Jump to content

General Politics Thread


Granny Danger

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

As a fellow auld yin, can I just point out that anyone old enough to have voted in 1979 is now 57 years old. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority on here have never known anything but a Tory PM. You'd think they'd like to try something different, even if only out of curiosity.

First GE I voted in. As a naive teenager I thought Callaghan was going to romp it. Utterly devastated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Labour, Plaid, SNP, Green, possibly SDLP. Basically anyone with a progressive agenda which treats people as, you know, people. 

That would be utter carnage. Far too many vested interests to cobble together. It would be extremely fracticious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They only care about us when they need something"

That single phrase sums up the labour parties relationship with Scotland.

Sad that some are falling for the same old pish again.

Anyone in Scotland that thinks a labour governments attitude to us will be markedly different to the tories is deluding themselves. Once they have our votes and seats in the bag, we will be patronised and ignored...just as we always were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think not introducing the Poll Tax and supporting and implementing devolution, for starters, represent anything "markedly different to the Tories"? That's hysterical nonsense. 

That was just a "New" Labour Party. A proper Labour Party would be good for the working class in Scotland, less popular with people in Scotland with the good fortune to have inherited or embezzled loads of money. Same as they would be for rUK. 

Edited by Bully Wee Villa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

"They only care about us when they need something"

That single phrase sums up the labour parties relationship with Scotland.

Sad that some are falling for the same old pish again.

Anyone in Scotland that thinks a labour governments attitude to us will be markedly different to the tories is deluding themselves. Once they have our votes and seats in the bag, we will be patronised and ignored...just as we always were.

This sort of attitude is dependent on the delusion that Scotland is some kind of monolith where a single mother in Saltcoats and a banker in Edinburgh have the same interests.

If there is hypothetically a Labour government in the spring then the SNP would have more to spend at Holyrood after the first budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

You don't think not introducing the Poll Tax and supporting and implementing devolution, for starters, represent anything "markedly different to the Tories"? That's hysterical nonsense. 

That was just a "New" Labour Party. A proper Labour Party would be good for the working class in Scotland, less popular with people in Scotland with the good fortune to have inherited or embezzled loads of money. Same as they would be for rUK. 

Lol...not introducing the poll tax...wtf kind of achievement is that to claim????

And as for introducing devolution....yes they did....but only to attempt to head off the rising calls for independence. Oh...and it only took over100 years from first promised to actual delivery.  Forgive some of us for no longer swallowing labours shite.

39 minutes ago, Detournement said:

This sort of attitude is dependent on the delusion that Scotland is some kind of monolith where a single mother in Saltcoats and a banker in Edinburgh have the same interests.

If there is hypothetically a Labour government in the spring then the SNP would have more to spend at Holyrood after the first budget.

Nonsense....its all about the bigger picture. True change that is relevant, meaningful and offers specific benefit for the Scottish people...can only be achieved in a Scotland with full control of its own destiny. Only then will we have the economic levers to target problems and agendas specific to Scotland.

That aim is in no way going to benefit by the election of a labour government at Westminster.

Ofcourse, as you say, such a labour govt is entirely hypothetical. Corbyn is scraping it against possibly the most shambolic tory party ever. Come election time and his entirely predictable battering by the msm, he will just not be electable across the shires where it counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noone claimed that not introducing the Poll Tax was "an achievement". You claimed that there was no difference between Labour and Tories. The Poll Tax was an example of how you're talking bollocks. 

Just as you're talking shite about devolution. Labour won a massive majority in 1997. The SNP won, what, five seats maybe? I don't think Labour were exactly trembling about an impending secession at the time. 

There are grounds to criticise Labour. On a general basis and, yes, if you like, on the grounds of their occasional tendency to take Scotland for granted. The latter is, at least partly, an unfortunate by-product of our electoral system which has nearly always seen elections decided on the who controls Middle England. 

Regardless, though, suggesting that a party that introduced the NHS, the welfare state, the minimum wage and devolution is not "markedly different" to the Tories, especially when Labour is at the most left-wing it has been for a generation and the Tories are set to be run by one of Boris fucking Johnson or Jacob fucking Rees fucking Mogg is such a  pathetic and lazy supposition that it isn't even worth the effort of arguing with. 

Though I've just spent the last four paragraphs doing just that. Bollocks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Noone claimed that not introducing the Poll Tax was "an achievement". You claimed that there was no difference between Labour and Tories. The Poll Tax was an example of how you're talking bollocks. 

Just as you're talking shite about devolution. Labour won a massive majority in 1997. The SNP won, what, five seats maybe? I don't think Labour were exactly trembling about an impending secession at the time. 

There are grounds to criticise Labour. On a general basis and, yes, if you like, on the grounds of their occasional tendency to take Scotland for granted. The latter is, at least partly, an unfortunate by-product of our electoral system which has nearly always seen elections decided on the who controls Middle England

Regardless, though, suggesting that a party that introduced the NHS, the welfare state, the minimum wage and devolution is not "markedly different" to the Tories, especially when Labour is at the most left-wing it has been for a generation and the Tories are set to be run by one of Boris fucking Johnson or Jacob fucking Rees fucking Mogg is such a  pathetic and lazy supposition that it isn't even worth the effort of arguing with. 

Though I've just spent the last four paragraphs doing just that. Bollocks. 

Penny finally dropping? That was exactly the point I was making. We are at the mercy of an ever increasing right wing isolationist electorate. People in Scotland that vote labour continue to enable this.

We are ignored by the tories. Why should they care, they don't need Scottish votes.

Labour do need Scottish votes.....but at best we have always been an afterthought to any elected labour government. That ain't gonna change under Corbyn. He is as ignorant of Scotland and Scottish affairs as any labour leader ever has been.

So u were right. Labour are not as bad as the tories.

But they are only a bit better. Well f#ck that. Its not good enough any more.

Yes, you can list all the historical stuff that labour achieved, but any meaningful change was over half a century ago. That was a different party in different times. The last labour lot were not that different from the Tories. They just cost the country a shit load more money.

Also you are either being niave or maybe just a bit forgetful, if you don't think labour introduced devolution because of the threat of independence. Are you forgetting the senior labour figures who rejoiced in how it would kill off independence.:lol:

Like I said earlier, it only took them 100 years to introduce it. Indeed many in the party still hated the idea and had to be dragged along with it. Suppose from a labour party survival point of view they were correct right enough.^_^

Dewar also sneaked through the labour sea grab at the same time as the devolution settlement. Why did that happen? Still never heard a convincing argument from anyone in the party.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



There wouldn’t currently be a Conservative Government if Scotland hadn’t returned 13 Tory MPs.
This is Labour tin foil hat stuff along with "SNPEEEEEE GAVE US MAGEEEEEE"
There are 315 tories, to try and lay blame on one part of the uk electorate is just daft.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Labour tin foil hat stuff along with "SNPEEEEEE GAVE US MAGEEEEEE"

There are 315 tories, to try and lay blame on one part of the uk electorate is just daft.

 

It’s not blame, the 315 constituencies have ‘equal blame’ if you’re playing that game.

 

I was replying to a claim that Tories don’t care about Scotland (probably fair on its on) because they don’t need Scottish votes. If Scotland hadn’t returned 13 of them, they wouldn’t be in government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

It’s not blame, the 315 constituencies have ‘equal blame’ if you’re playing that game.

 

I was replying to a claim that Tories don’t care about Scotland (probably fair on its on) because they don’t need Scottish votes. If Scotland hadn’t returned 13 of them, they wouldn’t be in government.

And if all the champagne socialist type labour voters in those constituencies had not switched to their unionist blue brethern we may not have had the misfortune of electing 13 tories.

Anyway thats splitting hairs. Scottish votes have had influence "in three.... possibly four" general elections out of 18 since 1945. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11552991/The-general-elections-where-Scotland-decided-who-ran-the-UK.html

All them years voting well trying to keep the lowlands red.

Mostly wasted votes am afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are people on here that seem to think politics exists in a vacumn; it doesn't.

Many/most folk in Scotland vote SNP which, I think there would be consensus on, is a progressive political party.  It wasn't always.

I sat beside SNP members 30+ years ago who, for the most part, were pretty right wing.  With the exception of their position on the nuclear issue they were quite 'conservative'.  Gordon Wilson was hardly a progressive firebrand.

So the real choice for people in Scotland for decades was very limited and Scots cannot be blamed more than anyone else that the party of choice had been dominated for years by kiddy on socialists.

It is only relatively recently that Scots have had a wider choice of options, something that is still denied in England but that a genuine left-of-centre Labour Party could address.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if all the champagne socialist type labour voters in those constituencies had not switched to their unionist blue brethern we may not have had the misfortune of electing 13 tories.


Alex Salmond lost 8000 votes in 2017. Labour gained 3000, Conservatives gained 15,000.

Angus Robertson lost 6000 votes, Labour lost 400. Conservatives gained 17,000.

Mike Weir lost 9000 votes, Labour lost 1200. Conservatives gained 6000.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh lost 7000 votes, Labour lost 6000, Conservative gained 12,000.

Eilidh Whiteford lost 11000 votes, Labour gained 1300, Conservatives gained 6000.

I’ve picked five blue constituencies at random there. I’m going to go out on a limb and say the Tory MPs being elected were not due to ‘unionists’ or ‘champagne socialists’ or ‘red Tories’ or any other cliche you wish to throw out. In these cases, it was because SNP voters either switched to Conservative or didn’t vote.

In itself, not entirely important, but don’t try to pass it off as the fault of Labour or unionists.


Anyway thats splitting hairs. Scottish votes have had influence "in three.... possibly four" general elections out of 18 since 1945. 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11552991/The-general-elections-where-Scotland-decided-who-ran-the-UK.html
All them years voting well trying to keep the lowlands red.
Mostly wasted votes am afraid.


The article picks out three, possibly four elections where Scotland decided the election, not influenced it. Scotland influences every election, whether the UK Government ends up the same or not, in the same way every area of the UK influences it. A vote for a losing party is not automatically a ‘wasted vote’.

I think there’s a definite point to be made for independence in this area, especially around Brexit. But thankfully for the movement, it won’t be made by you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...