What is the point of labour ?

[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?

[coprolite]

21 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

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.

Starmer has said no deal with the SNP.

he would have to go back on his word to go into coalition with the SNP. 
 

If that gets Labour in power, they’re doing it.

if it gets the SNP a referendum, they’re doing it.

it’s as good as done

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Starmer has said no deal with the SNP.

he would have to go back on his word to go into coalition with the SNP. 
 

If that gets Labour in power, they’re doing it.

if it gets the SNP a referendum, they’re doing it.

it’s as good as done

And we all know he’s a man of his word.*
 

 

 

 

 

 

* this is an example of sarcasm.

[Wee-Bey]

Starmer will want to avoid a deal with the SNP that guarantees a referendum at all costs. Going back to the polls makes more sense.

I think a 'Sir Kier was willing to give up being PM to save are preshus yoonan' narrative would work out pretty well for him in any rerun.

[ScotiaNostra]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Based on what? Your acid reflux?

Thanks

 

based on my reading of it all, same as your view is based on your reading of it all. You may be right I may be wrong. Im just voicing my view on here.

As I mentioned earlier A Scotland United I think is an interesting idea and I would consider voting for that as I could see that leading to independence. I dont see the SNP as it is currently leading to anything. So with all that, Im basing my view on whos got more chance of delivering something better now and I feel thats Labour at this point in time and with the state of the country and the UK as it is now.

Edited July 25, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[oneteaminglasgow]

3 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Thanks

 

based on my reading of it all, same as your view is based on your reading of it all. You may be right I may be wrong. Im just voicing my view on here.

As I mentioned earlier A Scotland United I think is an interesting idea and I would consider voting for that as I could see that leading to independence. I dont see the SNP as it is currently leading to anything. So with all that, Im basing my view on whos got more chance of delivering something better now and I feel thats Labour at this point in time and with the state of the country and the UK as it is now.

What are you hoping that Labour will deliver for the U.K., specifically? 

[Theyellowbox]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Who do you feel threatened by?

Ourselves.

As a country, the UK is well defended militarily, but we have allowed extreme fringes of UK society to take hold. Guys like Farage are the more palatable face for some pretty horrible individuals, with damaging views, that in the past were extremely marginal. It's not a physical threat, its more a threat of the breakdown of society. They aren't keeping us safe as they have allowed the essential services (hospitals, ambulances, fire brigades, GPs, Schools, Scocial care) to fall into a state of disrepair. They aren't keeping us safe as they allow extremists of all sorts gain prominence in the country and give views that at best are ill informed and at worst, knowingly harmful, but for personal gain. For example, allowing folk to peddle conspiracy theories on vaccines and global warming openly and in some cases within government.

They aren't keeping us safe from poverty. In 2023, there should be no child in the UK starving and no adult should be homeless, never mind food banks being required. They don't keep the most needdy inside and outside our society safe, such as the the exploited immigrants or the poor folk heading here just wanting a better life. Makes my skin crawl when they make these people out to be the bad folk for wanting a better life, only to gain the support of small minded people. 

Bar a few elites, there are not protecting any of us.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Theyellowbox

[LovaMan Bairn]

41 minutes ago, orfc said:

8 years of Sturgeonism that's ended with no new ferries, no A9 upgrade, no smaller class sizes etc but a criminal investigation into the people at the top. It's a low bar, more of a challenge to limbo dancers than high jumpers

The bit in bold.  i'm currently looking out my front window and can see a new Cal Mac ferrie that was put into servive in June 2022.  So this point is incorrect.

[ScotiaNostra]

1 hour ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

What are you hoping that Labour will deliver for the U.K., specifically? 

Im hoping that everything will be better run, I think that they will improve the life quickly of those in most need (thats one of my biggest wants).

That there will be better investment in infrastructure and services like the NHS and improved social care. I think they will improve the energy situation. I think the sustainable and green economy will benefit and be invested in more with better clearer plans. I see better long term planning from them in all areas. I think they will be more EU friendly and improve the relationship with the EU. I hope that they will start to bring public services insourced again. 

Basically i think everything will be better done by Labour than the Tories in the UK and I feel a bigger mandate for Labour across the UK will give them more power to do that.

Thats my feeling at the moment, that may change before elections come. Thats where I am now.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[Salt n Vinegar]

5 hours 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.

