General election 2019

[cabbageandribs1875]

Reported:

Possible misogynist liker.


:hilarious stoap it

[Moulin Yarns]

Please be true.

I don't know if it's true, you'll have to wait to see the papers like everyone else.

[stoneyburn hibs]

:hilarious stoap it

🤣

[stoneyburn hibs]

I don't know if it's true, you'll have to wait to see the papers like everyone else.

Doubt it, but live in hope.

With the mad goings on of the last 3 years mibbies...

[SHODAN]

That the Prime Minister would try to shut Holyrood is utterly terrifying and entirely believable. I don't see how this would end well for us at all.

[stoneyburn hibs]

That the Prime Minister would try to shut Holyrood is utterly terrifying and entirely believable. I don't see how this would end well for us at all.

Try and look a wee bit further.

Plate handing it on.

[cabbageandribs1875]

That the Prime Minister would try to shut Holyrood is utterly terrifying and entirely believable. I don't see how this would end well for us at all.

copied from a fb page


The question which arises, as a direct result of the Tory defeat in Scotland and their victory in England, is not the one most independence campaigners are asking online.
Its not a question of what will Scots do now, to get legal agreement from Westminster, over the timing of the inevitable indyref.
Instead, the REAL question (at least in my own mind) is; To what lengths will Johnson's government go, to stop Scots voting on independence a second time?
Will they create a New act of union, which abolishes the nation of Scotland and turns it into region? Will Johnson legislate to end all devolution and close three Celtic nations parliaments?
It has been pointed out by learned legal minds, that our Scots' perception of Scotland as a NATION, has never been tested in court.
That if Prime Minister tried to close Holyrood, or dissempower it's legislation, then the First Minister and her experienced and formidable barrister, Joanna Cherry, would raise a class action on behalf of 5.5 million Scots.
Remember that Cherry and her associate, smashed Johnson's attempted 5 week closure of Parliament, by raising a Scots Court of Session case.
Not only that, but the English, so called "Supreme" Court, was forced to uphold the Scots challenge, (believe it or not) due to Act of union 1707, which states clearly that English and Scots law are equal. Neither judiciary can be challenged in the other's territory.
Which means, that legally speaking, ifJohnson attempted to suspend, close or de-power Holyrood, he personally would be sued by the entire nation of Scotland, for breaching UN articles which guarantee the right of nations to self determination.
So the question now is, what will the British Establishment make the new Prime Minister try, to prevent Scotland from exercising it's United Nations right, to HOLD a legal referendum, the result of which will be acknowledged by all other nations. (Even if England refuses to).
Because this isn't about permission. This is about legally establishing the identity of Scotland as a country, then gaining the agreement of all other democratic nations, to demand England recognise the result.
If Johnson wants trade deals, he MUST prove that Little old England is a democracy, and his precious union's rules, are followed, when one signatory (Scotland) decides to walk away.

[Glory Lurker]

Keep your eyes open for the Sunday papers tomorrow. There is a rumour that one will have a front page headline that the current prime minister will move to repeal the Scotland Act.

The chap's a rocket, but I can't see him doing something as daft as that. I'll skinny dip in Loch Ness, etc.

[Hibernia&Alba]

The chap's a rocket, but I can't see him doing something as daft as that. I'll skinny dip in Loch Ness, etc.

Agreed. Not even Bozo would that reckless.

[CloudSquall]

David Coburn, ex UKIP weirdo who called Humza Yousaf " Abu Hamza" , has joined the Conservatives.

David Coburn, Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, One Nation Conservatism alright...

[Cataplana]

And so it begins. This from a gynaecologist on twitter.


Okay turkeys, your Christmas vote is here!
Damian Green, Tory MP, on @lbc. “We all need to start paying towards an insurance type system to pay for our care.”

We healthcare types, who kept banging on, would rather not be right on this. We tried repeatedly to warn you.
#RIPNHS😢

What do you mean, it begins? It was at the centre of Labours campaign.

[Cataplana]

Keep your eyes open for the Sunday papers tomorrow. There is a rumour that one will have a front page headline that the current prime minister will move to repeal the Scotland Act.

Totally in line with the gunboat diplomacy he and his transatlantic pal favour.

[RyeSloan]

Corbyn is brilliant.

Claiming today he won the argument and his manifesto will go down in history as historically important.

Well that’s certainly one way of describing a once in a hundred years defeat...

[G B Young]

Sorry but when did he "strike the right tone"?

He's full of bull**** and soundbites and anybody who can't see that is a poor judge of character."One nation conservatism", just what the **** does that mean?

He's a self serving, narcissistic, waste of skin and I am utterly bemused as to why the UK public would want this excuse for a human being in No. 10.

He's claiming he'll get "Brexit Done" but hasn't a clue as to what that entails and how difficult it's going to be post 31st January to clear the debris (lol) and as for Tory claims that they are "the party of the working man" I really just don't know where to start.

This is someone brought to power on the back of demands by racists and bigots for a return to the days of England for Englishman. Remove Brexit and put him up against any half decent moderate Labour Party and he'd be completely ****ed.

He's in power by default and for you not to see how damaging this man is, bewilders me.

I'm not a religious man but genuinely don't know what to do other than pray for the weak and the needy in our society with this self serving, narcissistic, waste of skin heading up our country.

How we've got to a situation with this cock on one side of the Atlantic and Trump on the other is nothing short of incredible. I genuinely fear for my children and what the future holds for them.

I thought it struck the right tone because it was conciliatory, not triumphalist, and focused on thanking those who had made his victory possible - those many thousands of working class voters across swathes of once rock-solid Labour constituencies. That these voters, many of them from mining families for whom voting Labour was a birthright, felt they had more in common with Boris Johnson than Jeremy Corbyn is a damning indictment on the latter and his cosy Islington set with their romanticised view of the working class.

To follow that up by making his first port of call the north of England was smart thinking by Johnson and it seems clear enough to me that his reference to one-nation Conservatism means he plans to broaden his appeal to all sectors of society.

Again, just my opinion. I'm not expecting you to agree.

[Smartie]

I actually thought it was a very good article by Corbyn and it made many good points.

As expected, he reaches a totally incorrect conclusion in claiming to have won any argument, but he makes many good points nonetheless.

[danhibees1875]

With the NHS being in the hands of the Scottish government will it be protected against any such trade deals with the US/a switch to further privatised care?

I wondered about this too. I thought it would be protected. However, my understanding is that if we do not negotiate a trade deal with the EU in time for leaving then we end up in the default position of trading under WTO rules. This exposes the English and Scottish NHS as under those rules if you have previously contracted with private companies to deliver healthcare (as both have) then the system as a whole has to be open to bids.

I could be wrong or have misinterpreted it, but that's from this article with Harry Burns, the former chief medical officer:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18039598.trump-trade-deal-nhs-risks-scotlands-health-service-real---overblown/

[Cataplana]

That the Prime Minister would try to shut Holyrood is utterly terrifying and entirely believable. I don't see how this would end well for us at all.

The problem is the Scots will just lie down and take it. He knows what a supine, forelock tugging race we really are. All noise when nothing will come of it, but "a big boy did and ran away", the minute we have a chance to fight back.

Experts at pushing from the back.

Edit: sorry, I just can't get the image of Paul's wife telling him to shut up and eat his cereal out of my head.

[Cataplana]

I thought it struck the right tone because it was conciliatory, not triumphalist, and focused on thanking those who had made his victory possible - those many thousands of working class voters across swathes of once rock-solid Labour constituencies. That these voters, many of them from mining families for whom voting Labour was a birthright, felt they had more in common with Boris Johnson than Jeremy Corbyn is a damning indictment on the latter and his cosy Islington set with their romanticised view of the working class.

To follow that up by making his first port of call the north of England was smart thinking by Johnson and it seems clear enough to me that his reference to one-nation Conservatism means he plans to broaden his appeal to all sectors of society.

Again, just my opinion. I'm not expecting you to agree.

It's as much a damning indictment on them, and their knowledge of history as anything else. They fell for a snake oil salesman selling them a universal panacea for all their perceived ailments, it's very hard to feel sorry for people who are that stupid they pay money for a cure to an illness that doesn't exist.

They are a disgrace to the previous generations who had the gumption to organise and demand better. They do not seem to have the imagination to ask for more (or even worse they don't realise how well off they actually are.) In this new version of the politics of envy the only thing they can aim for is that everyone else is worse off.

The cosy Islington set thing is bollocks, and Corbyn's team and policies are a million miles away from the days of Ed Milliband eating a bacon roll, or Peter Mandelson mistaking mushy peas for guacamole.

Nice spin, and not too much gloating in your post. It does come across as patronising and smug all the same.

[Just Alf]

With regards to the NHS in Scotland, even if it was 100% protected by the Scottish Government initially, if in rUK the NHS becomes partially funded by other avenues then this reduces the amount paid by the government directly to the NHS, as a result the payment to Scotland is proportionally reduced. The Scottish Government then either has to follow suit allowing other finance routes, take money from other areas or run the system on the reduced amount.

[RyeSloan]

It's as much a damning indictment on them, and their knowledge of history as anything else. They fell for a snake oil salesman selling them a universal panacea for all their perceived ailments, it's very hard to feel sorry for people who are that stupid they pay money for a cure to an illness that doesn't exist.

They are a disgrace to the previous generations who had the gumption to organise and demand better. They do not seem to have the imagination to ask for more (or even worse they don't realise how well off they actually are.) In this new version of the politics of envy the only thing they can aim for is that everyone else is worse off.

The cosy Islington set thing is bollocks, and Corbyn's team and policies are a million miles away from the days of Ed Milliband eating a bacon roll, or Peter Mandelson mistaking mushy peas for guacamole.

Nice spin, and not too much gloating in your post. It does come across as patronising and smug all the same.

Do you ever stop for a second and wonder if actually those that have a different opinion from you might occasionally be correct and you wrong. Or at the very least the answer might be somewhere in the middle?

In your last two posts you have denigrated Scotland as a whole as being supine and forelock tugging (off the back of a made up response to a totally made up story) and called anyone who voted for Boris in the north of England as stupid and a disgrace.

The you have the audacity to call other posters as patronising and smug!

[Ozyhibby]

It's as much a damning indictment on them, and their knowledge of history as anything else. They fell for a snake oil salesman selling them a universal panacea for all their perceived ailments, it's very hard to feel sorry for people who are that stupid they pay money for a cure to an illness that doesn't exist.

They are a disgrace to the previous generations who had the gumption to organise and demand better. They do not seem to have the imagination to ask for more (or even worse they don't realise how well off they actually are.) In this new version of the politics of envy the only thing they can aim for is that everyone else is worse off.

The cosy Islington set thing is bollocks, and Corbyn's team and policies are a million miles away from the days of Ed Milliband eating a bacon roll, or Peter Mandelson mistaking mushy peas for guacamole.

Nice spin, and not too much gloating in your post. It does come across as patronising and smug all the same.

And if Labour characterise the voters as stupid as you have just done then it’s a long way back for them.
Fact is Corbyn was asking voters who lived nowhere near a railway station and never used trains to worry about who owned the trains.
He wanted to spend billions on broadband delivery when 5g will be rolled out privately in a couple of years and it’s faster.
It was a manifesto that has already been rejected over and over again by the British public and yet they now say it’s the public who are stupid for rejecting it when they bring it forward again.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

With regards to the NHS in Scotland, even if it was 100% protected by the Scottish Government initially, if in rUK the NHS becomes partially funded by other avenues then this reduces the amount paid by the government directly to the NHS, as a result the payment to Scotland is proportionally reduced. The Scottish Government then either has to follow suit allowing other finance routes, take money from other areas or run the system on the reduced amount.The target for the US, and one of the critical concerns for the NHS, is the control exercised by the NHS over drug pricing. The US want us to cede that control in exchange for a trade deal, in which case drug prices escalate and the NHS suddenly costs a whole lot more.

[Just Alf]

The target for the US, and one of the critical concerns for the NHS, is the control exercised by the NHS over drug pricing. The US want us to cede that control in exchange for a trade deal, in which case drug prices escalate and the NHS suddenly costs a whole lot more.

Yup agreed, there would be no protection for that right enough.
I was thinking more of the tweet mentioned earlier where it mentioned the introduction of a health insurance system.

[grunt]

Yup agreed, there would be no protection for that right enough.
I was thinking more of the tweet mentioned earlier where it mentioned the introduction of a health insurance system.Sorry didn't see that. yes, I expect there are many pressures on our Health Service.

[lapsedhibee]

The target for the US, and one of the critical concerns for the NHS, is the control exercised by the NHS over drug pricing. The US want us to cede that control in exchange for a trade deal, in which case drug prices escalate and the NHS suddenly costs a whole lot more.
:agree: Which is where the need for an additional private insurance scheme comes in.

Treasury minister on Marr today failing to rule out any implications of the manifesto Page 48 as well. Lot of smiling but no soft tone coming out of him. Big changes of all sorts afoot.

[Hibernia&Alba]

And if Labour characterise the voters as stupid as you have just done then it’s a long way back for them.
Fact is Corbyn was asking voters who lived nowhere near a railway station and never used trains to worry about who owned the trains.
He wanted to spend billions on broadband delivery when 5g will be rolled out privately in a couple of years and it’s faster.
It was a manifesto that has already been rejected over and over again by the British public and yet they now say it’s the public who are stupid for rejecting it when they bring it forward again.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But many of the policies were very popular. Brexit and Corbyn personally were far more problematic than the manifesto. Also, who run the trains does matter. The French, German and Italian governments, who run their own public railways, are now running part of our system, taking the profits back their countries whilst receiving a two billion pound subsidy each year from the UK. It's madness. Our public transport system and infrastructure are nowhere near the standard of those countries, which invest properly.

[Just_Jimmy]

But many of the policies were very popular. Brexit and Corbyn personally were far more problematic than the manifesto. Also, who run the trains does matter. The French, German and Italian governments, who run their own public railways, are now running part of our system, taking the profits back their countries whilst receiving a two billion pound subsidy each year from the UK. It's madness. Our public transport system and infrastructure are nowhere near the standard of those countries, which invest properly.That's true and it's an issue without question. However there are so many in this country that have other problems in their lives, they don't even consider or care about who runs trains. More so, to convince them to care the best strategy is undoubtedly to just call them stupid and uneducated.

Cos that's worked so well before.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[G B Young]

It's as much a damning indictment on them, and their knowledge of history as anything else. They fell for a snake oil salesman selling them a universal panacea for all their perceived ailments, it's very hard to feel sorry for people who are that stupid they pay money for a cure to an illness that doesn't exist.

They are a disgrace to the previous generations who had the gumption to organise and demand better. They do not seem to have the imagination to ask for more (or even worse they don't realise how well off they actually are.) In this new version of the politics of envy the only thing they can aim for is that everyone else is worse off.

The cosy Islington set thing is bollocks, and Corbyn's team and policies are a million miles away from the days of Ed Milliband eating a bacon roll, or Peter Mandelson mistaking mushy peas for guacamole.

Nice spin, and not too much gloating in your post. It does come across as patronising and smug all the same.

That's quite a generalisation about the intelligence of a vast number of people whose right to choose the way they vote is as valid as yours or mine. I've seen a lot of these 'stupid' people interviewed both before and after the election and their rationale for abandoning Labour struck me as carefully thought out and wholly understandable.

If anyone can be accused of lacking insight here it's the Labour leadership for so spectacularly failing to understand their core voters. This election was as much a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership as it was about Brexit yet even now Corbyn and his cronies fail to acknowledge that. Corbyn's claims to have 'won' the arguments and that the Labour manifesto will go down in history despite overseeing his party's worst result in nearly a century would be laughable if they weren't so alarmingly misguided.

If the Labour strategy occupies any place in history it will be as a guide to how not to run an election campaign.

[Future17]

I thought it struck the right tone because it was conciliatory, not triumphalist, and focused on thanking those who had made his victory possible - those many thousands of working class voters across swathes of once rock-solid Labour constituencies. That these voters, many of them from mining families for whom voting Labour was a birthright, felt they had more in common with Boris Johnson than Jeremy Corbyn is a damning indictment on the latter and his cosy Islington set with their romanticised view of the working class.

To follow that up by making his first port of call the north of England was smart thinking by Johnson and it seems clear enough to me that his reference to one-nation Conservatism means he plans to broaden his appeal to all sectors of society.

Again, just my opinion. I'm not expecting you to agree.

I actually agree with you about the speech and I'll admit it took me a bit by surprise; however, I don't believe he can escape his reputation amongst many as fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy.

Whether that reputation spreads amongst those who voted for him this time, only time will tell.

[grunt]

I actually agree with you about the speech and I'll admit it took me a bit by surprise; however, I don't believe he can escape his reputation amongst many as fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy. Whether that reputation spreads amongst those who voted for him this time, only time will tell.
Every triumphant political leader makes their first speech outside Number 10 about reconciliation. And then they go inside the door and do the complete opposite. We need to pay attention to what Johnson does, not what he says. He is a liar.

[JeMeSouviens]

Every triumphant political leader makes their first speech outside Number 10 about reconciliation. And then they go inside the door and do the complete opposite. We need to pay attention to what Johnson does, not what he says. He is a liar.

Thatcher quoting Francis of Assisi the obvious one, “where there is discord may we bring harmony”. Incredible she had the nerve in hindsight.

[RyeSloan]

But many of the policies were very popular. Brexit and Corbyn personally were far more problematic than the manifesto. Also, who run the trains does matter. The French, German and Italian governments, who run their own public railways, are now running part of our system, taking the profits back their countries whilst receiving a two billion pound subsidy each year from the UK. It's madness. Our public transport system and infrastructure are nowhere near the standard of those countries, which invest properly.

Yet Deutcheban is woefully short of cash and is getting pilloried for its high costs and failure to manage of its Stuttgart 21 project. It’s now almost €20m in debt and still running at a huge loss. And that’s with government subsidies of over €13bn a year! Those fabled profits from Arriva will also no longer be heading there as they are having to seek their stake.

Italy also has a private intercity service that’s cheaper than the state run alternative and is well regarded....again the rail network in Italy attracts large subsides of over €8bn.

And who can forget the result of the French system which gave its workers huge pensions from an early age, a perk so expensive that despite huge Union pressure the French government had no option but to face them down. The same french government that had to write off €36bn of SNCF’s €47bn of debt and has removed its monopoly on passenger services from 2020 in a desperate attempt to force the hugely loss making enterprise to be more efficient.


So looking at some of those numbers you could argue that full renationalisation would be the madness, as would taking your sweeping statement that these countries do it ‘properly’ at face value.

[allmodcons]

I thought it struck the right tone because it was conciliatory, not triumphalist, and focused on thanking those who had made his victory possible - those many thousands of working class voters across swathes of once rock-solid Labour constituencies. That these voters, many of them from mining families for whom voting Labour was a birthright, felt they had more in common with Boris Johnson than Jeremy Corbyn is a damning indictment on the latter and his cosy Islington set with their romanticised view of the working class.

To follow that up by making his first port of call the north of England was smart thinking by Johnson and it seems clear enough to me that his reference to one-nation Conservatism means he plans to broaden his appeal to all sectors of society.

Again, just my opinion. I'm not expecting you to agree.

Given where we live and the outcome of the election the elephant in the room is?

One-nation Conservatism is a slogan, nothing more nothing less, Boris Johnston does not give a flying **** about all sectors of society (e.g - piccaninnies with watermelon smiles, pillar boxes, tank topped bum boys, etc, etc). This is a man who blamed single mothers for "producing a generation of ill-raised ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children" and, getting back to the elephant in the room (i.e. - Scotland) said "government by a Scot was inconceivable".

He's a complete ****ing charlatan.

[PeeJay]

Yet Deutcheban is woefully short of cash and is getting pilloried for its high costs and failure to manage of its Stuttgart 21 project. It’s now almost €20m in debt and still running at a huge loss. And that’s with government subsidies of over €13bn a year! Those fabled profits from Arriva will also no longer be heading there as they are having to seek their stake.



If only ... :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Every triumphant political leader makes their first speech outside Number 10 about reconciliation. And then they go inside the door and do the complete opposite. We need to pay attention to what Johnson does, not what he says. He is a liar.

Exactly correct.

Theresa May's speech was full of hope, but she failed to deliver any of it.

[RyeSloan]

If only ... :greengrin

Aha good spot, getting my millions and billions mixed up there!

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191215/6dad2608f2fa5e5b28a79834d7dff3c4.jpg

Nationalised railways look expensive for the taxpayer. What part of the NHS should we cut for this socialist pipe dream?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Yet Deutcheban is woefully short of cash and is getting pilloried for its high costs and failure to manage of its Stuttgart 21 project. It’s now almost €20m in debt and still running at a huge loss. And that’s with government subsidies of over €13bn a year! Those fabled profits from Arriva will also no longer be heading there as they are having to seek their stake.

Italy also has a private intercity service that’s cheaper than the state run alternative and is well regarded....again the rail network in Italy attracts large subsides of over €8bn.

And who can forget the result of the French system which gave its workers huge pensions from an early age, a perk so expensive that despite huge Union pressure the French government had no option but to face them down. The same french government that had to write off €36bn of SNCF’s €47bn of debt and has removed its monopoly on passenger services from 2020 in a desperate attempt to force the hugely loss making enterprise to be more efficient.


So looking at some of those numbers you could argue that full renationalisation would be the madness, as would taking your sweeping statement that these countries do it ‘properly’ at face value.

Totally disagree. What is madness is paying foreign governments to run our trains and with a two billion subsidy to boot; money which should be going back to our treasury. The state owned Italian railway took over our west coast main line just last week. Why? Not for the good of their health, but because there is money to be made; money which should be coming back to the UK treasury, not the Italian one. It's madness to have dozens of companies, all with their own bureaucracies running public services - and it is a public service, not a normal business. Millions of people rely on them everyday and have no option but use them for work etc. Private companies will shut unprofitable routes unless they get a government subsidy, so why are they in the private sector in those circumstances? Ideological dogmatism from free marketeers, despite it being unsound economically and carrying negative social consequences. Our railways are a disgrace.

And anyone who has used trains in Europe will know how vastly superior their systems are, so it isn't a sweeping generalisation to say they invest properly. The UK, on the other hand, particularly has been seriously underfunded for forty years. Why the hell are UK taxpayers now giving a subsidy so private investors and foreign governments can make a profit?

This applies to other vital public services, such as buses, water, gas, electricity. Most importantly, it's vital to have a publicly owned banking sysyem, but I've done a thread on that before!

[Hibernia&Alba]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191215/6dad2608f2fa5e5b28a79834d7dff3c4.jpg

Nationalised railways look expensive for the taxpayer. What part of the NHS should we cut for this socialist pipe dream?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Straw man argument. You don't have to choose between infrastructure and the NHS. Just the opposite - profitably run, that money would return to the treasury to spend on things like the NHS, rather than going to shareholders and foreign governments. There they can be profitably run, otherwise the private sector wouldn't get involved!

Bring on the socialism!

[Ozyhibby]

Totally disagree. What is madness is paying foreign governments to run our trains and with a two billion subsidy to boot; money which should be going back to our treasury. The state owned Italian railway took over our west coast main line just last week. Why? Not for the good of their health, but because there is money to be made; money which should be coming back to the UK treasury, not the Italian one. It's madness to have dozens of companies, all with their own bureaucracies running public services - and it is a public service, not a normal business. Millions of people rely on them everyday and have no option but use them for work etc. Private companies will shut unprofitable routes unless they get a government subsidy, so why are they in the private sector in those circumstances? Ideological dogmatism from free marketeers, despite it being unsound economically and carrying negative social consequences. Our railways are a disgrace.

And anyone who has used trains in Europe will know how vastly superior their systems are, so it isn't a sweeping generalisation to say they invest properly. The UK, on the other hand, particularly has been seriously underfunded for forty years. Why the hell are UK taxpayers now giving a subsidy so private investors and foreign governments can make a profit?

This applies to other vital public services, such as buses, water, gas, electricity. Most importantly, it's vital to have a publicly owned banking sysyem, but I've done a thread on that before!

The railways were a lot worse here when they were nationalised. The old British Rail was dreadful.
There are plenty private companies losing money running our railways as well and our railways are not as heavily subsidised as the ones you champion.
Anyway, Thursday showed that the public has no appetite whatsoever for the govt running railways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Straw man argument. You don't have to choose between infrastructure and the NHS. Just the opposite - profitably run, that money would return to the treasury to spend on things like the NHS, rather than going to shareholders and foreign governments. There they can be profitably run, otherwise the private sector wouldn't get involved!

Bring on the socialism!

Where are these profitably run railways? Not in Europe that’s for sure. There is no money to be made because the track costs so much to maintain. And government are terrible at running business for profit. We would immediately be at the mercy of the unions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

The railways were a lot worse here when they were nationalised. The old British Rail was dreadful.
There are plenty private companies losing money running our railways as well and our railways are not as heavily subsidised as the ones you champion.
Anyway, Thursday showed that the public has no appetite whatsoever for the govt running railways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thatcher deliberately ran it into the ground, then told the public how terrible it was and how it would run better in the private sector. Rail privatisation has been a disaster. Instead of giving two billion of taxpayer money per year to shareholders and foreign governments, let's have the profits made coming back to our treasury then spend that income on our public services.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Where are these profitably run railways? Not in Europe that’s for sure. There is no money to be made because the track costs so much to maintain. And government are terrible at running business for profit. We would immediately be at the mercy of the unions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if there's no profit to be made, why are we giving taxpayer money to private train operators who make a loss? They can't lose, it's a rip off.

And we need stronger unions!!

[Hibernia&Alba]

The Tories ripped us off with Royal Mail too. It was making big profits, but they still sold it off, meaning those profits now go into shareholder pockets, not the treasury. However, they made sure the Royal Mail pension liabilities stayed in the public sector: profit for shareholders, losses for the public. It really ******* boils my pish. A scam for their pals in the city: the best man at George Osborne's wedding made a killing through Royal Mail privatisation. It's a carve up amongst the elites, ensuring money goes to those with money whilst the public loses out.

[Ozyhibby]

The Tories ripped us off with Royal Mail too. It was making big profits, but they still sold it off, meaning those profits now go into shareholder pockets, not the treasury. However, they made sure the Royal Mail pension liabilities stayed in the public sector: profit for shareholders, losses for the public. It really ******* boils my pish. A scam for their pals in the city: the best man at George Osborne's wedding made a killing through Royal Mail privatisation. It's a carve up amongst the elites, ensuring money goes to those with money whilst the public loses out.

Royal Mail was sold at 330p a share and is now somewhere about 260p a share. It’s a declining business and selling it on is looking like a good deal for the taxpayer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

So if there's no profit to be made, why are we giving taxpayer money to private train operators who make a loss? They can't lose, it's a rip off.

And we need stronger unions!!

We don’t. The subsidy comes from the fact we don’t charge them enough to use the track as it costs us to maintain it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

There's a school of thought that profit is secondary to the well being of citizens. If the railway runs at a monetary loss, it can be offset by the number of benefits it brings to other areas like family life, or health.

This was never accepted by the blue Tories, and seems to have escaped the red Tories.

Our "beloved" NHS can never run at a monetary profit, but the benefit to our society seems to have no value.

[Glory Lurker]

There's a school of thought that profit is secondary to the well being of citizens. If the railway runs at a monetary loss, it can be offset by the number of benefits it brings to other areas like family life, or health.

This was never accepted by the blue Tories, and seems to have escaped the red Tories.

What? The purpose of life is to do what we can to make short time people have on this planet as comfortable as possible? Crazy talk.

[Cataplana]

What? The purpose of life is to do what we can to make short time people have on this planet as comfortable as possible? Crazy talk.

Why do you think I post under a false name? Talk like that can get you locked up.

[Glory Lurker]

Why do you think I post under a false name? Talk like that can get you locked up.

:-)

[Ozyhibby]

What? The purpose of life is to do what we can to make short time people have on this planet as comfortable as possible? Crazy talk.

And yet you get greedy doctors demanding 6 figure salaries. [emoji849]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

And yet you get greedy doctors demanding 6 figure salaries. [emoji849]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might say I'm a dreamer.....

[Cataplana]

And yet you get greedy doctors demanding 6 figure salaries. [emoji849]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd name them work 48 hour shifts before I even entertained paying them at all.

[Moulin Yarns]

You might say I'm a dreamer.....

But you're not the only one. 😉

[Cataplana]

You might say I'm a dreamer.....

But I'm not

[Hibrandenburg]

If only ... :greengrin

That's about 13 days running costs for an empty airport, peanuts:wink:

[Ozyhibby]

That's about 13 days running costs for an empty airport, peanuts:wink:

There is plenty time for that (and the loss making shipyard) to be coming back to bite the snp on the backside.
At some point soon a decision will need to be made about closing it down and that will hurt politically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Totally disagree. What is madness is paying foreign governments to run our trains and with a two billion subsidy to boot; money which should be going back to our treasury. The state owned Italian railway took over our west coast main line just last week. Why? Not for the good of their health, but because there is money to be made; money which should be coming back to the UK treasury, not the Italian one. It's madness to have dozens of companies, all with their own bureaucracies running public services - and it is a public service, not a normal business. Millions of people rely on them everyday and have no option but use them for work etc. Private companies will shut unprofitable routes unless they get a government subsidy, so why are they in the private sector in those circumstances? Ideological dogmatism from free marketeers, despite it being unsound economically and carrying negative social consequences. Our railways are a disgrace.

And anyone who has used trains in Europe will know how vastly superior their systems are, so it isn't a sweeping generalisation to say they invest properly. The UK, on the other hand, particularly has been seriously underfunded for forty years. Why the hell are UK taxpayers now giving a subsidy so private investors and foreign governments can make a profit?

This applies to other vital public services, such as buses, water, gas, electricity. Most importantly, it's vital to have a publicly owned banking sysyem, but I've done a thread on that before!

But I’ve just evidenced to you that even in the countries you lauded the public run companies don’t make profits, in fact they make huge losses.

That’s the long and short of it. No one trusts the fact that once nationalised these industries would supply profits back to the country. Quicker than you could say Len McCluskey they would move from making profits to being another cost to the country.

You also want stronger unions so add that to the mix and every price increase or wage negotiation or threatened redundancy quickly becomes a political football....all of which would slow down investment, increase costs and reduce operational efficiency.

People remember the likes of British Leyland and are rightfully wary of a repeat, especially across the very industries we rely on. Is there any evidence to suggest that Labours proposed renationalisation wouldn’t have simply put us back down that road again?

[Hibernia&Alba]

We don’t. The subsidy comes from the fact we don’t charge them enough to use the track as it costs us to maintain it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The government gives the railways 2 billion per year to run unprofitable lines, which includes foreign governments running our railways whilst their own railways are in public ownership!

And as said above, this isn't just about balance sheets and profit and loss - transport is a vital public service which cannot be governed by market forces. You can't just close a railway line because its losing money. People affected by such closures rely upon the trains/buses as much as the rest of us for work and to get anywhere. We can't just say only the big cities can be connected by rail because only those routes make money; it's a nonsense. If we agree on that principle, why are taxpayers giving private companies money so they can pay shareholders a dividend?

It's actually about quality of life and the right of all citizens to equality of access to those things which allow everyone to flourish.

Can anyone provide a reasonable answer as to why we are paying the French, German and Italian governments to run our trains in addition to their own?

[Hibernia&Alba]

But I’ve just evidenced to you that even in the countries you lauded the public run companies don’t make profits, in fact they make huge losses.

So why are the French, German and Italian railways now running our trains for more huge losses???

Your Thatcherite theory makes no sense. We should not be paying foreign governments to run our trains, nor paying shareholders to make a loss. This is dogmatic madness. Or are you saying we shouldn't have railways at all? Their routes between major cities will make huge profits, same as here, so what's your answer to those communities beyond the cities who rely upon routes which make a loss? Any lines not making profit must close? What's the impact upon our infrastructure and society?

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://scontent.fman1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/79154864_2629649767070646_2673980508878143488_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&_nc_oc=AQmJ6c9-xVUtk-sIKKa0JlNrmfyhwVEiFQZ5qNnP0F6g_SAeQ2-cFG12BYAfIoWSEHw&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-1.fna&oh=a4f23e12480cc7612519e2803768de45&oe=5E7D2A48


well said :agree: shame a few sore losers on the internet thought otherwise

[Hibernia&Alba]

I have several main points:

1, If national railways can only ever be run at a loss, why are we taxpayers paying foreign governments and private companies to run them at a loss, with all their many bureaucracies?

2, If it's true railways can only be run at a loss, why are foreign governments taking on the burden of running UK railways, in addition to their own? Why aren't we running their railways instead?

3, If it's true railways can only run at a loss, why do private companies want to get involved? Did Richard Branson, for example, not care whether he made a profit or loss?

4, Are the railways just like any other business or a public service? I firmly believe it's the latter. I reject the idea that balance sheets should decide what we do, for, if that was the case, we wouldn't have state education, an NHS or emergency services.

[RyeSloan]

I have several main points:

1, If national railways can only ever be run at a loss, why are we taxpayers paying foreign governments and private companies to run them at a loss, with all their many bureaucracies?

2, If it's true railways can only be run at a loss, why are foreign governments taking on the burden of running UK railways, in addition to their own? Why aren't we running their railways instead?

3, If it's true railways can only run at a loss, why do private companies want to get involved? Did Richard Branson, for example, not care whether he made a profit or loss?

4, Are the railways just like any other business or a public service? I firmly believe it's the latter. I reject the idea that balance sheets should decide what we do, for, if that was the case, we wouldn't have state education, an NHS or emergency services.

Uk railways were built with private money so its hardly a Thatcherite thing!

Indeed if you take any cursory glance at the history of nationalised rail in the UK you will see exactly why it cannot be accepted as a panacea. The botched Modernisation plan, the Beeching cuts, the APT fiasco etc.

British Rail was haemorrhaging money by the mid 80’s a full 40 odd years after nationalisation.

Don’t get me wrong I’m hardly saying the existing set up is perfect, far from it. But on the flip side just saying ‘nationalisation’ means nothing in terms of assuring improvements and indeed history shows us could very well mean the complete opposite!

[Hibernia&Alba]

Uk railways were built with private money so its hardly a Thatcherite thing!

Indeed if you take any cursory glance at the history of nationalised rail in the UK you will see exactly why it cannot be accepted as a panacea. The botched Modernisation plan, the Beeching cuts, the APT fiasco etc.

British Rail was haemorrhaging money by the mid 80’s a full 40 odd years after nationalisation.

Don’t get me wrong I’m hardly saying the existing set up is perfect, far from it. But on the flip side just saying ‘nationalisation’ means nothing in terms of assuring improvements and indeed history shows us could very well mean the complete opposite!

I disagree, as I believe public services (which travel is) should be publicly owned. For what it's worth, personally I would take nationalisation as a stepping stone towards those in the industry democratically running it themselves, which is very different from standard ideas of public ownership, whereby government steps in to replace capitalist bosses but runs it in the same way. I would take these industries in an syndicalist direction, which is much more my idea of democratic socialism i.e. managed by those who work in the industry and who know it best.

[RyeSloan]

I disagree, as I believe public services (which travel is) should be publicly owned. For what it's worth, personally I would take nationalisation as a stepping stone towards those in the industry democratically running it themselves, which is very different from standard ideas of public ownership, whereby government steps in to replace capitalist bosses but runs it in the same way. I would take these industries in an syndicalist direction, which is much more my idea of democratic socialism i.e. managed by those who work in the industry and who know it best.

