than any others. I don't think people are stupid - unlike what your first line suggests.

Your first link is a guy who is self-styled 'Blue Labour'. They cite Frank Field as their inspiration and many are a bit anti-immigrant. The fact he is claiming the politics of New Labour and the politics of Corbyn as the same is quite a challenging position to argue

Your second link is to EveryDoctor, who have quite a lot to say for themselves but not very much about themselves. Like how much work they actually do in NHS hospitals (I think the answer is 'not that much').

Shame they are hardly ever in power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Shame they are hardly ever in power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. But in bang-for-buck terms, when they are in, they deliver.

[grunt]

Sir Keir Farage. "Nicking our dinner money". Pathetic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxZzpVdXgAE4h3D?format=png&name=small

[Ozyhibby]

Sir Keir Farage. "Nicking our dinner money". Pathetic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxZzpVdXgAE4h3D?format=png&name=small

That’s the kind of cakeism chat we have had for years now. We are going to get an amazing deal without signing up to any of the responsibilities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Sir Keir Farage. "Nicking our dinner money". Pathetic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxZzpVdXgAE4h3D?format=png&name=small

This stuff is mental imo.

We know he's not an idiot, and understands the damage from Brexit. But he's going in full throttle on the Brexiter rhetoric, at the same time as wider public opinion is clearly shifting to seeing the damage it's doing.

I quite like some people in the Labour Party right now like Rayner, but Starmer is top boss and so much of what he says is speaking to a very narrow group of the English electorate.

As a left wing Scottish voter I've seen very little to cheer.

[Hibbyradge]

That’s the kind of cakeism chat we have had for years now. We are going to get an amazing deal without signing up to any of the responsibilities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not what he said, though.

[Ozyhibby]

That's not what he said, though.

It’s exactly what he said. We are going to get SM and CU access without joining. Interesting. Will be some magic trick that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

It’s exactly what he said. We are going to get SM and CU access without joining. Interesting. Will be some magic trick that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He doesn't say that.

He says we won't be in the CU or SM but the deal we have is a poor one.

[Stairway 2 7]

He doesn't say that.

He says we won't be in the CU or SM but the deal we have is a poor one.

When are people including the erse Starmer going to realise there isn't a good deal without CU or SM, why the **** would there be.

It's like Boris and his we'll go and tell the massive EU that we want X and Y without Z. Starmer needs to grow a pair. Brexit is crippling us ,rejoin fully before more damage is done

[neil7908]

He doesn't say that.

He says we won't be in the CU or SM but the deal we have is a poor one.

Ozy is right though - it's cakeism. We don't want to join the SM again but we want some unnamed benefit that the current deal doesn't have. He never spells out of course exactly what magic improvements he will make.

Another politician who is desperate to talk about deals with the EU whilst taking the bizarre stance that the ultimate 'deal' (I.e. Full membership) is anathema.

So basically as Ozy says, all the good bits of the EU, but none of bad bits (which I'm still not clear on what's Starmer thinks they are).

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000615163951

The Newsagents podcast on Starmers cakeism and Reeves trip to America. Good listen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

https://nation.cymru/news/first-minister-warns-uk-could-break-apart-unless-it-is-rebuilt-as-a-solidarity-union/

Labour would do well to listen to Drakeford.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe man's a socialist, it'll never catch on because, sadly it won't win a UK election.

He deserves respect though.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65774184

[grunt]

Labour MPs. Simply the best.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fxht5qGXgAEzhqM?format=png&name=small

[Ozyhibby]

Labour MPs. Simply the best.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fxht5qGXgAEzhqM?format=png&name=small

I hate when these stories become party political. Berwick Hibby is usually the one to post these stories but I guess it’s the wrong party for him. The only way this becomes party political for me is if there was a cover up.
Anyone found to be doing this sort of stuff should be sacked no matter what party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

I hate when these stories become party political. Berwick Hibby is usually the one to post these stories but I guess it’s the wrong party for him. The only way this becomes party political for me is if there was a cover up.
Anyone found to be doing this sort of stuff should be sacked no matter what party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.

It would be like a Hibs supporter being charged with a crime and someone saying, "Hibs supporters, simply the best".

[grunt]

It would be like a Hibs supporter being charged with a crime and someone saying, "Hibs supporters, simply the best".
I was simply trying to demonstrate that the Labour Party, heralded by some on this very thread as being the only party who can save the country, has its own share of problematic members. Sadly we've seen in recent years that our elected representatives are often just as flawed as many that they represent.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/marcogbiagi/status/1664231724421730306?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Seems expensive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxZzpVdXgAE4h3D?format=png&name=small

:tumble:

[neil7908]

I hate when these stories become party political. Berwick Hibby is usually the one to post these stories but I guess it’s the wrong party for him. The only way this becomes party political for me is if there was a cover up.
Anyone found to be doing this sort of stuff should be sacked no matter what party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. Sadly guys like this are in every party, large organisation etc.

All I would say here is that this seems to have been an open secret in the Labour Party, with numerous sources saying his behaviour was well known. So not a cover up but feels like an individual that should have been stopped some time ago, with a more robust process to make those impacted less concerned about speaking up.

Again though, the above could sadly apply to many, many organisations.

[Ozyhibby]

Yup. Sadly guys like this are in every party, large organisation etc.

All I would say here is that this seems to have been an open secret in the Labour Party, with numerous sources saying his behaviour was well known. So not a cover up but feels like an individual that should have been stopped some time ago, with a more robust process to make those impacted less concerned about speaking up.

Again though, the above could sadly apply to many, many organisations.

Yip. This is all about who knew what and when. The mp himself is finished. Does he take any down with him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Yup. Sadly guys like this are in every party, large organisation etc.

All I would say here is that this seems to have been an open secret in the Labour Party, with numerous sources saying his behaviour was well known. So not a cover up but feels like an individual that should have been stopped some time ago, with a more robust process to make those impacted less concerned about speaking up.

Again though, the above could sadly apply to many, many organisations.

I take your point but there were no complaints so there was little the party could do.

[Ozyhibby]

I take your point but there were no complaints so there was little the party could do.

Depends if anyone was discouraged from complaining. These things are never clear cut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I hate when these stories become party political. Berwick Hibby is usually the one to post these stories but I guess it’s the wrong party for him.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, you hate it when it becomes party political :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Yeah, you hate it when it becomes party political :greengrin

Oh I love a bit of knockabout politics but what I don’t see as this being an indication that the Labour Party are all a bunch of sex pests. Just thought I’d say it when it’s not a member of my party involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

they're starting to notice down south now, vote Labour get Tories, they're one and the same :agree:



Labour are doing power sharing deals WITH the Tories! - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MYDp_L0cbw)

[grunt]

#BBCQT tonight. This is the consequence of Starmer's views about brexit. The question is about what is wrong with the economy and when will we feel better off? Jess Philips has to sit there mute, not daring to mention the elephant in the room, the negative impact of brexit. Labour's cowardice on brexit is appalling.

[Bristolhibby]

#BBCQT tonight. This is the consequence of Starmer's views about brexit. The question is about what is wrong with the economy and when will we feel better off? Jess Philips has to sit there mute, not daring to mention the elephant in the room, the negative impact of brexit. Labour's cowardice on brexit is appalling.

They are quiet for a reason. Power.

Keep quiet about BREXIT let the Tories tank the economy and get into Number 10.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

#BBCQT tonight. This is the consequence of Starmer's views about brexit. The question is about what is wrong with the economy and when will we feel better off? Jess Philips has to sit there mute, not daring to mention the elephant in the room, the negative impact of brexit. Labour's cowardice on brexit is appalling.

I watched it and saw nothing of the sort - she was asked by Bruce when people could expect to feel better if Labour got into power and she answered that.

What 'cowardice' are you talking about, incidentally?

[Stairway 2 7]

I watched it and saw nothing of the sort - she was asked by Bruce when people could expect to feel better if Labour got into power and she answered that.

What 'cowardice' are you talking about, incidentally?

Cowardice is the fact that they know immigration is good for your country, any and all immigration. But due to gettin in power, they go with vile pish about small boats and say there won't be free movement in Europe. We can't live and work in Europe and vice versa because a bunch of bigots. The same goes for customs union and free trade, labour's position is an embarrassment. Every part of Brexit is hurting us I'm sure they know it but won't rip it all up even after getting in apparently.

[grunt]

What 'cowardice' are you talking about, incidentally?


Cowardice is the fact that they know immigration is good for your country, any and all immigration. But due to gettin in power, they go with vile pish about small boats and say there won't be free movement in Europe. We can't live and work in Europe and vice versa because a bunch of bigots. The same goes for customs union and free trade, labour's position is an embarrassment. Every part of Brexit is hurting us I'm sure they know it but won't rip it all up even after getting in apparently.
As S27 said. Labour must know - I'm sure they do, they're not daft - that Brexit is bad for the country. But they display cowardice in refusing to publicly acknowledge that fact.

[Ozyhibby]

As S27 said. Labour must know - I'm sure they do, they're not daft - that Brexit is bad for the country. But they display cowardice in refusing to publicly acknowledge that fact.

Was there ever a time when Labour really was against Brexit? Certainly didn’t feel like it with Corbyn? And it’s been even more pro brexit under Starmer.
I think people just have to accept this is something that Labour like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Was there ever a time when Labour really was against Brexit? Certainly didn’t feel like it with Corbyn? And it’s been even more pro brexit under Starmer.
I think people just have to accept this is something that Labour like.
If you're correct, this rather torpedoes my thinking that Labour is a sensible political party! :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Was there ever a time when Labour really was against Brexit? Certainly didn’t feel like it with Corbyn? And it’s been even more pro brexit under Starmer.
I think people just have to accept this is something that Labour like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Labour was against Brexit. Unfortunately, the leader wasn't.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/humzayousaf/status/1664551176442900481?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

It’s a very fair point. Well done to Drakeford for speaking out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Labour was against Brexit. Unfortunately, the leader wasn't.

Leaders are kind of important when projecting the parties wishes are they not? Labour couldn’t have been that fussed about it if they chose Corbyn to lead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

As S27 said. Labour must know - I'm sure they do, they're not daft - that Brexit is bad for the country. But they display cowardice in refusing to publicly acknowledge that fact.

Starmer has talked countless times about how the Brexit deal has been abysmal for this country - you've even quoted him! I'm used to you reading other people's posts the wrong way but reading your own the wrong way must be a first!

[Mibbes Aye]

Was there ever a time when Labour really was against Brexit? Certainly didn’t feel like it with Corbyn? And it’s been even more pro brexit under Starmer.
I think people just have to accept this is something that Labour like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't the time for a history leasson but some in the Labour movement have had problems with European unification since the project was born. That's because some on the left saw it as a means of oppressing the workers. I don't agree with that analysis and it is outdated but I understand it. In the same way that I understand many genuine Scottish Nationalists would be anti-EU. I don't agree with their analysis either.

Corbyn very much anti-EEC/EU and he took truculence and petulance to whole new levels in having to sullenly endorse Remain, far too late and far too ineffectually..

Starmer isn't pro-Brezit, he woted against it. Every element of his persona (remember most of his adult life has been as a human rights lawyer and a senior prosecutor, not as a politician) is pro-EU. But by the time he took office it had already happened.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://twitter.com/humzayousaf/status/1664551176442900481?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

It’s a very fair point. Well done to Drakeford for speaking out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have to confess, I have a vision of Humza bashing out his tweet on a Fisher Price tablet, before donning kneepads, elbow pads and helmet to get taken for a big ride on the four-wheel scooter!

Should he not be sorting out Scotland's massive child poverty figures, or massive drug death figures, or massive waiting times in A+E or for treatment?

[Mibbes Aye]

Leaders are kind of important when projecting the parties wishes are they not? Labour couldn’t have been that fussed about it if they chose Corbyn to lead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Possibly.

Would that explain why the SNP were split even between a small-government, low-tax Tory on the one hand, and on the other, someone who AUOB describe as "reactionary" and "contemptuous"?

I think the truth with Corbyn is fairly straight forward - people thought he was something he wasn't.

[Hibrandenburg]

Starmer has talked countless times about how the Brexit deal has been abysmal for this country - you've even quoted him! I'm used to you reading other people's posts the wrong way but reading your own the wrong way must be a first!

"Brexit" and "the Brexit deal" are two completely different things. Typical Starmer being vague, you can hate the Brexit deal but still support Brexit.

[Mibbes Aye]

"Brexit" and "the Brexit deal" are two completely different things. Typical Starmer being vague, you can hate the Brexit deal but still support Brexit.

Starmer says he voted Remain in the referendum. It was a secret ballot for all of us, so we only have his word for that but no one seriously thinks he was a Leaver.

He also voted for a confirmatory public referendum, in the Commons. That was defeated.

Whatever you are suggesting sounds a bit desperate.

[Stairway 2 7]

Starmer has talked countless times about how the Brexit deal has been abysmal for this country - you've even quoted him! I'm used to you reading other people's posts the wrong way but reading your own the wrong way must be a first!

As I say your rude and boring. About one tenth as bright as you think you are in your wee new Labour jammies. He's talked about it being abysmal but he'll sort it by telling the EU he wants a better one with no customs union free movement ect ect ha ffs

[Hibrandenburg]

Starmer says he voted Remain in the referendum. It was a secret ballot for all of us, so we only have his word for that but no one seriously thinks he was a Leaver.

He also voted for a confirmatory public referendum, in the Commons. That was defeated.

Whatever you are suggesting sounds a bit desperate.

What he was and what he is now are 2 different things, he changes his mind like the weather. He obviously now supports Brexit because he thinks that's still the way the wind is blowing, but that will only last as long as his now infamous think tank consider it to be a vote winner. He's no different to Johnson in the sense that he blows with the wind rather than actually holding any principles.

Your constant adoring defence of him is actually what sounds a bit desperate, but I suppose you having nailed your flag to his mast means your defence of all things Starmer will continue. Ironically you've become that what you used to accuse SNP supports of being.

[Mibbes Aye]

As I say your rude and boring. About one tenth as bright as you think you are in your wee new Labour jammies.

:faf:

[Mibbes Aye]

What he was and what he is now are 2 different things, he changes his mind like the weather. He obviously now supports Brexit because he thinks that's still the way the wind is blowing,

He's been consistently open about voting Remain. He is on record as calling for and voting for a confirmatory referendum, to give Remain a second chance. He inherited a ****show and he has said we need to fix it as best we can.


that will only last as long as his now infamous think tank consider it to be a vote winner.

I didn't realise there was a famous thinktank let alone an infamous one. Pray tell?



Your constant adoring defence of him is actually what sounds a bit desperate, but I suppose you having nailed your flag to his mast means your defence of all things Starmer will continue. Ironically you've become that what you used to accuse SNP supports of being.

I don't adore Starmer but let's face it, if it wasn't for me you would have a constant circle-jerk going on in an echo chamber here. I'm happy for people to criticise Labour on here, done it myself, but that criticism is only worthwhile if it is fact rather than vitriol. If it is just bile and vitriol than it feels like someone should point that out - sorry to spoil your party.

The fact that you can't refute my points with facts and just resort to iname-calling and slurs tells its own story

[grunt]

Starmer has talked countless times about how the Brexit deal has been abysmal for this country - you've even quoted him! I'm used to you reading other people's posts the wrong way but reading your own the wrong way must be a first!
I've quoted him saying that he's not interested in taking the UK back into the CU, the SM or re-introducing FoM. But I'm not sure how that helps your argument. I'm a bit worried that you seem to be losing the plot.

[grunt]

He's been consistently open about voting Remain. He is on record as calling for and voting for a confirmatory referendum, to give Remain a second chance. He inherited a ****show and he has said we need to fix it as best we can.
But "fixing it as best we can" doesn't involve SM, CU or FoM? Enlighten me as to how he's going to "fix it" without any of these three things.

[grunt]

As I say your rude and boring. About one tenth as bright as you think you are in your wee new Labour jammies. He's talked about it being abysmal but he'll sort it by telling the EU he wants a better one with no customs union free movement ect ect ha ffs
:top marks

[Hibrandenburg]

He's been consistently open about voting Remain. He is on record as calling for and voting for a confirmatory referendum, to give Remain a second chance. He inherited a ****show and he has said we need to fix it as best we can.



I didn't realise there was a famous thinktank let alone an infamous one. Pray tell?




I don't adore Starmer but let's face it, if it wasn't for me you would have a constant circle-jerk going on in an echo chamber here. I'm happy for people to criticise Labour on here, done it myself, but that criticism is only worthwhile if it is fact rather than vitriol. If it is just bile and vitriol than it feels like someone should point that out - sorry to spoil your party.

The fact that you can't refute my points with facts and just resort to iname-calling and slurs tells its own story

"Britain's future is outside the EU", how much clearer does Starmer have to be for you to accept that Starmer is wooing the Brexiteers in the most sleekit manner? He refuses to criticise Brexit and instead criticises the Brexit deal, he wants to eat his cake and have it. Those are the facts, for now anyway.

Just have a look back at your own posts and maybe have a rethink about who is really throwing slurs and insults around.

[Mibbes Aye]

I've quoted him saying that he's not interested in taking the UK back into the CU, the SM or re-introducing FoM. But I'm not sure how that helps your argument. I'm a bit worried that you seem to be losing the plot.

I would like to say you're better than personal digs when you can't make an argument but I'm genuinely not sure.

How exactly would the UK go about doing what you described.

And again, if the people vote to leave a union with all that entails, should their will be respected?

[Mibbes Aye]

"Britain's future is outside the EU", how much clearer does Starmer have to be for you to accept that Starmer is wooing the Brexiteers in the most sleekit manner? He refuses to criticise Brexit and instead criticises the Brexit deal, he wants to eat his cake and have it. Those are the facts, for now anyway.

Just have a look back at your own posts and maybe have a rethink about who is really throwing slurs and insults around.

Our future is outside the EU, for a while regardless. It took the Tories nearly four years to cobble together a pathetic agreement for leaving, how long do you think it would take to agree a deal for rejoining that all the EU states are happy with?

Anyway, question for you as another poster seems incapable of answering - if the people vote to leave a union, should that vote be respected?

[Stairway 2 7]

I would like to say you're better than personal digs when you can't make an argument but I'm genuinely not sure.

How exactly would the UK go about doing what you described.

And again, if the people vote to leave a union with all that entails, should their will be respected?

Of course it shouldn't when it's clearly been proven that brexit is a financial disaster causing hurt and pain to the population. Poverty equals deaths its estimated 300k people died due to tory austerity policies. Brexit over the long run will cause a greater financial hit so its obvious it will cause thousands of deaths.

Only a clown would say well you were lied to its was a disaster but we voted for it so let's bash on with the destruction, especially as the population show in all polls they want it reversed.

Starmer knows it's causing misery and hardship to not say we will rejoin in full is shocking. Saying we want you to give us a better deal but we won't have xyz will only be believe but cultists, because everyone else sees it for how ridiculous it is

[grunt]

I would like to say you're better than personal digs when you can't make an argument but I'm genuinely not sure.I made an argument but you ignored it. As you always do. You just insult people.

How exactly would the UK go about doing what you described.Go and speak to the EU. Actually talk to them, rather than call them names in the right wing press.

And again, if the people vote to leave a union with all that entails, should their will be respected?No. Not if it can be shown that the protagonists lied to sway the vote. It was an illegal vote perpetrated by hostile foreign interests as far as I'm concerned, and I have no issue with revoking it. Nor it seems would 70% of the country right now.

[grunt]

Anyway, question for you as another poster seems incapable of answering - if the people vote to leave a union, should that vote be respected?
You allowed THREE MINUTES between posting the question and then saying I couldn't answer it. You really are very annoying.

[grunt]

To whoever it may concern, I'm no longer engaging with Mibbes Aye.

[Mibbes Aye]

You allowed THREE MINUTES between posting the question and then saying I couldn't answer it. You really are very annoying.

I'm sorry but I really didn't. I asked you that same question on another thread a few hours previously, and you never answered it. If you can't answer it then fair enough, say so. And let's move on.

[Mibbes Aye]

I made an argument but you ignored it. As you always do. You just insult people.
Go and speak to the EU. Actually talk to them, rather than call them names in the right wing press.
No. Not if it can be shown that the protagonists lied to sway the vote. It was an illegal vote perpetrated by hostile foreign interests as far as I'm concerned, and I have no issue with revoking it. Nor it seems would 70% of the country right now.

You can't revoke an advisory referendum. I think you mean revoke the legislation. For which you need a parliamentary majority.

[Hibrandenburg]

Our future is outside the EU, for a while regardless. It took the Tories nearly four years to cobble together a pathetic agreement for leaving, how long do you think it would take to agree a deal for rejoining that all the EU states are happy with?

Anyway, question for you as another poster seems incapable of answering - if the people vote to leave a union, should that vote be respected?

The vote has been respected, we've left the EU. But instead of trying to pander to a bunch of nationalist bigots by wrapping himself in flags and trying to out Tory the Tories, I'd rather he was honest and call out Brexit for that what it is, a self inflicted economic and cultural disaster. I'm guessing he'll eventually get round to that though as he swings with public opinion like the psephologist that he is, he's just another follower in a country that is screaming out for a principled leader.

[Ozyhibby]

https://nation.cymru/news/mark-drakeford-and-gordon-brown-launch-new-uk-reform-campaign/

This isn’t working but we have no solutions.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

"Brexit" and "the Brexit deal" are two completely different things. Typical Starmer being vague, you can hate the Brexit deal but still support Brexit.

But the public mood brought brexit about and the public mood has to change for them to be able to suggest reversing it.

[Ozyhibby]

But the public mood brought brexit about and the public mood has to change for them to be able to suggest reversing it.

Followers not leaders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Followers not leaders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jibes not serious debate.

You can't have it both ways - he is caricatured as a monstrous bully for taking on the hard left in the party, no following there. He has taken a bold stand on housing - a stand Sunak couldn't take because he was scared of his backbenchers, no following there. He has chosen a hard path re Brexit, no following there,

Anyone with a semblance of sense knows that change isn't 100% imposition, nor is it 100% riding on the coattails.

It is about listening and understanding the concerns of all affected, building a coalition for change, and then delivering that change.

For something as bitterly divisive as Brexit, you only have to look at the Scottish referendum to see that. Arguments aren't won by burrowing your head in the sand and sticking to a default position, it is about helping the mood for change to grow.

He inherited a shambles, but anyone who thinks he should be out there saying "Vote for me and we will be straight back into the EU" has little understanding of how the real world works.

