The future of the Labour Party

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But isn't the point of devolution that we can do things differently?

The point of independence is that we can do things differently. The point of devolution is to be given a fixed budget then told that we can do either this or that with it, but not to get any ideas above our station.

[McD]

They indeed could. But where do they pull the funding from to further mitigate a policy that the Scottish electorate didn't vote in favour of?


It's an economic choice. A choice that wouldn't have to be made if a parliament based in another country couldn't inflict policies on us that our electorate never voted for.


when did the Scottish electorate vote on these topics?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

when did the Scottish electorate vote on these topics?

Political parties put forward manifesto's don't they? I don't recall Scotland voting in favour of the party who has implemented these policies. Yet somehow, it's the responsibility of the Scottish Government to make cost cutting measures in order to mitigate them.

[Kato]

It seems the Labour candidate for Rutherglen opposes the 2 child limit, is against the bedroom tax and wants to think about rejoining the EU.
Is he sure he's standing for the correct party?Bloody communist.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[McD]

Political parties put forward manifesto's don't they? I don't recall Scotland voting in favour of the party who has implemented these policies. Yet somehow, it's the responsibility of the Scottish Government to make cost cutting measures in order to mitigate them.


it’s the Scottish govt’s choice to do that (one I agree with as it happens).

scotland, as part of the uk, voted in a general election, and like everyone else, ended up with the morons in government. Scotland didn’t vote for the snp to implement their policies either, a proportion of Scottish voters voted for them, not all of them, so you can’t keep talking about Scotland as a group uniform in opinion or political desire.

the electorate in Scotland didn’t vote on those specific policies, which is what you have stated. Neither did the electorate anywhere else.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

it’s the Scottish govt’s choice to do that (one I agree with as it happens).

scotland, as part of the uk, voted in a general election, and like everyone else, ended up with the morons in government. Scotland didn’t vote for the snp to implement their policies either, a proportion of Scottish voters voted for them, not all of them, so you can’t keep talking about Scotland as a group uniform in opinion or political desire.

the electorate in Scotland didn’t vote on those specific policies, which is what you have stated. Neither did the electorate anywhere else.

People vote for a party that puts forward policies in a manifesto. Scotland rejected the Conservative manifesto. We rejected the policies that they have implemented. Our devolved Government is then under pressure to reflect the fact that we rejected these policies by attempting to mitigate them. But mitigation pulls funding and resources from elsewhere, while the UK treasury eats into the Scottish budget.

If it's your opinion that this is ok, then that's your opinion. But I don't agree with it.

[JeMeSouviens]

But isn't the point of devolution that we can do things differently?

God no, the point of devolution was to make the SNP go away. :wink:

[McD]

People vote for a party that puts forward policies in a manifesto. Scotland rejected the Conservative manifesto. We rejected the policies that they have implemented. Our devolved Government is then under pressure to reflect the fact that we rejected these policies by attempting to mitigate them. But mitigation pulls funding and resources from elsewhere, while the UK treasury eats into the Scottish budget.

If it's your opinion that this is ok, then that's your opinion. But I don't agree with it.


none of what I stated is opinion, it’s factual. Second time today you’ve told me what my opinion is, despite clear evidence to the contrary.


people do vote for parties and their policies - the Conservative Party (sadly) won the majority. What the Scottish government do from there in regards to tory policies is a choice. That’s a fact, not opinion.

[archie]

God no, the point of devolution was to make the SNP go away. :wink:

Viewing through the party political prism is a pretty narrow perspective don't you think?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

none of what I stated is opinion, it’s factual. Second time today you’ve told me what my opinion is, despite clear evidence to the contrary.


people do vote for parties and their policies - the Conservative Party (sadly) won the majority. What the Scottish government do from there in regards to tory policies is a choice. That’s a fact, not opinion.

I can't tell if you're deliberately misinterpreting my posts or not, as you've done so several times already. I said "if" it's your opinion. I never declared that it was, as I honestly don't know. I also haven't disputed your points about the Conservative Party winning the UK election. I have simply highlighted that they are rejected by the electorate in Scotland. It is of course the Scottish Government's choice on whether to mitigate these policies or not. But as you know, such choices always come at a cost, a cost that wouldn't exist if the policies didn't exist in the first place.

[JeMeSouviens]

But isn't the point of devolution that we can do things differently?

Anyway, flippancy aside. The point of devolution was not to try to undo policy on reserved matters. If this was something the devolved government should be doing it wouldn't be reserved.

[McD]

I can't tell if you're deliberately misinterpreting my posts or not, as you've done so several times already. I said "if" it's your opinion. I never declared that it was, as I honestly don't know. I also haven't disputed your points about the Conservative Party winning the UK election. I have simply highlighted that they are rejected by the electorate in Scotland. It is of course the Scottish Government's choice on whether to mitigate these policies or not. But as you know, such choices always come at a cost, a cost that wouldn't exist if the policies didn't exist in the first place.


Agree on the highlighted point (which is ultimately the point of what we’re talking about, I think)

[archie]

Anyway, flippancy aside. The point of devolution was not to try to undo policy on reserved matters. If this was something the devolved government should be doing it wouldn't be reserved.

But that has moved on with the transfer of social security powers.

[JeMeSouviens]

But that has moved on with the transfer of social security powers.

No, it hasn't. If it had, there would be no question of mitigation, they could just do away with it.

[archie]

No, it hasn't. If it had, there would be no question of mitigation, they could just do away with it.

I'm sorry, I don't agree. The transfer of social security powers puts the Scottish Government in the frame around social protection in a way that wasn't the case before. Why is mitigation for the 'bedroom tax' ok, but the two child cap isn't?

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm sorry, I don't agree. The transfer of social security powers puts the Scottish Government in the frame around social protection in a way that wasn't the case before. Why is mitigation for the 'bedroom tax' ok, but the two child cap isn't?

I don't care whether you agree or not. It's still reserved. Do you think the SG should make its own policies to attempt to reverse other reserved matters?

Mitigation is fine as a sticking plaster but it's a very sub-optimal way of going about it.

[Hibrandenburg]

But we agree it's a choice.

It's a choice forced upon the Scottish government, Westminster takes something away and Scotland has to try and come up with the funds to mitigate. Even worse is that the money saved by Westminster implementing this policy is then in effect deducted twice due to GERS.

[archie]

I don't care whether you agree or not. It's still reserved. Do you think the SG should make its own policies to attempt to reverse other reserved matters?

Mitigation is fine as a sticking plaster but it's a very sub-optimal way of going about it.

I'm sure you don't care about what I think, but why the the SG go for the transfer of social security powers if it didn't want to use them?

[archie]

It's a choice forced upon the Scottish government, Westminster takes something away and Scotland has to try and come up with the funds to mitigate. Even worse is that the money saved by Westminster implementing this policy is then in effect deducted twice due to GERS.

Every funding decision made by every government is a choice.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I'm sorry, I don't agree. The transfer of social security powers puts the Scottish Government in the frame around social protection in a way that wasn't the case before. Why is mitigation for the 'bedroom tax' ok, but the two child cap isn't?

Mitigation isn't ok. As JMS says, it's a sticking plaster. But it's all the Scottish Government have got. I'm sure the Scottish Government would mitigate the two child cap as well, if the funds were there to move around in order to mitigate it. But let's be honest, if they pull funds from elsewhere in order to do so, the unionist line of attack will be wherever they pulled the funds from.

The logical thing to do would be to put pressure on Westminster to abolish both of these awful policies. But unionists won't do that. As any pressure placed on Westminster may be viewed as creating an even bigger rift between Scotland and the UK political system. So they play along with it instead. Allow it to land at the door of Holyrood, then lambaste the SNP about it, regardless of whether they choose to divert funds to mitigate it or not mitigate it at all.

UK Government creates a problem > Scottish Government is left to deal with it > Unionists attack Scottish Government over how they deal with it, as it comes at a cost to the Scottish electorate either way

[archie]

Mitigation isn't ok. As JMS says, it's a sticking plaster. But it's all the Scottish Government have got. I'm sure the Scottish Government would mitigate the two child cap as well, if the funds were there to move around in order to mitigate it. But let's be honest, if they pull funds from elsewhere in order to do so, the unionist line of attack will be wherever they pulled the funds from.

The logical thing to do would be to put pressure on Westminster to abolish both of these awful policies. But unionists won't do that. As any pressure placed on Westminster may be viewed as creating an even bigger rift between Scotland and the UK political system. So they play along with it instead. Allow it to land at the door of Holyrood, then lambaste the SNP about it, regardless of whether they choose to divert funds to mitigate it or not mitigate it at all.

UK Government creates a problem > Scottish Government is left to deal with it > Unionists attack Scottish Government over how they deal with it, as it comes at a cost to the Scottish electorate either way

It ok for you to mitigation isn't ok. What about the families affected?

[weecounty hibby]

It ok for you to mitigation isn't ok. What about the families affected?

Indeed. What about them? Why doesn't our bigger, cleverer and richer rulers do something to benefit them? Actually it's them who are the root cause of most of the issues. You couldn't make it up

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It ok for you to mitigation isn't ok. What about the families affected?

Well then they're being affected by a UK Government policy. Perhaps start there with your critique?

[grunt]

What has happened to the debate on this thread?????? People are just posting nonsense.

[cabbageandribs1875]

this dude is absolutely spot on regarding Labour, heaven forbid they get power at Holyrood :agree: then again maybe people north of the border would once and for all realise how far to the right Starmers mob truly are



https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/366707674_6658384350884289_9076640061718939736_n.j pg?_nc_cat=111&cb=99be929b-3346023f&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dd63ad&_nc_ohc=xxWdPHXf4nIAX8bgFHm&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBKzFK4SE6qf6vtPsyKLXlBEgcuiNTTkly2wvroFpb9 ZA&oe=64DA59F9

[archie]

What has happened to the debate on this thread?????? People are just posting nonsense.
Examples?

[archie]

Well then they're being affected by a UK Government policy. Perhaps start there with your critique?

Both can be wrong. Labour is not in power in Westminster or Holyrood.

[archie]

Indeed. What about them? Why doesn't our bigger, cleverer and richer rulers do something to benefit them? Actually it's them who are the root cause of most of the issues. You couldn't make it up

Labour is not in power in Westminster or Holyrood. So it makes sense to critique those who are in power.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Both can be wrong. Labour is not in power in Westminster or Holyrood.

Labour is committed to the 2 child tax credit policy and is refusing to rule out keeping the bedroom tax. Sure, we can't blame them for the policies right now because they're not in Government. But if they were a legitimate opposition, they'd be putting pressure on the Conservative government to dump these policies, rather than warming to the idea of keeping them in place when they take over.

I'm not sure how the Scottish Government can be wrong here. Either they are able to mitigate it by taking funding from elsewhere in which case unionists will attack them from doing so, or they're not able to mitigate it, in which case they're attacked for not mitigating it. Either way, the Scottish Government takes the blame in Scotland for a problem that was created by the UK Government.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Electoral Commission probing £600,000 Labour donation | openDemocracy (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-party-barnes-richmond-club-electoral-commission-unincorporated-association/?utm_source=fb&fbclid=IwAR2HZQL9hLzOpS_xE8uO_hBw6z0NuaCQlSc67SegT rYat26xLPHTwHXmgVA)

[grunt]

Electoral Commission probing £600,000 Labour donation | openDemocracy (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-party-barnes-richmond-club-electoral-commission-unincorporated-association/?utm_source=fb&fbclid=IwAR2HZQL9hLzOpS_xE8uO_hBw6z0NuaCQlSc67SegT rYat26xLPHTwHXmgVA)Is that where the SNP £600k went?

[Ozyhibby]

Electoral Commission probing £600,000 Labour donation | openDemocracy (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-party-barnes-richmond-club-electoral-commission-unincorporated-association/?utm_source=fb&fbclid=IwAR2HZQL9hLzOpS_xE8uO_hBw6z0NuaCQlSc67SegT rYat26xLPHTwHXmgVA)

BBC Scotland will be all over this.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

BBC Scotland will be all over this.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And when they're not, we'll be told that it's not a Scotland issue. Despite also being told that the UK is one country.

[Glory Lurker]

Get the big tent back out!

[One Day Soon]

Labour is committed to the 2 child tax credit policy and is refusing to rule out keeping the bedroom tax. Sure, we can't blame them for the policies right now because they're not in Government. But if they were a legitimate opposition, they'd be putting pressure on the Conservative government to dump these policies, rather than warming to the idea of keeping them in place when they take over.

I'm not sure how the Scottish Government can be wrong here. Either they are able to mitigate it by taking funding from elsewhere in which case unionists will attack them from doing so, or they're not able to mitigate it, in which case they're attacked for not mitigating it. Either way, the Scottish Government takes the blame in Scotland for a problem that was created by the UK Government.

Are you suggesting that the SNP Govt should make policy based upon whether or not they will be criticised by their opponents rather than on doing what is right?

[cabbageandribs1875]

Is that where the SNP £600k went?



nooooooo pay attention

that 600k went on the most luxurious campervan ever and a pair o shoes for Nicola

and Peter bought this seasons Hibs top

[grunt]

It's the Telegraph, so the news should be treated with some suspicion. But if true, this is another strange decision from Labour.

https://twitter.com/dominicpenna/status/1690447573130108928?s=61&t=-BLvE2XlsyxZYcSjKNkxtg

[neil7908]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-scraps-plans-for-ulez-uk/

This guy is a disgrace. I have my misgiving about some of the SNP policies and personalities but when I look at what Starmer has done to Labour I'm delighted to have a viable left wing option on our ballot.

The UK is absolutely ****ed as a country. I've always feared us following the US and now it's become a reality - we have no national left or centre left party any more.

[lapsedhibee]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-scraps-plans-for-ulez-uk/

This guy is a disgrace. I have my misgiving about some of the SNP policies and personalities but when I look at what Starmer has done to Labour I'm delighted to have a viable left wing option on our ballot.

The UK is absolutely ****ed as a country. I've always feared us following the US and now it's become a reality - we have no national left or centre left party any more.

Labour Party maybe just found out France have this in their cities, and don't want to seem too Europhile in case it upsets Tory voters. Ready made slogan for their GE campaign If You Want To Breathe Clean Air In A City, **** Off To France.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-scraps-plans-for-ulez-uk/

This guy is a disgrace. I have my misgiving about some of the SNP policies and personalities but when I look at what Starmer has done to Labour I'm delighted to have a viable left wing option on our ballot.

The UK is absolutely ****ed as a country. I've always feared us following the US and now it's become a reality - we have no national left or centre left party any more.

Wonder if this means the LEZ in Edinburgh is about to be cancelled? We have a Labour/Tory coalition so there has to be a chance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Wonder if this means the LEZ in Edinburgh is about to be cancelled? We have a Labour/Tory coalition so there has to be a chance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just effects the poor really. Better than nothing but would prefer congestion charge across the board. They should at least do the same as boilers. 7.5k for those effected and tax free loan to cover second hand electric car.

[Ozyhibby]

Just effects the poor really. Better than nothing but would prefer congestion charge across the board. They should at least do the same as boilers. 7.5k for those effected and tax free loan to cover second hand electric car.

You don’t need an electric car. The Edinburgh scheme is pretty tame and there will be very few people affected at first.
I prefer a congestion charge as well though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

You don’t need an electric car. The Edinburgh scheme is pretty tame and there will be very few people affected at first.
I prefer a congestion charge as well though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah I know you don't but it would be a good step getting the most polluting to electric.

I'm for ULEZ rather than nothing definitely but would go further, verging on car free areas

[Moulin Yarns]

Just effects the poor really. Better than nothing but would prefer congestion charge across the board. They should at least do the same as boilers. 7.5k for those effected and tax free loan to cover second hand electric car.

https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/grants-and-loans/used-electric-vehicle-loan/


You don't mean something like that? 😂

[Moulin Yarns]

Yeah I know you don't but it would be a good step getting the most polluting to electric.

I'm for ULEZ rather than nothing definitely but would go further, verging on car free areas

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/13101/developing-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-for-communities-across-edinburgh


Keep up 😂

[Stairway 2 7]

https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/grants-and-loans/used-electric-vehicle-loan/


You don't mean something like that? 😂

No. I said giving 7.5k like they do for boilers, probably need to be higher. Its a bit of a tax on the poor. The answer can't be putting them in 15k debt, interest free or not

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/13101/developing-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-for-communities-across-edinburgh


Keep up 😂

If you knew the streets involved you'd know its window dressing, a few dead ends or small streets not used. I think OZ is in agreement with me on large scale traffic free areas, think City centre wide. Perhaps only during the day, perhaps public transport allowed. But cities who bring it in seem to thrive and businesses return to high streets that are closed to cars

[Ozyhibby]

No. I said giving 7.5k like they do for boilers, probably need to be higher. Its a bit of a tax on the poor. The answer can't be putting them in 15k debt, interest free or not

I’m sure I read somewhere that it is poor people who suffer most from traffic pollution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I’m sure I read somewhere that it is poor people who suffer most from traffic pollution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In Edinburgh? Thought it would catch all, although the most built up areas in Edinburgh have less and less poor people in them every year. That's true especially inside the zone in Edinburgh, more likely to spread the cars to leith dalry and round the zone you'd think.

[Moulin Yarns]

No. I said giving 7.5k like they do for boilers, probably need to be higher. Its a bit of a tax on the poor. The answer can't be putting them in 15k debt, interest free or not

I was pointing out that there are already interest free loans for 2nd hand electric cars. A very good deal at the moment. I opted for a new car but got £400 towards a home charger.

[Moulin Yarns]

If you knew the streets involved you'd know its window dressing, a few dead ends or small streets not used. I think OZ is in agreement with me on large scale traffic free areas, think City centre wide. Perhaps only during the day, perhaps public transport allowed. But cities who bring it in seem to thrive and businesses return to high streets that are closed to cars

Is that not what is planned for George Street?

[Stairway 2 7]

Is that not what is planned for George Street?

Yes but one street that isn't used that often will just move that traffic to rose street. The whole town centre is constantly tail to tail with cars just now

[Stairway 2 7]

I was pointing out that there are already interest free loans for 2nd hand electric cars. A very good deal at the moment. I opted for a new car but got £400 towards a home charger.

20% of uk are living in poverty a 10k+ loan over 5 years isn't consolation or viable to many. It's a very good deal for those of us fortunate enough to have 100s of pounds a month to spare.

Those effected by Ulez should get the same 7.5k people getting electric heaters are getting imo

[Jack]

Given the UK is already on the brink of electricity shortages, see dire warnings of power cuts in recent winters, and no liklihood of satisfying the anticipated demand for electricity when fossil fuelled vehicles near their demise I'm surprised there hasn't been more chat about hydrogen vehicles.

And before anyone says it's too difficult to get enough hydrogen it's hardly been a walk in the park extracting oil and refining it over the last century!

[Ozyhibby]

Given the UK is already on the brink of electricity shortages, see dire warnings of power cuts in recent winters, and no liklihood of satisfying the anticipated demand for electricity when fossil fuelled vehicles near their demise I'm surprised there hasn't been more chat about hydrogen vehicles.

And before anyone says it's too difficult to get enough hydrogen it's hardly been a walk in the park extracting oil and refining it over the last century!

Hydrogen is really just a method of storage for electricity. I personally think they will find it cheaper to use battery storage, including in peoples homes. The grid is going to need significant upgrade to cope with the rise in demand and batteries will likely play a part. Hydrogen is proven tech but I just don’t see us doing it at scale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Sweden and the other scandi countries going big on nuclear, Sweden announcing another 10 last week. We certainly need another source bar renewables but it looks like it'll be burning gas for us. France gets it rewards now with small electric prices and space to increase power consumption

@DevanSinha

Sweden 🇸🇪 with 0.15x the UK population is planning to install 2.5x the UK nuclear power capacity over next 22 years.

🇬🇧 should target 67 nuke reactors not 4.

🇫🇷 managed 56 new nuke reactors in 15 yrs between 1974-1989

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/why-sir-keir-starmer-wants-to-smash-through-the-class-ceiling-with-vision-for-scotland-4254496

If you love being patronised then lap this up. No ideas for actually changing things though. Just more of the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

Sweden and the other scandi countries going big on nuclear, Sweden announcing another 10 last week. We certainly need another source bar renewables but it looks like it'll be burning gas for us. France gets it rewards now with small electric prices and space to increase power consumption @DevanSinhaSweden 🇸🇪 with 0.15x the UK population is planning to install 2.5x the UK nuclear power capacity over next 22 years.🇬🇧 should target 67 nuke reactors not 4.🇫🇷 managed 56 new nuke reactors in 15 yrs between 1974-1989The SNP government has a no new nuke power stations policy.

[Ozyhibby]

The SNP government has a no new nuke power stations policy.

That’s a bad policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes but one street that isn't used that often will just move that traffic to rose street. The whole town centre is constantly tail to tail with cars just now

I would like to see how Rose Street, a mostly pedestrian street with a one way system would cope 😂

Queen Street on the other hand will be busier.

[Stairway 2 7]

I would like to see how Rose Street, a mostly pedestrian street with a one way system would cope 😂

Queen Street on the other hand will be busier.

Meant Queen Street where they already go just now. George Street isn't used much by through traffic as is, mostly parking. Stuff like pedestrianisation of Dode Street is window dressing when Princes Street, Charlotte Street and Queen Street will remain bumper to bumper. As you say the traffic will just move to other streets ie Queen.

I'd pedestrianise the lot. Although that would probably be a vote killer as its probably only daftness like me that agree with that

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1691493544291184640?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/stvnews/status/1691493544291184640?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only 1 poll but 4100 people. Unbelievably 60% want to keep 22% oppose, Scotland is 53% 30% London 50% 20%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/11/fa421/1

That's shouldn't be reason to keep as it's totally horrible

[Ozyhibby]

Only 1 poll but 4100 people. Unbelievably 60% want to keep 22% oppose, Scotland is 53% 30% London 50% 20%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/11/fa421/1

That's shouldn't be reason to keep as it's totally horrible

I’m sure it’s popular. Benefit claimants have been attacked in this country for 50 years now. It’s not right though and it’s madness when we need people to have kids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Starmer fails to name a single member of Scottish Labours shadow cabinet...just 2 weeks after Jackie Baillie critised Sunak as "out of touch with Scotland" for his failure to name any Scottish Tory front benchers.


https://twitter.com/scotpolhub/status/1691544627378110465?s=46

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/stephenflynnsnp/status/1691725581337997534?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Not wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/innealadair/status/1691499819305508864?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Good points made by Sir Keir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar changes his mind. Again.https://news.stv.tv/politics/anas-sarwar-everybody-has-lost-since-scotlands-gender-reforms-were-passed-by-holyrood

[Ozyhibby]

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar changes his mind. Again.https://news.stv.tv/politics/anas-sarwar-everybody-has-lost-since-scotlands-gender-reforms-were-passed-by-holyrood

Has to say that while his bosses from London are up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/_sarahmasson/status/1692278450491449619?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Dode calling it out years ago. Agree with every single word.


https://twitter.com/OwenPaintbrush/status/1471580389563109385?t=zoZJ2eKhOZqWUpIi4-ZcsA&s=19
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

Dode calling it out years ago. Agree with every single word.


https://twitter.com/OwenPaintbrush/status/1471580389563109385?t=zoZJ2eKhOZqWUpIi4-ZcsA&s=19
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

He was a lovely guy and I just like him a bit more now!

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/daily_record/status/1692223513350844437?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
We know what’s best for you Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1692463207498002683?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Sarwar been slapped down by head office again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/adamnolsmcvey/status/1692511543693369469?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour choose the Tories in Edinburgh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Wonder if labour bought this from that 600k dodgy donation?27130

[Ozyhibby]

Wonder if labour bought this from that 600k dodgy donation?27130

Shame the SNP can’t campaign like that as the Police have locked up our campervan. Clear political bias.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

https://twitter.com/daily_record/status/1692223513350844437?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
We know what’s best for you Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're still allowed our cereal though.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/scotvoicesshow/status/1692542781644788092?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
No policy differences in Labour Party? [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

https://twitter.com/scotvoicesshow/status/1692542781644788092?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A
No policy differences in Labour Party? [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As she said it didn't take long to find 5 instances. Disappointing she went back as far as 2013, there are loads of significant U-turns over the last few months never mind last few years.

[cabbageandribs1875]

this labour party really needs to change it's name, and the unions need to stop once and for all giving it donations from workers contributions

Keir Starmer slammed for ‘bowing to corporate interests’ in latest policy u-turn | Politics | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1803450/Keir-Starmer-workers-rights-flip-flop?fbclid=IwAR2PdbsIyOy8Bl5p4rwuYgSO8BljKnL_aKJ4 RaoI6jpeII-BhoewcCSm17E)

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/leo_hutz/status/1693702513935933880?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

There is nothing this man won’t say for power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

https://x.com/leo_hutz/status/1693702513935933880?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

There is nothing this man won’t say for power.


He has said some daft things recently, but seems a bit unlikely he went that far, no? :dunno:

[neil7908]

https://x.com/leo_hutz/status/1693702513935933880?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

There is nothing this man won’t say for power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been happy to have a go at the guy but I can't see this picked up by any other media outlet. I'm guessing it's BS.

[Stairway 2 7]

He obviously likes backtracking but I can't see it on this. He's been director of the death penalty project and has travelled to Uganda, Taiwan and others to fight against the death penalty.

[wookie70]

He obviously likes backtracking but I can't see it on this. He's been director of the death penalty project and has travelled to Uganda, Taiwan and others to fight against the death penalty.

I think he would u-turn on anything if he thoughts the net result was one extra vote. Killing criminals goes down well with some voters so he will have done his sums and come to a position based on whether it is likely to give him more chance of power. I do wonder how many traditional Labour voters, like me, are pretty much in teh position they would never vote for the party again with someone like Starmer in power.

[Stairway 2 7]

I think he would u-turn on anything if he thoughts the net result was one extra vote. Killing criminals goes down well with some voters so he will have done his sums and come to a position based on whether it is likely to give him more chance of power. I do wonder how many traditional Labour voters, like me, are pretty much in teh position they would never vote for the party again with someone like Starmer in power.

