You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Lib dems are doing deals with tories on councils in Scotland
Perhaps I haven’t been paying attention.
What makes them unique?
I can't keep writing the same thing over and over again only for yet another person to come along and say the exact same thing as the previous person I just explained it to.
Can't you just read what I wrote half a page up? Or at the top of the page? Or on the last page? Or the page before that?
Lib dems are doing deals with tories on councils in Scotland
So were Labour, in Stockport among others. But I was talking about Westminster.
There are big differences between what happens in Scotland where the SNP significantly affect the dynamic, and what happens in England or Wales.
It shows its not a red line
I am sure that if the arithmetic was the same again they would do it.
They might propose it. But without the approval of the membership it won't happen. And the membership are often more centre-left than centre-right and won't ratify it.
Don't forget that last time round it took a bit of selling, if there had been other options that would have led to a stable government (and any proposed coalition involving both the SNP and Lab definitely isn't that) in the midst of the worst financial crisis in decades, then those would have been favoured. There weren't, and if a deal hadn't been struck, we'd have been back to the polls in six months and ended up with a majority Tory government.
There is no LD appetite for another Tory coalition, and a lot has been learned about how coalition deals need to be negotiated before doing a national deal with anyone else for that matter.
Lib dems are doing deals with tories on councils in Scotland
It's local elections. In every council that its no overall control; Tories, Labour and LD are doing deals to create functioning councils, so that they can provide services, it's literally their job Obviously some councils organise themselves and it works well enough, others have constant in-fighting,
I keep saying this and keep being ignored – this isn’t how the party works, and any coalition/C&S/whatever deal will need to be ratified by the membership.
A lot has been learned since 2010, and there’s no way they’re going to do a national deal with the Tories again, even if it would get past the membership, which it won’t – local politics are often slightly idiosyncratic, but even then I’d be surprised if many local LD parties in England were in any way keen to do a deal with the Tories.
As to what they stand for, there’s a helpful guide on the website https://www.libdems.org.uk/values
So let me make sure I understand this.
If I vote Lib-Dem, I'm not actually voting for any policies or any core values (although looking at your link, with the core principles of Liberty, Equality, Democracy, Community, Human Rights, Internationalism, and Environmentalism it could be argued I am, in fact, voting for all the principles).
What I am voting for, if I vote Lib-Dem, is for the 70,000 or so Lib-Dem members to decide what I have just voted for?
What makes them unique?
I can’t keep writing the same thing over and over again only for yet another person to come along and say the exact same thing as the previous person I just explained it to.
Can’t you just read what I wrote half a page up? Or at the top of the page? Or on the last page? Or the page before that?
Well, I've just gone back three pages and I can't see any reference to this uniqueness you say you've explained.
It’s local elections. In every council that its no overall control; Tories, Labour and LD are doing deals to create functioning councils, so that they can provide services, it’s literally their job
+1
If only this is how national government worked.
Well, I’ve just gone back three pages and I can’t see any reference to this uniqueness you say you’ve explained.
Labour and and the Tories used to have core principles but are now both Brexit suicide cults. Doesn't matter though cause one of them is going to be the biggest party and probably have a majority so they can do what is in their manifesto (or not, who else are you going to vote for?).
Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Reform, UKIP, Sinn Fein, DUP all have a core identity. If you vote for them you know what their focus is going to be if they end up in a coalition or they start stealing enough votes from either Labour or Tories.
The Lib-Dems have no core identity. If they end up in a coalition you have no idea which policies are going to be dropped. They have no cause. They are unique and not in a good way.
It used to be the Tories were for making the rich as rich as possible and Labour were for stopping kids getting stuffed up chimneys. The Lib-Dems were for people who couldn't decide if either one was a bad thing. And that was OK.
Now, however, the Tories are a neo-liberal Brexit suicide cult. Labour are also a neo-liberal Brexit suicide cult but apparently a more competent version.
And since Davey has started making eyes at Starmer, it seems the Lib-Dems have given up on the EU and decided to become yet another neo-liberal Brexit suicide cult.
The only difference is they aren't going to be the biggest one.
If only this is how national government worked.
Well it is invariably through necessity rather than choice. And it is exactly how the national government worked 10 years ago - the Tories and LibDems did a deal with each other. But I wouldn't describe it as a roaring success.