[Mibbes Aye]

The vote has been respected, we've left the EU. But instead of trying to pander to a bunch of nationalist bigots by wrapping himself in flags and trying to out Tory the Tories, I'd rather he was honest and call out Brexit for that what it is, a self inflicted economic and cultural disaster. I'm guessing he'll eventually get round to that though as he swings with public opinion like the psephologist that he is, he's just another follower in a country that is screaming out for a principled leader.

If you really think Starmer is trying to outTory the Tories then it's difficult to debate with you.

It's Trumpian-style ridiculous rhetoric to obscure the lack of any decent points.

I wonder if your personal digs at Starmer are because you are still smarting about his refusal to work with the SNP?

[Mibbes Aye]

https://nation.cymru/news/mark-drakeford-and-gordon-brown-launch-new-uk-reform-campaign/

This isn’t working but we have no solutions.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you actually read it?

[Ozyhibby]

Jibes not serious debate.

You can't have it both ways - he is caricatured as a monstrous bully for taking on the hard left in the party, no following there. He has taken a bold stand on housing - a stand Sunak couldn't take because he was scared of his backbenchers, no following there. He has chosen a hard path re Brexit, no following there,

Anyone with a semblance of sense knows that change isn't 100% imposition, nor is it 100% riding on the coattails.

It is about listening and understanding the concerns of all affected, building a coalition for change, and then delivering that change.

For something as bitterly divisive as Brexit, you only have to look at the Scottish referendum to see that. Arguments aren't won by burrowing your head in the sand and sticking to a default position, it is about helping the mood for change to grow.

He inherited a shambles, but anyone who thinks he should be out there saying "Vote for me and we will be straight back into the EU" has little understanding of how the real world works.

I support his ideas on housing, hoping he takes it forward. Remember different people agree with different things. On Brexit, he can absolutely signal a clearer path forward. It really is hurting the way it is just now. He needs to say so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Have you actually read it?

I did. They recognise the problem but there is nothing in there about solving it. Whether it’s local government or the devolved parliaments I’m coming round to the idea that they have to be self funding to have real power. People like Brown know that and resist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I did. They recognise the problem but there is nothing in there about solving it. Whether it’s local government or the devolved parliaments I’m coming round to the idea that they have to be self funding to have real power. People like Brown know that and resist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree. Bear in mind it is a constitutional paper, so by its nature it will be more abstract - it is about creating the space for solutions that doesn't exist now.

A written constitution guaranteeing the right to free healthcare and education, the right to adequate housing?

A second, elected chamber with the power to amend, not just delay?

An anti-corruption commissioner with the legal powers to prosecute corruption in public life?

The use of citizen's juries, the Scottish Government being empowered to sign international treaties?

Local authorities having the power to initiate legislation, a legally defined and thus enforceable duty around localism?

I completely get that a lot of these will sound like abstract nouns to some people but in totality they represent a massive change in how these isles are governed and for whom.

[Mibbes Aye]

I support his ideas on housing, hoping he takes it forward. Remember different people agree with different things. On Brexit, he can absolutely signal a clearer path forward. It really is hurting the way it is just now. He needs to say so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Patience young paduwan, reveal all he will :greengrin

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Has it dawned on enough people yet that Keir Starmer was a Brexiteer all along? Obviously he was going to criticise the tory deal regardless of what that deal was, as he has to be seen to be criticising them for something. But the truth is, he wouldn't have done any better himself and he knows that should he become PM, he isn't going to be able to negotiate a better deal. He's a careerist who wants all of the benefits and perks that come with the job title. He doesn't care about the impact brexit is having on people he doesn't even know. He's made a life out of worming his way into top positions, purely out of self interest. The man is a narcissist with no real social conscience. He'll continue to play to the gallery, relying on political stats and metrics that tell him what words to say in front of the camera and how to phrase them in order to manipulate enough of the masses to get him where he wants to be. You'll never see the real Keir Starmer, he has a mask for every situation.

[Hibbyradge]

Has it dawned on enough people yet that Keir Starmer was a Brexiteer all along? Obviously he was going to criticise the tory deal regardless of what that deal was, as he has to be seen to be criticising them for something. But the truth is, he wouldn't have done any better himself and he knows that should he become PM, he isn't going to be able to negotiate a better deal. He's a careerist who wants all of the benefits and perks that come with the job title. He doesn't care about the impact brexit is having on people he doesn't even know. He's made a life out of worming his way into top positions, purely out of self interest. The man is a narcissist with no real social conscience. He'll continue to play to the gallery, relying on political stats and metrics that tell him what words to say in front of the camera and how to phrase them in order to manipulate enough of the masses to get him where he wants to be. You'll never see the real Keir Starmer, he has a mask for every situation.

:faf:

That's a complete character assassination based on fantasy and hate. Not a single fact among that ridiculous diatribe.

It's surprising that you didn't know the SWP was a Trotskyist organisation because rants like that are their bread and butter.

[marinello59]

:faf:

That's a complete character assassination based on fantasy and hate. Not a single fact among that ridiculous diatribe.

It's surprising that you didn't know the SWP was a Trotskyist organisation because rants like that are their bread and butter.

The SWP weren’t Trot enough for me. I did my ranting with the WRP. :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

The SWP weren’t Trot enough for me. I did my ranting with the WRP. :greengrin

RCP ya bass! (Pka RCT)

Or was it RCG?

F*@#"*& splitters the lot of them anyway!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The SWP weren’t Trot enough for me. I did my ranting with the WRP. :greengrin

When a party tries too hard to be everything to everybody, it ultimately ends up being nothing to nobody. Which is a real shame, as it incentivizes parties to be more polarizing instead. Leaving much of the electorate behind (which is generally the most vulnerable people in society), just as long as they get the numbers required to hold and maintain office.

[HNA12]

The personal insults etc are creeping back in again. We aren’t going to waste too much time here anymore, if it doesn’t stop we won’t just restrict access, we’ll close this part of the forum completely.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/04/labour-cannot-be-tory-lite-at-the-next-election-voters-crave-a-real-choice?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1685893917


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

"Labour mayors say party undemocratic after blocking Jamie Driscoll"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/04/blocking-jamie-driscoll-as-labours-mayoral-candidate-is-error-says-unite


Yet another character assassination of a member of their own party because he shares more socialist views.

Sadly they appear to be using the 'guilt by association' tactic, and once again manage to throw in the 'anti-semitism' phrase for good measure.


Surely we can agree, not matter our political allegiance, that this is a disgusting way to shut down opposition in your own party?

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/04/labour-cannot-be-tory-lite-at-the-next-election-voters-crave-a-real-choice?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1685893917


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good post, it summarises the whole debate well.

Three letters with little in the way of facts, just people chucking lazy and nonsensical slurs about, and a letter at the end that actually puts some facts on the table.

Of course, in this day and age, fact doesn't count anymore does it? It's all clickbait headlines and swamping social media with opionions that are unsubstantiated because they can't be substantiated.

It does make me wonder if we simply get the politics we deserve - 'we' being all of us.

If we are happy to accept the relentless dumbing-down of politcal discourse and debate, to participate in the relentless dumbing-down of political discourse and debate then why should we expect those who govern us to act in anything other than a dumbed-down manner?

[Mibbes Aye]

"Labour mayors say party undemocratic after blocking Jamie Driscoll"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/04/blocking-jamie-driscoll-as-labours-mayoral-candidate-is-error-says-unite


Yet another character assassination of a member of their own party because he shares more socialist views.

Sadly they appear to be using the 'guilt by association' tactic, and once again manage to throw in the 'anti-semitism' phrase for good measure.


Surely we can agree, not matter our political allegiance, that this is a disgusting way to shut down opposition in your own party?

I think that if you are opposed to your own party it is maybe time to question whether you are in the right party - no one forced you to be a member.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think that if you are opposed to your own party it is maybe time to question whether you are in the right party - no one forced you to be a member.

That's exactly the explanation as to why Labour lost so much support in Scotland, mine included.

[Mibbes Aye]

That's exactly the explanation as to why Labour lost so much support in Scotland, mine included.

It's not really. It's me expressing a view this evening. I don't think that influenced any decline in Labour voting numbers since the heights of 1997 or indeed before.

Only a very small proportion of Labour voters are Labour members. Labour votes in GEs in Scotland were always around a million in the New Labour days and dropped in 2015 and stayed lower since. 2015 was Miliband, before Corbyn and before Starmer.

There are a variety of reasons for why Labour's vote dropped in Scotland but I don't think any of them were based on disagreement about the longlisting of candidates by the NEC. Are you saying thats why you stopped?

[SHODAN]

I think that if you are opposed to your own party it is maybe time to question whether you are in the right party - no one forced you to be a member.

I left Labour in 2011 because they refused to budge on any vaguely left-leaning issue, still get blamed by them for every election defeat because I didn't compromise my own values enough. Can't have it both ways.

[Mibbes Aye]

I left Labour in 2011 because they refused to budge on any vaguely left-leaning issue, still get blamed by them for every election defeat because I didn't compromise my own values enough. Can't have it both ways.

Ed Miliband's stance was to the left of Gordon Brown and certainly to the left of Tony Blair. But if that wasn't 'left' enough for you then fair enough.

But who are 'them' and in what way are you being blamed? There were only two elections after Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn led the party at both. If you thought a Corbynite agenda wasn't left enough for you then I don't think anyone could have any problem with you not voting Labour. It's a free country and a secret ballot.

[Mibbes Aye]

Parties of the centre-left tend to mirror social policy, that's not unusual. On that basis it was interesting to see Australian Labour's budget last month, their second since taking office. On paper elements of it fit very comfortably with Rachel Reeves' recent speeches but there's also a strong sense of some of Gordon Brown's New Labour.

What stood out for me was a commitment to address entrenched community disadvantage with around $200million dollars as priming funding. Half of that is to be spent on social impact bonds, which first came about here during Gordon Brown's spell as PM. They are essentially a mechanism for commissioning services based on outcomes, more than outputs, or to put it another way contracts ensure services are paid on what they achieve rather than what they do. There is a degree of this already across the public sevctor but it is sporadic and inconsistent.

There is an appetite for this in the not-for-profit sector and the private sector. For the statutory sector (government, local authorities, health boards etc) the rhetoric supports it but there is a degree of risk aversion because it involves public money.

Would more of a shift in this direction work in Scotland and in the UK? Humza hasn't really defined what he means by a 'wellbeing economy' but I can see how outcome-focused commissioning and social impact investment would fit neatly in.

Link to a guide to social impact bonds

https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/the-basics/introduction-social-impact-bonds/overview-sibs-briefing-note-local-authorities/

Link to the section in the Australian budget (page 206)

https://budget.gov.au/content/bp2/download/bp2_02_receipt_payment.pdf

[Curried]

Parties of the centre-left tend to mirror social policy, that's not unusual. On that basis it was interesting to see Australian Labour's budget last month, their second since taking office. On paper elements of it fit very comfortably with Rachel Reeves' recent speeches but there's also a strong sense of some of Gordon Brown's New Labour.

What stood out for me was a commitment to address entrenched community disadvantage with around $200million dollars as priming funding. Half of that is to be spent on social impact bonds, which first came about here during Gordon Brown's spell as PM. They are essentially a mechanism for commissioning services based on outcomes, more than outputs, or to put it another way contracts ensure services are paid on what they achieve rather than what they do. There is a degree of this already across the public sevctor but it is sporadic and inconsistent.

There is an appetite for this in the not-for-profit sector and the private sector. For the statutory sector (government, local authorities, health boards etc) the rhetoric supports it but there is a degree of risk aversion because it involves public money.

