J_Stewart Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 13 hours ago, Jedi2 said: Norway Wealth Fund..yes 35 years ago...over the past 35 years the Tories have been in power for 22 of them, so not quite entirely 'it's 'only' taken (Labour) that long to move on it) I presume there was a solid reason that they didn't implement it during their 13 years in charge from '97 to 2010, and not just that they were massive neo-cons, very similar to the new incumbents, who didn't actually want to enhance the public sector? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 14 hours ago, Jedi2 said: 'He'll say one thing to get elected, it'll be another thing once he's in office'...not quite sure how that squares with making strides in the first week to start implementing the Manifesto they were elected on. You will also find @Granny Dangerand others consistently suggested 'none' of the Manifesto would happen. Of course Teachers, NHS, Planning changes for Housing etc are all fully devolved as we know and therefore Labour WM have no say at present in how these services are delivered in Scotland...that's the beauty of Devolution.What we do also know however is that any increased WM spend in these areas also leads to increased funding for Scotland...what happens to that funding is still entirely up to.....the SNP. Norway Wealth Fund..yes 35 years ago...over the past 35 years the Tories have been in power for 22 of them, so not quite entirely 'it's 'only' taken (Labour) that long to move on it) I think your triumphalism is a bit premature. Stopping Rwanda is obviously good and an actual achievement. It is the lowest of low hanging fruit though. The windfarm reversal is also good. Even if it's a devolved issue, the greenhouse effect doesn't stop at Carlisle, so this will benefit even the most parochial of Mcglashans, if only marginally. As far as I know, they haven't actually recruited thousands of teachers, built hundreds of thousands of homes or got any big investments on the go yet. Maybe see how they get on with it before starting the fellatio. Nothing on restoring employment protection yet. My recollection was that it was mostly people who were behind labour that were saying they were only trying to look like tories to get elected and would do labour things in office. No sign of that yet.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 6 hours ago, Freedom Farter said: A bit late now but this guy was your actual "Corbyn in a suit" which the Labour members who voted for Starmer thought they were getting. Which is not to blame those members as Lewis failed to get the required PLP nominations to be on the ballot in that leadership election. Lewis is fairly close to Corbyn's politics and his military background would've rendered him invulnerable to the attacks on foreign policy issues which blighted Corbyn. I've little doubt Lewis could've just pulled off an election victory similar in scale to Starmer but offering far bolder policies. Ach well. Jesus - some of the follow-up posts from royalist lickspittles are just laughable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 15 hours ago, lichtgilphead said: A whole 11 pence per Scottish resident per year (for 2 years) in Barnett consequentials. I hope the SNP don't waste this windfall. Based on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 (edited) 2 hours ago, coprolite said: I think your triumphalism is a bit premature. Stopping Rwanda is obviously good and an actual achievement. It is the lowest of low hanging fruit though. The windfarm reversal is also good. Even if it's a devolved issue, the greenhouse effect doesn't stop at Carlisle, so this will benefit even the most parochial of Mcglashans, if only marginally. As far as I know, they haven't actually recruited thousands of teachers, built hundreds of thousands of homes or got any big investments on the go yet. Maybe see how they get on with it before starting the fellatio. Nothing on restoring employment protection yet. My recollection was that it was mostly people who were behind labour that were saying they were only trying to look like tories to get elected and would do labour things in office. No sign of that yet.... Don't disagree that we need to 'see the numbers' regarding 6500 teachers (over a 5 year period of course), number of houses (same), and waiting lists. And yes 'halving' violence against women and girls is essential but will also take time However it is at least a 'good' start to already be getting the foundations in place. Not yet convinced that the first 2 years up until 2026 of (any) govt will be long enough to say 'look Labour have failed' for Holyrood, and given that most of their policy proposals only affect England and Wales in any case... At the same time no-one has any idea what 'events' could transpire between now and then..the Tories after all, came in, in 2019 promising to level up, but that was shelved in fairness due to spending £400 billion on furlough and vaccines (as well as shuffling cash to their pals for PPE of course). Also in 2019 we didn't then have Putin attempting a full invasion of Ukraine which pushed up energy and food prices across Europe. Labour also need 'luck' to have a term in office which isn't derailed by outside forces of wars, pandemics, and indeed a Trump re-election. Edited July 11 by Jedi2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 57 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: Based on? Simple arithmetic, obviously. Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? Cost to hire a planner ~£45000 per year (based on https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=planner salary plus on costs) Number of Planners 300 Timescale - all in place by March 2026 Total Cost = £13,500,000 over 2 years Yearly cost to hire 300 planners in England = £6,750,000 per year Barnett consequentials flowing to Scotland = 8.645% x increase in spending in England = 0.08645 x 6750000 = £583537.50 per year Population of Scotland 5.454 million 583537.50/5454000 = £0.10699 As I said, that's just under 11 pence per year each for everyone in Scotland. Simple stuff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 49 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: Simple arithmetic, obviously. Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? Cost to hire a planner ~£45000 per year (based on https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=planner salary plus on costs) Number of Planners 300 Timescale - all in place by March 2026 Total Cost = £13,500,000 over 2 years Yearly cost to hire 300 planners in England = £6,750,000 per year Barnett consequentials flowing to Scotland = 8.645% x increase in spending in England = 0.08645 x 6750000 = £583537.50 per year Population of Scotland 5.454 million 583537.50/5454000 = £0.10699 As I said, that's just under 11 pence per year each for everyone in Scotland. Simple stuff. The thing is his PhD was entitled ‘Counting And Stuff - An In Depth Analysis Of Counting And … Err … Stuff’. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 9 hours ago, Freedom Farter said: A bit late now but this guy was your actual "Corbyn in a suit" which the Labour members who voted for Starmer thought they were getting. Which is not to blame those members as Lewis failed to get the required PLP nominations to be on the ballot in that leadership election. Lewis is fairly close to Corbyn's politics and his military background would've rendered him invulnerable to the attacks on foreign policy issues which blighted Corbyn. I've little doubt Lewis could've just pulled off an election victory similar in scale to Starmer but offering far bolder policies. Ach well. When Corbyn stepped down I remember saying Lewis would be the best option to replace him. Certain posters on here cited his military service as an argument against it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 It really shows how bad the last government was (and the overall state of politics and the media in this country) that these rather tepid, underwhelming reforms are being hailed as some sort of FDR's New Deal. 'You repealed a planning law this morning. Truly magnificent, sir.' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said: Simple arithmetic, obviously. Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? Cost to hire a planner ~£45000 per year (based on https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=planner salary plus on costs) Number of Planners 300 Timescale - all in place by March 2026 Total Cost = £13,500,000 over 2 years Yearly cost to hire 300 planners in England = £6,750,000 per year Barnett consequentials flowing to Scotland = 8.645% x increase in spending in England = 0.08645 x 6750000 = £583537.50 per year Population of Scotland 5.454 million 583537.50/5454000 = £0.10699 As I said, that's just under 11 pence per year each for everyone in Scotland. Simple stuff. So no comment on what the increased spend on the NHS or Education is yet, which of course also goes to Scotland as a percentage....reason being we don't yet know what it will be 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 45 minutes ago, Cheese said: It really shows how bad the last government was (and the overall state of politics and the media in this country) that these rather tepid, underwhelming reforms are being hailed as some sort of FDR's New Deal. 'You repealed a planning law this morning. Truly magnificent, sir.' In fairness the Labour campaign slogan of “We are a little bit less shit than the Tories” should have been a portent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 23 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: So no comment on what the increased spend on the NHS or Education is yet, which of course also goes to Scotland as a percentage....reason being we don't yet know what it will be You've answered your own question. Given that there has been no announcement (that I am aware of) as to exactly how long it will take to recruit the 6500 teachers, it's not possible to work out the Barnett consequentials. This is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. At this exact moment, the consequentials to be zero, as no new teachers have been appointed. Similarly, starting an audit of NHS finances doesn't really equate to new money for Scotland. In reality, Labour have done the square root of f*ck all (so far) toward fulfilling their manifesto promises toward the NHS & education. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 Clearly hiring more teachers is a good thing, some of them might make all the difference in some young people's lives. There is around 24,000 schools in England and Wales though, so it's working out at just over a quarter of a teacher per school. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNU_Linux Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cheese said: quarter of a teacher per school. Simple solution is to cut all teachers in four thus more teachers for more schools Edited July 11 by GNU_Linux 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 It looks like the new government is going to come under increasing pressure to abolish the two child benefits cap. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 Clive is a psy op. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 51 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said: Simple solution is to cut all teachers in four thus more teachers for more schools As long as they send the right bits to the right department. No point having the brain teaching PE and sending the legs up to the Maths classroom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 5 minutes ago, Cheese said: As long as they send the right bits to the right department. No point having the brain teaching PE and sending the legs up to the Maths classroom. You could send the arse and the elbow to the remedial class and see if they can identify which is which. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTee Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 5 hours ago, lichtgilphead said: Simple arithmetic, obviously. Are you totally incapable of doing your own research? Cost to hire a planner ~£45000 per year (based on https://uk.talent.com/salary?job=planner salary plus on costs) Number of Planners 300 Timescale - all in place by March 2026 Total Cost = £13,500,000 over 2 years Yearly cost to hire 300 planners in England = £6,750,000 per year Barnett consequentials flowing to Scotland = 8.645% x increase in spending in England = 0.08645 x 6750000 = £583537.50 per year Population of Scotland 5.454 million 583537.50/5454000 = £0.10699 As I said, that's just under 11 pence per year each for everyone in Scotland. Simple stuff. So if the Westminster decide to spend some more money on the English NHS, the Scottish Government gets a population percentage to spend on the Scottish NHS. Great to have extra funds but must be pretty difficult plan for this. I guess the starting point is to assume no extra funds, and then be grateful if Westminster decides to spend some. Maybe this is not how it works. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 Re getting more teachers, what are they going to do about the ludicrous tuition fees that are a large barrier to a lot of folk going to university? 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.