Fair enough, sounds like a half decent concept. Not sure the ideal would make it past the real world though...that said I’d be interested in any examples where that’s currently in action and working.

Oh and maybe we could expand that to government as well and get rid of the politicians and have a ‘democratic technocraticy’ instead.[emoji38]

[Hibernia&Alba]

Fair enough, sounds like a half decent concept. Not sure the ideal would make it past the real world though...that said I’d be interested in any examples where that’s currently in action and working.

Oh and maybe we could expand that to government as well and get rid of the politicians and have a ‘democratic technocraticy’ instead.[emoji38]

It's exactly how co-operatives should work, if they are truly co-operative. The Israeli kibbutz are another example; historical examples are the Paris Commune and Spain's anarchist experiment. there are no shareholders, no outside profiteers, but only those who run the industry voting upon what is produced, how it is produced and how revenue should be distributed. Wage labour is removed, as those who work in the organisation run it.

[Ozyhibby]

It's exactly how co-operatives should work, if they are truly co-operative. The Israeli kibbutz are another example; historical examples are the Paris Commune and Spain's anarchist experiment. there are no shareholders, no outside profiteers, but only those who run the industry voting upon what is produced, how it is produced and how revenue should be distributed. Wage labour is removed, as those who work in the organisation run it.

Can’t a company do that now if that’s what they want?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Can’t a company do that now if that’s what they want?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And how many want to? Unearned income via shareholder demands ensure the wage system continues. Why work for income when others can do it for you?

[Ozyhibby]

And how many want to? Unearned income via shareholder demands ensure the wage system continues. Why work for income when others can do it for you?

But couldn’t a group of workers set up such an organisation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Tubs]

The main benefits of a railway system is not the profit it can generate or not but the social and environmental return. Cars destroyed cities and impose huge costs on health, safety and the environment.

Car manufacturers and oil companies get the return while society and the state pick up the tab.

[Ozyhibby]

The main benefits of a railway system is not the profit it can generate or not but the social and environmental return. Cars destroyed cities and impose huge costs on health, safety and the environment.

Car manufacturers and oil companies get the return while society and the state pick up the tab.

Cars bring wealth to society as well. That’s the reason we got shot of horses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Cars bring wealth to society as well. That’s the reason we got shot of horses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bring back horse drawn barges along the canals that’s what I say!

[Hibernia&Alba]

But couldn’t a group of workers set up such an organisation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They do. There are many cooperatives, but they are usually small scale, as it's very difficult to take on large and established companies. The Cooperative Group is the best known, but it now adopts the same workplace practices as any other company, as the original ethos has been diluted so over decades as to become unrecognisable. There is no workplace democracy in Coop food, insurance or bank.

[Frankhfc]

The main benefits of a railway system is not the profit it can generate or not but the social and environmental return. Cars destroyed cities and impose huge costs on health, safety and the environment.

Car manufacturers and oil companies get the return while society and the state pick up the tab.

I agree with you that the railways do generate a nostalgia that's missing in todays society. There was nothing better than boarding a train full of carriages with railway staff dressed properly with courtesy, belongs to a different era post Intercity 125. Cars though are a fantastic invention that affords mobility like nothing else and are doubtless an essential item for most.

I concur that the railways should still be properly funded and have adequate staffing levels in which to run a modern but what is still a key transport system.

[Cataplana]

Genuine question, does the motorway network run at a profit or a loss?

[RyeSloan]

Genuine question, does the motorway network run at a profit or a loss?

Despite the fact that road access is not charged directly unlike rail a quick google shows that England and Wales spends about £5-£6bn on road and motorway maintenance and fuel duty alone is worth about £27bn I’d hazard a guess that the answer is yes.

[The Tubs]

Cars bring wealth to society as well. That’s the reason we got shot of horses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the bicycle first began to displace the horse in the context of individual transport. However, the car quickly supplanted it.

While cars do generate wealth for sections of the population and produce utility, it hard to dispute that they also free ride on society and the environment with a vast range of costs. This is why the debate about a rail network cannot purely be a financial one.

[JeMeSouviens]

Despite the fact that road access is not charged directly unlike rail a quick google shows that England and Wales spends about £5-£6bn on road and motorway maintenance and fuel duty alone is worth about £27bn I’d hazard a guess that the answer is yes.

To the question "does the motorway network run at a profit or loss?" The odds of the answer not being yes are vanishingly small. :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

To the question "does the motorway network run at a profit or loss?" The odds of the answer not being yes are vanishingly small. :greengrin

I'd have thought that you could name your own odds for the answer to that question being either Yes or No. :wink:

[cabbageandribs1875]

Thatcher 1983 "British gas is not for sale"
Major 1992 "british Rail is not for sale"
Cameron 2010 " The Royal Mail is not for sale"

Johnson 2019 "The NHS is Not for sale".............:hmmm: i see a pattern

[Mibbes Aye]

Thatcher 1983 "British gas is not for sale"
Major 1992 "british Rail is not for sale"
Cameron 2010 " The Royal Mail is not for sale"

Johnson 2019 "The NHS is Not for sale".............:hmmm: i see a pattern

The 1992 Conservative manifesto called for the privatisation of British Rail. I can’t be bothered checking the other ones.

You are just making things up, or more accurately, finding something someone else made up on the internet and requoting it. Why would you bother doing that?

[Ozyhibby]

Thatcher 1983 "British gas is not for sale"
Major 1992 "british Rail is not for sale"
Cameron 2010 " The Royal Mail is not for sale"

Johnson 2019 "The NHS is Not for sale".............:hmmm: i see a pattern

Royal Mail is a dying business and Cameron got a good price for it. The trains are a lot better now than the old British Rail as well. And it won’t be long before Gas is no longer allowed in domestic dwellings. Best the govt stay out of those businesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Royal Mail is a dying business and Cameron got a good price for it. The trains are a lot better now than the old British Rail as well. And it won’t be long before Gas is no longer allowed in domestic dwellings. Best the govt stay out of those businesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Royal Mail was sold off at a massive discount, largely to pals of Tory ministers. The pension liabilities, however, were kept with the taxpayer. Privatise the profits, nationalise the costs.

Our railways are a disgrace and nowhere near the standard of most European countries. UK taxpayers still subsidise it, otherwise it couldn't run. Privatise the profits, nationalise the costs.

Whilst gas is in use, it should be in the public sector, along with water and electricity. These are essential public services for every home; there is no 'market', it's the same water, gas, electricity entering a building.

In every single case the public was ripped off and shareholders made a killing. Completely corrupt.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Royal Mail was sold off at a massive discount, largely to pals of Tory ministers. The pension liabilities, however, were kept with the taxpayer. Privatise the profits, nationalise the costs.

Our railways are a disgrace and nowhere near the standard of most European countries. UK taxpayers still subsidise it, otherwise it couldn't run. Privatise the profits, nationalise the costs.

Whilst gas is in use, it should be in the public sector, along with water and electricity. These are essential public services for every home; there is no 'market', it's the same water, gas, electricity entering a building.

In every single case the public was ripped off and shareholders made a killing. Completely corrupt.


:agree:

[cabbageandribs1875]

Royal Mail is a dying business and Cameron got a good price for it. The trains are a lot better now than the old British Rail as well. And it won’t be long before Gas is no longer allowed in domestic dwellings. Best the govt stay out of those businesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/24/royal-mail-worth-10bn-jp-morgan

one of the world's largest investment banks told ministers ahead of the Royal Mail (https://www.theguardian.com/business/royal-mail) flotation that they could sell the postal business for £10bn, around two and a half times more than the government finally received for it.

what a deal, and the £400m the post office have made flogging off some land, and if wimpy sell the land from one site on to someone else royal mail will receive 50% of any profit from what wimpy paid for the land.

[Ozyhibby]

Royal Mail shares are trading 20% lower today than what Cameron got for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

Royal Mail shares are trading 20% lower today than what Cameron got for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's irrelevant.

[matty_f]

Royal Mail shares are trading 20% lower today than what Cameron got for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With the huge increase in internet shopping in favour of high street shop trading, the potential for the Royal Mail to be a main player in distribution is massive, it should pretty much be a license to print money.

[Ozyhibby]

With the huge increase in internet shopping in favour of high street shop trading, the potential for the Royal Mail to be a main player in distribution is massive, it should pretty much be a license to print money.

The problem is they have very high costs and an expensive workforce.
The companies they are competing with are like Uber drivers. They work using apps and supply their vehicles and work the hours that suit them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

The problem is they have very high costs and an expensive workforce.
The companies they are competing with are like Uber drivers. They work using apps and supply their vehicles and work the hours that suit them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My 2 recent experiences with DHL provide proof that they haven't got a clue. Both parcels requested for specific days as the original delivery date wasn't suitable. One I asked for delivery today and it arrived on Sunday!

On the other hand parcel force have given me a 2 hour slot tomorrow when my new stock is delivered.

[One Day Soon]

My 2 recent experiences with DHL provide proof that they haven't got a clue. Both parcels requested for specific days as the original delivery date wasn't suitable. One I asked for delivery today and it arrived on Sunday!

On the other hand parcel force have given me a 2 hour slot tomorrow when my new stock is delivered.

Hermes are the bottom of the pile for me. I ordered extending ladders via Amazon and fully four weeks afterwards they still hadn't been delivered, with repeated messages of 'the product is too large to fit in a normal delivery vehicle' and 'a non-standard vehicle is being sought for delivery'. These ladders were barely three feet long in transit.

When they were finally delivered they were in the back of a small saloon car absolutely stuffed full of other packages, driven by a woman who looked to be in her 60's.

I don't want lots of re-nationalisation but I'd like to see some pretty seriously tooled-up regulators in various industries.

[Slavers]

My 2 recent experiences with DHL provide proof that they haven't got a clue. Both parcels requested for specific days as the original delivery date wasn't suitable. One I asked for delivery today and it arrived on Sunday!

On the other hand parcel force have given me a 2 hour slot tomorrow when my new stock is delivered.

My work uses DHL for domestic and international shipping requirements and generally fund them to provide excellent service, better than TNT that's for sure.

[Moulin Yarns]

My work uses DHL for domestic and international shipping requirements and generally fund them to provide excellent service, better than TNT that's for sure.

I imagine business to business is their bread and butter, but when the 1st parcel was due to be delivered between 08:00 an 20:00 (yeah, got to stay in for 12 hours on the off chance) a couple of weeks ago and I was tracking it up to 17:00 when it just stopped at 30 stops before mine I asked for it to be delivered on the Friday, guess what it arrived at 16:50 on the Thursday just as I was leaving home!!

Along with my experience above, That is not a service I would be happy to use on a regular basis.

[marinello59]

The problem is they have very high costs and an expensive workforce.
The companies they are competing with are like Uber drivers. They work using apps and supply their vehicles and work the hours that suit them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the time of the sale the Royal Mail needed massive investment in their machinery and systems in order to keep up with the private operators. I don’t know if that has happened since the sale though.

[Moulin Yarns]

At the time of the sale the Royal Mail needed massive investment in their machinery and systems in order to keep up with the private operators. I don’t know if that has happened since the sale though.

I'll let you know if Parcel Force deliver when they have advised. :wink:

Edit: 18kg of 100% Perthshire wool

[Hibernia&Alba]

The problem is they have very high costs and an expensive workforce.
The companies they are competing with are like Uber drivers. They work using apps and supply their vehicles and work the hours that suit them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here we go, the race to the bottom argument. Posties have it too good; they should have their pay and conditions slashed so they can compete with zero hour contracts, right? That's the post Brexit Tory wet dream, as proposed by the likes of Priti Patel. The Labour pledge to ban zero hour contracts made much more sense.

[Ozyhibby]

Here we go, the race to the bottom argument. Posties have it too good; they should have their pay and conditions slashed so they can compete with zero hour contracts, right? That's the post Brexit Tory wet dream, as proposed by the likes of Priti Patel. The Labour pledge to ban zero hour contracts made much more sense.

I’m not advocating either way, just pointing out that there are other people who want to work and are happy to be paid differently or less depending on how you look at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Betty Boop]

50,000 joined the Labour Party since Thursday.