Would more of a shift in this direction work in Scotland and in the UK? Humza hasn't really defined what he means by a 'wellbeing economy' but I can see how outcome-focused commissioning and social impact investment would fit neatly in.

Link to a guide to social impact bonds

https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/the-basics/introduction-social-impact-bonds/overview-sibs-briefing-note-local-authorities/

Link to the section in the Australian budget (page 206)

https://budget.gov.au/content/bp2/download/bp2_02_receipt_payment.pdf


Dearie me. Australian Labor (correct spelling) are probably further to the right of even Starmer's crew, as they've committed to pushing through Stage-3 Tax Cuts next year, that will only significantly benefit the very highest earners (ie those earning more that $200K, who will get more than a $10K break PA). All the while Albo thinks he is doing the poor a favor by giving welfare recipients a $2/day increase is support.
Remarkably, he can also find $10Bn a year for the next 30-year to pay for US cast-off subs, while homelessness is spiraling out of control due to rental inflation and a lack of investment in public housing.
Expect a massive swing to the greens at the next election, if the Stage-3 Tax cuts go through. You literally couldn't slip a cigarette paper between Australian Labor and the previous Coalition Government.

[Curried]

For those not familiar with Australian Labor’s tax commitment. Greg Jericho summarises it nicely here:

https://australiainstitute.org.au/expert/greg-jericho/ (https://australiainstitute.org.au/expert/greg-jericho/)

Crazy stuff!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

For those not familiar with Australian Labor’s tax commitment. Greg Jericho summarises it nicely here:

https://australiainstitute.org.au/expert/greg-jericho/ (https://australiainstitute.org.au/expert/greg-jericho/)

Crazy stuff!

It's not surprising how far to the right Australia has become when you see how the media operates over there. Sky News Australia makes Fox News seem socialist.

[Mibbes Aye]

Dearie me. Australian Labor (correct spelling) are probably further to the right of even Starmer's crew, as they've committed to pushing through Stage-3 Tax Cuts next year, that will only significantly benefit the very highest earners (ie those earning more that $200K, who will get more than a $10K break PA). All the while Albo thinks he is doing the poor a favor by giving welfare recipients a $2/day increase is support.
Remarkably, he can also find $10Bn a year for the next 30-year to pay for US cast-off subs, while homelessness is spiraling out of control due to rental inflation and a lack of investment in public housing.
Expect a massive swing to the greens at the next election, if the Stage-3 Tax cuts go through. You literally couldn't slip a cigarette paper between Australian Labor and the previous Coalition Government.

My take re the similarities was the investment in Medicare, especially the use of tech; the support for low-income renters, single parents, social care workers; household energy bills; and support for SMEs. That’s where I see the similarities to what is going on with UK Labour (correct spelling :greengrin) just now.

I know there are post-dated tax changes that benefit higher-income earners to come, my very detached sense is they struck a bit lucky with an unexpected surplus and are trying to cover all the bases?

Anyway, the first paragraph illustrates why I was highlighting the similarities. The seed money for tackling community disadvantage, while not huge in its own right, is what I was particularly highlighting in my post.

[Mibbes Aye]

For those not familiar with Australian Labor’s tax commitment. Greg Jericho summarises it nicely here:

https://australiainstitute.org.au/expert/greg-jericho/ (https://australiainstitute.org.au/expert/greg-jericho/)

Crazy stuff!

To an extent he confirms what I was saying - progressive budget in terms of spend, seeking to help those who really need it but first steps, for sure. There is absolutely no chance Reeves or Starmer would run with something like the Stage 3 tax cuts though.

[Keith_M]

I think that if you are opposed to your own party it is maybe time to question whether you are in the right party - no one forced you to be a member.


Sorry but that's a pretty poor response.

There are quite clearly a number of people within the Labour Party that hold on to it's traditional values and they're being sidelined and forced out.... sometimes in a pretty disgusting manner.


Don't like somebody's political view? -- Easy, make claims/suggestions of anti-semitism, no matter how unjustified.


That may be OK with you but I find it pretty disgusting, TBH.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

There are quite clearly a number of people within the Labour Party that hold on to it's traditional values and they're being sidelined and forced out.... sometimes in a pretty disgusting manner.

:agree:

It's all been going on in the background over the past few years. But there's still those who refuse to acknowledge it, even when it's pointed out to them time and time again. Either they genuinely don't see it or they do see it, but it's inconvenient for them to acknowledge it.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry but that's a pretty poor response.

There are quite clearly a number of people within the Labour Party that hold on to it's traditional values and they're being sidelined and forced out.... sometimes in a pretty disgusting manner.


Don't like somebody's political view? -- Easy, make claims/suggestions of anti-semitism, no matter how unjustified.


That may be OK with you but I find it pretty disgusting, TBH.

Yeah, you keep using the word ‘disgusting’ and use phrases like ‘character assassination’ but it’s all presented a bit one-sided, isn’t it? Like the article you linked to.

You are presenting other people’s opinions as facts and making some very sweeping statements, as per your second paragraph.

But the truth is a bit different. The truth in this case was the person wasn’t ‘forced out’, he just didn’t get through the selection process for a particular role. He has no God-given right to be placed in that role, or even in contention for it.

He also didn’t need to share a platform and a cosy one-on-one with someone who had actually been expelled from the party for IIRC anti-Semitic views. The rules of the party are pretty clear on that.

Which takes us to the nub of the matter. The NEC is carrying out its duties as laid down in the party rules. There’s no secret there, every Labour Party member has agreed to them by virtue of signing up and they are in the public domain for anyone else to have a look.

The self-pity and self-delusion of those who know fine well they are going against the party’s rules and then moan vociferously when said rules are applied to them beggars belief.

Incidentally, and just out of interest, are you a party member or just an interested observer?

[Hibrandenburg]

Sorry but that's a pretty poor response.

There are quite clearly a number of people within the Labour Party that hold on to it's traditional values and they're being sidelined and forced out.... sometimes in a pretty disgusting manner.


Don't like somebody's political view? -- Easy, make claims/suggestions of anti-semitism, no matter how unjustified.


That may be OK with you but I find it pretty disgusting, TBH.

I was thinking similar, if some inside what was the UK's most successful socialist party want to adopt more Conservative policy, then surely they'd be better of either forming their own party or joining the Conservative party.

[Curried]

My apologies. I think i posted the wrong link to the Australian Stage-3 tax issue above. Here's the direct link:

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-stage-3-tax-cuts-are-so-geared-towards-the-rich-that-most-workers-will-pay-more-tax-in-2025-than-they-did-in-2022/

[Mibbes Aye]

I was thinking similar, if some inside what was the UK's most successful socialist party want to adopt more Conservative policy, then surely they'd be better of either forming their own party or joining the Conservative party.

I was nearly on board with that - those 20-odd thousand SNP members who voted for Kate Forbes need somewhere to go. Then I remembered there is nothing remotely socialist about the SNP, so you probably need to edit your post :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

I was nearly on board with that - those 20-odd thousand SNP members who voted for Kate Forbes need somewhere to go. Then I remembered there is nothing remotely socialist about the SNP, so you probably need to edit your post :greengrin

I think Starmer needs to take on board the views of those who did not vote for him. As does Yousaf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230605/40659c6d0e8c15605d92e82fe9aee165.jpg

Pretty chunky earnings from private healthcare for the Labour front bench team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I think Starmer needs to take on board the views of those who did not vote for him. As does Yousaf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's easy to pin it on Starmer but the simple truth is Driscoll is unhappy about the process and the outcome, the same process everyone else went through or goes through.

What certainly doesn't help is Driscoll then mouthing off in the manner he did. Given what he is reported as saying he sounds arrogant and self-pitying, which is quite a balancing act from the so-called "last Corbynista in power".

He comes across as a sore loser who is quite happy to lash out at the party because he didn't get his own way. He's exceeded my tolerance levels that's for sure...

[Mibbes Aye]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230605/40659c6d0e8c15605d92e82fe9aee165.jpg

Pretty chunky earnings from private healthcare for the Labour front bench team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should know better than that Ozy. EveryDoctor are spinning furiously there - basically if a donor happens to have had any dealings with any company, business or fund that has ever had any dealings with things like care homes, then they are lumping it into an accusation of taking mmoney from private healthcare. It's weak to the point of embarrassing.

What makes it worse is that the EveryDoctor people are up to their necks in doing lucrative private work themselves. When they actually do any doctoring, that is :wink:

[neil7908]

It's easy to pin it on Starmer but the simple truth is Driscoll is unhappy about the process and the outcome, the same process everyone else went through or goes through.

What certainly doesn't help is Driscoll then mouthing off in the manner he did. Given what he is reported as saying he sounds arrogant and self-pitying, which is quite a balancing act from the so-called "last Corbynista in power".

He comes across as a sore loser who is quite happy to lash out at the party because he didn't get his own way. He's exceeded my tolerance levels that's for sure...

Looking around the media, I'm not sure they share your thoughts. The likes of the Express are of course looking to bash Starmer but some of the more sympathetic media on the left are questioning this as well. Ditto a number of Labour mayors.

The problem here is merely citing "the process" as a defence doesn't quite cut it when the charge is that the process is unfair, undemocratic, opaque and potentially biased.

In terms of speaking out, my understanding is that he was given no right of appeal. So I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do? Again, given some prominent voices in Labour who back him, like Andy Burnham, it sounds like there is more here than just a sore loser (one who by all appearances is popular at the local level and been a winner for Labour before.)

[Mibbes Aye]

Looking around the media, I'm not sure they share your thoughts. The likes of the Express are of course looking to bash Starmer but some of the more sympathetic media on the left are questioning this as well. Ditto a number of Labour mayors.

The problem here is merely citing "the process" as a defence doesn't quite cut it when the charge is that the process is unfair, undemocratic, opaque and potentially biased.

In terms of speaking out, my understanding is that he was given no right of appeal. So I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do? Again, given some prominent voices in Labour who back him, like Andy Burnham, it sounds like there is more here than just a sore loser (one who by all appearances is popular at the local level and been a winner for Labour before.)

Right of appeal? It's not a court, where he has been found guilty. His name didn't make it to longlisting, that's all. Burnham should know a lot better, because what exactly would Driscoll be appealing against? Not being longlsted? And if he was and then didn't get shortlisted would he appeal against that? And if he was shortlisted and didn't get selected, would he be appeal against that? That's ludicrous.

And being rational, if Driscoll can do it then why shouldn't everyone else, at local and natonal level. You would be talking about literally thousands of people, who failed to be selected. Labour would never be able to contest an election because we wouldn't be able to field candidates because we were mired in appeals processes. You have to admit how ridiculous that would be?

These are people who would seriously rather see the Tories win than back a more centrist-left Labour. And Driscoll is a seriously sore loser.

As for yout first paragraph, the Guarfian isn't that sympathetic a paper. If you look at its article through an objective lens, it is the kind of skewed, subjective narrative that it sneers at other papers for deploying. A critical textual analyst would have a field day. The only thing they have in terms of what Labour is saying about it is a couple of lines at the bottom that are general, not specific to Driscoll.

As for the two mayors, steve Rotheram was Corbyn's PPS at Westminster. It's no surprise to see him in trying to stir it. Andy Burnham has been on manoeuvres for a good while now - he sees wooing the lefter side of the party as providing a base for a leadership bid, post-Starmer.

