Tories

[G B Young]

The Labour spin is that the SNP brought down the Labour government and are therefore responsible for 18 years of Thatcherite Tories in power. Ok, there's not absolutely zero truth in that. The insinuation is that the "Tartan Tories" preferred Thatcher to Labour, there is zero truth in that. In truth, the SNP got carried away by their own hubris and believed Scotland would rise up against the injustice of the 1979 aftermath to return dozens of SNP MPs. Hmmm.

Brief summary:

1. Labour was elected in 1974 (with a very small majority) on a manifesto including a promise of a Scottish assembly. Their first attempt to get this through the Commons was effectively killed by their own backbenchers in 1976, despite the government having introduced the idea of holding a referendum which hadn't been in the original policy.
2. But having lost their majority due to by-election defeats, they depended on support from the SNP and/or Liberals, SDLP etc. so they had another go, passing the Scotland act in 1978 which led to the 1979 referendum.
3. Again Labour backbenchers sabotaged the bill by proposing and successfully amending the bill with the "40% rule" that said the act would be repealed if the referendum didn't have 40% of the total electorate voting in favour. Obviously, this was in cahoots with the Tories.
4. Scotland voted 52% Yes (apparently that's now a "decisive margin" btw). The SNP challenged the government to salvage the legislation but it refused so the SNP proposed a motion of no confidence, effectively their bluff having been called.
5. The Tories proposed their own vote of no confidence which was voted on. The government lost by 1 vote.
6. The SNP voted against the government. So did the Libs (ever heard them being accused of being responsible for 18 years of Thatcherism?) The SDLP and an independent Republican abstained.
7. The electorate (remember them) gave the Tories a comfortable majority in May 1979.
8. The electorate (pesky bunch) gave the Tories landslides in 1983 and 1987 and another majority in 1992.
9. The latest Callaghan could have delayed the 1979 election was another 4 months. It is at best extremely doubtful he'd have been able to turn things around.
10. In his memoirs, Callaghan himself blamed his own backbenchers for sabotaging the devolution bill.

An interesting summary containing much I wasn't aware of, so thanks for that.

Had a look for some further info re the '40% rule' and was surprised by how relatively low the electoral turnout was back then for what one assumes was an event of major significance:

An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if fewer than 40% of the total electorate voted Yes in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.

Also interesting, and a subject I'm again short of knowledge on, is how decisively the Orkney and Shetland islands voted against devolution, with the No vote totalling well over 70%, quite well up on their No vote of 2014. Apart from the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway (both 59% No), most council areas were relatively closely contested.

[JeMeSouviens]

An interesting summary containing much I wasn't aware of, so thanks for that.

Had a look for some further info re the '40% rule' and was surprised by how relatively low the electoral turnout was back then for what one assumes was an event of major significance:

An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if fewer than 40% of the total electorate voted Yes in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.

Also interesting, and a subject I'm again short of knowledge on, is how decisively the Orkney and Shetland islands voted against devolution, with the No vote totalling well over 70%, quite well up on their No vote of 2014. Apart from the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway (both 59% No), most council areas were relatively closely contested.

I read an interesting summary of the 79 referendum, I'll see if I can find it. There were all sorts of shenanigans, different Yes campaigns because SNP and Labour wouldn't campaign together, different No campaigns because Labour and Tories wouldn't campaign together. Pro-devolutionists campaigning for No because the assembly was too weak or alternatively too strong. Opinion polling had consistently suggested about 2/3 of Scots were in favour of devolution in principle (and I suppose the 97 result verifies that to some extent) so it was something of a surprise that it was so close.

There was a campaign in Orkney & Shetland for a separate commission to look at devolution specifically for them (there having been a commission to look at devolution for Scotland that led to the 1979 proposal). I think there is and has always been a fairly strong current of opinion in the northern isles that Scottish self government as opposed to London government is just swapping one bunch of remote ne'er do wells for another. :wink:

[G B Young]

I read an interesting summary of the 79 referendum, I'll see if I can find it. There were all sorts of shenanigans, different Yes campaigns because SNP and Labour wouldn't campaign together, different No campaigns because Labour and Tories wouldn't campaign together. Pro-devolutionists campaigning for No because the assembly was too weak or alternatively too strong. Opinion polling had consistently suggested about 2/3 of Scots were in favour of devolution in principle (and I suppose the 97 result verifies that to some extent) soit was something of a surprise that it was so close.

There was a campaign in Orkney & Shetland for a separate commission to look at devolution specifically for them (there having been a commission to look at devolution for Scotland that led to the 1979 proposal). I think there is and has always been a fairly strong current of opinion in the northern isles that Scottish self government as opposed to London government is just swapping one bunch of remote ne'er do wells for another. :wink:

Yes if you can dig that out I'd be interested to read it. The brief summary I read earlier today indicated that, as you say, the divisions across the 'yes' side saw the public appetite for the referendum slip away in the crucial weeks before the vote, where it was obviously essential that there was as big a turnout as possible.

Interestingly, I've also discovered today that turnout was even lower for the 1997 referendum (just over 60%), but that result was never really in doubt. Scotland was ready for change following the end of the Thatcher era and the 'no' campaign was negligible (I can't even remember there being one, although it was apparently called 'Think Twice'....'Scotland FORward' was the arguably even more forgettable slogan for the 'yes' campaign!).

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes if you can dig that out I'd be interested to read it. The brief summary I read earlier today indicated that, as you say, the divisions across the 'yes' side saw the public appetite for the referendum slip away in the crucial weeks before the vote, where it was obviously essential that there was as big a turnout as possible.

Interestingly, I've also discovered today that turnout was even lower for the 1997 referendum (just over 60%), but that result was never really in doubt. Scotland was ready for change following the end of the Thatcher era and the 'no' campaign was negligible (I can't even remember there being one, although it was apparently called 'Think Twice'....'Scotland FORward' was the arguably even more forgettable slogan for the 'yes' campaign!).

Found it ...

http://www.scottishgovernmentyearbooks.ed.ac.uk/record/22808/1/1980_4_devolutionreferendumcampaign1979.pdf

The only thing that sticks out for me about the 1997 No campaign was that David Murray was involved. :na na:

[ronaldo7]

Teresa finally meets a member of the public. :greengrin

https://twitter.com/5_News/status/864087174181990400

[ronaldo7]

Interesting piece by common space on the rise of bigotry and sectarianism in the Tory party.

https://t.co/GM4a3xzRYN

[G B Young]

Found it ...

http://www.scottishgovernmentyearbooks.ed.ac.uk/record/22808/1/1980_4_devolutionreferendumcampaign1979.pdf



Thanks for that. A really interesting read. The myriad political groupings, high profile individuals and sub-plots associated with the 'yes' campaign in particular is rather mind-boggling and it becomes pretty clear why a third of the electorate never even bothered voting in the end!

[ronaldo7]

Another Tory found cheating at Election time. Only the fifth time.

https://t.co/TeeDLf2fRc

[cabbageandribs1875]

Another Tory found cheating at Election time. Only the fifth time.

https://t.co/TeeDLf2fRc




Generously funded by the tax-payer, Barwell runs constituency and Westminster offices with six members of staff, which have included four current Croydon councillors, all collecting a second state-funded income: Mario Creatura, Sara Bashford, Sue Bennett and Jason Cummings


fake news, oor jase wouldn't get involved with that shower

[ronaldo7]

Generously funded by the tax-payer, Barwell runs constituency and Westminster offices with six members of staff, which have included four current Croydon councillors, all collecting a second state-funded income: Mario Creatura, Sara Bashford, Sue Bennett and Jason Cummings


fake news, oor jase wouldn't get involved with that shower

:greengrin:aok:

[ronaldo7]

Not sure if posted already, but a Tory MP in Somerset tells a school child to "**** off back to Scotland" after asking her where she stood on Scottish independence and not getting the answer he wanted. :rolleyes:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/why-don%e2%80%99t-you-f-off-back-to-scotland-tory-mp-blasts-schoolgirl-wanting-scottish-independence/ar-BBB69T3?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout

Can't help thinking that if this had been the other way around and an SNP MP telling a school child to "**** off back to England", it would be all over the BBC, Sky News and the front page of every newspaper across the country....

On another note, Ruth Davidsons constant obsession with the IRA and her cozying up to one of Scotlands deepest shames, should have even the most die hard of tory supports in Scotland worried.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/863667317623984128

https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/863665259894247425 (https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/863665259894247425)

Another piece on James Heappey telling the young Scots lass to "**** off back to Scotland".

"What do we learn about Tory England and its Englishness when Conservative MPs are roaring at little girls to get back to their own country? Not much. We just get to see the whole thing for what it really is: Pathetic aggressive thuggery.

Verbal abuse is violence, and can often be every bit as harmful as physical violence. It is important that we are clear on this point before we proceed. James Heappey, MP for Wells in Somerset, made the headlines for telling a Scottish schoolgirl to “**** off back to Scotland” when he visited her class because she said she would vote for independence if she was given the chance. Not a single report on this incident called this an act of violence. It is time that we set the record straight.
This sixth form pupil at Millfield School in Somerset is Scottish. She lives in England with her family. Her friends are English, and she is perhaps the only Scots student in the class – maybe even in the whole school. As a foreigner she stands out, making her a little more vulnerable to being socially isolated and bullied. We hope that this was not the case for her, but the last thing in the world she needed was an adult in authority telling her to get back to her own country in front of her classmates. Imagine the outrage had she been Polish or Pakistani.
Yet this is exactly what happened to her. What is more shocking is that the adult authority figure who verbally assaulted her wasn’t simply a janitor or a teacher from her school, but her local member of parliament. James Heappey, a Conservative Party MP, is a 36 year old man with a formidable build – certainly for a school child. Heappey served as a British soldier in Afghanistan at a time in that conflict when LiveLeak and the Guardian were reporting on the vile behaviour of British squaddies towards schoolgirls and girls as young as six".


https://t.co/ZESx7VllxG

[Hibrandenburg]

Another piece on James Heappey telling the young Scots lass to "**** off back to Scotland".

"What do we learn about Tory England and its Englishness when Conservative MPs are roaring at little girls to get back to their own country? Not much. We just get to see the whole thing for what it really is: Pathetic aggressive thuggery.

Verbal abuse is violence, and can often be every bit as harmful as physical violence. It is important that we are clear on this point before we proceed. James Heappey, MP for Wells in Somerset, made the headlines for telling a Scottish schoolgirl to “**** off back to Scotland” when he visited her class because she said she would vote for independence if she was given the chance. Not a single report on this incident called this an act of violence. It is time that we set the record straight.
This sixth form pupil at Millfield School in Somerset is Scottish. She lives in England with her family. Her friends are English, and she is perhaps the only Scots student in the class – maybe even in the whole school. As a foreigner she stands out, making her a little more vulnerable to being socially isolated and bullied. We hope that this was not the case for her, but the last thing in the world she needed was an adult in authority telling her to get back to her own country in front of her classmates. Imagine the outrage had she been Polish or Pakistani.
Yet this is exactly what happened to her. What is more shocking is that the adult authority figure who verbally assaulted her wasn’t simply a janitor or a teacher from her school, but her local member of parliament. James Heappey, a Conservative Party MP, is a 36 year old man with a formidable build – certainly for a school child. Heappey served as a British soldier in Afghanistan at a time in that conflict when LiveLeak and the Guardian were reporting on the vile behaviour of British squaddies towards schoolgirls and girls as young as six".


https://t.co/ZESx7VllxG


Absolutely disgusting, if that man is still in his job come election time then it tells you all you need to know about the tories AND those who voted Tory.

[xyz23jc]

Absolutely disgusting, if that man is still in his job come election time then it tells you all you need to know about the tories AND those who voted Tory.

And those about to vote Tory....Red or Blue! :greengrin

[G B Young]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/ruth-davidson-snp-guilty-of-orwellian-nationalism-1-4446416

Orwell may not be everyone's choice of light reading, but Davidson is spot on with the assertion that only SNP supporters are deemed to be the authentic voice of the 'people of Scotland' by Sturgeon & co. It's the endless appropriation of this phrase by the First Minister that sticks in the craw of so many non-nationalists (ie the majority of voters in Scotland) who are nevertheless patriotic Scots.

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/ruth-davidson-snp-guilty-of-orwellian-nationalism-1-4446416

Orwell may not be everyone's choice of light reading, but Davidson is spot on with the assertion that only SNP supporters are deemed to be the authentic voice of the 'people of Scotland' by Sturgeon & co. It's the endless appropriation of this phrase by the First Minister that sticks in the craw of so many non-nationalists (ie the majority of voters in Scotland) who are nevertheless patriotic Scots.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39928846

Is she saying all of these were wrong?


G Washington a patriot
P Pearse a patriot
M Gandhi a patriot
Simon Bolivar a patriot
William Wallace a patriot
All wanted independence!

[marinello59]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39928846

Is she saying all of these were wrong?


G Washington a patriot
P Pearse a patriot
M Gandhi a patriot
Simon Bolivar a patriot
William Wallace a patriot
All wanted independence!

Isn't she saying that it's wrong to question peoples patriotism because they do not support the Yes movement? She has a point, Salmond was very careful on this one, he was clear that we could disagree without depicting others as lesser Scots. I'm not so sure that's true of Sturgeon's SNP.

[ronaldo7]

Isn't she saying that it's wrong to question peoples patriotism because they do not support the Yes movement? She has a point, Salmond was very careful on this one, he was clear that we could disagree without depicting others as lesser Scots. I'm not so sure that's true of Sturgeon's SNP.

Interesting from a party who decries a leader for not wearing a tie or singing a national anthem. British nationalist, good, Scottish nationalist, bad.

[High-On-Hibs]

The lesson today from Ruth Davidson is that "Pro Britishness" is merely being "patrotic".... but "Pro Scottishness" is a nasty nasty form of nationalism that should be completely condemned.

She is a twat of the highest order.

[High-On-Hibs]

Isn't she saying that it's wrong to question peoples patriotism because they do not support the Yes movement? She has a point, Salmond was very careful on this one, he was clear that we could disagree without depicting others as lesser Scots. I'm not so sure that's true of Sturgeon's SNP.

When has Sturgeon ever labelled a NO voter a "lesser Scot"? :confused:

I'm concerned that the propaganda is really starting to feed its way into people again.

[marinello59]

When has Sturgeon ever labelled a NO voter a "lesser Scot"? :confused:

I'm concerned that the propaganda is really starting to feed its way into people again.


I didn't say she had. I said that whilst Alex Salmond made it clear that we were all Scots no matter what system of Goverment we favoured Sturgeon's SNP is much quieter on that subject. It's merely an observation on my part it doesn't give me much satisfaction praising Salmond whilst I make it.
Of course as I disagree with yourself it must be down to me mindlessly soaking up propaganda.:greengrin

[marinello59]

Interesting from a party who decries a leader for not wearing a tie or singing a national anthem. British nationalist, good, Scottish nationalist, bad.

Her post about Corbyn insulting all those who have ever worn the uniform the other day was a belter. Not often I get really angry at a tweet but that one did it. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/ruth-davidson-snp-guilty-of-orwellian-nationalism-1-4446416

Orwell may not be everyone's choice of light reading, but Davidson is spot on with the assertion that only SNP supporters are deemed to be the authentic voice of the 'people of Scotland' by Sturgeon & co. It's the endless appropriation of this phrase by the First Minister that sticks in the craw of so many non-nationalists (ie the majority of voters in Scotland) who are nevertheless patriotic Scots.

So, a representative of the Government who have championed the so-called "snooper's charter" is using Orwell as an authority.

Dont'cha just love politicians? :rolleyes:

[High-On-Hibs]

I didn't say she had. I said that whilst Alex Salmond made it clear that we were all Scots no matter what system of Goverment we favoured Sturgeon's SNP is much quieter on that subject. It's merely an observation on my part it doesn't give me much satisfaction praising Salmond whilst I make it.
Of course as I disagree with yourself it must be down to me mindlessly soaking up propaganda.:greengrin

It shouldn't need to be said over and over again. Those who claim the SNP are trying to speak for the whole of Scotland already know it's a lie themselves. It just suits their political agenda to say it anyway. :aok:

[marinello59]

It shouldn't need to be said over and over again. Those who claim the SNP are trying to speak for the whole of Scotland already know it's a lie themselves. It just suits their political agenda to say it anyway. :aok:

That's right, any criticism of the SNP is agenda driven lies. :aok:

[High-On-Hibs]

That's right, any criticism of the SNP is agenda driven lies. :aok:

I didn't say that. However, many of the "critcisms" have no factual basis. Just political soundbites on repeat. Perhaps people are tired of hearing the SNP speak for Scotland at Westminster, but who else is going to do that job when they are the only people there to do it?

[WeeRussell]

Another piece on James Heappey telling the young Scots lass to "**** off back to Scotland".

"What do we learn about Tory England and its Englishness when Conservative MPs are roaring at little girls to get back to their own country? Not much. We just get to see the whole thing for what it really is: Pathetic aggressive thuggery.

Verbal abuse is violence, and can often be every bit as harmful as physical violence. It is important that we are clear on this point before we proceed. James Heappey, MP for Wells in Somerset, made the headlines for telling a Scottish schoolgirl to “**** off back to Scotland” when he visited her class because she said she would vote for independence if she was given the chance. Not a single report on this incident called this an act of violence. It is time that we set the record straight.
This sixth form pupil at Millfield School in Somerset is Scottish. She lives in England with her family. Her friends are English, and she is perhaps the only Scots student in the class – maybe even in the whole school. As a foreigner she stands out, making her a little more vulnerable to being socially isolated and bullied. We hope that this was not the case for her, but the last thing in the world she needed was an adult in authority telling her to get back to her own country in front of her classmates. Imagine the outrage had she been Polish or Pakistani.
Yet this is exactly what happened to her. What is more shocking is that the adult authority figure who verbally assaulted her wasn’t simply a janitor or a teacher from her school, but her local member of parliament. James Heappey, a Conservative Party MP, is a 36 year old man with a formidable build – certainly for a school child. Heappey served as a British soldier in Afghanistan at a time in that conflict when LiveLeak and the Guardian were reporting on the vile behaviour of British squaddies towards schoolgirls and girls as young as six".


https://t.co/ZESx7VllxG

Apparently it was intended as a "joke" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-2017-james-heappey-tory-mp-referendum-scottish-national-party-a7735311.html

Regardless of whether it was a "joke" or not, and what the context was. Since when was it acceptable for visitors to schools to use language like that towards schoolgirls!!?

[G B Young]

I didn't say she had. I said that whilst Alex Salmond made it clear that we were all Scots no matter what system of Goverment we favoured Sturgeon's SNP is much quieter on that subject. It's merely an observation on my part it doesn't give me much satisfaction praising Salmond whilst I make it.
Of course as I disagree with yourself it must be down to me mindlessly soaking up propaganda.:greengrin

Here's a snippet of Salmond's speech in the event that the 2014 referendum result had gone the other way:

"To those who voted No, I extend an immediate hand of friendship. I do so with respect for our difference, with admiration for the passion and principle of an opposing view strongly held, and with the recognition that the joy of the majority be tempered by the disappointment of the minority."

I think what has especially irritated No voters since Sturgeon's accession to First Minister is that 'respect for our difference' and the 'hand of friendship' have been conspicuous by their absence when it comes to the nationalists' view on non-SNP voters. Instead, only a deep sense of anger and injustice and a determination to pursue a 'neverendum' strategy. As I've asked before, would there have been such ceaseless clamour for a new referendum to rejoin the UK had the result gone the other way? It's hard to imagine such a scenario. Obviously I didn't expect all yes voters to simply down tools and think 'ach well, might as well ditch my support for independence', but given the fact that there has been no discernible rise in support for it since 2014 (despite Sturgeon's misplaced confidence that Brexit would 'change everything') is it too much to ask that those hell bent on independence at any cost take a step back and accept that for many who are bored witless by the whole issue it's simply not the all-consuming reason they get out of bed in the morning?

[High-On-Hibs]

Here's a snippet of Salmond's speech in the event that the 2014 referendum result had gone the other way:

"To those who voted No, I extend an immediate hand of friendship. I do so with respect for our difference, with admiration for the passion and principle of an opposing view strongly held, and with the recognition that the joy of the majority be tempered by the disappointment of the minority."

I think what has especially irritated No voters since Sturgeon's accession to First Minister is that 'respect for our difference' and the 'hand of friendship' have been conspicuous by their absence when it comes to the nationalists' view on non-SNP voters. Instead, only a deep sense of anger and injustice and a determination to pursue a 'neverendum' strategy. As I've asked before, would there have been such ceaseless clamour for a new referendum to rejoin the UK had the result gone the other way? It's hard to imagine such a scenario. Obviously I didn't expect all yes voters to simply down tools and think 'ach well, might as well ditch my support for independence', but given the fact that there has been no discernible rise in support for it since 2014 (despite Sturgeon's misplaced confidence that Brexit would 'change everything') is it too much to ask that those hell bent on independence at any cost take a step back and accept that for many who are bored witless by the whole issue it's simply not the all-consuming reason they get out of bed in the morning?



Well my message to all of these angry unionists who are upset about the "neverendum". Why not vote out the Scottish "National" Party? That's right.... get together and vote them out. If you're still the majority, then it should be easy to rid Scotland of them, then Scotland can go back to business as usual, bending the knee to the English will.

[G B Young]

Well my message to all of these angry unionists who are upset about the "neverendum". Why not vote out the Scottish "National" Party? That's right.... get together and vote them out. If you're still the majority, then it should be easy to rid Scotland of them, then Scotland can go back to business as usual, bending the knee to the English will.

It's the fact the unionist majority is split across three parties which to a large extent plays into SNP hands and will ensure that they'll once again win the vast majority of Westminster seats next month. While the Scottish Tories have clearly emerged as the strongest, most cohesive unit when it comes opposing the break-up of the UK, there will only be a certain number of Labour voters prepared to make the jump to voting Tory. As such, very little will change post June 8th and the tit-for-tat constitutional debate will dominate our political landscape for the foreseeable future. A depressing thought.

As for bending the knee to the English will, it seems to me that the fact we have our own devolved parliament with significant powers to go our own way on numerous issues is often forgotten. As things stand, the majority of voters in Scotland are content with that level of self-governance and view independence as a step too far - as well as finding the 'anti English' element of independence debate distasteful.

I'm realising, by the way, that I've digressed too far away from the title of this thread and these posts would probably be better placed on the indyref2 one...

[pacoluna]

Isn't she saying that it's wrong to question peoples patriotism because they do not support the Yes movement? She has a point, Salmond was very careful on this one, he was clear that we could disagree without depicting others as lesser Scots. I'm not so sure that's true of Sturgeon's SNP.


Who says all those who are part of the yes movement are patriots?, some people just want self-determination, autonomy , decision-making power to be in the hands of the people who live and work here. Its Ruth and her pals who keep mentioning the word patriotism, It's another political twist that she ploys. A political bigot who is slowly being found out.

[marinello59]

Who says all those who are part of the yes movement are patriots?, some people just want self-determination, autonomy , decision-making power to be in the hands of the people who live and work here. Its Ruth and her pals who keep mentioning the word patriotism, It's another political twist that she ploys. A political bigot who is slowly being found out.

I certainly didn't say that.

[pacoluna]

I certainly didn't say that.
your saying she has a point with regards to her saying its wrong to question peoples patriotism who are not part of yes movement, When in fact its her own bigoted political twisted logic way of trying to insinuate that Scottish nationalists are somehow trying to project a superiority complex, which is 100% bollocks.

[High-On-Hibs]

It's the fact the unionist majority is split across three parties which to a large extent plays into SNP hands and will ensure that they'll once again win the vast majority of Westminster seats next month. While the Scottish Tories have clearly emerged as the strongest, most cohesive unit when it comes opposing the break-up of the UK, there will only be a certain number of Labour voters prepared to make the jump to voting Tory. As such, very little will change post June 8th and the tit-for-tat constitutional debate will dominate our political landscape for the foreseeable future. A depressing thought.

Well that's a shame eh?


As for bending the knee to the English will, it seems to me that the fact we have our own devolved parliament with significant powers to go our own way on numerous issues is often forgotten. As things stand, the majority of voters in Scotland are content with that level of self-governance and view independence as a step too far - as well as finding the 'anti English' element of independence debate distasteful.

If you quizzed the general population in Scotland over what they thought the Scottish Parliament could or couldn't do, most wouldn't have a clue.

As for the 'anti English' element. This is nonsense being pushed by the opposition and is highly disrespectful towards English residents in Scotland who are branded "traitors" for daring to support an independent Scotland as well.

[marinello59]

your saying she has a point with regards to her saying its wrong to question peoples patriotism who are not part of yes movement, When in fact its her own bigoted political twisted logic way of trying to insinuate that Scottish nationalists are somehow trying to project a superiority complex, which is 100% bollocks.

I agree with her, there is an element within the SNP who will question the patriotism of anybody who does not desire Independence. Salmond did a lot more than Sturgeon to counter that sort of thinking. Where it does fall down a bit is that she fails to see that she is part of the problem as well as ronaldo has quite rightly pointed out in a previous post.
That's just my opinion of course and I don't think it's really that unreasonable although it may well be 100% bollocks. :greengrin

[pacoluna]

I agree with her, there is an element within the SNP who will question the patriotism of anybody who does not desire Independence. Salmond did a lot more than Sturgeon to counter that sort of thinking. Where it does fall down a bit is that she fails to see that she is part of the problem as well as ronaldo has quite rightly pointed out in a previous post.
That's just my opinion of course and I don't think it's really that unreasonable although it may well be 100% bollocks. :greengrin
The only person I can see who is using "patriotism" to gain votes is Ruth, As said before she is a political bigot.

[marinello59]

The only person I can see who is using "patriotism" to gain votes is Ruth, As said before she is a political bigot.


In your opinion.

[JimBHibees]

Another piece on James Heappey telling the young Scots lass to "**** off back to Scotland".

"What do we learn about Tory England and its Englishness when Conservative MPs are roaring at little girls to get back to their own country? Not much. We just get to see the whole thing for what it really is: Pathetic aggressive thuggery.

Verbal abuse is violence, and can often be every bit as harmful as physical violence. It is important that we are clear on this point before we proceed. James Heappey, MP for Wells in Somerset, made the headlines for telling a Scottish schoolgirl to “**** off back to Scotland” when he visited her class because she said she would vote for independence if she was given the chance. Not a single report on this incident called this an act of violence. It is time that we set the record straight.
This sixth form pupil at Millfield School in Somerset is Scottish. She lives in England with her family. Her friends are English, and she is perhaps the only Scots student in the class – maybe even in the whole school. As a foreigner she stands out, making her a little more vulnerable to being socially isolated and bullied. We hope that this was not the case for her, but the last thing in the world she needed was an adult in authority telling her to get back to her own country in front of her classmates. Imagine the outrage had she been Polish or Pakistani.
Yet this is exactly what happened to her. What is more shocking is that the adult authority figure who verbally assaulted her wasn’t simply a janitor or a teacher from her school, but her local member of parliament. James Heappey, a Conservative Party MP, is a 36 year old man with a formidable build – certainly for a school child. Heappey served as a British soldier in Afghanistan at a time in that conflict when LiveLeak and the Guardian were reporting on the vile behaviour of British squaddies towards schoolgirls and girls as young as six".


https://t.co/ZESx7VllxG

Disgusting would have been all over the MSM if the same had been said about an English person living in Scotland. The fact it was a MP verbally abusing a child makes it even more disgusting. Dont you just love the impartial media coverage.

[High-On-Hibs]

Disgusting would have been all over the MSM if the same had been said about an English person living in Scotland. The fact it was a MP verbally abusing a child makes it even more disgusting. Dont you just love the impartial media coverage.

Shhht.... don't claim that the British Mainstream Media are bias against Scotland.... or you'll be labelled a crazy conspiracy theorist by the North Britain Brigade. :shhhsh!:

[Just Alf]

Just skimmed the last few hours of posts... Still seems a lot of SNP stuff on what's supposed to be a Tories thread?

PS.. I notice on Tapatalk, the picture for this "Tory" thread is of Sturgeon driving a bus! Lol

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Shhht.... don't claim that the British Mainstream Media are bias against Scotland.... or you'll be labelled a crazy conspiracy theorist by the North Britain Brigade. :shhhsh!:
In truth the reality is that in the wider picture, UK wide its just not as big a story than if an SNP type said it,

Not sure being dismissive of it helps, you surely don't think it should just be ignored?

(not read today's posts so apologies in advance if you've been driven to this!)

And aaargh... I DO realise I've just added more SNP stuff on a thread with nothing to do with them!!!!,

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

Just skimmed the last few hours of posts... Still seems a lot of SNP stuff on what's supposed to be a Tories thread?

PS.. I notice on Tapatalk, the picture for this "Tory" thread is of Sturgeon driving a bus! Lol

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

It's hard a respond to a post about what Ruth Davdson had said about the SNP without mentioning them but I guess we could give it a go. :greengrin

[Just Alf]

It's hard a respond to a post about what Ruth Davdson had said about the SNP without mentioning them but I guess we could give it a go. :greengrin
Oh I know! See my following post lol

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

Oh I know! See my following post lol

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

:greengrin

[G B Young]

If you quizzed the general population in Scotland over what they thought the Scottish Parliament could or couldn't do, most wouldn't have a clue.

As for the 'anti English' element. This is nonsense being pushed by the opposition and is highly disrespectful towards English residents in Scotland who are branded "traitors" for daring to support an independent Scotland as well.

I'm not sure what point you're making about the general population of Scotland not having a clue what the Scottish Parliament's powers are. Are you saying the Scottish population doesn't really care about Holyrood (ie that it's the "wee pretendy Parliament" referred to by Billy Connolly) and that it's nothing more than a sop from Westminster to keep the endlessly downtrodden Scots quiet?

Fact is, the current Scottish Parliament has more powers than any before it ("super devo max" as George Galloway once described it) and my point is that for the majority of the Scottish voting public that's as much as they feel we need. Meaningful devolved powers yes, full independence no thanks.

The 'anti English' reference was in response to your 'bending to English will' comment. There's no question that a significant faction of 'yes' voters saw the referendum as being about Scotland v the b*****d English. As a contract worker, I recall one of the women in the depot I was working at in 2014 being openly referred to as 'the English lover' because she planned to vote 'no'. I presume I was similarly disparaged out of my earshot after letting it be known that my vote would also be a resounding 'no'.

Like it or not, Scotland is not an occupied territory and (with nobody around who bore witness to the halcyon days of our independent nation pre-1707 and who might persuade us otherwise) the settled will of the majority of voters in this country is that we remain part of the UK.

[grunt]

Fact is, the current Scottish Parliament has more powers than any before it ("super devo max" as George Galloway once described it) and my point is that for the majority of the Scottish voting public that's as much as they feel we need. Meaningful devolved powers yes, full independence no thanks. Unfortunately it looks as though many of these powers will be taken back to the UK Government post Brexit if we listen to Theresa May's words. She is intending to hold onto previously devolved powers and control over fishing and agriculture through her Great Repeal Act. So it looks like the Tories (remember them, the object of this thread?) will succeed in further limiting the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This is another reason we need another Independence referendum. Without one we really will become North England, and the Tories will not look on the rebellious Scots with any favour.


Like it or not, Scotland is not an occupied territory and (with nobody around who bore witness to the halcyon days of our independent nation pre-1707 and who might persuade us otherwise) the settled will of the majority of voters in this country is that we remain part of the UK.There's that blasted "will of the people" phrase again. The people were lied to and their will subverted by years of media bias.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not sure what point you're making about the general population of Scotland not having a clue what the Scottish Parliament's powers are. Are you saying the Scottish population doesn't really care about Holyrood (ie that it's the "wee pretendy Parliament" referred to by Billy Connolly) and that it's nothing more than a sop from Westminster to keep the endlessly downtrodden Scots quiet?


Apart from the downtrodden bit (we're not downtrodden, all we need to do to empower ourselves is put a cross on a ballot), that's exactly what it is. At each stage of devolution the question from the UK parties has been "what's the absolute minimum we can get away with here?".

And there is endless confusion about what the Scottish government can and can't do. It has extremely limited economic powers, for example, but that doesn't stop even erudite posters on hibs.net complaining about Scotland's economy and the Scottish government's (non) management of it.



Fact is, the current Scottish Parliament has more powers than any before it ("super devo max" as George Galloway once described it) and my point is that for the majority of the Scottish voting public that's as much as they feel we need. Meaningful devolved powers yes, full independence no thanks.


The Scottish attitudes survey consistently shows Scots want the Scottish parliament to have full control of domestic affairs, ie, everything short of defence and foreign affairs. We are way, way, way, wayyyyyy short of that.

http://natcen.ac.uk/media/1361407/ssa16-2fr8m-1ndyref-2-1ndyr8f-tw0-two.pdf


Table 2 Attitudes towards Division of Powers between Scottish Parliament and UK
Government, 2010-16

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Scottish Parliament should make… % % % % % % %
All decisions 28 43 35 31 41 51 49
All except defence/foreign 32 29 32 32 27 30 31
All except defence/foreign/tax/welfare 27 21 24 25 22 12 12
No decisions 10 5 6 8 6 3 4



I think it's fair to say from that that around 80% of Scots regard the SP as not as powerful as they would like.



The 'anti English' reference was in response to your 'bending to English will' comment. There's no question that a significant faction of 'yes' voters saw the referendum as being about Scotland v the b*****d English. As a contract worker, I recall one of the women in the depot I was working at in 2014 being openly referred to as 'the English lover' because she planned to vote 'no'. I presume I was similarly disparaged out of my earshot after letting it be known that my vote would also be a resounding 'no'.

Like it or not, Scotland is not an occupied territory and (with nobody around who bore witness to the halcyon days of our independent nation pre-1707 and who might persuade us otherwise) the settled will of the majority of voters in this country is that we remain part of the UK.


Totally agree re the occupation bit, fundamentally disagree re the "settled will". "Settled" would be the status quo consistently polling at 2/3 or higher. Most Scots want more powers and full independence consistently polls in the 45-50% range. There's nothing settled (either way) about that.

[G B Young]

Unfortunately it looks as though many of these powers will be taken back to the UK Government post Brexit if we listen to Theresa May's words. She is intending to hold onto previously devolved powers and control over fishing and agriculture through her Great Repeal Act. So it looks like the Tories (remember them, the object of this thread?) will succeed in further limiting the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This is another reason we need another Independence referendum. Without one we really will become North England, and the Tories will not look on the rebellious Scots with any favour.

There's that blasted "will of the people" phrase again. The people were lied to and their will subverted by years of media bias.

You'd certainly believe the Tories intend to leave Scotland high and dry post-Brexit if you listened only to the SNP's rhetoric on what's apparently going to happen. Truth is, nobody (including the UK Government) yet knows what sort of deal we'll end up but it would seem daft for the Tories to take such an anti-Scotland approach at a time when their electoral stock is on the rise here and while they're attempting to keep SNP demands for a second referendum at arm's length. I'm content to wait and see how it plays out before passing judgement. All I would say in terms of specific policies is that having lived in the north-east for a number of years, those I still know with connections to the fishing industry are by and large delighted by Brexit.

As for having our will subverted in 2014 by lies and media bias, that simply doesn't wash with most 'yes' voters and is as tiresome a claim as the 'settled will' phrase is to 'no' voters. It implies that the Scottish electorate are little more than a gullible bunch, incapable of making an informed choice of their own. Personally, my 'yes' vote was founded primarily on the fact I prefer being part of the UK and that Scotland's interests are best served by remaining so. The supposed late 'bribes' of more powers for Holyrood and the claims that we were 'lied' to over remaining in the EU played no part in my thinking. Nobody could possibly have known how the Brexit vote would play out, and as Nicola Sturgeon has found out, our impending departure from the EU has had little or no effect on the polls when it comes to backing independence.

[G B Young]

Totally agree re the occupation bit, fundamentally disagree re the "settled will". "Settled" would be the status quo consistently polling at 2/3 or higher. Most Scots want more powers and full independence consistently polls in the 45-50% range. There's nothing settled (either way) about that.

If a consistent two-thirds or higher is the accepted barometer of a 'settled will' then I guess it just confirms this constitutional sparring will dominate Scotland's political landscape for years to come.

I take your point though and my rationale was based on my recollections of an assertion by Alistair Darling (I think) that a double digit win for either side in 2014 would be required to decisively settle the independence question. In a two-horse race the 55-45 margin of victory for the 'no' side was a pretty decisive one - though as subsequent events have proved, clearly not enough to allow us to even draw breath on the issue!

[stantonhibby]

If a consistent two-thirds or higher is the accepted barometer of a 'settled will' then I guess it just confirms this constitutional sparring will dominate Scotland's political landscape for years to come.

I take your point though and my rationale was based on my recollections of an assertion by Alistair Darling (I think) that a double digit win for either side in 2014 would be required to decisively settle the independence question. In a two-horse race the 55-45 margin of victory for the 'yes' side was a pretty decisive one - though as subsequent events have proved, clearly not enough to allow us to even draw breath on the issue!


For 'Yes' you mean 'No' ?

[JeMeSouviens]

If a consistent two-thirds or higher is the accepted barometer of a 'settled will' then I guess it just confirms this constitutional sparring will dominate Scotland's political landscape for years to come.

I take your point though and my rationale was based on my recollections of an assertion by Alistair Darling (I think) that a double digit win for either side in 2014 would be required to decisively settle the independence question. In a two-horse race the 55-45 margin of victory for the 'yes' side was a pretty decisive one - though as subsequent events have proved, clearly not enough to allow us to even draw breath on the issue!

Indeed. With hindsight, I think it was a bit of a missed opportunity not to include a devo-max option in the Indyref. I think both sides could have found acceptable common ground there.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Indeed. With hindsight, I think it was a bit of a missed opportunity not to include a devo-max option in the Indyref. I think both sides could have found acceptable common ground there.

Totally agree - and that would have settled it because the indy vote would probably have beem down 15-20%, status quo on tiny % and devo-max on 70%+

Another ridiculous miscalculation by D Cameron woth regards referenda.

[G B Young]

For 'Yes' you mean 'No' ?

Yes, I mean 'no' :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

Who have been naughty boys then?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39947758

[cabbageandribs1875]

labour councillors in aberdeen 'threatened' with suspension after agreeing a coalition with...........the TORIES :) getting quite difficult nowadays to separate these two bed partners, why don't they just amalgamate officially :greengrin


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39940006

[marinello59]

labour councillors in aberdeen 'threatened' with suspension after agreeing a coalition with...........the TORIES :) getting quite difficult nowadays to separate these two bed partners, why don't they just amalgamate officially :greengrin


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39940006

Don't confuse the actions of the brass necked power happy local Councillors in Aberdeen with the wider party which has ordered them to walk away from this. They are a disgrace to their party and themselves. I can only wonder why the Lib-Dems didn't join up with the SNP to run the City, it would have been the obvious option.

[High-On-Hibs]

Don't confuse the actions of the brass necked power happy local Councillors in Aberdeen with the wider party which has ordered them to walk away from this. They are a disgrace to their party and themselves. I can only wonder why the Lib-Dems didn't join up with the SNP to run the City, it would have been the obvious option.

Will be interesting to see what they do in North Lanarkshire.

[Mr Grieves]

Don't confuse the actions of the brass necked power happy local Councillors in Aberdeen with the wider party which has ordered them to walk away from this. They are a disgrace to their party and themselves. I can only wonder why the Lib-Dems didn't join up with the SNP to run the City, it would have been the obvious option.

I read an article saying the Lib Dems will not be forming any coalitions with the SNP

[cabbageandribs1875]

Don't confuse the actions of the brass necked power happy local Councillors in Aberdeen with the wider party which has ordered them to walk away from this. They are a disgrace to their party and themselves. I can only wonder why the Lib-Dems didn't join up with the SNP to run the City, it would have been the obvious option.


9 have now indeed been suspended, i was about to give kezia dugdale a little bit of praise until i read the next section that said the labour party had put forward a proposal to do a deal with the conservatives and it was actually a sub group of Scottish Executive Committee that had rejected it, as for the lib-dems joining up, no chance(imo)..they've jumped on the anyone but SNP stance

[ballengeich]

labour councillors in aberdeen 'threatened' with suspension after agreeing a coalition with...........the TORIES :) getting quite difficult nowadays to separate these two bed partners, why don't they just amalgamate officially :greengrin


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39940006

What's the problem? Labour and Conservative were in coalition in Stirling for several years before the recent election.

[High-On-Hibs]

What's the problem? Labour and Conservative were in coalition in Stirling for several years before the recent election.

The problem is, you have a Labour Party at UK level that has put out their first real Labour manifesto in decades, under a real Labour leader with real Labour values.... then you have the grotty little branch extension in Scotland jumping into bed with the tories to avoid working with another progressive party in Scotland.

You really don't see the complications there?

[ballengeich]

The problem is, you have a Labour Party at UK level that has put out their first real Labour manifesto in decades, under a real Labour leader with real Labour values.... then you have the grotty little branch extension in Scotland jumping into bed with the tories to avoid working with another progressive party in Scotland.

You really don't see the complications there?

I was merely making the point that there is a precedent for a Labour/Con coalition at local level. We'll see how Stirling goes. Before the election there were 9 labour and 4 conservative councillors. In the election these figures were exactly reversed, but 2 of the new conservative councillors have been suspended from the party over allegations about sectarian and racist comments on social media. Some voters may be regretting their preference order.

[High-On-Hibs]

I was merely making the point that there is a precedent for a Labour/Con coalition at local level. We'll see how Stirling goes. Before the election there were 9 labour and 4 conservative councillors. In the election these figures were exactly reversed, but 2 of the new conservative councillors have been suspended from the party over allegations about sectarian and racist comments on social media. Some voters may be regretting their preference order.

I doubt it. They voted "tactically" without any regard as to who they were actually voting for. I doubt they care anymore now, than they did then.

[Bristolhibby]

I doubt it. They voted "tactically" without any regard as to who they were actually voting for. I doubt they care anymore now, than they did then.

Correct. As longs as the bins get picked up, most people don't give two figs about local government.

J

[ronaldo7]

It looks like the Tories have turned the cross hairs towards the pensioners.

They are about to end universal winter payments, the triple lock is a gonner, ex pats pensions are frozen, and the Waspi women can sing for their supper.

Any pensioners on here?

[Mr White]

Brilliant quote from Iain Banks popped up on my facebook feed today:

I'm not arguing there are no decent people in the Conservative party but they're like bits of sweetcorn in a turd: technically they've kept their integrity but they're still embedded in s***.

What a loss it was when he passed. The man was a genius with words.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Tory manifesto launch today -

Means test winter fuel allowance for pensioners
Remove income guarantee for pensioners of 2.5 per cent increase in pension each year
Bring back foxhunting

Can't wait to hear the rest, but I'm convinced already. :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Tory manifesto launch today -

Means test winter fuel allowance for pensioners
Remove income guarantee for pensioners of 2.5 per cent increase in pension each year
Bring back foxhunting

Can't wait to hear the rest, but I'm convinced already. :greengrin

Is is bring back fox hunting, or a free vote in parliament on fox hunting?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Is is bring back fox hunting, or a free vote in parliament on fox hunting?

Yeah, I think it is a free vote. Amazing to think a party with such priorities is expected to win by a landslide. Bleak times.

[Moulin Yarns]

Is is bring back fox hunting, or a free vote in parliament on fox hunting?

Vermin :wink:

[High-On-Hibs]

It looks like the Tories have turned the cross hairs towards the pensioners.

They are about to end universal winter payments, the triple lock is a gonner, ex pats pensions are frozen, and the Waspi women can sing for their supper.

Any pensioners on here?

They'll still vote Conservative anyway, because they really won't have a clue. (No offense to those who actually do, but most really don't!)

[CropleyWasGod]

They'll still vote Conservative anyway, because they really won't have a clue. (No offense to those who actually do, but most really don't!)

Pensioners don't have a clue? Is that what you're saying?

[High-On-Hibs]

Is is bring back fox hunting, or a free vote in parliament on fox hunting?

A free vote. :faf:

It's like the Communist Party of China having a "free vote".

[High-On-Hibs]

Pensioners don't have a clue? Is that what you're saying?

About the motives of the political parties they're voting for? NO!

[CropleyWasGod]

About the motives of the political parties they're voting for? NO!

Wow. That's a pretty sweeping and offensive statement. What's your evidence for that?

[High-On-Hibs]

Wow. That's a pretty sweeping and offensive statement. What's your evidence for that?

Just ask your average over 65 tory voter on the street why they're voting Conservative and they'll give you the "strong and stable leadership" guff. I'm not saying this to be disrespectful, but it's a real issue in this country. I haven't heard one coherent argument for voting tory. Just mind numbing soundbites with zero thought process involved. :bitchy:

[Hibernia&Alba]

The evidence demonstrates that older voters are more likely to vote Conservative, and it's interesting the Tories are targeting one of their core demographics for cuts. They must be very confident of victory to announce this in their manifesto. It will be interesting to see what impact, if any, it has on the pensioner vote. I could be wrong, but I think the majority of over 65s will still support them.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

A free vote. :faf:

It's like the Communist Party of China having a "free vote".

You obviously dont understand how the system at Westminster works, if you think that is hilarious.

[Hibernia&Alba]

You obviously dont understand how the system at Westminster works, if you think that is hilarious.

It's a sad indictment of their priorities and values, however.

[CropleyWasGod]

Just ask your average over 65 tory voter on the street why they're voting Conservative and they'll give you the "strong and stable leadership" guff. I'm not saying this to be disrespectful, but it's a real issue in this country. I haven't heard one coherent argument for voting tory. Just mind numbing soundbites with zero thought process involved. :bitchy:

I was looking for more evidence than that, TBH.

It's your kind of attitude towards pensioners that got Ian Murray elected last time around.

It should also be said that, for those pensioners that don't work, they actually have the time and opportunity to consider the arguments more fully. They have that advantage over people who're more concerned with working, family life and paying their mortgage. In that light, it might be suggested that, actually, they have MORE clue about the parties than most.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Just ask your average over 65 tory voter on the street why they're voting Conservative and they'll give you the "strong and stable leadership" guff. I'm not saying this to be disrespectful, but it's a real issue in this country. I haven't heard one coherent argument for voting tory. Just mind numbing soundbites with zero thought process involved. :bitchy:

Haven't heard, or havent listened? There is a difference.

You dont like the tories, i understand that, but it is a very arrogant presumption that anybody who votes for them, and there will me many millions, is incapable of the same level of understanding as you are.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's a sad indictment of their priorities and values, however.

In their eyes, its giving parliament the chance to right a wrong. Many saw fox hunting as a vexatious and vindictive attack on them.

It wouldnt be my choice - and actually it wouldn't even surprise me if it was voted down.

But it is there, and we will have a democratic vote on it.

[G B Young]

They'll still vote Conservative anyway, because they really won't have a clue. (No offense to those who actually do, but most really don't!)

That's quite a generalisation and I can't honestly see how you could justify such a statement. It's ageist in the extreme and hugely disrespectful to anyone of pensionable age. Where is the evidence to suggest that anyone elderly automatically becomes clueless? I'd suggest a long-lived life is more likely to bring experience and wisdom:

http://www.newsnet.scot/nns-archive/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3296:study-shows-with-age-comes-wisdom&catid=16:features&Itemid=91

[Hibrandenburg]

Haven't heard, or havent listened? There is a difference.

You dont like the tories, i understand that, but it is a very arrogant presumption that anybody who votes for them, and there will me many millions, is incapable of the same level of understanding as you are.

Go on mate, now is your chance to enlighten him on the long list of tory policies that will benefit working class pensioners.

[Hibernia&Alba]

In their eyes, its giving parliament the chance to right a wrong. Many saw fox hunting as a vexatious and vindictive attack on them.

It wouldnt be my choice - and actually it wouldn't even surprise me if it was voted down.

But it is there, and we will have a democratic vote on it.

It's an archaic blood sport practiced by a tiny minority of the population. It speaks volumes they want to give parliamentary time to such a vote, when there are millions of people suffering as a consequence of their policies; the pensioners being the next target. Morally bankrupt.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Go on mate, now is your chance to enlighten him on the long list of tory policies that will benefit working class pensioners.

They don't give a **** about working class anybody. May has said it's more austerity ahead; the pensioners are the next group who will feel the pain. Those who created this fiasco back in 2008 are just fine.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Go on mate, now is your chance to enlighten him on the long list of tory policies that will benefit working class pensioners.

Its not my job to communicate the tories policies for them, thats their job.

And i suppose you would need to ask working class pensioners their opinion. Id imagine brexit and immigration would feature highly though.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's an archaic blood sport practiced by a tiny minority of the population. It speaks volumes they want to give parliamentary time to such a vote, when there are millions of people suffering as a consequence of their policies; the pensioners being the next target. Morally bankrupt.

I agrer on fox hunting.

The rest is your opinion. We will find out soon if the rest of the country agree.

[Geo_1875]

I'm not sure what point you're making about the general population of Scotland not having a clue what the Scottish Parliament's powers are. Are you saying the Scottish population doesn't really care about Holyrood (ie that it's the "wee pretendy Parliament" referred to by Billy Connolly) and that it's nothing more than a sop from Westminster to keep the endlessly downtrodden Scots quiet?

Fact is, the current Scottish Parliament has more powers than any before it ("super devo max" as George Galloway once described it) and my point is that for the majority of the Scottish voting public that's as much as they feel we need. Meaningful devolved powers yes, full independence no thanks.

The 'anti English' reference was in response to your 'bending to English will' comment. There's no question that a significant faction of 'yes' voters saw the referendum as being about Scotland v the b*****d English. As a contract worker, I recall one of the women in the depot I was working at in 2014 being openly referred to as 'the English lover' because she planned to vote 'no'. I presume I was similarly disparaged out of my earshot after letting it be known that my vote would also be a resounding 'no'.

Like it or not, Scotland is not an occupied territory and (with nobody around who bore witness to the halcyon days of our independent nation pre-1707 and who might persuade us otherwise) the settled will of the majority of voters in this country is that we remain part of the UK.

Does this "significant faction" include those YES supporters who you presume spoke about you behind your back or are you just making this up?

[Moulin Yarns]

Is is bring back fox hunting, or a free vote in parliament on fox hunting?

Take your pick, 4 opinions on fox hunting with hounds

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=32

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/features/fox-hunting-review-evidence

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6910/full/419878a.html

https://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/hunting/facts

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Take your pick, 4 opinions on fox hunting with hounds

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=32

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/features/fox-hunting-review-evidence

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6910/full/419878a.html

https://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/hunting/facts

Its not my pick mate, i dont care a jot for fox hunting, ibe never even been on a horse. Plus, it makes no difference to the ban in Scotland i believe. Devolution in action...!

[pacoluna]

It's an archaic blood sport practiced by a tiny minority of the population. It speaks volumes they want to give parliamentary time to such a vote, when there are millions of people suffering as a consequence of their policies; the pensioners being the next target. Morally bankrupt.
An English fox would probably still vote for the tories because errrrmmmm.. corbyn isn't strong and stable.

[pacoluna]

Does this "significant faction" include those YES supporters who you presume spoke about you behind your back or are you just making this up?
exactly, I'm tempted to say "evidence" please but that seems to be answer from anyone on this forum who cant carry on the debate.

[CropleyWasGod]

exactly, I'm tempted to say "evidence" please but that seems to be answer from anyone on this forum who cant carry on the debate.

I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the theory that pensioners are "clueless". :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the theory that pensioners are "clueless". :greengrin

Norman Tebbit :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Norman Tebbit :greengrin

Aye ok. You got me.
:greengrin

[Geo_1875]

I'm still waiting for the evidence to support the theory that pensioners are "clueless". :greengrin

I don't think they are all clueless. I know some that are self-serving old *******s pulling up the ladder behind them because they are doing alright in their "hard earned" retirement so their "kids" will be fine and **** the rest. Just some, not all.

[pacoluna]

Tories manifesto - Indyref 2 should not take place unless there is public consent for it. This is what riles me. Its complete hypocrisy as well as undemocratic. I know this topic has been talked about over and over again however its clear that the Tories do not respect the SCOTGOV elections and only see it as a place of mitigation.

[Pretty Boy]

Is abolishing the universal winter fuel payment really that terrible? It seems a bit strange to me that a millionaire can be getting between £100 and £300 from the government that they don't need whilst people in desperate need are seeing services and benefits cut.

The devil is obviously in the detail but if it's a reasonable cut off point I can see where some of the £2bn spent on these payments last year could be better utilised. I'd apply the same argument to something like free school meals as well. Universal benefits are a nice idea but when there is a finite pot of money I'd rather see those who really need help get it than money being paid to those who really don't.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Is abolishing the universal winter fuel payment really that terrible? It seems a bit strange to me that a millionaire can be getting between £100 and £300 from the government that they don't need whilst people in desperate need are seeing services and benefits cut.

The devil is obviously in the detail but if it's a reasonable cut off point I can see where some of the £2bn spent on these payments last year could be better utilised. I'd apply the same argument to something like free school meals as well. Universal benefits are a nice idea but when there is a finite pot of money I'd rather see those who really need help get it than money being paid to those who really don't.


- Means testing can be bureaucratic and costly. Potential savings can be drastically reduced.
- Everyone has paid in, the better off paying in more. That's a good argument for universality.
- Means testing allows a party at some future point (oh I don't know, perhaps the Conservatives :rolleyes:) to tell the better off they are paying in but getting less back, therefore the payments should be scrapped completely. Take it away from them then use their resentment - sleekit.
- Means testing creates a stigma that can prevent the eligible from applying. Some will slip through the net.

The removal of the 2.5 per cent increase will impact upon all pensioners, not just the better off.

[G B Young]

Does this "significant faction" include those YES supporters who you presume spoke about you behind your back or are you just making this up?

Yep, I just made that story up. Don't know what I was thinking really. After all, who could possibly believe such an incident took place?

[danhibees1875]

Is abolishing the universal winter fuel payment really that terrible? It seems a bit strange to me that a millionaire can be getting between £100 and £300 from the government that they don't need whilst people in desperate need are seeing services and benefits cut.

The devil is obviously in the detail but if it's a reasonable cut off point I can see where some of the £2bn spent on these payments last year could be better utilised. I'd apply the same argument to something like free school meals as well. Universal benefits are a nice idea but when there is a finite pot of money I'd rather see those who really need help get it than money being paid to those who really don't.

As you say, it depends on cut off points applied; but generally I would agree this can be means tested somehow. Although H&A makes a good point after you about how it's administrated could be a stumbling block, and one that is often quoted in the similar prescriptions fees debates. Even just an opt-in/application form for winter fuel allowance would make people think twice about applying for something they don't need (if I had a mill in the bank, I wouldn't spend 5 mins on a form to get £200 for something).

As for the school means, I think I'd keep that universal. The wealth of parents doesn't necessarily mean it's passed down or accessible to the children. When it comes to stuff for children, I think universality is the way to go (the stigma point raised by H&A is a lot more poignant in this example when it comes to the playground IMO).

[Hibernia&Alba]

If the savings of means testing a benefit make the exercise worthwhile, and, if the savings are then used to give more help to the less well off, it's a good idea. My worry is means testing is the first step to abolition and can be divisive. It has to be done carefully, and, to be frank, I don't trust the Conservatives to make sure any savings are passed on to the more needy.

[Geo_1875]

Yep, I just made that story up. Don't know what I was thinking really. After all, who could possibly believe such an incident took place?

Maybe the people who were there when you were "out of earshot".

They'd make reliable witnesses.

As for you, you weren't there and didn't hear anything, by your own admission, but you "presume" these horrible anti-English SNP members................

Just forget it.

You've got an agenda.

We know that.

[Moulin Yarns]

In other news, businesses employing skilled nonEU migrants will face a £2000 'fine' for each one!

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-conservative-manifesto-immigration-eu-worker-charge-brexit-employers-2000-year-2017-5

[ronaldo7]

In other news, businesses employing skilled nonEU migrants will face a £2000 'fine' for each one!

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-conservative-manifesto-immigration-eu-worker-charge-brexit-employers-2000-year-2017-5

That will be the lists of foreign workers they talked about. :rolleyes:

[Moulin Yarns]

That will be the lists of foreign workers they talked about. :rolleyes:

I am sitting opposite a New Zealander at the moment. Not sure how skilled he is if he works with me though :wink:

Behind him is a Canadian.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Had a wer look at the tory manifesto. Its certainly not an ideological document - its verging on populist i would say.

Some impressive stuff, from a tory government. There is no way much of it can be characterised as right wing anyway.

Supports the idea that May is grabbing the centre ground, and also that above ideology, she is a pragmatist.

Interesting to see how it all pans out

[Moulin Yarns]

If this is a populist party, then god help us all


https://t.co/SciEZmbShl

[One Day Soon]

Is abolishing the universal winter fuel payment really that terrible? It seems a bit strange to me that a millionaire can be getting between £100 and £300 from the government that they don't need whilst people in desperate need are seeing services and benefits cut.

The devil is obviously in the detail but if it's a reasonable cut off point I can see where some of the £2bn spent on these payments last year could be better utilised. I'd apply the same argument to something like free school meals as well. Universal benefits are a nice idea but when there is a finite pot of money I'd rather see those who really need help get it than money being paid to those who really don't.


Precisely. Universalism has had its day in a digital age. Why enrich the wealthy further with free bus passes, free prescriptions and cold weather payments they clearly don't need when that money could go to those most in need instead?

I ****ing hate this talk left, walk right stuff.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If this is a populist party, then god help us all


https://t.co/SciEZmbShl

Really? Some crap meme from twitter is what you go by? That says quite a lot.

Anyway, people on the extreme left like your good self arent ever gping to like the tories, regardless of what they say. It is aimed at mainstream voters, the centre ground.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Really? Some crap meme from twitter is what you go by? That says quite a lot.

Anyway, people on the extreme left like your good self arent ever gping to like the tories, regardless of what they say. It is aimed at mainstream voters, the centre ground.

That's a glib Tory soundbite, just like 'strong and stable leadership'. Do you really think the policies since 2010 represent a mainstream, centre ground? Such an agenda would have meant making those responsible for the economic meltdown responsible for re-paying it. Instead we've had the poorest in our society - those who did nothing wrong - forced to suffer via unprecedented austerity. Hurting those least able to defend themselves is neither mainstream nor the centre ground in my book. Just look at the explosion in homelessness and hunger. I refuse to accept that is now the mainstream for our society.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's a glib Tory soundbite, just like 'strong and stable leadership'. Do you really think the policies since 2010 represent a mainstream, centre ground? Such an agenda would have meant making those responsible for the economic meltdown responsible for re-paying it. Instead we've had the poorest in our society - those who did nothing wrong - forced to suffer via unprecedented austerity. Hurting those least able to defend themselves is neither mainstream nor the centre ground in my book. Just look at the explosion in homelessness and hunger. I refuse to accept that is now the mainstream for our society.

I was referring to the manifesto for a new government, with a new leader who is making quite a radical departure from her predecessor.

Have you read the manifesto, or is just bad because it is tory?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Precisely. Universalism has had its day in a digital age. Why enrich the wealthy further with free bus passes, free prescriptions and cold weather payments they clearly don't need when that money could go to those most in need instead?

I ****ing hate this talk left, walk right stuff.

I think progressive taxation is a more equitable solution than means testing. Let the wealthy have free prescriptions in the same way they get free NHS care: it's because they've paid in. We contribute when we can then receive services when we need them. The wealthy can contribute by paying more income tax and retain universal benefits. Progressive taxation means they will pay in much more than they get back, which is right, because they don't need as much help. Those needing most help, on the other hand, are the beneficiaries of redistribution :aok:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think progressive taxation is a more equitable solution than means testing. Let the wealthy have free prescriptions in the same way they get free NHS care: it's because they've paid in. We contribute when we can then receive services when we need them. The wealthy can contribute by paying more income tax and retain universal benefits. Progressive taxation means they will pay in much more than they get back, which is right, because they don't need as much help. Those needing most help, on the other hand, are the beneficiaries of redistribution :aok:

With a shrinking tax base, amd a growing dependancy base, this equation is becoming harder to make work

[Hibernia&Alba]

I was referring to the manifesto for a new government, with a new leader who is making quite a radical departure from her predecessor.

Have you read the manifesto, or is just bad because it is tory?

I was also referring to the manifesto, which the Tories are calling 'mainstream'. I haven't read the manifesto but have read the main proposals on BBC.co.uk. What radical departure? It's more austerity. What are the plans to reverse the massive rise in homelessness and food banks during the past eight years?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I was also referring to the manifesto. I haven't read the manifesto but have read the main proposals on BBC.co.uk. What radical departure? It's more austerity. What are the plans to reverse the massive rise in homelessness and food banks during the past eight years?

I read somewhere recently that govt spending just now is the same level as it was under tony blair. IF that is true, ot puts 'austerity' into context.

What do you think we should do about the ever increasing national debt (and the associated interest payments)?

I also spoke to a nurse recently who laughed about the 'nurses need foodbanks' story - her quote was "where do they get that from"

But anyway i digress.

You dont like the tories, as with golden fleece you are at quite am extreme end of the spectrum, so manifestos aremt really aimed at you, especially tory ones.

So any discussion will invitably descend into argument about the merits of the tories.

Taken within the context of it being a tory manifesto, aimed at tory amd centrist voters, i think it is quite a radical departure from what went before.

[Hibernia&Alba]

May: more of the same. Nurses needing food banks (this is where they might have gotten it from); schools raising money for equipment; more benefit cuts and tax cuts; more anti-immigrant xenophobia; fewer police officers and fire fighters etc etc. It's appalling to think we've accepted this as the mainstream.

Royal College of Nursing: 14 per cent real terms pay cut since 2010 and food poverty amongst staff.


https://youtu.be/Ixwq3KJwy54

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

May: more of the same. Nurses needing food banks (this is where they might have gotten it from); schools raising money for equipment; more benefit cuts and tax cuts etc etc. It's appalling to think we've accepted this as the mainstream.


https://youtu.be/Ixwq3KJwy54

In your opinion.

I know lots of nurses, and i cam assure they get paid ok - not brilliantly, bit certainly not badly amd certainly not some sprt of poverty wages. Its complete BS.

[Hibernia&Alba]

In your opinion.

I know lots of nurses, and i cam assure they get paid ok - not brilliantly, bit certainly not badly amd certainly not some sprt of poverty wages. Its complete BS.

Well, you need to take that up with the RCN; it isn't just my opinion.

And where's the 'radical departure'?

Marr - Nurses don't have enough to feed themselves.
May - It's about firms growing and prospering.

Aye, thanks for coming in.

Watch the full interview. It's more of the same.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well, you need to take that up with the RCN; it isn't just my opinion.

And where's the 'radical departure'?

Marr - Nurses don't have enough to feed themselves.
May - It's about firms growing and prospering.

Watch the full interview. It's more of the same.

No i dont, im perfectly aware of how organistions work and spin. I know plenty of nurses and none of them are poor. Its utter nonsense.

Also i dont know what food poverty means? Surely if you are poor you are poor - is it possible just to be poor in food? Genuinely dont understand what that means.

Extensive intervention in markets (a big departure), rise in NHS funding, new rules on company management, very ambitious commitment to r&d, industrial strategy (not known for decades) , firm commitment on not grabbing power back from holyrood (to scotch that little myth).

We have gone from a very neo-liberal, style over substance government that seemed very out of touch, to a tory govt eschewimg neo-liberal economics, being centrist / populist on lots of issues (employment rights etc), potential tax rises, and still keeping on top of national finances and penalising those who don't wprk in relation to those who do work.

Ok, maybe radical is over-egging it a bit, bit this is very different to Cameron imo.

Whether that makes it good, bad or indifferent is of course moot, but i think it is quite different.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/mays-manifesto-is-birth-of-third-way-conservatism

[Hibernia&Alba]

No i dont, im perfectly aware of how organistions work and spin. I know plenty of nurses and none of them are poor. Its utter nonsense.

Also i dont know what food poverty means? Surely if you are poor you are poor - is it possible just to be poor in food? Genuinely dont understand what that means.

Extensive intervention in markets (a big departure), rise in NHS funding, new rules on company management, very ambitious commitment to r&d, industrial strategy (not known for decades) , firm commitment on not grabbing power back from holyrood (to scotch that little myth).

We have gone from a very neo-liberal, style over substance government that seemed very out of touch, to a tory govt eschewimg neo-liberal economics, being centrist / populist on lots of issues (employment rights etc), potential tax rises, and still keeping on top of national finances and penalising those who don't wprk in relation to those who do work.

Ok, maybe radical is over-egging it a bit, bit this is very different to Cameron imo.

Whether that makes it good, bad or indifferent is of course moot, but i think it is quite different.

The 14 per cent real terms pay cut since 2010 is nonsense? The RCN is a very well respected and does its research. Nae offence, but their evidence is more credible than anecdotes from people you know. Food poverty means not enough money left to prevent hunger after other outgoings are paid, and the need to visit food banks to get three meals a day. It's not complex. In the same way fuel poverty is the need to go without heating or lighting, in order to meet other outgoings.

What tax rises? I see a commitment to REDUCE corporation tax to 16 per cent.

Where's the plan to reverse the homelessness and 1.2 million food parcels now being distributed?

More benefit cuts. Why do you want to penalise those who aren't working i.e. the poorest? They've already been hammered since 2010.

Push ahead with cuts to Working Families Tax Credits?

More grammar schools - very regressive return to the past.

I see little to reduce inequality, address the problems in health in education.

More below inflation pay rises for millions of public servants.

Even fewer employees in the emergency services.

Far more people will need to find money when they need social care in old cage.

I don't see any eschewing of neo-liberal economics. Far from it.


It seems a regressive disaster when taken in the round. Good for the better off, those in perfect health, the company director; sod students with debt, pensioners, public sector workers, school children, those living on benefits. Mainstream?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The 14 per cent real terms pay cut since 2010 is nonsense? The RCN is a very well respected and does its research. Nae offence, but their evidence is more credible than anecdotes from people you know. Food poverty means not enough money left to prevent hunger after other outgoings are paid, and the need to visit food banks to get three meals a day. It's not complex. In the same way fuel poverty is the need to go without heating or lighting, in order to meet other outgoings.

What tax rises? I see a commitment to REDUCE corporation tax to 16 per cent.

Where's the plan to reverse the homelessness and 1.2 million food parcels now being distributed?

More benefit cuts. Why do you want to penalise those who aren't working i.e. the poorest? They've already been hammered since 2010.

Push ahead with cuts to Working Families Tax Credits?

More grammar schools - very regressive return to the past.

I see little to reduce inequality, address the problems in health in education.

More below inflation pay rises for millions of public servants.

Even fewer employees in the emergency services.

Far more people will need to find money when they need social care in old cage.

I don't see any eschewing of neo-liberal economics. Far from it.


It seems a regressive disaster when taken in the round. Good for the better off, those in perfect health, the company director; sod students, pensioners, public sector workers, school children, those living on benefits. Mainstream?

Fair enough, if thats how you see it, then thats how you see it.

My anecdotal evidence is what it is. Politics is local, you say nurses are in food poverty, i know that is not true. Ill believe my own lived experience before a piece of political campaigning.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Fair enough, if thats how you see it, then thats how you see it.

My anecdotal evidence is what it is. Politics is local, you say nurses are in food poverty, i know that is not true. Ill believe my own lived experience before a piece of political campaigning.

If the RCN is so wrong about nurses needing to visit food banks, why didn't May push back on it? She had no comeback.

[Mon Dieu4]

No i dont, im perfectly aware of how organistions work and spin. I know plenty of nurses and none of them are poor. Its utter nonsense.

Also i dont know what food poverty means? Surely if you are poor you are poor - is it possible just to be poor in food? Genuinely dont understand what that means.

Extensive intervention in markets (a big departure), rise in NHS funding, new rules on company management, very ambitious commitment to r&d, industrial strategy (not known for decades) , firm commitment on not grabbing power back from holyrood (to scotch that little myth).

We have gone from a very neo-liberal, style over substance government that seemed very out of touch, to a tory govt eschewimg neo-liberal economics, being centrist / populist on lots of issues (employment rights etc), potential tax rises, and still keeping on top of national finances and penalising those who don't wprk in relation to those who do work.

Ok, maybe radical is over-egging it a bit, bit this is very different to Cameron imo.

Whether that makes it good, bad or indifferent is of course moot, but i think it is quite different.

Tories keeping on top of the finances? They have borrowed more than any government in history and have the national debt at the highest level it's ever been

But nah austerity works we are cutting down the deficit, who cares about the increase in the use of food banks, homelessness and cutting the benifits of disabled people and the other most needy people in society

Meanwhile they are planning another vote of foxhunting as many of their donors havent had the chance to rip apart an animal legally for a while, utter bunch of cretins that bareface lie to your face, Wolf in sheep's clothing

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If the RCN is so wrong about nurses needing to visit food banks, why didn't May push back on it? She had no comeback.

Because how can you possibly disprove something like that? All she would be doing would be making herself vulnerable to a newspaper digging up a story about some nurse who blew all her wages early in the month and so had to visit a foodbank for a handput.

Technically, such a nurse would have needed to visit a food bank. But it would habe been as a result of their own ****witteriness, than 'poverty wages' being paid to nurses.

It wpuld be giving the issue a credibility it currently lacks.

And it is, quite literally the RCNs job to get payrises for their members - they are a trade union.

Thats not to say inflation hasnt eroded 'real terms' wages, bit that is true of many, if not most, prpfessions.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Tories keeping on top of the finances? They have borrowed more than any government in history and have the national debt at the highest level it's ever been

But nah austerity works we are cutting down the deficit, who cares about the increase in the use of food banks, homelessness and cutting the benifits of disabled people and the other most needy people in society

Meanwhile they are planning another vote of foxhunting as many of their donors havent had the chance to rip apart an animal legally for a while, utter bunch of cretins that bareface lie to your face, Wolf in sheep's clothing

Yes they jave borrowed more. They had tp, due to the size of the national debt and the operatimg deficit.

So to be clear, you are lambasting them for borrowing too much, but also for cutting borrowing.

That strikes me as slightly incoherent.

So do you want to lower the deficit, or increase it to spend more?

[Mon Dieu4]

Yes they jave borrowed more. They had tp, due to the size of the national debt and the operatimg deficit.

So to be clear, you are lambasting them for borrowing too much, but also for cutting borrowing.

That strikes me as slightly incoherent.

If they are having to borrow then they should be spending it on the right things like not decimating social care and the health service, investing it in housing and infrastructure, there are alternatives to austerity, tell me if it's going so well, which one of their targets on it have they actually hit?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Ultimately some of the key questions for me are, after five years of this manifesto, will there be:

More or less inequality?
More or fewer homeless?
More or fewer food banks?
Better or worse public services?
More or fewer students in debt?
More or fewer pensioners in poverty?
Higher or lower incomes for the majority?
Stronger or weaker environmental protections?
More or fewer secure jobs?
More or fewer families living in temporary accommodation?


This will do for a start. If, after five years, there is progress, I will be more than happy to give credit where it's due.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If they are having to borrow then they should be spending it on the right things like not decimating social care and the health service, investing it in housing and infrastructure, there are alternatives to austerity, tell me if it's going so well, which one of their targets on it have they actually hit?

But they are borrowing to spend on those things, they are trying to borrow less.

I think they missed most of them, bit i believe the defecit os down to about 3% of gdp, when it was previously 10% of gdp. Close, but no cigar you might say.

So you want higher defecit, and a faster growing national debt?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ultimately some of the key questions for me are, after five years of this manifesto, will there be:

More or less inequality?
More or fewer homeless?
More or fewer food banks?
Better or worse public services?
More or fewer students in debt?
More or fewer pensioners in poverty?
Higher or lower incomes for the majority?
Stronger or weaker environmental protections?
More or fewer secure jobs?
More or fewer families living in temporary accommodation?


This will do for a start. If, after five years, there is progress, I will be more than happy to give credit where it's due.

Fair enough mate, not a bad set of measures.

I disagree about equality though, thats a deceptive measure imo. Equality of opportunity, absolutely, but equality of outcome, absolutely not - but this is probably a whole differemt debate!

[McD]

Tories manifesto - Indyref 2 should not take place unless there is public consent for it. This is what riles me. Its complete hypocrisy as well as undemocratic. I know this topic has been talked about over and over again however its clear that the Tories do not respect the SCOTGOV elections and only see it as a place of mitigation.


regardless of ones opinion on indyref2, this point makes no sense to me (this isn't a dig at you Pacoluna, only the manifesto point) - isn't it a vicious circle? Need public consent for a referendum, but can't get public consent without a referendum, so need public consent and so on.

Are they suggesting a referendum to decide if we should have another (Indy) referendum? :confused:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Guardian editorial on manifesto -

Skip to main content
The Guardian - Back to home
Become a
Supporter
news

opinion

sport

arts

life
Menu
news
opinion
sport
arts
life
what term do you want to search?
become a supporter
subscribe
sign in/up
uk edition
jobs
dating
holidays
masterclasses
professional networks
the guardian app
podcasts
video
pictures
newsletters
today's paper
the observer
crosswords
facebook
twitter
the guardian view

columnists

cartoons

opinion videos
more
Theresa May launching the Conservative manifesto

The Guardian view on Theresa May’s manifesto: a new Toryism
Editorial
Like Tony Blair in 1997, Mrs May is where the majority of voters are: to the left on the economy and to the right on social issues. She plays to this mood, a political judgment that risks society closing in on itself rather than opening up

View more sharing options
Shares
2
Comments
13
Thursday 18 May 2017 19.43 BST Last modified on Thursday 18 May 2017 19.52 BST

Theresa May’s manifesto reveals more about her plans to refound the Conservative party than her plans to run the country. Her programme for the Tories would read as a heretical document to many in her party, brought up on a diet of state-shrinking, me-first Thatcherism. Instead, Mrs May talks about rejecting the “cult of selfish individualism” and says her party does not now believe in “untrammelled free markets”. To see how big a leap this is. consider how much the Conservative party of the recent past changed the temper of Britain, fostering a mood of materialistic individualism. Mrs May consciously jettisons this individualist heritage because she knows that the public associate Thatcherism less with an unleashing of economic virtue than an unfettering of the social vices of selfishness and greed. It has contributed, as Mrs May has long contended, to the Conservatives’ reputation as the “nasty party”.

In many ways Mrs May is swimming with, not against, the political tide. No classical liberal party is contesting this election. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have moved leftwards. By proposing to cancel key Lib Dem achievements – such as the constitutional reform of fixed-term parliaments – Mrs May signals that she wishes to wipe out traces of “Liberalism” from government.

Live General election 2017: ITV hosts first leaders debate – politics live
Read more
There’s a mood afoot in the country against free markets and a cultural change in favour of a politics that combines greater economic justice with more social concord. Mrs May taps into this when she talks of the NHS as part of a system of solidarity that is more than mutual self-interest. This sits awkwardly with the harsh reality that the NHS is under the worst financial pressure it has ever faced. But if Mrs May can persuade voters that she can be trusted with the NHS then she will have succeeded in capturing key electoral terrain with what appears to be very little extra money.

Advertisement

There is also a significant break with her predecessor David Cameron, who claimed “there is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same thing as the state”. For Mrs May there is such a thing as society and it needs a state. Her industrial strategy includes an unlikely proposal to modernise the shipbuilding industry. This is in part about resetting today’s liberal market society, where the maximum amount of social coordination occurs through market mechanisms. Instead Mrs May proposes to intervene when she thinks the government can do better than the market. Conservative apostasy, maybe, but it is also smart politics.

The ambition to break with four decades of market liberalisation could easily be thwarted by Brexit, further free-trade deals and sweeteners to the City of London. The weakness of her philosophy is that it rests upon a nationalistic response that raises unrealistic expectations about what this country can do alone. In Mrs May’s Britain, certain events galvanise brief intense interest and political engagement. One of these is Brexit. The most powerful driver of her support is the false perception that Britain is under attack by either internal or external enemies. It drives Mrs May to openly promote the worst possible outcome for Brexit Britain: walking away from the EU without a deal. Sometimes realism triumphs over idealism. While she is sticking by her pledge to reduce immigration to the “tens of thousands”, there will be exemptions for skilled workers in “strategic industries”.


Like Tony Blair in 1997, Mrs May is where the majority of voters are: to the left on the economy and to the right on social issues. She plays to this mood, a political judgment that risks society closing in on itself rather than opening up. She is surely sincere in saying she wants to change Britain for the better. But she missed opportunities here. The proposal, for example, to put the burden of paying for social care at home on the pensioner rather than the state undermines the solidarity she rates so highly. The need for care because of, say, dementia, is just the kind of random act of chance the state should insure against.

In favouring meritocracy, she erodes her recognition that success is mutually created. Meritocrats believe their own myths about succeeding on their own. It is why Mrs May has ended up with a wrong-headed obsession with grammar schools. Flourishing happens in complex webs of relationships. The counter to inequality is community, but it is also complexity and cooperation. Simplistic solutions risk entrenching privilege rather than challenging it. Forward Together, says Mrs May, but where to? Nobody knows.

[grunt]

Because how can you possibly disprove something like that? All she would be doing would be making herself vulnerable to a newspaper digging up a story about some nurse who blew all her wages early in the month and so had to visit a foodbank for a handput. Technically, such a nurse would have needed to visit a food bank. But it would habe been as a result of their own ****witteriness, than 'poverty wages' being paid to nurses.Nice. Have you ever thought of standing as a Conservative candidate? You seem to have the necessary skills.

[G B Young]

Maybe the people who were there when you were "out of earshot".

They'd make reliable witnesses.

As for you, you weren't there and didn't hear anything, by your own admission, but you "presume" these horrible anti-English SNP members................

Just forget it.

You've got an agenda.

We know that.

Sorry, you've lost me. What is it that I should 'just forget'? And where did I say those involved were SNP members?

My intention was solely to use the incident as an example of anti-English attitudes that I personally came across during the last referendum campaign. I'm not saying there isn't just as much 'anti-Jock' nonsense spouted down south, just that I think it would be wrong to claim such attitudes don't exist in Scotland. J K Rowling, I recall, was one of the more high profile recipients of abuse after making her opposition to independence very public:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/726759/Author-JK-Rowling-reveals-vile-anti-English-racist-tweets-from-Scottish-nationalists

As for my 'agenda', I have none other than to make my views clear when engaging in what I hope is respectful debate on this forum. I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind, nor indeed expecting to.

[Bristolhibby]

‪I've summarised the manifesto for those short of time:
1. Asset strip the elderly.
2. Snatch meals from primary children.
3. Evade the issue of tax evaders but continue to punish the working poor.
4. Strong and stable platitude/ Corbyn is a danger to national security.
5. Foreigners are bad, as are foxes.

J

[Mon Dieu4]

Sorry, you've lost me. What is it that I should 'just forget'? And where did I say those involved were SNP members?

My intention was solely to use the incident as an example of anti-English attitudes that I personally came across during the last referendum campaign. I'm not saying there isn't just as much 'anti-Jock' nonsense spouted down south, just that I think it would be wrong to claim such attitudes don't exist in Scotland. J K Rowling, I recall, was one of the more high profile recipients of abuse after making her opposition to independence very public:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/726759/Author-JK-Rowling-reveals-vile-anti-English-racist-tweets-from-Scottish-nationalists

As for my 'agenda', I have none other than to make my views clear when engaging in what I hope is respectful debate on this forum. I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind, nor indeed expecting to.

What happened to Rowling was out of order, but we are talking twitter here, you could have just found a cure for cancer and post about it and some people would still call you a ****

[G B Young]

What happened to Rowling was out of order, but we are talking twitter here, you could have just found a cure for cancer and post about it and some people would still call you a ****

Well indeed, which is why I'll never go near Twitter myself. By that token Rowling was probably a little foolhardy to try and take such dafties on, but as you say nobody should be subjected to such cowardly abuse.

[Mon Dieu4]

Well indeed, which is why I'll never go near Twitter myself. By that token Rowling was probably a little foolhardy to try and take such dafties on, but as you say nobody should be subjected to such cowardly abuse.

She should take them on, she has every right to believe in whatever she wants as do we all, the media played their part in this one though, by their own admission it was around 20 people that messaged her, 20 too many but in the grand scheme of things isn't a true reflection on a country or people who support independence

[cabbageandribs1875]

hopefully jk rowling never receives the level of disgusting vile abuse that our first minister Nicola Sturgeon received after congratulating the winners of the 2016 Scottish Cup, albeit it most likely because her Husband supports the 2016 Scottish cup winners, thanks Nicola hen :flag: i'm sure she will be a hibby now (through marriage):greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Nice. Have you ever thought of standing as a Conservative candidate? You seem to have the necessary skills.

No, i haven't thanks, i dont support any party.

[Moulin Yarns]

I was going to put this on the General election voting intention thread but I see it is closed :greengrin

A wee bit of analysis on the Conservative manifesto from the BBC (I know!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39973399

[JimBHibees]

‪I've summarised the manifesto for those short of time:
1. Asset strip the elderly.
2. Snatch meals from primary children.
3. Evade the issue of tax evaders but continue to punish the working poor.
4. Strong and stable platitude/ Corbyn is a danger to national security.
5. Foreigners are bad, as are foxes.

J

Brilliantly accurate. :greengrin

[danhibees1875]

I was going to put this on the General election voting intention thread but I see it is closed :greengrin

A wee bit of analysis on the Conservative manifesto from the BBC (I know!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39973399

The manifesto did seem to be a little bit short of the actual figures that Labour had produced in theirs, a lot more of the "we'll make a success of this and that and do these things well too" without as much detail or ideas.

Introducing means testing for winter allowance, without any indication of what the means actually are.
Reducing taxes for businesses and working families, without an indication of what the new rates and thresholds will be.
Significant reduction to net migration, without an analysis on what the costs to that will be (the prevailing consensus is that a reduction in net migration will come at a financial cost)

There are a few things in there that will cost a fair bit of money - university funds, transport investment, tax reductions, military equipment, schools - with little indication of where the money will be coming from.

I'll caveat all that by saying I skim read the manifesto and I'm open to be proven wrong on any of it if I've missed something obvious!

I'd quite like to see manifestos being accompanied by a reconciliation of what the costs and savings will do for the country, e.g.:

Current (Deficit)/Surplus: (£69bn)
Increased funding on NHS: (£5bn)
Increased funding on Education: (£5bn)
Increase IT and NI: £8bn
Increase Corp tax: £10bn
Projected (Deficit)/Surplus for 17/18: (£61bn)

Obviously it would all be estimates and projections; but it would give a solid insight into exactly what each party was wanting to do, how they were going to do it and what the financial implications would be. It would then also give a base for the governing party to be judged against.

[Moulin Yarns]

The manifesto did seem to be a little bit short of the actual figures that Labour had produced in theirs, a lot more of the "we'll make a success of this and that and do these things well too" without as much detail or ideas.

Introducing means testing for winter allowance, without any indication of what the means actually are.
Reducing taxes for businesses and working families, without an indication of what the new rates and thresholds will be.
Significant reduction to net migration, without an analysis on what the costs to that will be (the prevailing consensus is that a reduction in net migration will come at a financial cost)

There are a few things in there that will cost a fair bit of money - university funds, transport investment, tax reductions, military equipment, schools - with little indication of where the money will be coming from.

I'll caveat all that by saying I skim read the manifesto and I'm open to be proven wrong on any of it if I've missed something obvious!

I'd quite like to see manifestos being accompanied by a reconciliation of what the costs and savings will do for the country, e.g.:

Current (Deficit)/Surplus: (£69bn)
Increased funding on NHS: (£5bn)
Increased funding on Education: (£5bn)
Increase IT and NI: £8bn
Increase Corp tax: £10bn
Projected (Deficit)/Surplus for 17/18: (£61bn)

Obviously it would all be estimates and projections; but it would give a solid insight into exactly what each party was wanting to do, how they were going to do it and what the financial implications would be. It would then also give a base for the governing party to be judged against.


That's exactly where I am as well. It is lots of nice 'wish list' proposals with no details on HOW it will be achieved. A bit like the Union parties were saying about the Independence White Paper if I remember correctly.

Unfortunately our PM is unwilling to actually debate these to enlighten the electorate.

[Geo_1875]

That's exactly where I am as well. It is lots of nice 'wish list' proposals with no details on HOW it will be achieved. A bit like the Union parties were saying about the Independence White Paper if I remember correctly.

Unfortunately our PM is unwilling to actually debate these to enlighten the electorate.

If the Tory Manifesto was a job application they wouldn't get an interview (and probably be sanctioned for not trying hard enough).

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Im shocked. Lots of left leaning posters on here who hate the tories, dont think much of the tory manifesto. I'm really shocked.

[Moulin Yarns]

Im shocked. Lots of left leaning posters on here who hate the tories, dont think much of the tory manifesto. I'm really shocked.


So little substance it doesn't need much thought TBH.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Im shocked. Lots of left leaning posters on here who hate the tories, dont think much of the tory manifesto. I'm really shocked.

I don't think May is the worst of the Tories by any means. By Tory standards she is a moderate and is preferable to any of those on the right of the party. She's going to win, but I think that mans five more years of pain for millions of struggling people, whilst those at the top will do just great once again.

[danhibees1875]

Im shocked. Lots of left leaning posters on here who hate the tories, dont think much of the tory manifesto. I'm really shocked.

What are your thoughts SH?

Do you not think it could have been costed a bit better, and have some details as to what they actually propose to do i.e. how they will means test pensioners and what the cut off will be, or how much they plan to lower income tax or further lower corporation tax, or an idea of where the money will come from to fund the NHS/Education if not through increased tax?

FWIW, as with probably any manifesto, there are of course good pledges in there. For instance:

Half homelessness in this parliament, and eliminate by 2027
Fair debt policy
A national living wage as a % of median wage
The beginnings of looking into corporate pay ratios (although I'm not sure they've actually said much on what they'll do)

[Mon Dieu4]

Some of the things in the regulation of the Internet part of their manifesto is getting a bit 1984

[grunt]

That's exactly where I am as well. It is lots of nice 'wish list' proposals with no details on HOW it will be achieved. A bit like the Union parties were saying about the Independence White Paper if I remember correctly. Unfortunately our PM is unwilling to actually debate these to enlighten the electorate.
"Nice"? Really???

[Moulin Yarns]

"Nice"? Really???

No. That's aimed at the tory apologists.

I have previously been attacked for calling them despicable.

[grunt]

No. That's aimed at the tory apologists.

I have previously been attacked for calling them despicable.I think "nasty" covers it for me.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What are your thoughts SH?

Do you not think it could have been costed a bit better, and have some details as to what they actually propose to do i.e. how they will means test pensioners and what the cut off will be, or how much they plan to lower income tax or further lower corporation tax, or an idea of where the money will come from to fund the NHS/Education if not through increased tax?

FWIW, as with probably any manifesto, there are of course good pledges in there. For instance:

Half homelessness in this parliament, and eliminate by 2027
Fair debt policy
A national living wage as a % of median wage
The beginnings of looking into corporate pay ratios (although I'm not sure they've actually said much on what they'll do)

The funny thing is, im not a tory but i find myself defending them lots on here!

I thought it was quite heavy on prose for a manifesto, which tp be honest put me off a bit (i prefer bullet points!) - bit that may have been partly due to the content, which i agree is 'aspirational' (lots of 'we will' etc) rather than anything which lends itself to itemised list.

Ive said previously, i think its a major change in direction for the tories, and it is now clear the GE was called to free May from relying on her own right wing too much.

Not sure what i think about social care part - clearly something needd done. I applaud them including an unpopular policy in their manifesto, quite unusual bit shows i think that May is quite straight and serious.

Id say overall its not inspiring, or eye catching, it seems a bit like her - dull but pragmatic?

[Hibernia&Alba]

The funny thing is, im not a tory but i find myself defending them lots on here!

I thought it was quite heavy on prose for a manifesto, which tp be honest put me off a bit (i prefer bullet points!) - bit that may have been partly due to the content, which i agree is 'aspirational' (lots of 'we will' etc) rather than anything which lends itself to itemised list.

Ive said previously, i think its a major change in direction for the tories, and it is now clear the GE was called to free May from relying on her own right wing too much.

Not sure what i think about social care part - clearly something needd done. I applaud them including an unpopular policy in their manifesto, quite unusual bit shows i think that May is quite straight and serious.

Id say overall its not inspiring, or eye catching, it seems a bit like her - dull but pragmatic?

Come on now :greengrin

[danhibees1875]

The funny thing is, im not a tory but i find myself defending them lots on here!

I thought it was quite heavy on prose for a manifesto, which tp be honest put me off a bit (i prefer bullet points!) - bit that may have been partly due to the content, which i agree is 'aspirational' (lots of 'we will' etc) rather than anything which lends itself to itemised list.

Ive said previously, i think its a major change in direction for the tories, and it is now clear the GE was called to free May from relying on her own right wing too much.

Not sure what i think about social care part - clearly something needd done. I applaud them including an unpopular policy in their manifesto, quite unusual bit shows i think that May is quite straight and serious.

Id say overall its not inspiring, or eye catching, it seems a bit like her - dull but pragmatic?

Haha I wasn't accusing you of being a Tory. Just curious on your opinion on it since the lefty backlash clearly wasn't to your liking :wink:

Totally agree that it didn't make for easy reading like the labour one did with the collumns, bullet points, and better spacing - at least it was less pages!


Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

[High-On-Hibs]

Scottish Tories now "demanding" that the Scottish Government step in and protect winter fuel payments. Just like their bedroom tax and their rape clause, they expect the Scottish Government to pull funding out of elsewhere to mitigate their own parties policies. :rolleyes:

[Hibrandenburg]

Scottish Tories now "demanding" that the Scottish Government step in and protect winter fuel payments. Just like their bedroom tax and their rape clause, they expect the Scottish Government to pull funding out of elsewhere to mitigate their own parties policies. :rolleyes:

Yep, I'd always suspected that Shouty Ruth likes to have her cake and eat it, that's just the icing on top.

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39968167

So much of the 'scottish' cons manifesto is irrelevant for a general election

[steakbake]

Not sure what i think about social care part - clearly something needd done. I applaud them including an unpopular policy in their manifesto, quite unusual bit shows i think that May is quite straight and serious.


She called the election at a time her party were around 20% ahead in the polls. She is very very unlikely to lose. Her manifesto is uncosted, drastically reduces a number of social protections, ramps up a number of authoritarian measures - like control of the internet, your data and so on. They can put forward the most right wing manifesto knowing they almost certainly won't lose then claim a mandate. Hardly brave and straightforward.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

She called the election at a time her party were around 20% ahead in the polls. She is very very unlikely to lose. Her manifesto is uncosted, drastically reduces a number of social protections, ramps up a number of authoritarian measures - like control of the internet, your data and so on. They can put forward the most right wing manifesto knowing they almost certainly won't lose then claim a mandate. Hardly brave and straightforward.

Authoritarian and right wing? I disagree.

And you can claim a mandate when you win. They wont claim it, it will be theirs if they win.

[Mr Grieves]

Authoritarian and right wing? I disagree.

And you can claim a mandate when you win. They wont claim it, it will be theirs if they win.

Do mandates apply when a majority vote is won in Westminster, and/or do majority votes in Holyrood give a mandate?
Asking for a friend

[High-On-Hibs]

Authoritarian and right wing? I disagree.

Can you explain why you disagree?

[High-On-Hibs]

Do mandates apply when a majority vote is won in Westminster, and/or do majority votes in Holyrood give a mandate?
Asking for a friend

They count at Westminster, but not at Holyrood.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Do mandates apply when a majority vote is won in Westminster, and/or do majority votes in Holyrood give a mandate?
Asking for a friend

There are no formal rules, its about moral assent of the people. If a westminster govt wins a thumping majority, then they have a thumping mandate. A la new labour.

If a party wins a majority at Holyrood they too have a thumping mandate - which is why the whole parliament agreed with thr SNP to have a referendum im 2014, and why the UK govt agreed.

But of coursr holyrood is designed not to have majorities, it is designed to encourage compromise, trade-offs and consensus. And obviously we dont have a majority govt at the moment in holyrood. It is designed to ameliorate that sort of strong govt, as most PR sysyems are.

Does that help your friend?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Can you explain why you disagree?

Because when i read it, i didnt get the sense it was authoritarian. That is one of those words that people throw about just now, and it is starting to lose its meaning. Erdoga n is authoritarian, putin is authoritarian. Theresa May might have many faults, but i dont think she is authoritarian.

And right wing? Well obviously if you are on the extreme left, as many here are, everything is right wing, relative to you.

But abandoning free market orthodoxy, neo-liberalism and rigjt wing libertarianism, in favour of tax rises (possibly) and increasing state involvement in the market are not right wing.

All in my humble opinion of course.

Obviously if you hate the tories, objective analysis is more difficult as hatred isnt really rational, its emotional.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

They count at Westminster, but not at Holyrood.

No, they are just different parliaments designed in different ways.

[Mr Grieves]

There are no formal rules, its about moral assent of the people. If a westminster govt wins a thumping majority, then they have a thumping mandate. A la new labour.

If a party wins a majority at Holyrood they too have a thumping mandate - which is why the whole parliament agreed with thr SNP to have a referendum im 2014, and why the UK govt agreed.

But of coursr holyrood is designed not to have majorities, it is designed to encourage compromise, trade-offs and consensus. And obviously we dont have a majority govt at the moment in holyrood. It is designed to ameliorate that sort of strong govt, as most PR sysyems are.

Does that help your friend?

Nah, they got a majority to vote for something at Holyrood, but that doesn't matter according to Westminster.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Nah, they got a majority to vote for something at Holyrood, but that doesn't matter according to Westminster.

Your friend got back to you quickly...!

Because there is no great consensus, and it id outwith the the Scottish Parliament's competency.

This isnt my view, im guessing its the UK govt view.

No thmuping mandate, no consensus, no public swell of opinion, much easier for the UK gpvt to bat it away as they have done.

They couldnt have done that in 2014 because their mandate was clear. This time its debateable.

[danhibees1875]

I'm a bit confused. Why do the conservatives, and next week Labour, have a second "Scottish" manifesto? That effectively leaves them running as two separate entities - but presumably pool their votes together...

The conservatives want to not have the means testing for social care and to lower taxes on those earning 45k+ in Scotland - these either directly oppose the "rUK/English conservatives" policies or are more detailed about the tax decrease than them.
Other policies on pot holes, road maintenance funds, and homes are all Scottish pledges (I'm just cherry picking from BBC - haven't read the Scottish conservative manifesto). How does this work? What use is an MP at sorting these things? Should these not be for when we vote on MSPs?

[JimBHibees]

I'm a bit confused. Why do the conservatives, and next week Labour, have a second "Scottish" manifesto? That effectively leaves them running as two separate entities - but presumably pool their votes together...

The conservatives want to not have the means testing for social care and to lower taxes on those earning 45k+ in Scotland - these either directly oppose the "rUK/English conservatives" policies or are more detailed about the tax decrease than them.
Other policies on pot holes, road maintenance funds, and homes are all Scottish pledges (I'm just cherry picking from BBC - haven't read the Scottish conservative manifesto). How does this work? What use is an MP at sorting these things? Should these not be for when we vote on MSPs?

More press coverage as simple as that. Ruth will no doubt be pictured on top a tank while Kez will be asked a question about Tories but answer having a pop at SNP in the first sentence.

[Moulin Yarns]

There are no formal rules, its about moral assent of the people. If a westminster govt wins a thumping majority, then they have a thumping mandate. A la new labour.

If a party wins a majority at Holyrood they too have a thumping mandate - which is why the whole parliament agreed with thr SNP to have a referendum im 2014, and why the UK govt agreed.

But of coursr holyrood is designed not to have majorities, it is designed to encourage compromise, trade-offs and consensus. And obviously we dont have a majority govt at the moment in holyrood. It is designed to ameliorate that sort of strong govt, as most PR sysyems are.

Does that help your friend?

No it doesn't


A holyrood majority in favour of a referendum on independence was the outcome of the 2016 Scottish election, but according to teresa that is not a mandate, and you agree with her, so you are evidently wrong.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No it doesn't


A holyrood majority in favour of a referendum on independence was the outcome of the 2016 Scottish election, but according to teresa that is not a mandate, and you agree with her, so you are evidently wrong.

Ha ha, ok then.

[Mr Grieves]

Your friend got back to you quickly...!

Because there is no great consensus, and it id outwith the the Scottish Parliament's competency.

This isnt my view, im guessing its the UK govt view.

No thmuping mandate, no consensus, no public swell of opinion, much easier for the UK gpvt to bat it away as they have done.

They couldnt have done that in 2014 because their mandate was clear. This time its debateable.

The democratically elected Scottish parliament voted in favour or something, there's your mandate. And if we governed based on public opinion, we would have the death penalty...and be out of Eurovision!

[Moulin Yarns]

Because when i read it, i didnt get the sense it was authoritarian. That is one of those words that people throw about just now, and it is starting to lose its meaning. Erdoga n is authoritarian, putin is authoritarian. Theresa May might have many faults, but i dont think she is authoritarian.

And right wing? Well obviously if you are on the extreme left, as many here are, everything is right wing, relative to you.

But abandoning free market orthodoxy, neo-liberalism and rigjt wing libertarianism, in favour of tax rises (possibly) and increasing state involvement in the market are not right wing.

All in my humble opinion of course.

Obviously if you hate the tories, objective analysis is more difficult as hatred isnt really rational, its emotional.

This is something you have repeated on here a fair amount recently, but you really need to qualify it, IMO. Labour, SNP and Green all get referred to as extreme left wing by you, so I take it LibDem is just left of centre in your opinion.

It appears to me that everyone that disagrees with your view is extreme left wing, you also claim to not be a tory voter but you do spend a lot of time defending them and their uncosted manifesto, have you even seen the Scottish Conservative manifesto, most of which is all about devolved powers which are completely irrelevant in the upcoming elections. They are so confused they actually don't know what we are voting for in June.

As for the call for an independence referendum by the majority of the MSPs at Holyrood (you know, often called a mandate :wink: ), what are they afraid off? If they are so confident why not allow one? or maybe they are frit!

[Mr Grieves]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

Back to the tories, I agree that there's some activity on the internet that should be clamped down on, but I'm uncomfortable with some of this.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The democratically elected Scottish parliament voted in favour or something, there's your mandate. And if we governed based on public opinion, we would have the death penalty...and be out of Eurovision!

On something it has no formal power over.

Anyway, this has been done to death many times. Some think thetre is a clear mandate, others dont.

[RyeSloan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

Back to the tories, I agree that there's some activity on the internet that should be clamped down on, but I'm uncomfortable with some of this.

It's a difficult issue and maybe they should get some plaudits for at least trying to address it..

Most people would find it hard to argue with the following statement:

"It should be as unacceptable to bully online as it is in the playground, as difficult to groom a young child on the internet as it is in a community, as hard for children to access violent and degrading pornography online as it is in the high street, and as difficult to commit a crime digitally as it is physically."

The devil of course is in the detail and I agree some of their thoughts on how the above might be achieved are not comfortable reading so I'm definitely not supporting the whole gambit, far from it.

[Hibernia&Alba]

This is something you have repeated on here a fair amount recently, but you really need to qualify it, IMO. Labour, SNP and Green all get referred to as extreme left wing by you, so I take it LibDem is just left of centre in your opinion.

It appears to me that everyone that disagrees with your view is extreme left wing, you also claim to not be a tory voter but you do spend a lot of time defending them and their uncosted manifesto, have you even seen the Scottish Conservative manifesto, most of which is all about devolved powers which are completely irrelevant in the upcoming elections. They are so confused they actually don't know what we are voting for in June.

As for the call for an independence referendum by the majority of the MSPs at Holyrood (you know, often called a mandate :wink: ), what are they afraid off? If they are so confident why not allow one? or maybe they are frit!

It's all relative, GF. The so called centre ground shifts over time: the 'centre' moved greatly to the right during the eighties and nineties: Thatcher said her greatest achievement was New Labour i.e. moving the arguments on to her ground. The political centre in Scotland is to the left of that in England, so that views which would be considered 'extreme left' in High Wycombe are in the mainstream in Glasgow. The Conservative Party is considered extreme right where I live and not representative of the mainstream at all.

[danhibees1875]

More press coverage as simple as that. Ruth will no doubt be pictured on top a tank while Kez will be asked a question about Tories but answer having a pop at SNP in the first sentence.

Seems to be the only plausible reason. :dunno:

[grunt]

They couldnt have done that in 2014 because their mandate was clear. This time its debateable.
By what measure is the mandate less clear now than it was in 2014?

[Speedy]

The manifesto did seem to be a little bit short of the actual figures that Labour had produced in theirs, a lot more of the "we'll make a success of this and that and do these things well too" without as much detail or ideas.

Introducing means testing for winter allowance, without any indication of what the means actually are.
Reducing taxes for businesses and working families, without an indication of what the new rates and thresholds will be.
Significant reduction to net migration, without an analysis on what the costs to that will be (the prevailing consensus is that a reduction in net migration will come at a financial cost)

There are a few things in there that will cost a fair bit of money - university funds, transport investment, tax reductions, military equipment, schools - with little indication of where the money will be coming from.

I'll caveat all that by saying I skim read the manifesto and I'm open to be proven wrong on any of it if I've missed something obvious!

I'd quite like to see manifestos being accompanied by a reconciliation of what the costs and savings will do for the country, e.g.:

Current (Deficit)/Surplus: (£69bn)
Increased funding on NHS: (£5bn)
Increased funding on Education: (£5bn)
Increase IT and NI: £8bn
Increase Corp tax: £10bn
Projected (Deficit)/Surplus for 17/18: (£61bn)

Obviously it would all be estimates and projections; but it would give a solid insight into exactly what each party was wanting to do, how they were going to do it and what the financial implications would be. It would then also give a base for the governing party to be judged against.

Excellent post!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This is something you have repeated on here a fair amount recently, but you really need to qualify it, IMO. Labour, SNP and Green all get referred to as extreme left wing by you, so I take it LibDem is just left of centre in your opinion.

It appears to me that everyone that disagrees with your view is extreme left wing, you also claim to not be a tory voter but you do spend a lot of time defending them and their uncosted manifesto, have you even seen the Scottish Conservative manifesto, most of which is all about devolved powers which are completely irrelevant in the upcoming elections. They are so confused they actually don't know what we are voting for in June.

As for the call for an independence referendum by the majority of the MSPs at Holyrood (you know, often called a mandate :wink: ), what are they afraid off? If they are so confident why not allow one? or maybe they are frit!

I havent refered to the SNP or Lab as extreme left wing, ive referred to some posters on here as extreme left wing, who suplort those parties. The greens, well yeah they are an extreme fringe party.

I dont think the SNP or lab are extreme left wing, although both contain elements of supporters or that persuasion, and both are tacking in that directiob imo. Bit both parties at their best are firmly centreist, amd economically a strong case could be made that the SNP are right of centre economically, or certainly have been.

Of course not everyone that disagrees with me is left wing, bit there are a disproportionately high number of posters on here who are. Relative to that, i must appear quite right wing. But the point is that the consensus oftem reached on here is extreme to our society. Parties win elections from the centre, the snp understand this (how many years of council austerity did they impose via their council tax freeze, a hugely popular policy?).

A snapshot of consensus from regular posters would have us believe that socialism is the dominant position, amd the facts just dont support that.

I didnt read the tory scottish manifesto, for the reasons you outline above - what is the point? Likeaise thougj, the snp manifesto is likely to talk about areas that are devolved to holyrood. Its the ragged edge of devolution unfortunately.

They wont call one because they dont want to have one, you and i can speculate on the reasons, and they would probablu all have an element of truth to them. There is a mandare in holyrood, but it is, self evidently, not am irresistable one, it is not backed by popular opinion and is therefore ignorable.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's all relative, GF. The so called centre ground shifts over time: the 'centre' moved greatly to the right during the eighties and nineties: Thatcher said her greatest achievement was New Labour i.e. moving the arguments on to her ground. The political centre in Scotland is to the left of that in England, so that views which would be considered 'extreme left' in High Wycombe are in the mainstream in Glasgow. The Conservative Party is considered extreme right where I live and not representative of the mainstream at all.

I would suggest glasgow is quite different to other areas of scotland. Its a bit of a myth imo that scotland is some bastion of socialism.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

By what measure is the mandate less clear now than it was in 2014?

About 45% less support in parliament. Less public support, and a cobbled together coalition of pro indy MSPs, coupled with the fact we recently had one, all make it less compelling than last time.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I would suggest glasgow is quite different to other areas of scotland. Its a bit of a myth imo that scotland is some bastion of socialism.

Red Clydeside; the birth of the Labour Party; the domination of left of centre parties for decades? The centre ground in Scotland is social democratic.

[Mon Dieu4]

About 45% less support in parliament. Less public support, and a cobbled together coalition of pro indy MSPs, coupled with the fact we recently had one, all make it less compelling than last time.

A cobbled together coalition, they needed 2 extra votes :faf:

[grunt]

About 45% less support in parliament..To be clear, you're talking about the Scottish parliament? How do you get to 45% less support?

[grunt]

Less public support, ... How do you measure this?


... coupled with the fact we recently had one...What measurable difference does this make?

[steakbake]

Tory lead down to 9 in Yougov tonight. 2mil new registered voters in the past 2 days... is it on?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Tory lead down to 9 in Yougov tonight. 2mil new registered voters in the past 2 days... is it on?

I don't think so mate. After seven years of stringent austerity, the government responsible still has a nine point lead. Ordinarily you would expect the opposition to be ahead by at least that much. Given that polls usually underestimate the Tory vote, as people are said to be reluctant to admit to supporting them, a nine point lead at this stage spells very bad news for Labour, IMHO. I do think it could end up closer than people think: we will need to see the impact of the Tory manifesto pledges in relation to issues like social care and changes to pensions; however, I still can only see a comfortable Tory victory, which, given their record since 2010 is staggering.

[pacoluna]

Why are Scottish tories harping on about voting for them to stop indyref2 in their manifesto when may has said it will not happen regardless of scotgov mandate. Does ruth not trust her master?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

To be clear, you're talking about the Scottish parliament? How do you get to 45% less support?

Im not getting into this, its been done to death here.

Because almost half of the parliament voted against another ref.

I believe ( cpuld be wrong) that there was unanimity last time.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

How do you measure this?

What measurable difference does this make?

The measurable difference is thay enough scots dont feel we need another at the moment, therefore no popular groundswell thay May cpuldnt ignore

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Red Clydeside; the birth of the Labour Party; the domination of left of centre parties for decades? The centre ground in Scotland is social democratic.

Social democratic, yeah id agree with that. That would be Blair, who lots in labour seem to think sold put. New Labour were firnly centreist, as were / are the snp. Thats my point.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why are Scottish tories harping on about voting for them to stop indyref2 in their manifesto when may has said it will not happen regardless of scotgov mandate. Does ruth not trust her master?

To atttact votes of people who do not trust or like NS on this issue.

[marinello59]

Why are Scottish tories harping on about voting for them to stop indyref2 in their manifesto when may has said it will not happen regardless of scotgov mandate. Does ruth not trust her master?

Nicola Sturgeon has said a vote for the SNP is a vote for a second referendum. I have no problem with the Tories saying the opposite. I hope it doesn't sway anybody to vote for them but that's how democracy works.

[Colr]

I don't think so mate. After seven years of stringent austerity, the government responsible still has a nine point lead. Ordinarily you would expect the opposition to be ahead by at least that much. Given that polls usually underestimate the Tory vote, as people are said to be reluctant to admit to supporting them, a nine point lead at this stage spells very bad news for Labour, IMHO. I do think it could end up closer than people think: we will need to see the impact of the Tory manifesto pledges in relation to issues like social care and changes to pensions; however, I still can only see a comfortable Tory victory, which, given their record since 2010 is staggering.

And now they are fairly confident that they will get a majority they are free to behave like the *******s that they actually are. The party of the middle classes making sure that the middle classes can stitch up all the opportunity that exists in this country.

[grunt]

Because almost half of the parliament voted against another ref.
Almost half? As in 48%? Of course, if 48% of people voted against something there's no clear mandate, eh?

[grunt]

The measurable difference is thay enough scots dont feel we need another at the moment, therefore no popular groundswell thay May cpuldnt ignoreThe only way it can be measured is by a vote in Parliament. We had one, and Parliament voted for another referendum. You saying "enough Scots don't feel we need" based on nothing other than your own hopes doesn't count.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Almost half? As in 48%? Of course, if 48% of people voted against something there's no clear mandate, eh?

Im not saying there is no mandate. Im sayimg the mandate is less compelling than it was in 2012-2014. Surely this id self-evident?

That means that there is 48% (or whatever the figure is) less support in parliament than there was. Thats a big slip.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The only way it can be measured is by a vote in Parliament. We had one, and Parliament voted for another referendum. You saying "enough Scots don't feel we need" based on nothing other than your own hopes doesn't count.

My own hopes have nothing to do with it. All im saying is that if the mandate was as unambiguous as you suggest, there would be another vote happening. That there isnt already, and that there probably wont be, amd that public opinion has, so far, not reacted with disgust suggests that your rock solid mandate has enough doubt in it to allow the UK govt to avoid it (so far). That may change, but at the moment, the mandate is, by definition, resistable.

[G B Young]

Im not getting into this, its been done to death here.

Because almost half of the parliament voted against another ref.

I believe ( cpuld be wrong) that there was unanimity last time.

As you say, it's been done to death but yes there was cross-party consensus last time round and a clear public acceptance of the SNP's mandate for a referendum.

Now that the SNP no longer has a majority it was only thanks to the handful of Greens that the vote went their way this time round. Unanimous opposition from the other three main parties and a clear lack of public will for another referendum.

[grunt]

Now that the SNP no longer has a majority it was only thanks to the handful of Greens that the vote went their way this time round. So you're saying that the vote was only won because a majority of MSPs voted for it? Ok, I see how that might work. Parliamentary democracy in action.

[marinello59]

Im not saying there is no mandate. Im sayimg the mandate is less compelling than it was in 2012-2014. Surely this id self-evident?

That means that there is 48% (or whatever the figure is) less support in parliament than there was. Thats a big slip.

It doesn't matter if it is less compelling, a mandate is a mandate.
However Sturgeon will be secretly pleased that there will be a delay before Indyref2. She really doesn't want to have it until she is assured of winning, having May block it just now gives her the time she needs.

[Moulin Yarns]

As you say, it's been done to death but yes there was cross-party consensus last time round and a clear public acceptance of the SNP's mandate for a referendum.

Now that the SNP no longer has a majority it was only thanks to the handful of Greens that the vote went their way this time round. Unanimous opposition from the other three main parties and a clear lack of public will for another referendum.

The make up of the Scottish Parliament to clarify the position.

SNP - 63
Con - 30
Lab - 23
Green - 6
LibDem - 5
Ind - 1

so the first and 4th parties add up to 69
second and third add up to 53, and the 5th and 6th add up to 6, the same as the Greens

where are you getting this "other three main parties"? are you forgetting the Greens are bigger than the LibDems?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It doesn't matter if it is less compelling, a mandate is a mandate.
However Sturgeon will be secretly pleased that there will be a delay before Indyref2. She really doesn't want to have it until she is assured of winning, having May block it just now gives her the time she needs.

I agree on the second part, the first part i dont agree.

[High-On-Hibs]

Nicola Sturgeon has said a vote for the SNP is a vote for a second referendum. I have no problem with the Tories saying the opposite. I hope it doesn't sway anybody to vote for them but that's how democracy works.

No she hasn't. It has already been voted through parliament democratically and will be happening anyway, regardless. Any refusal from the UK Government under any excuse would be effectively declaring civil war.

The tories can say what they want. But they are effectively ignoring the democratic process to suggest that a vote for them now means that no independence referendum will be taken place. It will.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No she hasn't. It has already been voted through parliament democratically and will be happening anyway, regardless. Any refusal from the UK Government under any excuse would be effectively declaring civil war.

The tories can say what they want. But they are effectively ignoring the democratic process to suggest that a vote for them now means that no independence referendum will be taken place. It will.

Civil war??

Are you mental?

[High-On-Hibs]

Civil war??

Are you mental?

If they think they can get away with ignoring the democratic process and people up here will just meekly stand aside and allow that to happen, then it's a serious miscalculation on their part.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If they think they can get away with ignoring the democratic process and people up here will just meekly stand aside and allow that to happen, then it's a serious miscalculation on their part.

Maybe, maybe not, that will become clear in time.

But civil war? Come on, thats nonsense!

(Apologies, for calling you mental, i was just genuinely shocked by your post)

On the democratic process point, people do remember that the scottish parliament has not, and nevet has, had any power over the constitution. So the democratic process is that it needs a vote at Westminster.

There may be a moral or political imperative (back to the whole mandate or no mandate discussion), but there is no democratic imperative.

[RyeSloan]

If they think they can get away with ignoring the democratic process and people up here will just meekly stand aside and allow that to happen, then it's a serious miscalculation on their part.

Jeez this is a circular argument...

The counter to your point is that there was and has been a democratic process...that was a vote to stay in the union based on the largest ever turnout in any election or referendum in the UK's history so who's ignoring what democratic process?

[marinello59]

No she hasn't. It has already been voted through parliament democratically and will be happening anyway, regardless. Any refusal from the UK Government under any excuse would be effectively declaring civil war.

The tories can say what they want. But they are effectively ignoring the democratic process to suggest that a vote for them now means that no independence referendum will be taken place. It will.

She has said that if the SNP gain more votes and seats than the other parties in this election then it strengthens her mandate to call Indyref2. That is saying that a vote for the SNP is a vote for a second Referundum. Is that a problem?

[grunt]

The counter to your point is that there was and has been a democratic process...that was a vote to stay in the union based on the largest ever turnout in any election or referendum in the UK's history so who's ignoring what democratic process?


https://youtu.be/L9EKqQWPjyo

[Pretty Boy]

It's pleasing to see the Tory lead being cut into but it's a case of too little, too late.

A shambolic government that made a gross miscalculation when gambling on a referendum to resolve an internal matter (and the worry of losing a seat or 3 to UKIP) has basically gone unchalleneged for 3 years because of poor leadership from and petty actions within the Labour Party.

I always said Corbyns lasting success and legacy may be to put elements of the left wing thinking back on the agenda for Labour and hopefully they can unearth a more personable and competent leader to carry elements of the manifesto forward with common sense and broad appeal. Theresa May is there to be got at, she's a poor orator and a poor debater. The brexit situation is going to get tough for her and a strong opposition is absolutely vital in the next 5 years.

[Mr Grieves]

Theresa not looking so strong and stable today, another U-turn and clearly rattled when questioned by the press.

[Pretty Boy]

Theresa not looking so strong and stable today, another U-turn and clearly rattled when questioned by the press.

There's no doubt in my mind she should be losing this election. She's easily rattled when pressured (hardly a positive trait for a politician), doesn't speak well, has approved a vague and partially costed manifesto and is leading a party that has treated sections of the population quite savagely in the last 7 years.

A poll at the weekend suggested the Tory lead is down to 9 points, they should be at least 9 points behind given their record. If I were Labour I'd be ensuring Corbyn is briefed to within an inch of his life for his interviews with Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman (alongside May) then if he performs well I'd get him in the debate on 31st May and ramp up the pressure on May to either u turn (again) or risk him performing well without her. That would set it up nicely for the Question Time special.

May looks anything but strong and stable at the moment. She looks rattled, under pressure, weak and prone to flip flopping. I'd love nothing more than for Corbyn to prove me wrong but he has to really want to win and has to step up his game. The Tories are there for the taking.

[JeMeSouviens]

Tory councillor in Croydon resigns after being exposed as a former IRA volunteer. Blimey, it's all happening today!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3543467/Tory-councillor-quits-cabinet-after-former-membership-of-IRA-disclosed.html

Edit: an old story it turns out, but still ...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Tory councillor in Croydon resigns after being exposed as a former IRA volunteer. Blimey, it's all happening today!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3543467/Tory-councillor-quits-cabinet-after-former-membership-of-IRA-disclosed.html

That is an unexpected turn??

On the plus side, he should know corbyn and mcdonnell quite well.... !

[Hibernia&Alba]

Oh dear God, this is hard to watch :shocked:. So inadequate.



https://youtu.be/CWw5fGb9wsU

[GlesgaeHibby]

Oh dear God, this is hard to watch :shocked:. So inadequate.



https://youtu.be/CWw5fGb9wsU


Wow. Total car crash. "Our Economic Record isn't in dispute". Correct, it's abysmal. Deficit gone by 2015, goalposts moved and moved and now 2025!

[JeMeSouviens]

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

[Moulin Yarns]

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

I saw that last night, very well put together IMO.

[Moulin Yarns]

Oh dear God, this is hard to watch :shocked:. So inadequate.



https://youtu.be/CWw5fGb9wsU

The anchor chain around her neck, is it what makes her strong and stable?

All it did was bring this image to my mind

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/07/63/13/076313fac89483e61f7f3752c1316c1a.jpg

[Mr Grieves]

https://www.channel4.com/news/fallon-no-correlation-between-foreign-policy-and-this-appalling-act-of-terrorism

Fallon having a 'mare on channel 4 news last night.

[Hibrandenburg]

https://www.channel4.com/news/fallon-no-correlation-between-foreign-policy-and-this-appalling-act-of-terrorism

Fallon having a 'mare on channel 4 news last night.

Oh jeez! That made me cringe. There's a German word without English equivalent that describes how I felt watching that "Fremdschämen".

[Hibernia&Alba]

https://www.channel4.com/news/fallon-no-correlation-between-foreign-policy-and-this-appalling-act-of-terrorism

Fallon having a 'mare on channel 4 news last night.

Forced to eat his own words and even says the war in Iraq is working! This is what happens when politicians try to score cheap party political points at the expense of serious analysis.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15313190.SNP_big_donor_transfers_support_to_the_Co nservatives/

I didn't see that one coming.

[ronaldo7]

I wasn't sure whether to put this on the "It's going to get Dirty thread", but opted for the TORIES instead.:wink:

https://t.co/PXnMF0sBGX

[Colr]

I wasn't sure whether to put this on the "It's going to get Dirty thread", but opted for the TORIES instead.:wink:

https://t.co/PXnMF0sBGX

Its just targeted advertising FFS! If Labour are not up to speed they need to get moving.

[snooky]

Its just targeted advertising FFS! If Labour are not up to speed they need to get moving.

That's okay then? :dunno:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's okay then? :dunno:

I think there is a legitimate debate about regulation of social media, but the whole point in it is targeted marketing, when peolle sign up, they are agreeing to be a product for facebook etc to flog to anyone.

[grunt]

Its just targeted advertising FFS! If Labour are not up to speed they need to get moving.


That's okay then? :dunno:I think the point here is that it's political advertising during an election campaign. There's laws about how much parties can spend and it seems unlikely that this particular spend is being reported and accounted for.

[ronaldo7]

I think the point here is that it's political advertising during an election campaign. There's laws about how much parties can spend and it seems unlikely that this particular spend is being reported and accounted for.

:agree:

If it costs, it should be linked to each party, and totalled within the spending limits.

[ronaldo7]

I never saw the Victoria Derbyshire programme, however, a slew of twitter posts regarding the disabled lady taking to task, the Tory, Dominic Rabb, made it to my timeline.

Some of what she said here.

You’re all talking about numbers and money, and there is an ocean of suffering under that. Oxford University just released research showing that in 2015 in England and Wales alone there were 30,000 excess deaths caused by cuts to health and social care,"

https://t.co/qK0iABT8nB

People fleeing England for their lives.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/fleeing-england-for-their-lives/

[ronaldo7]

Captain SKA ripping Theresa. The song's been banned by many radio stations, although it's up to number 3 on the Apple iTunes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8

[Moulin Yarns]

Captain SKA ripping Theresa. The song's been banned by many radio stations, although it's up to number 3 on the Apple iTunes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8

Yep. Saw that and can't get it out of my head (Kylie)

[Smartie]

Yep. Saw that and can't get it out of my head (Kylie)

On the subject of Kylie, I see she has released a catchy wee number for the Dundee United fans called "do the no promotion".

[High-On-Hibs]

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18740118_228552720973468_5703721753125504331_n.jpg ?oh=adcc166479a922b16a82849a6c248fb8&oe=59AE439C

:cb
.

[High-On-Hibs]

https://www.facebook.com/owenjones84/videos/1366446033448905/

:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Boris having another mare in front of the cameras.:greengrin

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsTonight/status/869258725600632832

[Moulin Yarns]

SNP manifesto launch just along the road from my place of work

https://twitter.com/lumi_1984/status/869480862869598210

[G B Young]

SNP manifesto launch just along the road from my place of work

https://twitter.com/lumi_1984/status/869480862869598210

Slightly surreal scenes outside:

Demonstrators brave rain outside SNP manifesto launchBBC assistant political editor tweets:


Posted at10:13
View image on Twitter (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2 Felection-2017-40091449)https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBEFAl4WsAA6N-o.jpg:small (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280/photo/1)




Follow (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1456836941/me_and_dog_normal.jpgnorman smith
✔@BBCNormanS (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS)

How times have changed. Tory protest outside @theSNP (https://twitter.com/theSNP) manifesto launch #ge17 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ge17?src=hash)
10:12 AM - 30 May 2017 (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280)



(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=869481724346081280)

7272 Retweets (https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=869481724346081280)

8383 likes (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=869481724346081280)

[Moulin Yarns]

Slightly surreal scenes outside:

Demonstrators brave rain outside SNP manifesto launch

BBC assistant political editor tweets:


Posted at10:13
View image on Twitter (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2 Felection-2017-40091449)https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBEFAl4WsAA6N-o.jpg:small (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280/photo/1)



Follow (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1456836941/me_and_dog_normal.jpgnorman smith
✔@BBCNormanS (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS)

How times have changed. Tory protest outside @theSNP (https://twitter.com/theSNP) manifesto launch #ge17 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ge17?src=hash)
10:12 AM - 30 May 2017 (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280)



(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=869481724346081280)

7272 Retweets (https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=869481724346081280)

8383 likes (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=869481724346081280)












Please note, every Tory banner is "Scottish Conservatives to stop Indyref2" or "Ian Duncan to stop Indyref2"


How about telling us what you WILL do, not what you won't!

[High-On-Hibs]

Posted at10:13

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBEFAl4WsAA6N-o.jpg:small (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280/photo/1)




Wow! The entire rent a crowd must be there!

You have us worried now.
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/384920/slide_384920_4604616_free.jpg

[High-On-Hibs]

How about telling us what you WILL do, not what you won't!

They don't want to talk about what they WILL do. They're just hoping people won't bother to look and will be blinded by the subject of independence. A lot of OAPs in that image. A shame they have absolutely no idea what the tories actually have in store for them.

[Mr Grieves]

Slightly surreal scenes outside:

Demonstrators brave rain outside SNP manifesto launchBBC assistant political editor tweets:


Posted at10:13
View image on Twitter (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2 Felection-2017-40091449)https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBEFAl4WsAA6N-o.jpg:small (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280/photo/1)




Follow (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1456836941/me_and_dog_normal.jpgnorman smith
✔@BBCNormanS (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS)

How times have changed. Tory protest outside @theSNP (https://twitter.com/theSNP) manifesto launch #ge17 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ge17?src=hash)
10:12 AM - 30 May 2017 (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/869481724346081280)



(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?in_reply_to=869481724346081280)

7272 Retweets (https://twitter.com/intent/retweet?tweet_id=869481724346081280)

8383 likes (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=869481724346081280)












Tory MSP Murdo Fraser is one of the protesters

[Moulin Yarns]

Just back after a wander at lunch time. Saw both Pete Wishart and Roseanna Cunningham heading away from the concert hall

[Colr]

Anyone else seen the ubiquitous Tory ads on youtube? Quite vomit inducing and not very well targeted as they have the effect of pissing me off greatly when I'm trying to watch Glasto highlights.