The future of the Labour Party

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Labour lets down the country once again. #FatalMotion

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

Shouldn't surprise anybody. The totalitarian agenda is very much a cross party effort.


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

[Mibbes Aye]

Shouldn't surprise anybody. The totalitarian agenda is very much a cross party effort.


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

You are right to be wary. Other warning signs to look out for would be centralising policing into a single national force. Or creating a system where faceless, unelected bureaucrats can share any confidential information they like about children and their families, without their knowledge or permission.

[Kato]

Shouldn't surprise anybody. The totalitarian agenda is very much a cross party effort.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FLJYglBcQQFrom the comments

https://i.ibb.co/J3S0k94/Screenshot-20230613-204251-You-Tube.jpg (https://ibb.co/4109NHG)


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

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.

Sums up the SNP.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Sums up the SNP.

Interesting that you say SNP, but refuse to include the Conservative Party. Because they certainly haven't played identity politics or culture politics over the past 13 years or anything?

Now we have a party under Keir Starmer getting in on the very act themselves. Because apparently becoming the party that is already in power is far more important than offering any kind of meaningful alternative.

[xyz23jc]

Interesting that you say SNP, but refuse to include the Conservative Party. Because they certainly haven't played identity politics or culture politics over the past 13 years or anything?

Now we have a party under Keir Starmer getting in on the very act themselves. Because apparently becoming the party that is already in power is far more important than offering any kind of meaningful alternative.

Lol! :greengrin

https://labourheartlands.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/two-Flag-annocement.jpg

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Lol! :greengrin

https://labourheartlands.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/two-Flag-annocement.jpg

Disgusting.

The maroon tie says it all. :wink:

[Kato]

Sums up the SNP.lol

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

bigoted sectarian orangemen

sums up Labour

[marinello59]

bigoted sectarian orangemen

sums up Labour

Honestly?
C’mon, you are better than that.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Honestly?
C’mon, you are better than that.

Doesn't sum them up. But the OO have certainly been a part of their sum at times.

[JimBHibees]

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

If at all. Not convinced Labour will win. Policy seems to be to keep many similar policies to Tories and back brexit.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

If at all. Not convinced Labour will win. Policy seems to be to keep many similar policies to Tories and back brexit.

Which means Labour can't win. Because the Labour Party isn't even part of the election.

[Jones28]

Lol! :greengrin

https://labourheartlands.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/two-Flag-annocement.jpg

Is this a joke?

The **** looks like a toddler playing hide and seek in a pair of racist curtains.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqPCUYObv64

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1668674003819544577?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

The quiet convergence between Labour and the Tories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xyz23jc]

Disgusting.

The maroon tie says it all. :wink:

:wink::greengrin Jeez, never even noticed that! Almost as bad as Ian Murray wearing the 'suit'!

[xyz23jc]

Is this a joke?

The **** looks like a toddler playing hide and seek in a pair of racist curtains.

FAF :greengrin:thumbsup:

[Mibbes Aye]

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1668674003819544577?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

The quiet convergence between Labour and the Tories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Tories are and have been spending eye-watering amounts of money. A lot of that is their own doing (thanks Liz) but stuff like furlough was big-money big-government Keynesian FDR-style tax or borrow to spend.

Exactly the stick they used to try and beat Labour with.

That’s not convergence, that’s what happens when the free marketeers realise someone has to pick up the tab when society faces existential threat.

What galls the most is the Tories will go back to their default setting of privatising profit and socialising risk just as soon as they can.

[Ozyhibby]

The Tories are and have been spending eye-watering amounts of money. A lot of that is their own doing (thanks Liz) but stuff like furlough was big-money big-government Keynesian FDR-style tax or borrow to spend.

Exactly the stick they used to try and beat Labour with.

That’s not convergence, that’s what happens when the free marketeers realise someone has to pick up the tab when society faces existential threat.

What galls the most is the Tories will go back to their default setting of privatising profit and socialising risk just as soon as they can.

And we’ll pick up the tab again. The people of Scotland need to stop voting for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

sums up the Labstainers :agree: we don't need Starmer's labour in westminster, we already have Tories

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fyj4SuaXgAElnyv?format=jpg&name=medium

[Mibbes Aye]

sums up the Labstainers :agree: we don't need Starmer's labour in westminster, we already have Tories

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fyj4SuaXgAElnyv?format=jpg&name=medium

Is it not just the case that the Lords cannot ultimately stop legislation from the Commons, it would just go back there and be passed in its original form, as per the Parliament Act 1911?

There are a number, not vast, but a number of Tory backbencher in the Commons who oppose this legislation because of the whole state vs citizen thing. There is a chance they could vote against it in the Commons but it is less likely if it is off the back of a (symbolic but nothing else) Lords defeat. If the Lords caused problems some of them would undoubtedly back the government on the principle that the Lorda should not dictate to the Commons.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The 'fatal motion' isn't a bill. It's a statutory instrument (secondary legislation that doesn't require a new act to be passed). The House of Lords holds the power to delay these types of legislation for up to a year under the Parliament Act of 1949, which was enforced by Attlee's Labour Government.

[Mibbes Aye]

And we’ll pick up the tab again. The people of Scotland need to stop voting for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.

Vote Labour, twice if necessary 😀

[Mibbes Aye]

The 'fatal motion' isn't a bill. It's a statutory instrument (secondary legislation that doesn't require a new act to be passed). The House of Lords holds the power to delay these types of legislation for up to a year under the Parliament Act of 1949, which was enforced by Attlee's Labour Government.

So, as I say, futile gesture politics or try and exploit the divisions already in the Tory camp.

It’s not a hard decision.

[grunt]

Futile.


https://youtu.be/NImP5Dj26Do

[wookie70]

Just watched this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbFvSKwOiA&ab_channel=NovaraMedia). Anyone that is remotely left leaning will be getting removed by Starmer, even those that are electorally successful. The line from Driscoll about those getting deselected were standing on the policies that Starmer was elected on was spot on.

[Kato]

Just watched this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbFvSKwOiA&ab_channel=NovaraMedia). Anyone that is remotely left leaning will be getting removed by Starmer, even those that are electorally successful. The line from Driscoll about those getting deselected were standing on the policies that Starmer was elected on was spot on.Not only a Far-Left purge, a Slightly-Left purge too.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Jack]

Just watched this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbFvSKwOiA&ab_channel=NovaraMedia). Anyone that is remotely left leaning will be getting removed by Starmer, even those that are electorally successful. The line from Driscoll about those getting deselected were standing on the policies that Starmer was elected on was spot on.

A friend of mine was a former Westminster candidate in Edinburgh up to the last one, yeah we have fine discussions 😆

He joined Labour as soon as he was old enough and is slightly left leaning.

He's not even a member of the Labour Party now, he left a few months ago. I dread to ask if he jumped or was pushed. So sad such passionate guys are being side lined.

[cabbageandribs1875]

indeed, we don't need Labour :agree: continuity tory

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347427172_595788912658337_4198276510443535930_n.jp g?_nc_cat=109&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=SrwyKSPbexAAX8TlFbB&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfAc3Ig7yffjFTGEBRIAtDoSp2cE4yKTpWBJD17X4Zlg Rw&oe=6490C42F

[grunt]

Dame Jackie Baillie. LOL.

[grunt]

It's in the National, so it won't be believed.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23595738.labour-msp-candidate-quits-party-amid-savage-attack-keir-starmer/


Wright said: “All in all, it’s very easy to simply observe reasons to not trust Sir Keir Starmer. He has lied about his person, his intentions, and continues to present policies in a duplicitous fashion.

“How could I, as a Labour member, be honest about my party’s policies to people at the doorstep when not even the party leader seems to ever be? The answer, to me, is that I could not.”

[cabbageandribs1875]

absolutely spot freakin on :agree:

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

[Mibbes Aye]

absolutely spot freakin on :agree:



It would be more 'spot on' if it hadn't been changed. The original quote made reference to the potential for Labour and the SDP woring together, amongst other things. They've been edited out. Maybe fridge magnets only go to a certain size.

The quote also came just a few months after Benn had bitterly lost the deputy leadership election to Denis Healey. The unions and the MPs backed Healey, the CLPs backed Benn.

Benn's agenda by running for the depute leadership was to push for his own particular views in the party and in the unlikely event of government - leave the EEC immediately, leave NATO etc .

Michael Foot even asked Benn to challenge him for the leadership if he was that unhappy, but Benn chose not to.

That was Benn's last real stab at front-bench politics. More than forty years ago now.

So, turning away from Europe, leaving NATO - is that 'spot on' for you?

[Kato]

It would be more 'spot on' if it hadn't been changed. The original quote made reference to the potential for Labour and the SDP woring together, amongst other things. They've been edited out. Maybe fridge magnets only go to a certain size.

The quote also came just a few months after Benn had bitterly lost the deputy leadership election to Denis Healey. The unions and the MPs backed Healey, the CLPs backed Benn.

Benn's agenda by running for the depute leadership was to push for his own particular views in the party and in the unlikely event of government - leave the EEC immediately, leave NATO etc .

Michael Foot even asked Benn to challenge him for the leadership if he was that unhappy, but Benn chose not to.

That was Benn's last real stab at front-bench politics. More than forty years ago now.

So, turning away from Europe, leaving NATO - is that 'spot on' for you?It's possible to be spot on about some things and wrong about others.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

It's possible to be spot on about some things and wrong about others.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Or in this case, it's possible to be wrong about some things and absolutely self-serving, bloody-minded and cloth-eared about others.

I don't actually mind Tony Benn that much, in the same way that if I'm walking down the Royal Mile at Festival time, I don't mind a mime artist. A bit eccentric and wanting you to engage with something you just don't see any value in.

[Kato]

Or in this case, it's possible to be wrong about some things and absolutely self-serving, bloody-minded and cloth-eared about others.

I don't actually mind Tony Benn that much, in the same way that if I'm walking down the Royal Mile at Festival time, I don't mind a mime artist. A bit eccentric and wanting you to engage with something you just don't see any value in.That seems like protesting a tad too much.

What socialist policies are the Labour Party pushing these days. I've barely paid attention.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Cartel party politics rules the roost in the UK. All that’s really on offer is management competence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

That seems like protesting a tad too much.

What socialist policies are the Labour Party pushing these days. I've barely paid attention.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I don't know how you define 'socialist' but if you are interested, there's a consultation going on this summer to agree the election manifesto at autumn conference.

Some stuff that's already been announced has been discussed already on here, I've posted a few things to a resounding non-response :greengrin and there is stuff on the party website.

And Keir was in Edinburgh today talking about energy policy. There will be some coverage across the news outlets.

You seem to navigate .net alright, so Im sure you could master Google :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Cartel party politics rules the roost in the UK. All that’s really on offer is management competence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And even that's an aspiration rather than a reality.

[Ozyhibby]

And even that's an aspiration rather than a reality.

Fair point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I don't know how you define 'socialist' but if you are interested, there's a consultation going on this summer to agree the election manifesto at autumn conference.

Some stuff that's already been announced has been discussed already on here, I've posted a few things to a resounding non-response :greengrin and there is stuff on the party website.

And Keir was in Edinburgh today talking about energy policy. There will be some coverage across the news outlets.

You seem to navigate .net alright, so Im sure you could master Google :greengrinNowt then.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Nowt then.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Plenty. I’m just not your researcher. But if you don’t want to know, then you don’t have to seek. Ignorance can be bliss I’m told 😀

[Kato]

Plenty. I’m just not your researcher. But if you don’t want to know, then you don’t have to seek. Ignorance can be bliss I’m told [emoji3]"Do your own research," yeah I get it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65930204

This is an interesting consultation by Daniel Johnson. Based on my own experience, proper training is long overdue for staff working with children with additional support needs. I know this particular incident took place in a special school but under the SG's 'presumption of mainstreaming' policy a vastly increased number of kids with significant challenges are being incorporated within mainstream schools, which are by and large sorely lacking in the means to integrate them. Along with many of my colleagues down the years, I've ended up at A&E due to wounds sustained as a result of incidents involving such children - largely because you are wary of using any form of physical restraint, not only to diffuse the situation but to protect yourself. Many of these children are palmed off to pupil support assistants (PSAs) as they are too disruptive to remain with the main class for any length of time, with most PSAs completely untrained in how to manage such situations, let alone paid enough (it's a minimum wage role) for taking on such challenges.

The focus in the BBC story is on the child's wellbeing, which is understandable - as is his mother's unstinting love and dedication - but while it's clearly unpleasant that he lost consciousness in the incident referred to, many reading it will have little awareness of just how hard it can be to deal with a situation like that, even at primary school level.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65930204

This is an interesting consultation by Daniel Johnson. Based on my own experience, proper training is long overdue for staff working with children with additional support needs. I know this particular incident took place in a special school but under the SG's 'presumption of mainstreaming' policy a vastly increased number of kids with significant challenges are being incorporated within mainstream schools, which are by and large sorely lacking in the means to integrate them. Along with many of my colleagues down the years, I've ended up at A&E due to wounds sustained as a result of incidents involving such children - largely because you are wary of using any form of physical restraint, not only to diffuse the situation but to protect yourself. Many of these children are palmed off to pupil support assistants (PSAs) as they are too disruptive to remain with the main class for any length of time, with most PSAs completely untrained in how to manage such situations, let alone paid enough (it's a minimum wage role) for taking on such challenges.

The focus in the BBC story is on the child's wellbeing, which is understandable - as is his mother's unstinting love and dedication - but while it's clearly unpleasant that he lost consciousness in the incident referred to, many reading it will have little awareness of just how hard it can be to deal with a situation like that, even at primary school level.

It is an interesting read and raises many points and I agree with you that news stories like these rarely do justice to the context.

In reference to the article I don’t know if CALM is still widespread in Scotland as the system for physical interventions but the starting point for training was that a physical intervention is assault in Scots law, clear and simple. Using CALM or other systems necessitated having a defence, usually the need to protect people and/or property from harm. To that extent the use of interventions is a matter of law and action can be taken.

I also think the employer has a clear responsibility in law around the health and safety of its workers. That can involve training but should also involve proactive risk assessment, reviewed regularly and updated as and when. That protects the staff member but also sets out parameters for them around risk thresholds.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/mark-drakeford-told-off-uk-27152194

Welsh Labour showing Scottish Labour what having a spine is all about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1671262625039265792?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

How can this be? I thought he was abolishing the Lords? Is this just another lie? What about Gordon Browns big plan? That’s all that was in it and it’s now gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1671262625039265792?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

How can this be? I thought he was abolishing the Lords? Is this just another lie? What about Gordon Browns big plan? That’s all that was in it and it’s now gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, they've only been committed to abolishing the lords since forever. They just need a little more time.