I don't. Looking at the source, he clearly didn't

[degenerated]

This is poor, even by Baillie's standards

https://twitter.com/jackiebmsp/status/1694990277658710323?t=RGSt2BXL7IHtuab4eQJxwg&s=19

[Stairway 2 7]

This is poor, even by Baillie's standards

https://twitter.com/jackiebmsp/status/1694990277658710323?t=RGSt2BXL7IHtuab4eQJxwg&s=19

Was going to post yesterday when Janey Godley, India Willoughby were using this tragedy to talk about trans rights, Femi and that Corcoran creature from GB news also about other subjects. Absolutely hate when people use events like this to talk about their separate debate. Disgusting from Baillie

[cabbageandribs1875]

i find Baillie a highly dislikeable individual and not just because she still hasn't had the decency to thank her local tories for the votes that unfortunately saw her re-elected :(

it's more to do with stuff like this, horrible woman

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/369686848_6554253224620601_5832232315768075962_n.j pg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SRPwzZtbVZYAX9sZ-il&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfA6P4ZmkAT2FYKQPEyqtV52C4Wzc17_dM8xEODA3Mjv Ww&oe=64EE0BEB

Philippa is a breast surgeon, a lot of surgeons were off sick at the time. So Philippa stepped in to help the people get their breast surgery instead of their operations being cancelled. But Jackie Baillie thought it was wrong.

[cabbageandribs1875]

two weeks ago but still very pleasing, but i suppose a poll done by stats for righties would see his approval rating rather high



https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/370807618_7312089308807972_1034702729006624519_n.j pg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=mk4vKtAKC_AAX_b9KmD&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDodxhO_wo-VD8ZQeK4Mt_MuiUHMxWnR_29RluqVxb52w&oe=64EF0DC0

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66543735

Intrododuced by John major but promoted by Tony Blair

Thanks to them, us, the taxpayers, will be paying for them for decades.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66543735

Intrododuced by John major but promoted by Tony Blair

Thanks to them, us, the taxpayers, will be paying for them for decades.

PFI deals are terrible. Labour saddled us with about £5 billion of them then SNP added about £1.5 billion. That jumped massively last year when the greens privatised our nature in a £2 billion PFI deal. Neolib parties are all the same in some regards. I put up Andy Wightmans rage on here last year. Very good article on the asset stripping of our nature

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/03/privatising-scotlands-trees

[Moulin Yarns]

PFI deals are terrible. Labour saddled us with about £5 billion of them then SNP added about £1.5 billion. That jumped massively last year when the greens privatised our nature in a £2 billion PFI deal. Neolib parties are all the same in some regards. I put up Andy Wightmans rage on here last year. Very good article on the asset stripping of our nature

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/03/privatising-scotlands-trees

https://www-insider-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.insider.co.uk/news/2-billion-private-finance-pilot-29343791.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16930462534288&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insider.co.uk%2Fnews%2F 2-billion-private-finance-pilot-29343791


Just for some balance. The real story not an emotive rant

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www-insider-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.insider.co.uk/news/2-billion-private-finance-pilot-29343791.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16930462534288&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.insider.co.uk%2Fnews%2F 2-billion-private-finance-pilot-29343791


Just for some balance. The real story not an emotive rant

Oh so some PFI good some bad. And you're article good mine a rant, cracking debate old bean. I know you championed common weal, (well apart from when they slammed SNP for selling our renewable rights for pennies) here mcalpine slams the privatisation of nature.
https://robinmcalpine.org/scotlands-money-trees-are-making-us-poorer/

Surely an impartial person pro nature on the left would slam the deal, like Andy Wightman
Andy Wightman said: “If Hampden & Co, Lombard Odier Investment Managers, and ‘global impact’ firm Palladium are the answer to Scotland’s climate crisis, what on Earth is the question

The Times
Andy Wightman, a former Scottish Greens MSP, has called for an urgent inquiry into the partnership. He says it is part of the misguided idea of carbon offsetting, when trees get planted to assuage the guilt of frequent flyers. The renowned land campaigner has a good record on such matters.

The left-of-centre think tank Common Weal has weighed in, saying the scheme is another example of how wealth is sucked out of Scotland for the benefit of foreign investors.

[Moulin Yarns]

Oh so some PFI good some bad. And you're article good mine a rant, cracking debate old bean. I know you championed common weal, (well apart from when they slammed SNP for selling our renewable rights for pennies) here mcalpine slams the privatisation of nature.
https://robinmcalpine.org/scotlands-money-trees-are-making-us-poorer/

Surely an impartial person pro nature on the left would slam the deal, like Andy Wightman
Andy Wightman said: “If Hampden & Co, Lombard Odier Investment Managers, and ‘global impact’ firm Palladium are the answer to Scotland’s climate crisis, what on Earth is the question

The Times
Andy Wightman, a former Scottish Greens MSP, has called for an urgent inquiry into the partnership. He says it is part of the misguided idea of carbon offsetting, when trees get planted to assuage the guilt of frequent flyers. The renowned land campaigner has a good record on such matters.

The left-of-centre think tank Common Weal has weighed in, saying the scheme is another example of how wealth is sucked out of Scotland for the benefit of foreign investors.

This is not about timber production

https://www.treehugger.com/make-money-from-woodlands-5112528


Native woodlands are essential resources for nature conservation, biodiversity as well as climate change. If landowners are encouraged to increase native woodland cover with private finance rather than public money then that's a good thing.

This is not the typical monoculture of sitka spruce but a mosaic of different habitats to create diverse ecosystems. I'm all for it and think people have to look past the money.

[Stairway 2 7]

This is not about timber production

https://www.treehugger.com/make-money-from-woodlands-5112528


Native woodlands are essential resources for nature conservation, biodiversity as well as climate change. If landowners are encouraged to increase native woodland cover with private finance rather than public money then that's a good thing.

This is not the typical monoculture of sitka spruce but a mosaic of different habitats to create diverse ecosystems. I'm all for it and think people have to look past the money.

You serious? The debate isn't whether it will be good for nature, hospitals and schools are pretty good for society too no!

Your debate is PFI from your party good, pfi from Labour/SNP to pay for schools ect bad.

[grunt]

PFI deals are terrible.
Are you suggesting that there's no place whatsoever for private finance in Government infrastructure projects?

[Stairway 2 7]

Are you suggesting that there's no place whatsoever for private finance in Government infrastructure projects?

Yes I'm personally against giving profit to big businesses from private coffers. But I'm consistent in I'm against it regardless of party

[Moulin Yarns]

You serious? The debate isn't whether it will be good for nature, hospitals and schools are pretty good for society too no!

Your debate is PFI from your party good, pfi from Labour/SNP to pay for schools ect bad.

No, my point is that without private finance in native woodland planting we would be screwed earlier as a result of climate change. Compared with the ongoing repayments under Labour it's a no brainier. This is private finance to private landholdings not public so it's not going to come out of taxpayers pockets.

[Just Alf]

Yes I'm personally against giving profit to big businesses from private coffers. But I'm consistent in I'm against it regardless of partyTo be fair, the early PFI deals include a clause where, basically, the government buys the the property they've just finished paying the mortgage on.

The later ones, including all of the SNP government ones don't have that clause.

So in terms of different PFI's the later ones are better.

The use of them at all is another argument.

I can see the value for government (of all hues) getting infrastructure at a lower initial cost with funding spread over a period of time. However I can also see that paying for more of it up front and not having "loans" would work out Cheaper in the long run.

[Stairway 2 7]

To be fair, the early PFI deals include a clause where, basically, the government buys the the property they've just finished paying the mortgage on.

The later ones, including all of the SNP government ones don't have that clause.

So in terms of different PFI's the later ones are better.

The use of them at all is another argument.

I can see the value for government (of all hues) getting infrastructure at a lower initial cost with funding spread over a period of time. However I can also see that paying for more of it up front and not having "loans" would work out Cheaper in the long run.

There's two debates pfi in theory and pfi in the real world on average PFI contracts in Scotland have cost 3 times the initial contract cost. Billions in peofits to businesses. It'll be easier to not use them post independence when we can borrow

A really good article on the realities
https://theconversation.com/pfi-at-30-its-hard-to-say-anything-positive-about-this-deeply-flawed-financing-model-195400

[Stairway 2 7]

No, my point is that without private finance in native woodland planting we would be screwed earlier as a result of climate change. Compared with the ongoing repayments under Labour it's a no brainier. This is private finance to private landholdings not public so it's not going to come out of taxpayers pockets.

I take it you didn't read the common weal peace that dismissed this. Most private landowners won't go for it due to risks its estimated most will come from public agencies or plcs funded by scot gov. The first loan is being taken up by the borders forest Trust.

[Moulin Yarns]

I take it you didn't read the common weal peace that dismissed this. Most private landowners won't go for it due to risks its estimated most will come from public agencies or plcs funded by scot gov. The first loan is being taken up by the borders forest Trust.

Are you sure it's a loan?

As I understand it this is private investment

https://www.nature.scot/doc/private-finance-pilot-nature-faqs

https://www.gov.scot/publications/interim-principles-for-responsible-investment-in-natural-capital/#:~:text=The%20Interim%20Principles%20set%20out,bo dies%20and%20other%20market%20stakeholders.


Absolutely nothing like the previous PFI contracts.

[Ozyhibby]

I can handle pfi if at the end of the 25 years the asset reverts to the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Are you sure it's a loan?

As I understand it this is private investment

https://www.nature.scot/doc/private-finance-pilot-nature-faqs

https://www.gov.scot/publications/interim-principles-for-responsible-investment-in-natural-capital/#:~:text=The%20Interim%20Principles%20set%20out,bo dies%20and%20other%20market%20stakeholders.


Absolutely nothing like the previous PFI contracts.

Do you think these London companies are just giving it to scot gov agencies with no benefit to them. Of course its a loan its PFI.

[Stairway 2 7]

I can handle pfi if at the end of the 25 years the asset reverts to the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At what cost in the real world. So far it's 4-5 times original cost

[cabbageandribs1875]

my goodness Sarwar is actually correct in his description of this horrible Dame, lot more names she could be called though tbf

The Herald on X: "The Glasgow MSP also agreed Dame Jackie, who has a reputation as a fearsome behind-the-scenes enforcer, was his 'henchman' https://t.co/VfIKX85xbe" / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1695141492657099178?t=uUxnpE9aQKnyRp8efL4LaA&s=19&fbclid=IwAR1ga8iDICjn1zBvqKzzFgrxHODL5FeGtxAawAxaI-h9rPJM03QBxold5tw)

[Moulin Yarns]

Do you think these London companies are just giving it to scot gov agencies with no benefit to them. Of course its a loan its PFI.

Again, maybe read the link!!! Remember, it's not the teachers that are striking, just like these are not loans!!

[Stairway 2 7]

Again, maybe read the link!!! Remember, it's not the teachers that are striking, just like these are not loans!!

What are they then its PFI rebranded and repackaged. I've replied with three thorough articles from impartial sources saying they are basically pfi, Your just posting links to government releases. Your saying you are right and common weal are wrong, just like you did when you said scot gov didn't sell of our renewables for pennies.

[Moulin Yarns]

Does the taxpayer pay for this in any way?

The £2billion is all private money. There’s the potential to blend with public money for future projects. But the £2billion is not taxpayers’ money.

Is this about 'privatising trees'?

No. The majority of woodland in Scotland is on private land, along with woodland and forests owned by Forestry and Land Scotland, a public agency. Private investment in trees and woodland is not a new thing – private investors have been buying and selling commercial forestry for many years. The Woodland Carbon Code is designed to help bring responsible private investment in to woodland creation to help tackle climate change and the investment partnership is responding to that need.


That's just 2 of the answers that debunk any suggestions that this is a PFI where we end up paying for it.

[Stairway 2 7]

Does the taxpayer pay for this in any way?

The £2billion is all private money. There’s the potential to blend with public money for future projects. But the £2billion is not taxpayers’ money.

Is this about 'privatising trees'?

No. The majority of woodland in Scotland is on private land, along with woodland and forests owned by Forestry and Land Scotland, a public agency. Private investment in trees and woodland is not a new thing – private investors have been buying and selling commercial forestry for many years. The Woodland Carbon Code is designed to help bring responsible private investment in to woodland creation to help tackle climate change and the investment partnership is responding to that need.


That's just 2 of the answers that debunk any suggestions that this is a PFI where we end up paying for it.

The first point yes it's private funding and the majority is expected to be loaned to public bodies and plcs, the plc's are private companies in some cases but get their whole funding usually from scot gov so it's our money if you follow it back. The money needs repaid and where does that come from?

You can stick to official press releases. I'll stick to people like the common weal who are left wing independent and strongly for environmental projects.

As this in the tribune says it also about the sham of carbon offsetting. Businesses getting huge grants buying credits so they can continue to pollute whilst greenwashing. Land owners can also get private grants from taxpayers money, none of this will be in government press releases

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/03/privatising-scotlands-trees

March 1st, under the guise of the SNP leadership contest, the Scottish Government signed one of Scotland’s largest-ever PFI deals. NatureScot’s new £2bn partnership with private finance perfectly illustrates how ‘green capitalism’ has come to haunt efforts to tackle the climate emergency.

Signed by a Green government minister, the ‘pilot’ project aims to ‘secure landscape scale restoration of native woodlands’ through ‘private investment in natural capital.’ NatureScot’s press release was couched in the language of environmentalism but, put simply, the deal empowers corporations to asset-strip Scotland.

[Moulin Yarns]

The first point yes it's private funding and the majority is expected to be loaned to public bodies and plcs, the plc's are private companies in some cases but get their whole funding usually from scot gov so it's our money if you follow it back. The money needs repaid and where does that come from?

You can stick to official press releases. I'll stick to people like the common weal who are left wing independent and strongly for environmental projects.

As this in the tribune says it also about the sham of carbon offsetting. Businesses getting huge grants buying credits so they can continue to pollute whilst greenwashing. Land owners can also get private grants from taxpayers money, none of this will be in government press releases

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2023/03/privatising-scotlands-trees

March 1st, under the guise of the SNP leadership contest, the Scottish Government signed one of Scotland’s largest-ever PFI deals. NatureScot’s new £2bn partnership with private finance perfectly illustrates how ‘green capitalism’ has come to haunt efforts to tackle the climate emergency.

