What is the point of Labour ?

[StellarHibee]

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

If Keir Starmer has been clear about something then the chances are he'll also be clear about the exact opposite thing within a month or two.

He won't work with the SNP under any circumstances. His lobby groups will ensure that he doesn't.

[RuMoore]

7 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

No c**t is arguing for that, and it’s completely disingenuous to suggest they are.

The argument is that Labours stated policy positions are to continue with austerity and to continue inflicting misery on millions of people.

An independent Scotland gives us a chance to do something different, and it seems that it would be far more possible in I-Scotland to achieve that.

Now, you can argue that that’s not realistic or whatever, but that is what people are saying. 

The last few pages have been filled with disingenuous suggestions so forgive me for reading between the lines and then adding one of my own. 

It's abundantly clear that in the event of an Independent Scotland we would need to have some level of austerity imposed on us, that's before we even start to discuss the economic outcomes related to trade and such. 

Just like the economic foreshadowing of Brexit were obvious to anyone capable of rational thinking, i don't support making everyone's lives worse because some people have insecure identity issues. 

 

[Cheese]

The tattered old eyesore of a blue shed at the bottom of my garden is falling to bits. I'm going to paint it a nice shiny red, which will please the wife and neighbours.

Dunno how they'll feel later when it's obvious that the shed is still falling to bits, but that's not my problem. It's red now baby. Things can only get better.

 

[RuMoore]

Just now, Herc said:

The tattered old eyesore of a blue shed at the bottom of my garden is falling to bits. I'm going to paint it a nice shiny red, which will please the wife and neighbours.

Dunno how they'll feel later when it's obvious that the shed is still falling to bits, but that's not my problem. It's red now baby. Things can only get better.

 

You could always just demolish the shed and try and build one with twigs and saliva and whack a flag on top of it. 

[StellarHibee]

Just now, RuMoore said:

You could always just demolish the shed and try and build one with twigs and saliva and whack a flag on top of it. 

Or you could just demolish the shed and build a better one that the previous shed prevented you from doing.

[Cheese]

2 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

You could always just demolish the shed and try and build one with twigs and saliva and whack a flag on top of it. 

I did pass my Outdoors badge in the Cubs with flying colours tbf.

[RuMoore]

3 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Or you could just demolish the shed and build a better one that the previous shed prevented you from doing.

You ruined the patter train. 

[StellarHibee]

2 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

You ruined the patter train. 

And here was me thinking your "patter" was just shite.

[RuMoore]

3 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

And here was me thinking your "patter" was just shite.

 

[Cheese]

2 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

You ruined the patter train. 

You can't expect everyone to swallow the bait.

I can completely understand why there's people out there enthused for a stomping Labour victory, the tories are fucking gangsters. I just can't get enthused about some middle management types with nice suits and haircuts promising not to change anything, but at least being a bit more polite about it and not so openly corrupt.

The best option is a hung parliament which could gives us an outside chance of positive reforms.

[oneteaminglasgow]

31 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

It's abundantly clear that in the event of an Independent Scotland we would need to have some level of austerity imposed on us, that's before we even start to discuss the economic outcomes related to trade and such. 

No, it isn’t.

And even if it is, would it be more or less austerity than we currently have imposed on us, and which the Labour Party are promising to continue imposing? 

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

They got close in 2017, if their campaign hadn't been undermined internally by the right, they might have crossed the line. That and having a clear Brexit strategy.

The internal undermining was in part a consequence of shit leadership though. 

2 hours ago, Theyellowbox said:

I think Labour have the impression that being some kind of low rent Tony Blair with bland centralist policies is going to be a winner, but 97 came off the back of not only a corrupt and broken government, but an already improving economy. Blair at least had some charisma that energised the party and the country as a whole. That feel good factor in itself massively helped boost the economy. New Labour recognised that very early on and made the most of it.

Starmer et al think they have the same, but they just don't and being not as bad and sensible looking vs the alternative isn't going to cut it either.

To get the UK going again is going to need folk to feel good about it and not one senior Labour front bencher has it in them nor are they anywhere near progressive enough.

Blair had a coherent philosophy (the third way) that was a convincing narrative to bridge left and right in the party and the country. Starmer has just binned the bits that appealed to the left.

1 hour ago, RuMoore said:

Last few pages show how many people on here view the GE and Labours success as part of their wider hopes and dreams of Independence. Hence why they're so over the top critical as they know it would be a set back on a vehicle that's not even moving in the first place. 

The mask has been dropped and we can stop pretending to have arguments about policy and austerity and how harmful Labour will be whilst simultaneously advocating for harmful economic outcomes but in an Independent Scotland.

The most realistic positive outcome for normal people in the UK at present is to have a Labour government, you can argue the outcomes would be minimal but anything else is just fantasy birthday card pish or letting off steam on a football forum. 

 

 

Just because shite with sweetcorn in it tastes better than plain shite, doesn’t mean I want to eat it.

[craigkillie]

35 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

He won't work with the SNP under any circumstances. His lobby groups will ensure that he doesn't.

If we've learned anything from the last few years, it's that he will say or do literally anything that helps him to become Prime Minister. A bit like Johnson in that respect.

[Theyellowbox]

21 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

The last few pages have been filled with disingenuous suggestions so forgive me for reading between the lines and then adding one of my own. 

It's abundantly clear that in the event of an Independent Scotland we would need to have some level of austerity imposed on us, that's before we even start to discuss the economic outcomes related to trade and such. 

