What is the point of Labour ?

[BFTD]

3 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

Blair's Labour did some good things but most of it was subsequently swept away by the nasty old Tories. Also if it wasn't for devolution (and you wonder if Blair wasn't dragged screaming and kicking to that by Brown, Cook, Dewar and other Scottish Labour MPs) would Scotland have ended up with New Labour things like free schools away from local government control.

If Labour, with 33 years governance out of the last 100, had half a brain (debatable) they should on victory introduce some form of PR to prevent the Tories having a First Past the Post majority ever again 

It's worth remembering that New Labour aided business via the back door, such as offloading a percentage of private companies' wage bills on to the taxpayer, and moving further down the road towards privatisation for healthcare and education. The things they did that had the Tories up in arms wouldn't have happened if more cunning business people than the dross in Major's backbenches hadn't approved.

Also, they're probably feart of fucking about with the electoral system at Westminster, considering what happened in Scotland when they tried to ensure the opposition would never have a majority. Maybe that's why they'll never abolish the House of Lords either.

[lichtgilphead]

37 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

Labour campaigned to abolish the House of Lords in 1910. It's a bit like Dundee promising to win the Scottish Cup each year

Unfortunately, Dundee will probably win the Scottish Cup again before Labour abolish the Lords. Probably Arbroath will win the Champions League the same season.

[ScotiaNostra]

Its all well and good but the choice is only a Labour or a Tory government. No one not even the most ardent SNP fan believes currently that the SNP are going to deliver indy anytime soon. 

So overall its clearly better Labour win over the Tories and it will make a difference, not as much as we may hope but it will be far better after the absolute shitshow the tories have given us. It will also be better for Labour to get a clear majority. It will make a difference for some of those most at need.

The SNP dont offer anything currently and thats also repeated regulary by SNP voters who frequently state on here and elsewhere theres nothing they can do with the powers they have.

After that then lets see maybe then the SNP will be worth a vote again if it gets its act together but as of now with the choices available. 

[oneteaminglasgow]

2 hours ago, ScotiaNostra said:

It will also be better for Labour to get a clear majority. It will make a difference for some of those most at need.

It really fucking won’t. 

[SandyCromarty]

10 hours ago, tamthebam said:

Blair's Labour did some good things but most of it was subsequently swept away by the nasty old Tories. Also if it wasn't for devolution (and you wonder if Blair wasn't dragged screaming and kicking to that by Brown, Cook, Dewar and other Scottish Labour MPs) would Scotland have ended up with New Labour things like free schools away from local government control.

If Labour, with 33 years governance out of the last 100, had half a brain (debatable) they should on victory introduce some form of PR to prevent the Tories having a First Past the Post majority ever again 

The Labour Party that was founded 124 years ago with it's basic fundamental policy to represent and defend the rights of the working class is far removed from the Labour Party of today.

Todays Labour Party will argue that the world has moved on, but we the working class are still here and while we see benefits and rights continually cut by the tories the Labour Party presently seem to condone that behaviour, the two child benefit cap is a prime example.

The biggest mistake to many is how the Labour Party has backed Trident, £35 Billion spending on a weapons system which really belongs to the USA, the guidance system for instance can only be serviced in the USA.

Consider that cost and the billions spent on two aircraft carriers which repeatedly break down. 

Imagine what that money could provide the NHS alone with, seems the Labour and Tory politicians prefer spending to kill people instead of investing in saving lives.

[Highlandmagar]

4 hours ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Its all well and good but the choice is only a Labour or a Tory government. No one not even the most ardent SNP fan believes currently that the SNP are going to deliver indy anytime soon. 

So overall its clearly better Labour win over the Tories and it will make a difference, not as much as we may hope but it will be far better after the absolute shitshow the tories have given us. It will also be better for Labour to get a clear majority. It will make a difference for some of those most at need.

The SNP dont offer anything currently and thats also repeated regulary by SNP voters who frequently state on here and elsewhere theres nothing they can do with the powers they have.

After that then lets see maybe then the SNP will be worth a vote again if it gets its act together but as of now with the choices available. 

Nope! I am afraid you are deluded. Labour won't make things any mire palatable than the Tories. They will govern as Tories with a kinder looking mask. 

[Fullerene]

13 hours ago, BFTD said:

Also, they're probably feart of fucking about with the electoral system at Westminster, considering what happened in Scotland when they tried to ensure the opposition would never have a majority. Maybe that's why they'll never abolish the House of Lords either.

You can't have it both ways.  PR would be marvellous for Westminister but in Scotland it was devious sinister ploy to undermine the SNP.

When devolution was introduced, it was obvious that PR was the only acceptable option for electing members.  Yes, it would stop the SNP getting an undeserved mojority in later years but it also stopped anyone else getting an undeserved majority - including Labour.  Nobody at the time knew how future elections would work out.  I doubt anyone was scheming with their crystal ball. 

A better way to look at it is that nobody gets a majority of seats unless they get a majority of votes and that is rarely going to happen.  That is why Salmond could argue for a referendum because his majority was not just some fluke of how the votes added up.

[Jedi2]

One of the myths the Tories have peddled successfully for decades is that Labour will always borrow more and increase the national debt and with it, potentially inflation.

The facts show that Tory govts always have higher borrowing, the difference is more that they do so to fund tax cuts, mostly for the better off, while Labour (doesn't matter if its Blair or Starmer) will largely borrow to invest in public services.

Labour govts of whatever stripe will always try what they can to keep public services particularly the NHS, Education and Social Care solvent. There will also be better funding for local Councils.

Strip away the failure to abolish the H of L, the rhetoric about 'the city' and rowing back on Green Energy, and you will still find better public services which aren't being sold off to rich foreign investors on the cheap.

 

[lichtgilphead]

42 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

One of the myths the Tories have peddled successfully for decades is that Labour will always borrow more and increase the national debt and with it, potentially inflation.

The facts show that Tory govts always have higher borrowing, the difference is more that they do so to fund tax cuts, mostly for the better off, while Labour (doesn't matter if its Blair or Starmer) will largely borrow to invest in public services.

Labour govts of whatever stripe will always try what they can to keep public services particularly the NHS, Education and Social Care solvent. There will also be better funding for local Councils.

Strip away the failure to abolish the H of L, the rhetoric about 'the city' and rowing back on Green Energy, and you will still find better public services which aren't being sold off to rich foreign investors on the cheap.

 

Blair & Starmer have f*ck all to do with the highlighted services as they are all devolved. You should be referencing Dewar, McLeish & McConnell, all of whom 'protected' Scottish public services by sending any underspend back to Westminster.

Compare & contrast with the current administration's policy in this area.

 

[Jedi2]

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

Compare & contrast with the current administration's policy in this area.

 

The SNP who have consistently underspent their budget over the last few years? Including a record £2 billion.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23164424.scottish-government-records-2bn-budget-underspend/

Can still 'afford' a Council Tax Freeze though, to leave local areas short of finance for basic services.

Edited February 5 by Jedi2

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

The SNP who have consistently underspent their budget over the last few years? Including a record £2 billion.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23164424.scottish-government-records-2bn-budget-underspend/

Can still 'afford' a Council Tax Freeze though, to leave local areas short of finance for basic services.

Your quoted article is hidden behind a paywall. 

However, what happened to the underspend? Was it

1. Retained, and carried forward into next years budget; or
2. Handed back to Westminster like Labour had done in previous years

Take your time...

[Jedi2]

Neither.

 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

Sir Keir Stauncher

 

[lichtgilphead]

16 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Neither.

 

Sorry Jedi. That's not an answer. Unless the money was stolen, it must have gone somewhere. 

Either it was returned to Westminster (like Labour did,) or it was retained & carried forward.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/final-outturn-report-scottish-budget-2021-2022/pages/3/

10. The total underspend of £2,087 million does not represent a loss of spending power to the Scottish Government. (my emphasis)

11. Significant underspends relate to ring-fenced, non-cash budgets or Annually Managed Expenditure:

a. £569 million relates to ring-fenced non-cash budgets, of which the majority of the underspend is in relation to the Student Loan Valuation model and is a direct reflection of the late movement in the Resource Accounting and Budgeting Charge (RAB) and Stock charges relating to Student Loans. The Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) charge is the estimated cost to Government of borrowing to support the student finance system. This is a non-cash movement, representing an adjustment to the impairment of student loans based on economist expectations of likely repayments.

b. £314 million relates to Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) budgets which are ring-fenced budgets set by HM Treasury. Any under/overspends shown against UK-funded Annually Managed Expenditure cannot be deposited in the Scotland Reserve and have no subsequent impact on the Scottish Budget. These budgets are not available for general public services. 

12. £699 million is carried forward in the Scotland Reserve, the majority of which had been anticipated and therefore included in our 2022-23 funding position.