[marinello59]

I'll let you know if Parcel Force deliver when they have advised. :wink:

Edit: 18kg of 100% Perthshire wool

I’d trust ParcelForce over any of the others.

[Moulin Yarns]

I’d trust ParcelForce over any of the others.

Me too.

[Hibernia&Alba]

50,000 joined the Labour Party since Thursday.



Hoping for a vote in the leadership contest? It's great so many people want to be involved in the political process, but Labour already had the largest membership of any party in Europe, yet was trounced in the election.

[lapsedhibee]

In the process of repealing the Fixed Term Parliament Act, can Johnson just do away with elections altogether?

Constitutional reform was in the Tory manifesto (page 48), which apparently, by tradition, means that the House of Lords will not block plans in that area.

[RyeSloan]

In the process of repealing the Fixed Term Parliament Act, can Johnson just do away with elections altogether?

Constitutional reform was in the Tory manifesto (page 48), which apparently, by tradition, means that the House of Lords will not block plans in that area.

It was only introduced in 2011 as a typical Cameron style gimmick.

Considering we have had 3 since 2015 and prior to its introduction you need to go back to 1974 before an election was held out with the usual 4-5 year it’s pretty clear it was a useless piece of legislation anyway.

[lapsedhibee]

It was only introduced in 2011 as a typical Cameron style gimmick.

Considering we have had 3 since 2015 and prior to its introduction you need to go back to 1974 before an election was held out with the usual 4-5 year it’s pretty clear it was a useless piece of legislation anyway.

What's to stop the Tories replacing it with a bill fixing the length at 20 years, or a bill specifying no election until further notice? :dunno:

[marinello59]

What's to stop the Tories replacing it with a bill fixing the length at 20 years, or a bill specifying no election until further notice? :dunno:

I'm really hoping somebody has an answer for that, I'm depressed enough at the thought of five years of them in charge.:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

What's to stop the Tories replacing it with a bill fixing the length at 20 years, or a bill specifying no election until further notice? :dunno:

Plenty. But they are not proposing that anyway so I’m not sure what your point is?

They are scrapping a useless piece of legislation that’s been proven not to work.

[Ozyhibby]

What's to stop the Tories replacing it with a bill fixing the length at 20 years, or a bill specifying no election until further notice? :dunno:

The electorate. We are quite a docile bunch but still value democracy. The public could bring down a government pretty sharpish if it wanted to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

The electorate. We are quite a docile bunch but still value democracy. The public could bring down a government pretty sharpish if it wanted to.

How? Placards? A megaphone? :dunno:

[lapsedhibee]

Plenty. But they are not proposing that anyway so I’m not sure what your point is?


They are proposing constitutional reform. They have not specified exactly what.

[Moulin Yarns]

They are proposing constitutional reform. They have not specified exactly what.

Maybe scrapping the Scotland Act?

[lapsedhibee]

Maybe scrapping the Scotland Act?

Maybe all sorts of stuff. That's the beauty of reducing almost your entire plan for government to an inane three word, four syllable slogan. (That and a promise to increase the living wage, which has now been downgraded to an aspiration.)

[cabbageandribs1875]

another pre-election tory promise bites the dust https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tories-break-promise-on-minimum-wage-hike-just-a-week-into-their-administration/19/12/?fbclid=IwAR3el4LRQm9uMN-DriKc3WVgN1RU9s-pbr1ygXNu29hoxdyHISqWZA0hiOA


Tories break promise on minimum wage hike just a week into their administration

The news will come as a bitter blow to the blue collar workers who reportedly 'lent' their vote to the Conservatives in this election.

The Conservatives pledged to hike the minimum wage to £10.50 an hour within five years in its manifesto, but today’s Queen’s Speech includes a cheeky get-out clause.
The increase will now only happen “provided economic conditions allow”.

they didn't half suck some suckers in eh although i suspect those who voted tory already knew they were lying, their leader doesn't know how not to lie, the english trump

[marinello59]

another pre-election tory promise bites the dust https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tories-break-promise-on-minimum-wage-hike-just-a-week-into-their-administration/19/12/?fbclid=IwAR3el4LRQm9uMN-DriKc3WVgN1RU9s-pbr1ygXNu29hoxdyHISqWZA0hiOA


Tories break promise on minimum wage hike just a week into their administration

The news will come as a bitter blow to the blue collar workers who reportedly 'lent' their vote to the Conservatives in this election.

The Conservatives pledged to hike the minimum wage to £10.50 an hour within five years in its manifesto, but today’s Queen’s Speech includes a cheeky get-out clause.
The increase will now only happen “provided economic conditions allow”.

they didn't half suck some suckers in eh although i suspect those who voted tory already knew they were lying, their leader doesn't know how not to lie, the english trump

But they are the Party of the People. Old Etonians know what’s going on.

[Bangkok Hibby]

another pre-election tory promise bites the dust https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tories-break-promise-on-minimum-wage-hike-just-a-week-into-their-administration/19/12/?fbclid=IwAR3el4LRQm9uMN-DriKc3WVgN1RU9s-pbr1ygXNu29hoxdyHISqWZA0hiOA


Tories break promise on minimum wage hike just a week into their administration

The news will come as a bitter blow to the blue collar workers who reportedly 'lent' their vote to the Conservatives in this election.

The Conservatives pledged to hike the minimum wage to £10.50 an hour within five years in its manifesto, but today’s Queen’s Speech includes a cheeky get-out clause.
The increase will now only happen “provided economic conditions allow”.

they didn't half suck some suckers in eh although i suspect those who voted tory already knew they were lying, their leader doesn't know how not to lie, the english trump


I'm so pleased I no longer live in the UK. The utter selfishness, aligned with gullibility of the voting public is breathtaking.

[CraigyHibee07]

another pre-election tory promise bites the dust https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tories-break-promise-on-minimum-wage-hike-just-a-week-into-their-administration/19/12/?fbclid=IwAR3el4LRQm9uMN-DriKc3WVgN1RU9s-pbr1ygXNu29hoxdyHISqWZA0hiOA


Tories break promise on minimum wage hike just a week into their administration

The news will come as a bitter blow to the blue collar workers who reportedly 'lent' their vote to the Conservatives in this election.

The Conservatives pledged to hike the minimum wage to £10.50 an hour within five years in its manifesto, but today’s Queen’s Speech includes a cheeky get-out clause.
The increase will now only happen “provided economic conditions allow”.

they didn't half suck some suckers in eh although i suspect those who voted tory already knew they were lying, their leader doesn't know how not to lie, the english trump


It will happen following the 2020 crash and a steep rise in inflation.

I tried to warn people about this pledge. You never ever trust government when they make pledges in money terms as opposed to real terms. People earning £10.50 an hour in five years time will be worse off finanically compared to those earning £8.21 an hour right now.

[CloudSquall]

Some interesting election maps based on how different age groups voted,

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1208711500065574912

[Mon Dieu4]

Some interesting election maps based on how different age groups voted,

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1208711500065574912

I know it's said that as you grow older you get more conservative but we live in a different world now and they must have real fears for the future with those breakdowns, they are ****ed, the younger generations want better and different, good to see

[Ozyhibby]

I know it's said that as you grow older you get more conservative but we live in a different world now and they must have real fears for the future with those breakdowns, they are ****ed, the younger generations want better and different, good to see

One of the reasons you become conservative as you grow older is you accumulate assets (house mostly) and you want to protect them. This generation of young people are being locked out the housing market these days due to the changes made in 2008. How that may change the drift to conservatism for them will be interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

One of the reasons you become conservative as you grow older is you accumulate assets (house mostly) and you want to protect them. This generation of young people are being locked out the housing market these days due to the changes made in 2008. How that may change the drift to conservatism for them will be interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are not being locked out of the housing market, they are choosing to spend money on other things, rather than save.

[Callum_62]

They are not being locked out of the housing market, they are choosing to spend money on other things, rather than save.Not sure you are correct there. The rules around obtaining a mortgage here ARE much stricter than other countries we have been in. 2008 the reason for this

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

Not sure you are correct there. The rules around obtaining a mortgage here ARE much stricter than other countries we have been in. 2008 the reason for this

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

I would say if you chose to drive nice cars, spend £1000 on a mobile phone, and go on two holidays a year, then you might have money to save

[Ozyhibby]

They are not being locked out of the housing market, they are choosing to spend money on other things, rather than save.

I was no better at managing my money when I was younger but still managed to buy my first house (flat on Leith for £19k) when I was 19 with a 100% mortgage. I had no savings at the time.
Youngster can’t do that now and it’s a bloody shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

They are not being locked out of the housing market, they are choosing to spend money on other things, rather than save.

I was no better at managing my money when I was younger but still managed to buy my first house (flat on Leith for £19k) when I was 19 with a 100% mortgage. I had no savings at the time.
Youngster can’t do that now and it’s a bloody shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

I was no better at managing my money when I was younger but still managed to buy my first house (flat on Leith for £19k) when I was 19 with a 100% mortgage. I had no savings at the time.
Youngster can’t do that now and it’s a bloody shame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember saving for a deposit for two and a bit years, these were the days before 100% mortgages.

[RyeSloan]

I remember saving for a deposit for two and a bit years, these were the days before 100% mortgages.

Taking average salary though the price of a house has effectively doubled since the 70’s from around 3x to about 6x.

There is no doubt buying a house now is harder due to the above inflation / salary rises in housing over the decades and now with the stricter affordability tests.

That said interest rates are mega lower so the long term costs may not be overly different <dunno>.

[Moulin Yarns]

Taking average salary though the price of a house has effectively doubled since the 70’s from around 3x to about 6x.

There is no doubt buying a house now is harder due to the above inflation / salary rises in housing over the decades and now with the stricter affordability tests.

That said interest rates are mega lower so the long term costs may not be overly different <dunno>.

Interest rates were around 12% when I was buying my first flat in 1979.

[Cataplana]

Interest rates were around 12% when I was buying my first flat in 1979.

IIRC they went as high as 17%. People were constantly worrying about changes in the rate.

Funnily enough going into the EU was one of the things that stabilized, and lowered them.

[Moulin Yarns]

IIRC they went as high as 17%. People were constantly worrying about changes in the rate.

Funnily enough going into the EU was one of the things that stabilized, and lowered them.

Right enough. My flat didn't have a bathroom so was substandard. I couldn't get a building society mortgage but got a loan from the council at 1.5% above the mortgage rate. But it was fixed and the mortgage rate kept going up. 😁

[Cataplana]

Right enough. My flat didn't have a bathroom so was substandard. I couldn't get a building society mortgage but got a loan from the council at 1.5% above the mortgage rate. But it was fixed and the mortgage rate kept going up. 😁

Luxury!

[Moulin Yarns]

Luxury!

Just looked at it on zoopla. I paid £4,000 in 1979, it sold in 2013 for £51,000. A 1 bedroom flat, in Grangemouth.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Conditions are definitely improving for first time buyers. They now make up biggest portion of mortgage lending in UK, with numbers back to pre 2008 levels. Lenders are also lending more at higher LTVs of 90 and 95% which also helps.

[Ozyhibby]

It’s not affordability that is the problem just now for young people, it’s getting the deposit. With low interest rates, most of them are probably paying more in rent than the mortgage payment would be anyway.
To buy in Edinburgh just now requires about a £30k deposit and that’s a lot for young people to save up.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sir David Gray]

If you're big enough to give your opinion you should be able to take what I said.

Your "less than half the vote" "stuff" strikes me as straw clutching in the extreme, as is the much cited "once in a generation" line, which was never official and was only said once in an interview.

I'm big enough to take criticism of things I actually say on here, I'm not expecting people to agree with me all the time. Healthy debate and grown up disagreements are fine.

It was the point about assuming about the "stuff" I'm going to be coming out with next that I had a problem with, assuming that I'm going along with anything the Unionist parties say about how the 2014 vote was once in a generation stuff. The SNP are the largest party in Scotland by a considerable distance and I accept that their popularity along with the fact that the political landscape has shifted significantly enough in the last 5 years that another vote is probably justified.

They won't be winning any referendum with 46% of the vote though so they'll need to convince everyone who voted for them and the Greens the other week to vote for independence AND get another 4.01% who voted for one of the Unionist parties to vote for independence.

It's not outwith the realms of possibilities but I'm not sure it's necessarily as much of a given that Nicola Sturgeon et al think that it is.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm big enough to take criticism of things I actually say on here, I'm not expecting people to agree with me all the time. Healthy debate and grown up disagreements are fine.

It was the point about assuming about the "stuff" I'm going to be coming out with next that I had a problem with, assuming that I'm going along with anything the Unionist parties say about how the 2014 vote was once in a generation stuff. The SNP are the largest party in Scotland by a considerable distance and I accept that their popularity along with the fact that the political landscape has shifted significantly enough in the last 5 years that another vote is probably justified.

They won't be winning any referendum with 46% of the vote though so they'll need to convince everyone who voted for them and the Greens the other week to vote for independence AND get another 4.01% who voted for one of the Unionist parties to vote for independence.

It's not outwith the realms of possibilities but I'm not sure it's necessarily as much of a given that Nicola Sturgeon et al think that it is.

There is this constant assumption, not getting at you BTW, that every Labour or libdem is automatically a no voter. Similarly not every snp voter actually supports independence.

It is less binary than that.

[Ozyhibby]

Just read this. A good common sense approach to the mortgage crisis.
https://digitaledition.telegraph.co.uk/editions/edition_Fbn1D_2019-12-22/data/761529/index.html?share=1&WT.mc_id=tmgapp_inar_share&utm_source=tmgapp&utm_medium=inar&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=tmgapp_inar_share&Expires=1579392000&Signature=RveD33wL~Xr-Fs9iidwVZ0ic7Uunuueli1BrvjQpCeG8p7dCRKRtPrR9-7qGmOOw0~srPWsNsIpiXvVTkNPfli9TLV-bx94DEqISnanZy5WBaMcvTLoaJtCFVimY2fb6xavNIaBa-EWnVSIjGbXn~Sp1xsfNK-xsyuvgdYG9mykndXdvUsgmHF5ou6XKhTTKv6DmAKYKcMqh4H9r UHUTb6RECaoWwwVUl~Va0AHHbMxJxXLfXCS-Vpvuh9zjcaTB8iWhiG-gfps4-flN2x9W1IfezNppyKI2AAgT64uYdNTczOtioZ1JlDJW6dwiq4J PlEbOXqVGV7QOl8bwI-~fQg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLCEPDGCTPVKXNOA



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Bee]

It’s not affordability that is the problem just now for young people, it’s getting the deposit. With low interest rates, most of them are probably paying more in rent than the mortgage payment would be anyway.
To buy in Edinburgh just now requires about a £30k deposit and that’s a lot for young people to save up.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For a £100000 flat with the maximum LTV of 95% you'd pay £450 - £500 a month in mortgage payments for 25 years, that's pretty similar to what you'd pay in rent. The same for a £160000 flat/house you'd pay £750ish in mortgage payments a month which is also pretty similar to what you'd pay in rent. Renting isn't actually any more expensive than buying it's just the obvious bonus of owning the property when the mortgage is paid off that differs.

[Callum_62]

For a £100000 flat with the maximum LTV of 95% you'd pay £450 - £500 a month in mortgage payments for 25 years, that's pretty similar to what you'd pay in rent. The same for a £160000 flat/house you'd pay £750ish in mortgage payments a month which is also pretty similar to what you'd pay in rent. Renting isn't actually any more expensive than buying it's just the obvious bonus of owning the property when the mortgage is paid off that differs.But how do you get the 20k deposit?

Certainly challenging for younger People nowadays

My first mortgage was at 97.5pct. If I needed to find the 70k NZD deposit I simply wouldn't have been able to buy

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

For a £100000 flat with the maximum LTV of 95% you'd pay £450 - £500 a month in mortgage payments for 25 years, that's pretty similar to what you'd pay in rent. The same for a £160000 flat/house you'd pay £750ish in mortgage payments a month which is also pretty similar to what you'd pay in rent. Renting isn't actually any more expensive than buying it's just the obvious bonus of owning the property when the mortgage is paid off that differs.

Getting the mortgage is not easy and there are not that many 95% mortgages about. To get a mortgage with payments of £500 you will need to show you can afford £850 a month as part of the stress test. Most first time buyers have to put in 15%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Bee]

Getting the mortgage is not easy and there are not that many 95% mortgages about. To get a mortgage with payments of £500 you will need to show you can afford £850 a month as part of the stress test. Most first time buyers have to put in 15%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm not saying it's easy to get a mortgage, I'm simply pointing out that the myth of renting being a lot more expensive than paying a mortgage isn't true, they're both pretty similar and sometimes renting is cheaper.

[Ozyhibby]

I'm not saying it's easy to get a mortgage, I'm simply pointing out that the myth of renting being a lot more expensive than paying a mortgage isn't true, they're both pretty similar and sometimes renting is cheaper.

Sorry, missed your point. Yes renting can be cheaper. Especially when all the maintenance is done by the landlord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Bee]

But how do you get the 20k deposit?

Certainly challenging for younger People nowadays

My first mortgage was at 97.5pct. If I needed to find the 70k NZD deposit I simply wouldn't have been able to buy

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk


On the example I posted it'd be a £5k deposit on a £100k flat, 95% LTV. Not easy to get but Nationwide quote for them so I assume they do them.

[Cataplana]

But how do you get the 20k deposit?

Certainly challenging for younger People nowadays

My first mortgage was at 97.5pct. If I needed to find the 70k NZD deposit I simply wouldn't have been able to buy

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Shared equity offers a leg up.

[danhibees1875]

The new ISA schemes help people save up with the incentive of a 25% bonus on their savings. There's also the first home scheme that just came out where the Scottish government give you a chunky 0% loan, repayable when you sell the house.

I think they're both good initiatives, although if I was being cynical about the first then I'd say the ISA means more people have more money and that just makes house prices go up. But it's still an incentive to save which will help.

I think the standard mortgage is 90% LTV (with 95% available for people under a certain income threshold). So a £150-200k flat/house would need £15-20k savings (ignoring additional fees and the cost of furniture etc that also needs saved for). Most people I know buy as a couple, so that's £7.5-10k per person to save. Not as much as a lot of the figures being banded about and there's support to get people there.

[Cataplana]

The new ISA schemes help people save up with the incentive of a 25% bonus on their savings. There's also the first home scheme that just came out where the Scottish government give you a chunky 0% loan, repayable when you sell the house.

I think they're both good initiatives, although if I was being cynical about the first then I'd say the ISA means more people have more money and that just makes house prices go up. But it's still an incentive to save which will help.

I think the standard mortgage is 90% LTV (with 95% available for people under a certain income threshold). So a £150-200k flat/house would need £15-20k savings (ignoring additional fees and the cost of furniture etc that also needs saved for). Most people I know buy as a couple, so that's £7.5-10k per person to save. Not as much as a lot of the figures being banded about and there's support to get people there.

There must be something cheaper for first time buyers. In fact, I know there is.

[Mon Dieu4]

The new ISA schemes help people save up with the incentive of a 25% bonus on their savings. There's also the first home scheme that just came out where the Scottish government give you a chunky 0% loan, repayable when you sell the house.

I think they're both good initiatives, although if I was being cynical about the first then I'd say the ISA means more people have more money and that just makes house prices go up. But it's still an incentive to save which will help.

I think the standard mortgage is 90% LTV (with 95% available for people under a certain income threshold). So a £150-200k flat/house would need £15-20k savings (ignoring additional fees and the cost of furniture etc that also needs saved for). Most people I know buy as a couple, so that's £7.5-10k per person to save. Not as much as a lot of the figures being banded about and there's support to get people there.

The government have stopped the help to buy ISA, the cut off was the 30th November

[Hibernia&Alba]

I think there are some good initiatives mentioned above, in relation to helping first time buyers. However, I do think they only tinker around the edges and won't solve the problem of house prices increasing at multiple times pay rises for forty years now. My parents' house cost 10,000 in 1980; today it's worth 250,000, yet nobody's pay has increased twenty-five fold during the same forty years. At the same time the number of council houses has plummeted, due to most of them being sold off. So today we find ourselves with one million people in temporary accommodation, including 135,000 children being raised in hotels and bed and breakfasts. It's shameful stuff.

Since the 1980s many building societies have been allowed to convert into commercial banks, thus profiteering has replaced community service. Banks can create money via loans, and give those loans to where return is highest - property is a cash cow for them. They are not interested in the moral dimension of having a home to live in. We need a publicly owned and democratically run banking system, in order to decide how money creation can best help everyone. We need a massive plan for council house building; houses which cannot be sold off on the cheap again. Government can help those wishing to move into the private sector, as stated above, but council houses are needed for those who cannot buy or do not wish to. We need the right of every person to a home to be enshrined in law. Just a few things to start with.

[StevieC]

They won't be winning any referendum with 46% of the vote though so they'll need to convince everyone who voted for them and the Greens the other week to vote for independence AND get another 4.01% who voted for one of the Unionist parties to vote for independence.

Or simply motivate 5% of the 32% that never voted at the election? :dunno:

In 2014 there was an 85% turnout. That's 17% that "sat out" the 2019 election. As it's widely viewed that the Tories are the best at "getting out the vote" at elections, so it's not unthinkable to suggest that the majority of that 17% is SNP/Independence.

I also think that it's a misguided assumption that all the unionist votes were also anti-Independence. I was knocking doors locally for known SNP supporters in the run up, and I was very surprised to find some that were voting Tory for this one (to get Brexit done).

[danhibees1875]

There must be something cheaper for first time buyers. In fact, I know there is.

House price wise? I'm sure there would be, that's just an example.


The government have stopped the help to buy ISA, the cut off was the 30th November

Yep, anyone (over 16 and first time buyer) could have opened one beforehand and can still use it though. There is also still the lifetime ISA which is similar, but better.

[USAHibby]

They won't be winning any referendum with 46% of the vote though so they'll need to convince everyone who voted for them and the Greens the other week to vote for independence AND get another 4.01% who voted for one of the Unionist parties to vote for independence. I'm sure the 16/17 year olds who didn't get to vote in this election and the EU residents that didn't get to vote in this election and the Labour voters who now see the UK as a tory political vacuum and the Lib Dem voter who now realize that it's a straight choice between the UK and the EU will help make up that 4%.

[Mixu62]

I'm sure the 16/17 year olds who didn't get to vote in this election and the EU residents that didn't get to vote in this election and the Labour voters who now see the UK as a tory political vacuum and the Lib Dem voter who now realize that it's a straight choice between the UK and the EU will help make up that 4%.

Also if Twitter is to be believed, there will be tens of thousands of EU citizens currently resident in England, as well as thousands of pro-EU English heading northwards after brexit. Not that twitter is by any means an accurate source, but there may well be some who do so.

[RyeSloan]

Also if Twitter is to be believed, there will be tens of thousands of EU citizens currently resident in England, as well as thousands of pro-EU English heading northwards after brexit. Not that twitter is by any means an accurate source, but there may well be some who do so.

What is this great march north in aid of?

[Hibbyradge]

What is this great march north in aid of?

Personally speaking, I'll be coming up the road as soon as I can to help Scotland become independent.

[1875godsgift]

Personally speaking, I'll be coming up the road as soon as I can to help Scotland become independent.

:thumbsup:

[Mixu62]

What is this great march north in aid of?

Lots of pro eu people moving to Scotland in time for a referendum. If they boost the yes vote by another 1% it could be significant.

[danhibees1875]

Lots of pro eu people moving to Scotland in time for a referendum. If they boost the yes vote by another 1% it could be significant.

I can see why pro-eu people around the UK could consider that as an option, but would people realistically change jobs, houses, and move away from friends and families in the hope that there might be a Scottish referendum, and that the outcome would be favourable, would result in EU status, and would all work out fine economically, socially, etc?

