Stop voting for fucking Tories

[dpedin]

What somewhere needs and wants are not necessarily the same, again, why are Reform likely to win seats at Holyrood if not for the fact that some people like their migration policies?

https://x.com/Layo_FH/status/1918327011480879212

Here’s one before bedtime. As I say there’s tonnes of stuff out there on this and given neither of us will change our minds on this we may as well not go round the houses. We’ll find out as more elections come in and Labour types continue to handwring

I can't see who was asked the questions - was that Scottish voters? That was the point of this exchange - Scottish voters.

https://migrationpolicyscotland.org.uk/ ... _May24.pdf

Largest group want a reduction and there has been a noticeable reduction in support for immigration. However, as mentioned above there is an acceptance of Scotlands needs for immigration and views are nuanced.

As said on here many times before though, Scotland has tiny immigration compared to much of England and, as with everywhere else on earth, as that increased you would expect attitudes to change

Survey also states in key findings that views on the impacts of immigration remain more positive than negative, especially at national (Scottish) level. and there is strong agreement that immigration brings new people to areas that need them and a clear majority in favour of longer-term stays and access to settlement for labour migrants.

Bottom line is Scottish fertility rate is too low to sustain the population. Very simply put, more Scots are dying than being born. Without any future immigration we will have a drop in the population, a fall in working age adults and under 16s and an increase in 60+ population. We need more younger and fertile immigrants coming to work, live and stay in Scotland. By definition, whether folk like it or not, this will mean a more diverse population. In other words Scotland will not be able to sustain its economy, deliver public services nor look after its older people without immigration.

There is a very sensible debate to be had in Scotland about what levels of immigration we need going forward, what sorts of skills and expertise we need and how best this is managed to sustain not just the central belt but the whole of Scotland including the Highlands and Islands. However the worry for Scotland is we dont have much control over any of this, very few powers to achieve this are devolved. We are therefore at the mercy of whatever immigration policies are driven by Westminster and parties like the Tories and Reform who in turn are driving a xenophobic, racist, right wing rhetoric that 'immigration is bad'. Brexit has had a big negative impact on Scotland and we lost a steady supply of young, highly educated EU workers we needed. Scotland cannot afford another hit with unwanted immigration policies that will reduce our means to attract immigrants to come and work in Scotland. Simply put, without immigrants we cannot sustain the working age population we need to sustain and grow our economy, deliver public services and look after our aging population.

As someone once said, it's the economy, stupid!

[Yeeb]

I can't see who was asked the questions - was that Scottish voters? That was the point of this exchange - Scottish voters.

https://migrationpolicyscotland.org.uk/ ... _May24.pdf

Largest group want a reduction and there has been a noticeable reduction in support for immigration. However, as mentioned above there is an acceptance of Scotlands needs for immigration and views are nuanced.

As said on here many times before though, Scotland has tiny immigration compared to much of England and, as with everywhere else on earth, as that increased you would expect attitudes to change

Survey also states in key findings that views on the impacts of immigration remain more positive than negative, especially at national (Scottish) level. and there is strong agreement that immigration brings new people to areas that need them and a clear majority in favour of longer-term stays and access to settlement for labour migrants.

Bottom line is Scottish fertility rate is too low to sustain the population. Very simply put, more Scots are dying than being born. Without any future immigration we will have a drop in the population, a fall in working age adults and under 16s and an increase in 60+ population. We need more younger and fertile immigrants coming to work, live and stay in Scotland. By definition, whether folk like it or not, this will mean a more diverse population. In other words Scotland will not be able to sustain its economy, deliver public services nor look after its older people without immigration.

There is a very sensible debate to be had in Scotland about what levels of immigration we need going forward, what sorts of skills and expertise we need and how best this is managed to sustain not just the central belt but the whole of Scotland including the Highlands and Islands. However the worry for Scotland is we dont have much control over any of this, very few powers to achieve this are devolved. We are therefore at the mercy of whatever immigration policies are driven by Westminster and parties like the Tories and Reform who in turn are driving a xenophobic, racist, right wing rhetoric that 'immigration is bad'. Brexit has had a big negative impact on Scotland and we lost a steady supply of young, highly educated EU workers we needed. Scotland cannot afford another hit with unwanted immigration policies that will reduce our means to attract immigrants to come and work in Scotland. Simply put, without immigrants we cannot sustain the working age population we need to sustain and grow our economy, deliver public services and look after our aging population.

As someone once said, it's the economy, stupid!

Drop in population at least will lower house prices
//dailymail

And so let’s send asylum seekers to Arbroath
//dailyexpress

[dpedin]

https://migrationpolicyscotland.org.uk/ ... _May24.pdf

Largest group want a reduction and there has been a noticeable reduction in support for immigration. However, as mentioned above there is an acceptance of Scotlands needs for immigration and views are nuanced.

As said on here many times before though, Scotland has tiny immigration compared to much of England and, as with everywhere else on earth, as that increased you would expect attitudes to change

Survey also states in key findings that views on the impacts of immigration remain more positive than negative, especially at national (Scottish) level. and there is strong agreement that immigration brings new people to areas that need them and a clear majority in favour of longer-term stays and access to settlement for labour migrants.