Signed by a Green government minister, the ‘pilot’ project aims to ‘secure landscape scale restoration of native woodlands’ through ‘private investment in natural capital.’ NatureScot’s press release was couched in the language of environmentalism but, put simply, the deal empowers corporations to asset-strip Scotland.

The money is not a loan and it's not repaid from the public purse.

What asset stripping will occur?

Where else would the financial support come from to enable the government to reach biodiversity and climate targets?

If carbon offset isn't allowed here then the money goes elsewhere and the country loses out on its targets and investment.

At least acknowledge that this is not the same as the original PFI schemes that allowed new hospitals and schools to be built but at a large cost to the taxpayer.

[degenerated]

I can handle pfi if at the end of the 25 years the asset reverts to the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWithout it there would little to no building of new schools or hospitals or the benefit to the construction industry and it's supply chains which keeps the economy ticking over and plenty people in work.
If done properly it's a good thing.

[Stairway 2 7]

The money is not a loan and it's not repaid from the public purse.

What asset stripping will occur?

Where else would the financial support come from to enable the government to reach biodiversity and climate targets?

If carbon offset isn't allowed here then the money goes elsewhere and the country loses out on its targets and investment.

At least acknowledge that this is not the same as the original PFI schemes that allowed new hospitals and schools to be built but at a large cost to the taxpayer.

Your saying its not a loan. Do you think these London firms are putting in £2 billion and not wanting it back. They will get it back probably 4 fold. It will be repaid by public money in a number of different ways. Grants to landowners to purchase, loans being repaid by public bodies and plcs that are wholly funded by scot gov. The first loan is going to borders forest Trust, they are funded by us so cut the ties and it's the tax payer

You can say where else does the money come from but the same goes for needed hospitals ect. The money is welcome in pfi and will do good, I personally don't agree with the cost.

It won't be as bad as the initial Labour pfi terms as they were shocking, but it's pfi. Private companies get poor rates of borrowing so the repayments are high. The financers here will get multiple times their initial investment returned to them, most will come from us in round about ways. As one article says do we believe rich landowners are seriously going to take a massive loan with any risk to themselves, or with huge interest, all for the love of the planet

[Stairway 2 7]

Without it there would little to no building of new schools or hospitals or the benefit to the construction industry and it's supply chains which keeps the economy ticking over and plenty people in work.
If done properly it's a good thing.

In the real world it can't. Even the SNP's £1.5 billion in pfi will go back 4 fold. Private companies get poor rates compared to governments. Scotland are hamstrung in the union but that doesn't make a bad deal good.

Just because I'm skint and have no other avenue of getting a loan I shouldn't get a wonga loan

[degenerated]

And without it kids would be in crumbling schools and the bellwether industry for the economy would be decimated.

Until Scotland is a real country then it's the only way.

[Stairway 2 7]

And without it kids would be in crumbling schools and the bellwether industry for the economy would be decimated.

Until Scotland is a real country then it's the only way.

I think that's hyperbole. The amount of pfi received isn't that large. Our budget is about £60 billion and we get about £100 million in pfi 0.16%. A few miles of road per year usually with it

[degenerated]

I think that's hyperbole. The amount of pfi received isn't that large. Our budget is about £60 billion and we get about £100 million in pfi 0.16%. A few miles of road per year usually with it

There's hundreds of millions of PPP spend go through hub and crown commercial services frameworks every year on the education sector alone.

[Stairway 2 7]

There's hundreds of millions of PPP spend go through hub and crown commercial services frameworks every year on the education sector alone.

Yeah PPP is just the SNP not wanting PFI name but it's the still an awful deal

We've had £270 mil a year from PPP £2.9 billion total but we'll pay back £8.5 minimum.

I think it's money poorly spent. Scotland got over £10 billion from hs2 barnett consequentials, that could have went to ongoing infrastructure projects

[Ozyhibby]

Yeah PPP is just the SNP not wanting PFI name but it's the still an awful deal

We've had £270 mil a year from PPP £2.9 billion total but we'll pay back £8.5 minimum.

I think it's money poorly spent. Scotland got over £10 billion from hs2 barnett consequentials, that could have went to ongoing infrastructure projects

There is no way we have received £10bn?
I’m all in favour of massive infrastructure spending though and we need to get smarter about getting value for money.
Within the borrowing rules we have as part of the UK that’s likely to only be available through PFI type deals. Two way to bring about growth are improving infrastructure and deregulating planning. Second one doesn’t even cost money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Your saying its not a loan. Do you think these London firms are putting in £2 billion and not wanting it back. They will get it back probably 4 fold. It will be repaid by public money in a number of different ways. Grants to landowners to purchase, loans being repaid by public bodies and plcs that are wholly funded by scot gov. The first loan is going to borders forest Trust, they are funded by us so cut the ties and it's the tax payer

You can say where else does the money come from but the same goes for needed hospitals ect. The money is welcome in pfi and will do good, I personally don't agree with the cost.

It won't be as bad as the initial Labour pfi terms as they were shocking, but it's pfi. Private companies get poor rates of borrowing so the repayments are high. The financers here will get multiple times their initial investment returned to them, most will come from us in round about ways. As one article says do we believe rich landowners are seriously going to take a massive loan with any risk to themselves, or with huge interest, all for the love of the planet

A loan needs repaid by the loanee to the lender, a grant doesn't.

Private finance for native woodlands are grants. The money is not lent. The investors will recoup their money from carbon offset payments.


Everything is explained clearly if you bothered to do your research.


Thanks for the debate but I'm busy the rest of the day.

[Stairway 2 7]

A loan needs repaid by the loanee to the lender, a grant doesn't.

Private finance for native woodlands are grants. The money is not lent. The investors will recoup their money from carbon offset payments.


Everything is explained clearly if you bothered to do your research.


Thanks for the debate but I'm busy the rest of the day.

Since you only work with government FAQs. From the link you shared

"NatureScot colleagues have advised that there is the option for investment to be a loan, but it could also be an equity agreement, or investors may simply buy the carbon. The investment type depends what each land manager wants. The benefit of this opportunity is that the investors have an open mind on how the investment will work.

It could be a loan, but other investment models such as equity investment are also on the table. And it’s not just about private landlords, we hope that communities, NGOs and indeed some public bodies will be able to take advantage of the investment too."


The link I shared said they estimate it mostly to be loans and mostly to public bodies and funded plcs. Private landowners won't take much of a risk. Even the deals that aren't loans are pure greenwashing despite what gov says. Let's polluters pay to pump carbon out with unproven offsetting. Andy wightman says this will do zero to cut carbon and just help big business pay there way out.

Enjoy your afternoon

[grunt]

Andy wightman says this will do zero to cut carbon and just help big business pay there way out.

Well if Andy says so then it must be right. :greengrin

[Stairway 2 7]

There is no way we have received £10bn?
I’m all in favour of massive infrastructure spending though and we need to get smarter about getting value for money.
Within the borrowing rules we have as part of the UK that’s likely to only be available through PFI type deals. Two way to bring about growth are improving infrastructure and deregulating planning. Second one doesn’t even cost money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No sorry £10 will be final amount year on yearvia barnett. Think it was £1.2 billion extra in 2022 although it obviously just goes in our budget pot. We got about £500mil from crossrail too. I love when England do big infrastructure projects as we get 10% and hopefully they overspend by loads too.

[Stairway 2 7]

Well if Andy says so then it must be right. :greengrin

I just used him as an example as he's been fighting for a greener Scotland and I respect him. Its pretty obvious though. Companies pump out carbon and pay for carbon to be captured to offset it. Lots of green campaigners think it's a nonsense as they have a net negative impact. What's your opinion on it

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/24/carbon-offsets-are-a-licence-to-pollute

Carbon offsets are a licence to pollute. A report (Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest provider are worthless, analysis shows, 18 January

[Stairway 2 7]

Think oz will approve of this, devil will be in the details 100k extra homes per year above target is good but not enough imo

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1695322686090572177

Labour is drawing up plans for new towns and suburbs as the party seeks to build its way to economic growth

Onshore wind farms, nuclear reactors and other green energy infrastructure are expected to be fast-tracked as the Labour prepares for changes to the planning system to improve the economy

Sir Keir Starmer has said he is willing to allow building on the green belt, and is expected to set out how this will let councils in areas with a shortage of homes draw up plans for bigger and better developments featuring transport, energy, schools and GP surgeries

He is due to make pro-building reforms a key part of his pitch at the Labour conference in the autumn as he attempts to show that the party would be able to govern even when there is little money to spend

[Stairway 2 7]

This on the other hand is pathetic. Labour to not raise the top tax rate. Scot gov should be commended for raising it, no one ran away to England after it was raised

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/labour-rules-out-new-wealth-tax-if-it-wins-election_uk_64eb2101e4b0a2a9abc4f915/

[neil7908]

This on the other hand is pathetic. Labour to not raise the top tax rate. Scot gov should be commended for raising it, no one ran away to England after it was raised

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/labour-rules-out-new-wealth-tax-if-it-wins-election_uk_64eb2101e4b0a2a9abc4f915/

Was just about to post this. Every week that goes by they morph more and more into Tories.

Every one of these policy decisions is made with the same comment - this is designed to blunt a Tory attack. What a cowardly way to run a political party - let the opposition bully you into adopting their policies to stop criticism.

Two cheeks of the same arse.

[cabbageandribs1875]

murray says labour are not Tories




oh yes you are

[Stairway 2 7]

Scottish Labour say greens nature pfi was based on misleading figures

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/green-minister-justified-scotland-biggest-pfi-deal-on-misleading-figures-scottish-labour-charges

MATT KERR
Green minister justified Scotland's biggest PFI deal on ‘misleading’ figures, Scottish Labour charges

Scottish Green party co-leader Lorna Slater
SCOTLAND’S Biodiversity Minister Lorna Slater used misleading evidence to defend Scotland’s biggest single PFI deal, Scottish Labour has charged.

In March, the Scottish Green MSP signed a 30-year private finance deal worth £2 billion between Nature Scotland, private bank Hampden & Co, Lombard Odier Investment Managers and “global impact” firm Palladium.

The deal aims to provide loans to landowners to plant woodland while polluters pay into the scheme to engage in the much-criticised practice of offsetting their emissions.

Announcing the PFI on Nature Scotland’s website, Ms Slater said: “The finance gap for nature in Scotland for the next decade has been estimated to be £20bn.

“Leveraging responsible private investment, through valuable partnerships like this, will be absolutely vital to meeting our climate targets and restoring our natural environment.”

However, an independent study by researcher Jon Hollingdale on behalf of the Forest Policy Group and Community Land Scotland now puts that figure closer to £9bn.

[grunt]

Scottish Labour say greens nature pfi was based on misleading figures.
Does it change the investment decision? No.

"Scottish Labour" LOL.

[Stairway 2 7]

Does it change the investment decision? No.

"Scottish Labour" LOL.

It might change it, fingers crossed. Billions of pounds of profits to investors. Some will come from loans and grants from us, others from letting polluters pump carbon for dubious offsetting

[cabbageandribs1875]

BLiS

(2) MSM Monitor on X: "This story is so damaging for Anas Sarwar that BBC Scotland will likely suppress some of it. Will GMS even mention it? 1. Sarwar made a special video to endorse Graham. 2. Graham has called Sarwar a friend. 3. Labour control Fife council because of a deal with the Tories." / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1696270640439861754?t=bcHRdJCkvro0pI3hC7SMqA&s=19&fbclid=IwAR30WG5fq8NlJh3eYMzzN4A0i_5uknjbz6dauJ20v Ll89CEghyz6vCWyjtQ)

[Stairway 2 7]

BLiS

(2) MSM Monitor on X: "This story is so damaging for Anas Sarwar that BBC Scotland will likely suppress some of it. Will GMS even mention it? 1. Sarwar made a special video to endorse Graham. 2. Graham has called Sarwar a friend. 3. Labour control Fife council because of a deal with the Tories." / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1696270640439861754?t=bcHRdJCkvro0pI3hC7SMqA&s=19&fbclid=IwAR30WG5fq8NlJh3eYMzzN4A0i_5uknjbz6dauJ20v Ll89CEghyz6vCWyjtQ)

Poor from MSM. Using child sex offenses to score political points. Goons from Labour were doing the same when the snp councillor got jailed for the same in December. Every party will have beasts in them you can't blame the party for that, you could if they didn't deal with it

[Ozyhibby]

BLiS

(2) MSM Monitor on X: "This story is so damaging for Anas Sarwar that BBC Scotland will likely suppress some of it. Will GMS even mention it? 1. Sarwar made a special video to endorse Graham. 2. Graham has called Sarwar a friend. 3. Labour control Fife council because of a deal with the Tories." / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1696270640439861754?t=bcHRdJCkvro0pI3hC7SMqA&s=19&fbclid=IwAR30WG5fq8NlJh3eYMzzN4A0i_5uknjbz6dauJ20v Ll89CEghyz6vCWyjtQ)

These are crap stories no matter the political party. I don’t think it reflects badly on Labour at all unless they somehow knew about it and covered it up. And I very much doubt that. Best to leave this sort of stuff to Berwickhibby who takes great joy in posting about it if it’s an SNP politician. Amazed he hasn’t posted about this yet.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

