The Dirty Independence Question

[kaosmark2]

This article didn't really say very much so I'm not entirely sure why you felt it was helpful to quote from it. 

 

However, this quote interested me:

 

" But while she has every right to abhor Labour’s love of the centre ground, she and her party are helping to push Labour in that direction, even as they insist they are not."

 

There is absolutely no evidence provided for this rather startling claim. Quite how the SNP are responsible for pushing Labour to the right is a mystery to me. I would say it is more a case of the SNP moving into the political area that Labour have vacated.  

 

The myth that Labour should be allying themselves with the SNP is something you've perpetuated. It's emphasising that the SNP's rise is harmful to Labour worldwide.

 

This bit is what I found most pertinent, although I quoted a larger section to give more context:

 

But I also find it irritating that Black’s sincerity seems to include a sincere failure to understand that the SNP is not Labour’s most natural ally in Westminster, but Labour’s most insidious opponent. The vast majority of the UK electorate doesn’t want a Labour-SNP alliance to be the chimerical alternative to the Conservatives in Britain. And the vast majority of the UK electorate can only reject Labour to stop that from happening.

[LJS]

The myth that Labour should be allying themselves with the SNP is something you've perpetuated. It's emphasising that the SNP's rise is harmful to Labour worldwide.

This bit is what I found most pertinent, although I quoted a larger section to give more context:

Labour's "most insidious opponent?" If that's not the Tories, then the Labour party is in a worse state than I thought. If they waste their energy fighting the SNP who, in their current guise at least, share many of Labour's aims, then they are letting the Tories off the hook.

The Labour party's current role is to oppose this government. They don't seem to me to be making a very good job of it.

The wild claim that the "vast majority" will oppose Labour for having any truck with the SNP is completely baseless.

Edited July 19, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

 

Number 5 is factually wrong. There was no free money given to the banks.

 

There is no free money.

 

Until snippers realise that they're wedded to the lies of the SNP pre-Sept 18th.

 

If snippers had actually listened to the SNP since then they might have learned something worthwhile.

 

There's a reason why the SNP's claimed 'anti-austerity' policies for the GE were more austere than Labour's policies (or don't IFS reports count if they expose the SNP as bullshitters? ).

[eFestivals]

Next up will be the vote on the tax credit changes. The snp will vote against . Surely this would be an example of a time when you would expect labour and the snp to be on the same side.

 

I see you're still pushing the lie that Labour plan to support the tax credit changes, and by doing so show again your ignorance of the facts.

[eFestivals]

This article didn't really say very much so I'm not entirely sure why you felt it was helpful to quote from it. 

 

However, this quote interested me:

 

" But while she has every right to abhor Labour’s love of the centre ground, she and her party are helping to push Labour in that direction, even as they insist they are not."

 

There is absolutely no evidence provided for this rather startling claim. Quite how the SNP are responsible for pushing Labour to the right is a mystery to me. I would say it is more a case of the SNP moving into the political area that Labour have vacated.  

 

there's no evidence, except for public opinion which rejected your take on things.

 

It's only public opinion that counts in elections, but I'm not surprised that's a mystery to you.

 

And I don't remember Labour having vacated the position that Scotland should have everything it wants at the expense of the English, but I'm sure you'll be giving me a link...?

Edited July 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

A clear Yes in Scotland with all to play for elsewhere. .. Interesting.

 

 

It's all to play for everywhere.

 

Or have you missed yourself slagging off the EU for the last month?

 

Funnily enough, yours is one of the milder 'left' voices that's been doing that. There's now plenty of 'left' voters saying they've now changed to a 'no'.

 

And what's so laughable about your view is you're saying that the EU have been c**ts to Greece while supporting an indy Scotland doing just about everything the same as Greece and saying you want iScotlamd to be in the same EU position as Greece.

 

Other Scots are likely to be better than you at following strains of thought, rather than being distracted by contradictory strains of laughable dogma.

 

I'm now hugely depressed about the stupidity of the 'left' (actually, the self-serving like any tory) who are starting to make Farage look the smart guy.

[eFestivals]

Labour's "most insidious opponent?" If that's not the Tories, then the Labour party is in a worse state than I thought.

or alternatively, your thinking processes are flawed.

Imagine a world with a happy Labour/SNP coalition running the UK, and running it to perfection.

Care to tell me how that furthers the very first item in the SNP's constitution?

FFS.

[eFestivals]

The wild claim that the "vast majority" will oppose Labour for having any truck with the SNP is completely baseless.

and so is your claim that it plays no part.

Meanwhile, I can line you up a number of people who will tell you to your face that they switched vote away from Labour precisely because of what the SNP were saying.

But those people don't exist, apparently.

[Comfy Bean]

So these people who were going to vote for labour...... who did they eventually support?

[LJS]

4 posts in a row, Neil, where you argue against points I haven't made.

I know it's easier when you can make up what your opponent has said, but it's not particularly helpful.

When you address my points, I'll reply.

[eFestivals]

So these people who were going to vote for labour...... who did they eventually support?

other parties.

They didn't want an SNP govt, having fallen for the bollocks the SNP were spouting of making Labour do what the SNP wanted and not what Labour said they'd do.

They might have fallen for that as a result of what the tories spouted too, but the tories only needed to repeat what the SNP were saying.

Why do you think only the Scots are attracted by nationalism, comfy?

(I guess it must be some more of that Scottish exceptionalism. Scots can see the personal benefit in a promise of getting more for themselves, but no one else can. :lol:

[eFestivals]

4 posts in a row, Neil, where you argue against points I haven't made.

I know it's easier when you can make up what your opponent has said, but it's not particularly helpful.

When you address my points, I'll reply.

I've simply pointed out that what people in Scotland might think today about the EU is not fixed in that position forever. You call them c**ts now, remember?

And I've pointed out that your take on the world is not everyone's. Alternative views of the world are available from that of dogmatic snippers.

And you've called out a claim as baseless (when it's not: there's plenty of personal examples out there to be seen, if you look. Your own included, funnily enough) with your own baseless claim.

But it's me that's saying nothing, yeah, I know.

Edited July 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

So....these labour supporters who switched away from labour.

Where did they end up? Genuinely interested. Clearly they can't tell us to our face so hoping you can help out.

[eFestivals]

So....these labour supporters who switched away from labour.

Where did they end up? Genuinely interested. Clearly they can't tell us to our face so hoping you can help out.

 

I said 'voters' and not 'supporters'. They are people who planned to vote Labour this time and ended up changing their minds.

 

Which they changed to depends on each individual's over-all views. We know the election result, there's nothing interesting to be learnt from me telling you how some people you don't know voted (and I don't actually know in all cases anyway).

 

You switched away from Labour. Why do you think no one else can?

[Comfy Bean]

OK fair enough. I didn't bring it up, was just interested in where you were going with it.

We obviously now know that the majority of seats in the UK election were won by the tories. We also know they picked up one seat in one of the countries involved. Of course this is how it works when England is so much bigger than the other countries. Were back to the maths again.

[kaosmark2]

Labour didn't lose votes in England. However former Lib Dems who probably normally would have gone to Labour, got scared by the SNP and went Tory instead.

[LJS]

Labour didn't lose votes in England. However former Lib Dems who probably normally would have gone to Labour, got scared by the SNP and went Tory instead.

I have no doubt this is true of some voters, there is no evidence to suggest it was the cause of Labour's defeat and Labour will make a huge mistake if they fall into the trap of blaming the SNP for their defeat. They risk avoiding addressing the real issues facing the party.

If you are correct , and any significant number of voters switched straight from Labour to Tory, it speaks volumes for the lack of perceived difference between the 2 parties. This is a situation that 3 of the 4 potential Labour leaders will only make worse.

Edited July 19, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

Oops

Edited July 19, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

OK fair enough. I didn't bring it up, was just interested in where you were going with it.

We obviously now know that the majority of seats in the UK election were won by the tories. We also know they picked up one seat in one of the countries involved. Of course this is how it works when England is so much bigger than the other countries. Were back to the maths again.

 

Maths that says there's loads of tories, which some of you say would be countered by there being more left wing parties.

 

It ain't my maths that's dodgy.

 

[eFestivals]

Labour didn't lose votes in England. However former Lib Dems who probably normally would have gone to Labour, got scared by the SNP and went Tory instead.

 

How do you measure a lost vote?

 

One way is compared to how people voted last time, but the needed extra votes you failed to attract this time have also been 'lost' by Labour.

 

In reality, the people I've spoken of are that 2nd part - people who at other times might have been drawn to vote Labour but this time were not.

 

A number of different things combined to scare them away, but one of the parts in the mix was that they didn't feel they'd get the Labour policies being promised because of SNP interference.

 

Nationalism begets nationalism.

[eFestivals]

I have no doubt this is true of some voters, there is no evidence to suggest it was the cause of Labour's defeat

you can repeat forever but it doesn't make it true.

There's plenty of evidence that what the SNP were doing was a significant part of why Labour got defeated.

And a shitloads more of it than your fantasy view that Labour lost because they weren't left wing enough. You voted for a more-right wing party than Labour, so 'left wing' didn't even get your own vote.

 

and Labour will make a huge mistake if they fall into the trap of blaming the SNP for their defeat. They risk avoiding addressing the real issues facing the party.

I don't much disagree with this side of things. Labour need to be believed more-so than it's believed the SNP will undermine them.

But *you* should stop running away from the fact that the SNP said they'd undermine Labour, and that plenty felt that would be what would happen.

 

If you are correct , and any significant number of voters switched straight from Labour to Tory, it speaks volumes for the lack of perceived difference between the 2 parties. This is a situation that 3 of the 4 potential Labour leaders will only make worse.

How people decide to vote is not as simple as you want to present it when you talk about how other people vote. The equivalent about your own vote would be for me to say you're a nationalist 100% the same as Farage.

And you always want to scream "red tories" but you never want to recognise the opinions of real people - no less real than you - who find market solutions more attractive than trying to piss money that doesn't exist up the wall.

 

You and the 45% found market solutions very appealing last September. You found them very appealing because you felt they were in your favour, that you could run away with other people's money via capitalism rather than via 'a socialist robbery of the rich'.

 

Since than, you've mindlessly followed the anti-austerity message that was missing pre-September - as was the money for anything different don't forget - even when that 'anti-austerity' message was called out as the bullshit it is. That's you following market solutions since, too.

 

I don't much disagree that 3 of the 4 Labour candidates make Labour's election chances worse despite the fact that Labour has only been elected on that sort of platform for the last 50 years, and Labour has never been elected on a Corbyn platform, not ever. The 1945 govt knew that there was no free money, while Corbyn does not.

 

So that's 4 who won't get elected, from all policy directions.

 

It must be something else.

Edited July 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

you can repeat forever but it doesn't make it true.

There's plenty of evidence that what the SNP were doing was a significant part of why Labour got defeated.

 

Kindly supply this evidence.

And a shitloads more of it than your fantasy view that Labour lost because they weren't left wing enough. You voted for a more-right wing party than Labour, so 'left wing' didn't even get your own vote.

 

In my view Labour being more left wing on its own would not have improved its electoral chances - they also needed to campaign with passion

 

I don't much disagree with this side of things. Labour need to be believed more-so than it's believed the SNP will undermine them.

But *you* should stop running away from the fact that the SNP said they'd undermine Labour, and that plenty felt that would be what would happen.

 

They didn't say they would undermine Labour - the Tories said they would undermine Labour.

 

How people decide to vote is not as simple as you want to present it when you talk about how other people vote. The equivalent about your own vote would be for me to say you're a nationalist 100% the same as Farage.

And you always want to scream "red tories" but you never want to recognise the opinions of real people - no less real than you - who find market solutions more attractive than trying to piss money that doesn't exist up the wall.

 

You and the 45% found market solutions very appealing last September. You found them very appealing because you felt they were in your favour, that you could run away with other people's money via capitalism rather than via 'a socialist robbery of the rich'.

 

I did not find market solution very appealing last September as you should be well aware.

 

Since than, you've mindlessly followed the anti-austerity message that was missing pre-September - as was the money for anything different don't forget - even when that 'anti-austerity' message was called out as the bullshit it is. That's you following market solutions since, too.

 

??

 

I don't much disagree that 3 of the 4 Labour candidates make Labour's election chances worse despite the fact that Labour has only been elected on that sort of platform for the last 50 years, and Labour has never been elected on a Corbyn platform, not ever. The 1945 govt knew that there was no free money, while Corbyn does not.

 

So that's 4 who won't get elected, from all policy directions.

 

It must be something else.

 

I am going to break my normal rule & post a link to the Bishop of Bath - here he is talking, not about Independence or the SNP, but about why a drift to the right will not win Labour the next election.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/waving-goodbye-to-reality/

[eFestivals]

Kindly supply this evidence.

is there no evidence in your own offence at the "in Salmond' pocket" and "wrecking ball" tory/Scum pieces?

Oh, I forgot, you actually approved of the "in Salmond's pocket" idea, didn't you?

Now, why don't you take a moment to consider why others might have rejected that as a bad thing in the opposite way to how you welcomed it as a good thing...?

FFS. Nutters like you really do believe that only Scots can do nationalism.

 

In my view Labour being more left wing on its own would not have improved its electoral chances - they also needed to campaign with passion

let's forget what Labour may or may not be for a moment, and instead think about what the electorate may or may not be.

Why do you think people who (you say) like left wing views aren't voting for the left wing?

Do they vote right wing because Labour are not left wing enough?

Do they vote right wing because Labour are not passionate enough about their left wing-ness?

Or do they vote right wing because right wing policies appeal to them more than left wing policies?

FFS

 

They didn't say they would undermine Labour - the Tories said they would undermine Labour.

Sturgeon: "I will do a deal with Labour". Nothing honest there, else no "deal" would be necessary.

Sturgeon said: "If Labour won’t be brave enough people should vote for parties to hold Labour to account and make them bolder."

 

Yeah, that's Sturgeon saying she'll let Labour be Labour, and won't undermine Labour and try to make Labour do different things to the policies Labour campaigned on.

FFS.

 

I did not find market solution very appealing last September as you should be well aware.

 

no social democratic offering, but a tax cut for the rich.

Scotland riding high on the high capitalist price of oil.

Scotland riding high on the floating capitalist currency of tory England.

Nothing market led and capitalist there, you're right. PMSL.

You found the market eminently more attractive than you saw the tories market corruption, and you were happy to support policies without a single social aspect but with tax cuts for the rich.

 

Only snippers can be smart enough to know that people want left while those snippers are attracted by the right.

FFS.

 

I am going to break my normal rule & post a link to the Bishop of Bath - here he is talking, not about Independence or the SNP, but about why a drift to the right will not win Labour the next election.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/waving-goodbye-to-reality/

 

glad to see you own up to where you're getting your idiot ideas from at last.

Now, let's see how great those English tory websites about Scotland are, eh? Let's go back to the lies of the little Blue Book, that you knew to be lies so much you couldn't dispute them.

 

The good-bye to reality is all your own.

 

What is about the EU that you find so attractive, LJS? Is it the financial coups, worse than anything the UK has ever done? Or is it the capitalist methodologies? Perhaps it's TTIP, so that SNHS can be fully privatised? Maybe it's the need for banks to be backed by capitalist assets? Perhaps it's the complete lack of any social policies?

 

Or perhaps you reject all of those capitalist ideas, and instead believe that no one needs to pay their own way, and sovereign countries can vote themselves the money of other sovereign nations, as you've been supporting for Greece?

 

Dundee is that way, go eat your fill.

[LJS]

Insults are terribly easy. Easier than addressing the points

I'm about to start work so can't address all your lies & distortions but I think you need to revisit the reasons I voted yes which bear no relation to the motivations you have ascribed to me.

And as for getting my ideas from the bishop of bath. I have been espousing my views for some time before the Bish wrote this piece. Maybe he follows this thread & gets his ideas from me

[eFestivals]

Insults are terribly easy. Easier than addressing the points

and your own pretence about reality is no difference. At least I'm poking you with a purpose, you're merely in denial.

 

I'm about to start work so can't address all your lies & distortions but I think you need to revisit the reasons I voted yes which bear no relation to the motivations you have ascribed to me.

 

whatever your specific reasons, you were happy to vote for something more right wing than you currently had. There was no social justice on offer, there was only extra money for the already-rich.

 

In your own narrative, that makes you a "red tory" at best. You would reject that label for yourself, but you still love to trot out that "red tory" idea like it's meaningful for anyone else.

Your own rejection of what you freely chose to do gets to make my point - that things are far more nuanced that the "red tory" bollocks that you like to mindless say.

 

You saw a better tomorrow via that more-capitalist route that Salmond offered. Fair enough.

 

Similarly, plenty of people who at times might happily support Labour and the social justice they stand for decided not support them this time, because they - just like you did in the indyref - see a better tomorrow via what the tories offered than they do the alternatives.

 

Perhaps it was because Labour would not be Labour but the country might be bankrupt, because of what the SNP were saying?

 

There's ample evidence that plenty didn't vote Labour because those people felt they couldn't trust them with the economy. Now, do you think the SNP saying "we'll make them even more untrustworthy" helped correct that negative view?

 

 

And as for getting my ideas from the bishop of bath. I have been espousing my views for some time before the Bish wrote this piece. Maybe he follows this thread & gets his ideas from me

 

Yep, tho you never succeed in backing it up with evidence.  Show me the majority who voted to left of Labour.

 

Oh, you can't.

 

But I can show you the majority who voted to the right of Labour.

 

You can call them stupid if you like (I do) but it changes nothing of these real people's views which are worth no less than yours or mine.

Edited July 20, 2015 by eFestivals