JamboX2 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 This line is a classic One is a plan to give rural communities the right of compulsory purchase over the land they farm ? even if the landowner, whose family may have been custodians of it for generations, doesn't want to sell it. Cant remember the Mail complaining about the right to buy council houses dispite the councils not wanting to sell They did want to sell. They petitioned the Callaghan government to let them. The issue was they were barred from using funds raised to build replacement council homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psychedelicropcircle Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I see jimbob is registering web addresses 'labour for yes' etc, who the **** is mentoring this empty suit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943915/The-Tartan-Stalinists-Forced-sales-country-estates-Snooping-state-guardians-child-Contempt-wealthy-Britain-Fantasy-No-s-stark-reality-SNP-landslide.html That's genius hahaha. The SNP have gone far-left, really? Annoying the Daily Mail = Proof you are in the right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 They did want to sell. They petitioned the Callaghan government to let them. The issue was they were barred from using funds raised to build replacement council homes. So Labour councils wanted to sell there council house stock even before the Thatcher introduced the policy. Do you have documentary evidence of this because it is certainly news to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 So Labour councils wanted to sell there council house stock even before the Thatcher introduced the policy. Do you have documentary evidence of this because it is certainly news to me. http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1959/1959-labour-manifesto.shtml 20 years before Maggie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 #awkward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cast No Shadow Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2943915/The-Tartan-Stalinists-Forced-sales-country-estates-Snooping-state-guardians-child-Contempt-wealthy-Britain-Fantasy-No-s-stark-reality-SNP-landslide.html B-b-but... I thought the SNP were actually the "Tartan Tories"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 So Labour councils wanted to sell there council house stock even before the Thatcher introduced the policy. Do you have documentary evidence of this because it is certainly news to me. Dont forget right to buy was exceptionally popular and would still be. The issue is and was a lack of construction of replacement social housing or an investment in the refurbishment of existing stock on the back of the profits made. Callaghan had the Treasury and then Environment department draw up plans for housing sales to tenants in the late 1970s. The plan was even piloted in a number of council areas. The full scale Thatcherite roll out without safeguarding social housing stock came later on the back of the trials. Again though, no party since the full scale roll out of the policy has ever thought about big investment in social housing or in considering rent controls or means of affecting affordable housing. One thing to end the policy, but the Scottish Government and its predecessors done little to reinvest in building more social housing and council housing to allow affordable and good housing to those who could use secure tenancies and not being done in by shan rent agreements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1959/1959-labour-manifesto.shtml 20 years before Maggie! When Nye Bevan was deputy leader and Harold Wilson shadow Chancellor. Men who made the NHS and Open University... Wanted people to own their own homes. Party of aspiration. Or a sell out to the left. Open to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The problem with right to buy was never really that it meant more people owning their own homes. It was much more to do with the huge discounts that were given, and that no new social housing was provided to replace the stock that was sold off. But then, the main objectives of right to buy were to win elections and to destroy social housing as an option for many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The problem with right to buy was never really that it meant more people owning their own homes. It was much more to do with the huge discounts that were given, and that no new social housing was provided to replace the stock that was sold off. But then, the main objectives of right to buy were to win elections and to destroy social housing as an option for many people. The ideology behind the Tory system of council house sales was to erode local government and create a home owning democracy which would lean right rather than left. The discounts to people who'd lived in homes their whole lives was right. The rules on sales to third parties and people out for a quick buck were the failings of the plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 "These are also, of course, people who have no idea of how the rural economy works. It is private spite dressed up as public interest." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted February 8, 2015 Author Share Posted February 8, 2015 Amazing. You really don't think he's under threat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMac Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 You really don't think he's under threat? Party leader. Very good record in government (aside from the pledge). well spoken and accessible. No I don't think he is under threat. Majority will decrease but will win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMac Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) B-b-but... I thought the SNP were actually the "Tartan Tories"? Left and right means nothing. Authoritarian vs Libertarian is where the real battle lies. The SNP want to tell me how to live my life and raise my kid. No thank you. I really can't stand this aspect of them. Edited February 8, 2015 by IMac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Left and right means nothing. Authoritarian vs Libertarian is where the real battle lies. The SNP want to tell me how to live my life and raise my kid. No thank you. I really can't stand this aspect of them. Once again, how are they, minor specifics aside, different from labour or the conservatives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMac Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Once again, how are they, minor specifics aside, different from labour or the conservatives? I never said they were. Named person (state guardian), minimum price alcohol, consensual searches and armed police. But yes the conservatives and labour are also keen on telling us how to live. That is why I don't vote for these three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMac Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I never said they were. Named person (state guardian), minimum price alcohol, consensual searches and armed police. But yes the conservatives and labour are also keen on telling us how to live. That is why I don't vote for these three. BTW I don't consider these policies minor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) I never said they were. Named person (state guardian), minimum price alcohol, consensual searches and armed police. But yes the conservatives and labour are also keen on telling us how to live. That is why I don't vote for these three. You felt the need to highlight them over any others for some reason. And i never said they were minor policies. I said the differences between the parties was minor. That's a different thing altogether. Edited February 8, 2015 by 2NaFish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMac Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) You felt the need to highlight them over any others for some reason. And i never said they were minor policies. I said the differences between the parties was minor. That's a different thing altogether. Yes. They are the lead party in Scotland at the moment so worthy of criticism. Plus have many champions on here. If someone touts labour or the tories I will pose an opposing view. Edited February 8, 2015 by IMac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Today's Sunday Herald front page. The Yes supporting paper doesn't like anyone else using the word, apparently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot since 86 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Today's Sunday Herald front page. The Yes supporting paper doesn't like anyone else using the word, apparently desperate stuff from labour and the Tory fanboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Yes. They are the lead party in Scotland at the moment so worthy of criticism. Plus have many champions on here. If someone touts labour or the tories I will pose an opposing view. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 desperate stuff from labour and the Tory fanboy Murphy is desperate already and the whole thing hasn't even kicked off yet. It's going to be a lol-athon watching Liebour trying everything in their power to get their 'core' vote back. Vote Labour get Labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The Nats clearly fear Murphy - that's why they've gone after him much harder than they ever went after Lamont. It started with their rent-a-mob during the referendum and has continued since. An article from the SNP mouthpiece complaining that he's using the word Yes too much is further evidence. He won't win back those that have become converts to the SNP song sheet. This thread clearly shows that those people are lost. He will win back a few non-nationalist soft Yes supporters though and I reckon the Nats know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The Nats clearly fear Murphy - that's why they've gone after him much harder than they ever went after Lamont. It started with their rent-a-mob during the referendum and has continued since. An article from the SNP mouthpiece complaining that he's using the word Yes too much is further evidence. He won't win back those that have become converts to the SNP song sheet. This thread clearly shows that those people are lost. He will win back a few non-nationalist soft Yes supporters though and I reckon the Nats know it. Have they really gone after Murphy that hard? Without question they've been pulling his tail over the last few weeks and quite right too, after all he's a very soft target and the SNP will know that he doesn't like it up him at all. To be fair they didn't have to go after Lamont at all. She was that useless. The only message the SNP need to keep churning out is 'what's best for Scottish interests'. That blows the other parties right out the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Have they really gone after Murphy that hard? Without question they've been pulling his tail over the last few weeks and quite right too, after all he's a very soft target and the SNP will know that he doesn't like it up him at all. To be fair they didn't have to go after Lamont at all. She was that useless. The only message the SNP need to keep churning out is 'what's best for Scottish interests'. That blows the other parties right out the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Today's Sunday Herald front page. The Yes supporting paper doesn't like anyone else using the word, apparently Oh my. That's real bottom of the barrel stuff that. It also shows the contempt he has for the electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 In hindsight, the Sunday Herald's change of editorial stance during the referendum was real scrambling for relevance stuff. Front pages look like they're always done by the deranged #45 folk on Twitter who have access to Photoshop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Well said, Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I never said they were. Named person (state guardian), minimum price alcohol, consensual searches and armed police. But yes the conservatives and labour are also keen on telling us how to live. That is why I don't vote for these three. On the above policies above they should be taken to task - they armed the police depite crime being at its lowest level in history - randomised stop and search including children- then said it stopped, when it hadn't - state guardians with access to your kids records without your consent or knowledge Anyone would think we were living in an extremist state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 On the above policies above they should be taken to task - they armed the police depite crime being at its lowest level in history - randomised stop and search including children- then said it stopped, when it hadn't - state guardians with access to your kids records without your consent or knowledge Anyone would think we were living in an extremist state I suspect that what you have mentioned above happens throughout the country (UK) already. Perhaps not "state guardians" as such, but I suspect social work have access to records. Is that a bad thing? I mean, whenever a kid is abused or failed in some way, the right wing press are quick to blame social workers who "should have know" or "did know, but took no action". So if they knew, they must have records of some sort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I honestly don't get why folk are so against state guardians. They aren't there to tell the majority of parents how to bring up their kids as folk claim, they are there to protect the kids from the minority of parents who might harm them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I honestly don't get why folk are so against state guardians. They aren't there to tell the majority of parents how to bring up their kids as folk claim, they are there to protect the kids from the minority of parents who might harm them. For starters your kid's state guardian will decide what information to tell you about your them. For example, if they find out that your 12 year old child is having underage sex it will be up to them whether or not they decide to tell you or not. They will determine whether or not it is in the child's best interests for you to know if your child is having sex and at risk. I cannot understand why everyone isn't angry about this. This isn't just an anti-SNP thing. It is a truly awful state of affairs where the government will appoint people who will determine what information you know about your kids. It is perhaps a sign of the times and state of affairs in Scotland that so many are quite happy about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 It's the sort of thing arsehole libertarians bring up ad nauseum. They probably have a point somewhere, but i'd rather disagree just to piss them off. And when i say they have a point - they have a point if you unquestioningly, intrinsically believe that the state is out to get you. And are a *****. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Not really. There's a cost attached to all this.. Then, is a catch all approach the best way to protect the vulnerable? Is that even what the state for? It does make you wonder sometimes. Like the nonsense of free school dinners for all Primary 1 to 3 children. Just another poorly executed gimmick to file alongside the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Even if you're in favour of the principle of this there's the practicality of it. How many of the tragic cases we've heard about in the last few years in the news were completely off social services' radar? I can't remember any. So the solution to that isn't to allocate the resources for the state to appoint a guardian to every child - it's to allocate more resources to allow social services to look after the children who are at risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 For starters your kid's state guardian will decide what information to tell you about your them. For example, if they find out that your 12 year old child is having underage sex it will be up to them whether or not they decide to tell you or not. They will determine whether or not it is in the child's best interests for you to know if your child is having sex and at risk. I cannot understand why everyone isn't angry about this. This isn't just an anti-SNP thing. It is a truly awful state of affairs where the government will appoint people who will determine what information you know about your kids. It is perhaps a sign of the times and state of affairs in Scotland that so many are quite happy about this. If I still lived in Scotland I would seethe about this. But as I don't I look forward to the first major scandal from a bureaucratic feck up and then I can look like this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Mhairi Black just shamed on channel 4 news! About putting the nut on labour councillors. She wouldn't use the expression again, apparently. Yet she did exactly that a few weeks later in a church hall. This time though, she talked of 'lamping' the labour councillor - so I suppose she wasn't telling complete porkies. Edited February 9, 2015 by TheMaganator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Mhairi Black just shamed on channel 4 news! About putting the nut on labour councillors. She wouldn't use the expression again, apparently. Yet she did exactly that a few weeks later in a church hall. This time though, she talked of 'lamping' the labour councillor - so I suppose she wasn't telling complete porkies. Sounds like someone who needs help from her state guardian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Sounds like someone who needs help from her state guardian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Where's your one-man JKB campaign against the snoopers charter, Mag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I suspect that what you have mentioned above happens throughout the country (UK) already. Perhaps not "state guardians" as such, but I suspect social work have access to records. Is that a bad thing? I mean, whenever a kid is abused or failed in some way, the right wing press are quick to blame social workers who "should have know" or "did know, but took no action". So if they knew, they must have records of some sort. It's been debate ad nauseum on here but I'm skeptical of the whole idea. Partly becuase with such volume how can there be effective scrutiny of all situations on going at one point. Partly because I think it's resources being moved away from those in desperate need of close support. But happy to see it pay off if in a decade we are seeing lower levels of child abuse etc. My issue with this illiberal attitude, for want of a better phrase, can be summed up in one policy, Police Scotland. What a botched and totally undemocratic system that is. A Police Chief who is a law unto himself. The SPA is a toothless cat. And the local authorities who were more 'liberal' are being put under pressure to follow hard line Glasgow by-laws on public drinking and the sex trade. Christ, the Justice Secretary wasn't even told of routine arming of on the beat officers. That's not right. Add to that the stop and search abuses against young people, the erosion of local democracy in terms of social care, public health, policing, education and economic development has also been nothing short of scandalous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cast No Shadow Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I never said they were. Named person (state guardian), minimum price alcohol, consensual searches and armed police. But yes the conservatives and labour are also keen on telling us how to live. That is why I don't vote for these three. Well, minimum pricing on alcohol is quite simply a terrific policy and I can't say I've ever been harassed by the police either. In other words, unless you're a raging alcoholic or trouble maker, you shouldn't be bothered. The Nats clearly fear Murphy - that's why they've gone after him much harder than they ever went after Lamont. It started with their rent-a-mob during the referendum and has continued since. An article from the SNP mouthpiece complaining that he's using the word Yes too much is further evidence. He won't win back those that have become converts to the SNP song sheet. This thread clearly shows that those people are lost. He will win back a few non-nationalist soft Yes supporters though and I reckon the Nats know it. lol wut Yes: Labour's support has clearly swollen since he became leader. On the above policies above they should be taken to task - they armed the police depite crime being at its lowest level in history - randomised stop and search including children- then said it stopped, when it hadn't - state guardians with access to your kids records without your consent or knowledge Anyone would think we were living in an extremist state Stop it. Not really. There's a cost attached to all this.. Then, is a catch all approach the best way to protect the vulnerable? Is that even what the state for? It does make you wonder sometimes. Like the nonsense of free school dinners for all Primary 1 to 3 children. Just another poorly executed gimmick to file alongside the rest. Erm, young kids at primary school having free taxpayer funded access to proper meals is "nonsense"? Oh dear. Mhairi Black just shamed on channel 4 news! About putting the nut on labour councillors. She wouldn't use the expression again, apparently. Yet she did exactly that a few weeks later in a church hall. This time though, she talked of 'lamping' the labour councillor - so I suppose she wasn't telling complete porkies. ^^^ Clearly fears Mhairi Black, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Well, minimum pricing on alcohol is quite simply a terrific policy and I can't say I've ever been harassed by the police either. In other words, unless you're a raging alcoholic or trouble maker, you shouldn't be bothered. lol wut Yes: Labour's support has clearly swollen since he became leader. Stop it. Erm, young kids at primary school having free taxpayer funded access to proper meals is "nonsense"? Oh dear. ^^^ Clearly fears Mhairi Black, imo. "He will win back a few non-nationalist soft Yes supporters though" - and he will. I certainly fear living in a country that would vote her in. Certainly wouldn't mess with her. I don't doubt she's put the nut on people before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Can't wait for the clash between Mhairi Black and the Labour councillor who actually put the nut on someone on the 18th of September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Can't wait for the clash between Mhairi Black and the Labour councillor who actually put the nut on someone on the 18th of September. Was that Eric 'The Hitman' Joyce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Can't wait for the clash between Mhairi Black and the Labour councillor who actually put the nut on someone on the 18th of September.Who was that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Can't wait for the clash between Mhairi Black and the Labour councillor who actually put the nut on someone on the 18th of September. Just decide the election on that. She wins, they get a majority of Scottish seats. He wins, the SNP get 20 seats and Labour keep the rest except the Shetlands who go to the LibDems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Back on topic, few poll of polls reports today from John Curtice and the Electoral Reform society. Makes interesting reading and shows up the system is broken. SNP could be 6th in number of votes but 3rd in seats and Scottish Labour could be 10 points behind the SNP in Scotland and hold onto 30 odd seats. Indefensible on both fronts... http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/general-election-system-biased-towards-labour-1-3684159 http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/voters-face-election-lottery-as-two-party-system-vanishes.117972457 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.