[neil7908]

Right of appeal? It's not a court, where he has been found guilty. His name didn't make it to longlisting, that's all. Burnham should know a lot better, because what exactly would Driscoll be appealing against? Not being longlsted? And if he was and then didn't get shortlisted would he appeal against that? And if he was shortlisted and didn't get selected, would he be appeal against that? That's ludicrous.

And being rational, if Driscoll can do it then why shouldn't everyone else, at local and natonal level. You would be talking about literally thousands of people, who failed to be selected. Labour would never be able to contest an election because we wouldn't be able to field candidates because we were mired in appeals processes. You have to admit how ridiculous that would be?

These are people who would seriously rather see the Tories win than back a more centrist-left Labour. And Driscoll is a seriously sore loser.

As for yout first paragraph, the Guarfian isn't that sympathetic a paper. If you look at its article through an objective lens, it is the kind of skewed, subjective narrative that it sneers at other papers for deploying. A critical textual analyst would have a field day. The only thing they have in terms of what Labour is saying about it is a couple of lines at the bottom that are general, not specific to Driscoll.

As for the two mayors, steve Rotheram was Corbyn's PPS at Westminster. It's no surprise to see him in trying to stir it. Andy Burnham has been on manoeuvres for a good while now - he sees wooing the lefter side of the party as providing a base for a leadership bid, post-Starmer.

I think it's a huge stretch to suggest the Guardian is anti Starmer. They definitely didn't like Corbyn but Starmer? Ideologically he fits very well with their editorial positions.

But that's one paper. The Independent, BBC and Mirror all appear to be quite critical. In fact, I see very few voices in the media or the party backing this one. The moderate take over has been welcomed by many of these publications - these or not pro-Corbyn or Tory media. They are sympathetic to Starmer. But they realise when a mistake is made.

I also find your point about unnamed individuals wanting the Tories to win rather than backing a centre left Labour baffling in this scenario. If anyone is prioritising ideological purity here it's Starmer. He has a popular, election winning mayor. But he is happy to jettison a proven winner as he's not on team Starmer.

In terms of an appeal, I take your point.

I wonder though about a process that takes a sitting mayor, elected by local people (the ones Labour tell us they want to listen to) and excludes them from a long list, with no explanation. If he's done something bad enough that he's not deemed acceptable for the job he's already in, why hasn't he pulled up previously?

Again, the process here is terrible, and I honestly can't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it's fair or democratic.

[Ozyhibby]

Alistair Campbell thinks Starmer is getting it wrong on Brexit. He has many flaws but nobody ever accused him of not knowing what electoral success looks like.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/alastair-campbells-diary-keir-starmers-baffling-approach-to-brexit/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/holyrood-sources/id1673972192?i=1000615932505

Some good stuff here from Jack McConnell on localism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Interesting.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyCW0lYWYBkBbgW?format=jpg&name=large

[Mibbes Aye]

I think it's a huge stretch to suggest the Guardian is anti Starmer. They definitely didn't like Corbyn but Starmer? Ideologically he fits very well with their editorial positions.

I didnt say the Guardian is anti-Starmer, I said they weren't that sympathetic. Their headline was

"Labour mayors say party undemocratic for blocking Jamie Driscols candidacy"

A pro-Starmer paper, reporting the same point could probably say

"Former Corbyn aide and defeated leafership candidate criticise party for not longlisting their preferred candidate"

And an objective, neutral stance might generate

"Labour Party says canddate did not meet threshold for longlisting; candidate's allies are critical of decision"

You can apply that approach across the whole piece and get the same results. And you can see the difference, just looking at that one headline alone. Imagine the same tone, consistently throughtout the article?



that's one paper. The Independent, BBC and Mirror all appear to be quite critical. In fact, I see very few voices in the media or the party backing this one. The moderate take over has been welcomed by many of these publications - these or not pro-Corbyn or Tory media. They are sympathetic to Starmer. But they realise when a mistake is made.

A mistake wasn't made - Driscoll wasn't shortlisted because he didn't cross the threshold required. I genuinely don't think he is the best candidate for the job and I would be surprised if you were suggesting you had solid grounds to suggest he was - I don't think you know that much about him and those longlisted, in order to judge. Over to you if you can show that?

As for the other media sources, I wouldn't agree they were being critical. I would agree that they are giving space over to a lot of voices (Clive Lewis :confused:) to fill the void and drum up clicks. That's because the party itself has only issued a short statemnt, rightly not commenting on individuals. Corbyn and his ragtag and bobtail clutch meanwhile indulge in the hand-wtinging and empty rhetoric that sums them up.


also find your point about unnamed individuals wanting the Tories to win rather than backing a centre left Labour baffling in this scenario. If anyone is prioritising ideological purity here it's Starmer. He has a popular, election winning mayor. But he is happy to jettison a proven winner as he's not on team Starmer.

I geneuinely have never, ever heard anyone describe Keir Starmer as an ideologue, you are the first :greengrin. I don't know if you are aware but every selection attracts lots of candidates, many with solid credentials. The next one features boundary changes that mean sitting MPs are having to go up against one another to secure the nomination. That's not just a Labour thing incidentally, as far as I can see it affects the Tories and maybe the SNP as well.

Driscoll's electoral success is nice for him but ultimately it is just numbers - Barry Sheerman has won more parliamentary elections than any sitting Labour MP and Dan Carden has the biggest vote share of any Labour MP in his constituency but no one is suggesting they be made Foreign Secretary and Chancellor (though knowing them, it would be a laugh if nothing else :greengrin)



terms of an appeal, I take your point.

I wonder though about a process that takes a sitting mayor, elected by local people (the ones Labour tell us they want to listen to) and excludes them from a long list, with no explanation. If he's done something bad enough that he's not deemed acceptable for the job he's already in, why hasn't he pulled up previously?

Again, the process here is terrible, and I honestly can't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it's fair or democratic.

How do you know he hasn't had feedback? Potentially he has, and is choosing not to share it because it shows him in a bad light and he knows the party won't comment on him as an individual.

Or maybe applicant feedback is scheduled for after the final decision has been made - people pull out for all sorts of reasons and sometimes people who have been discounted at an earlier stage might be invited back in?

The point is, you are speculating and then treating your speculation as fact to criticise the process. That's unfair and wrong, isn't it?

[Mibbes Aye]

Alistair Campbell thinks Starmer is getting it wrong on Brexit. He has many flaws but nobody ever accused him of not knowing what electoral success looks like.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/alastair-campbells-diary-keir-starmers-baffling-approach-to-brexit/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Campbell was being genuinely critical, it would be a lot more noticeable, I think that's quite nuanced for him.

What a lot of people seem to be unaware of, although I suspect AC knows, is that in 2025, the UK and the EU are scheduled to review the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. While the TCA sets out a lot of the arrangements for trade, the 'co-operation' bit covers a wide range of other areas. It is a real opportunity to start repairing the damage done, from a position of power, and pave the way for a future where we are more integrated with Europe again.

The Telegraph certainly think that's what Keir's evil masterplan is.......

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/27/labour-keir-starmer-plan-take-britain-back-eu-brexit/

[Andy Bee]

If Campbell was being genuinely critical, it would be a lot more noticeable, I think that's quite nuanced for him.

What a lot of people seem to be unaware of, although I suspect AC knows, is that in 2025, the UK and the EU are scheduled to review the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. While the TCA sets out a lot of the arrangements for trade, the 'co-operation' bit covers a wide range of other areas. It is a real opportunity to start repairing the damage done, from a position of power, and pave the way for a future where we are more integrated with Europe again.

The Telegraph certainly think that's what Keir's evil masterplan is.......

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/27/labour-keir-starmer-plan-take-britain-back-eu-brexit/

Excuse my ignorance but is that the point where we i.e. the UKG can vote no and everything is reversed, we all go back to being able to travel and retire across Europe without extra checks and costs, Scottish business return to previous arrangements, we re-join the SM and the CU and freedom of movement is reinstated along with the UKG getting their seat back at the European Union top table? Asking for a friend :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Excuse my ignorance but is that the point where we i.e. the UKG can vote no and everything is reversed, we all go back to being able to travel and retire across Europe without extra checks and costs, Scottish business return to previous arrangements, we re-join the SM and the CU and freedom of movement is reinstated along with the UKG getting their seat back at the European Union top table? Asking for a friend :greengrin

Hiya AB - its a fair question. The TCA review isn't a magic bullet as such. It wouldn't trigger accession to the EU (that would need legislation, probably following two refendums and would need the existing EU member states to be on board).

What it does do is provide a framework for repairing the shockingly bad arrangements we were left with by johnson and Frost and the rest. Importantly it doesnt set itelf out as being confined to just that - my sense is that all manner of things could be included in the review.

Ultimately. the EU will need to feel trust in who they are negotiating with. And they are not stupid, they know the domestic politics that affect every member state and non-member state. But I think they could and would work with the UK and use the TCA to fix what's been broken, as best we can.

One thing to note, that is hugely important. The TCA only exists under conditions, one of the main ones being the UK's continued adherence to the European Court of Human Rights. If we step away from the ECHR then no TCA. There are Tories who would gladly walk away from the EHCR yesterday. That needs to be fought.

[Andy Bee]

So for us uneducated, it's a big naw, no CU, no SM, no freedom of movement, no me retiring to Spain without an income of £27k pa, I'm headed to Rwanda on the UKG's coin, anyone selling a dingy?

[Mibbes Aye]

So for us uneducated, it's a big naw, no CU, no SM, no freedom of movement, no me retiring to Spain without an income of £27k pa, I'm headed to Rwanda on the UKG's coin, anyone selling a dingy?

First part, correct. Getting back into Europe would require a couple of referendums (in principle; and on proposed deal) and legislation, IMO. The TCA could help us fix quite a few thngs that got broken as we left and start the journey back.

Second part, take some footballs and training bibs. If you can scout out any young Rwandan talent, or indeed any displaced talent, get on the phone to Brian McDermott sharpish. We'll send a C130 over (piloted by Lewis obvs)

[Andy Bee]

First part, correct. Getting back into Europe would require a couple of referendums (in principle; and on proposed deal) and legislation, IMO. The TCA could help us fix quite a few thngs that got broken as we left and start the journey back.

Second part, take some footballs and training bibs. If you can scout out any young Rwandan talent, or indeed any displaced talent, get on the phone to Brian McDermott sharpish. We'll send a C130 over (piloted by Lewis obvs)

*Correction* it would take one referendum. You AYE yet? :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

*Correction* it would take one referendum. You AYE yet? :greengrin

I’m not a unionist, there is plenty wrong with the current system, so I’m definitely in the “mibbes, but nae flags” camp 😀. But my preference at this stage is for a strong UK Labour, best option for fixing the damage, and I would like to see Gordon Brown’s recommendations implemented, some positive change for how we run things.

I would like to hope it would be one referendum, with a resounding ‘Rejoin’, but IIRC many of us, including Starmer, were calling for a second referendum on the deal itself, as a last-gasp attempt to stop Brexit. I am sure that will be brought up by the. Brexiteers if the situation arises.

[neil7908]

I didnt say the Guardian is anti-Starmer, I said they weren't that sympathetic. Their headline was

"Labour mayors say party undemocratic for blocking Jamie Driscols candidacy"

A pro-Starmer paper, reporting the same point could probably say

"Former Corbyn aide and defeated leafership candidate criticise party for not longlisting their preferred candidate"

And an objective, neutral stance might generate

"Labour Party says canddate did not meet threshold for longlisting; candidate's allies are critical of decision"

You can apply that approach across the whole piece and get the same results. And you can see the difference, just looking at that one headline alone. Imagine the same tone, consistently throughtout the article?