[Moulin Yarns]

I can see why pro-eu people around the UK could consider that as an option, but would people realistically change jobs, houses, and move away from friends and families in the hope that there might be a Scottish referendum, and that the outcome would be favourable, would result in EU status, and would all work out fine economically, socially, etc?

Moving away friends and family? You would think it was the other side of the world and not up the M6. Not forgetting moving to a country with lower income tax, cheaper housing, more natural resources, and hibs.

[Pete]

I think there are some good initiatives mentioned above, in relation to helping first time buyers. However, I do think they only tinker around the edges and won't solve the problem of house prices increasing at multiple times pay rises for forty years now. My parents' house cost 10,000 in 1980; today it's worth 250,000, yet nobody's pay has increased twenty-five fold during the same forty years. At the same time the number of council houses has plummeted, due to most of them being sold off. So today we find ourselves with one million people in temporary accommodation, including 135,000 children being raised in hotels and bed and breakfasts. It's shameful stuff.

Since the 1980s many building societies have been allowed to convert into commercial banks, thus profiteering has replaced community service. Banks can create money via loans, and give those loans to where return is highest - property is a cash cow for them. They are not interested in the moral dimension of having a home to live in. We need a publicly owned and democratically run banking system, in order to decide how money creation can best help everyone. We need a massive plan for council house building; houses which cannot be sold off on the cheap again. Government can help those wishing to move into the private sector, as stated above, but council houses are needed for those who cannot buy or do not wish to. We need the right of every person to a home to be enshrined in law. Just a few things to start with.

Agree. 'Tinkering around the edges' sums it up nicely.

Shelter should be a right and its comodification has become obscene.

[Mixu62]

Moving away friends and family? You would think it was the other side of the world and not up the M6. Not forgetting moving to a country with lower income tax, cheaper housing, more natural resources, and hibs.

Also the prospect of businesses relocating to take advantage of a skilled, English speaking (well almost) country in the eu.

[heretoday]

Lots of pro eu people moving to Scotland in time for a referendum. If they boost the yes vote by another 1% it could be significant.

So if the YES vote prevails by 51%/49% we go independent?

Isn't that a bit thin?

Come on Scotland! You gotta REALLY want it!

[Moulin Yarns]

So if the YES vote prevails by 51%/49% we go independent?

Isn't that a bit thin?

Come on Scotland! You gotta REALLY want it!

Well, seeing as that is why the UK is making an arse of leaving the EU, then what difference does it make. A majority in a legal referendum against a majority in an ADVISORY referendum, which would you suggest has more credence?

[USAHibby]

Well, seeing as that is why the UK is making an arse of leaving the EU, then what difference does it make. A majority in a legal referendum against a majority in an ADVISORY referendum, which would you suggest has more credence? In the minds of unionists in Scotland, the actions of state Britannia always super seed those of their resident country, regardless of how undemocratic those actions are.

[heretoday]

Well, seeing as that is why the UK is making an arse of leaving the EU, then what difference does it make. A majority in a legal referendum against a majority in an ADVISORY referendum, which would you suggest has more credence?

It's a referendum about creating an independent country - a huge step and reversible only with considerable humiliation.

I'd expect some social unrest if such a step was taken on such a slim mandate. It's unwise, and rather disrespectful to the country of Scotland. I gather that of the people who voted in the Catalan unofficial referendum over 80% were in favour of independence.

Now that's more like it!

[1875godsgift]

It's a referendum about creating an independent country - a huge step and reversible only with considerable humiliation.

I'd expect some social unrest if such a step was taken on such a slim mandate. It's unwise, and rather disrespectful to the country of Scotland. I gather that of the people who voted in the Catalan unofficial referendum over 80% were in favour of independence.

Now that's more like it!

But it's perfectly acceptable to drag us out of Europe on a 50/50 vote?

I would say it was rather disrespectful to the electorate to move the goalposts according to the result you want.

[Ozyhibby]

After 300 years of union I would expect that if it’s such a good deal then they would be confident of gaining at least 60% approvals rating?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

It's a referendum about creating an independent country - a huge step and reversible only with considerable humiliation.

I'd expect some social unrest if such a step was taken on such a slim mandate. It's unwise, and rather disrespectful to the country of Scotland. I gather that of the people who voted in the Catalan unofficial referendum over 80% were in favour of independence.

Now that's more like it!

You are missing the point.

The UK voted 51% - 49% in an ADVISORY referendum with no legal status to come out of the EU, yet here we are being forced to accept the outcome. Any referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country will have a legal status. That's also why referring to the Catalan referendum is rather daft, it wasn't legal. What was the turnout? Those opposed to Catalan independence just didn't bother voting.

[Radium]

It's a referendum about creating an independent country - a huge step and reversible only with considerable humiliation.

I'd expect some social unrest if such a step was taken on such a slim mandate. It's unwise, and rather disrespectful to the country of Scotland. I gather that of the people who voted in the Catalan unofficial referendum over 80% were in favour of independence.

Now that's more like it!

Not an unfair point but one that has been overtaken by the EU vote.

It is an argument that needed to be won ahead of the 2014 vote, similar to the restrictions on the 1979 vote.

Now that we are implementing constitutional change based on a 51:49 vote backed up with 48% share of the vote in a general election, fair seems to have been thrown out the window.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

Moving away friends and family? You would think it was the other side of the world and not up the M6. Not forgetting moving to a country with lower income tax, cheaper housing, more natural resources, and hibs.

Feel free to trivialise it, but I'd consider moving to Liverpool/London/Anywhere in England as moving away from my friends and family.

Lower income tax and cheaper housing aren't guaranteed. People are probably more likely to be pay more tax moving up here, and housing prices would entirely depend on where they were moving from and to.

We certainly have Hibs though, no one else can claim that. :aok:

[lucky]

Income tax in Scotland is higher than in the rest of the U.K.

I doubt any significant numbers will move north because of Brexit. Scotland will become independent when the economic argument is won in the minds of the majority of the Scottish people. Clearly most on here support independence but it’s the No voters that need convinced going forward but too many in the Yes camp feel the best way is to shout down No voters concerns. I also believe the terminology being used turns people of. I voted No in 2014 and don’t regard myself as a unionist, I’m a socialist that wants the best for all people regardless off their postcode but I’m slowly coming round to considering an independent Scotland but it has to based on the offer to the people not just a promise of a better in Scotland in future years.

[danhibees1875]

Income tax in Scotland is higher than in the rest of the U.K.



For those who earn above the national average wage, otherwise it's lower.

Unless that has changed. That's why we have the 19% and 21%btax bands either side of the 20%.

[Moulin Yarns]

Feel free to trivialise it, but I'd consider moving to Liverpool/London/Anywhere in England as moving away from my friends and family.

Lower income tax and cheaper housing aren't guaranteed. People are probably more likely to be pay more tax moving up here, and housing prices would entirely depend on where they were moving from and to.

We certainly have Hibs though, no one else can claim that. :aok:

I've got family in Yorkshire and Essex, they are still family, they stay in touch.

I've got friends in Assynt who it takes longer for them to get to Edinburgh than it does to get to Birmingham from Edinburgh. They are still my friends and I see them 4 or 5 times a year.

I know someone who has moved from Sussex to Fife, where she could afford a 3 bedroom house instead of the one bedroom flat she was in.

In Scotland the average salary is £29,998, and you pay 1% less tax in Scotland between £12.5k and £14.5k, the same between £14.5k and £25k you would only pay more tax on earnings above £25k, so 1% above England on only £5k.

Happy to explain :greengrin

[danhibees1875]

I've got family in Yorkshire and Essex, they are still family, they stay in touch.

I've got friends in Assynt who it takes longer for them to get to Edinburgh than it does to get to Birmingham from Edinburgh. They are still my friends and I see them 4 or 5 times a year.

I know someone who has moved from Sussex to Fife, where she could afford a 3 bedroom house instead of the one bedroom flat she was in.

In Scotland the average salary is £29,998, and you pay 1% less tax in Scotland between £12.5k and £14.5k, the same between £14.5k and £25k you would only pay more tax on earnings above £25k, so 1% above England on only £5k.

Happy to explain :greengrin


That's not explanation, that's anecdotal evidence. :greengrin

I'm not arguing that your family or friends stop being so when they/you move further away. Technology means you can speak to them round the clock - I still consider it moving away from them though and think it's a reasonable deterrent. Of course different people will have different ideas of how far away becomes "moving away" in a sense that it would impact them.

I could get a 5-storey, 10 bed guest house in Scarborough for the price of a 3 bed house in Edinburgh. :wink:

Numbers for average earnings may have moved a little, but I think the general premise was you pay more tax here if you earn over the average wage and pay less tax if you earn less than that. Do you think it's lower earners in England that are the ardent pro-EU supports willing to move?

[Moulin Yarns]

That's not explanation, that's anecdotal evidence. :greengrin

I'm not arguing that your family or friends stop being so when they/you move further away. Technology means you can speak to them round the clock - I still consider it moving away from them though and think it's a reasonable deterrent. Of course different people will have different ideas of how far away becomes "moving away" in a sense that it would impact them.

I could get a 5-storey, 10 bed guest house in Scarborough for the price of a 3 bed house in Edinburgh. :wink:

Numbers for average earnings may have moved a little, but I think the general premise was you pay more tax here if you earn over the average wage and pay less tax if you earn less than that. Do you think it's lower earners in England that are the ardent pro-EU supports willing to move?

Everything in my last paragraph is the explanation of lower taxation in Scotland. The figures are from government finance figures for 2019.


Why would someone moving from England to escape brexit buy a property in Scarborough?
Happy to help. 😉😁

[marinello59]

After 300 years of union I would expect that if it’s such a good deal then they would be confident of gaining at least 60% approvals rating?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it’s such a bad deal we should be confident of getting at least 60% voting Yes but we are nowhere near that yet. We still have a lot of work to do. I’m not in favour of insisting on a super majority but I hope that any referendum has a resounding result one way or the other.

[marinello59]

Everything in my last paragraph is the explanation of lower taxation in Scotland. The figures are from government finance figures for 2019.


Why would someone moving from England to escape brexit buy a property in Scarborough?
Happy to help. 😉😁

Until we actually gain Independence and decide whether we are going to rejoin the EU or not there is no escape from Brexit by moving to Scotland. I can’t see us gaining any significant boost to the Yes vote from that area unfortunately.

[danhibees1875]

Everything in my last paragraph is the explanation of lower taxation in Scotland. The figures are from government finance figures for 2019.


Why would someone moving from England to escape brexit buy a property in Scarborough?
Happy to help. 😉😁

Okay, we agree your first 3 paragraphs weren't explanation then. :greengrin

Your tax lesson wasn't explanation either FWIW. Scotland doesn't have lower taxes.

As for house prices, that was just me trying to make it clear to you that "cheaper houses" isn't a sweeping a statement you can make.

[Ozyhibby]

Okay, we agree your first 3 paragraphs weren't explanation then. :greengrin

Your tax lesson wasn't explanation either FWIW. Scotland doesn't have lower taxes.

As for house prices, that was just me trying to make it clear to you that "cheaper houses" isn't a sweeping a statement you can make.

Scotland has much lower council tax bills than England. By a good bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onceinawhile]

Scotland has much lower council tax bills than England. By a good bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does it?

I saw one of my client's council tax bills, he had a 2m+ property near westminster and paid less than I do in Bathgate, for a house worth roughly 1/10th of that!

[JeMeSouviens]

Does it?

I saw one of my client's council tax bills, he had a 2m+ property near westminster and paid less than I do in Bathgate, for a house worth roughly 1/10th of that!

https://newsnet.scot/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Av-C-tax-D-UK.jpg

[Colr]

https://newsnet.scot/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Av-C-tax-D-UK.jpg

I pay one **** of a lot more that this graph indicates for London!!!

[RyeSloan]

I pay one **** of a lot more that this graph indicates for London!!!

And for Edinburgh! Band D council tax is over £1,700....