[Stairway 2 7]

Tories need to get a shake on if the election is in 16 months as expected

Opros Politics 🇺🇦
@OprosUK
·
8h
Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 46% (+4)
CON: 27% (-4)
LDM: 10% (-2)
GRN: 6% (+2)
REF: 5% (+1)

via @DeltapollUK, 16-19 Jun

(Changes with 12 Jun

[Ozyhibby]

Tories need to get a shake on if the election is in 16 months as expected

Opros Politics [emoji1255]
@OprosUK
·
8h
Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 46% (+4)
CON: 27% (-4)
LDM: 10% (-2)
GRN: 6% (+2)
REF: 5% (+1)

via @DeltapollUK, 16-19 Jun

(Changes with 12 Jun

I’m not even sure Sunak will make it that far. His party seem to hate him and the only argument for not moving against him is they can’t keep going for a new leader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I’m not even sure Sunak will make it that far. His party seem to hate him and the only argument for not moving against him is they can’t keep going for a new leader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. They have no choice but to battle on and hide the infighting. I think they will come back in the run up but it's surely a labour f up if it isn't a landslide

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/rachelamery/status/1671468045406019584?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

More brutal than Thatcher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/rachelamery/status/1671468045406019584?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

More brutal than Thatcher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't the snp/greens want the same a stop to oil as soon as we can realistically. I don't think Thatcher was climate motivated

[Ozyhibby]

Don't the snp/greens want the same a stop to oil as soon as we can realistically. I don't think Thatcher was climate motivated

I’m sure the greens do. The SNP, no. Labour’s policy is for a hard stop though. No new fields. SNP policy is to look at each new application and make sure it fits in with our climate goals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

I’m sure the greens do. The SNP, no. Labour’s policy is for a hard stop though. No new fields. SNP policy is to look at each new application and make sure it fits in with our climate goals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been critical of Starmer and Labour but this is a brave and correct decision.

We cannot meet our essential climate goals whilst continuing to green light new fossil fuel extraction. It's talking out both sides of your mouth.

Aberdeen and Scotland as a whole has massive potential with hydrogen. The transition is going to be challenging and will need a lot of Government support, from both the UK and Scot Gov.

From my personal experience, I am confident Scot Gov get this, although there is more still to do. I'm not so convinced about Starmer, and wonder if this decision would be made if oil and gas was a central part of 'red wall' economies. But I also accept I have no hard evidence for this (although Aberdeen North is the safest seat in Scotland with Labour finishing behind the Tories last time, and despite polling indicating big Labour gains are likely in Scotland, none that I have seen before this announcement show Labour winning seats in the North East...)

So more detail and follow through very much needed, but I think it's the right approach.

[Ozyhibby]

I've been critical of Starmer and Labour but this is a brave and correct decision.

We cannot meet our essential climate goals whilst continuing to green light new fossil fuel extraction. It's talking out both sides of your mouth.

Aberdeen and Scotland as a whole has massive potential with hydrogen. The transition is going to be challenging and will need a lot of Government support, from both the UK and Scot Gov.

From my personal experience, I am confident Scot Gov get this, although there is more still to do. I'm not so convinced about Starmer, and wonder if this decision would be made if oil and gas was a central part of 'red wall' economies. But I also accept I have no tangible evidence for this (although Aberdeen North is the safest seat in Scotland with Labour finishing behind the Tories last time...)

So more detail and follow through very much needed, but I think it's the right approach.

I think that’s the worst way of transitioning though. Much better to use the skill base we have in oil and gas to build up expertise in renewables. If you kill off oil and gas then we won’t have the investment to build our renewable energy.
SNP need to learn this as well. Just transition can’t just be a catchphrase. It needs to be what we are actually doing. Hopefully Yousaf sees the gift Labour are presenting him and move closer to the transition part than NS was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I've been critical of Starmer and Labour but this is a brave and correct decision.

We cannot meet our essential climate goals whilst continuing to green light new fossil fuel extraction. It's talking out both sides of your mouth.

Aberdeen and Scotland as a whole has massive potential with hydrogen. The transition is going to be challenging and will need a lot of Government support, from both the UK and Scot Gov.

From my personal experience, I am confident Scot Gov get this, although there is more still to do. I'm not so convinced about Starmer, and wonder if this decision would be made if oil and gas was a central part of 'red wall' economies. But I also accept I have no hard evidence for this (although Aberdeen North is the safest seat in Scotland with Labour finishing behind the Tories last time, and despite polling indicating big Labour gains are likely in Scotland, none that I have seen before this announcement show Labour winning seats in the North East...)

So more detail and follow through very much needed, but I think it's the right approach.

That is a fair post. I think it is a bigger picture than NE though. There is a big commitment to online wind. Those turbines have to go somewhere and seem to piss people off, though as someone who has lived relatively close or certainly commuted past them for a long period of time, I think they are pretty in a stark sort of way.

You are absolutely right IMO that it is the correct decision. I’m far from some Just Stop Oil eco-activist but it seems patently obvious to me that the longer we duck the issue the harder we will have to hit the brakes. And we have been ducking the issue for long enough.

I think you are also right that it is a brave decision. Funny how we don’t associate the words ‘brave decision’ with either of our two incumbent, impotent, imbecilic governments.

[Ozyhibby]

That is a fair post. I think it is a bigger picture than NE though. There is a big commitment to online wind. Those turbines have to go somewhere and seem to piss people off, though as someone who has lived relatively close or certainly commuted past them for a long period of time, I think they are pretty in a stark sort of way.

You are absolutely right IMO that it is the correct decision. I’m far from some Just Stop Oil eco-activist but it seems patently obvious to me that the longer we duck the issue the harder we will have to hit the brakes. And we have been ducking the issue for long enough.

I think you are also right that it is a brave decision. Funny how we don’t associate the words ‘brave decision’ with either of our two incumbent, impotent, imbecilic governments.

And when he reverses this decision that will of course be the correct thing to do.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

And when he reverses this decision that will of course be the correct thing to do.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How would you know? The other day you were blaming him for stuff that happened years before he became leader :faf:

[Mibbes Aye]

Good article on how the private schools sector is gearing up to resist Labour.

Labour will make private school fees liable for VAT. Currently they are exempt, which saves private schools £1.7bn a year.

£1.7bn that could be spent on lublic services.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/21/private-schools-labour-britain-fee-paying-vat-exemption

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Good article on how the private schools sector is gearing up to resist Labour.

Labour will make private school fees liable for VAT. Currently they are exempt, which saves private schools £1.7bn a year.

£1.7bn that could be spent on lublic services.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/21/private-schools-labour-britain-fee-paying-vat-exemption

Well they "could" spend it on public services, but they've yet to make any policy commitment to do so. You also go in with "Labour will". There's absolutely no guarantee that they will go through with this, just as there were no guarantees on any of their other broken promises.

It's good to see that the guardian is self aware though. Even they admit that this is ""one of the few policies that puts clear daylight between the Tories and Labour".

Assuming Starmer doesn't notice and it actually remains a policy.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65978167?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=626CC3FA-1054-11EE-9B52-D906D872BE90&at_link_type=web_link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics

Looking more and more like abolition of the Lords can be crossed of the list. Again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Labour councillor in Aberdeen quits Labour councillor quits party over Keir Starmer’s ‘brutal’ North Sea oil and gas plan (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/labour-councillor-quits-party-over-keir-starmer-s-brutal-north-sea-oil-and-gas-plan/ar-AA1cQeMi?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e24aaa57f674470abe8e2da77bea828a&ei=28)

[Mibbes Aye]

Labour councillor in Aberdeen quits Labour councillor quits party over Keir Starmer’s ‘brutal’ North Sea oil and gas plan (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/labour-councillor-quits-party-over-keir-starmer-s-brutal-north-sea-oil-and-gas-plan/ar-AA1cQeMi?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e24aaa57f674470abe8e2da77bea828a&ei=28)

I guess he's doing what he thinks is right by his constituents. And I've no doubt he will make sure his picture is in the press and Journal when green energy jobs come to the North-East.

Labour, and Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband, are doing what's right for the country and the planet. They are not going to please everybody but the right decisions aren't always the popular ones.

So, the oil and gas lobby think Labour is going too far. The environmental lobby thinks Labour isn't going far enough. The important part is that one way or the other, they see Labour as the party that will actually be making these decisions, in government, about all our futures.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I guess he's doing what he thinks is right by his constituents. And I've no doubt he will make sure his picture is in the press and Journal when green energy jobs come to the North-East.

Labour, and Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband, are doing what's right for the country and the planet. They are not going to please everybody but the right decisions aren't always the popular ones.

So, the oil and gas lobby think Labour is going too far. The environmental lobby thinks Labour isn't going far enough. The important part is that one way or the other, they see Labour as the party that will actually be making these decisions, in government, about all our futures.

How are they funding these green energy jobs if they're just going to instantly stop offshore licencing, rather than transitioning and funding it using a levy from north sea oil and gas?

He hasn't given any details on that.

[Ozyhibby]

How are they funding these green energy jobs if they're just going to instantly stop offshore licencing, rather than transitioning and funding it using a levy from north sea oil and gas?

He hasn't given any details on that.

He’ll change his position on it before long anyway and MA will shift with him.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65978167?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=626CC3FA-1054-11EE-9B52-D906D872BE90&at_link_type=web_link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics

Looking more and more like abolition of the Lords can be crossed of the list. Again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Poor from you, given I offered a reasoned response to you claiming this elsewhere. You never responded to that, last time I looked and have come here repeating yourself.

We live in a democracy, with a legislature. For stuff to change, laws have to be made and passed, or existing laws amended or struck out. You agree?

The Tories have packed plenty of their sycophants and donors in the Lords, no doubt more to come as their administration breathes its last. You agree?

The Lords can't stop legislation but it can delay it. You agree?

The Tories have left a right old mess for whoever comes next. You agree?

Any government trying to fix the Tory mess should make a start right away. You agree?

Creating temporary peers, if Labour has a majority in the Commons, will help get the fixing done sooner. You agree?

[Ozyhibby]

Poor from you, given I offered a reasoned response to you claiming this elsewhere. You never responded to that, last time I looked and have come here repeating yourself.

We live in a democracy, with a legislature. For stuff to change, laws have to be made and passed, or existing laws amended or struck out. You agree?

The Tories have packed plenty of their sycophants and donors in the Lords, no doubt more to come as their administration breathes its last. You agree?

The Lords can't stop legislation but it can delay it. You agree?

The Tories have left a right old mess for whoever comes next. You agree?

Any government trying to fix the Tory mess should make a start right away. You agree?

Creating temporary peers, if Labour has a majority in the Commons, will help get the fixing done sooner. You agree?

I agree he promised it would be done in his first term. Let’s see.

If Labour make it a manifesto pledge then there is little the lords can do to stop. They can maybe slow down a bit but so long as it’s in the manifesto then Labour will be able to use their commons majority to push through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I agree he promised it would be done in his first term. Let’s see.

If Labour make it a manifesto pledge then there is little the lords can do to stop. They can maybe slow down a bit but so long as it’s in the manifesto then Labour will be able to use their commons majority to push through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are missing the point.

A second elected chamber takes more than days or weeks or even a few months. Genuine consultation in itself takes months, the lead-in time for elected members takes months.

There are 13 years of Tory damage to fix. That needs to start on day one, not wait until a second chamber is up and running. You would be the first on here and there would be plenty of others slamming Labour for focusing on constitutional politics when they could be tackling the cost of living, the NHS and housing.

[Ozyhibby]

You are missing the point.

A second elected chamber takes more than days or weeks or even a few months. Genuine consultation in itself takes months, the lead-in time for elected members takes months.

There are 13 years of Tory damage to fix. That needs to start on day one, not wait until a second chamber is up and running. You would be the first on here and there would be plenty of others slamming Labour for focusing on constitutional politics when they could be tackling the cost of living, the NHS and housing.

I actually want this sort of thing fixed first. If you don’t fix the system of govt then you’ll keep getting bad govt and bad outcomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I actually want this sort of thing fixed first. If you don’t fix the system of govt then you’ll keep getting bad govt and bad outcomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You read it here first folks - Ozy wants Lords reform, however long that takes, before anything to tackle the cost of living, the NHS or housing.

But taking your point seriously, did the system stop the last Labour government from tackling child and pensioner poverty? Was SureStart a bad outcome? What about creating the minimum wage?

Or lets go back to previous Labour governments. Did the system stop outlawing racial and sexual discrimination? Decriminalising abortion and homosexuality? Was the creation of the Open University a bad outcome? 2.3mn people have studied and gained qualifications since it was founded.

O lets go back to post-war Labour. Did the system stop the creation of the NHS? Was universal healthcare, free at the point of use a bad outcome?

You are painting yourself into a corner here.

[archie]

I actually want this sort of thing fixed first. If you don’t fix the system of govt then you’ll keep getting bad govt and bad outcomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do get where you are coming from, but it's not a quick fix. The fundamental question that needs a huge amount of engagement and debate is what you replace the HoL with. I suppose some would argue that the second chamber is redundant. I don't agree. But there are so many aspects that need detailed consideration, coupled with multiple areas needing urgent action, means it can't be quick.

[Ozyhibby]

You read it here first folks - Ozy wants Lords reform, however long that takes, before anything to tackle the cost of living, the NHS or housing.

But taking your point seriously, did the system stop the last Labour government from tackling child and pensioner poverty? Was SureStart a bad outcome? What about creating the minimum wage?

Or lets go back to previous Labour governments. Did the system stop outlawing racial and sexual discrimination? Decriminalising abortion and homosexuality? Was the creation of the Open University a bad outcome? 2.3mn people have studied and gained qualifications since it was founded.

O lets go back to post-war Labour. Did the system stop the creation of the NHS? Was universal healthcare, free at the point of use a bad outcome?

You are painting yourself into a corner here.

I’m not saying good things can’t be done even in bad systems but look at where we are?
I honestly believe Labour won’t even start to get rid of the Lords. It will still be here in 10 years. They won’t look at PR either. Self interest is the name of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

How about do all the good stuff at the same time? Make it happen, Labour. Assuming the landslide that polls suggest, it's easy street. Imagine the energy of that new government.

[grunt]

If they're not going to do it, why did they say that they would?

[Just Alf]

How about do all the good stuff at the same time? Make it happen, Labour. Assuming the landslide that polls suggest, it's easy street. Imagine the energy of that new government.Was about to post the same.

See it all the time on here... if a government is doing "A", someone will be along saying they should be doing "B".
No recognition that they might actually be doing A and B at the same time!

"Day Job" and all that malarkey... I even said it today on a thread about Westminster! :greengrin
(Mind you, in that particular case they've had a howler... you need an exception for every rule! :rofl: )

[Mibbes Aye]

How about do all the good stuff at the same time? Make it happen, Labour. Assuming the landslide that polls suggest, it's easy street. Imagine the energy of that new government.