13. £559 million are adjustments to funding actioned post completion of the Spring Budget Revision and therefore not reflected in the Scottish Budget.

What you haven't mentioned is that the Scottish Government (unlike Westminster) cannot overspend its budget. The budget must balance. This makes some sort of underspend impossible to avoid in any specified financial period. However, the overall spending power available remains the same, as detailed above.

So, unless you can show that the SNP returned money to Westminster, it must have been retained. QED

[Freedom Farter]

2 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Your quoted article is hidden behind a paywall. 

To get around that you can use this site: https://archive.ph/

Eg. https://archive.ph/rcY5T

It doesn't always work, an obscure article from a local outlet won't be there, but most national level outlets have all their articles accessible there.

[Jedi2]

So, essentially they keep it as a future 'reserve'.

If they are managing the budget so well, why do they need the recent tax hikes? With the now 6 bands of taxation in Scotland, and increase for lower earners.

In addition to these hikes at the same time they starve Councils of much needed revenue, when they were expecting a increase in CT of between 5 and 10%. Only reason for that is to keep middle income voters (who use fewer Council services) happy.

Can't have it both ways...higher taxes, tightened Council budgets (and some heading for bankruptcy),and at the same time they are managing the economy we'll (as they underspend).

 

[Trogdor]

I'm looking forward to the Empire striking back. There's been too much return of the Jedi if you ask me.

[Freedom Farter]

6 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

One of the myths the Tories have peddled successfully for decades is that Labour will always borrow more and increase the national debt and with it, potentially inflation.

The facts show that Tory govts always have higher borrowing, the difference is more that they do so to fund tax cuts, mostly for the better off, while Labour (doesn't matter if its Blair or Starmer) will largely borrow to invest in public services.

Funny, I referenced this in a different thread earlier. The pensions one in General Nonsense. It'll look like I've copied you now.

[lichtgilphead]

4 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

So, essentially they keep it as a future 'reserve'.

If they are managing the budget so well, why do they need the recent tax hikes? With the now 6 bands of taxation in Scotland, and increase for lower earners.

In addition to these hikes at the same time they starve Councils of much needed revenue, when they were expecting a increase in CT of between 5 and 10%. Only reason for that is to keep middle income voters (who use fewer Council services) happy.

Can't have it both ways...higher taxes, tightened Council budgets (and some heading for bankruptcy),and at the same time they are managing the economy we'll (as they underspend).

 

Well, that was a sudden change of view! Now Jedi says that the SNP don't return the money to Westminster after all.

The rest of his post can be described by using a gif

h

However, I'll respond to a couple of his points

If they are managing the budget so well, why do they need the recent tax hikes? 

Because the block grant funding, derived from UK Government spending decisions, has fallen by 1.2% in real terms since 2022-23.

See https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-budget-2024-25-deputy-first-minister-statement/

6 bands of taxation in Scotland, and increase for lower earners.

The starter, basic, intermediate & higher rates have not increased & the allowances for the starter & basic rates have increased by inflation

ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67760641

The lower earner on a £15,000 salary in Scotland pays total tax of £462.94

This is a reduction in income tax of £1.44 compared to 2023-24 due to the inflationary increase to the starter rate band.

If you earned the amount but were not resident in Scotland the full £2,430 would be taxable at 20% (UK basic rate) producing an income tax bill of £486. Therefore, you would pay £23.06 less as a resident of Scotland.

they starve Councils of much needed revenue

https://www.gov.scot/news/2024-25-scottish-budget-unveiled/

The 2024-25 Scottish Budget includes:... ...record funding of more than £14 billion for local government, including £144 million to enable local authorities to freeze Council Tax rates at their current levels

and some {Councils} heading for bankruptcy

Local authorities cannot actually go “bankrupt” in the way that a company or an individual can. Instead, they issue what is known as a section 114 notice. This is a report from the council’s finance officer that they believe that the authority is about to incur expenditure that is unlawful according to the Local Government Finance Act 1988

Unlike the recent actions of Birmingham & Nottingham City Councils (both controlled by Labour) no Scottish local authority has ever issued a section 114 notice.

Currently, there are several English authorities who have recently warned that they are at risk of doing so. Last year, Kent and Hampshire county councils warned that they may have to issue section 114 notices due to rising demand and cost pressures and insufficient funding

For 2024/25. Coventry, Somerset, Guildford, Kirklees,and Southampton– among others – have all warned that they may have to issue a section 114.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-authority-section-114-notices

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Ignore the fucking troll.