|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 13 Dec 03:52
‘We weren’t listening to the people and we have paid the price.’ That is the mantra you will hear from Labour Party defeated candidates in weeks to come.
In fact the opposite may be true. With the benefit of hindsight (naturally), the Labour Party’s attempt to ride two horses: neither for nor against Brexit but committed to a second referendum- was seen as trying to be all things to all people. It failed to stop traditional Labour voters crossing over to the Conservatives who campaigned on a simple message and so was a failure.
It might have been better not to listen, but to explain to the traditional voters in Brexit constituencies that they had been seriously misled and that Brexit would damage their lives for years to come. That would have involved making a case for the EU which was never really done, but an attempt to convert them to the cause of Remain could hardly have been more damaging than what has resulted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 13 Dec 03:59
For many a year we in Scotland we were told that if we voted SNP and achieved an independent Scotland this would be abandoning the north of England to Conservatism until eternity. It did make some of us feel a little bit guilty even if the Scottish Labour vote was never actually decisive in a UK election so far as I am aware.
Now however any person in Scotland can vote for SNP and independence with a clear conscience. When traditional Labour voters in the north of England can cross the electoral picket line and vote Conservative then I can’t be alone in thinking I am owe them nothing. They have made their bed and they can lie in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Fri 13 Dec 06:42
55% voted for anyone but SNP. The anti Indy majority have spoken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 13 Dec 07:09
You are assuming that all 18% of Labour voters in Scotland will vote no in Indy ref 2 then? Lol
Add in 16/17 year olds ,EU citizens and add at least 5% on to the Yes vote when the campaign starts......clutching at straws Mario....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 13 Dec 07:12
I know several labour voters who also want indy. I keep referring to my mate who had a big yes in his front garden, but always puts his x in the box for Labour
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard
Date: Fri 13 Dec 07:31
Quote:
Mario, Fri 13 Dec 06:42
55% voted for anyone but SNP. The anti Indy majority have spoken.
Not really . . .I didn't vote SNP at this election but I would vote yes for Independence should there be a referendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Fri 13 Dec 07:43
You are assuming that everyone of the 45% who voted SNP support Indy?
Nicola doesn’t assume that,she said just that a few hours ago.
And you can forget about EU citizens, school kids, etc., even if another ref is granted the franchise won’t be a free hand like Eck got away with. Then there is his trial coming up, if he goes down it won’t be quietly.
Post Edited (Fri 13 Dec 07:47)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 13 Dec 07:47
Quote:
Mario, Fri 13 Dec 06:42
55% voted for anyone but SNP. The anti Indy majority have spoken.
What about Green voters? You've forgotten about them.
You're also assuming all SNP voters want independence and that Labour or Lib Dem voters don't want independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 13 Dec 12:46
"55% voted for anyone but SNP. The anti Indy majority have spoken."
Therefore, based on that percentage, Boris won't have any qualms about allowing a second referendum, in the sure and certain knowledge that the Scottish electorate will vote against it in a even higher % than the first one ?
Meanwhile, back in the world of real politics.....................
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Fri 13 Dec 14:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Fri 13 Dec 15:18
To paraphrase the great Harvey Specter; Labour made a huge mistake in this election. They played the ball when they should have played the man. The Tories consistently refused to engage on policy and instead demonised Corbyn. This reaped rewards.
Laura Kuenssberg spoke this morning around how 'now we'll find out what Boris Johnson's policies are', which was telling in more ways than one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 13 Dec 15:20
The Labour had the gumption to put forward policies it's just a shame they were ridiculous. Free broadband? Yes because that's what the public was screaming out for our tax money to be spent on.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 13 Dec 15:44
This is a bit US centric but there are economic benefits to high speed broadband access and it is linked to increasing GDP.
https://tech.co/news/3-ways-fast-broadband-contributes-economic-growth-2016-09
If you couple that with proper tax structures to capture the benefits of increased GDP then all of a sudden it's not quite as silly as it sounds. Taxable revenue potentially increases and folk get access to a utility they wouldn't have had before. Unfortunately it sounds like an easy policy to dismiss as it seems like a luxury freebie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 13 Dec 16:09
It’s obvious that if Johnson had come up with the free broadband idea it would have been hailed as empowering local communities.
Because of its historic commitment to social justice the Labour Party can be seen as a ‘free hand-out’ crew and that idea has never been popular amongst working people. Talking about investment in schools or hospitals is fine but again these are perceived as things which are received in times of need. What has been lacking since the Blairite days, and not fully addressed by Corbyn, is the natural desire of working people to have control over their working lives outside the safety net of public services. There seems to be a lot of discontented, if not downright miserable workers out there with poor working conditions and precious little legal protection. They might need healthcare, but I suspect many would rather have the tools to fight for a healthy everyday working life.
There used to be a few slogans to this effect. ‘We don’t want hand-outs, we want a hand up;’ or ‘Give us the tools and we’ll do the job.’ Despite being cast as a hard left politician, Corbyn had surprisingly little to say about the active role of trade unions in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 14 Dec 06:16
Free broadband and we've got Zero hour contracts, homeless, foodbanks and families starving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 14 Dec 09:59
And in what way does the free broadband policy stop any of those issues being addressed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 14 Dec 10:12
Just came across this and it relates specifically to the UK and how it benefited from the increase in the use of broadband and increased broadband speeds:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/telecoms-research/broadband-research/economic-impact-broadband
Greater access to broadband = increase in economic activity and GDP which should = increase in tax revenue = more money to spend on homelessness etc.
Increased infrastructure spending invariably contributes a net return on the initial investment.
There are also added social benefits to increased accessibility to broadband for groups such as those with disabilities and communities in rural locations can often get better access to services.
It was actually a very good policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 14 Dec 10:16
Well you'd be looking at north of 10 billion to buy the Open Reach business from BT shareholders and then you have running costs of more than 500m a year. Of course if you are getting free broadband from the government then I can't see the likes of Virgin Media, Sky Broadband, Talk Talk, etc surviving so that's be tens of thousands laid off.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 14 Dec 10:28
Another of Corbyn's loony pledges was to recruit 20,000 more teachers.
Where from Jeremy ?
A significant number of schools across the UK can't staff existing posts in certain subjects - and up here there are Primary schools which can't attract headteacher applicants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 14 Dec 10:48
At least he wasn't going to recruit teachers who were already in post.😊😊😊
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Sat 14 Dec 12:46
We will recruit 20000 more teachers, by removing the ability for 20000 current teachers from resigning!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 14 Dec 12:51
A significant number of schools across the UK can't staff existing posts in certain subjects - and up here there are Primary schools which can't attract headteacher applicants.
You realise that you just used the current system's failures as a reason to not do anything?
Or do you honestly believe that it was Labour policy to simply "magic" the teachers out of the ether? The recruitment target was part of a whole raft of education policies ones of the goals of which was the recruitment of new teachers.
I'm a trained teacher who could be earning nearly twice my salary with much better terms and conditions but I have no intention of teaching again whilst schools are being micromanaged to the detriment of the education of young people.
In this country we seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of education. It's not a way to separate out the smart from the clever, it's not a way to keep kids busy whilst mum and dad are at work, and it's not a way for the government to measure how well the British population can answer tests.
People want to teach but that's not really what teachers are currently being asked to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 14 Dec 14:23
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sat 14 Dec 10:16
Well you'd be looking at north of 10 billion to buy the Open Reach business from BT shareholders and then you have running costs of more than 500m a year. Of course if you are getting free broadband from the government then I can't see the likes of Virgin Media, Sky Broadband, Talk Talk, etc surviving so that's be tens of thousands laid off.
It's been costed by an independent report commissioned by the Conservatives and the cheapest option was the Government monopoly at just over £20 billion.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/free-broadband-labour-plan-internet-wifi-nationalisation-a9205031.html
That provides broadband for everyone in 15 years.
There is of course the privatised version that's going to happen under the Conservatives that is going to cost £32 billion because competing companies have to pay for the same equipment and is estimated to provide 90% coverage as it would not be in the private companies financial interests to provide it to everyone. According to the report another 10% would be subject to a delay in getting it because again it's not in the private sectors interests to ensure there is a quick roll out.
So we have a system that will cost 50% more than Corbyn's plan the cost of which will ultimately be born by the consumer (taxpayers) rather than under Corbyn's system where he proposed to fund it by leveraging synergies from bringing the system together and implementing a digital tax for the private sector to contribute to (keeping in mind they are expected to benefit from the investment too).
To your point about job losses, the project was going to be huge and would be far more reaching than anything that is going on now and its highly likely that any redundancies in the private sector would find work in the public sector.
Considering that article highlights that Virgin and EE were both fined for ripping off their customers I'd be far happier having a system that is run by the Government for the people rather than private entities for their shareholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 14 Dec 14:30
Having nationalised broadband would still need the same or similar numbers of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 14 Dec 14:34
Possibly even more as it's a bigger project under Corbyns old plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 14 Dec 14:48
Really? Would one big company employ more than several smaller ones?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 14 Dec 14:49
If the one big company is doing more than the several smaller ones then quite possibly yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Sat 14 Dec 16:06
Getting back to %ages again. The turnout in the GE was 67%, the turnout in the Indy ref was 85%.
It has been well documented that those most likely not to vote are young people and those who feel disenfranchised.
If there is another Indy ref I am fairly confident that the 18% that were missing at the GE will turn up and the turn out will be mid eighties again.
I am also fairly confident that most of those will be Yes voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 14 Dec 20:01
"You realise that you just used the current system's failures as a reason to not do anything?"
Where did I say that ?
I was highlighting Corbyn's ridiculous electoral pledge,nothing more, nothing less.
Do you know the reason why Primary head posts are often difficult to fill ?
I suspect those not in the system won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 16 Dec 12:30
COSLA head, Labour all her life is now backing independence.
Monica Lennon, Paul Sweeney and even Richard Leonard are now all making noises about federalism,Indy ref 2.
As I said on an earlier post there are loads of Labour people now coming over to the independence side some of whom were active No campaigners in 2014.
If Scottish Labour give their official support to an Indy ref 2 then there will be no stopping it.
It can’t be under the current D’Hondt system though which is specifically designed to prevent a majority.
I think at the last Holyrood election SNP won over 80% of the first past the post votes but still failed to get a majority.
So I have no idea how the 2021 Holyrood election could be turned into a referendum on a referendum that both sides would agree to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 16 Dec 17:28
There is a definite uptick of support for Indyref2 with my Labour pals after Thursday. A few are even contemplating voting Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Mon 16 Dec 21:37
My local SNP branch has been notified today of 4 new members since Friday.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Mon 16 Dec 22:24
Labour have a humongous membership. Fat lot of good it did them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Mon 16 Dec 22:28
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 16 Dec 23:32
Labour voters in England have abandoned their Scottish cousins.
One of Labours mantras in 2014 was that they could not vote Yes as it would abandon their English cousins........well that is blown out of the water now.
Indy is a cert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 17 Dec 06:15
Altogether now Mario,
No Jeremy Corbyn
No Jeremy Corbyn
No Jeremy Corbyn
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 17 Dec 07:36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Tue 17 Dec 07:45
Quote:
londonparsfan, Sat 14 Dec 14:23
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sat 14 Dec 10:16
Well you'd be looking at north of 10 billion to buy the Open Reach business from BT shareholders and then you have running costs of more than 500m a year. Of course if you are getting free broadband from the government then I can't see the likes of Virgin Media, Sky Broadband, Talk Talk, etc surviving so that's be tens of thousands laid off.
It's been costed by an independent report commissioned by the Conservatives and the cheapest option was the Government monopoly at just over £20 billion.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/free-broadband-labour-plan-internet-wifi-nationalisation-a9205031.html
That provides broadband for everyone in 15 years.
There is of course the privatised version that's going to happen under the Conservatives that is going to cost £32 billion because competing companies have to pay for the same equipment and is estimated to provide 90% coverage as it would not be in the private companies financial interests to provide it to everyone. According to the report another 10% would be subject to a delay in getting it because again it's not in the private sectors interests to ensure there is a quick roll out.
So we have a system that will cost 50% more than Corbyn's plan the cost of which will ultimately be born by the consumer (taxpayers) rather than under Corbyn's system where he proposed to fund it by leveraging synergies from bringing the system together and implementing a digital tax for the private sector to contribute to (keeping in mind they are expected to benefit from the investment too).
To your point about job losses, the project was going to be huge and would be far more reaching than anything that is going on now and its highly likely that any redundancies in the private sector would find work in the public sector.
Considering that article highlights that Virgin and EE were both fined for ripping off their customers I'd be far happier having a system that is run by the Government for the people rather than private entities for their shareholders.
While the nationalised option would be cheaper to "roll out" at 20 billion compared to the 32 billion of the private sector this does not include the cost of nationalising it in the first place.
This has been estimated at 20 billion by Labour but the industry claim the value of that part of BT is 30 billion.
So even with Labours figures the total cost is 40 billion.
It is also claimed that a transition from private to state owned would delay the rollout by between 3 and 5 years.
So would cost the country even more due to loss of GDP over that period.
Labour's "fully costed" manifesto was deemed to be 55 billion short by the IFS.
On top of that they pledged 58 billion for the WASPI women which was not included in their manifesto.
In their grey book that went along with the manifesto around 2.8 billion of funding was attributed to a growth in GDP.
Labours plans were up to £115.8 billion short.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Tue 17 Dec 11:59
Can you ever see Labour forming a Westminster government in the future ?
They are a busted flush across the whole of the U.K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 17 Dec 12:02
Scottish Labour took a side in the 2014 indyref debate that they paid for heavily the following year, losing all but one seat. Getting 6 more in 2017 gave them a false dawn and now back to one MP yet again, they really have had to look at themselves very closely.
Personally speaking, I thought after their BT campaign they should have got on their hands and knees and begged forgiveness from the Scottish electorate but instead they just became an innefectual pro unionist , anti Yes party, something Ruth Davidson was more than happy to capitalise on.
They are being dragged kicking and screaming towards a pro Indy stance following the election now to save their own skins.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