Bottom line is Scottish fertility rate is too low to sustain the population. Very simply put, more Scots are dying than being born. Without any future immigration we will have a drop in the population, a fall in working age adults and under 16s and an increase in 60+ population. We need more younger and fertile immigrants coming to work, live and stay in Scotland. By definition, whether folk like it or not, this will mean a more diverse population. In other words Scotland will not be able to sustain its economy, deliver public services nor look after its older people without immigration.

There is a very sensible debate to be had in Scotland about what levels of immigration we need going forward, what sorts of skills and expertise we need and how best this is managed to sustain not just the central belt but the whole of Scotland including the Highlands and Islands. However the worry for Scotland is we dont have much control over any of this, very few powers to achieve this are devolved. We are therefore at the mercy of whatever immigration policies are driven by Westminster and parties like the Tories and Reform who in turn are driving a xenophobic, racist, right wing rhetoric that 'immigration is bad'. Brexit has had a big negative impact on Scotland and we lost a steady supply of young, highly educated EU workers we needed. Scotland cannot afford another hit with unwanted immigration policies that will reduce our means to attract immigrants to come and work in Scotland. Simply put, without immigrants we cannot sustain the working age population we need to sustain and grow our economy, deliver public services and look after our aging population.

As someone once said, it's the economy, stupid!

Drop in population at least will lower house prices
//dailymail

And so let’s send asylum seekers to Arbroath
//dailyexpress

I was in Fraserburgh the other week playing golf and, even as a Dundonian, I thought they were speaking a different language! Any immigrant who can understand the local doric deserves to stay in the country forever!

[robmatic]

I reject that, Scotland in particular needs immigration.

Maybe people have a point about immigration being mismanaged then? 'Scotland needs immigration' but receives comparatively few asylum seekers (I think there is only about 5000 or so in Scotland) and is apparently not attracting enough of the record numbers of regular migrants to the UK.

[Biffer]

The pish about immigration driving house prices is some of the most ridiculous shite you'll ever hear. It's driven by lack of build, and wealthy people buying as an investment.

[Tichtheid]

I reject that, Scotland in particular needs immigration.

Maybe people have a point about immigration being mismanaged then? 'Scotland needs immigration' but receives comparatively few asylum seekers (I think there is only about 5000 or so in Scotland) and is apparently not attracting enough of the record numbers of regular migrants to the UK.

I seem to recall that Scotland's 5000 is way more per capita than the rest of the uK

[Rhubarb & Custard]

It's not just about working out how we utilise migration to maintain and even increase populations. We need to work out how to manage population decline, because on the face of it it'd be good for the planet if there were far fewer people on it.

[robmatic]

I reject that, Scotland in particular needs immigration.

Maybe people have a point about immigration being mismanaged then? 'Scotland needs immigration' but receives comparatively few asylum seekers (I think there is only about 5000 or so in Scotland) and is apparently not attracting enough of the record numbers of regular migrants to the UK.

I seem to recall that Scotland's 5000 is way more per capita than the rest of the uK

The backlog of asylum cases is about 90000 so I don't think that's correct.

[Tichtheid]

Maybe people have a point about immigration being mismanaged then? 'Scotland needs immigration' but receives comparatively few asylum seekers (I think there is only about 5000 or so in Scotland) and is apparently not attracting enough of the record numbers of regular migrants to the UK.

I seem to recall that Scotland's 5000 is way more per capita than the rest of the uK

The backlog of asylum cases is about 90000 so I don't think that's correct.

My mistake, having looked again it was Glasgow

In Glasgow, the population of asylum seekers supported by the Home Office was approximately 0.66% of the total population in December 2024, totaling around 4,193 individuals. This translates to roughly one asylum seeker for every 189 residents in the city. Glasgow was the local authority with the most housed asylum seekers in the UK, with approximately 3,900 individuals, or 62 per 10,000 residents

and

In December 2023, Scotland housed approximately 5,500 people seeking asylum, receiving support from the Home Office. This translates to about 8 asylum seekers per 10,000 people living in Scotland. According to the BBC, this is less than the 9 per 10,000 in Wales and half of the 16 per 10,000 in England

[dpedin]

I seem to recall that Scotland's 5000 is way more per capita than the rest of the uK

The backlog of asylum cases is about 90000 so I don't think that's correct.

My mistake, having looked again it was Glasgow

In Glasgow, the population of asylum seekers supported by the Home Office was approximately 0.66% of the total population in December 2024, totaling around 4,193 individuals. This translates to roughly one asylum seeker for every 189 residents in the city. Glasgow was the local authority with the most housed asylum seekers in the UK, with approximately 3,900 individuals, or 62 per 10,000 residents

and

In December 2023, Scotland housed approximately 5,500 people seeking asylum, receiving support from the Home Office. This translates to about 8 asylum seekers per 10,000 people living in Scotland. According to the BBC, this is less than the 9 per 10,000 in Wales and half of the 16 per 10,000 in England

Asylum seekers numbers are very small in comparison to immigration more generally. c1.2 million immigrants came legally into UK in 2024 whereas 84k claimed asylum. How asylum seekers get here and how they are treated is very complex and a completely different issue to immigration more generally. Whilst I understand that asylum seekers is a 'hot' political issue for some it is not the same as immigration. It always amazes me how quickly a rational and sensible discussion about immigration into the UK quickly turns to asylum seekers with all the connotations that term carries at the moment.

