Labour

Forums New posts
Archie said:
That's the approach the SNP have taken. But surely the same could be applied to Sarwar? I realise that people here hate him, but there is an exact parallel with the SNP.

So it's not a hypothetical point at all. But rather a very real example of compromises that have to be made in the real world.
Click to expand...
I'd bet a large sum he'll fall in line like a good little trough snouter.
 
Archie said:
No need to be just so personal.

The point is clear - if you don't agree with a body should you join it? This is being lobbed at Sarwar, but could equally apply to the SNP taking seats at Westminster or indeed Holyrood. Clearly the SNP don't support Westminster and were, initially at least, lukewarm on devolution. But they made a decision to go along with it.

Now that has paid huge dividends in terms of power in Scotland and personal advancement for a lot of individuals.

Contrast this with Sinn Fein's approach where they don't take up Westminster seats. They used to refuse to take up seats in the Dial as well. When that policy changed it caused a major split.

Now @Jack spotted the potential for the SNP to be hoist by this, so he qualifed his response by saying it's OK if you join a body as steps to get rid of it.

That's the approach the SNP have taken. But surely the same could be applied to Sarwar? I realise that people here hate him, but there is an exact parallel with the SNP.

So it's not a hypothetical point at all. But rather a very real example of compromises that have to be made in the real world.
Click to expand...
You're obsession to draw the SNP into controversies that have nothing to do with them is a running joke.

There is no parallel between the hypocrite Sarwar and anything to do with the SNP.

Sarwar is going to the HoL has absolutely nothing to do with scrapping it, unless we've not been told something, and everything to do with becoming a Business Secretary in Burnham's government.

To suggest anything else is taking us for mugs. Or maybe being taken for a mug yourself.
 
So apart from the £45 a year energy tax cut that there is no funding for, labour have anounced a £2 cap on bus fares, 18 months after they raised it from the tory set £2 to £3
 
Jack said:
You're obsession to draw the SNP into controversies that have nothing to do with them is a running joke.

There is no parallel between the hypocrite Sarwar and anything to do with the SNP.

Sarwar is going to the HoL has absolutely nothing to do with scrapping it, unless we've not been told something, and everything to do with becoming a Business Secretary in Burnham's government.

To suggest anything else is taking us for mugs. Or maybe being taken for a mug yourself.
Click to expand...
No parallel? Really? Yet there is a strand of Scottish Nationalist thought that argues exactly that. Did you not see the pushback when Pete Wishart said he wanted to run for Speaker? It's nationalists who call him 'cumfy slippers'. Because they believe that being settled there is not compatible with fighting for independence.

Now I'm not a mug. I know the HoL move is a device to get him into Government. But using existing structures is exactly what the SNP do.

So rather than simply telling me there's no parallel, why not explain to me why you think there is no parallel.
 
paigntonhibby said:
There are no laws banning catholics from PMs office, the only restriction would be advising the king on the appointment of bishops etc , which is normally the PMs job and if he is catholic would have to be delegated to another minister, normally the chancellor. The only person in the country that cannot be a catholic is the king
Click to expand...
True, Andy Burnham is a catholic.
 
Archie said:
No parallel? Really? Yet there is a strand of Scottish Nationalist thought that argues exactly that. Did you not see the pushback when Pete Wishart said he wanted to run for Speaker? It's nationalists who call him 'cumfy slippers'. Because they believe that being settled there is not compatible with fighting for independence.

Now I'm not a mug. I know the HoL move is a device to get him into Government. But using existing structures is exactly what the SNP do.

So rather than simply telling me there's no parallel, why not explain to me why you think there is no parallel.
Click to expand...
Unionists use that term for him as well.
 
Jack said:
Was she expected or required to give it back?

If it's a legit payment would you pay it back?
Click to expand...
Well she is no exactly leading by example Jack is she?

And she resigned.

Does everyone get a wedge of cash when they resign from a job?

Or only those greedy *&*^?
 
EH17 Jimmy said:
Well she is no exactly leading by example Jack is she?

And she resigned.

Does everyone get a wedge of cash when they resign from a job?

Or only those greedy *&*^?
Click to expand...
If it was in the contract you signed up to would you give it back?
 
Jack said:
If it was in the contract you signed up to would you give it back?
Click to expand...
Aye fair comment. But she now can't complain about Tories doing the same.

Or others looking after their own bank accounts.

Still it's good to see they have rules to enrich themselves without showing a brass neck.

And all she has done is show herself to be a greedy bastard like the rest of them.

She can't complain about fat cats being given payouts when they leave a failing business because it's in the rules then.

Nice work if you can get it.
 
EH17 Jimmy said:
Aye fair comment. But she now can't complain about Tories doing the same.

Or others looking after their own bank accounts.

Still it's good to see they have rules to enrich themselves without showing a brass neck.

And all she has done is show herself to be a greedy bastard like the rest of them.

She can't complain about fat cats being given payouts when they leave a failing business because it's in the rules then.

Nice work if you can get it.
Click to expand...
I think what she mostly complained about was, like the rest of us, the torys thieving from the public purse in a mostly illegal fashion, PPE etc.
 
Jack said:
I think what she mostly complained about was, like the rest of us, the torys thieving from the public purse in a mostly illegal fashion, PPE etc.
Click to expand...
Once again a decent point Jack.

But she cannot moan about fat cats taking big bonuses in cash if it is legal.

Morally it's wrong.

But what's good for Rayners goose is also good for the fat cats gander 🤔 (I think)
 
EH17 Jimmy said:
Once again a decent point Jack.

But she cannot moan about fat cats taking big bonuses in cash if it is legal.

Morally it's wrong.

But what's good for Rayners goose is also good for the fat cats gander 🤔 (I think)
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware nothing that she did was illegal. Once the stuff was looked into properly rather than the rabid press going off with half a story there wasn't a story after all.
 
Apparently you can throw money towards the tax man without announcing it in the media.

But no virtue signalling to be had by doing that.
 
EH17 Jimmy said:
Apparently you can throw money towards the tax man without announcing it in the media.

But no virtue signalling to be had by doing that.
Click to expand...
Being a bit disingenuous there Jimmy.

All the papers were banging on about salaries of highly paid personalities like Lineker who went against their establishment.

Same papers, Daily Mail, Telegraph etc keep telling us with horror that the tax burden on the extremely wealthy is driving them away from the uk. All to serve the media’s agendas of their offshore owners.

By Lineker putting his head above the parapet here he’s telling the public that there is a different side to the story.

The right wing press in this country being economical with the truth? Surely not
 
Beagle said:
Being a bit disingenuous there Jimmy.

All the papers were banging on about salaries of highly paid personalities like Lineker who went against their establishment.

Same papers, Daily Mail, Telegraph etc keep telling us with horror that the tax burden on the extremely wealthy is driving them away from the uk. All to serve the media’s agendas of their offshore owners.

By Lineker putting his head above the parapet here he’s telling the public that there is a different side to the story.

The right wing press in this country being economical with the truth? Surely not
Click to expand...
Aye I agree mate.

Was just a bit of mischief making on my behalf.

I like Linekar as much as I like politicians.
 
What think ye of this Archie? Do you think it's viable?.......



A new campaign group of Labour politicians called “Just for Scotland” (JFS) has effectively been calling for the Scottish Labour Party to declare independence from UK Labour.

The group has even suggested changing the party’s name to end its contamination by association with UK Labour.

One poll conducted by Find Out Now for JFS suggested that up to 60% of voters who had left Labour for the SNP or the Greens would return if the party were fully independent.

An even greater number would switch back if the Scottish Labour Party changed its name, though it is not clear what that new name would be.

Others, such as former prime minister Gordon Brown, point out that it would be extremely difficult to detach the Scottish Labour Party from “London Labour” in practice.

Apart from anything else, Labour in Scotland has been financially and organisationally dependent on the broader UK party.

Burnham is keen on devolution but not separatism.

However, Sarwar’s “scoot for the ermine”, as it is being called, is making the constitutional status of Labour in Scotland a pressing issue.

unherd.com

Anas Sarwar leaves Scottish Labour at a crossroads

The expected departure of Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar to the House of Lords comes at a critical moment for the party. The news has rekindled debate about whether and how to make Scottish Labour more autonomous from the Westminster party. A new campaign group of Labour politicians called...
unherd.com unherd.com
 
EH17 Jimmy said:
What think ye of this Archie? Do you think it's viable?.....



A new campaign group of Labour politicians called “Just for Scotland” (JFS) has effectively been calling for the Scottish Labour Party to declare independence from UK Labour.

The group has even suggested changing the party’s name to end its contamination by association with UK Labour.

One poll conducted by Find Out Now for JFS suggested that up to 60% of voters who had left Labour for the SNP or the Greens would return if the party were fully independent.

An even greater number would switch back if the Scottish Labour Party changed its name, though it is not clear what that new name would be.

Others, such as former prime minister Gordon Brown, point out that it would be extremely difficult to detach the Scottish Labour Party from “London Labour” in practice.

Apart from anything else, Labour in Scotland has been financially and organisationally dependent on the broader UK party.

Burnham is keen on devolution but not separatism.

However, Sarwar’s “scoot for the ermine”, as it is being called, is making the constitutional status of Labour in Scotland a pressing issue.

unherd.com

Anas Sarwar leaves Scottish Labour at a crossroads

The expected departure of Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar to the House of Lords comes at a critical moment for the party. The news has rekindled debate about whether and how to make Scottish Labour more autonomous from the Westminster party. A new campaign group of Labour politicians called...
unherd.com unherd.com
Click to expand...
I guess the first question is what would an independent Labour Party mean? Labour is a GB party. The SNP and Plaid are not. So the SNP and Plaid can beat Labour et al with the branch office jibe. SNP and Plaid have no aspiration (or capacity) to win a UK election so they can keep their narrow focus.

So it's not comparing like with like. There is no doubt that Labour had an awful Scottish Parliament election. But they had a good General election. So I think it's not as clear as the apparent supporters of this move make out.

TBH I'm skeptical that SNP voters would switch to Labour simply because it had an independent structure in Scotland. There's also been apparent Labour groups in the past who weren't quite as they appeared:

https://www.Rag/news/scottish-news/snp-supporters-caught-posing-pictures-2111409

But Labour in Scotland does need to do better. Sarwar going should help this, but I don't think that ordinary people have the organisational structure of the Labour party as their primary concern.
 
Archie said:
Just checking in - is the pop at Sarwar just the usual stuff or is there a principle here that people shouldn't be members of bodies they oppose?
Click to expand...

Even you must see how all of this completely fails the smell test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom