Sherrif John Bunnell Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 (edited) A rare Tory to Tory defection. Edited April 27 by Sherrif John Bunnell 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Becoming a well-trodden path. Christian Wakeford began the trend. He made himself the news last year when he tried to ban Roger Waters from Manchester for criticising Israel (I think Waters is a knob on Russia and Putin but I've not seen much wrong with his Israel comments). My point here is that these Tory defectors, if Wakeford is anything to go by, don't change their politics at all and just become another voice from within pushing Labour rightwards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 1 hour ago, Miguel Sanchez said: Did he get the funding? I've not watched Dragon's Den for a while tbf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazzyStar Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 3 hours ago, Granny Danger said: To paraphrase George Orwell The creatures outside looked from Tory to Labour, and from Labour to Tory, and from Tory to Labour again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. Is that what made him become a snitch? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richey Edwards Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 5 hours ago, Highlandmagar said: Tory MP defects to Labour. He will feel right at home. He had a Bad Day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Abject laziness, or a complete lack of confidence in his own ability to find alternative employment? Apparently he was a gynaecologist before becoming an MP. Fill yer boots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 The boy has been an mp since 2010 ,voted with the government on everything...Labour "welcome comrade" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 On 13/04/2024 at 10:14, scottsdad said: PFI/PPP isn't privatisation. It is a form of contract where a private consortium will design, build and manage a building (school or hospital). The government pays no big capital costs up front but rather pays a fixed cost over, say, 25 years. Labour coming into power in the 90s saw that they needed a huge building programme, as the tories had run everything down. The capital cost to build everything that was needed was high, so they went down the PFI route. Hey presto, loads of shiny new buildings. The problems with PFI contracts arrived about 10 years later. They had signed so many, that by the late 2000s the taxpayer was paying huge sums to these contracts. Other issues came up also: there are various PFI types (BOO, BOOT, etc) and folk signing a contract in, say, 1999 weren't too fussed about what would happen 25 years later. So when the PFI contracts end, some buildings become government property, but others stay with private companies meaning new negotiations, or buying a now-oldish building. Also, there isn't much flexibility in them. A PFI school in Newcastle closed in 2010 or thereabouts due to lack of pupils, but the council must keep paying for the upkeep of an empty school. If changes to the building are needed (as will often happen) then this is hugely difficult and expensive. In the UK we no longer use PFI but these are still very common for infrastructure projects (civil engineering and power plants) across the world. It absolutely is privatisation. It's not a wholesale privatisation of a state corporation like a lot of Thatcher's giveaways were. But it's privatisation of infrastructure assets and a disproportionate amount of their economic benefits, while keeping the risks with the public. It was sold as a way to get scarce capital investment and to get private companies to bear risks. These were always bullshit. It would always have been cheaper for the government to borrow. Private companies would always be getting bail outs, subsidies and contractual protections. It was ideologically driven for some Tory backers and avarice/corruption driven for others. For Gordon Brown it was an opportunity to hide future spending commitments by keeping debt off the balance sheet. He also got to look all modern and cityish which he needed to do because if the terror that Middle England/Mail/ Express has about Labour. If Labour had come in and borrowed or taxed to fund a huge spending programme they'd have had their cards marked. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Are any of them still pushing the "making the private sector bear the burden of risk" line anymore? I'd like to think it'll be laughed out of serious discourse in the future, but I've a horrible feeling everyone will have forgotten that it means "allow our mates to pocket as much of the turnover as possible and leave everything to fall apart, then hand over taxpayer cash to cover anything urgent that needs to be done from there". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Steele Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 Oh, there goes another pledge. Wee sneaky loophole to allow zero hours contracts. Despite saying they'd ban them completely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Dan Steele said: Oh, there goes another pledge. Wee sneaky loophole to allow zero hours contracts. Despite saying they'd ban them completely. But only if the workers want them! It's not like they'll be made aware that a failure to sign their rights away will result in them losing their jobs or anything. You're being very cynical. This is all about flexibility for workers who don't want or need trivial things like guaranteed money to live on. We can trust employers to treat their staff fairly in this matter, as in all things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 minutes ago, BFTD said: But only if the workers want them! It's not like they'll be made aware that a failure to sign their rights away will result in them losing their jobs or anything. You're being very cynical. This is all about flexibility for workers who don't want or need trivial things like guaranteed money to live on. We can trust employers to treat their staff fairly in this matter, as in all things. Like when security guards "wanted" to work 80 hour weeks to avoid the Working Time Directive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 minute ago, scottsdad said: Like when security guards "wanted" to work 80 hour weeks to avoid the Working Time Directive. Yeah, I've always been so glad to have the freedom to opt out of that. Definitely not something my employer always insisted upon as a condition of employment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 Labstain is back in vogue. W@nkstains more like. Starmer and his red Tories can get so far tae fck... Since when was it Labour's raison d'etre to deny women proper pensions???!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Crùbag said: Labstain is back in vogue. W@nkstains more like. Starmer and his red Tories can get so far tae fck... Since when was it Labour's raison d'etre to deny women proper pensions???!! All they were doing was abstaining together with their Tory friends. No surprises there! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) Scottish Labour could've been so different if Monica Lennon had won their leadership election in 2021. Sarwar defeating her was a big win for establishment interests. Edited May 2 by Freedom Farter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 7 hours ago, Freedom Farter said: Scottish Labour could've been so different if Monica Lennon had won their leadership election in 2021. Sarwar defeating her was a big win for establishment interests. Tbqh Monica Lennon would be a better leader of the SNP than Swinney or Forbes. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 9 hours ago, Crùbag said: Labstain is back in vogue. W@nkstains more like. Starmer and his red Tories can get so far tae fck... Since when was it Labour's raison d'etre to deny women proper pensions???!! Ah yes, "Scottish" Labour... allies of the poor and downtrodden (as long as what they say chimes with Labour "dahn saaf" in Sir Keir's desperation to placate the nervous right-wing electorate there.) Of course, the Scottish media will go for Labour all guns blazing over their vote. Of course they will. Sycophantic bunch. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binos Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 9 hours ago, Crùbag said: Labstain is back in vogue. W@nkstains more like. Starmer and his red Tories can get so far tae fck... Since when was it Labour's raison d'etre to deny women proper pensions???!! Lade bare what their behaviour would be like in a Lab -Lab led uk and scottish parliaments 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Steele Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 I wonder if the Branch Office were furious, OK with it, or just happy to do as they're telt like good wee puppets? Scottish Labour MSPs believe UK bosses ordered Waspi vote abstention 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.