Some of it will be concurrent. But there physically is a limit to how much legislation can be written, debated, revised and pushed through. And that's bearing in mind that the country doesn't stop running while you are doing all that. And that's bearing in mind there is no excuse for diddling about while the cost of living, the NHS, housing etc is here and now for most of the electorate.

Just out of interest, what timescale do you think would be required to shift to an elected second chamber

[Mibbes Aye]

Was about to post the same.

See it all the time on here... if a government is doing "A", someone will be along saying they should be doing "B".
No recognition that they might actually be doing A and B at the same time!

"Day Job" and all that malarkey... I even said it today on a thread about Westminster! :greengrin
(Mind you, in that particular case they've had a howler... you need an exception for every rule! :rofl: )

I sort of answered in the post above, but it would be interesting to get a broader view.

How long do you think it would take to get a second, elected chamber up and running?

[Mibbes Aye]

I’m not saying good things can’t be done even in bad systems but look at where we are?
I honestly believe Labour won’t even start to get rid of the Lords. It will still be here in 10 years. They won’t look at PR either. Self interest is the name of the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are criticising them for not making it number one priority. While saying they won't do it anyway.

Enjoy the cake you have when you get round to eating it :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Some of it will be concurrent. But there physically is a limit to how much legislation can be written, debated, revised and pushed through. And that's bearing in mind that the country doesn't stop running while you are doing all that. And that's bearing in mind there is no excuse for diddling about while the cost of living, the NHS, housing etc is here and now for most of the electorate.

Just out of interest, what timescale do you think would be required to shift to an elected second chamber

This guy thinks it can be done in the first term of a Labour government. Should I not believe him?

https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-pledges-to-abolish-house-of-lords-in-first-term-as-prime-minister-12762032


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

This guy thinks it can be done in the first term of a Labour government. Should I not believe him?

https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-pledges-to-abolish-house-of-lords-in-first-term-as-prime-minister-12762032


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a five year window.

[Kato]

If they're not going to do it, why did they say that they would?Constitutional Hokey Cokey.

That's what it's all about.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This guy thinks it can be done in the first term of a Labour government. Should I not believe him?

https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-pledges-to-abolish-house-of-lords-in-first-term-as-prime-minister-12762032


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, you should. He says he wants to. But if Labour do get into power I personally suspect it won't be the first cab off the rank.

Especially as the Tories are likely to burn down anything they can over the next twelve to fifteen months.

[Mibbes Aye]

Constitutional Hokey Cokey.

That's what it's all about.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

You put your centrist-left leg in
The Hard Left say you've sold out
In, out, in, out, vote the Tories out
You fix the cost of living and you turn Brexit around
That's what Keir's all about


:greengrin

[grunt]

We understand that Ed Miliband, the former Labour Party Leader, has been forbidden by the Labour Party leadership from attending the Glastonbury Festival where he was due to share a platform with Just Stop Oil co-founder Indigo Rumbelow.

https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/22/just-stop-oil-we-are-the-real-opposition/

[xyz23jc]

https://juststopoil.org/2023/06/22/just-stop-oil-we-are-the-real-opposition/

North Korea you say... :wink::greengrin

[Glory Lurker]

Some of it will be concurrent. But there physically is a limit to how much legislation can be written, debated, revised and pushed through. And that's bearing in mind that the country doesn't stop running while you are doing all that. And that's bearing in mind there is no excuse for diddling about while the cost of living, the NHS, housing etc is here and now for most of the electorate.

Just out of interest, what timescale do you think would be required to shift to an elected second chamber

So, Labour might not actually deliver it?

[Mibbes Aye]

So, Labour might not actually deliver it?

I think they will. Let's get them into government and hold them to account for it.

Just out of interest, what timescale do you think would be required to shift to an elected second chamber? I did ask previously but you appear to have not answered.

[Glory Lurker]

I think they will. Let's get them into government and hold them to account for it.

Just out of interest, what timescale do you think would be required to shift to an elected second chamber? I did ask previously but you appear to have not answered.

You did. That's a UK problem, that's on you guys.

[Mibbes Aye]

You did. That's a UK problem, that's on you guys.


You don't need to duck the question. I'm genuinely interested in your view and anyone else's on how long it would take to shift to a second, elected chamber.

[Smartie]

You don't need to duck the question. I'm genuinely interested in your view and anyone else's on how long it would take to shift to a second, elected chamber.

Not saying for a second that it would be quick or easy but don't you think that if it's going to be so logistically impossible for any governing party to manage it within a term that one of the two parties who have a chance of being elected and doing something about it should maybe stop making noises (that will be popular with the public) about doing something that will be (apparently) impossible to achieve?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You don't need to duck the question. I'm genuinely interested in your view and anyone else's on how long it would take to shift to a second, elected chamber.

Surely that's the kind of question that requires a definitive answer rather than an opinion? Considering Labour have been proposing the reform of the House of Lords since 1918, we can gather that it takes at least 106 years to reform the House of Lords.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not saying for a second that it would be quick or easy but don't you think that if it's going to be so logistically impossible for any governing party to manage it within a term that one of the two parties who have a chance of being elected and doing something about it should maybe stop making noises (that will be popular with the public) about doing something that will be (apparently) impossible to achieve?

I don't know if it is logistically possible, I don't think anyone could say they do at this stage. What Labour had actually said on the matter (which is different from what Ozyhibby claims they said :rolleyes:) is that the party is committed to it and hopes to accomplish it in the first term.

On the subject of making popular noises, in the last week we have seen Starmer take a stand that is fundamentally right but faces incurring the wrath of many people - most recently on mitigation for mortgage holders, and of course hacking off both the environmental and the pro-carbons lobbies with his green energy plan. I don't see him ducking anything there - making and taking the right decisions rather than ducking them.

Anyway, Labour's election policies are out for consultation this summer before going to autumn conference for approval and for the election manifesto to be created. Things will crystalise more then. It's a process and that is only right.

Interestingly, I was reading something by Lord Bingham the other day, he was one of the most respected jurists of modern times, Lord Chief Justice and a big force in developing the Supreme Court. He was talking about how a written constitution might be developed which links to the idea of a second chamber, (as per Brown). His estimate was that work would need to be done on around three and a half thousand laws and nine thousand statutory instruments to get a constitution up and running. Someone, I think it was Robin Cook when he was Leader of the House talked about it taking up to 20 years.

Now, that was twenty years ago and many, many laws and SIs have been added since then. By the same token, I think Cook was highlighting the worst case scenario. Nevertheless, when you think of all the stages required, it obviously would take years and years. Worth it though IMO and that's a conversion because in years gone by I preferred the flexibility of an unwritten constitution, with established conventions and norms. Johnson and his flunkies blew a hole in that. One thng's for sure, a lot of lawyers will make a lot of money from developing and then using a codified constitution.

[Mibbes Aye]

Surely that's the kind of question that requires a definitive answer rather than an opinion? Considering Labour have been proposing the reform of the House of Lords since 1918, we can gather that it takes at least 106 years to reform the House of Lords.

It really isn't.

Its just a genuine, unscientific, statistically imperfect means of getting a picture of what people think.

[archie]

I don't know if it is logistically possible, I don't think anyone could say they do at this stage. What Labour had actually said on the matter (which is different from what Ozyhibby claims they said :rolleyes:) is that the party is committed to it and hopes to accomplish it in the first term.

On the subject of making popular noises, in the last week we have seen Starmer take a stand that is fundamentally right but faces incurring the wrath of many people - most recently on mitigation for mortgage holders, and of course hacking off both the environmental and the pro-carbons lobbies with his green energy plan. I don't see him ducking anything there - making and taking the right decisions rather than ducking them.

Anyway, Labour's election policies are out for consultation this summer before going to autumn conference for approval and for the election manifesto to be created. Things will crystalise more then. It's a process and that is only right.

Interestingly, I was reading something by Lord Bingham the other day, he was one of the most respected jurists of modern times, Lord Chief Justice and a big force in developing the Supreme Court. He was talking about how a written constitution might be developed which links to the idea of a second chamber, (as per Brown). His estimate was that work would need to be done on around three and a half thousand laws and nine thousand statutory instruments to get a constitution up and running. Someone, I think it was Robin Cook when he was Leader of the House talked about it taking up to 20 years.

Now, that was twenty years ago and many, many laws and SIs have been added since then. By the same token, I think Cook was highlighting the worst case scenario. Nevertheless, when you think of all the stages required, it obviously would take years and years. Worth it though IMO and that's a conversion because in years gone by I preferred the flexibility of an unwritten constitution, with established conventions and norms. Johnson and his flunkies blew a hole in that. One thng's for sure, a lot of lawyers will make a lot of money from developing and then using a codified constitution.

The way people go on here you would think it was just a stroke of a pen and it would be sorted. There needs to be a fundamental exploration of what it is we actually want and need. How is a second chamber elected? What is the relationship between it and the HoC and the devolved administrations? What should a codified constitution look like? What are the disbenefits of having a codified constitution? I would cite the grossly disproportionate influence that the US Supreme Court has on the body politic. Even if the US voted for more gun restrictions the SC would likely overturn it. Based on a document which, at its core, is over 200 years old.

But you know, maybe I'm just being negative. Perhaps we could just knock something together in 6 months.

[Moulin Yarns]

Assume Labour win the election with a healthy majority, bring the bill to replace the HOL with an elected chamber in the first 6 months, probably take 2 years of it going back and forth before it's passed. That takes you to 2026/27. Another 2 years to enact it, 2029, not impossible, but there needs to be a will within Westminster to bring it about, and that's where I don't have any confidence that Labour will do what they claim.

[Kato]

Sack all peers.

Have each party nominate someone for a 2nd chamber for each constituency.

After the election divide the vote by actual votes cast and preferred nominees take a seat in the 2nd chamber according to PR.

Bob's yer uncle.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[J-C]

You don't need to duck the question. I'm genuinely interested in your view and anyone else's on how long it would take to shift to a second, elected chamber.

OK I'll bite, it'll take 3hrs 20 mins.

[Ozyhibby]

The way people go on here you would think it was just a stroke of a pen and it would be sorted. There needs to be a fundamental exploration of what it is we actually want and need. How is a second chamber elected? What is the relationship between it and the HoC and the devolved administrations? What should a codified constitution look like? What are the disbenefits of having a codified constitution? I would cite the grossly disproportionate influence that the US Supreme Court has on the body politic. Even if the US voted for more gun restrictions the SC would likely overturn it. Based on a document which, at its core, is over 200 years old.

But you know, maybe I'm just being negative. Perhaps we could just knock something together in 6 months.

Starmer says it can be done in 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Starmer says it can be done in 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ties in with my post above 😉

[Jack]

The way people go on here you would think it was just a stroke of a pen and it would be sorted. There needs to be a fundamental exploration of what it is we actually want and need. How is a second chamber elected? What is the relationship between it and the HoC and the devolved administrations? What should a codified constitution look like? What are the disbenefits of having a codified constitution? I would cite the grossly disproportionate influence that the US Supreme Court has on the body politic. Even if the US voted for more gun restrictions the SC would likely overturn it. Based on a document which, at its core, is over 200 years old.

But you know, maybe I'm just being negative. Perhaps we could just knock something together in 6 months.

Labour has had 100 years to think about what it will look like 😆

[grunt]

It will never happen because neither Tories nor Labour are really committed to doing it.

But who cares how another country organises their constitutional affairs? Does it matter to you whether France has an elected second chamber? Let's get Scotland away from the English constitutional disaster and allow Scotland to determine how it governs itself. England can do what it wants - it does that anyway.

[Ozyhibby]

Ties in with my post above [emoji6]

I doubt it even makes it to their manifesto now. They have next election in the bag.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

You don't need to duck the question. I'm genuinely interested in your view and anyone else's on how long it would take to shift to a second, elected chamber.

That's a more polite response than I deserved. Thanks.

We managed to leave the EU within five years of Cameron's win in 2015. A lot of the time lag in that process, such as negotiating terms and making parliamentary deals, wouldn't apply in this case. If it ends up in Labour's manifesto and you win as well as it looks like it will turn out, then it should be deliverable.

[grunt]

We managed to leave the EU within five years of Cameron's win in 2015.
And look at what a mess that has been.

[grunt]

Here's another liar

https://twitter.com/Innealadair/status/1672190329578049538?s=20

[archie]

Labour has had 100 years to think about what it will look like 😆

But it won't just be an issue for Labour. Don't you think this needs full civic engagement? I could say the Scottish Government has had 16 years to 'scrap the hated Council Tax' but that would be cheap too.

[Ozyhibby]

But it won't just be an issue for Labour. Don't you think this needs full civic engagement? I could say the Scottish Government has had 16 years to 'scrap the hated Council Tax' but that would be cheap too.

So you admit it’s not happening?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Wasn't rishi meant to get a Johnson bounce..

Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
·
2h
Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+3)
CON: 25% (-3)
LDM: 13% (=)
GRN: 8% (+2)
SNP: 4% (=)
RFM: 2% (=)

Via @IpsosUK, 14-20 Jun.
Changes w/ 10-16 May.

[Ozyhibby]

Wasn't rishi meant to get a Johnson bounce..

Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
·
2h
Westminster Voting Intention:

LAB: 47% (+3)
CON: 25% (-3)
LDM: 13% (=)
GRN: 8% (+2)
SNP: 4% (=)
RFM: 2% (=)

Via @IpsosUK, 14-20 Jun.
Changes w/ 10-16 May.

Watching Sunak yesterday, he is going to get mauled in any campaign. He makes Starmer look charismatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Watching Sunak yesterday, he is going to get mauled in any campaign. He makes Starmer look charismatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is an incredible skill in itself. He actually manages to sound less convincing than Keir Starmer. Nobody can be that bad unless they're doing it intentionally.

[Mibbes Aye]

Assume Labour win the election with a healthy majority, bring the bill to replace the HOL with an elected chamber in the first 6 months, probably take 2 years of it going back and forth before it's passed. That takes you to 2026/27. Another 2 years to enact it, 2029, not impossible, but there needs to be a will within Westminster to bring it about, and that's where I don't have any confidence that Labour will do what they claim.

Thanks for posting, you have given it thought and I think it is interesting to see other people's views.

I think it is doable within a full term, I suspect (and this is solely a personal opinion) that if Labour do pursue a written constitution then the second chamber will be inextricably linked to that, and it becomes a question of whether you can chunk the implementation or not (I suspect you have to) and if tou do chunk then you have to have transitional arrangements to keep the wheels of government running. The government has to at legally (or change the law) otherwise athings can be held up by judicial review or being ruled illegal by the courts (as per Johnson prorogueing Parliament). That's in no one's interest.

Getting the bill in the first King's Speech will be a challenge - the Tories have made a lot of bad laws in the last thirteen years. The unions will be pushing hard for the repeal of the anti-union legislation, immigration and asylum isnt just managedincompetently, its barbaric, and there's a desperate need for support to SMEs, a rapprochement with the EU and a desperate need to address social care and as a consequence the NHS. Lots of people will be lobbying furiously for ther bill first.

Only other thing I would add is that as I recall, you have lots of experience of working in local government. Therefore you just know that whatever timescale you put on a structural change, you can add on 20% :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

OK I'll bite, it'll take 3hrs 20 mins.

:greengrin Excellent.

You strike me as a fellow who doesn't muck about with the endless talking, you are focused on the doing. Respect.

[Kato]

Which is an incredible skill in itself. He actually manages to sound less convincing than Keir Starmer. Nobody can be that bad unless they're doing it intentionally.John Major was similar. When a general election came around the country said "let's give the tories another chance here" and voted him in.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Starmer says it can be done in 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkGuy Fawkes reckoned a few seconds and as the only person to go into that building with honest intentions I'm going with his guess :hilarious

[archie]

So you admit it’s not happening?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where do I admit that?

[Mibbes Aye]

Labour has had 100 years to think about what it will look like 😆

The last Labour government is the only government who actually did anything significant about it, halving the size of the Lords and getting rid of most of the hereditary peers. They were in the process of legislating for all hereditary peers to be removed before the 2010 election.

All in the face of massive opposition from the Lords, as was, and the Tories. Delays, filibusters and delays again. Labour went behind William Hague'sback and delivered the reform by getting Viscount Cranboure on board who was persuasive to his fellow peers and knew the writing was on the wall.

Cheap, incorrect slogans are obviously better though.

[Mibbes Aye]

It will never happen because neither Tories nor Labour are really committed to doing it.

But who cares how another country organises their constitutional affairs? Does it matter to you whether France has an elected second chamber? Let's get Scotland away from the English constitutional disaster and allow Scotland to determine how it governs itself. England can do what it wants - it does that anyway.

Except Labour did do something about it, it started the reforms by cutting the Lords down massively by removing the vast majority of hereditary peers.

And it's not another country, it's your country, I presume.

Oh, and there are plenty of Scottish Lords in Parliament, merrily governing and legislating away.

[grunt]

Oh, and there are plenty of Scottish Lords in Parliament, merrily governing and legislating away.
Labour Lords and Tory Lords, but no SNP Lords, as you well know.

[Ozyhibby]

Except Labour did do something about it, it started the reforms by cutting the Lords down massively by removing the vast majority of hereditary peers.

And it's not another country, it's your country, I presume.

Oh, and there are plenty of Scottish Lords in Parliament, merrily governing and legislating away.

No Indy supporting lords thankfully.
Labour also appointed about 400 new Lords last time they were in power. I suspect next time they are in power there will be some small reforms, maybe hereditary peers gone for good or something. Abolition though won’t even be close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Labour Lords and Tory Lords, but no SNP Lords, as you well know.

That's their choice isn't it?

And there are many, many non-affiliated lords. Once you look beyond the lurid headline stuff, there are lots of people with huge expertise in very specific areas. They are surely the people we would want in a second chamber, not more party hacks there because of loyalty or to make room for new blood.

[grunt]

Except Labour did do something about it, it started the reforms by cutting the Lords down massively by removing the vast majority of hereditary peers.
So they addressed hereditary peerages. Slow handclap.
What about life peers?

https://constitutionunitdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/screenshot-3-1-e1624560024738.png

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Oh, and there are plenty of Scottish Lords in Parliament, merrily governing and legislating away.

Indeed. The Lord Darling's and Davidson's of this world. Interestingly non of which have ever advocated for an independent Scotland.

[grunt]

And there are many, many non-affiliated lords. Once you look beyond the lurid headline stuff, there are lots of people with huge expertise in very specific areas. They are surely the people we would want in a second chamber, not more party hacks there because of loyalty or to make room for new blood.So you want to keep the House of Lords? Well why didn't you say??? Here's me thinking you were arguing for Labour's (original) policy of doing away with the second chamber.

[grunt]

Labour Lords and Tory Lords, but no SNP Lords, as you well know.


That's their choice isn't it?
Hilarious. We started this discussion by talking about whether Labour wanted to abolish the House of Lords (as they said they did) or not, as they now say. And yet when presented with a party with principles, who refuse to accept appointment to the House of Lords, we get "that's their choice isn't it?" Pathetic.

[archie]

Hilarious. We started this discussion by talking about whether Labour wanted to abolish the House of Lords (as they said they did) or not, as they now say. And yet when presented with a party with principles, who refuse to accept appointment to the House of Lords, we get "that's their choice isn't it?" Pathetic.
TBF you aren't interested in reform of the HoL. This is just another way to beat the anti Labour drum.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

TBF you aren't interested in reform of the HoL. This is just another way to beat the anti Labour drum.

Neither are Labour. They've been banging that drum for a very long time. They need the House of Lords just as much as the Conservatives do, so that their PM's have a carrot to dangle over their MPs in exchange for complete loyalty, regardless of how rotten the PM is.

[Mibbes Aye]

No Indy supporting lords thankfully.
Labour also appointed about 400 new Lords last time they were in power. I suspect next time they are in power there will be some small reforms, maybe hereditary peers gone for good or something. Abolition though won’t even be close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did they? That's about 30 a year on average. Are you counting party political ones only - I would be surprised if that was the number. In fact, I know it's not. But I also know that in 1997 Tony Blair had the same problem as Keir Starmer has now - a need to create a squad of life peers to overcome the Tories and start fixing what they broke.

So you are counting peers in general. Is that cpnsistent with other administrations? Should we be surprised? What is the ideal number?

As I assume you are counting peers in general - wouldn't you agree that people like Robin Butler, Charles Guthrie, Adair Turner, Bill Morris, Frances D'Souza, Molly Meacher, Jane Campbell, Pauline Neville-Jones, Nuala O'Loan - and that's just off the top of my head, there's no doubt dozens of others - have the experience, nowledge and skills to play an active role in public life? They did, didn't they?

[Mibbes Aye]

So you want to keep the House of Lords? Well why didn't you say??? Here's me thinking you were arguing for Labour's (original) policy of doing away with the second chamber.

God help us :rolleyes: Is this going to be one of those moments, like 'dropping out of university' or 'emerging facts' where you take a bizarre contrary position despite the lack of any evidence?

Getting rid of a House of Lords and replacing it with an alternative, elected second chamber DOES NOT MEAN keeping the House of Lords.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Yvette cooper right up there, sickening, Labour will be the party to finally kill the NHS :agree:



https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347244739_10230370488314953_9010639140376353710_n. jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=103&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=Ux3QMF8quqMAX8VYnqO&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBFmIV4xOWMxViIoN7wFN4Aujnzec_FFsTFX1mwSQdW Vg&oe=649A3243

[Mibbes Aye]

So they addressed hereditary peerages. Slow handclap.
What about life peers?

https://constitutionunitdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/screenshot-3-1-e1624560024738.png

See your graph? See at the far left end it says "1958"?

That was the year the Life Peerages Act was introduced. Life peers didn't exist before that. So of course their numbers will grow over time. It's actually quite illustrative if you look at what happened after 2010.

As for your 'slow handclap' comment, dealing with hereditary peers is a big deal. I can't be sure but I suspect you are someone who feels it is wrong that we have a monarchy, decided by bloodline, youve maybe even posted as such.

Doing something about that, tackling one part of the establishment, the forces of conservatism is to be lauded, no?

[Mibbes Aye]

Yvette cooper right up there, sickening, Labour will be the party to finally kill the NHS :agree:



https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347244739_10230370488314953_9010639140376353710_n. jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=103&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=Ux3QMF8quqMAX8VYnqO&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBFmIV4xOWMxViIoN7wFN4Aujnzec_FFsTFX1mwSQdW Vg&oe=649A3243

Given they can't spell 'interest' right, you will forgive some dubiety about the accuracy of your table.

[Ozyhibby]

Did they? That's about 30 a year on average. Are you counting party political ones only - I would be surprised if that was the number. In fact, I know it's not. But I also know that in 1997 Tony Blair had the same problem as Keir Starmer has now - a need to create a squad of life peers to overcome the Tories and start fixing what they broke.

So you are counting peers in general. Is that cpnsistent with other administrations? Should we be surprised? What is the ideal number?

As I assume you are counting peers in general - wouldn't you agree that people like Robin Butler, Charles Guthrie, Adair Turner, Bill Morris, Frances D'Souza, Molly Meacher, Jane Campbell, Pauline Neville-Jones, Nuala O'Loan - and that's just off the top of my head, there's no doubt dozens of others - have the experience, nowledge and skills to play an active role in public life? They did, didn't they?

Apologies, I was counting peers in general.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230623/2da350f38f3c38f54f33eb10c9b30997.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Given they can't spell 'interest' right, you will forgive some dubiety about the accuracy of your table.

It would seem that the figures have been spelt correctly however.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/uk-news/23568478.much-labour-tory-mps-get-private-health-firms/

The source of the figures come from analysis done by the campaign group 'EveryDoctor'. Which is a grassroots group made up of doctors who campaign for keeping the National Health Service in public hands.

[Mibbes Aye]

Hilarious. We started this discussion by talking about whether Labour wanted to abolish the House of Lords (as they said they did) or not, as they now say. And yet when presented with a party with principles, who refuse to accept appointment to the House of Lords, we get "that's their choice isn't it?" Pathetic.

There would be a lot more credibility to your opinions, let alone your insults, if they were actually based on fact.

You said there were no SNP peers, nothing more. I said that was their choice, no more. You called my response "pathetic". What I see as pathetic is a party and its supporters who try and turn their own decisions into some sort of grievance or holier-than-thou 'we are not participating' rubbish.

If the SNP was serious about objecting to Parliament then why take up its seats in the Commons? Sinn Fein never have, on principle.

Maybe the lure of the gravy train is too much - going by the expanding waistlines of the SNP MPs it would appear so (in fairness that applies to many from other parties too).

But if they are happy to participate in the Commons, then why did more than a quarter of them miss the Johnson committee vote? I asked that a few days ago and no one seems to know. I can understand some missing for various circumstances, but on an issue like this - Johnson llying to Parliament and the people - I find it hard to forgive much more than 10% say. The SNP no-shows were nearly three times that figure.

[archie]

Neither are Labour. They've been banging that drum for a very long time. They need the House of Lords just as much as the Conservatives do, so that their PM's have a carrot to dangle over their MPs in exchange for complete loyalty, regardless of how rotten the PM is.

Beat the anti Labour drum.

[Glory Lurker]

Beat the anti Labour drum.

It is the Labour thread, in fairness.

[archie]

Yvette cooper right up there, sickening, Labour will be the party to finally kill the NHS :agree:



https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347244739_10230370488314953_9010639140376353710_n. jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=103&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=Ux3QMF8quqMAX8VYnqO&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBFmIV4xOWMxViIoN7wFN4Aujnzec_FFsTFX1mwSQdW Vg&oe=649A3243

What is this actually referring to?

[archie]

It is the Labour thread, in fairness.

I know, but the drumbeat gets louder as the fear rises.

[Glory Lurker]

I know, but the drumbeat gets louder as the fear rises.

No, trust me, we've always felt like this. Labour out of power, Labour in power.

[archie]

No, trust me, we've always felt like this. Labour out of power, Labour in power.

Who's 'we'?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Beat the anti Labour drum.

Keir Starmer and his groupies have been beating the anti Labour drum for the past 3 years. No wonder they're increasingly more despised by the left.

[archie]

Keir Starmer and his groupies have been beating the anti Labour drum for the past 3 years. No wonder they're increasingly more despised by the left.

You really are scared, aren't you.

[Glory Lurker]

Who's 'we'?

The "fear"-ful Nats.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You really are scared, aren't you.

The "opposition" party offering more of the same as the current one? You're right, i'm terrified. You probably should be as well.

[archie]

The "opposition" party offering more of the same as the current one? You're right, i'm terrified. You probably should be as well.

Well you don't need to be terrified then, as it's won't be the case.

[Mibbes Aye]

It would seem that the figures have been spelt correctly however.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/uk-news/23568478.much-labour-tory-mps-get-private-health-firms/

The source of the figures come from analysis done by the campaign group 'EveryDoctor'. Which is a grassroots group made up of doctors who campaign for keeping the National Health Service in public hands.

Oh I know who EveryDoctor are. A lot of them work in private practice and dont appear to be doing much NHS work at all. And those earnest blogs don't write themselves (as the queue of patients stretches rpund the block).

I'm also familiar wth their dodgy maths. They count any donation by anyone who has ever had any involvement with anything remotely linked to private healthcare.

So, it's not a case of private health care donating to Labour, its a case of individual doors who, for example, has ever had shares in BUPA, or built an occupational physio service like the ones used by local authorities up and down the country.

In fact they would probably count my mother-in-law if she donated to Labour. She went private to get her knee done because her Scottish health board was talking two years.

So, I would suggest the figures are misleading and inaccurate.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Oh I know who EveryDoctor are. A lot of them work in private practice and dont appear to be doing much NHS work at all. And those earnest blogs don't write themselves (as the queue of patients stretches rpund the block).

I'm also familiar wth their dodgy maths. They count any donation by anyone who has ever had any involvement with anything remotely linked to private healthcare.

So, it's not a case of private health care donating to Labour, its a case of individual doors who, for example, has ever had shares in BUPA, or built an occupational physio service like the ones used by local authorities up and down the country.

In fact they would probably count my mother-in-law if she donated to Labour. She went private to get her knee done because her Scottish health board was talking two years.

So, I would suggest the figures are misleading and inaccurate.

Do you have any sources to back up these claims. Or are you simply hoping that what you say is true?

[Mibbes Aye]

Apologies, I was counting peers in general.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230623/2da350f38f3c38f54f33eb10c9b30997.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's fine, I think it helps the discussion to remind ourselves that a lot of peers are there because of the value they bring, independent of party affiliation.

[Mibbes Aye]

Do you have any sources to back up these claims. Or are you simply hoping that what you say is true?

As far as I recall I got their names from their website and with a little bit of Googling and Linkedin and their own blogs, funnily enough, there was enough there.

As far as it goes, you can tell it's not quite right from the off because if they were doing long stretches in overcrowded NHS wards they would be telling you all about it.

Likewise, if you actually look at the companies or donors they have identified from the Register, a lot of them only seem to have passng links to private healthcare, whether that is money in onvestment funds whose portfolios include private healthcare providers or start-up capital for businesses that do occupational health for big companies etc etc etc.

Maybe for you, a simple link to a partisan source rocks your boat, and you see what they want you to see, you infer what they want you to infer.

I'm happy to dive into the evidence and interrogate it myself.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I'm happy to dive into the evidence and interrogate it myself.

Then please do. I'd be interested to see what you're able to provide to back up these claims. As you seem to be very investigative on these matters.

[Mibbes Aye]

Then please do. I'd be interested to see what you're able to provide to back up these claims. As you seem to be very investigative on these matters.