[robmatic]

The backlog of asylum cases is about 90000 so I don't think that's correct.

My mistake, having looked again it was Glasgow

In Glasgow, the population of asylum seekers supported by the Home Office was approximately 0.66% of the total population in December 2024, totaling around 4,193 individuals. This translates to roughly one asylum seeker for every 189 residents in the city. Glasgow was the local authority with the most housed asylum seekers in the UK, with approximately 3,900 individuals, or 62 per 10,000 residents

and

In December 2023, Scotland housed approximately 5,500 people seeking asylum, receiving support from the Home Office. This translates to about 8 asylum seekers per 10,000 people living in Scotland. According to the BBC, this is less than the 9 per 10,000 in Wales and half of the 16 per 10,000 in England

Asylum seekers numbers are very small in comparison to immigration more generally. c1.2 million immigrants came legally into UK in 2024 whereas 84k claimed asylum. How asylum seekers get here and how they are treated is very complex and a completely different issue to immigration more generally. Whilst I understand that asylum seekers is a 'hot' political issue for some it is not the same as immigration. It always amazes me how quickly a rational and sensible discussion about immigration into the UK quickly turns to asylum seekers with all the connotations that term carries at the moment.

Yes, it is just one element of Scotland not being a welcoming destination for immigrants in practice.

[Slick]

I seem to recall that Scotland's 5000 is way more per capita than the rest of the uK

The backlog of asylum cases is about 90000 so I don't think that's correct.

My mistake, having looked again it was Glasgow

In Glasgow, the population of asylum seekers supported by the Home Office was approximately 0.66% of the total population in December 2024, totaling around 4,193 individuals. This translates to roughly one asylum seeker for every 189 residents in the city. Glasgow was the local authority with the most housed asylum seekers in the UK, with approximately 3,900 individuals, or 62 per 10,000 residents

and

In December 2023, Scotland housed approximately 5,500 people seeking asylum, receiving support from the Home Office. This translates to about 8 asylum seekers per 10,000 people living in Scotland. According to the BBC, this is less than the 9 per 10,000 in Wales and half of the 16 per 10,000 in England

Didn't Glasgow ask for a halt on more asylum seekers a couple of weeks ago as they had run out of accommodation?

Just anecdotally, but there are an awful lot more Afghans around where I live on a sunny day than there was even a couple of years ago. It is causing a few issues as they do enjoy taking pictures of girls in bikinis and there has been a lot of anger in the local FB groups - I did point out that there have been rows of white Scottish guys doing the same thing for years with long range lenses but they don't seem to matter. FYI, the police do take it very seriously and we see them checking cameras and giving exclusion warnings a lot over the summer.

[Slick]

The backlog of asylum cases is about 90000 so I don't think that's correct.

My mistake, having looked again it was Glasgow

In Glasgow, the population of asylum seekers supported by the Home Office was approximately 0.66% of the total population in December 2024, totaling around 4,193 individuals. This translates to roughly one asylum seeker for every 189 residents in the city. Glasgow was the local authority with the most housed asylum seekers in the UK, with approximately 3,900 individuals, or 62 per 10,000 residents

and

In December 2023, Scotland housed approximately 5,500 people seeking asylum, receiving support from the Home Office. This translates to about 8 asylum seekers per 10,000 people living in Scotland. According to the BBC, this is less than the 9 per 10,000 in Wales and half of the 16 per 10,000 in England

Asylum seekers numbers are very small in comparison to immigration more generally. c1.2 million immigrants came legally into UK in 2024 whereas 84k claimed asylum. How asylum seekers get here and how they are treated is very complex and a completely different issue to immigration more generally. Whilst I understand that asylum seekers is a 'hot' political issue for some it is not the same as immigration. It always amazes me how quickly a rational and sensible discussion about immigration into the UK quickly turns to asylum seekers with all the connotations that term carries at the moment.

Yes, that conflation is very deliberate and very annoying.

[_Os_]

Cheaper food and drink including rice and tea, footwear and clothing thanks to a welcome trade deal with India. Exactly what Brexit promised.

Three cheers for Brexit and the Indian trade deal! Just imagine, cheap Indian shoes!

Got to laugh at this highest ranked reply to:

Hi Jacob, we voted Brexit because we wanted the third worlders to fuck off back to Ongobongoland where they belong actually. That’s the sole reason.

We were told and believed that the EU impeded the process of sending these human bioweapons back to where they came from.

We do not give a solitary fuck about rice prices.

I'm old enough to remember the years after the vote, when it was pointed out (by err people like myself) this was what the vote was really about and there was actually no way for Brexit to stop "third worlders". The response to that observation was to say the vote wasn't about that at all, that pointing that out was some sort of racism from the "liberal metropolitan elite" against the English white working class. As the years dragged on and it became entirely obvious European immigration would be swapped for "third worlders" and no one was interested in changing the structure of the UK economy, this too was somehow wrong to point out. A decade later after the fact, suddenly Brexit is actually about stopping non-EU migration, just as bastards like me always said it was.

The really funny thing about the JRM quote, is that is exactly what he always promised. Shit trade deals for "cheap footwear" no one wants and food complying with "Indian standards". The guys who dog whistled the racism and immigration stuff, actually got the votes in, but had no way of delivering. The shit trade deals though, they're happening.

[Yeeb]

Cheaper food and drink including rice and tea, footwear and clothing thanks to a welcome trade deal with India. Exactly what Brexit promised.

Three cheers for Brexit and the Indian trade deal! Just imagine, cheap Indian shoes!

Got to laugh at this highest ranked reply to:

Hi Jacob, we voted Brexit because we wanted the third worlders to fuck off back to Ongobongoland where they belong actually. That’s the sole reason.

We were told and believed that the EU impeded the process of sending these human bioweapons back to where they came from.

We do not give a solitary fuck about rice prices.

I'm old enough to remember the years after the vote, when it was pointed out (by err people like myself) this was what the vote was really about and there was actually no way for Brexit to stop "third worlders". The response to that observation was to say the vote wasn't about that at all, that pointing that out was some sort of racism from the "liberal metropolitan elite" against the English white working class. As the years dragged on and it became entirely obvious European immigration would be swapped for "third worlders" and no one was interested in changing the structure of the UK economy, this too was somehow wrong to point out. A decade later after the fact, suddenly Brexit is actually about stopping non-EU migration, just as bastards like me always said it was.

The really funny thing about the JRM quote, is that is exactly what he always promised. Shit trade deals for "cheap footwear" no one wants and food complying with "Indian standards". The guys who dog whistled the racism and immigration stuff, actually got the votes in, but had no way of delivering. The shit trade deals though, they're happening.

Totally agree, Brexit was always about immigration, particularly Muslims. Rice won’t get cheaper, Tesco et al will just make more money.

[Yeeb]

Seem a yougov link that shows polls for a GE now this minute with reform winning by a landslide ! wtf ?!

Ref 369
LD 87
lab 86
SNP 44
Con 17 (lolz)
Green 7
Plaid 6

I don’t think Tories or LD will get that many , but it’s clear Reform are coming up and perhaps need to have no other slogan than ‘vote Tory, get labour’

[robmatic]

Seem a yougov link that shows polls for a GE now this minute with reform winning by a landslide ! wtf ?!

Ref 369
LD 87
lab 86
SNP 44
Con 17 (lolz)
Green 7
Plaid 6

I don’t think Tories or LD will get that many , but it’s clear Reform are coming up and perhaps need to have no other slogan than ‘vote Tory, get labour’

I don't think they have the infrastructure as a party to fully capitalize on everybody being fucked off with the Tories and Labour. In a GE, they would need to field a full spread of actual candidates.

[Paddington Bear]

Seem a yougov link that shows polls for a GE now this minute with reform winning by a landslide ! wtf ?!

Ref 369
LD 87
lab 86
SNP 44
Con 17 (lolz)
Green 7
Plaid 6

I don’t think Tories or LD will get that many , but it’s clear Reform are coming up and perhaps need to have no other slogan than ‘vote Tory, get labour’

I don't think they have the infrastructure as a party to fully capitalize on everybody being fucked off with the Tories and Labour. In a GE, they would need to field a full spread of actual candidates.

Fielded enough candidates to sweep county councils, the fact some of them are useless paper ones is no different to when Tories or Labour win landslides. 200,000 members now - they’ll have no issue fielding a slate. Bigger issue is vetting them

[sockwithaticket]

Extrapolating from local election results is a fool's errand.

That said, a huge amount of th electorate is wilfully low information, so it could happen. Lots of Reform voters are completely ignorant of the party's actual platform. If they're disatisfied with their lives and the state of the country now, wait until Farage and co. get around to privatising everything in sight and putting any and all regulations designed to protect people from the overreach of an unscrupulous owner/employer class into the shredder. They'll be pining for a crap Labour party.

[Yeeb]

Seem a yougov link that shows polls for a GE now this minute with reform winning by a landslide ! wtf ?!

Ref 369
LD 87
lab 86
SNP 44
Con 17 (lolz)
Green 7
Plaid 6

I don’t think Tories or LD will get that many , but it’s clear Reform are coming up and perhaps need to have no other slogan than ‘vote Tory, get labour’

I don't think they have the infrastructure as a party to fully capitalize on everybody being fucked off with the Tories and Labour. In a GE, they would need to field a full spread of actual candidates.

Fielded enough candidates to sweep county councils, the fact some of them are useless paper ones is no different to when Tories or Labour win landslides. 200,000 members now - they’ll have no issue fielding a slate. Bigger issue is vetting them

Re the vetting, I don’t think it will be much different from any other party that has peados , violent offenders , corrupt businesspeople , racist views and posts, inability to count etc.
Politics really does attract the worst & most useless people going (especially at local level)

[Yeeb]

Extrapolating from local election results is a fool's errand.

That said, a huge amount of th electorate is wilfully low information, so it could happen. Lots of Reform voters are completely ignorant of the party's actual platform. If they're disatisfied with their lives and the state of the country now, wait until Farage and co. get around to privatising everything in sight and putting any and all regulations designed to protect people from the overreach of an unscrupulous owner/employer class into the shredder. They'll be pining for a crap Labour party.

People voting without any idea of what the party actually wants, is nothing new, nor is dissatisfaction.

[sockwithaticket]

Extrapolating from local election results is a fool's errand.

That said, a huge amount of th electorate is wilfully low information, so it could happen. Lots of Reform voters are completely ignorant of the party's actual platform. If they're disatisfied with their lives and the state of the country now, wait until Farage and co. get around to privatising everything in sight and putting any and all regulations designed to protect people from the overreach of an unscrupulous owner/employer class into the shredder. They'll be pining for a crap Labour party.

People voting without any idea of what the party actually wants, is nothing new, nor is dissatisfaction.

It's not, but the other parties have been around long enough to broadly know what to expect from them even if you haven't checked their current manifesto and people have the actual evidence of what they've done when in government with the main two.

[Yeeb]

Extrapolating from local election results is a fool's errand.

That said, a huge amount of th electorate is wilfully low information, so it could happen. Lots of Reform voters are completely ignorant of the party's actual platform. If they're disatisfied with their lives and the state of the country now, wait until Farage and co. get around to privatising everything in sight and putting any and all regulations designed to protect people from the overreach of an unscrupulous owner/employer class into the shredder. They'll be pining for a crap Labour party.

People voting without any idea of what the party actually wants, is nothing new, nor is dissatisfaction.

It's not, but the other parties have been around long enough to broadly know what to expect from them even if you haven't checked their current manifesto and people have the actual evidence of what they've done when in government with the main two.

Am sure that Reform voters are entirely familiar with what to broadly expect from established parties and the evidence of what they’ve done when in government - that’s the point.

[sockwithaticket]

People voting without any idea of what the party actually wants, is nothing new, nor is dissatisfaction.

It's not, but the other parties have been around long enough to broadly know what to expect from them even if you haven't checked their current manifesto and people have the actual evidence of what they've done when in government with the main two.

Am sure that Reform voters are entirely familiar with what to broadly expect from established parties and the evidence of what they’ve done when in government - that’s the point.

Right, but 'any change will do' or 'burn it all down because the status quo isn't working for me' gives you Brexit or Trump. Jumping with both feet away from the known quantities into an unknown one, only unknown because they refuse to look any details up, is stupid.

[robmatic]

It's not, but the other parties have been around long enough to broadly know what to expect from them even if you haven't checked their current manifesto and people have the actual evidence of what they've done when in government with the main two.

Am sure that Reform voters are entirely familiar with what to broadly expect from established parties and the evidence of what they’ve done when in government - that’s the point.

Right, but 'any change will do' or 'burn it all down because the status quo isn't working for me' gives you Brexit or Trump. Jumping with both feet away from the known quantities into an unknown one, only unknown because they refuse to look any details up, is stupid.

Just because it's stupid doesn't mean people aren't going to cheerfully do it in their millions.

[Paddington Bear]

It's not, but the other parties have been around long enough to broadly know what to expect from them even if you haven't checked their current manifesto and people have the actual evidence of what they've done when in government with the main two.

Am sure that Reform voters are entirely familiar with what to broadly expect from established parties and the evidence of what they’ve done when in government - that’s the point.

Right, but 'any change will do' or 'burn it all down because the status quo isn't working for me' gives you Brexit or Trump. Jumping with both feet away from the known quantities into an unknown one, only unknown because they refuse to look any details up, is stupid.

Problem with this is that both known quantities have shown themselves to be hopeless in government, devoid of ideas, unable to turn the dial. Is voting for that status quo really any less stupid than trying a different approach?

[fishfoodie]

Am sure that Reform voters are entirely familiar with what to broadly expect from established parties and the evidence of what they’ve done when in government - that’s the point.

Right, but 'any change will do' or 'burn it all down because the status quo isn't working for me' gives you Brexit or Trump. Jumping with both feet away from the known quantities into an unknown one, only unknown because they refuse to look any details up, is stupid.

Problem with this is that both known quantities have shown themselves to be hopeless in government, devoid of ideas, unable to turn the dial. Is voting for that status quo really any less stupid than trying a different approach?

Hang on; Labour are only in a wet week, & what legislation have they passed that has had a chance to actually do anything yet ????

The UK has been in a gradual death spiral since 2008 & Gideon's austerity plan, so how can anyone reasonably blame the current Labour MPs for anything ?

[Paddington Bear]

Right, but 'any change will do' or 'burn it all down because the status quo isn't working for me' gives you Brexit or Trump. Jumping with both feet away from the known quantities into an unknown one, only unknown because they refuse to look any details up, is stupid.

Problem with this is that both known quantities have shown themselves to be hopeless in government, devoid of ideas, unable to turn the dial. Is voting for that status quo really any less stupid than trying a different approach?

Hang on; Labour are only in a wet week, & what legislation have they passed that has had a chance to actually do anything yet ????

The UK has been in a gradual death spiral since 2008 & Gideon's austerity plan, so how can anyone reasonably blame the current Labour MPs for anything ?

As an anonymous Labour MP pointed out last week, their problem isn’t that they’re not delivering, it’s that people hate what they’re delivering

[fishfoodie]

Problem with this is that both known quantities have shown themselves to be hopeless in government, devoid of ideas, unable to turn the dial. Is voting for that status quo really any less stupid than trying a different approach?

Hang on; Labour are only in a wet week, & what legislation have they passed that has had a chance to actually do anything yet ????

The UK has been in a gradual death spiral since 2008 & Gideon's austerity plan, so how can anyone reasonably blame the current Labour MPs for anything ?

As an anonymous Labour MP pointed out last week, their problem isn’t that they’re not delivering, it’s that people hate what they’re delivering

The MP should grow a pair ! If they want to be popular they should fuck off somewhere else; it was popular decisions that got you into this steaming pile of shite.

It's a funking miserable time to be in Government in the UK; there aren't any easy fixes, & there's no pot of gold to pay to fix everything that's broken. The best any UK Government, of any Party could do would be to stop the bleeding, & triage the bits that can be saved, & do whatever the hell they can to get some kind of growth back in the Economy.

In fifty years time the historians will be describing the people who championed Brexit in terms that will Quisling look like a hero.

[Slick]

Hang on; Labour are only in a wet week, & what legislation have they passed that has had a chance to actually do anything yet ????

The UK has been in a gradual death spiral since 2008 & Gideon's austerity plan, so how can anyone reasonably blame the current Labour MPs for anything ?

As an anonymous Labour MP pointed out last week, their problem isn’t that they’re not delivering, it’s that people hate what they’re delivering

The MP should grow a pair ! If they want to be popular they should fuck off somewhere else; it was popular decisions that got you into this steaming pile of shite.

It's a funking miserable time to be in Government in the UK; there aren't any easy fixes, & there's no pot of gold to pay to fix everything that's broken. The best any UK Government, of any Party could do would be to stop the bleeding, & triage the bits that can be saved, & do whatever the hell they can to get some kind of growth back in the Economy.

In fifty years time the historians will be describing the people who championed Brexit in terms that will Quisling look like a hero.

Hear hear

[sockwithaticket]

Am sure that Reform voters are entirely familiar with what to broadly expect from established parties and the evidence of what they’ve done when in government - that’s the point.

Right, but 'any change will do' or 'burn it all down because the status quo isn't working for me' gives you Brexit or Trump. Jumping with both feet away from the known quantities into an unknown one, only unknown because they refuse to look any details up, is stupid.

Problem with this is that both known quantities have shown themselves to be hopeless in government, devoid of ideas, unable to turn the dial. Is voting for that status quo really any less stupid than trying a different approach?

If the apparent alternative is to do neo-liberalism, but worse, then yes. Trashing the environment at a greater pace and surrendering employment rights is absolutely worse than the status quo whether the idiots recognise it or not.

As it stands Reform aren't the only change option, but an awful lot of people seem dead set on voting against their own interests rather than throwing their votes to the Lib Dems or Greens. No party is without it's flaws, but those two at least seem to want a fairer society and to help people, not serve them up on the alter of unrestrained capitalism.

[sockwithaticket]

Hang on; Labour are only in a wet week, & what legislation have they passed that has had a chance to actually do anything yet ????

The UK has been in a gradual death spiral since 2008 & Gideon's austerity plan, so how can anyone reasonably blame the current Labour MPs for anything ?

As an anonymous Labour MP pointed out last week, their problem isn’t that they’re not delivering, it’s that people hate what they’re delivering

The MP should grow a pair ! If they want to be popular they should fuck off somewhere else; it was popular decisions that got you into this steaming pile of shite.

It's a funking miserable time to be in Government in the UK; there aren't any easy fixes, & there's no pot of gold to pay to fix everything that's broken. The best any UK Government, of any Party could do would be to stop the bleeding, & triage the bits that can be saved, & do whatever the hell they can to get some kind of growth back in the Economy.

In fifty years time the historians will be describing the people who championed Brexit in terms that will Quisling look like a hero.

To an extent, but Labour do have a problem in that they're doing things that piss off people on both ends of the political spectrum and some point they will need at least some of those votes again.

On the left I see these as terrible decisions that only cost good will and support:
- winter fuel allowance cut off point was wrong and announcing its impact before getting the pension credit take up for those eligible sorted out was dumb.
- 2 child benefit cap being maintained
- allowing regulators to approve yet more above inflationary bill increases for utilities
- dragging their heels on doing anything substantive about the water companies
- not repealing draconian anti-protest legislation introduced by the Tories
- environmental policy (I could write a small essay on this...), but a particular lowlight is the watering down of GB energy's purpose and remit. Also our complete lack of imagination when it comes to energy solutions. The world over, from Germany to Korea, solar panels are built high enough that you can grow orchards beneath them or use them as shade for cars in car parks and along bike routes. When we put panels somewhere in any quantity we stick them right on the bloody ground in fields so that the land cannot be multi-purpose.
- no council housing program. Any expert will tell you that their targets have only ever been met during periods of mass council house building. It's what the housing market needs.
- allowing one steelworks to go bust and saving another
- Israel stance
- continuing to rule out joining the single market
- flip-flopping on bankers bonus cap

I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

To their credit, the workers rights legislation is a step in the right direction and doing something about public sector pay after years of inaction or active antagonism from the Tories. That's traditional Labour stuff and they should be doing more of it.

There is absolutely some unpopular stuff they will need to do, but there's also a lot they've chosen to do that doesn't seem especially necessary and sticks in the craw of those who already pinched their noses to vote for an extremely centrist (right of centre...) version of the party. Chasing Reform votes instead of those abandoning them for Lib Dems and Greens will not win them elections.

[fishfoodie]

To an extent, but Labour do have a problem in that they're doing things that piss off people on both ends of the political spectrum and some point they will need at least some of those votes again.

On the left I see these as terrible decisions that only cost good will and support:

Well lets see.

- winter fuel allowance cut off point was wrong and announcing its impact before getting the pension credit take up for those eligible sorted out was dumb. [Stop the bleeding. You can have the triple-lock, but fuck off if you want it & cherries on top for 99.99% of the recipients !]
- 2 child benefit cap being maintained [ Again, only impacts a small percentage, but yes it is one that will need to be gradually reversed]
- allowing regulators to approve yet more above inflationary bill increases for utilities [Where's the money to do what needs to be done ?]
- dragging their heels on doing anything substantive about the water companies [Where's the money to do what needs to be done ?]
- not repealing draconian anti-protest legislation introduced by the Tories [Takes too much time in Parliament, & there's more important work to do !]
- environmental policy (I could write a small essay on this...), but a particular lowlight is the watering down of GB energy's purpose and remit. Also our complete lack of imagination when it comes to energy solutions. The world over, from Germany to Korea, solar panels are built high enough that you can grow orchards beneath them or use them as shade for cars in car parks and along bike routes. When we put panels somewhere in any quantity we stick them right on the bloody ground in fields so that the land cannot be multi-purpose.[Takes too much time in Parliament, & there's more important work to do !]
- no council housing program. Any expert will tell you that their targets have only ever been met during periods of mass council house building. It's what the housing market needs. [Fucking mine field full of NIMBYs & vested interests, they might get started, but its a decades work]
- allowing one steelworks to go bust and saving another [5k people care, the rest don't !]
- Israel stance [Only 1% give a shit]
- continuing to rule out joining the single market [Don't touch the 3rd rail, but if you are going to do it, do it slowly so the muppets don't notice, it's not like the EU will take you back in the next decade anyway !]
- flip-flopping on bankers bonus cap [They might stupidly think it'll get the broadsheet rags off their backs for a week, but it's only ever optics anyway either way]

I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

To their credit, the workers rights legislation is a step in the right direction and doing something about public sector pay after years of inaction or active antagonism from the Tories. That's traditional Labour stuff and they should be doing more of it.

There is absolutely some unpopular stuff they will need to do, but there's also a lot they've chosen to do that doesn't seem especially necessary and sticks in the craw of those who already pinched their noses to vote for an extremely centrist (right of centre...) version of the party. Chasing Reform votes instead of those abandoning them for Lib Dems and Greens will not win them elections.

I'm not suggesting your in any way wrong in anything you suggest needs to be done; but there's just too much of it !

Ask your typical voter the 5 things they care about most, & those are the base set that Labour needs to work on...not fix, just work on !

Then ask anyone who fixes problems for a living & they'll tell you that if you pick 5, you'll be lucky if you can do anything meaningful on 3 of those.

I think Labour are trying around the NHS, Public Services, & Economic growth, anything else like Immigration is just gravy

[Yeeb]

Right, but 'any change will do' or 'burn it all down because the status quo isn't working for me' gives you Brexit or Trump. Jumping with both feet away from the known quantities into an unknown one, only unknown because they refuse to look any details up, is stupid.

Problem with this is that both known quantities have shown themselves to be hopeless in government, devoid of ideas, unable to turn the dial. Is voting for that status quo really any less stupid than trying a different approach?

Hang on; Labour are only in a wet week, & what legislation have they passed that has had a chance to actually do anything yet ????

The UK has been in a gradual death spiral since 2008 & Gideon's austerity plan, so how can anyone reasonably blame the current Labour MPs for anything ?

Interesting you pick 2008 and austerity plan as the start of death spiral (when national debt : GDP was heading above 75% and at an increasing rate) , and not perhaps 7-10 years before when that ratio was a more manageable 40%. There was a fairly serious global financial crisis around that time too.
You are deciding the medicine made you ill, and not the headache beforehand or the brick that someone threw at your head at the same time.

All that nasty austerity stuff had just about put a halt on that debt ratio increasing , when Covid came along and added 20% pretty much overnight.

[Tichtheid]

The Maastricht Treaty, specifically its Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), sets a reference value of 60% of GDP for the gross government debt to GDP ratio.

Public sector debt to GDP had been bumbling around the 40% mark from the 80s to 2008, where it took a sharp increase

here (No. 9) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... s/sn06167/

and here https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... /hf6x/pusf

In terms of Gross Domestic Product the UK National Debt in 2005 was about 38 percent of GDP.
But in the last ten years, in the wake of the Crash of 2008 and subsequent recession, the National Debt has doubled to over 80 percent GDP, but is leveling out as a percent of GDP. At the end of March 2024 the National Debt was 97.7 percent of GDP.

There was a clear and instant increase in debt to GDP ratio in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008

here https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_n ... t_analysis


There was a huge increase in debt, huge cuts across public services - that money went somewhere, but not to those who needed it.

[Yeeb]

Absolutely the austerity went waaaay too far , pruning the intial Blair led situations of hospitals buying £20 lightbulbs & the lesbian disabled minority outreach workers on £100k a year for a 2 day week, was relatively easy and sane , but not the ever increasing ‘cut budgets by ten percent each year’ thing and then wonder why hospitals & schools fall apart. In any case, those minimal savings almost entirely pointless when the triple lock gouges an ever increasing slice of the govt spending pie chart each year, and is the easiest and quickest thing that could be cut.

No government though, no matter the party, will have the balls to stop the triple lock as it’s a vote killer. Easier to kick can down the road again.

[Biffer]

The Maastricht Treaty, specifically its Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), sets a reference value of 60% of GDP for the gross government debt to GDP ratio.

Public sector debt to GDP had been bumbling around the 40% mark from the 80s to 2008, where it took a sharp increase

here (No. 9) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... s/sn06167/

and here https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... /hf6x/pusf

In terms of Gross Domestic Product the UK National Debt in 2005 was about 38 percent of GDP.
But in the last ten years, in the wake of the Crash of 2008 and subsequent recession, the National Debt has doubled to over 80 percent GDP, but is leveling out as a percent of GDP. At the end of March 2024 the National Debt was 97.7 percent of GDP.

There was a clear and instant increase in debt to GDP ratio in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008

here https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_n ... t_analysis


There was a huge increase in debt, huge cuts across public services - that money went somewhere, but not to those who needed it.

This is what gets me. Repeatedly, Tories have racked up debt but they're looked upon as fiscally responsible. I don't understand how people haven't come to realise that yet. Yes there's a media machine pushing that message, but there are so many sources of info now that I struggle to understand how more people haven't seen it.

[Yeeb]

The Maastricht Treaty, specifically its Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), sets a reference value of 60% of GDP for the gross government debt to GDP ratio.

Public sector debt to GDP had been bumbling around the 40% mark from the 80s to 2008, where it took a sharp increase

here (No. 9) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... s/sn06167/

and here https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... /hf6x/pusf

In terms of Gross Domestic Product the UK National Debt in 2005 was about 38 percent of GDP.
But in the last ten years, in the wake of the Crash of 2008 and subsequent recession, the National Debt has doubled to over 80 percent GDP, but is leveling out as a percent of GDP. At the end of March 2024 the National Debt was 97.7 percent of GDP.

There was a clear and instant increase in debt to GDP ratio in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008

here https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_n ... t_analysis


There was a huge increase in debt, huge cuts across public services - that money went somewhere, but not to those who needed it.

This is what gets me. Repeatedly, Tories have racked up debt but they're looked upon as fiscally responsible. I don't understand how people haven't come to realise that yet. Yes there's a media machine pushing that message, but there are so many sources of info now that I struggle to understand how more people haven't seen it.

Those links actually show it was the financial crash that racked up the debt, not the Tories . Your struggle to understand things is pretty clear. Tory policies merely slowed the accelerating of the debt, was nicely levelling off (even declining by some measures) when Covid came along and added 20%+. Am sure you blame them for Covid too ;)

[Tichtheid]

If we distill the 2008 crash down to one cause, it was deregulation, lack of red tape - traditionally a Conservative policy across the world. If New Labour had a glaring fault it was the continuation of that process.

[Yeeb]

If we distill the 2008 crash down to one cause, it was deregulation, lack of red tape - traditionally a Conservative policy across the world. If New Labour had a glaring fault it was the continuation of that process.

Absolutely it was rogue compliance and those financial WMD. Actually worked as RM on several funds holding funky collatoralised auto financial loans, the valuations never made sense to me and was soon apparent why when the house of cards fell. Takes smarter people than I to package a bunch of stinky turds as an asset and sell for an inflated imaginary price. There were actually sub classes tranches of loans that had failed , again repackaged and resold to some other mug.