Meanwhile....

https://news.sky.com/story/stonewall-criticises-labour-over-inhumane-medical-diagnosis-plan-for-transgender-people-12926723

"Leading LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall has criticised Labour after the party insisted it would keep the medical diagnosis element of trans people having their gender legally recognised."

Next!

[O'Kelly Isley III]

59 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Im hoping that everything will be better run, I think that they will improve the life quickly of those in most need (thats one of my biggest wants).

That there will be better investment in infrastructure and services like the NHS and improved social care. I think they will improve the energy situation. I think the sustainable and green economy will benefit and be invested in more with better clearer plans. I see better long term planning from them in all areas. I think they will be more EU friendly and improve the relationship with the EU. I hope that they will start to bring public services insourced again. 

Basically i think everything will be better done by Labour than the Tories in the UK and I feel a bigger mandate for Labour across the UK will give them more power to do that.

Thats my feeling at the moment, that may change before elections come. Thats where I am now.

 

 

I respect your opinions but I think you are doing too much thinking, and much of it wishful, and not enough reading.  When even The Guardian is using phrases like 'Starmer's Crippling Electoral Caution' then something is afoot.

Take a couple of examples.  Yesterday saw a major UN Conference in Rome about the global crisis in providing food for poor children.  Every major nation and federation was in attendance.  But not Little Britain.  Bad enough as that is, where was the condemnation from Labour?  Well nowhere, because Starmer is too petrified to even advocate for free school meals for needy kids in the UK.  

And here today, we learn of a record 105,000 registered homeless people in England and Wales, thousands of them children.  The problem is particularly acute in London where the Home Office is outbidding local authorities for available housing in a desperate bid to reduce the hotel bills for migrants.  Migrants whose applications and appeals cannot be processed due to a totally dysfunctional immigration system.  Again where is the condemnation from Labour, and yes the other parties ?

The country needs the boldness and vision of the Labour Party of 1945 at this time.  Unfortunately we have a party scared of it's own history and utterly paralysed by fear of the English electorate and it's rabid media.

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

 

The country needs the boldness and vision of the Labour Party of 1945 at this time.  Unfortunately we have a party scared of it's own history and utterly paralysed by fear of the English electorate and it's rabid media.

This is the problem in a nutshell.  When the country is in a mess you need radical solutions not tinkering at the edges.

That’s why I have always despised the LibDems and their predecessors, they identify the enormity of the problems then offer no real solutions.

Labour is now exactly the same, if Starmer gets in we will, for example, be closer to the dismantling of the NHS in five years time than we are now.

[StellarHibee]

6 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

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.

Labour will make it impossible for the SNP to back them, just as they did in 79. Hoping it will have the same kind of impact. The SNP will demand a referendum, Labour will simply refuse to budge. Keir Starmer may be a power hungry sociopath, but considering where he sits politically, he'd be quite content with another 5 years of tory government which they could then use to beat the SNP over the head with. And we're just stupid enough to fall for it, again.

[ScotiaNostra]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

I respect your opinions but I think you are doing too much thinking, and much of it wishful, and not enough reading.  When even The Guardian is using phrases like 'Starmer's Crippling Electoral Caution' then something is afoot.

Take a couple of examples.  Yesterday saw a major UN Conference in Rome about the global crisis in providing food for poor children.  Every major nation and federation was in attendance.  But not Little Britain.  Bad enough as that is, where was the condemnation from Labour?  Well nowhere, because Starmer is too petrified to even advocate for free school meals for needy kids in the UK.  

And here today, we learn of a record 105,000 registered homeless people in England and Wales, thousands of them children.  The problem is particularly acute in London where the Home Office is outbidding local authorities for available housing in a desperate bid to reduce the hotel bills for migrants.  Migrants whose applications and appeals cannot be processed due to a totally dysfunctional immigration system.  Again where is the condemnation from Labour, and yes the other parties ?

The country needs the boldness and vision of the Labour Party of 1945 at this time.  Unfortunately we have a party scared of it's own history and utterly paralysed by fear of the English electorate and it's rabid media.

maybe your right, when the SNP grow a set and offer some reality rather than the never never at the moment. When they think about how independence really can be achieved even if that means a broader Indy coalition. I will definitely review what I think now

Lets see what happens