I literally just told you what I did. I;m not going back and putting up links to the stuff I looked at. I read their stuff and dug a bit to see what I found, which I have shared.

You on the other hand seem to have alighted on someone else's post, it suited your worldview, so you're runnning with it, without even checking it out for yourself!

Spoon-feeding is meant to be an intermediate stage in our development :rolleyes:

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I literally just told you what I did. I;m not going back and putting up links to the stuff I looked at. I read their stuff and dug a bit to see what I found, which I have shared.

You on the other hand seem to have alighted on someone else's post, it suited your worldview, so you're runnning with it, without even checking it out for yourself!

Spoon-feeding is meant to be an intermediate stage in our development :rolleyes:

I'm sorry. Your initial argument was the you were dubious of the information provided by cabbageandribs1875, due to a spelling error. Once I pointed out to you what the source of the figures were, you then went on to rubbish the source with claims that the figures were inaccurate and misleading. Then you went on to explain why you thought they were misleading, claiming to have looked into the information yourself to arrive at that conclusion.

Which is perfectly fine. But I would have thought that you would have been prepared to provide some sources of your information, so that other users on here may delve into the details and see how they measure up to your claims.

I guess not. Never mind.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm sorry. Your initial argument was the you were dubious of the information provided by cabbageandribs1875, due to a spelling error. Once I pointed out to you what the source of the figures were, you then went on to rubbish the source with claims that the figures were inaccurate and misleading. Then you went on to explain why you thought they were misleading, claiming to have looked into the information yourself to arrive at that conclusion.

Which is perfectly fine. But I would have thought that you would have been prepared to provide some sources of your information, so that other users on here may delve into the details and see how they measure up to your claims.

I guess not. Never mind.

Do catch up, someone posted the same guff from EveryDoctor some weeks back and I rubbished it then. Tonight was a mere repetition.

As for being your personal researcher? I guess not, never mind.

[grunt]

God help us :rolleyes: Is this going to be one of those moments, like 'dropping out of university' or 'emerging facts' where you take a bizarre contrary position despite the lack of any evidence?

Getting rid of a House of Lords and replacing it with an alternative, elected second chamber DOES NOT MEAN keeping the House of Lords.

Yeah but in the meantime we'll just keep the House of Lords and add some more Labour Lords into it, eh?

Your argument is all over the place, and as usual when put under any sort of even mild pressure you resort to personal attacks against me.

Don't waste any energy replying as I'll not see it.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Do catch up, someone posted the same guff from EveryDoctor some weeks back and I rubbished it then. Tonight was a mere repetition.

As for being your personal researcher? I guess not, never mind.

I apologize if there's been a misunderstanding here. But I'm not asking you to be my personal researcher. I was asking you to provide the evidence (which you claim to have) to back up your claims on here. Not just for the benefit of myself, but for the benefit of all users who drop by on this thread.

I'm prepared to be put right by your evidence, as I'm sure other members are as well.

[neil7908]

Thanks for posting, you have given it thought and I think it is interesting to see other people's views.

I think it is doable within a full term, I suspect (and this is solely a personal opinion) that if Labour do pursue a written constitution then the second chamber will be inextricably linked to that, and it becomes a question of whether you can chunk the implementation or not (I suspect you have to) and if tou do chunk then you have to have transitional arrangements to keep the wheels of government running. The government has to at legally (or change the law) otherwise athings can be held up by judicial review or being ruled illegal by the courts (as per Johnson prorogueing Parliament). That's in no one's interest.

Getting the bill in the first King's Speech will be a challenge - the Tories have made a lot of bad laws in the last thirteen years. The unions will be pushing hard for the repeal of the anti-union legislation, immigration and asylum isnt just managedincompetently, its barbaric, and there's a desperate need for support to SMEs, a rapprochement with the EU and a desperate need to address social care and as a consequence the NHS. Lots of people will be lobbying furiously for ther bill first.

Only other thing I would add is that as I recall, you have lots of experience of working in local government. Therefore you just know that whatever timescale you put on a structural change, you can add on 20% :greengrin

As someone supportive but skeptical about when/if we'll see removal of HoL, I fully accept it's a massive task and can't be rushed as ultimately we need to end up with a working and better option.

So it won't be done overnight but I fear it will be kicked into the long grass. Let's be honest, Labour are going to be in power after the next election, so I'd like to see some work being done on this now (maybe it is?) in preparation.

Yes things like the NHS are more important imo but Labour have made a promise here, and when doing so they must have understood it wouldn't be easy. So yes it'll take time but that's the exact reason it needs to be get moving quickly.

I fear we will become an easy thing to delay because it's complicated, and then after a year or so the excuse will be that we can't do it because there isn't enough time.

Again, pure speculation on my part but they are trying to restore people's faith in government. The way to do that is follow through on your commitments.

[neil7908]

Do catch up, someone posted the same guff from EveryDoctor some weeks back and I rubbished it then. Tonight was a mere repetition.

As for being your personal researcher? I guess not, never mind.

Sorry MA but I think your in the wrong here. I disagree with you a lot but your a good poster and clearly know your stuff.

But you've made wide ranging accusations about EveryDoctor to refute another posters point, ones that don't appear easy to find in the public domain. It not encumbent to others to provide evidence here - you are making assertion, therefore it's totally reasonable for you to provide evidence where challenged.

If I came on here and said to everyone you were secretly a jambo (OK, maybe I've gone too far there 😂😂), and I was challenged to provide evidence, would you think a reasonable response would be "look it up yourself"?

[neil7908]

Do catch up, someone posted the same guff from EveryDoctor some weeks back and I rubbished it then. Tonight was a mere repetition.

As for being your personal researcher? I guess not, never mind.

Sorry MA but I think your in the wrong here. I disagree with you a lot but your a good poster and clearly know your stuff.

But you've made wide ranging accusations about EveryDoctor to refute another posters point, ones that don't appear easy to find in the public domain. It not encumbent to others to provide evidence here - you are making the accusation about this organisation and it's therefore not unfair imo for someone to ask you for where you got your information from.

If I came on here and said to everyone you were secretly a jambo (OK, maybe I've gone too far there 😂😂), and I was challenged to provide evidence, would you think a reasonable response would be "look it up yourself"?

[Mibbes Aye]

I apologize if there's been a misunderstanding here. But I'm not asking you to be my personal researcher. I was asking you to provide the evidence (which you claim to have) to back up your claims on here. Not just for the benefit of myself, but for the benefit of all users who drop by on this thread.

I'm prepared to be put right by your evidence, as I'm sure other members are as well.

You and other posters have gone with EveryDoctor saying that various Labour MPs "took private healthcare money". I've said I think they are wrong and misleading.

They (and you by extenson) are claiming something to be the case. The onus is on you to prove that. Otherwise it is just unsubstantiated smears and that's what I'm calling them and you out for.

It's Trumpian or Johnsonian to say something that isn't true, then when someone points out that you've said something that isn't true, you challenge them to prove it isn't true.

Show me the evidence of this direct funding - and not some dodgy, misspelt table with no source on it but a good helping of faux outrage. I don't think you can.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry MA but I think your in the wrong here. I disagree with you a lot but your a good poster and clearly know your stuff.

But you've made wide ranging accusations about EveryDoctor to refute another posters point, ones that don't appear easy to find in the public domain. It not encumbent to others to provide evidence here - you are making the accusation about this organisation and it's therefore not unfair imo for someone to ask you for where you got your information from.

If I came on here and said to everyone you were secretly a jambo (OK, maybe I've gone too far there 😂😂), and I was challenged to provide evidence, would you think a reasonable response would be "look it up yourself"?

Thanks for the nice words. Beneath the disagreement I think you are a thoughtful poster and although we don't always agree it is (mostly) on cordial terms :greengrin

i do find myself going back to what I said in my previous point. These are unsubstantiated smears. IT's not up to me to prove why they are wrong, it is up to those pointing the finger to back their smears up with hard facts. The gist of Everydoctor's argument seems to be that senior Labour MPs are in the pockets of private healthcare. I don't believe that's true for a second and I would like to see those repeating it to back it up with something substantial - though I suspect that if such shenanigans were going on it would have come to light before now and it's unlikely that the two posters pushing the dodgy claims are the Woodward and Bernstein of our generation.

I did have a look into who Everydoctor were, briefly, I think as part of a conversation with Ozy some time back. I think they're at it, but there is not a chance I'm going to go and dig out every webpage I mau have looked at in forming that opinion. Why should I? I didn't bring them into the discussion, it was others. To be honest I hadn't heard of them until a coouple ofmonths back. I'm not conscious of them even having any real profile with other health profesionals.

[Mibbes Aye]

As someone supportive but skeptical about when/if we'll see removal of HoL, I fully accept it's a massive task and can't be rushed as ultimately we need to end up with a working and better option.

So it won't be done overnight but I fear it will be kicked into the long grass. Let's be honest, Labour are going to be in power after the next election, so I'd like to see some work being done on this now (maybe it is?) in preparation.

Yes things like the NHS are more important imo but Labour have made a promise here, and when doing so they must have understood it wouldn't be easy. So yes it'll take time but that's the exact reason it needs to be get moving quickly.

I fear we will become an easy thing to delay because it's complicated, and then after a year or so the excuse will be that we can't do it because there isn't enough time.

Again, pure speculation on my part but they are trying to restore people's faith in government. The way to do that is follow through on your commitments.

Can't disagree with that.

If this was some sort of in-person workshop and I was facilitating, I think I would do an exercise where I asked everyone, on their own, to list their top ten priorities for the first things a Labour government should do. I would then ask them to reduce it to five and then reduce it to three. I would then ask them to come together in a group and agree as a group what ten priorities should be. And then five. or something like that, Ive not fully thought it through yet.

My point is that HoL reform or constitutional reform would make some people's top three. For others it wold make top five. For others it would make top ten. For some it might not be a proroty at all- important but not a priority.

For me, I would struggle with that exercise but one thing I would be keen on is identifying the priorities that bring added value - the ones that make it more likely for other priorities to be achieved. I'm not sure where I would put constitutional reform (I would wrap HoL reform up into it, I think it's unhelpful not to). Part of me thinks it should be the number one priority under which everything else sits - especially when you look at the written constitution and the proposal to enshrine healthcare and education as statutory rights. Part of me knows that until we get to the day after the election and Rachel Reeves and the spending ministers get the complete picture on how bad things are then we may be forced into doing some short-term sticking plaster stuff to keep the patient alive, rather than jumping straight in with the rehab and rebuild. The promise was made to fix the broken system - and that includes the economy, housing, the NHS, education etc

I suppose we will just have to see what the electorate comes up with.

[archie]

[/B]

Can't disagree with that.

If this was some sort of in-person workshop and I was facilitating, I think I would do an exercise where I asked everyone, on their own, to list their top ten priorities for the first things a Labour government should do. I would then ask them to reduce it to five and then reduce it to three. I would then ask them to come together in a group and agree as a group what ten priorities should be. And then five. or something like that, Ive not fully thought it through yet.

My point is that HoL reform or constitutional reform would make some people's top three. For others it wold make top five. For others it would make top ten. For some it might not be a proroty at all- important but not a priority.

For me, I would struggle with that exercise but one thing I would be keen on is identifying the priorities that bring added value - the ones that make it more likely for other priorities to be achieved. I'm not sure where I would put constitutional reform (I would wrap HoL reform up into it, I think it's unhelpful not to). Part of me thinks it should be the number one priority under which everything else sits - especially when you look at the written constitution and the proposal to enshrine healthcare and education as statutory rights. Part of me knows that until we get to the day after the election and Rachel Reeves and the spending ministers get the complete picture on how bad things are then we may be forced into doing some short-term sticking plaster stuff to keep the patient alive, rather than jumping straight in with the rehab and rebuild. The promise was made to fix the broken system - and that includes the economy, housing, the NHS, education etc

I suppose we will just have to see what the electorate comes up with.
Normally I would agree with the point that we have to address the most pressing issues for people first and I suspect the HoL wouldn't be anywhere near the top of people's priorities. But I do think there is space for reform. Johnson's resignation honours was just the tin lid on it. I also think there is space for a serious national discussion as to what that reform should be. For all the negatively here, I haven't seen anything about what should replace the HoL beyond vague statements about an elected second chamber. But we need to think about how it is elected and what it's role is I relation to the HoC. This is extremely important change and there has to be some attempt to get engagement with it and to get it right.

[Ozyhibby]

Normally I would agree with the point that we have to address the most pressing issues for people first and I suspect the HoL wouldn't be anywhere near the top of people's priorities. But I do think there is space for reform. Johnson's resignation honours was just the tin lid on it. I also think there is space for a serious national discussion as to what that reform should be. For all the negatively here, I haven't seen anything about what should replace the HoL beyond vague statements about an elected second chamber. But we need to think about how it is elected and what it's role is I relation to the HoC. This is extremely important change and there has to be some attempt to get engagement with it and to get it right.

I doubt it makes many peoples top 10 but I also think that you won’t really fix a lot of the things higher up the list properly without fixing our system of govt. It will just be a short term fix before we are back where we are now.
And if you don’t start early then it’s not getting done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

I doubt it makes many peoples top 10 but I also think that you won’t really fix a lot of the things higher up the list properly without fixing our system of govt. It will just be a short term fix before we are back where we are now.
And if you don’t start early then it’s not getting done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there's something in what you say. Out of interest, what do you think should replace the HoL?

[Ozyhibby]

I think there's something in what you say. Out of interest, what do you think should replace the HoL?

An elected upper chamber for rUK.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

An elected upper chamber for rUK.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Elected how? there are various models - proportionality around a general election vote, separate elections, PR elections etc. etc. And what do you think the relationship should be to the HoC?

[Mibbes Aye]

An elected upper chamber for rUK.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't meant as a post to challenge you, I think we have the makings of an interesting discussion here. I'm just trying to tease this out.

We are where we are because we got rid, almost entirely, of hereditary peers. The life peers who have been eobled since 1958 have been a mixture of politicians and people with specialist expertiseor extensive contribution to society, culture and the arts.

Some, many even, of the politicians seem to be there as a reward, or simply because they were senior cabinet ministers. But some of those do have a knowledge of how government works and what good legislation and bad legislation looks like. Some others are there because they support a party and genuinely have an active role to play but do not wish to do so from the Commons - I'm thinking of people like Cathy Ashton.

Then we have the non-pols, the people I listed in a previous post, who have contributed to public life and probably would never run in an election campaign - yet they are probably the best example of people who who have an expertise in often very specific areas that can help with lawmaking.

And then we have people more broadly recognised for their contribution to society, culture and the arts- people whose cntribution to public life has 'improved' the intellectual wellbeing of the nation' for want of a better phrase - I'm thinking of the likes of Melvyn Bragg.

If we go with an elected, second chamber, how do we ensure that we capture those last two groups? Especially when it is in the interests of the parties to throw their machinery behind elections and push their official candidates forward?

The same question would carry in an independent Scotland, were it to have a second chamber.

[Ozyhibby]

This isn't meant as a post to challenge you, I think we have the makings of an interesting discussion here. I'm just trying to tease this out.

We are where we are because we got rid, almost entirely, of hereditary peers. The life peers who have been eobled since 1958 have been a mixture of politicians and people with specialist expertiseor extensive contribution to society, culture and the arts.

Some, many even, of the politicians seem to be there as a reward, or simply because they were senior cabinet ministers. But some of those do have a knowledge of how government works and what good legislation and bad legislation looks like. Some others are there because they support a party and genuinely have an active role to play but do not wish to do so from the Commons - I'm thinking of people like Cathy Ashton.

Then we have the non-pols, the people I listed in a previous post, who have contributed to public life and probably would never run in an election campaign - yet they are probably the best example of people who who have an expertise in often very specific areas that can help with lawmaking.

And then we have people more broadly recognised for their contribution to society, culture and the arts- people whose cntribution to public life has 'improved' the intellectual wellbeing of the nation' for want of a better phrase - I'm thinking of the likes of Melvyn Bragg.

If we go with an elected, second chamber, how do we ensure that we capture those last two groups? Especially when it is in the interests of the parties to throw their machinery behind elections and push their official candidates forward?

The same question would carry in an independent Scotland, were it to have a second chamber.

If people want to play an active part in governing then they should stand for election. I’m sure there are many fine people in the lords but I’m a bit of a fundamentalist on this. Put yourself before the people and stand for election.
There are other ways outside of electoral politics to contribute as well. Many charities, campaign groups etc. but the job of actually making laws should be only for those elected.
You can still have a 2nd chamber and it can be elected in different ways but it’s important that it represents the people. I would also term limit it.

My post was tongue and cheek as I used ‘rUK’.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

In regards to an elected second chamber, whilst we aren’t as entrenched in a 2 party system as the US, is there a danger that a new second chamber could become as binary as theirs is, and how could we avoid this?

[archie]

In regards to an elected second chamber, whilst we aren’t as entrenched in a 2 party system as the US, is there a danger that a new second chamber could become as binary as theirs is, and how could we avoid this?

Proportionality perhaps?

[Ozyhibby]

In regards to an elected second chamber, whilst we aren’t as entrenched in a 2 party system as the US, is there a danger that a new second chamber could become as binary as theirs is, and how could we avoid this?

PR


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

My worry about the PR thing... or any version that mirrors the commons, we could end up with them simply rubber stamping what the commons do as it'll be the same political make up?

[Ozyhibby]

My worry about the PR thing... or any version that mirrors the commons, we could end up with them simply rubber stamping what the commons do as it'll be the same political make up?

Change the size of constituencies? Does it need to be 600 representatives or could the job be done with 150? Or you could have 600 but have regional PR. There are lots of ways to do it. I guess we should look at best practice round the world. And look at why we even need a second chamber? Not every democracy has one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

My worry about the PR thing... or any version that mirrors the commons, we could end up with them simply rubber stamping what the commons do as it'll be the same political make up?

Not if the HoC was FPTP and the second chamber was PR. But there is much to discuss about this issue to reach a conclusion.

[Just Alf]

Change the size of constituencies? Does it need to be 600 representatives or could the job be done with 150? Or you could have 600 but have regional PR. There are lots of ways to do it. I guess we should look at best practice round the world. And look at why we even need a second chamber? Not every democracy has one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not if the HoC was FPTP and the second chamber was PR. But there is much to discuss about this issue to reach a conclusion.:agree:

[cabbageandribs1875]

the Gathering of right wingers, we see you Sarwar

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzV8l6oX0AA7oM9?format=png&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzWcx9HWYAAlIGY?format=jpg&name=medium

[Mibbes Aye]

If people want to play an active part in governing then they should stand for election. I’m sure there are many fine people in the lords but I’m a bit of a fundamentalist on this. Put yourself before the people and stand for election.
There are other ways outside of electoral politics to contribute as well. Many charities, campaign groups etc. but the job of actually making laws should be only for those elected.
You can still have a 2nd chamber and it can be elected in different ways but it’s important that it represents the people. I would also term limit it.

My post was tongue and cheek as I used ‘rUK’.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i know :greengrin That's why I included my last line.

Instinctively, I want to agree about elected, because these people will have been given powers to shape legislation. But I'm with McD I think in that if it is elected, people need to campaign. And those with a party rosette will have the funding from a party to make it likelier they will win (or they will have pribvate wealth or the wealth of special interest groups backing them). We would lose the benefit of crossbench peers. That's regardless of FPTP, PR, STV, AV or whatever.

We are talking about process here quite a lot. Maybe it would be easier to look at the outcome we want, then design the process to deliver that outcome - form follows function and all that.

I'm not sure we even agree on the outcome, and that may be where public consultation and potentially a referendum are necessary - does a second chamber have legislating rights, amending rights, revising rights, or delaying rights? Do we want to be able to get rid of second chamber members and appoint new ones? What sort of people do we want in our second chamber? I think if we can answer those sorts of questions, then the process and the mechanics become a lot easier to work out.

[archie]

the Gathering of right wingers, we see you Sarwar

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzV8l6oX0AA7oM9?format=png&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzWcx9HWYAAlIGY?format=jpg&name=medium

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13639580.sturgeon-met-rupert-murdoch-new-york/

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13639580.sturgeon-met-rupert-murdoch-new-york/

Seeing as that article is behind a pay wall, here is the Scotsman article about that very same "meeting".

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeons-secret-meeting-with-murdoch-1495386


The SNP leader attended a meeting of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by the media tycoon’s News Corporation and he turned up towards the end.

The meeting was not planned, according to a spokesman for Ms Sturgeon, who said she was not aware Mr Murdoch would be there.

So it wasn't actually a meeting with Murdoch at all like the media headlines were trying to mislead people into believing. It's not Nicola Sturgeon's fault that he just so happened to turn up near the end without her prior knowledge.

[Just Alf]

Seeing as that article is behind a pay wall, here is the Scotman article about that very same "meeting".

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeons-secret-meeting-with-murdoch-1495386



So it wasn't actually a meeting with Murdoch at all like the media headlines were trying to mislead people into believing. It's not Nicola Sturgeon's fault that he just so happened to turn up near the end without her prior knowledge.What! ... the press reporting the truth but in such a way as to support their world view?!

Never!


:greengrin

[Stairway 2 7]

What! ... the press reporting the truth but in such a way as to support their world view?!

Never!


:greengrin

She had a meeting with the news Corp people, it's hardly surprising that their owner showed up

[TrumpIsAPeado]

She had a meeting with the news Corp people, it's hardly surprising that their owner showed up

It was a meeting with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Which is just one of many news outlets owned by his news organization. There's plenty of other places he could have been at the time, so it would have been a surprise.

[Stairway 2 7]

It was a meeting with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Which is just one of many news outlets owned by his news organization. There's plenty of other places he could have been at the time, so it would have been a surprise.

You a spin doctor. She was having a discussion with a news Corp media outlet after getting the approval of another news Corp outlet the sun. Murdoch is at the meeting but she chooses not to mention it until pulled up.

[grunt]

You a spin doctor. She was having a discussion with a news Corp media outlet after getting the approval of another news Corp outlet the sun. Murdoch is at the meeting but she chooses not to mention it until pulled up.That's not what the Scotsman article says?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You a spin doctor. She was having a discussion with a news Corp media outlet after getting the approval of another news Corp outlet the sun. Murdoch is at the meeting but she chooses not to mention it until pulled up.


“There wasn’t a one-to-one meeting, there was no private meeting with Rupert Murdoch,” a spokesman for Ms Sturgeon said yesterday.

“The First Minister held an editorial round-table discussion at which Mr Murdoch dropped in part of the way through.

“He sat in on the discussion – but that was it. There was no one-to-one meeting, nor was one planned.”

He added that the details of the meeting, including Mr Murdoch’s presence, will be formally released as part of the government’s “pro-active publications” which are due out next week.

What do you think I'm spinning here?

[grunt]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13639580.sturgeon-met-rupert-murdoch-new-york/Well done. You've changed the discussion from last week's summer garden party hosted by Murdoch at which senior members of the Government, the opposition and various right wing journalists and mouth breathers attended. The fact that these people, so senior and influential within the government of this country, were courted by Murdoch - who has done so much damage to democracy in this country - is in itself appalling. But you have turned the discussion to an 8 year old story where NS might or might not have met him.

[grunt]

You a spin doctor. She was having a discussion with a news Corp media outlet after getting the approval of another news Corp outlet the sun. Murdoch is at the meeting but she chooses not to mention it until pulled up.
You're just as bad as Archie. This is not the story here.

[Just Alf]

She had a meeting with the news Corp people, it's hardly surprising that their owner showed upThat's my point, so why are media outlets making it out to be something bigger.


At least on here we all have some great to and fro... and understand the wider picture but there's loads of folks out there that will just shovel what's presented to them straight into their brains and totally belive it as unadulterated truth.

Evidence of this is mother in law and daughter.... oh the 'interesting' conversations we have ! :faf:

[Stairway 2 7]

You're just as bad as Archie. This is not the story here.

It literally is. What are you trying to say, she didn't have a meeting with a newscorp media co?

[Stairway 2 7]

What do you think I'm spinning here?

If it was a tory politician that said they had a meeting with a news Co media outlet. Murdoch was at some of the meeting. They didn't mention it in their report of the trip but admitted it after. You would rightly say what a load of pish.

I remember before you said she never held up the sun newspaper after they endorsed her, only to crawl back.

Why do you care I'd she was happy with news Co endorsement, she's just another neoliberal politician

[TrumpIsAPeado]

If it was a tory politician that said they had a meeting with a news Co media outlet. Murdoch was at some of the meeting. They didn't mention it in their report of the trip but admitted it after. You would rightly say what a load of pish.

I remember before you said she never held up the sun newspaper after they endorsed her, only to crawl back.

Why do you care I'd she was happy with news Co endorsement, she's just another neoliberal politician

The spokesperson in the article literally stated that the report publication was due out the next week with the details of Nicola Sturgeons meeting with the Wall Street Journal editors, including Murdoch's presence. It was included in the quote to my previous response to you.

I also never claimed that she didn't hold up the Sun Newspaper. I explained that I wasn't happy about her doing it. But at the same time I understood why she did do it, considering the SNP have almost no media representation in Scotland. But you're just changing the subject now.

[Stairway 2 7]

The spokesperson in the article literally stated that the report publication was due out the next week with the details of Nicola Sturgeons meeting with the Wall Street Journal editors, including Murdoch's presence. It was included in the quote to my previous response to you.

I also never claimed that she didn't hold up the Sun Newspaper. I explained that I wasn't happy about her doing it. But at the same time I understood why she did do it, considering the SNP have almost no media representation in Scotland. But you're just changing the subject now.
She never mentioned it in the diary she published, then when it comes out her spokesman says oh we were going to mention it next week, come on son your better than that

You 100% did. You denied it happened then changed but ho hum, I really am not bothered and feel daft for having this back and forth

[archie]

Well done. You've changed the discussion from last week's summer garden party hosted by Murdoch at which senior members of the Government, the opposition and various right wing journalists and mouth breathers attended. The fact that these people, so senior and influential within the government of this country, were courted by Murdoch - who has done so much damage to democracy in this country - is in itself appalling. But you have turned the discussion to an 8 year old story where NS might or might not have met him.

Well when you portray it as the mendacity of Westminster politicians while ignoring how the two previous FMs actively courted Murdoch, well that seems material to me.

[archie]

You're just as bad as Archie. This is not the story here.

Correction, it's not the story you want.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

the two previous FMs actively courted Murdoch

When opposition parties and media have to resort to misleading narratives of what actually happened, then you know this simply isn't true. It's very clear that they were desperately trying to paint a picture of Nicola Sturgeon and Rupert Murdoch having some kind of private one-on-one meeting with each other, when no such event took place.

[archie]

It was a meeting with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Which is just one of many news outlets owned by his news organization. There's plenty of other places he could have been at the time, so it would have been a surprise.

It's all terribly unfortunate. Former FM found herself meeting the editorial board at one of the top Murdoch titles. By some amazing coincidence Rupert Murdoch was there. Unfortunately, there were no minutes taken and, by some unfortunate oversight it wasn't recorded as happening. I get it now.

BTW you should look on Gumtree - I've got North Bridge for sale, part used and needing some TLC

[archie]

When opposition parties and media have to resort to misleading narratives of what actually happened, then you know this simply isn't true. It's very clear that they were desperately trying to paint a picture of Nicola Sturgeon and Rupert Murdoch having some kind of private one-on-one meeting with each other, when no such event took place.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/24/alex-salmond-rupert-murdoch-sun-bskyb

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's all terribly unfortunate. Former FM found herself meeting the editorial board at one of the top Murdoch titles. By some amazing coincidence Rupert Murdoch was there. Unfortunately, there were no minutes taken and, by some unfortunate oversight it wasn't recorded as happening. I get it now.

BTW you should look on Gumtree - I've got North Bridge for sale, part used and needing some TLC

This is just you believing what you want to believe without any evidence to back it up. There's nothing to suggest that there was any private meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Rupert Murdoch. There isn't even anything to suggest that they even exchanged any dialogue directly. But you'll cling on to the conspiracy anyway, because it suits you to do so.

[archie]

This is just you believing what you want to believe without any evidence to back it up. There's nothing to suggest that there was any private meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Rupert Murdoch. There isn't even anything to suggest that they even exchanged any dialogue directly. But you'll cling on to the conspiracy anyway, because it suits you to do so.

You do accept that she was meeting the editorial board of one of the most prominent Murdoch papers?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You do accept that she was meeting the editorial board of one of the most prominent Murdoch papers?

I haven't disputed that. It's my understanding that at the time, she was invited to attend this meeting while she was in the US and would have viewed it as an opportunity to get Scotland a mention in a major American news outlet. I don't see anything wrong with that personally.

[Kato]

You do accept that she was meeting the editorial board of one of the most prominent Murdoch papers?So what does this all mean, archie?

Are the SNP to be seen as Murdoch loving Tories?


Will the right wing tabloids be supporting the SNP in the same way they support the Tories by constantly gaslighting the population?



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

So what does this all mean, archie?

Are the SNP to be seen as Murdoch loving Tories?


Will the right wing tabloids be supporting the SNP in the same way they support the Tories by constantly gaslighting the population?



Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

It means that it's pretty hypocritical to launch attacks on Labour for engagement with Murdoch and ignore that other parties, such as the SNP, have done it very successfully. I get why Murdoch has endorsed the SNP - he really doesn't want a Labour government. Hence the support for SNP in Scotland and Tories down south.

The coverage for a while of the SNP was pretty benign to very supportive. I think that's changing for a number of reasons. Some of these are to do with the performance of the Scottish Government. The brand of the Scottish and UK Government's are also a bit tarnished. But Murdoch likes to be on the winning side. And, if it looks like Labour will win in the UK, well I think that might affect the editorial direction here.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It means that it's pretty hypocritical to launch attacks on Labour for engagement with Murdoch and ignore that other parties, such as the SNP, have done it very successfully. I get why Murdoch has endorsed the SNP - he really doesn't want a Labour government. Hence the support for SNP in Scotland and Tories down south.

The coverage for a while of the SNP was pretty benign to very supportive. I think that's changing for a number of reasons. Some of these are to do with the performance of the Scottish Government. The brand of the Scottish and UK Government's are also a bit tarnished. But Murdoch likes to be on the winning side. And, if it looks like Labour will win in the UK, well I think that might affect the editorial direction here.

Well he's going to get his wish then. There is no Labour Government on offer in the next election. Which may explain why The Sun no longer has any love for the SNP these days.

[Kato]

It means that it's pretty hypocritical to launch attacks on Labour for engagement with Murdoch and ignore that other parties, such as the SNP, have done it very successfully. I get why Murdoch has endorsed the SNP - he really doesn't want a Labour government. Hence the support for SNP in Scotland and Tories down south.

The coverage for a while of the SNP was pretty benign to very supportive. I think that's changing for a number of reasons. Some of these are to do with the performance of the Scottish Government. The brand of the Scottish and UK Government's are also a bit tarnished. But Murdoch likes to be on the winning side. And, if it looks like Labour will win in the UK, well I think that might affect the editorial direction here.

Are Labour activelt seeking engagement with Murdoch to garner support? Like when Blair cowtowed to him?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Are Labour activelt seeking engagement with Murdoch to garner support? Like when Blair cowtowed to him?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

That's the claim by some who oppose Labour on here. I would be very surprised if there wasn't engagement, but I suspect it won't be like it was with Blair. Newspapers, while important, aren't what they were. And Sky News is no longer Murdoch's. I don't think Talk TV has the same impact at all.

But I'll say again, I wish people were honest and acknowledged that all parties do it, rather than pointing the finger at some and being curiously blind to the actions of the party they support. I know it was a long time ago, but the Levision inquiry was very revealing about SNP links with Murdoch. Was it Kowtowing? I'll leave that to others to judge.

[Kato]

Newspapers are still very important. There are half hour chat shows on most news channels discussing their contents every single night, their social media pull is very high and morning TV news is driven by the contents of them. That's why billionaires are willing to finance them beyond their viability, they know their worth, long term, goes beyond the sales of whatever title.


Whoever actively seeks out their support are either on board with the neo-liberal scam or naive in the extreme.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Newspapers are still very important. There are half hour chat shows on most news channels discussing their contents every single night, their social media pull is very high and morning TV news is driven by the contents of them. That's why billionaires are willing to finance them beyond their viability, they know their worth, long term, goes beyond the sales of whatever title.


Whoever actively seeks out their support are either on board with the neo-liberal scam or naive in the extreme.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

It's ever been thus (or at least fornearly two hundred years).

The print press, pamphlets etc were widely used by both sides in the debate about the repeal of the Corn Laws - which genuinely merited the epithet "neo-liberal". Unlike the way it is bandied about by some on here (not you, as far as I know)

[grunt]

You do accept that she was meeting the editorial board of one of the most prominent Murdoch papers?
Eight. Years. Ago.

She's not even the leader of the SNP any more. The meeting I referenced was three days ago. Somewhat more pertinent to current times wouldn't you say? Why was Anas Sarwar there? Look at the company he's keeping.

(I posted this on the Labour thread for a reason - this story is about Labour cosying up to Murdoch in 2023).

[archie]

Eight. Years. Ago.

She's not even the leader of the SNP any more. The meeting I referenced was three days ago. Somewhat more pertinent to current times wouldn't you say? Why was Anas Sarwar there? Look at the company he's keeping.

(I posted this on the Labour thread for a reason - this story is about Labour cosying up to Murdoch in 2023).

I know you are determined to make this a Labour bad story, but the reality is you either criticise all politicos who do this or none. Otherwise it looks less than sincere.

BTW, did you see what came out about Salmond and Murdoch at the Levinson inquiry? Was that OK?

[Kato]

I know you are determined to make this a Labour bad story, but the reality is you either criticise all politicos who do this or none. Otherwise it looks less than sincere.

BTW, did you see what came out about Salmond and Murdoch at the Levinson inquiry? Was that OK?Is there never a question of degree, archie?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[archie]

Is there never a question of degree, archie?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

You think Salmond doing a deal with Murdoch to support BSKYB is trivial? The story that Starmer and Sarwar attended a Murdoch event is treated here like 30 pieces of silver, but actively lobbying for Murdoch is seen as trivial, or a long time ago. Seriously? If this was Starmer there would be uproar

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/29/leveson-criticises-salmond-lobby-murdoch?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[grunt]

You think Salmond doing a deal with Murdoch to support BSKYB is trivial? The story that Starmer and Sarwar attended a Murdoch event is treated here like 30 pieces of silver, but actively lobbying for Murdoch is seen as trivial, or a long time ago. Seriously? If this was Starmer there would be uproar

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/29/leveson-criticises-salmond-lobby-murdoch?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I think you've lost the plot. Salmond has nothing to do with the current SNP and the link you posted is from 11 years ago. This is crazy. Or trolling.

[archie]

I think you've lost the plot. Salmond has nothing to do with the current SNP and the link you posted is from 11 years ago. This is crazy. Or trolling.

It's certainly not Trolling, or crazy. Are you seriously saying that the actions of the previous two First Ministers of the Scottish Government that has held office since 2007 are nothing to do with the current SNP. Seriously?

Thatcher resigned in 1990. Tony Blair resigned in 2007. By your logic they have nothing to do with their respective parties? Yet I see them referenced here all the time.

I can understand why you are uncomfortable with the Murdoch connections, but you can't simply wave them away or claim it's trolling or people are crazy who bring them up. Because the issue of how politicians engage with media owners is an issue that's relevant to all politicians, not just the ones you don't like.

[Jack]

It's certainly not Trolling, or crazy. Are you seriously saying that the actions of the previous two First Ministers of the Scottish Government that has held office since 2007 are nothing to do with the current SNP. Seriously?

Thatcher resigned in 1990. Tony Blair resigned in 2007. By your logic they have nothing to do with their respective parties? Yet I see them referenced here all the time.

I can understand why you are uncomfortable with the Murdoch connections, but you can't simply wave them away or claim it's trolling or people are crazy who bring them up. Because the issue of how politicians engage with media owners is an issue that's relevant to all politicians, not just the ones you don't like.

Well done Archie. Another great deflection from what was put up for discussion - a discussion about the current leaders in Westminster being wined and dined by the owner one of the ****miest papers published in the UK at the moment.

I dare say what you would like to deflect to was discussed at the time, I seem to recall it was.

What are your thoughts on this most recent get-together?

[archie]

Well done Archie. Another great deflection from what was put up for discussion - a discussion about the current leaders in Westminster being wined and dined by the owner one of the ****miest papers published in the UK at the moment.

I dare say what you would like to deflect to was discussed at the time, I seem to recall it was.

What are your thoughts on this most recent get-together?
As I've said in response to other posters I'm not comfortable with it. To add to that I suspect it's a grubby necessity for political parties.


Incidentally, I don't agree with your characterisation of my posts as 'deflection'. My issue was the thunderous denunciation of Labour Party politicos attending a Murdoch event while being curiously unconcerned about SNP politicians dealings with Murdoch. I will remind you that Salmond was criticised by the Levison enquiry on his actions in this area.

I do think if we are concerned about politicians engaging with Murdoch it should apply to all politicians. Don't you agree?

[cabbageandribs1875]

BLiS....no difference to British Tories in Scotland, no difference whatsoever, they should amalgamate and make it official :agree:

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347386980_747932887332553_6107972980345027881_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=4KjGnJLysuIAX-GyboM&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDeAMpCTdUHHjN8kI3nHvCMkZYANYgtEZjUTNbckb2T mQ&oe=649D4F04

[Mibbes Aye]

BLiS....no difference to British Tories in Scotland, no difference whatsoever, they should amalgamate and make it official :agree:

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347386980_747932887332553_6107972980345027881_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=4KjGnJLysuIAX-GyboM&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDeAMpCTdUHHjN8kI3nHvCMkZYANYgtEZjUTNbckb2T mQ&oe=649D4F04

You do realise how desperate that looks?

The fear of Labour is coming to the fore for the SNP and their supporters. Like their tired, out-of-touch counterparts down south it will be nonsense, prattle and lies between now and election day.

Two jaded out-of-ideas administrations mired in culture wars, identity wars and flag debates. We deserve better.

[xyz23jc]

You do realise how desperate that looks?

The fear of Labour is coming to the fore for the SNP and their supporters. Like their tired, out-of-touch counterparts down south it will be nonsense, prattle and lies between now and election day.

Two jaded out-of-ideas administrations mired in culture wars, identity wars and flag debates. We deserve better.

We certainly do mate. Hope to f*** it isn't more of the same TORY LITE.. But it almost certainly will be!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

culture wars
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/16/labour-keir-starmer-left-government-leader


identity wars
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/20/muslims-keir-starmer-leaves-batley-voters-disaffected-labour


flag debates
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/02/labour-urged-to-focus-on-flag-and-patriotism-to-win-voters-trust-leak-reveals


We deserve better.

Indeed we do.

[archie]

BLiS....no difference to British Tories in Scotland, no difference whatsoever, they should amalgamate and make it official :agree:

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/347386980_747932887332553_6107972980345027881_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=4KjGnJLysuIAX-GyboM&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfDeAMpCTdUHHjN8kI3nHvCMkZYANYgtEZjUTNbckb2T mQ&oe=649D4F04

See the entitlement - 'remove legitimate SNP winners'. The people writing this must know how local government elections are designed. And yet they still come out with this stuff.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Stirling Labour Councillor suspended for five months Stirling councillor suspended for five months after hearing finds he pressured staff and bullied a senior official (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/stirling-councillor-suspended-for-five-months-after-hearing-finds-he-pressured-staff-and-bullied-a-senior-official/ar-AA1cWmjd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5d4a229f6d9c4c68adf919dc902c47d5&ei=33)

[Berwickhibby]

Stirling Labour Councillor suspended for five months Stirling councillor suspended for five months after hearing finds he pressured staff and bullied a senior official (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/stirling-councillor-suspended-for-five-months-after-hearing-finds-he-pressured-staff-and-bullied-a-senior-official/ar-AA1cWmjd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5d4a229f6d9c4c68adf919dc902c47d5&ei=33)

Does not matter what party they are with, behaviour like that should be grounds for dismissal, not suspension

[archie]

Does not matter what party they are with, behaviour like that should be grounds for dismissal, not suspension

Agreed.

[Ozyhibby]

Does not matter what party they are with, behaviour like that should be grounds for dismissal, not suspension

Doubt many will disagree. As always, it’s how the party deals with it that’s important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Doubt many will disagree. As always, it’s how the party deals with it that’s important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is the Standards Commission for Scotland who deal with breaches of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/16/labour-keir-starmer-left-government-leader


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/20/muslims-keir-starmer-leaves-batley-voters-disaffected-labour


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/02/labour-urged-to-focus-on-flag-and-patriotism-to-win-voters-trust-leak-reveals



Indeed we do.
I see what you have done there.

You have persuaded me that you don’t know the meaning of culture wars, identity wars or flag debates.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I see what you have done there.

You have persuaded me that you don’t know the meaning of culture wars, identity wars or flag debates.

That's exactly what they are. Labour are guilty on all 3 counts.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Labour backtracking on yet another policy announcement.
Labour ditches £3bn tax on big tech amid fear of US retaliation:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-ditches-3bn-tax-on-big-tech-amid-fear-of-us-retaliation-j5xcm6j3v

I suppose I don't understand what backtracking means either?

[Mibbes Aye]

That's exactly what they are. Labour are guilty on all 3 counts.


Because you are unable or unwilling to use your own words to describe what it is you mean, you have resorted to posting three links. Unfortunately they don't fit the bill.

But before that, I was making a point about the staleness of the Conservative and SNP adminsitrations. You haven't engaged with that at all. You've just hurriedly thrown some links at it which I assume are meant to be critical of Labour in the same way I was criticising the SNP and the Conservatives. But firstly I used my own words, which would have been prudent for you because your links don't really cut it.

'Culture wars' - you have chosen a link about dissatisfaction by some elements within and without the Labour Party at the way the Party is running its affairs. That's not a culture war. A culture war is generally defined as specifically a conflict between the religious and secular spheres (and more specifiically still, the 'Kulturkampf' between Bismarck and the Catholic Church in the 1870s), or generally as a conflict between the orthodox and the progressive. For all that your Corbynis and McDonnells and the rest pontificate, they still like, or used to like, the creature comforts of being supported by a party machine and they still iked their nice MP salary and very beneficial pension - that's hardly overthrowing the system is it? No, its just occupying a diminishing space on the spectrum, earmarked for the hilariously self-indulgent and irredeemably precious.

Oh, and it was written by Neal Lawson (see the last six words of the previous paragraph)

'Identity wars' - you have posted a link about a handful of voters in a constituency who say they don't think Labour takes Muslim issues seriously, or take them for granted. That's not identity wars - identity conflict is about weaponising discourse or narratives to create and use identity labels, which is decidely not what the article conveys. Perhaps the article is best summed up by the most important part of it - the first sentence. British Indians have over time shifted away from Labour because of a perception that Labour has been more sympathetic to Pakistan in relation to Kashmir. In order to bridge that false perception Labour has reached out more to British Indians than perhaps it did previously. Consequentially, that has driven some discontent in the Muslim community.

Oh, and the highlight was the Guardian telling us that some people had written to Keir Starmer on Wednesday and hadn't had a reply by Sunday. I'm sure he wll reply, maybe more than that, but less of the "will no one think of the children!" histrionics, FFS.

'Flag debate' - you've chosen a link that isn't about pitching one flag against another, it's about Starmer and Labour making a brave (potentially risky) attempt to make claim to a patriotism that is based on shared inderstanding of values and obligations. In some respects it is very similar to what same SNP supporters claim they are on about when they talk about civic nationalism - this version doesnt have the 'othering' element of nationalism though. What it certainly isn't is the "this is our flag, this is their flag (boo!hiss!) that we get with IndyYes/UK and Brexiteers/EU.

Oh and it is written by Chakrabortty. I say 'written' in the same way that if I put on a blindfold, drank two litres of vodka and was given a set of crayons and some A4 paper it would be 'drawing'. He really hasn't forgiven anyone for the tears he shed on his pillow when his sweet prince Jeremy had to step down.

But anyway, what about you? Did you come up with any evidence that Keir Starmer was taking cash bribes from private healthcare firms because that's what you said. No, of course you didn't.

[grunt]

What's the point of having a party conference if the leadership ignores the members' votes?
Motion to provide free school meals for all children passed in 2022. Ignored in 2023.
In the small print Labour says it is not bound by conference votes, so why bother?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FznrzIrX0AI0d00?format=jpg&name=900x900

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Because you are unable or unwilling to use your own words to describe what it is you mean, you have resorted to posting three links. Unfortunately they don't fit the bill.

But before that, I was making a point about the staleness of the Conservative and SNP adminsitrations. You haven't engaged with that at all. You've just hurriedly thrown some links at it which I assume are meant to be critical of Labour in the same way I was criticising the SNP and the Conservatives. But firstly I used my own words, which would have been prudent for you because your links don't really cut it.

'Culture wars' - you have chosen a link about dissatisfaction by some elements within and without the Labour Party at the way the Party is running its affairs. That's not a culture war. A culture war is generally defined as specifically a conflict between the religious and secular spheres (and more specifiically still, the 'Kulturkampf' between Bismarck and the Catholic Church in the 1870s), or generally as a conflict between the orthodox and the progressive. For all that your Corbynis and McDonnells and the rest pontificate, they still like, or used to like, the creature comforts of being supported by a party machine and they still iked their nice MP salary and very beneficial pension - that's hardly overthrowing the system is it? No, its just occupying a diminishing space on the spectrum, earmarked for the hilariously self-indulgent and irredeemably precious.

Oh, and it was written by Neal Lawson (see the last six words of the previous paragraph)

'Identity wars' - you have posted a link about a handful of voters in a constituency who say they don't think Labour takes Muslim issues seriously, or take them for granted. That's not identity wars - identity conflict is about weaponising discourse or narratives to create and use identity labels, which is decidely not what the article conveys. Perhaps the article is best summed up by the most important part of it - the first sentence. British Indians have over time shifted away from Labour because of a perception that Labour has been more sympathetic to Pakistan in relation to Kashmir. In order to bridge that false perception Labour has reached out more to British Indians than perhaps it did previously. Consequentially, that has driven some discontent in the Muslim community.

Oh, and the highlight was the Guardian telling us that some people had written to Keir Starmer on Wednesday and hadn't had a reply by Sunday. I'm sure he wll reply, maybe more than that, but less of the "will no one think of the children!" histrionics, FFS.

'Flag debate' - you've chosen a link that isn't about pitching one flag against another, it's about Starmer and Labour making a brave (potentially risky) attempt to make claim to a patriotism that is based on shared inderstanding of values and obligations. In some respects it is very similar to what same SNP supporters claim they are on about when they talk about civic nationalism - this version doesnt have the 'othering' element of nationalism though. What it certainly isn't is the "this is our flag, this is their flag (boo!hiss!) that we get with IndyYes/UK and Brexiteers/EU.

Oh and it is written by Chakrabortty. I say 'written' in the same way that if I put on a blindfold, drank two litres of vodka and was given a set of crayons and some A4 paper it would be 'drawing'. He really hasn't forgiven anyone for the tears he shed on his pillow when his sweet prince Jeremy had to step down.

But anyway, what about you? Did you come up with any evidence that Keir Starmer was taking cash bribes from private healthcare firms because that's what you said. No, of course you didn't.

Wow, what a mess. I'll leave it to others to draw their own conclusions from this. You're not really in a position to be requesting evidence from others either.

[Ozyhibby]

What's the point of having a party conference if the leadership ignores the members' votes?
Motion to provide free school meals for all children passed in 2022. Ignored in 2023.
In the small print Labour says it is not bound by conference votes, so why bother?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FznrzIrX0AI0d00?format=jpg&name=900x900

Tbf I think all parties often ignore conference votes. This one is a bit awkward for Sarwar who is constantly going on about the SNP not rolling free school meals out quick enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1673673384922603521?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Anas Sarwar just 7 weeks ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66033950?at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_link_id=1709C5E0-1502-11EE-9D74-CD153AE5AB7B&at_campaign=Social_Flow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66033950?at_ptr_name=twitter&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=link&at_medium=social&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_link_id=1709C5E0-1502-11EE-9D74-CD153AE5AB7B&at_campaign=Social_Flow

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ve got to say it’s a fair cop. If he was accused of leaking secret SNP plans to close leisure centres to voters then he has to pay the price.

Councillors need to know that if something is meant to be confidential, like secret SNP plans to close leisure centres, then they can’t just go around letting people know that.’ Where would it end?

I think in this case the Commission did its job diligently in sanctioning Mr Fagan for leaking secret SNP plans to close leisure centres.

Councillors, including SNP councillors, need to be free to draw up plans, including secret ones to close leisure centres. 👍

[Ozyhibby]

You’ve got to say it’s a fair cop. If he was accused of leaking secret SNP plans to close leisure centres to voters then he has to pay the price.

Councillors need to know that if something is meant to be confidential, like secret SNP plans to close leisure centres, then they can’t just go around letting people know that.’ Where would it end?

I think in this case the Commission did its job diligently in sanctioning Mr Fagan for leaking secret SNP plans to close leisure centres.

Councillors, including SNP councillors, need to be free to draw up plans, including secret ones to close leisure centres. [emoji106]

Lucky he didn’t disclose secret Labour plans to ditch free school meals.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Lucky he didn’t disclose secret Labour plans to ditch free school meals.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve literally seen your post on here about this so far, I would need to check out the reportage.

I assume it is about universal meals to a certain age. I know this, like some other universal benefits, is a real bone of contention in the progressive camp. I’ve certainly changed my mind about it before, might change back at some point.

Basically, from one progressive POV, universal is seen as good because it also goes to middle and high earners. If they get it they like it and they have more voice, so getting rid of it becomes more difficult for any party because it is seen as taking something away from everybody (even though some don’t need it). There are other arguments as well as to why universal is better.

A progressive POV against it is many recipients would be entitled because of UC, so it is disproportionally benefitting the better off. In that regard ir has the odour of the council tax freeze and begs the question “Is this another middle-class subsidy that could be spent elsewhere”?

So when you dig into it you find conflicting arguments about the best way of helping the least well-off, no argument about whether we should be doing so.

Of course that turns it into something serious and requiring thought, which are pretty much the polar opposite of the grab bag of polemic and distortion we get on Twitter a lot, or the Mail and the Express, if retro dumbing-down is your bag.

Back to being serious though, there is a genuine issue around UC, work and the benefit system- I can’t remember the detail but this policy affects it I think and it applies to people on a £2K band whose in-work earnings are between £6.5k and £8.5k. Any policy has to make sure it doesn’t penalise people in this band and ideally not disincentivise work.

[Ozyhibby]

I’ve literally seen your post on here about this so far, I would need to check out the reportage.

I assume it is about universal meals to a certain age. I know this, like some other universal benefits, is a real bone of contention in the progressive camp. I’ve certainly changed my mind about it before, might change back at some point.

Basically, from one progressive POV, universal is seen as good because it also goes to middle and high earners. If they get it they like it and they have more voice, so getting rid of it becomes more difficult for any party because it is seen as taking something away from everybody (even though some don’t need it). There are other arguments as well as to why universal is better.

A progressive POV against it is many recipients would be entitled because of UC, so it is disproportionally benefitting the better off. In that regard ir has the odour of the council tax freeze and begs the question “Is this another middle-class subsidy that could be spent elsewhere”?

So when you dig into it you find conflicting arguments about the best way of helping the least well-off, no argument about whether we should be doing so.

Of course that turns it into something serious and requiring thought, which are pretty much the polar opposite of the grab bag of polemic and distortion we get on Twitter a lot, or the Mail and the Express, if retro dumbing-down is your bag.

Back to being serious though, there is a genuine issue around UC, work and the benefit system- I can’t remember the detail but this policy affects it I think and it applies to people on a £2K band whose in-work earnings are between £6.5k and £8.5k. Any policy has to make sure it doesn’t penalise people in this band and ideally not disincentivise work.

We’ll Sarwar was all for it 7 weeks ago but I’m thinking he is maybe changing his mind on it now as well. Starmer’s ability to change other peoples minds for them is actually more impressive than the regularity that he changes his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20059723.anas-sarwar-takes-job-tv-pundit-rupert-murdoch/?ref=twtrec

SCOTTISH Labour leader Anas Sarwar is to become a pundit for Rupert Murdoch’s new TV (https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/tv_radio/) channel.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20059723.anas-sarwar-takes-job-tv-pundit-rupert-murdoch/?ref=twtrec

SCOTTISH Labour leader Anas Sarwar is to become a pundit for Rupert Murdoch’s new TV (https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/tv_radio/) channel.

Has he started yet? Haven’t seen any clips from it yet?
To be fair, he’s never at the parliament so he’s probably got a bit time on his hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xyz23jc]

Because you are unable or unwilling to use your own words to describe what it is you mean, you have resorted to posting three links. Unfortunately they don't fit the bill.

But before that, I was making a point about the staleness of the Conservative and SNP adminsitrations. You haven't engaged with that at all. You've just hurriedly thrown some links at it which I assume are meant to be critical of Labour in the same way I was criticising the SNP and the Conservatives. But firstly I used my own words, which would have been prudent for you because your links don't really cut it.

'Culture wars' - you have chosen a link about dissatisfaction by some elements within and without the Labour Party at the way the Party is running its affairs. That's not a culture war. A culture war is generally defined as specifically a conflict between the religious and secular spheres (and more specifiically still, the 'Kulturkampf' between Bismarck and the Catholic Church in the 1870s), or generally as a conflict between the orthodox and the progressive. For all that your Corbynis and McDonnells and the rest pontificate, they still like, or used to like, the creature comforts of being supported by a party machine and they still iked their nice MP salary and very beneficial pension - that's hardly overthrowing the system is it? No, its just occupying a diminishing space on the spectrum, earmarked for the hilariously self-indulgent and irredeemably precious.

Oh, and it was written by Neal Lawson (see the last six words of the previous paragraph)

'Identity wars' - you have posted a link about a handful of voters in a constituency who say they don't think Labour takes Muslim issues seriously, or take them for granted. That's not identity wars - identity conflict is about weaponising discourse or narratives to create and use identity labels, which is decidely not what the article conveys. Perhaps the article is best summed up by the most important part of it - the first sentence. British Indians have over time shifted away from Labour because of a perception that Labour has been more sympathetic to Pakistan in relation to Kashmir. In order to bridge that false perception Labour has reached out more to British Indians than perhaps it did previously. Consequentially, that has driven some discontent in the Muslim community.

Oh, and the highlight was the Guardian telling us that some people had written to Keir Starmer on Wednesday and hadn't had a reply by Sunday. I'm sure he wll reply, maybe more than that, but less of the "will no one think of the children!" histrionics, FFS.

'Flag debate' - you've chosen a link that isn't about pitching one flag against another, it's about Starmer and Labour making a brave (potentially risky) attempt to make claim to a patriotism that is based on shared inderstanding of values and obligations. In some respects it is very similar to what same SNP supporters claim they are on about when they talk about civic nationalism - this version doesnt have the 'othering' element of nationalism though. What it certainly isn't is the "this is our flag, this is their flag (boo!hiss!) that we get with IndyYes/UK and Brexiteers/EU.

Oh and it is written by Chakrabortty. I say 'written' in the same way that if I put on a blindfold, drank two litres of vodka and was given a set of crayons and some A4 paper it would be 'drawing'. He really hasn't forgiven anyone for the tears he shed on his pillow when his sweet prince Jeremy had to step down.

But anyway, what about you? Did you come up with any evidence that Keir Starmer was taking cash bribes from private healthcare firms because that's what you said. No, of course you didn't.

Bit hyperbolic amigo, Touch a nerve, NO? :greengrin

[degenerated]

Lucky he didn’t disclose secret Labour plans to ditch free school meals.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe guy that's taking over as leader isn't any better. Censured for not declaring personal interests in an item of council business in 2020 and the year before he was up to this....26930

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20059723.anas-sarwar-takes-job-tv-pundit-rupert-murdoch/?ref=twtrec

SCOTTISH Labour leader Anas Sarwar is to become a pundit for Rupert Murdoch’s new TV (https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/arts_ents/tv_radio/) channel.

That's more than a year old. Is this Holy Ground Gold? :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Has he started yet? Haven’t seen any clips from it yet?
To be fair, he’s never at the parliament so he’s probably got a bit time on his hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never watched Talk TV but I'm not sure this programme even exists.

Back last year, when this story is from, he seemed to be listed as a panellist on a news desk show. So was Grace Blakely. she writes for Tribune, a magazine that I think Corbyn writes for and which backed Rebecca Long-Bailey for the leadership last time round. Anyway, I don't think the prohramme got off the ground - it would have been up against C4, which is a big challenge.

As for not showing up at the steamie, I don't think enough people watch the coverage to notice. Which is a shame because it is often a pretty poor standard, across all sides of the house - people should see how their elected representatives fall to the occasion.

[cabbageandribs1875]

i've never watched talk TV or the other right wing bumf GB news and after reading erkywipe Jeremy Kyle is a presenter on Talk TV i now never will

Rupert Murdoch urged to rebrand TalkTV as The Sun TV to drive up low ratings (inews.co.uk) (https://inews.co.uk/news/media/rupert-murdoch-rebrand-talktv-sun-tv-low-ratings-2432324)


right wing Talk TV
Right wing nasty old man Murdoch
Sun TV
Sarwar

it all fits :thumbsup: should just rebrand Nasty TV

[Ozyhibby]

i've never watched talk TV or the other right wing bumf GB news and after reading erkywipe Jeremy Kyle is a presenter on Talk TV i now never will

Rupert Murdoch urged to rebrand TalkTV as The Sun TV to drive up low ratings (inews.co.uk) (https://inews.co.uk/news/media/rupert-murdoch-rebrand-talktv-sun-tv-low-ratings-2432324)


right wing Talk TV
Right wing nasty old man Murdoch
Sun TV
Sarwar

it all fits :thumbsup: should just rebrand Nasty TV

To be fair I don’t think Sarwar has the personality to be nasty. That would make him interesting. He’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

To be fair I don’t think Sarwar has the personality to be nasty. That would make him interesting. He’s not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Attacks about his personality? Do you know him well? :greengrin

I sense that you are having recurring bad dreams my friend. You find yourelf trapped in a dentist's chair, with Anas's masked face above yours, as he says "Open wide, we're just going to extract some MSPs for you, they are in pretty bad shape" :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

Attacks about his personality? Do you know him well? :greengrin

I sense that you are having recurring bad dreams my friend. You find yourelf trapped in a dentist's chair, with Anas's masked face above yours, as he says "Open wide, we're just going to extract some MSPs for you, they are in pretty bad shape" :wink:

I’m not overly worried about Labour winning the next Holyrood election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk