news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

or a deal with corbs in supporting comrade Putin against those imperialist fascist ukrainians.

They'd team up with Salmond for putin love. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

I’m saying it would be a dead government if he tried to run as a minority and he has positioned himself in a way that would make confidence and supply impossible. The SNP, greens and the left of his own party wouldn’t vote for his bills.

So in the event of a hung parliament Where lib dems and Labour aren’t enough he either has to break bread with the SNP and/or greens and/or left of his own party and invite them into government and let them influence things, or he will preside over a period of stalemate.

I

Firstly the SNP are not significantly to the left of labour. I think they could find common interest on a load of issues, in Westminster they regularly vote together. Also the left of labour regularly vote with the current labour leadership, if they didn’t they would be voting with the conservatives, they would just find common ground.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

They'd team up with Salmond for putin love. 

and farage, trump, galloway and musk.

Now there's a boy band.

[steviewevie]

Looks like ERG and co are going to fuck up the hopes for a NI deal with EU. Brexit done my arse.

[mattiloy]

46 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Firstly the SNP are not significantly to the left of labour. I think they could find common interest on a load of issues, in Westminster they regularly vote together. Also the left of labour regularly vote with the current labour leadership, if they didn’t they would be voting with the conservatives, they would just find common ground.

Yes, thats my point… if Starmer had a plurality but not a majority he would need to find common ground with the SNP and the Labour left to pass bills. Because Starmer and the shadow cabinet are on the right, that common ground would more often not exist. So he’d be hamstrung.

Unless he instead relied on soft tory votes to pass for instance legislature to open up more of the NHS to privatisation. Which now that I think about it actually does seem like the kind of thing he’d do

[pink_triangle]

4 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Yes, thats my point… if Starmer had a plurality but not a majority he would need to find common ground with the SNP and the Labour left to pass bills. Because Starmer and the shadow cabinet are on the right, that common ground would more often not exist. So he’d be hamstrung.

Unless he instead relied on soft tory votes to pass for instance legislature to open up more of the NHS to privatisation. Which now that I think about it actually does seem like the kind of thing he’d do

The left of labour vote regularly with labour now, why would they stop doing this if labour is in power? The same is true with the SNP. What all have in common is they don’t want to see the conservatives in power and that is the only other party in town. I think you are massively exaggerating the difference between the factions, they have plenty in common, the differences just get more attention.

[SheffJeff]

54 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

and farage, trump, galloway and musk.

Now there's a boy band.

The battle of the bands the world never needed/wanted.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

The left of labour vote regularly with labour now, why would they stop doing this if labour is in power? The same is true with the SNP. What all have in common is they don’t want to see the conservatives in power and that is the only other party in town. I think you are massively exaggerating the difference between the factions, they have plenty in common, the differences just get more attention.

I guess same reason as ERG and DUP did what they did during May's time. Without a majority suddenly backbenches and partners have more power.

But.. labour are going to win all the seats except N Islington so not to worry.

[mattiloy]

8 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The left of labour vote regularly with labour now, why would they stop doing this if labour is in power? The same is true with the SNP. What all have in common is they don’t want to see the conservatives in power and that is the only other party in town. I think you are massively exaggerating the difference between the factions, they have plenty in common, the differences just get more attention.

Voting no together on tory bills is quite different to asking socialists to vote for expanding healthcare privatisation bills from their own party.

Its simple stuff, if Starmer heads a minority govt the SNP and the left will simply vote against bills that are not adequately left wing. So he can either do nothing of the things he wants, rely on tory votes, or invite the left and the SNP into government so the bills put forward are a already a product of compromise and get begrudgingly passed à la the lib-con coalition 

Edited February 19, 2023 by mattiloy

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Voting no together on tory bills is quite different to asking socialists to vote for expanding healthcare privatisation bills from their own party.

Its simple stuff, if Starmer heads a minority govt the SNP and the left will simply vote against bills that are not adequately left wing. So he can either do nothing of the things he wants, rely on tory votes, or invite the left and the SNP into government so the bills put forward are a already a product of compromise and get begrudgingly passed à la the lib-con coalition 

Not sure SNP are as left wing as you think they are. 

Their priority is independence.

[steviewevie]

 

[pink_triangle]

18 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Voting no together on tory bills is quite different to asking socialists to vote for expanding healthcare privatisation bills from their own party.

Its simple stuff, if Starmer heads a minority govt the SNP and the left will simply vote against bills that are not adequately left wing. So he can either do nothing of the things he wants, rely on tory votes, or invite the left and the SNP into government so the bills put forward are a already a product of compromise and get begrudgingly passed à la the lib-con coalition 

The SNP are no more left wing than labour. I honestly don’t believe their political centre is any different. They are also possibly going to appoint someone who struggles to support gay marriage and abortion as their leader.

I think you have been reading too much lefty social media if you think they couldn’t do anything. I could easily see them finding common ground on social care, NHS, climate change. Things they can’t agree like Middle East politics and Nukes will just be parked. There will be areas where they need to undo Tory changes and at times will meet in the middle and compromise.

if you ask me do I think the socialist group will bring down a labour government (resulting in a Tory one) just as a protest then I think no. There may be a few of the louder ones who kick a fuss, I think most want to get things done. I don’t think everyone looks at things purely through a right/left spectrum.

[pink_triangle]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Lots of well off Londoners getting free food for their kids...

I personally think I should pay for my childrens meals as I can afford it. This doesn’t seem progressive to me.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Good move which should help lots of people during the cost of living crises. 

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I personally think I should pay for my childrens meals as I can afford it. This doesn’t seem progressive to me.

Come on Burnham, I love a freebie.

Actually I think the state paying for kids meals is a good idea, when I was a lad we got free milk, and lots of corporal punishment. Those were the days.

[Guest]

Only kids from well off families are allowed to eat these days. 

[Neil]

58 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Yes, thats my point… if Starmer had a plurality but not a majority he would need to find common ground with the SNP and the Labour left to pass bills. Because Starmer and the shadow cabinet are on the right, that common ground would more often not exist. So he’d be hamstrung.

Unless he instead relied on soft tory votes to pass for instance legislature to open up more of the NHS to privatisation. Which now that I think about it actually does seem like the kind of thing he’d do

In the bit you quoted above this, it talks of the labour left voting with the tories, that's corbyns Labour career. And much more likely than what you said was likely. 

[steviewevie]

We all contribute through tax, with the wealthier obviously paying more, and everyone gets fed the same and the stigma of being on free school meals is taken away. It's a brilliant idea. 

[Neil]

12 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Yeah the bodies of the poor are pilled up in the streets...  

they would be if the hungry weren't eating them. 😛 

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

We all contribute through tax, with the wealthier obviously paying more, and everyone gets fed the same and the stigma of being on free school meals is taken away. It's a brilliant idea. 

We all contribute through tax, but I would prefer more of that tax go to people who need it more than me.

In my kids schools the payments for school meals is all done online for those who pay, so the stigma isn’t there compared to when I was a kid.

[steviewevie]

I need evidence that people are poor first...

[steviewevie]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

We all contribute through tax, but I would prefer more of that tax go to people who need it more than me.

In my kids schools the payments for school meals is all done online for those who pay, so the stigma isn’t there compared to when I was a kid.

We all get the same. I like it. They should do it for adults too. Imagine....

[steviewevie]

It's like we all get the same health care. Mad.

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

We all get the same. I like it. They should do it for adults too. Imagine....

Every pound spent on my kids meals is a pound that could go to a family who really need it. I would prefer a more progressive system which does not divert a limited pot of money from the poor to the middle class.

[steviewevie]

Loads now effectively living in poverty but not eligible for school meals...so this goes some way to fixing that. Maybe they're not poor enough for the fish twat though.