pandarilla Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I know they did. What would be the point of a separate Scottish Labour party that radically different from the rest of the UK one? How could they be guaranteed to vote for the same policies as each other. In the event of both Labour parties together forming a majority government numbers wise (say 290 plus 40) would they have to form a coalition where SLab did a Lib Dem (in most recent coalition) style watering down of more extreme rest of UK policies? It isn't going to happen. For what it's worth, I'm not too concerned about the gap between rich and poor widening in the sense that I don't care of the rich become disproportionately richer as long as those at the bottom are brought out of poverty. Help the poor but don't temper the earning potential of those already well off. That's what labour will be aiming for and I don't blame them The only issue I have with this post is the basic idea of the rich getting richer. We're not just talking about rich anymore - it's the super rich. Their wealth is incomparable with any period in history. It's obscene. Policies like quantitative easing have only increased their wealth. That policy was so much worse than the selling off of council houses in the 80s (when at least those benefiting were usually members of the working class with a bit of ambition). The Rich List a few weeks ago showed that since 2008 Britain's billionaires have doubled their wealth. Doubled. Since the largest banking crisis in 80 years. We're all in it together right enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 The only issue I have with this post is the basic idea of the rich getting richer. We're not just talking about rich anymore - it's the super rich. Their wealth is incomparable with any period in history. It's obscene. Policies like quantitative easing have only increased their wealth. That policy was so much worse than the selling off of council houses in the 80s (when at least those benefiting were usually members of the working class with a bit of ambition). The Rich List a few weeks ago showed that since 2008 Britain's billionaires have doubled their wealth. Doubled. Since the largest banking crisis in 80 years. We're all in it together right enough. Agree with that, the pursuit of exponentially more finite material wealth concentrated in fewer hands will not end well for the planet. Beyond that, the only way to make society functional in anyway is if everyone has a stake in it's maintenance (really the reason I'm for the principle of universality and not means testing, even where that makes more short term financial sense). The concentration of vast amounts of money in the hands of a few people effectively removes them from reliance on the mechanisms of that society and consequently liberates them giving a f**k, this stratefication simply ends with universal services withering on the vine, as the people left behind to use them have less and less overall percentage of the available material wealth to maintain them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 The only issue I have with this post is the basic idea of the rich getting richer. We're not just talking about rich anymore - it's the super rich. Their wealth is incomparable with any period in history. It's obscene. Policies like quantitative easing have only increased their wealth. That policy was so much worse than the selling off of council houses in the 80s (when at least those benefiting were usually members of the working class with a bit of ambition). The Rich List a few weeks ago showed that since 2008 Britain's billionaires have doubled their wealth. Doubled. Since the largest banking crisis in 80 years. We're all in it together right enough. My main concern is getting people out of poverty. If others are able to increase their wealth and not at the expense of those at the bottom then fine. I find myself as someone who can honestly say i don't care about my own situation. I'm fine. I'm pretty sure we have the exact same job. It's not the gap that concerns me, just that the 'bottom' rises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 It was tongue in cheek. I hoped that was obviously. Being a flag waving Scottish Nationalist, I prefer Tennents Ah. Kevin Webster style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I agree with your last point but that was always Findlay's personal view before the referendum and will never be adopted by the Scottish Labour party. I just took it as what he would ideally like the SLab to be. Outright unilateral nuclear disarmament used to be party policy. That is one of the things that was dropped to try and get into power after Kinnock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 My main concern is getting people out of poverty. If others are able to increase their wealth and not at the expense of those at the bottom then fine. I find myself as someone who can honestly say i don't care about my own situation. I'm fine. I'm pretty sure we have the exact same job. It's not the gap that concerns me, just that the 'bottom' rises Trickle down is a busted flush. Can I recommend 'The Super Rich and Us' by Jacques Peretti (BBC 2 not long ago). I'm no communist but the levels of wealth for the tiny minority at the top over the last 30 years are a scandal of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Outright unilateral nuclear disarmament used to be party policy. That is one of the things that was dropped to try and get into power after Kinnock.Correct and if the parties line was to favour indy the drones would soon fall into line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Trickle down is a busted flush. Can I recommend 'The Super Rich and Us' by Jacques Peretti (BBC 2 not long ago). I'm no communist but the levels of wealth for the tiny minority at the top over the last 30 years are a scandal of humanity. I know it is. I don't believe in trickle down economics. I don't want the rich to get richer in the hope it will trickle down. I want the poor to get above the poverty line and if the rich were to get richer at the same time then so be it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I know it is. I don't believe in trickle down economics. I don't want the rich to get richer in the hope it will trickle down. I want the poor to get above the poverty line and if the rich were to get richer at the same time then so be it I would love to know how the poor can get above the poverty line at the same time as the rich get richer. The wealth of the rich come from exploiting the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 What were the 56 up to today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 What were the 56 up to today? rehearsing Flower of Scotland and 56 trombones :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I know it is. I don't believe in trickle down economics. I don't want the rich to get richer in the hope it will trickle down. I want the poor to get above the poverty line and if the rich were to get richer at the same time then so be it I would love to know how the poor can get above the poverty line at the same time as the rich get richer. The wealth of the rich come from exploiting the poor. strichener is correct. It's a contradiction for the rich to get richer whilst the poorest also get richer because poverty is a relative concept, not an absolute one. We must also bear in mind that wealth is not just about the ability to buy material things; it is about the ability to buy power and influence. Regardless of how many or how few Rupert Murdoch managed to influence in this election, the fact that he is able to use his wealth to influence at all is a challenge to democracy. I would also suggest that most, if not all, of the corporate doners to the Tory party will be significantly richer by the end of this parliament's five year term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Good old Blair McDougall has retweeted this. Not sure if he really is blaming the Greens or is trying to deflect the spotlight away from him for that embarrassing campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 And this zinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamonds2002 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 And this zinger Is that not the wrong map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 So Jack has now came out and blamed Ed for losing Scotland for standing alongside Cameron during the referendum. Absolves Jim of any blame obviously and the rest of the Scottish Labour Party for standing with the Tories last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 And this zinger I've just looked at this again, and realised something. 16.0-5.8 = 10.2%. These folk can't even do maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Sorry not read the full threat (I've got porn to watch) as I'm quite busy at the moment. Anyway, 40 ex Labour MP looking for a gig, only 38 MSP in the Scottish Parliament, which could or probably go down. I predict a fucking massive slash & stab scenario, which I will standby and love ever moment. Call me mental, but I believe there's going to be some moment the shift to the SNP over the next few years from the past & present politicos. Which I think is good, we need as many as possible (I know some, hey Fuzz, would hate this) however this is exactly how we win independence, as we all say Its a broad church (temple for me) we need all like to believe, then when it happens, we start again with the parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I've just looked at this again, and realised something. 16.0-5.8 = 10.2%. These folk can't even do maths. It is meaningless unless the poll was solely of 100% labour voters. 16% less likely if they were already not voting for labour would mean 0% in respect to loss of seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I've just looked at this again, and realised something. 16.0-5.8 = 10.2%. These folk can't even do maths. I just look at once and seen if was awe mibbies & coulds, I'll let you do the maths of fiction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.