These are crap stories no matter the political party. I don’t think it reflects badly on Labour at all unless they somehow knew about it and covered it up. And I very much doubt that. Best to leave this sort of stuff to Berwickhibby who takes great joy in posting about it if it’s an SNP politician. Amazed he hasn’t posted about this yet.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not seen him around for a while. Apparently he was getting trolled.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/wealth-tax-labour-economics-rachel-reeves?CMP=share_btn_tw

Trickle down now Labour policy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Can't believe no one has posted the Led By Donkeys video from this morning

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1696812363805073866?s=20

[cabbageandribs1875]

(3) Marcus Carslaw on X: "“Senior Labour figures accepted valuable gifts from Google in the days before abandoning a plan to tax digital giants more, openDemocracy can reveal.” What’s the point of Labour? https://t.co/iNrFoY3SVH" / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/marcuscarslaw1/status/1696908827294138631?s=20&fbclid=IwAR246fxyTAx65-x1pJsH9j2wcbOzQ_TFlEp9IxMCPCQ3krgHft3_tZ-xvGs)


what's the point of Labour ? indeed, we already have a Conservative party, same Tories different colours

[cabbageandribs1875]

These are crap stories no matter the political party. I don’t think it reflects badly on Labour at all unless they somehow knew about it and covered it up. And I very much doubt that. Best to leave this sort of stuff to Berwickhibby who takes great joy in posting about it if it’s an SNP politician. Amazed he hasn’t posted about this yet.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it's important to get this in the public domain, the British Broadcasting Company won't tell us unless it's an SNP politician of course in which case it would be main news. maybe this should have been on the Biased BBC thread right enough

[Kato]

(3) Marcus Carslaw on X: "“Senior Labour figures accepted valuable gifts from Google in the days before abandoning a plan to tax digital giants more, openDemocracy can reveal.” What’s the point of Labour? https://t.co/iNrFoY3SVH" / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/marcuscarslaw1/status/1696908827294138631?s=20&fbclid=IwAR246fxyTAx65-x1pJsH9j2wcbOzQ_TFlEp9IxMCPCQ3krgHft3_tZ-xvGs)


what's the point of Labour ? indeed, we already have a Conservative party, same Tories different coloursBribed at Glastonbury. K'nell.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

it's important to get this in the public domain, the British Broadcasting Company won't tell us unless it's an SNP politician of course in which case it would be main news. maybe this should have been on the Biased BBC thread right enough

I think every single news agency covered it. I don't think it's got anything to do with labour, as oz said if they covered ect then yes.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66647477.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/scottish-labour-councillor-david-graham-charged-over-child-grooming-allegations-12950256

As for harming children there is enough amount without this sort of stuff, think of the two child cap

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/1697254039455781003?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Another Sarwar u-turn. He must have been slapped down head office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Starmers worth the watching

CPS has destroyed all records of Keir Starmer’s four trips to Washington (declassifieduk.org) (https://declassifieduk.org/cps-has-destroyed-all-records-of-keir-starmers-four-trips-to-washington/)

[Stairway 2 7]

Starmers worth the watching

CPS has destroyed all records of Keir Starmer’s four trips to Washington (declassifieduk.org) (https://declassifieduk.org/cps-has-destroyed-all-records-of-keir-starmers-four-trips-to-washington/)

Glad he was trying to send Assange to sweeden, disgusting that he never got his day in court, even though George Galloway says it wasn't rape Galloway made the claim that ‘stealthing’ and having sex with somebody while they were asleep was not rape, just merely “bad sexual etiquette"

For any good he did he also worked with the kgb in giving Russia information. He also even with half hearted redactions cost lives of journalists and public worldwide, for the sin of talking to America, sometimes against parties like the taliban. His opinion

"Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

[Stairway 2 7]

https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/1697254039455781003?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Another Sarwar u-turn. He must have been slapped down head office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drugs should be regrouped with health and devolved, it won't be though

[Jack]

Drugs should be regrouped with health and devolved, it won't be though

Drugs is a social issue. It only becomes a health problem when it goes wrong. It needs to be tackled before it affects users health. When it becomes a health issue too often it's too late.

[Stairway 2 7]

Drugs is a social issue. It only becomes a health problem when it goes wrong. It needs to be tackled before it affects users health. When it becomes a health issue too often it's too late.

But I'd legalise recreational use away from police. I'd have safe use rooms that would be on the health side, just as methadone is just now.

[Moulin Yarns]

But I'd legalise recreational use away from police. I'd have safe use rooms that would be on the health side, just as methadone is just now.

Apart from alcohol I've never used an addictive drug
Saying that I overdose on alcohol on occasion. I probably need help but a safe room isn't the answer for my addiction.

[CropleyWasGod]

Apart from alcohol I've never used an addictive drug
Saying that I overdose on alcohol on occasion. I probably need help but a safe room isn't the answer for my addiction.

A fundamental difference between alcohol and drug addiction, as it stands, is that the drug user can't rely on the quality of their supply. They don't always know what they are taking, whereas alcohol users (in the main) do. Safer injecting facilities help the user in instances where they overdose or have an adverse reaction to the drugs they are using.


You could do with a hypnotherapist though.......:greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/369794652_10229809482919776_6638459104400800108_n. jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=4c1e7d&_nc_ohc=USfoRrxnELgAX8YpNVi&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfDGtsTdb9Et8uMgBlPpDgsb68sKSFKN9ResfiGcqdF1 2A&oe=64F57E7C

[Moulin Yarns]

A fundamental difference between alcohol and drug addiction, as it stands, is that the drug user can't rely on the quality of their supply. They don't always know what they are taking, whereas alcohol users (in the main) do. Safer injecting facilities help the user in instances where they overdose or have an aderse reaction to the drugs they are using.


You could do with a hypnotherapist though.......:greengrin

Which distillery is that from 😉

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/humzayousaf/status/1697340312245477763?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour no longer in favour of progressive taxation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/katec_snp/status/1697598790155264316?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

Labours tax plan endorsed by right wing Republican senator in the US:

https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1697693257621442620

"Very Reganesque".

Here we are fearing Labour are becoming the Tories, when actually they are the US Republican party.

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/olafdoesstuff/status/1698671020045975592?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour now against free school meals.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://x.com/olafdoesstuff/status/1698671020045975592?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour now against free school meals.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

About 50% of kids get meals free in England it should be rolled out regardless to all. Think its the first 3 years every kid in England gets it free, would only cost an extra £1 billion to expand to all primary.

Scotland say they are still planning to add p6 p7 in 2024.

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/marcuscarslaw1/status/1698655968937038237?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Love a bit of British nationalism.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://x.com/marcuscarslaw1/status/1698655968937038237?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Love a bit of British nationalism.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are union Jack's bad, saltires good?

All nationalism is a pile of pish, good guys and erses in every nation. Half of Scotland was getting itself in a sectarian rage watching football yesterday

[Ozyhibby]

Are union Jack's bad, saltires good?

All nationalism is a pile of pish, good guys and erses in every nation. Half of Scotland was getting itself in a sectarian rage watching football yesterday

I’m merely mocking the Labour supporters on here who never tire of complaining about the waving of saltires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

https://twitter.com/timesscotland/status/1698682803502629240?t=ehcZVYMF-tVpirWtBU53dg&s=09

New labour, new Scotland, new Britain :hilarious

The picture really is quite something.
27192

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-birmingham-66717957

Massive blow to Labour’s credibility. This situation was avoided in Glasgow because the good people of Glasgow decided to get rid of Labour and voted SNP. The issue was promptly dealt with and people were paid what they were due.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-birmingham-66717957

Massive blow to Labour’s credibility. This situation was avoided in Glasgow because the good people of Glasgow decided to get rid of Labour and voted SNP. The issue was promptly dealt with and people were paid what they were due.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Totally agree with what you say there. Sadly though they won't be the last LA that this happens to. We may even see it in Scotland as well. But aye, Labour are the change we need and a fresh start yadda yadda yadda

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/374951659_683988173775897_6023617636181915169_n.jp g?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5614bc&_nc_ohc=yqk6wMfSEWUAX9Omsww&_nc_oc=AQlXnXdTVVhNJCt7BruhPfHCCPEDnRZkyKHsRJnKU8W 6JImb7YQK6txDdkGm-vN3uV0&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=00_AfD41D5w4LszySA4Kq0WvJgOQpl_-zYipZ1NgcQXTzyiXg&oe=64FC0BC2

[cabbageandribs1875]

Shanks deletes a tweet from nine years ago, wonder if he's positively in the new new Labour pro-Brexit camp now :hilarious

Michael Shanks accused of Brexit 'flip-flopping' after deleting tweet | The National (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23770100.michael-shanks-accused-brexit-flip-flopping-deleting-tweet/?ref=eb&nid=1948&u=8c7cbcbaa1741d7cbc339fe13eff0274&date=050923)

In a lengthy blog post in 2019, Shanks resigned from Labour stating the party had a “bankrupt” approach to membership of the EU and the “impact it will have on the poorest people across the UK”.

Shanks quit Labour on the day of the European elections that year when Jeremy Corbyn (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/jeremy-corbyn/) was leader of the party, adding that there was “woefully inadequate” tackling of antisemitism.

He also revealed in the blog post that he could not vote for Labour and therefore would be leaving the party.

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/1700857488768192676?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1701265323469500823?s=20

Starmer getting some free hits against Sunak in Parliament today. Sunak has no response, pretends to be looking at his notes. The Tories are killing this country.

[Ozyhibby]

I see Labour are ditching the triple lock on pensions now. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I see Labour are ditching the triple lock on pensions now. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've got a rizla if you want to see if it will fit between the two cheeks.

[Stairway 2 7]

I see Labour are ditching the triple lock on pensions now. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where has this been reported. As far as I can see neither party has said anything. Both will hope inflation falls and both will keep it as old people vote. Pensions cost will rise £7 billion per year next year due to the rise.

It's a good thing pensioners getting more. Hopefully we can also focus on younger generations by raising benefits too, they won't. . Median pensioners will almost match the disposable income of the median working after the rise.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pension-triple-lock-rayner-rishi-b2409903.html

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pension-triple-lock-rayner-rishi-b2409903.html

Ah I'd seen that they haven't said anything either way, is Oz just talking about the interview that the article is talking about. She said it will be looked at.

It should get looked at but they won't touch it. Inflation should drop quite a lot next year. Boomers vote in numbers also so it is a bit untouchable. Mood music is both will keep in election manifesto. Median pensioner's disposable income will rise above workers during the next Parliament probably.

Only thing that was officially announced was the workers rights from Rainer at TUC. Announces in the first 100 days Labour to introduce an employments rights bill, end zero hours contracts, compulsory sick pay for all staff from day one of hire, end fire rehire, close gender gap further.

[Ozyhibby]

More opportunism from Scottish Labour as they back Tories v SG on short term let’s. Another straight up u-turn. Sarwar is shameless.

https://x.com/conor_matchett/status/1701877694336569439?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

More opportunism from Scottish Labour as they back Tories v SG on short term let’s. Another straight up u-turn. Sarwar is shameless.

https://x.com/conor_matchett/status/1701877694336569439?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThey (the Tories) don't want the owners to have to ensure their boilers are safe and have smoke or Co alarms etc... it might cost too much.

I should be surprised that Labour agree folks staying in these places shouldn't be protected, but then again, I should know better.

[lapsedhibee]

They (the Tories) don't want the owners to have to ensure their boilers are safe and have smoke or Co alarms etc... it might cost too much.

I should be surprised that Labour agree folks staying in these places shouldn't be protected, but then again, I should know better.

Isn't it already law that everywhere has to have smoke alarms? I think the resistance to this legislation may not be so much about increasing landlords' running expenses, but about taking certain lucrative premises out of the renting market altogether.

[Just Alf]

Isn't it already law that everywhere has to have smoke alarms? I think the resistance to this legislation may not be so much about increasing landlords' running expenses, but about taking certain lucrative premises out of the renting market altogether.

The law is that for smokies but there's no legal "enforcement" unless your selling or letting (not short term) your property.

A major part of this new legislation requires any short term landlord to comply with the same legislation as other landlords.
There was a rep for Edinburgh short term landlords (basically airbnb I guess) on radio Scotland that was citing these compliance costs as a major issue and even in the arguments today the key reason to delay the legislation is all down to cost "due to the cost of living crisis" etc

[degenerated]

The law is that for smokies but there's no legal "enforcement" unless your selling or letting (not short term) your property.

A major part of this new legislation requires any short term landlord to comply with the same legislation as other landlords.
There was a rep for Edinburgh short term landlords (basically airbnb I guess) on radio Scotland that was citing these compliance costs as a major issue and even in the arguments today the key reason to delay the legislation is all down to cost "due to the cost of living crisis" etcIf it's just about smoke alarms then why don't they just put them, from memory it cost me about £100 quid odds to get 3 interlinked smoke alarms, heat alarm and co monitor.

[Ozyhibby]

If it's just about smoke alarms then why don't they just put them, from memory it cost me about £100 quid odds to get 3 interlinked smoke alarms, heat alarm and co monitor.

They have to be hard wired now.

The reality is that a lot of these Airbnb’s are not going to get change of use planning permission because they are houses, not hotels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

They have to be hard wired now.

The reality is that a lot of these Airbnb’s are not going to get change of use planning permission because they are houses, not hotels.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkAh, never paid any attention I just took the path of least resistance when the legislation came in and got battery ones. I'll worry about it again in another 7 or 8 years or so :greengrin

[Stairway 2 7]

Amazing that we pay these people a large wage

KieranPAndrews
·
Amazing scenes at Holyrood as SNP MSPs Jenny Gilruth (education sec), Angela Constance (justice sec), Christine Grahame and Clare Adamson all accidentally rebel on short term lets by pressing the wrong button

Fergus Ewing was deliberately against. Meanwhile, Jackie Baillie accidentally voted with the government

[lapsedhibee]

They have to be hard wired now.

The reality is that a lot of these Airbnb’s are not going to get change of use planning permission because they are houses, not hotels.



No, not hardwired I don't think, just interlinked (radio linked is fine).

[lapsedhibee]

The law is that for smokies but there's no legal "enforcement" unless your selling or letting (not short term) your property.

A major part of this new legislation requires any short term landlord to comply with the same legislation as other landlords.

There was a rep for Edinburgh short term landlords (basically airbnb I guess) on radio Scotland that was citing these compliance costs as a major issue and even in the arguments today the key reason to delay the legislation is all down to cost "due to the cost of living crisis" etc
Yeah, that's bollocks from him/her. :agree:

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/mabonapgwynfor/status/1701898940050747665?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Thank goodness we didn’t vote Labour in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

No, not hardwired I don't think, just interlinked (radio linked is fine).So my original point stands, I managed to get interlinked alarms for a big note, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

So my original point stands, I managed to get interlinked alarms for a big note, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about :greengrin

Yes, think the landlords' spokesperson was being disingenuous in suggesting that the cost of a few alarms and inspections was going to put landlords on their uppers.

[Hibs4185]

They have to be hard wired now.

The reality is that a lot of these Airbnb’s are not going to get change of use planning permission because they are houses, not hotels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The council are more or less refusing every application.

Even if your area is 50/50 commercial and residential, they are tending to refuse.

It’s not the licence and cost of installing smoke alarms why landlords aren’t applying, it’s the fact you need planning to change it away from residential which can affect the property Value as you may not get planning to take it back to residential. A commercial valuation can be a lot less than a residential valuation.

The licence and tests etc might only be £1000 all in, so it’s not the cost.

Landlords would easily comply with the regs in return for a licence.

[Jack]

The council are more or less refusing every application.

Even if your area is 50/50 commercial and residential, they are tending to refuse.

It’s not the licence and cost of installing smoke alarms why landlords aren’t applying, it’s the fact you need planning to change it away from residential which can affect the property Value as you may not get planning to take it back to residential. A commercial valuation can be a lot less than a residential valuation.

The licence and tests etc might only be £1000 all in, so it’s not the cost.

Landlords would easily comply with the regs in return for a licence.

To be fair it is a change of use and they should have been subject to business type regulations a long time ago. It's really no different from changing a house into a shop or pub.

I also suspect many will be under greater scrutiny for paying taxes.

[Ozyhibby]

The council are more or less refusing every application.

Even if your area is 50/50 commercial and residential, they are tending to refuse.

It’s not the licence and cost of installing smoke alarms why landlords aren’t applying, it’s the fact you need planning to change it away from residential which can affect the property Value as you may not get planning to take it back to residential. A commercial valuation can be a lot less than a residential valuation.

The licence and tests etc might only be £1000 all in, so it’s not the cost.

Landlords would easily comply with the regs in return for a licence.

Absolutely correct. Also you would be in default of your mortgage if you change from residential to commercial. Most of these short term let’s are already operating while in breach of mortgage conditions. The SG and councils are in the right here and it really is jaw dropping to see Labour siding with landlords against tenants. And in Edinburgh, against their own council.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Can't see this going down well in the red wall. Reece Mogg and David Frost already out with the pitchforks

Steven_Swinford
EXCLUSIVE:

Keir Starmer’s migration policy:

* Treat people smugglers like terrorists, freeze assets & restrict movement

* Pursue EU-wide returns deal

* Scrap Tory 'unsustainable' plans to ban cross-channel migrants from claiming asylum

Starmer confirms that Labour will ultimately seek an EU-wide returns agreement

Asked if he is willing to accept 'quid pro quo' of migrant quotas, he says it's a matter for future negotiations with Brussels

Starmer says he will scrap Tory plans to bar cross-channel migrants from claiming asylum

He says that the approach is 'unsustainable' and instead pledges to expedite processing of claims

Starmer will tomorrow meet Europol leaders at their HQ in the Hague

He wants 'real-time' intelligence sharing and a cross-border policing unit

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230914/df2a56a6472269170c352cf8f141e1ad.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibs4185]

Absolutely correct. Also you would be in default of your mortgage if you change from residential to commercial. Most of these short term let’s are already operating while in breach of mortgage conditions. The SG and councils are in the right here and it really is jaw dropping to see Labour siding with landlords against tenants. And in Edinburgh, against their own council.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The policy is well intended and by all means, one flat in a block or 6-8 shouldn’t be allowed to create social problems for other neighbours so in the regard the policy is spot on.

There has to be a balance though between blocking obvious problem flats to meeting the needs of the tourist industry.

At the moment it’s just a blanket ban and that’s wrong. It’s affecting small businesses and properties all over Scotland. It’s predominantly an Edinburgh problem but having far reaching consequences.

Just like the bottle return scheme, it’s well intended but it’s full of problems

They could easily remove the requirement for planning and instead insist upon licensing. Every application goes to a committee similar to alcohol licenses and gets voted upon.

They can control where serves alcohol pretty effectively, so they can control who operates a STL.

The planning department is already in meltdown, the extra applications jusy exasperate the problem.

[Ozyhibby]

The policy is well intended and by all means, one flat in a block or 6-8 shouldn’t be allowed to create social problems for other neighbours so in the regard the policy is spot on.

There has to be a balance though between blocking obvious problem flats to meeting the needs of the tourist industry.

At the moment it’s just a blanket ban and that’s wrong. It’s affecting small businesses and properties all over Scotland. It’s predominantly an Edinburgh problem but having far reaching consequences.

Just like the bottle return scheme, it’s well intended but it’s full of problems

It’s not a blanket ban though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

They could easily remove the requirement for planning and instead insist upon licensing. Every application goes to a committee similar to alcohol licenses and gets voted upon.
Why should they do that? If the property is being run as a business - a commercial letting space - the change of use needs to be approved. Presumably this includes neighbouring properties having the opportunity to comment on the proposed change of use?

The planning department is already in meltdown, the extra applications jusy exasperate the problem.That's no excuse for not doing the right thing.

[Hibs4185]

Why should they do that? If the property is being run as a business - a commercial letting space - the change of use needs to be approved. Presumably this includes neighbouring properties having the opportunity to comment on the proposed change of use?
That's no excuse for not doing the right thing.

It is a good argument and I don’t necessarily disagree but by adding in the planning application it’s adding an extra layer of beauracrcy which isn’t needed.

Do alcohol licences require planning? Nope. A licensing body or committee could easily over see it.

In a tenement - refused
Detached house - good.

Subsequently detached house causes issues and neighbours complain with police reports etc - licence refused.

My solution is a halfway house but the approach just now isn’t working and won’t work.

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/kieranpandrews/status/1702383322440069239?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

It is a good argument and I don’t necessarily disagree but by adding in the planning application it’s adding an extra layer of beauracrcy which isn’t needed.

Do alcohol licences require planning? Nope. A licensing body or committee could easily over see it.

In a tenement - refused
Detached house - good.

Subsequently detached house causes issues and neighbours complain with police reports etc - licence refused.

My solution is a halfway house but the approach just now isn’t working and won’t work.

Change of use rules have been part of the planning system for a long time. You can’t just buy a building and do what you like with it. That’s always been the case and it’s correct it applies here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Shouldn't we be making it as hard as possible to change use. Seeing as in a graph on here previously, cities that have brought in similar restrictions have seen rents decrease whilst tourism numbers weren't effected.

[Ozyhibby]

Shouldn't we be making it as hard as possible to change use. Seeing as in a graph on here previously, cities that have brought in similar restrictions have seen rents decrease whilst tourism numbers weren't effected.

100%. We need houses for living in more than we need tourists in Edinburgh. If we need more tourists then we can build more hotels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

https://x.com/kieranpandrews/status/1702383322440069239?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe timing of any charges arising from the SNPs financial thingmy will give them a convenient boost.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Hibs4185]

So Hibs.socialist.net..

I’ve voted SNP every year since I was old enough to vote.

I believe in independence passionately.

If I build flats worth £2,000,000 I Make £400,000.

But to make that £400k is brutal.

All developments are priced at 20% profit.

For all the hassle 20% is barely worth it.

The bigger developers make a bigger profit.

[Ozyhibby]

So Hibs.socialist.net..

I’ve voted SNP every year since I was old enough to vote.

I believe in independence passionately.

If I build flats worth £2,000,000 I Make £400,000.

But to make that £400k is brutal.

All developments are priced at 20% profit.

For all the hassle 20% is barely worth it.

The bigger developers make a bigger profit.

It’s a fair point well made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/conor_matchett/status/1702609814130397258?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour/Tory coalition in Edinburgh is turning into a shambles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

Labour: no u-turns at all. None whatsoever.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6Fiz3kXYAAzUqm?format=webp&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F6Fiys8W4AApnn2?format=webp&name=small

[neil7908]

Looks like Diane Abbott will be out soon judging by her comments:

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1704149054123360651

I know she's quite unpopular and many will say good riddance but the manner Starmer has gone about removing any left wing dissenting voices from Labour is an absolute disgrace.

[Ozyhibby]

Looks like Diane Abbott will be out soon judging by her comments:

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1704149054123360651

I know she's quite unpopular and many will say good riddance but the manner Starmer has gone about removing any left wing dissenting voices from Labour is an absolute disgrace.

I happy enough to have a go at Starmer but I haven’t pegged him as a racist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibs4185]

Looks like Diane Abbott will be out soon judging by her comments:

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1704149054123360651

I know she's quite unpopular and many will say good riddance but the manner Starmer has gone about removing any left wing dissenting voices from Labour is an absolute disgrace.

Abbott and etc make the party almost unelectable. Better to have Labour in power without them, than in opposition with them

[neil7908]

Abbott and etc make the party almost unelectable. Better to have Labour in power without them, than in opposition with them

Except for 1997, 2001 and 2005 you mean? Abbott has been a Labour MP since 1987. Blair seemed to manage a number of successful election victories with Corbyn and Abbott in the party.

Starmer is too weak a leader to accept any dissent in the party. Given she's been a Labour MP with the party 20 odd points ahead in the polls, I'm not sure your argument stacks up.

[neil7908]

I happy enough to have a go at Starmer but I haven’t pegged him as a racist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think he's shown an extremely nasty and ruthless side many times, and when it comes to control of the party, he clearly won't accept any whiff of alternative views. I personally think it's more tribalism than race, but as Abbott aludes to, the Forde report brought up a number of pretty serious issues around race in the Labour Party, and he (Forde) was less than impressed with how they were dealt with.

This is a direct quote from Forde in 2022:

“Many staff felt that specific problems were only dealt with when it was politically expedient and/or essential to do so, and that the party’s more recent steps to address the problems with antisemitism, for example, have not been matched by a commitment to tackle other forms of racism”

And this is him as recently as March:

Forde told Al Jazeera: “Anti-black racism and Islamophobia is not taken as seriously as antisemitism within the Labour party, that’s the perception that has come through.” He added: “My slight anxiety is that in terms of hierarchy, and genuine underlying concerns about wider racial issues, it’s not in my view a sufficient response to say that was then, this is now.”

[Stairway 2 7]

The only racism shown was from Abbott. The idiot said Jewish people and travellers can't experience racism but only discrimination and that it was similar to what red heads experience.

That racism doesn't fly nowadays and Romani groups ect were rightly furious.

Separately there has been a purge on the left , but she gave them the ammo

[Hibrandenburg]

The only racism shown was from Abbott. The idiot said Jewish people and travellers can't experience racism but only discrimination and that it was similar to what red heads experience.

That racism doesn't fly nowadays and Romani groups ect were rightly furious.

Separately there has been a purge on the left , but she gave them the ammo

I'm no Abbott fan but if you really try to understand what she was trying to say then there's some truth in it but if you want to get outraged at her statement then that's very easy but ignores the point she was badly trying to make.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm no Abbott fan but if you really try to understand what she was trying to say then there's some truth in it but if you want to get outraged at her statement then that's very easy but ignores the point she was badly trying to make.

She said Romani or Jews can't get racism committed on them, that can't be defended and there is absolutely zero truth in it, hence her a week later saying she is sorry and of course they can receive racism. Worst of all was comparing them to head heads what the f. Travellers are one of the most marginalised groups in the uk and the world. Romani have more poverty and shorter lives than any group in Europe.

[DaveF]

On a side note, I see Ken Livingstone's family have issued a statement to say he has Alzheimer's.

[superfurryhibby]

Abbott originally said this

"Racism takes many forms, and it is completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered its monstrous effects… as have Irish people, Travellers and many others”.

In her published letter, she had written that prejudice was “similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable”.

It was true, she had written, that “many types of white people” could experience prejudice. “But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote.”

In her statement, Abbott claimed that at the time Starmer “almost immediately pronounced my guilt publicly."

She adds: “This completely undermines any idea that there is fairness or any natural justice. It is procedurally improper.

“To be clear, I immediately and unreservedly apologised for my letter.”

[Stairway 2 7]

Abbott originally said this

"Racism takes many forms, and it is completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered its monstrous effects… as have Irish people, Travellers and many others”.

In her published letter, she had written that prejudice was “similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable”.

It was true, she had written, that “many types of white people” could experience prejudice. “But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote.”

In her statement, Abbott claimed that at the time Starmer “almost immediately pronounced my guilt publicly."

She adds: “This completely undermines any idea that there is fairness or any natural justice. It is procedurally improper.

“To be clear, I immediately and unreservedly apologised for my letter.”

Missed the red head bit

"Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from 'racism'... They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable.

“It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism."


I forgot about the bit saying Jews and Travellers didn't have to sit at the back of the bus in America, they didn't. Staggeringly daft to omit the fact that they were rounded up on trains and systematically murdered though in the same century.

To be fair she rowed back on everything she said and says they groups definitely can receive racism

[Ozyhibby]

It’s interesting that the people defending her always just list her only achievement as actually getting elected? No small feat as a black woman but you’d think after the length of career she has had that her supporters would have more to say for her?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

It’s interesting that the people defending her always just list her only achievement as actually getting elected? No small feat as a black woman but you’d think after the length of career she has had that her supporters would have more to say for her?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She's very good at remembering her briefing and arithmetic!

[Hibrandenburg]

She said Romani or Jews can't get racism committed on them, that can't be defended and there is absolutely zero truth in it, hence her a week later saying she is sorry and of course they can receive racism. Worst of all was comparing them to head heads what the f. Travellers are one of the most marginalised groups in the uk and the world. Romani have more poverty and shorter lives than any group in Europe.

Except she didn't say that, did she?

We've been around this bush before. The moment a black person leaves their house then they are subject to racism, the stares, the remarks and even people crossing the road to avoid them.

Many Jewish, Romani and Irish people's ethnicity only becomes obvious on closer inspection.

[Stairway 2 7]

Except she didn't say that, did she?

We've been around this bush before. The moment a black person leaves their house then they are subject to racism, the stares, the remarks and even people crossing the road to avoid them.

Many Jewish, Romani and Irish people's ethnicity only becomes obvious on closer inspection.

She did and she took everything she said back saying she was wrong, rightly. I think everyone including her thinks she was wrong in what she said. As many black commentators said at the time, you don't raise your cause up by hitting down at the worst off in society. Romani have it probably worse than any ethnicity in Europe in terms of opportunity and health.

[Hibrandenburg]

She did and she took everything she said back saying she was wrong, rightly. I think everyone including her thinks she was wrong in what she said. As many black commentators said at the time, you don't raise your cause up by hitting down at the worst off in society. Romani have it probably worse than any ethnicity in Europe in terms of opportunity and health.

Can't be arsed arguing with you if you can't accept the point that black people are much more likely to be victims of racism purely based on their appearance than other ethnic groups who don't stand out as much because of their appearance.

[Stairway 2 7]

Can't be arsed arguing with you if you can't accept the point that black people are much more likely to be victims of racism purely based on their appearance than other ethnic groups who don't stand out as much because of their appearance.

Where is that argument coming from its completely separate and not what she said, so why would i debate that its random. She said Travellers and Jews can't receive racism, she used the example of red heads. Romani groups and Jewish groups were disgusted and said they can receive racism. She apologised and said she was completely wrong.

It's pretty cut and dried and confusing to see people defend her original view that caused so much anger and she herself said was completely wrong

[Hibs4185]

Except for 1997, 2001 and 2005 you mean? Abbott has been a Labour MP since 1987. Blair seemed to manage a number of successful election victories with Corbyn and Abbott in the party.

Starmer is too weak a leader to accept any dissent in the party. Given she's been a Labour MP with the party 20 odd points ahead in the polls, I'm not sure your argument stacks up.

Yes she was highly thought off in the earlier years but recently she’s been a bomb scare. No matter your opinion of them, their public image has taken a battering

[marinello59]

Yes she was highly thought off in the earlier years but recently she’s been a bomb scare. No matter your opinion of them, their public image has taken a battering

Abbott has made mistakes but she has been a more than capable politician. The misogyny and racist abuse she has been subjected to over the years has been shameful. I hope a way can be found to keep her as part of the Labour Party.

[Northernhibee]

Yes she was highly thought off in the earlier years but recently she’s been a bomb scare. No matter your opinion of them, their public image has taken a battering

It feels like each time Starmer builds up a head of steam, Abbott can be relied on for a quote from the media to take attention away - whether it’s the comments about racism, or Corbyn and his views on Brexit etc.

By and large, Corbynism is absolutely hated by large parts of the electorate. It’s not serious politics. Looking at the night before the 2019 elections with polling pointing towards an absolute hammering and watching a party broadcast of “Mean tweets with Jeremy Corbyn” made me feel sick. It was like they were more interested in matey popularity with their group of supporters rather than winning an election, even if that wasn’t the intention.

The 2019 election was fought on two things - Brexit and a popularity contest. Johnson promised to “get Brexit done”, and **** knows what Corbyn stood for at the time. He couldn’t control his party to come to a consensus and that’s what his job was as a leader. In terms of popularity - he was trounced on that one too.

The likely 2024 election will come down to avoiding those same pitfalls - not making it a single topic election on a polarising issue or making it a popularity contest. Starmer has done very well so far on this and for everything that the media and Tories have tried to make stick - currygate, “Captain hindsight”, lockdown stuff - none of it has worked. I think we’ll see him come out fighting closer to the election.

Abbott is an exceptional constituency MP, has some landmark achievements in her career that put her in the history books, and has put up with hideous levels of racism and misogyny in a very graceful fashion, but on a national stage in front of national press she’s often a liability. Awkward interviews, things like the “my hairstyle has changed and so have my views” interview, and things like the letter previously mentioned.

Corbynism is hated enough by large parts of the electorate that it’s still fruitful ground for the Tories - which is why they still frequently bring it up - and if any of the MPs who featured prominently under Corbyn can’t tow the line and take a back seat then I understand why Starmer is choosing to make the decision for them. I don’t see that as weak, I see it as his best bet of winning an election.

[Kato]

Yet when polled blindly Corbyns policies were the most popular. But you are right, the last election was fought on popularism and brexit, which was a product of popularism.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

Yet when polled blindly Corbyns policies were the most popular. But you are right, the last election was fought on popularism and brexit, which was a product of popularism.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If elections were to ever be decided on policies, the world would be a better place. However Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott carried too much baggage and despite May trying to hand them an election in 2017, they were always going to take a tanking in 2019.

The job of the leaders of the Tory and Labour parties are very different - the Tories will have the media behind them and can rely on them backing them, but the Labour leader has to not give them an angle to attack them on. The Tories have in recent times become just as bad, but the left have a terrible attack of infighting instead of going all out attack on the opposition, and that’s something that else that needs the lid very strongly kept on. Corbyn failed on both counts, walking into every trap and coming across as completely indecisive and like a supply teacher.

[Kato]

If elections were to ever be decided on policies, the world would be a better place. However Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott carried too much baggage and despite May trying to hand them an election in 2017, they were always going to take a tanking in 2019.

The job of the leaders of the Tory and Labour parties are very different - the Tories will have the media behind them and can rely on them backing them, but the Labour leader has to not give them an angle to attack them on. The Tories have in recent times become just as bad, but the left have a terrible attack of infighting instead of going all out attack on the opposition, and that’s something that else that needs the lid very strongly kept on. Corbyn failed on both counts, walking into every trap and coming across as completely indecisive and like a supply teacher.But the policies of what you called "Corbynism" were sound, the only thing wrong was Corbyn was the person presenting "Corbynism".

I agree that elections are mainly fought on personality, and look where we are - chaos without Ed Milliband.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

But the policies of what you called "Corbynism" were sound, the only thing wrong was Corbyn was the person presenting "Corbynism".

I agree that elections are mainly fought on personality, and look where we are - chaos without Ed Milliband.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

The problem is that Abbott, McDonnell, Corbyn, in fact most of their front bench didn’t seem to grasp that they were playing into the opposition and media’s hands, and they came with a lot of baggage that made an easy story for the media.

I have no doubt they’re all very good at constituency level, but on a national stage in hindsight they were a catastrophe. We can also talk about the policies, but we seen with Liz Truss what can happen to the markets if too much is changed too quickly. Don’t get me wrong, she and Kwarteng were financially illiterate, but I also don’t trust that Corbyn & McDonnell would have had the nous to compromise if they ask received warnings about their policies.

We don’t need more ideologies, we need people who are able to find the middle ground in a hopelessly divided British politics to progress and although I don’t like where Starmer is now, I trust it’s far more electable and is more likely to be able to be dragged to the left over time in government.

[Kato]

Corbyns policies are extant across most European countries, they may be seen as some kind of damn commie shtick here but they were in fact moderate for western democracies. They aren't comparable with Truss's tenure as that was just a smash and grab job which seen in that light shows it to be perfectly executed. Nobody asked beforehand which areas the UK was going to grow into as the press just seems to gawk away rather ask pertinent questions. When Thatcher did the same she could answer that question: the oil market and encreasing EU sales. Truss was part of a design which put large amounts of money into the hands of a few hedge funders as quickly as possible. Insider trading is nothing compared to that budget.

Bottom line is what you see as "Corbynism" and how it failed is nothing to do with policies, its to do with image. So Keir Starmers electioneering has to be performative in order to have an image that conforms to those who set those boundaries, Murdoch/Mail/Express. The same game was played by Blair and Mendelson.

That should be a secondary aspect of politics. A media default promotes it beyond its benefits. IE Two blonde Tory leaders have looked the part but their policies proved disastrous.

What do you mean by "Corbynism", btw.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Corbyns policies are extant across most European countries, they may be seen as some kind of damn commie shtick here but they were in fact moderate for western democracies. They aren't comparable with Truss's tenure as that was just a smash and grab job which seen in that light shows it to be perfectly executed. Nobody asked beforehand which areas the UK was going to grow into as the press just seems to gawk away rather ask pertinent questions. When Thatcher did the same she could answer that question: the oil market and encreasing EU sales. Truss was part of a design which put large amounts of money into the hands of a few hedge funders as quickly as possible. Insider trading is nothing compared to that budget.

Bottom line is what you see as "Corbynism" and how it failed is nothing to do with policies, its to do with image. So Keir Starmers electioneering has to be performative in order to have an image that conforms to those who set those boundaries, Murdoch/Mail/Express. The same game was played by Blair and Mendelson.

That should be a secondary aspect of politics. A media default promotes it beyond its benefits. IE Two blonde Tory leaders have looked the part but their policies proved disastrous.

What do you mean by "Corbynism", btw.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

That’s an interesting post though it risks doing some voters a disservice. A lot of voters could look at the Labour 2019 manifesto with the same disbelief that Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-budget created. And both unravelled in the days that followed.

I hear what you are saying about image and I agree, but there is something beyond that which is about respecting people’s intelligence. Labour announced its immigration proposals the other day, they were criticised from the left and from the right, but interestingly editorials in the likes of the Guardian and Observer talked positively about how the policy reflected a grown-up approach. Serious, even if that risks being boring, because it is an area that deserves to be treated seriously and policy shouldn’t be dumbed down, quite the opposite.

My issues with Corbyn, shared by many party members, weren’t about his image as such. They were about his capacity and abilities and they were about the policies he proposed.

With regard to the first point, he simply is intellectually feeble. A marionette for a small, hard-faced Hard Left cabal who couldn’t believe their luck when he won. He was also a brazen hypocrite, happy to accept the perks of being supported by the Labour Party machinery as a backbencher, while voting against his own party hundreds and hundreds of times. If he was that unhappy with official party policy then why not leave? And he sold the jerseys on Europe. More Labour Party members voted Remain than voted for him as leader but a combination of arrogance and some ridiculously last-century Bennite
notion of what European unity meant had him shrugging his shoulders and doing nothing to lead the fight.

He won the leadership, even if helped by the misguided and the entryists but I genuinely cannot think of a leader who was just so, so rubbish in my lifetime! Michael Foot had his fair share of criticism but he was a giant compared to Corbyn.

With regard to the second point, to take just one example, he went to the country on a manifesto of renationalising all the utilities. That’s nice, a lot of people like that. What he didn’t spell out was that to renationalise we would have to buy out the contracts of the private owners. Of course he could have refused to do that - which instantly would have turned Britain into an international pariah economically, led to censure from the IMF and almost certainly led to a massive run on the pound. It would have made the impact of Kwarteng’s exercise look mild by comparison.

And therein lies just one of the problems. Where was the costing and funding for these huge buy-outs, along with start-up costs for new, state-run enterprises? Paying private investors to do absolutely nothing as well as paying for utilities, all with taxpayers’ money. As it turned out, McDonnell’s economic and financial plans were in tatters within days of the manifesto because they made an uncosted, unfunded commitment on pensions, running into billions IIRC.

To address your first line, Corbyn and his policies were not ‘Commie schtick’ or ‘moderate’. They were just simply terrible. And for all those invested in the party that is the last thing anyone wants to be saying about a leader. But it was true.

[Northernhibee]

That’s an interesting post though it risks doing some voters a disservice. A lot of voters could look at the Labour 2019 manifesto with the same disbelief that Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-budget created. And both unravelled in the days that followed.

I hear what you are saying about image and I agree, but there is something beyond that which is about respecting people’s intelligence. Labour announced its immigration proposals the other day, they were criticised from the left and from the right, but interestingly editorials in the likes of the Guardian and Observer talked positively about how the policy reflected a grown-up approach. Serious, even if that risks being boring, because it is an area that deserves to be treated seriously and policy shouldn’t be dumbed down, quite the opposite.

My issues with Corbyn, shared by many party members, weren’t about his image as such. They were about his capacity and abilities and they were about the policies he proposed.

With regard to the first point, he simply is intellectually feeble. A marionette for a small, hard-faced Hard Left cabal who couldn’t believe their luck when he won. He was also a brazen hypocrite, happy to accept the perks of being supported by the Labour Party machinery as a backbencher, while voting against his own party hundreds and hundreds of times. If he was that unhappy with official party policy then why not leave? And he sold the jerseys on Europe. More Labour Party members voted Remain than voted for him as leader but a combination of arrogance and some ridiculously last-century Bennite
notion of what European unity meant had him shrugging his shoulders and doing nothing to lead the fight.

He won the leadership, even if helped by the misguided and the entryists but I genuinely cannot think of a leader who was just so, so rubbish in my lifetime! Michael Foot had his fair share of criticism but he was a giant compared to Corbyn.

With regard to the second point, to take just one example, he went to the country on a manifesto of renationalising all the utilities. That’s nice, a lot of people like that. What he didn’t spell out was that to renationalise we would have to buy out the contracts of the private owners. Of course he could have refused to do that - which instantly would have turned Britain into an international pariah economically, led to censure from the IMF and almost certainly led to a massive run on the pound. It would have made the impact of Kwarteng’s exercise look mild by comparison.

And therein lies just one of the problems. Where was the costing and funding for these huge buy-outs, along with start-up costs for new, state-run enterprises? Paying private investors to do absolutely nothing as well as paying for utilities, all with taxpayers’ money. As it turned out, McDonnell’s economic and financial plans were in tatters within days of the manifesto because they made an uncosted, unfunded commitment on pensions, running into billions IIRC.

To address your first line, Corbyn and his policies were not ‘Commie schtick’ or ‘moderate’. They were just simply terrible. And for all those invested in the party that is the last thing anyone wants to be saying about a leader. But it was true.

You’ve largely addressed my point, Corbynism appears to be on the opposite end of the scale to Truss and Johnson, but it’s got more in common than it first seems. Big headline grabbing policies that when you look into them don’t actually have much depth to them.

Here’s the thing - between 2016(?)-2019, I was a Labour Party member as I was initially enthused about someone shouting about actual, genuine change from the norm. I voted for Corbyn to be leader twice and was ecstatic at the perceived success in the 2017 GE and thought McDonnell, Abbott etc. were the best thing since sliced bread. Hearing the crowd at Radiohead at Glastonbury chanting “oh, Jeremy Corbyn” made it feel like a movement and that change was as happening.

Here’s the problem with the three of them - as soon as we got more of May’s Conservatives, I realised that we’d lost. May put up the single worst election campaign imaginable, putting the fear of god into their key demographic- the elderly. 2017 was also a popularity contest, but against the impossibly unpopular Theresa May.

The most interesting thing happened when I shared my view on this with other people I knew - I became a “traitor”, a “Tory” and dissent or doubt wasn’t recognised but shunned. When Corbyn sleepwalked into the trap of a 2019 GE, I left the party as I chose to vote SNP as the most likely to keep the Tories minimal chance of winning my local seat as minimal as possible.

Predictably, the popularity contest of idealogue Vs idealogue (one of whom had a clear message of Get Brexit Done and the backing of the media) led to a bloodbath. Seen it a mile off, but of course it wasn’t the fault of the key figures who walked into the trap and gave both the media and the Tories so many lines of attack, but those who wanted to see a different approach.

More than anything else, I want sensible politics to be back on the table. An attempt to find consensus in a hopelessly divided country. That’s where the Tories won in 2010, and that’s where future changes of government will happen. If Starmer can keep the offering in 2024 concise, clear, and avoid getting the election dragged into a popularity contest then Labour will win by a landslide and in time the party and policies can be gently be dragged out to the left, hopefully a closer relationship with the EU with it.

If some of the key figures from the previous leadership are giving the newspapers ammunition to tie them back to the Corbyn era, they have to go as that’s still fertile ground for those in the former Red Wall.

If you had a potential league winning football team but your central defender kept leaking costly goals, you’d drop them from the team. Same here. Politics is brutal.

[Ozyhibby]

You’ve largely addressed my point, Corbynism appears to be on the opposite end of the scale to Truss and Johnson, but it’s got more in common than it first seems. Big headline grabbing policies that when you look into them don’t actually have much depth to them.

Here’s the thing - between 2016(?)-2019, I was a Labour Party member as I was initially enthused about someone shouting about actual, genuine change from the norm. I voted for Corbyn to be leader twice and was ecstatic at the perceived success in the 2017 GE and thought McDonnell, Abbott etc. were the best thing since sliced bread. Hearing the crowd at Radiohead at Glastonbury chanting “oh, Jeremy Corbyn” made it feel like a movement and that change was as happening.

Here’s the problem with the three of them - as soon as we got more of May’s Conservatives, I realised that we’d lost. May put up the single worst election campaign imaginable, putting the fear of god into their key demographic- the elderly. 2017 was also a popularity contest, but against the impossibly unpopular Theresa May.

The most interesting thing happened when I shared my view on this with other people I knew - I became a “traitor”, a “Tory” and dissent or doubt wasn’t recognised but shunned. When Corbyn sleepwalked into the trap of a 2019 GE, I left the party as I chose to vote SNP as the most likely to keep the Tories minimal chance of winning my local seat as minimal as possible.

Predictably, the popularity contest of idealogue Vs idealogue (one of whom had a clear message of Get Brexit Done and the backing of the media) led to a bloodbath. Seen it a mile off, but of course it wasn’t the fault of the key figures who walked into the trap and gave both the media and the Tories so many lines of attack, but those who wanted to see a different approach.

More than anything else, I want sensible politics to be back on the table. An attempt to find consensus in a hopelessly divided country. That’s where the Tories won in 2010, and that’s where future changes of government will happen. If Starmer can keep the offering in 2024 concise, clear, and avoid getting the election dragged into a popularity contest then Labour will win by a landslide and in time the party and policies can be gently be dragged out to the left, hopefully a closer relationship with the EU with it.

If some of the key figures from the previous leadership are giving the newspapers ammunition to tie them back to the Corbyn era, they have to go as that’s still fertile ground for those in the former Red Wall.

If you had a potential league winning football team but your central defender kept leaking costly goals, you’d drop them from the team. Same here. Politics is brutal.

Labour could easily win me over with an offer of proper devolution. They don’t seem interested though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

Labour could easily win me over with an offer of proper devolution. They don’t seem interested though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ideal scenario would be Labour falling just short of an overall majority with the SNP offering help on a vote by vote basis in return for extra power to the Scottish government. I doubt that'll happen in terms of results, but I'd also rather see them push to get the same deal with the EU that Northern Ireland have, or at least permission to pursue this by ourselves.

FWIW I actually think that the SNP would be daft to chase a second referendum unless they were well - and consistently - ahead in polling on a yes/no question. The biggest difference they can make to working Scottish people is a closer relationship with the EU.

[Ozyhibby]

The ideal scenario would be Labour falling just short of an overall majority with the SNP offering help on a vote by vote basis in return for extra power to the Scottish government. I doubt that'll happen in terms of results, but I'd also rather see them push to get the same deal with the EU that Northern Ireland have, or at least permission to pursue this by ourselves.

FWIW I actually think that the SNP would be daft to chase a second referendum unless they were well - and consistently - ahead in polling on a yes/no question. The biggest difference they can make to working Scottish people is a closer relationship with the EU.

I think the whole UK will have the same deal as NI within the next 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

I think the whole UK will have the same deal as NI within the next 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I truly hope so.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-calls-labour-support-motion-31019747

Labour won’t even back their own policy.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

On a side note, I see Ken Livingstone's family have issued a statement to say he has Alzheimer's.Sad to hear this.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think the whole UK will have the same deal as NI within the next 5 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I truly hope so.

I experienced the Irish thing for the first time since Brexit just recently. Customs checks at Cairnryan and Larne were just bizarre. Conversely, crossing the actual border was a non-event. Most of the time, I only knew because the speed-limit signs had changed from MPH to KPH.

I have a lot of sympathy for the loyalist population now, in that they seem to be living in a no-mans land.

The nature of the slogans on the walls has changed now. It's now "No customs checks" in red and blue in Larne, and "Unification Vote Now" in green in Derry. Changed days :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

I experienced the Irish thing for the first time since Brexit just recently. Customs checks at Cairnryan and Larne were just bizarre. Conversely, crossing the actual border was a non-event. Most of the time, I only knew because the speed-limit signs had changed from MPH to KPH.

I have a lot of sympathy for the loyalist population now, in that they seem to be living in a no-mans land.

The nature of the slogans on the walls has changed now. It's now "No customs checks" in red and blue in Larne, and "Unification Vote Now" in green in Derry. Changed days :greengrin

The loyalist population who wanted Brexit, which brought all this on? :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

The loyalist population who wanted Brexit, which brought all this on? :confused:

I thought the majority were remainers?

Anyways, change the word "lot" to "bit" :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

I thought the majority were remainers?

Anyways, change the word "lot" to "bit" :greengrin

NI majority was Remain, but

In Northern Ireland, First Minister Arlene Foster said that as a leader of unionism, she felt it was the right decision.

"We are now entering a new era of an even stronger United Kingdom," she said.

"We campaigned to leave the EU. This is the democratic decision of the people of the UK. This is a UK-wide decision and every vote is equal within the UK. I am proud of the fact that this decision was taken by the people."

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/bethrigby/status/1707081829210116235?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Yet another Labour u-turn.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neil7908]

https://x.com/bethrigby/status/1707081829210116235?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Yet another Labour u-turn.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

U-turn 274848398484 under Starmer.

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/dozens-of-council-community-and-leisure-facilities-axed-in-bellshill-airdrie-kilsyth-shotts-and-motherwell

Labour council.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

That’s an interesting post though it risks doing some voters a disservice. A lot of voters could look at the Labour 2019 manifesto with the same disbelief that Truss and Kwarteng’s mini-budget created. And both unravelled in the days that followed.

I hear what you are saying about image and I agree, but there is something beyond that which is about respecting people’s intelligence. Labour announced its immigration proposals the other day, they were criticised from the left and from the right, but interestingly editorials in the likes of the Guardian and Observer talked positively about how the policy reflected a grown-up approach. Serious, even if that risks being boring, because it is an area that deserves to be treated seriously and policy shouldn’t be dumbed down, quite the opposite.

My issues with Corbyn, shared by many party members, weren’t about his image as such. They were about his capacity and abilities and they were about the policies he proposed.

With regard to the first point, he simply is intellectually feeble. A marionette for a small, hard-faced Hard Left cabal who couldn’t believe their luck when he won. He was also a brazen hypocrite, happy to accept the perks of being supported by the Labour Party machinery as a backbencher, while voting against his own party hundreds and hundreds of times. If he was that unhappy with official party policy then why not leave? And he sold the jerseys on Europe. More Labour Party members voted Remain than voted for him as leader but a combination of arrogance and some ridiculously last-century Bennite
notion of what European unity meant had him shrugging his shoulders and doing nothing to lead the fight.

He won the leadership, even if helped by the misguided and the entryists but I genuinely cannot think of a leader who was just so, so rubbish in my lifetime! Michael Foot had his fair share of criticism but he was a giant compared to Corbyn.

With regard to the second point, to take just one example, he went to the country on a manifesto of renationalising all the utilities. That’s nice, a lot of people like that. What he didn’t spell out was that to renationalise we would have to buy out the contracts of the private owners. Of course he could have refused to do that - which instantly would have turned Britain into an international pariah economically, led to censure from the IMF and almost certainly led to a massive run on the pound. It would have made the impact of Kwarteng’s exercise look mild by comparison.

And therein lies just one of the problems. Where was the costing and funding for these huge buy-outs, along with start-up costs for new, state-run enterprises? Paying private investors to do absolutely nothing as well as paying for utilities, all with taxpayers’ money. As it turned out, McDonnell’s economic and financial plans were in tatters within days of the manifesto because they made an uncosted, unfunded commitment on pensions, running into billions IIRC.

To address your first line, Corbyn and his policies were not ‘Commie schtick’ or ‘moderate’. They were just simply terrible. And for all those invested in the party that is the last thing anyone wants to be saying about a leader. But it was true.

Top notch.

[degenerated]

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/dozens-of-council-community-and-leisure-facilities-axed-in-bellshill-airdrie-kilsyth-shotts-and-motherwell

Labour council.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkGone are the heady days of labour getting a motion passed for the erection of a new flagpole at north Lanarkshire council hq to enable the permanent flying of the Union flag at a cost of 20 grand

[Keith_M]

Interesting last minute U-Turn from the Labour run North Lanarkshire council.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23830194.anas-sarwar-denies-giving-north-lan-labour-councillors-bollocking/

[Ozyhibby]

Interesting last minute U-Turn from the Labour run North Lanarkshire council.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23830194.anas-sarwar-denies-giving-north-lan-labour-councillors-bollocking/

By-election this week. They will be back to closing everything again next week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

By-election this week. They will be back to closing everything again next week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Labour with leisure, snp with the arts and social housing. It's just different shades of austerity. Scotlands budget is up 20% in real terms in 12 years too

[greenginger]

Labour with leisure, snp with the arts and social housing. It's just different shades of austerity. Scotlands budget is up 20% in real terms in 12 years too

So what areas has public spending increased so dramatically that other areas need pruning ?