[JeMeSouviens]

And for Edinburgh! Band D council tax is over £1,700....

What part of average did you 2 not get? :rolleyes:

[Just_Jimmy]

Remember that your water is included in Scotland. Down here we pay council tax then water seperate. So a CT bill of £165 a month would be £165 plus £30. So £195.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[McD]

I could be totally wrong here, but don’t they pay separately for water in England, whereas here it’s built into your council tax?

That could make council tax in England appear lower, because we have another charge built in that they have separate

apologies if I’m totally incorrect ��

[ronaldo7]

And for Edinburgh! Band D council tax is over £1,700....

It's actually £1277.40 but if you want to add in the water and sewerage costs it takes you to £1721.64

For Manchester the band D council tax is £1646.02 you've then got to add on the privatised water and sewerage charges. :wink:

Newcastle is worse at £1860.03 for band D.

[Ozyhibby]

So it’s fair to say that the SNP have saved households a lot of money with their council tax freeze.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

So it’s fair to say that the SNP have saved households a lot of money with their council tax freeze.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is fair to say that poorer people pay a discounted council tax and the poorest pay no council tax at all, meaning that the households that benefitted the most were those more wealthy.

The double whammy was that the SNP forced councils into the freeze by telling them that if they didn’t implement it then their block grant would be cut by more than any CT increase they proposed.

So let’s play a game of ‘what services do you cut to fund the council tax freeze?’

No need for answers on a postcard, it was the services that aren’t statutory obligations but protected the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.

Day care for adults with with learning disabilities. Lunch clubs for the frail elderly. Maintaining pavements and streetlighting and subsidised bus services for those who can’t just jump in a car to their GP, hospital appointment or even their supermarket. Libraries that provided internet access for those who couldn’t afford it.

The council tax freeze was a shameful bribe at middle and upper earners and lapped up by them. Straight out of a Thatcherite Tory playbook.

And while people on decent earnings enjoyed the benefit, those at the bottom saw no benefit and saw their public services decimated, at their expense.

It was an absolute disgrace.

[Ozyhibby]

It is fair to say that poorer people pay a discounted council tax and the poorest pay no council tax at all, meaning that the households that benefitted the most were those more wealthy.

The double whammy was that the SNP forced councils into the freeze by telling them that if they didn’t implement it then their block grant would be cut by more than any CT increase they proposed.

So let’s play a game of ‘what services do you cut to fund the council tax freeze?’

No need for answers on a postcard, it was the services that aren’t statutory obligations but protected the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.

Day care for adults with with learning disabilities. Lunch clubs for the frail elderly. Maintaining pavements and streetlighting and subsidised bus services for those who can’t just jump in a car to their GP, hospital appointment or even their supermarket. Libraries that provided internet access for those who couldn’t afford it.

The council tax freeze was a shameful bribe at middle and upper earners and lapped up by them. Straight out of a Thatcherite Tory playbook.

And while people on decent earnings enjoyed the benefit, those at the bottom saw no benefit and saw their public services decimated, at their expense.

It was an absolute disgrace.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34326185

Holyrood funding made up the difference.
And it’s not just rich people who pay council tax. If it was then it would not be enough to win an election. Since 2007 when the freeze was introduced, council tax under Labour in Wales has gone up 32%. There are a lot of people on low income in large houses who are unfairly punished by the council tax and Labour had been treating it like a cash cow for years. It’s why the SNP were returned with a massive majority in 2011.
I’m all in favour of funding social services but if you can’t sell it to the population it’s not going to happen. It’s one of the reasons socialism always ends up in dictatorship, because it can’t survive in a democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34326185

Holyrood funding made up the difference.
And it’s not just rich people who pay council tax. If it was then it would not be enough to win an election. Since 2007 when the freeze was introduced, council tax under Labour in Wales has gone up 32%. There are a lot of people on low income in large houses who are unfairly punished by the council tax and Labour had been treating it like a cash cow for years. It’s why the SNP were returned with a massive majority in 2011.
I’m all in favour of funding social services but if you can’t sell it to the population it’s not going to happen. It’s one of the reasons socialism always ends up in dictatorship, because it can’t survive in a democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are a lot of ifs and buts and maybes in the link you posted and I’m not buying it.

Can you tell me whether libraries, day care and support for older people in your area are still functioning at the level they did before the freeze came in?

This isn’t about funding social services, as right as that is, it is about funding services that are preventative, that stop or delay people needing more costful services. It is a spend-to-save, which I can only imagine you would support. But it has now been lost because it is electorally popular to bribe those of us who earn more than the median wage and will turn out and vote.

As I say, a disgrace and an abdication of responsibility.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34326185

Holyrood funding made up the difference.
And it’s not just rich people who pay council tax. If it was then it would not be enough to win an election. Since 2007 when the freeze was introduced, council tax under Labour in Wales has gone up 32%. There are a lot of people on low income in large houses who are unfairly punished by the council tax and Labour had been treating it like a cash cow for years. It’s why the SNP were returned with a massive majority in 2011.
I’m all in favour of funding social services but if you can’t sell it to the population it’s not going to happen. It’s one of the reasons socialism always ends up in dictatorship, because it can’t survive in a democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I should have added that the two biggest things that local authorities have to cover, the two essentials, are education and social care.

Free personal care for adults is a policy commitment. The over-75 population is expected to treble over the next 20-30 years. Free personal care used to be only for over-65s but had to be extended to all adults, I suspect because it breached equalities legislation.

Councils have demographic and financial timebombs ticking away. They are starting to go off and will continue to go off.

Is Holyrood going to make up the difference for these new pressures or do we just stop collecting bins, clearing verges, giving planning permissions, doing environmental health checks in cafes and restaurants, and anything else the council does, because they won’t have the capacity or the money to do it?

[RyeSloan]

It's actually £1277.40 but if you want to add in the water and sewerage costs it takes you to £1721.64

For Manchester the band D council tax is £1646.02 you've then got to add on the privatised water and sewerage charges. :wink:

Newcastle is worse at £1860.03 for band D.

Ahh fair point. Forgot about the rolled up water and sewerage charge. That certainly makes a big difference!

On a side note I’m not sure why water and sewage gets charged more per band...the value of a home doesn’t seem to be linked in any direct way to how much water it uses. Also due to it not metered what incentive is there for people to use it efficiently?

That said maybe it’s just easier not to charge for it separately. Some folk have enough trouble paying for the gas n leccy without putting water bills into the mix as well.

[grunt]

On a side note I’m not sure why water and sewage gets charged more per band...the value of a home doesn’t seem to be linked in any direct way to how much water it uses?

I think you could apply that same argument to the Council Tax itself.

[ronaldo7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34326185

Holyrood funding made up the difference.
And it’s not just rich people who pay council tax. If it was then it would not be enough to win an election. Since 2007 when the freeze was introduced, council tax under Labour in Wales has gone up 32%. There are a lot of people on low income in large houses who are unfairly punished by the council tax and Labour had been treating it like a cash cow for years. It’s why the SNP were returned with a massive majority in 2011.
I’m all in favour of funding social services but if you can’t sell it to the population it’s not going to happen. It’s one of the reasons socialism always ends up in dictatorship, because it can’t survive in a democracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's all in the Scottish government figures. The money was topped up. Some won't have it though. 😉

It only took the landslide in 2011 to get the other parties putting it in their manifestos at the next election.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I think you could apply that same argument to the Council Tax itself.

Absolutely. A regressive and outdated method of taxation.

[Ozyhibby]

Ahh fair point. Forgot about the rolled up water and sewerage charge. That certainly makes a big difference!

On a side note I’m not sure why water and sewage gets charged more per band...the value of a home doesn’t seem to be linked in any direct way to how much water it uses. Also due to it not metered what incentive is there for people to use it efficiently?

That said maybe it’s just easier not to charge for it separately. Some folk have enough trouble paying for the gas n leccy without putting water bills into the mix as well.

I suppose larger houses would mostly use more water as they often have more occupants and more bathrooms, larger gardens to water etc.
Personally I would meter water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

I wonder if metering water just isn't worth the admin costs. If people are using roughly the same amount or if it's cheap enough that even someone using a lot more is only going to pay a little extra £ then it's maybe just not worth it.

On the whole I think it's probably easiest just to have it as a fixed payment. It saves people having to worry about their use too much (which can be flipped around environmentally of course).

[Ozyhibby]

I wonder if metering water just isn't worth the admin costs. If people are using roughly the same amount or if it's cheap enough that even someone using a lot more is only going to pay a little extra £ then it's maybe just not worth it.

On the whole I think it's probably easiest just to have it as a fixed payment. It saves people having to worry about their use too much (which can be flipped around environmentally of course).

I’m not sure. I do know that in Scotland we will never run out of water. We have as much as we will ever need so don’t need to worry about how much we use so you are possibly correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

I’m not sure. I do know that in Scotland we will never run out of water. We have as much as we will ever need so don’t need to worry about how much we use so you are possibly correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure we have a lot of water. How much that could change in time I'm not sure.

Even if, as you say, we will never run out of water I'm not sure that is license to use it in as much excess as we want.

[RyeSloan]

I’m not sure. I do know that in Scotland we will never run out of water. We have as much as we will ever need so don’t need to worry about how much we use so you are possibly correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As you allude to there is a touch more to providing clean water to the population than just measuring how much falls from the sky.

The near £450 cost of water and sewerage for band D in Edinburgh also suggests providing such services is far from free so with a system where usage is effectively unlimited you do wonder how much that adds to the costs.

But as I said before it’s probably margin gains and introducing metering and billing comes with its own hazards so probably an area where if it ain’t broke don’t fix it comes to mind.

[Just_Jimmy]

I could be totally wrong here, but don’t they pay separately for water in England, whereas here it’s built into your council tax?

That could make council tax in England appear lower, because we have another charge built in that they have separate

apologies if I’m totally incorrect ��I literally said that in the post directly above [emoji23]

You are correct. It's a way of fudging the numbers.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[McD]

I literally said that in the post directly above [emoji23]

You are correct. It's a way of fudging the numbers.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk


hahaha must have been typing at the same time :greengrin

[Colr]

I think you could apply that same argument to the Council Tax itself.

More related to the number of occupants. That would require a poll tax. Didn’t go so well last time.

[Hibbyradge]

I literally said that in the post directly above [emoji23]

You are correct. It's a way of fudging the numbers.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

It's a way of conserving water. :wink:

[Just_Jimmy]

It's a way of conserving water. :wink:It rains non stop in Manchester.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Colr]

It rains non stop in Manchester.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

140 days a year on average.

210 days a year on average in Glasgow.

[Just_Jimmy]

140 days a year on average.

210 days a year on average in Glasgow.I've lived here 3 years and it's never stopped raining...[emoji16]

It's the only thing Glasgow is above average for then.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

It rains non stop in Manchester.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Hose pipe bans were being considered in parts of England last year.

[Colr]

I've lived here 3 years and it's never stopped raining...[emoji16]

It's the only thing Glasgow is above average for then.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

I lived there for a year or so and it was wet but not as bad a Weegiestan where I lived for 9 sodden years!!

[Curried]

Now we have Tim Farron going Full Swinson, and blaming the SNP for a Tory majority at the last GE.
This piece in the Guardian is comedy gold on so many levels:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/17/progressives-defeat-tories-next-election-2024

[Ozyhibby]

Now we have Tim Farron going Full Swinson, and blaming the SNP for a Tory majority at the last GE.
This piece in the Guardian is comedy gold on so many levels:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/17/progressives-defeat-tories-next-election-2024

Losers blaming winners for their defeat.[emoji849]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

CND and Unite Against Fascism put on counter terror list.

Deeply concerning.

[RyeSloan]

CND and Unite Against Fascism put on counter terror list.

Deeply concerning.

If you mean this https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/17/greenpeace-included-with-neo-nazis-on-uk-counter-terror-list

Then while clearly the document could have been misleading and was subsequently recalled and corrected it’s certainly not the same as them being on this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/849493/20191101_Proscription__SG_.pdf