A mistake wasn't made - Driscoll wasn't shortlisted because he didn't cross the threshold required. I genuinely don't think he is the best candidate for the job and I would be surprised if you were suggesting you had solid grounds to suggest he was - I don't think you know that much about him and those longlisted, in order to judge. Over to you if you can show that?

As for the other media sources, I wouldn't agree they were being critical. I would agree that they are giving space over to a lot of voices (Clive Lewis :confused:) to fill the void and drum up clicks. That's because the party itself has only issued a short statemnt, rightly not commenting on individuals. Corbyn and his ragtag and bobtail clutch meanwhile indulge in the hand-wtinging and empty rhetoric that sums them up.



I geneuinely have never, ever heard anyone describe Keir Starmer as an ideologue, you are the first :greengrin. I don't know if you are aware but every selection attracts lots of candidates, many with solid credentials. The next one features boundary changes that mean sitting MPs are having to go up against one another to secure the nomination. That's not just a Labour thing incidentally, as far as I can see it affects the Tories and maybe the SNP as well.

Driscoll's electoral success is nice for him but ultimately it is just numbers - Barry Sheerman has won more parliamentary elections than any sitting Labour MP and Dan Carden has the biggest vote share of any Labour MP in his constituency but no one is suggesting they be made Foreign Secretary and Chancellor (though knowing them, it would be a laugh if nothing else :greengrin)




How do you know he hasn't had feedback? Potentially he has, and is choosing not to share it because it shows him in a bad light and he knows the party won't comment on him as an individual.

Or maybe applicant feedback is scheduled for after the final decision has been made - people pull out for all sorts of reasons and sometimes people who have been discounted at an earlier stage might be invited back in?

The point is, you are speculating and then treating your speculation as fact to criticise the process. That's unfair and wrong, isn't it?

The Guardian ran the headline they did because the decision was a mess. It's been broadly supportive of Starmer but not afraid to criticise when they have felt reason to do so. In fact, here's another headline they ran:

‘Last Corbynista in power’ excluded from North East mayoral contest.

I would suggest that headline is quite close to your example above from a pro-Starmer paper!

As for Driscoll himself, he doesn't have to be the best candidate - this is just longlist. His record seems strong enough to merit a place on the list.

As far as I'm aware the party have taken no disciplinary against him to suggest his past conduct has warranted action. Does that mean he must win? No, but I don't live in the North East. Voters there seem pretty happy with him. Maybe, here's a thought, we could listen to them?

In terms of your last point, I'm not sure if you have done much reading into this but Driscoll himself has said "he was not given any reason for being blocked from standing".

You have provided plenty of speculation above, with zero evidence. The man at the centre of this has said no feedback was given. Are you suggesting he is lying? If so how do you know this? Over to you to provide some evidence.

Also, for a party that as you said "has only issued a short statemnt, rightly not commenting on individuals", there sure has been plenty of comment 😂. We've had unnamed senior Labour officials speaking to the press, then the Shadow Business Secretary talking about it as well. Quite the dignified silence 😂😂.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/08/jamie-driscoll-labour-keir-starmer-north-of-tyne-mayor?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1686202201


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/08/jamie-driscoll-labour-keir-starmer-north-of-tyne-mayor?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1686202201


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, I wish I hadn't bothered with my previous comment. I could have saved myself 5 mins if I'd waited and just posted this 😂😂😂

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Interesting.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyCW0lYWYBkBbgW?format=jpg&name=large

Roger Waters couldn't be any further from an anti-Semite. Keir Starmer is a clown, along with his fellow tory infiltrators that he's brought into the party, including Christian Wakeford.


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

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/08/jamie-driscoll-labour-keir-starmer-north-of-tyne-mayor?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1686202201


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"McCarthyism" :faf:

Good to see Chakrabortty can still see through the waves of self-righteous self-indignation to pen a piece. As I recall, he used to proclaim that Labour wouldn't hold a poll lead under Starmer.

[Mibbes Aye]

The Guardian ran the headline they did because the decision was a mess. It's been broadly supportive of Starmer but not afraid to criticise when they have felt reason to do so. In fact, here's another headline they ran:

‘Last Corbynista in power’ excluded from North East mayoral contest.

That's just them following up on their own story, quoting a line from it they just made up.:confused:.

Anyway, as I think is clear he wasn't excluded at all, he applied and failed at the longlisting stage. Them's the breaks.



would suggest that headline is quite close to your example above from a pro-Starmer paper!

As for Driscoll himself, he doesn't have to be the best candidate - this is just longlist. His record seems strong enough to merit a place on the list.

As far as I'm aware the party have taken no disciplinary against him to suggest his past conduct has warranted action. Does that mean he must win? No, but I don't live in the North East. Voters there seem pretty happy with him. Maybe, here's a thought, we could listen to them?

In terms of your last point, I'm not sure if you have done much reading into this but Driscoll himself has said "he was not given any reason for being blocked from standing".

You have provided plenty of speculation above, with zero evidence. The man at the centre of this has said no feedback was given. Are you suggesting he is lying? If so how do you know this? Over to you to provide some evidence.

Also, for a party that as you said "has only issued a short statemnt, rightly not commenting on individuals", there sure has been plenty of comment ��. We've had unnamed senior Labour officials speaking to the press, then the Shadow Business Secretary talking about it as well. Quite the dignified silence ����.


Plenty of comment from the usual malcontents, and a couple of opportunist Tories. Usually if I see McDonnell, Zahawi and Smon Clarke joining together to attack the party it tells me all I need to know. Jonny Reynolds was being interviewed by Times Radio, it's not like he had editorial control of what questions there would be, was it? As for 'unnamed sources', well, depends on your agenda doesnt it - 'they' can be useful or not, the writer decides.

In the section of your words above, I think I counted rwo "seems", two "suggests", a 'not sure', an 'if so' and an 'as far as I'm aware'. You are offering more qualifications than the Open University :greengrin. But this sums it up, you don't really have anything concrete, just see a bandwagon of discontent and hop on board.

As I have said and will no doubt continue to say, some who purport to be of 'the left' would rather pick apart the centrist-left for looking electable, than fight the Tories. Ideologically-pure crying from the ideologically-poor rejected..

[Keith_M]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/08/jamie-driscoll-labour-keir-starmer-north-of-tyne-mayor?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1686202201


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wow, I wish I hadn't bothered with my previous comment. I could have saved myself 5 mins if I'd waited and just posted this ������


"I have chased down and sifted through evidence, much of it never revealed before, and it points to a stitch-up bigger than anything on the Great Sewing Bee. The jumped-up outsider, Driscoll, has been tossed in the bin – but he is merely collateral damage in a one-sided Labour factional fight, whose actors appear not to give a damn for people’s reputations or for the public they’re meant to serve."


Yeah but it's all just a one sided moan from the only remaining Corbynista, who needs to leave the party and join one that matches his beliefs.

:rolleyes:

[neil7908]

"McCarthyism" :faf:

Good to see Chakrabortty can still see through the waves of self-righteous self-indignation to pen a piece. As I recall, he used to proclaim that Labour wouldn't hold a poll lead under Starmer.

Whats the phase - play the ball, not the man.

Any comment on the substance of the article? You have been quite scathing about Driscoll, so I'm really interested in how you are going to refute the actual points made and provide evidence for his failure to even appear on a long list.

However, I suspect there will be a lot more comments about entrists, radical left, malcontents etc to ignore the substance of the concerns raised.

[Mibbes Aye]

Whats the phase - play the ball, not the man.

Any comment on the substance of the article? You have been quite scathing about Driscoll, so I'm really interested in how you are going to refute the actual points made and provide evidence for his failure to even appear on a long list.

However, I suspect there will be a lot more comments about entrists, radical left, malcontents etc to ignore the substance of the concerns raised.

Hold on, you want me to provide a detailed account of why Driscoll didn't make a longlist, to you? I think somewhere along the way you have got a bit mixed up.

As for comment on the article? It is poorly-written, self-aggrandising guff.

He didn't get longlisted. Along with many other people for candidacies across the country. That's the facts. Crying about it doesn't change a thing.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/dailyworld24/status/1551693609442967552?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
Just came across this from Starmer. He obviously never got the memo about not comparing ourselves with others. He is of course correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Interested to see this paper from the Fabian Society out now, jointly commissioned by Wes Streeting and UNISON.

https://fabians.org.uk/publication/support-guaranteed/ (and there's a link there to a podcast too)

It offers a sense of what the plan is on social care in England. Social care has been brutally neglected, actually worse than that, it has been brutally abused, for a good few years now. Yet it is one of the key pillars to ensuring the health system can survive and it supports some of our most vulnerable family and friends with the basic elements of care, often very personal and intimate.

What I was pleased to see were some strong commitments on ensuring local authorities held power and had the capacity to develop regional or sub-regional alignments. Also positive was an emphasis on robust workforce planning, one of the biggest challenges in health and social care. This also encompasses work around professional registration and pathways for professional development. To be honest some of that reads like stuff coming out of Holyrood during the first Scottish parliament, though England are by no means wenty years behnd, it's just somewhat different in systems and processes.

Hopefully in a year or two, there will be the opportunity to implement some of this. A lot of it probably seems common sense and I think a fair proportion of the population would be surprised that we aren't doing this sort of thing, now, in 2023.

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/dailyworld24/status/1551693609442967552?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
Just came across this from Starmer. He obviously never got the memo about not comparing ourselves with others. He is of course correct.

Well, he is correct. But he omits to mention that part of the reason the average British family is poorer is down to Brexit, something he would have the opportunity to address but is refusing to.

[Ozyhibby]

https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/

From well known lefty trouble maker Michael Crick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://unherd.com/2023/06/starmer-will-regret-purging-the-left/

From well known lefty trouble maker Michael Crick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He won't regret it. He know's exactly what he's doing and the effect it's going to have. It's very deliberate and by design.

[grunt]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/09/shadow-minister-bambos-charalambous-suspended-from-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw


Shadow minister Bambos Charalambous suspended from Labour

Exclusive: MP for Enfield Southgate and shadow Foreign Office minister is under investigation after complaint

[Mibbes Aye]

More evidence of Labour owning hard decisions before, not after, any general election.

Reeves has said, based on the current economic situation that Labour now looks set to inherit, the £28bn a year on 'green' investment stays, but it will need ramped up to, over the first few years of a Labour first term.

Its sensible IMO. The likes of the Daily Mail were already starting front-pages along the lines of 'reckless spending by Labour'. They will be disappointed they can't use it as a stick now but will portray it as a defeat for Labour, even though the public haven't actually voted yet.

From the far left and the wannabees, they are starting up with the cries of 'betrayal', again ignoring the fact that there's honesty here - the public are being told the truth before they vote, rather than promises of jam tomorrow that may not be achievable. Still, that's the far left for you.

Anyone wanting to see further evidence of Starmer, Reeves and Miliband owning the debate, need look no further. It takes strength to be honest and face down your opponents, on both left and right. They aren't looking for the easiest path, that's for sure.

More importantly, I think the public isn't as stupid as either the likes of the Daily Mail, or the likes of Momentum, make out. We know the carnage in the economy that the Tories made. Dealing with it will take time. Being honest in advance of asking for votes is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Stairway 2 7]

Ex tory leader leaves in disgrace takes mps with him, greens figurehead and leader jumps and snp ex leader is lifted

Starmer has had worse weeks 😆

[grunt]

Ex tory leader leaves in disgrace takes mps with him, greens figurehead and leader jumps and snp ex leader is lifted

Starmer has had worse weeks 😆
What impact do you think NS' arrest will have on Labour's chances in Scotland at the next GE?

[Ozyhibby]

Ex tory leader leaves in disgrace takes mps with him, greens figurehead and leader jumps and snp ex leader is lifted

Starmer has had worse weeks [emoji38]

With Monica Lennon alleging sexual assault by one MP while others watched, it hasn’t all been good news. Unless, of course, he’s going to sweep under carpet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

With Monica Lennon alleging sexual assault by one MP while others watched, it hasn’t all been good news. Unless, of course, he’s going to sweep under carpet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That story was reported six years ago when Corbyn was in charge, you are getting a bit desperate now aren't you :greengrin

i mean six years, we've had two former Snp leaders arrested in that time :faf:

[Ozyhibby]

That story was reported six years ago when Corbyn was in charge, you are getting a bit desperate now aren't you :greengrin

i mean six years, we've had two former Snp leaders arrested in that time :faf:

Apologies I only read it the other day. Still, if it’s historic then it’s ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Apologies I only read it the other day. Still, if it’s historic then it’s ok.
Was anything done about it? Did anyone get arrested? Were there any tents?

[Mibbes Aye]

Apologies I only read it the other day. Still, if it’s historic then it’s ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Behave yourself.

And write a nice letter of apology to Mr Starmer and say sorry, you don't know why you posted what you did but you were upset and confused about things and you won't do it again.

[Mibbes Aye]

Was anything done about it? Did anyone get arrested? Were there any tents?

She made an initial complaint and dropped it, I think because at the time she believed it wouldn't have gone any further, which is poor.

But you don't need Ozy or me to answer that, Google is fairly commonplace nowadays.

[cabbageandribs1875]

wow i was expecting this to be a Tory politician, i mean a blue one

Labour rising star threatens to evict families if children do not inform on knife crime (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-rising-star-threatens-to-evict-families-if-children-do-not-inform-on-knife-crime/ar-AA1c8Qa0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fd456b0eea534750b0a4eefe32005ae2&ei=28)

[Ozyhibby]

wow i was expecting this to be a Tory politician, i mean a blue one

Labour rising star threatens to evict families if children do not inform on knife crime (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-rising-star-threatens-to-evict-families-if-children-do-not-inform-on-knife-crime/ar-AA1c8Qa0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fd456b0eea534750b0a4eefe32005ae2&ei=28)

A bit like what Isreal does in Palestine. Nice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

wow i was expecting this to be a Tory politician, i mean a blue one

Labour rising star threatens to evict families if children do not inform on knife crime (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-rising-star-threatens-to-evict-families-if-children-do-not-inform-on-knife-crime/ar-AA1c8Qa0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fd456b0eea534750b0a4eefe32005ae2&ei=28)"Labour values".

[He's here!]

Ex tory leader leaves in disgrace takes mps with him, greens figurehead and leader jumps and snp ex leader is lifted

Starmer has had worse weeks 😆

Certainly with the SNP's prize asset Johnson gone (but ensuring he threw another grenade into Tory unity on the way out) and Sturgeon's arrest further undermining her party's go-to 'Westminster sleaze' mantra, Starmer will be pretty chuffed by how things are shaping up.

[Ozyhibby]

Certainly with the SNP's prize asset Johnson gone (but ensuring he threw another grenade into Tory unity on the way out) and Sturgeon's arrest further undermining her party's go-to 'Westminster sleaze' mantra, Starmer will be pretty chuffed by how things are shaping up.

Yes, there is no sleaze in Westminster.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

wow i was expecting this to be a Tory politician, i mean a blue one

Labour rising star threatens to evict families if children do not inform on knife crime (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-rising-star-threatens-to-evict-families-if-children-do-not-inform-on-knife-crime/ar-AA1c8Qa0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fd456b0eea534750b0a4eefe32005ae2&ei=28)

I disagree with Darren Rodwell on this but as is ever the case, there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye. I think his comments are borne out of sheer frustration at the tragedy of so many lives being lost or damaged on his streets.

His borough is up there in the top level of knife crime, usually against young men, usually black young men. There are literally incidents every day and murders, attempted murders or assaults with a deadly weapon on an all-too regular basis.

The council there has tried to work as closely as possible with the police, as they both have a role to play but the communication is awful, with the police often not informing the council of murders or serious incidents until days after the event. The council has tried multi-agency approaches ranging from the punitive to the permissive, without success. For that I firmly blame thirteen years of a Tory onslaught on society and the abandonment of communities like this.

I don’t think Rodwell’s move will pan out eventually, but there is a push by Labour to get parents to take responsibility for their children, while they are minors and especially if they are involved or on the fringes of serious crime. There is another policy being developed nationally around addressing parents whose children are committing anti-social behaviour. The minors in this case are ones that have been identified as participating in criminal behaviour.

In the end, people can and are evicted by councils for a whole manner of reasons. I’m not sure this one will fly, but if it is somehow introduced then it will very much be the last resort, after failed attempts at mediation, parental support through social services and lots of other costly interventions that the Daily Mail will write up in furious front pages.

And if people are evicted, ironically the council has a duty around rehousing anyway!

[grunt]

This is a strange one. The SNP have taken this quote from The Times. Perhaps they've misquoted or taken the words out of context.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FybkMV3WYAYd4Ys?format=jpg&name=medium

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/ayocaesar/status/1668221551718662147?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

The Labour Party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

So, will Labour peers support Green Jenny Jones and her fatal motion in the Lords today?
An opportunity to give the Tories a bloody nose over their anti-democratic Public Order Bill.
Big test for Labour.

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/will-the-labour-lords-stand-up-for-democracy/

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://twitter.com/ayocaesar/status/1668221551718662147?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

The Labour Party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She must be good pals with Darren Rodwell. That other vile racist in the Barking and Dagenham constituency under the pretendy Labour Party.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

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

[He's here!]

Starmer: Labour to Surge in Scotland on SNP 'Implosion' | Watch (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/lifestyle/starmer-labour-to-surge-in-scotland-on-snp-implosion/vi-AA1ctTzf)

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Starmer: Labour to Surge in Scotland on SNP 'Implosion' | Watch (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/lifestyle/starmer-labour-to-surge-in-scotland-on-snp-implosion/vi-AA1ctTzf)

He's on to a real winner with that claim.

https://i.ibb.co/1KXXXVG/lol.png

[Smartie]

It'll be interesting to see what finally becomes of the "current SNP fiasco"... but as Starmer's Labour Party seem to be nudging into the centre right territory, do many people genuinely see SNP supporters changing their minds on the subject of independence/ abandoning most of their political principles to move to the current Labour Party at the next election and providing this "Labour surge in Scotland"?

I don't, even if the management of finances fiasco turns out the worst way it possibly can for the SNP.

[archie]

https://twitter.com/ayocaesar/status/1668221551718662147?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

The Labour Party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Going with the selective edit I see https://twitter.com/LatestMessiah/status/1668235405127196674

[archie]

She must be good pals with Darren Rodwell. That other vile racist in the Barking and Dagenham constituency under the pretendy Labour Party.

What with your comment on Michelle Thomson and now this have you considered taking legal advice?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It'll be interesting to see what finally becomes of the "current SNP fiasco"... but as Starmer's Labour Party seem to be nudging into the centre right territory, do many people genuinely see SNP supporters changing their minds on the subject of independence/ abandoning most of their political principles to move to the current Labour Party at the next election and providing this "Labour surge in Scotland"?

I don't, even if the management of finances fiasco turns out the worst way it possibly can for the SNP.

You're correct, they won't. What Labour are however attempting to do is hoover up the tory votes in Scotland by effectively trying to out tory the tories in every conceivable way. This will allow them to gain several additional seats in Scotland as a result of the FPTP system. When that happens, they will then falsely claim that the lower SNP seat numbers are evidence of less people wanting independence in Scotland. They're desperate to push that narrative hard.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What with your comment on Michelle Thomson and now this have you considered taking legal advice?

If Darren Rodwell wishes to press charges against me, that's fine. I'll gladly provide the police with the video evidence of his racist behaviour.

[archie]

If Darren Rodwell wishes to press charges against me, that's fine. I'll gladly provide the police with the video evidence of his racist behaviour.

OK - defame away. As I understand it Michelle Thomson is quite protective of her reputation.

[Ozyhibby]

It'll be interesting to see what finally becomes of the "current SNP fiasco"... but as Starmer's Labour Party seem to be nudging into the centre right territory, do many people genuinely see SNP supporters changing their minds on the subject of independence/ abandoning most of their political principles to move to the current Labour Party at the next election and providing this "Labour surge in Scotland"?

I don't, even if the management of finances fiasco turns out the worst way it possibly can for the SNP.

I don’t think Labour will be worried about that at all. There are more right wing votes in England available to them than left wing votes in Scotland. Starmer will have done the calculations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

OK - defame away. As I understand it Michelle Thomson is quite protective of her reputation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCWrWCWpEJ0&t=3s

Her reputation for scamming a cancer sufferer for her own financial gain?

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/13810916.former-snp-mp-michelle-thomson-took-5k-cheque-for-a-pro-indy-group-from-a-convicted-mortgage-fraudster/

[He's here!]

He's on to a real winner with that claim.

https://i.ibb.co/1KXXXVG/lol.png

If you were to read beyond the headline and listen to the interview you'd hear quite a measured take on things from Starmer, although he's no doubt quietly satisfied by how things are falling into place for Labour thanks to the shambles besetting both the Tories at Westminster and the SNP at Holyrood.

He's still to fully win me over but in the main I think he's going about things the right way and we'll see a very strong return to power by Labour next year.

[Mibbes Aye]

I don’t think Labour will be worried about that at all. There are more right wing votes in England available to them than left wing votes in Scotland. Starmer will have done the calculations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See, this is the trap that pro-independence enthusiasts fall into again and again, making everything binary.

A lot of people aren’t “left wing voters” or “right wing voters”. They don’t define themselves as such, and anyway, the two terms are so up for definition in 2023 that they border on meaningless at times.

A lot of people will find some of a party’s policies attractive, other policies less so. Trying to pigeonhole them or label them as this, that or whatever doesn’t show much respect for them as citizens who don’t feel the need to wear blinkers. Or rosettes. Or are dissatisfied enough with politics and so used to a pick and mix culture of relatively unrestrained choice that they reject being categorised as A or B or C etc etc

I fully appreciate when you support nationalism this is what you need to do though. You need to define an ‘other’ so you can define an ‘us’. But real people don’t fit your labels. Real people might have some sympathy for some of your arguments but have real issues with others.

Telling them that all they are is what you label them as, is insulting to them and ultimately damages your cause.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

He's still to fully win me over but in the main I think he's going about things the right way and we'll see a very strong return to power by Labour next year.

Of course you think he's going about it the right way. You're a Conservative and it doesn't get anymore Conservative than Keir Starmer right now.

[Smartie]

See, this is the trap that pro-independence enthusiasts fall into again and again, making everything binary.

A lot of people aren’t “left wing voters” or “right wing voters”. They don’t define themselves as such, and anyway, the two terms are so up for definition in 2023 that they border on meaningless at times.

A lot of people will find some of a party’s policies attractive, other policies less so. Trying to pigeonhole them or label them as this, that or whatever doesn’t show much respect for them as citizens who don’t feel the need to wear blinkers. Or rosettes. Or are dissatisfied enough with politics and so used to a pick and mix culture of relatively unrestrained choice that they reject being categorised as A or B or C etc etc

I fully appreciate when you support nationalism this is what you need to do though. You need to define an ‘other’ so you can define an ‘us’. But real people don’t fit your labels. Real people might have some sympathy for some of your arguments but have real issues with others.

Telling them that all they are is what you label them as, is insulting to them and ultimately damages your cause.

Even taking all of that into account though, do you think that there is enough going on right now - SNP pushing their own supporters away with their incompetence or Labour attracting them with their alternative vision - to justify Starmer believing Labour can enjoy a "surge" in Scotland?

I'm sceptical. Starmer's Labour still seem to be relying on SNP voters abandoning a lot of what they believe in, tolerating some dodgy financial management may appear to be the lesser of two evils.

[Bristolhibby]

Even taking all of that into account though, do you think that there is enough going on right now - SNP pushing their own supporters away with their incompetence or Labour attracting them with their alternative vision - to justify Starmer believing Labour can enjoy a "surge" in Scotland?

I'm sceptical. Starmer's Labour still seem to be relying on SNP voters abandoning a lot of what they believe in, tolerating some dodgy financial management may appear to be the lesser of two evils.

There’s also a bit of, once you go Yes there’s no turning back.

It’s Indy or nothing. Can’t imagine many parties have that draw.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Even taking all of that into account though, do you think that there is enough going on right now - SNP pushing their own supporters away with their incompetence or Labour attracting them with their alternative vision - to justify Starmer believing Labour can enjoy a "surge" in Scotland?

I'm sceptical. Starmer's Labour still seem to be relying on SNP voters abandoning a lot of what they believe in, tolerating some dodgy financial management may appear to be the lesser of two evils.

I just watched the clip from Tech Week that was linked to and he never used the word ‘surge’ :confused:. I may be looking at the wrong thing, but the other post didn’t have a working link in it?

Anyway, what Starmer did say was that there will be SNP voters who are disillusioned with their party but you can’t take it for granted that means they will go to Labour.

If nothing else, remember that the SNP just had a leadership election and half the votes went to a small-government, low-tax, anti-single mother, anti-gay marriage candidate. I think they may be drawn to the Tories before Labour. Maybe Douglas Ross should be talking about surges and the Forbes dividend :greengrin

[He's here!]

I just watched the clip from Tech Week that was linked to and he never used the word ‘surge’ :confused:. I may be looking at the wrong thing, but the other post didn’t have a working link in it?

Anyway, what Starmer did say was that there will be SNP voters who are disillusioned with their party but you can’t take it for granted that means they will go to Labour.

If nothing else, remember that the SNP just had a leadership election and half the votes went to a small-government, low-tax, anti-single mother, anti-gay marriage candidate. I think they may be drawn to the Tories before Labour. Maybe Douglas Ross should be talking about surges and the Forbes dividend :greengrin

Yeh, it was the interviewer who used the word 'surge'. Starmer was more measured, but had clearly enjoyed receiving the news of Sturgeon's arrest.

Bearing in mind the phenomenal popularity of New Labour when Blair 'surged' into power (which wiped the Tories off the map in Scotland) I think that once they're back in power next year and the SNP have their 'anti-Tory' crutch kicked from under them we'll see a calming of the waters in Scotland - even if Labour win only a modest number of seats here. It's different days since Blair I know and Starmer only has a fraction of his charisma but any Labour government is going to sit better with most Scottish voters than a Tory one. It's an interesting point you make about Forbes, but Labour have all but rowed back completely on the Corbynite lurch to the left and more or less reclaimed the centre ground that served Blair so well.

[grunt]

Yeh, it was the interviewer who used the word 'surge'. Starmer was more measured, but had clearly enjoyed receiving the news of Sturgeon's arrest.

Bearing in mind the phenomenal popularity of New Labour when Blair 'surged' into power (which wiped the Tories off the map in Scotland) I think that once they're back in power next year and the SNP have their 'anti-Tory' crutch kicked from under them we'll see a calming of the waters in Scotland - even if Labour win only a modest number of seats here. It's different days since Blair I know and Starmer only has a fraction of his charisma but any Labour government is going to sit better with most Scottish voters than a Tory one. It's an interesting point you make about Forbes, but Labour have all but rowed back completely on the Corbynite lurch to the left and more or less reclaimed the centre ground that served Blair so well.
Meanwhile, Brexit sits elephant-like in the corner of the room. Ignored by Tories and Labour alike. But not by the voters, specially not in Scotland.

[Kato]

Meanwhile, Brexit sits elephant-like in the corner of the room. Ignored by Tories and Labour alike. But not by the voters, specially not in Scotland.Labour don't ignore brexit. They want to "make brexit work" the mechanics of which are still a mystery.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

OK - defame away. As I understand it Michelle Thomson is quite protective of her reputation.

Certainly seems so:

SNP MSP accuses deputy leader of 'categorically untrue' statement amid Nicola Sturgeon arrest row - Daily Record (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-msp-accuses-deputy-leader-30224345)

[Hibrandenburg]

Yeh, it was the interviewer who used the word 'surge'. Starmer was more measured, but had clearly enjoyed receiving the news of Sturgeon's arrest.

Bearing in mind the phenomenal popularity of New Labour when Blair 'surged' into power (which wiped the Tories off the map in Scotland) I think that once they're back in power next year and the SNP have their 'anti-Tory' crutch kicked from under them we'll see a calming of the waters in Scotland - even if Labour win only a modest number of seats here. It's different days since Blair I know and Starmer only has a fraction of his charisma but any Labour government is going to sit better with most Scottish voters than a Tory one. It's an interesting point you make about Forbes, but Labour have all but rowed back completely on the Corbynite lurch to the left and more or less reclaimed the centre ground that served Blair so well.

Any Labour Government is at best only temporary respite from the next series of consecutive Westminster Tory governments.

[He's here!]

Any Labour Government is at best only temporary respite from the next series of consecutive Westminster Tory governments.

Not so sure about that these days with affordable housing such an issue.

[Mibbes Aye]

Any Labour Government is at best only temporary respite from the next series of consecutive Westminster Tory governments.

I understand why that gets said but I don’t think the facts bear it out.

Between 1945-1979, the so-called postwar consensus, both parties were in power for a total of 17 years. The shortest spell in amongst that was actually Ted Heath’s Tory administration.

From 1979, when Thatcher was elected to date, we have had 18 unbroken years of Conservatives, 13 unbroken years of Labour and 13 unbroken years, likely 14, of Conservatives.

Labour are more likely to form the next government than the Tories according to just about everyone, though one shouldn’t preclude a hung parliament. If things go as planned Labour will win with a resounding majority and we know that much strategising is being done already on how to ensure and deliver on a second term. It took three terms to get the money flowing into hospitals and into anti-poverty and actually see a meaningful and enduring difference last time.

So, as things stand a Labour victory will be seen as continuing the model since 1979, especially if they secure further terms. The challenge is to break that mould, where people move to the right over time and as they acquire capital and assets. As others have pointed out, that is demographically likely to happen naturally. But at the same time we need to lift politics up, and away from the relentless dumbing-down that media, including social media, fosters.

If we accept the lowest-common denominator in our politics we will get the lowest-common politics, whatever our denomination.

[JeMeSouviens]

I understand why that gets said but I don’t think the facts bear it out.

Between 1945-1979, the so-called postwar consensus, both parties were in power for a total of 17 years. The shortest spell in amongst that was actually Ted Heath’s Tory administration.

From 1979, when Thatcher was elected to date, we have had 18 unbroken years of Conservatives, 13 unbroken years of Labour and 13 unbroken years, likely 14, of Conservatives.

Labour are more likely to form the next government than the Tories according to just about everyone, though one shouldn’t preclude a hung parliament. If things go as planned Labour will win with a resounding majority and we know that much strategising is being done already on how to ensure and deliver on a second term. It took three terms to get the money flowing into hospitals and into anti-poverty and actually see a meaningful and enduring difference last time.

So, as things stand a Labour victory will be seen as continuing the model since 1979, especially if they secure further terms. The challenge is to break that mould, where people move to the right over time and as they acquire capital and assets. As others have pointed out, that is demographically likely to happen naturally. But at the same time we need to lift politics up, and away from the relentless dumbing-down that media, including social media, fosters.

If we accept the lowest-common denominator in our politics we will get the lowest-common politics, whatever our denomination.

I've banged on about it repeatedly on here, but imo the single best thing Labour could do for the UK would be electoral reform. Tories aiming at 50% of the electorate would have to be considerably less extreme than Tories aiming to get by with 40%.

[Ozyhibby]

I understand why that gets said but I don’t think the facts bear it out.

Between 1945-1979, the so-called postwar consensus, both parties were in power for a total of 17 years. The shortest spell in amongst that was actually Ted Heath’s Tory administration.

From 1979, when Thatcher was elected to date, we have had 18 unbroken years of Conservatives, 13 unbroken years of Labour and 13 unbroken years, likely 14, of Conservatives.

Labour are more likely to form the next government than the Tories according to just about everyone, though one shouldn’t preclude a hung parliament. If things go as planned Labour will win with a resounding majority and we know that much strategising is being done already on how to ensure and deliver on a second term. It took three terms to get the money flowing into hospitals and into anti-poverty and actually see a meaningful and enduring difference last time.

So, as things stand a Labour victory will be seen as continuing the model since 1979, especially if they secure further terms. The challenge is to break that mould, where people move to the right over time and as they acquire capital and assets. As others have pointed out, that is demographically likely to happen naturally. But at the same time we need to lift politics up, and away from the relentless dumbing-down that media, including social media, fosters.

If we accept the lowest-common denominator in our politics we will get the lowest-common politics, whatever our denomination.

13 years on from that Labour govt and the country feels poorer than ever? I accept they did some good work but there was nothing enduring about it. It’s all gone now. Starmer might do well but the Tories will be back soon enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I've banged on about it repeatedly on here, but imo the single best thing Labour could do for the UK would be electoral reform. Tories aiming at 50% of the electorate would have to be considerably less extreme than Tories aiming to get by with 40%.

If only. Starmer won’t do it though because it hurts Labour as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

13 years on from that Labour govt and the country feels poorer than ever? I accept they did some good work but there was nothing enduring about it. It’s all gone now. Starmer might do well but the Tories will be back soon enough.

Not only "feels poorer" but is actually poorer. Figures out today show that UK average weekly earnings today are the same as they were in 2005. The longest period of no growth since Napoleon was in charge.

[Mibbes Aye]

13 years on from that Labour govt and the country feels poorer than ever? I accept they did some good work but there was nothing enduring about it. It’s all gone now. Starmer might do well but the Tories will be back soon enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's all about perspective. I remember people felt the same in 1992.

We had had spells of government under Wilson and Callaghan and seen probably the most socially reformist agenda of the twentieth century, all long forgotten as the Tories chalked up election victory#4

But the mood changes and political gravity is unavoidable. Once any long-term administration starts showing signs of rot then it is doomed. And it usually contributes to that end by fixating on identity politics or culture politics or anything but what actually matters to people in their lives, that day and that week and that month.

[grunt]

Labour lets down the country once again. #FatalMotion

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1668693777848868876?s=20