Just like the economic foreshadowing of Brexit were obvious to anyone capable of rational thinking, i don't support making everyone's lives worse because some people have insecure identity issues. 

 

But, on the independence point alone, it would be the decisions of you and I whether we elect a party that has that austerity and if we want that or if we don't, we choose that. At the moment, the people of Scotland cannot affect the decisions being made.

On the specific points of Labour, as you correctly pointed out, people want those running the country to make everyone's lives better. By proposing more of the same, but in red, isn't going to do that.

Frankly, I couldn't give a toss who is in charge, so long as they are improving the lot of everyone in the country and keeping us safe. 2 things that have been lacking for too long.

If someone opposes the fragmentation of the UK, they should really want a different Labour to what we have now have. 

[Sonam]

17 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Frankly, I couldn't give a toss who is in charge, so long as they are improving the lot of everyone in the country and keeping us safe. 2 things that have been lacking for too long.

If someone opposes the fragmentation of the UK, they should really want a different Labour to what we have now have. 

It's extremely depressing the choices available at the next election. The way Starmer has totally thrown Sadiq Khan to the wolves shows exactly what type of person he is. He didn't have to do that. Advised by Peter Mandelson perhaps? Shameful! 

All that for a 'green' policy as well. I feel totally let down by Labour and would have normally considered voting for them. No chance now!

At least we knew that about Boris Johnson, that he would stab any colleague in the back. Disgusting behaviour from a Labour leader in 'waiting'. No need.

As for the Lib Dems, their policies depending on what byelection they are fighting often totally contradict each other. It's so bloody obvious! In the Charles Kennedy days, you could see at heart he was a decent person, left of centre (as I am) and genuially wanted to improve things. Also was consistently against the Iraq war from the start.

As for the SNP, they just have been in power here too long. I'm afraid it shows! Even 'independence' doesn't seem a goal for them. In a way it maybe good for them to lose a lot of seats, so they can totally reassess, rebuild.

While I wasn't a fan of Corbyn, I thought the manifesto was decent, as long as it was done in small, achievable steps and over a much, much longer period of time (more than 1 term for sure).

The Greens have no chance where I am either.

Whether a supporter of the Union or not, the choices and hope for the future in the next election is bleak. God help your children & grand children as well if the climate gets as bad as it looks. 

I am not voting Labour now until Starmer has gone. A hung parliament is the best I can hope for, as long as the Tories hammered. No forgiveness for what they have done.

Tactical voting is the only way. Even Unionists if they care about the world should consider voting SNP and likewise Nationalists for Unionist parties (as long as it ain't the Torys!!!). Get the Tories out.

Though Starmer is NOT the man know that for sure.

[Sonam]

Yet, in a hung parliament what would the Lib Dems do for instance from picking up those Tory southern seats? I would like to think they would switch to the left of Labour, but somehow I doubt it. We are all doomed!!!

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Theyellowbox said:

Frankly, I couldn't give a toss who is in charge, so long as they are improving the lot of everyone in the country and keeping us safe. 2 things that have been lacking for too long.

Who do you feel threatened by?

[ScotiaNostra]

5 hours ago, renton said:

So, whenever Starmer or Reeves gets on TV and says "there is no money for this", "we can't do everything we want" you think they are smirking at the camera and giving a big nudge and a wink?

You think that dropping every single policy and narrative they've had to date in favour of recklessly Conservative fiscal rules would provide them a mandate to enact any progressive policies after an election? 

A party who's conception of devolution is a Labour First Minister in Edinburgh or Cardiff staying by the phone on a Monday waiting on some hungover flunky from Starmer's press office WhatsApping them their weekly talking points?

Labour are telling you, every day, that they are going to be relentlessly Conservative, unwilling to divert from the already subsistence department spending plans,  unwilling to confront the EU elephant in the room and willing to drop anything that your average miserable Tory voter in the Shires disapproves of because the Mail told them to. Yet you have a "hope" that they will improve the "average" person's life quickly?

f**k me.

I think theres more chance of Labour doing something to make everyones life better than the SNP as it is currently, is what I think

Edited July 25, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[Boo Khaki]

2 hours ago, StellarHibee said:

He won't work with the SNP under any circumstances. His lobby groups will ensure that he doesn't.

Starmer can say whatever he wants about who he will or will not work with in the meantime, because it's of no consequence until such time that the outcome of the next GE is known. 

See what happens in the scenario whereby, say for arguments sake, Labour are 40 seats short of being able to form a majority government, but the LibDems only have 25 MPS. It's not unfeasible that they could try to form a minority Coalition, but there is every possibility that would prove totally unworkable in practice and we'd have yet another GE within months. The SNP certainly should not consider any informal agreement with such a setup. Now that might be a calculated gamble that Labour are willing to take, i.e. deliberately form an unstable government with the idea that the public will buy a 'we need a more stable solution' in the same way they bought Boris's 'oven ready deal' shite to elect a majority.

The jist of it is though, there is still 18 months until the election, so Starmer could yet find himself in a position where he is not in fact the leader of the clear, largest party. The LibDems could yet over-achieve and pinch seats from the Tories, leaving both Tory and Labour incapable of forming any sort of workable government that is not at least a three-party coalition, so bumping his gums right now amounts to nothing more than posturing, and has no relevance to what might actually happen once the lie of the land is known.

[renton]

15 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

I think theres more chance of Labour doing something to make everyones life better than the SNP as it is currently, is what I think

Based on what? Your acid reflux?