What is the point of Labour ?

[invergowrie arab]

I'm trying to think back to the last big cohort of Labour MPs and trying to be fair minded and pick out the decent ones.

I can't think of any - were they all self serving arseholes desperate for enoblement or simple thickos?

John McCallion was decent but that was about 25 years ago.

Whilst I can see the attraction in giving the SNP a kick up the arse I'm not sure the resuscitation of snidey c***s like Douglas Alexander, common or garden Tories like Tom Harris or electing the next Pamela Nash would be my priority.

[GTee]

I'll continue to vote SNP, until independence, which will probably never happen in my lifetime. Scotland the Brave my arse.

[Salt n Vinegar]

I may not know much, but if there's something I can be pretty sure about it's that voting Labour or Libdem will never achieve independence for Scotland.  Anyone voting for anything other than a pro-independence party who claims to want independence is deluding themselves.  

Another Westminster government next year will just mean about another 5 years before there's any chance to demand meaningful change.  Meanwhile the Labtories will undermine devolution further. 

 

[GTee]

I am a proud Englishman, but l am also British and part of the Union - said noone ever

[GTee]

4 hours ago, ScotiaNostra said:

I well remember Labour sitting on their arses taking everything for granted in Scotland especially, which is where I see the SNP now. I honestly just dont see the SNP delivering independence and I feel their governance over last while has been poor. I respect your view and reply though 

 

 

Labour won't deliver independence

[Boo Khaki]

11 hours ago, KirkieRR said:

I share your concerns but not your solution. A Labour revival in Scotland would de interpreted by them as a return to the prior status quo

The SNP are poor, ALBA are bonkers, but independence is the only way.

Absolutely a million times this.

There are a hefty number of Labour figures who still evidently believe that Scots are only trifling with the SNP and SLab are the true party of natural order. This, despite having their arses handed to them over and over in both Holyrood and Westminster elections. 

Handing any sort of control back to Labour would just encourage these gimps to believe that they were correct all along, and you'd see an immediate return to the McConnell style of Scottish Government where the only consideration is for what London HQ wants, and to f**k with Scotland.

[renton]

11 hours ago, ScotiaNostra said:

I just have a hope now that Labour once in power will make things better and once in power and showing a better run governance will also start to edge towards some of those policies they are keeping at arms length for now. That may be misplaced but all voting is in hope to some extent.

I certainly am not claiming I am right and anyone else is wrong. In a way I guess im just trying to formulate how I feel and work through some of the questions I have that are going to influence how I vote. Which isnt as easy as it used to be.

So just putting out there how im feeling now in regards voting and politics in regards where we are at the moment

 

if that makes any sense at all

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.

Edited July 25, 2023 by renton

[Cheese]

Yeah, these people are exactly what they appear to be. Unpleasant and factional with no aspirations to improve people's lives to any significant degree. The country is in the shitter and they've correctly figured out that all they need to do is offer to be more professional in managing the decline. Cushy board positions with gambling firms, payday loan companies and privatised industries to follow.

The sensibles are back in charge baby. 

[Granny Danger]

If Starmer had any intention of introducing progressive policies he wouldn’t be purging the party of anyone remotely left wing.  He’s doing so because he wants to avoid any internal criticism when he’s implementing Tory Lite policies.

[scottsdad]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

If Starmer had any intention of introducing progressive policies he wouldn’t be purging the party of anyone remotely left wing.  He’s doing so because he wants to avoid any internal criticism when he’s implementing Tory Lite policies.

That, and the fact that when the left had control of the party the made a complete and utter cock up of it. 

Corbyn and his mob were utterly unelectable. 

[renton]

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

That, and the fact that when the left had control of the party the made a complete and utter cock up of it. 

Corbyn and his mob were utterly unelectable. 

The classic Labour dichotomy, you get to run the country only when you promise not to try and do anything.

Edited July 25, 2023 by renton

[Granny Danger]

8 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

That, and the fact that when the left had control of the party the made a complete and utter cock up of it. 

Corbyn and his mob were utterly unelectable. 

Corbyn was a terrible leader, particularly for the social media age.  The policies were by and large sound.

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

That, and the fact that when the left had control of the party the made a complete and utter cock up of it. 

Corbyn and his mob were utterly unelectable. 

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.

[Theyellowbox]

25 minutes ago, Herc said:

Yeah, these people are exactly what they appear to be. Unpleasant and factional with no aspirations to improve people's lives to any significant degree. The country is in the shitter and they've correctly figured out that all they need to do is offer to be more professional in managing the decline. Cushy board positions with gambling firms, payday loan companies and privatised industries to follow.

The sensibles are back in charge baby. 

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.

[Boo Khaki]

If the outcome of the next GE is a hung parliament, then that will be an utterly damning indictment of Starmer's 4-5 years (by that point) time as Labour leader. 

They have every possible environmental factor in their favour. Total disillusionment with the incumbent government, failing economy, COLC, NHS on it's knees. They couldn't wish for more ammunition to pelt the government with. If the Tory vote collapses and they still can't return a majority, then I'm sorry, but they don't deserve to even think about Coalitions.

Why the f**k would the SNP even think about propping up a bunch of utter no-hopers that can't even win an election when given every conceivable advantage?

Rhetorical question, because it's bloody obvious why, but still, it wouldn't sit easy.

Part of me hopes that they just jump into bed with the LibDems, because I find the idea of propping up this shower wholly distasteful, but that doesn't help Scotland any and it would surely end with yet another Tory government in 5 years' time.

Still, I don't understand why the SNP would make noises for years about never supporting Tories, but making an exception for a Starmer Tory Government.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Boo Khaki

[RuMoore]

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. 

 

 

[Theyellowbox]

12 minutes 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. 

 

 

Disagree. I think anyone centre or left of centre politically, regardless of view on independence would feel that Labour is no where near progressive.

It would be fine to be a non radical alternative to the current Tory government if the country wasn't in a total shambles, but that is not where we are.

We have failing health care, failing social care, failing economy, failing policing, failing military force, failing imigration policy to name just a few and it is not acceptable for the opposition party, regardless of who they are to have a tact of let's not change much and a change of faces will do.

I'm over simplifying Labour's position above, but nothing I hear from then amounts to anything more than tinkering around the edges.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Theyellowbox

[StellarHibee]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Still, I don't understand why the SNP would make noises for years about never supporting Tories, but making an exception for a Starmer Tory Government.

Because they know a Starmer government would never work with the SNP under any circumstance (they've already been quite clear about that). So it allows the SNP to push the message that Scotland is once again being excluded from the UK political system even when they're prepared to play a part in it.

[oneteaminglasgow]

45 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

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.

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. 

[craigkillie]

18 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

Because they know a Starmer government would never work with the SNP under any circumstance (they've already been quite clear about that). So it allows the SNP to push the message that Scotland is once again being excluded from the UK political system even when they're prepared to play a part in it.

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.