I totally agree with Nick's point though. If no party has overall control some sort of arrangement has to be reached - local councils can't call snap elections.
As well as wining a major in Mid Suffolk I believe that the Green Party is also the largest party in two other councils. I can't remember which ones but it will be interesting to see if they do a deal with another party or decide to remain in opposition.
OK.
What do you mean by "core identity"? The also-rans you listed are pretty much all single-policy parties. The LDs are "unique" because they're middle-of-the-road rather than their raison d'etre being screaming about one issue?
I don't really have any skin in this game beyond wanting to yeet the incumbents. The LDs strike me as mediocre. But perhaps mediocre is exactly what we need right now rather than fuel for headline-grabbing clickbait.
What do you mean by “core identity”?
SNP and Plaid Cymru: Independence
Greens: Environment
UKIP and Reform: Racism
Sinn Fein and the DUP: NI stuff
The LDs are “unique” because they’re middle-of-the-road rather than their raison d’etre being screaming about one issue?
Like I said, that was fine when the Tories were for the rich and Labour were for the workers. There was an opening for people who couldn't make their mind up. Middle of the road, as you said.
What is middle of the road now?
Since Blair both have been middle of the road. Well, actually, both have been on the right side of the road but in the same lane.
Even now, Labours pitch is 'more of the same policies but we'll be good at it.' Do the Lib-Dems even have a pitch?
There has to be recognition that Iraq and the lessons of that conflict has influenced foreign policy to a massive degree for both Labour and the Tories – See the Syria conflict vote in 2013 for instance
It cuts both ways of course. History makes me confident that the lib dems would not form a coalition with the tories, for example.
Errm
Edinburgh city council the snp were just short of a majority. We have a lib dem tory labour coalition. Two labour members got the whip withdrawn for refusing to work with tories. It stinks
SNP and Plaid Cymru: Independence
Greens: Environment
UKIP and Reform: Racism
Sinn Fein and the DUP: NI stuff
So exactly as I said, "The also-rans you listed are pretty much all single-policy parties."
Could you name a second policy those parties have? I couldn't.
that was fine when the Tories were for the rich and Labour were for the workers.
And when was that, the 1970s? The 1920s?
What is middle of the road now?
I would assume the lib Dems, who by your own definition don't have a polarising core.
It might stink but it's the nature of coalition. Unless the SNP have an outright majority, then they have to find other people willing to work with them, and I dare say the unionist-nationalist divide is at least as strong as the left-right divide in England. If they can't and a coalition, even an uneasy one, can be formed and has a majority, that's what you get.
The Tories have moved so far to the right that there is no realistic coalition partner for them at Westminster.
Do the Lib-Dems even have a pitch?
Closer ties to Europe with the eventual aim of rejoining (bearing in mind there's a difference between having a commitment to something and campaigning on it when most of the public just want Brexit to go away)?
Electoral reform so people's vote actually counts for something?
Proper devolution so local areas have actual power vs. the centralising tendency of the other main parties?
Repeal of the more authoritarian law e.g. the abhorrent Public Order Act 2023 which Lab have said they'll keep?
What is middle of the road now?
Genghis Khan on a good day?
It might stink but it’s the nature of coalition.
It doesn't stick. It's the basis of democracy and the way things are supposed to work.
If you go somewhere with PR you'll see lots of parties who have a key area of focus and some larger 'broad church' parties who tend to be the senior parties in coalitions.
Small broad church parties tend not to last long. The Lib-Dems are a small broad church party whose 'middle of the road' niche disappeared with Blair.
Closer ties to Europe with the eventual aim of rejoining (bearing in mind there’s a difference between having a commitment to something and campaigning on it when most of the public just want Brexit to go away)?
Electoral reform so people’s vote actually counts for something?
Proper devolution so local areas have actual power vs. the centralising tendency of the other main parties?
Repeal of the more authoritarian law e.g. the abhorrent Public Order Act 2023 which Lab have said they’ll keep?
These all sound good. Which ones are they prepared to give up on and which will they fight to the death for, even if it means a supply and confidence arrangement instead of a coalition?
Or is the most single most important thing that they form a coalition government even if it means abandoning all those policy areas?
So exactly as I said, “The also-rans you listed are pretty much all single-policy parties.”
Could you name a second policy those parties have? I couldn’t.
I couldn't mention a second policy UKIP had. And yet here we are, out of the EU.
You don't change a country with a FPTP electoral system by voting one of the two big parties. You change it by not voting for the two main parties. UKIP showed that if you stop voting for the Tories they will chase your vote by going where you went. No reason to think Labour wouldn't do the same.
It's not a football game. The important thing is not that your team wins. The important thing is to get the outcome you want.
And when was that, the 1970s? The 1920s?
Mid-90s. It died with Blair's arrival.
I would assume the lib Dems,
Middle of the road is Lib-Dem because Lib-Dems are middle of the road?
Can you not think of a definition of the gap in policy between Labour and Conservatives that isn't a tautology?
If you can't I'm not surprised. It doesn't exist anymore.
The Lib-Dems are a small broad church party whose ‘middle of the road’ niche disappeared with Blair.
What does that mean?
Support for the LibDems relentlessly grew in every election from the time Tony Blair first became prime minister right up until the Tory-LibDem coalition government.
Are you saying that Tony Blair forced the LibDems to abandon the middle-of-the-road and become more left-wing? If so you might have a point.
It's a shame that Nick Clegg chose to jump the other way when he became leader though.
Are you saying that Tony Blair forced the LibDems to abandon the middle-of-the-road and become more left-wing? If so you might have a point.
No, I'm saying the middle of the road disappeared when Labour embraced neo-liberalism.
For whatever reason people (such as myself) thought that the Lib-Dems were the new home for those of us who wanted a left wing government.
How completely wrong we were.
Small broad church parties tend not to last long
Evidence please. The Greens are just as much a broad church if not more so, given that there's a definite urban socialist/social democrat wing and a rural small c conservative wing. The same is also true of the SNP as the recent leadership election demonstrated (and presumably Plaid). I suppose the thing that unites the LDs is a commitment to liberalism, in the same way that environmentalism and nationalism unite the Greens or SNP?
If we ever get a proportional voting system, it's possible the LDs might splinter into 'modern SDP' and 'Orange Book' factions, but I thought it was widely held that the only things holding the very broad church Lab and Conservative Parties together was FPTP.
Which ones are they prepared to give up on and which will they fight to the death for, even if it means a supply and confidence arrangement instead of a coalition?
I think the hardest sell is probably devolution given the NE assembly was knocked back in a local referendum.
I don't think a long-term goal of closer ties with the EU +/- rejoin is negotiable, but (bearing in mind the EU would want to have us back) it could be a long term commitment.
Electoral reform would be a red line - this was one of the lessons learned from 2010. Ironically AV was only chosen over a properly proportional system as they thought Lab would be more likely to support it. On the other hand, if they'd asked for STV for local elections, that would probably have gone through (because neither Lab nor the Tories value their local government base) - would that be enough of a commitment to LD values for you?
I think some of the more authoritarian stuff would have to be red lined too.
For whatever reason people (such as myself) thought that the Lib-Dems were the new home for those of us who wanted a left wing government.
How completely wrong we were.
Nah, during the Charles Kennedy era the LibDems were a vaguely left-wing, and definitely anti-war, party. If you were opposed to neoliberalism supporting the LibDems was definitely a step in the right direction.
I thought it was widely held that the only things holding the very broad church Lab and Conservative Parties together was FPTP.
Yup. Definitely in the case of the broad church Labour Party. Perhaps not so much for the Tories as traditionally they tend to be much more united anyway. Partly no doubt because much of the Tory membership probably isn't that interested in politics.
Nah, during the Charles Kennedy era the LibDems were a vaguely left-wing, and definitely anti-war, party. If you were opposed to neoliberalism supporting the LibDems was definitely a step in the right direction.
His alcoholism was a real tragedy, and I can't help but wonder if things would've been different had he been shown more support by his party.
Evidence please.
You want me to give you evidence of parties that don't exist?
The Greens are just as much a broad church if not more so, given that there’s a definite urban socialist/social democrat wing and a rural small c conservative wing.
You think the Greens are ever going to vote for fracking if they are given a shot at a coalition?
I suppose the thing that unites the LDs is a commitment to liberalism,
Are you sure? Is there not a more vague central tenet you could pick?
SNP and Plaid Cymru are committed to independence. It's a concrete goal to work towards.
The Greens are committed to the environment. It doesn't take much imagination to see what policies they will be for and which they will oppose.
As someone who is fairly well educated and follows politics, I have no idea what liberalism means in terms of policy. It basically a religion. People can make it mean whatever they want it to mean and one person's liberalism is another person's oppression. I can see why philosophers would like it though. Lots to discuss.
Electoral reform would be a red line – this was one of the lessons learned from 2010. Ironically AV was only chosen over a properly proportional system as they thought Lab would be more likely to support it. On the other hand, if they’d asked for STV for local elections, that would probably have gone through (because neither Lab nor the Tories value their local government base) – would that be enough of a commitment to LD values for you?
If they came out and said, 'We will not enter any coalition or support any government in any way without reform of the electoral system for general elections (and we don't mean AV this time)' I would consider voting for them (not a referendum though, just get it done).
You think that's going to happen or will the lure of a 'win' be too much for Lib-Dem members and it'll be 2010 all over again?
His alcoholism was a real tragedy
I couldn't agree more. I am quite anti-alcohol anyway and what it did to Charles Kennedy, and the subsequent effect on UK politics, is just another thing to add to the list of reasons that I don't like the drug.
You want me to give you evidence of parties that don’t exist?
You said that small, broad church parties tend not to last long. So there must be historic examples?
So there must be historic examples?
Erm, OK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_People%27s_Party_(Norway,_1972)
Outside the two biggest parties, most Scandinavian parties have a clear focus area and constituency. You can look at any of them and see clearly what kind of voter they are aiming to attract.
The closest thing to an all things to all men party in Norway would be Venstre (it means Left but they are centrists). Saying that, they have a strong focus on environmental issues and are probably the second most 'Green' party after the Greens themselves.
Of course, parties can do this in a PR system.
The Lib-Dems need to go balls to the wall for electoral reform. No more talk of coalitions, definitely no more saying things like 'I'm running for PM'. They need to become the UKIP of electoral reform.
Otherwise there is simply no space for them and once the traditional (pre-Blair era) Lib-Dem voters are gone the party will disappear.
I do agree with you that talk of coalitions isn't helpful - talk of an anti-Tory coalition at Westminster is unhelpful in areas where at local level the LDs face Lab, for example. But I don't necessarily agree there is no niche.
Looking at sister parties, if you gloss over e.g. Fianna Fail or the VVD there are moderate sized broad church liberal parties such as D66 in other places under proportional systems.
The difficulties inherent in going all out for electoral reform are allegations that the LDs only want it because it benefits them (which it might, so far as anyone knows, though that's not really the experience in Scotland/Wales) rather than being the right thing to do, the "so what are you going to do once you've for fairer votes?" question, and the fact that while LDs get very exercised about electoral reform, I'm not sure how well it cuts through.
(Another red line is probably Lords reform into an elected Senate, incidentally).
The difficulties inherent in going all out for electoral reform are allegations that the LDs only want it because it benefits them (which it might, so far as anyone knows, though that’s not really the experience in Scotland/Wales) rather than being the right thing to do, the “so what are you going to do once you’ve for fairer votes?” question, and the fact that while LDs get very exercised about electoral reform, I’m not sure how well it cuts through.
I think there is a very strong case to be made that almost every problem the UK has faced this century can be traced back to FPTP and the fact that parties are forced to pursue a couple of hundred thousand swing voters in a few key seats at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of the population.
It all comes down to parties being handed absolute majorities with a minority of the vote.
Iraq, Austerity, Brexit, not to mention all the smaller policies implemented to punish poor people because swing voters seem to like that, it all comes down to parties being able to act without having to compromise in any way.
Forget everything else and just hammer home the idea that there are a privileged pampered few living in key seats who get handed everything because they decide elections while you can't afford to heat your house.
It might be largely bollocks but if UKIP taught us anything it's that it's always good to have someone to blame and voting for us is the only way to stop these scroungers stealing your money.
Anyway, back to local election news Redcar and Cleveland has been declared.
In other semi related news apparently Reform have got their first MP!
Ok its Bridgen after the tories kicked him out but hey its a start.
It all comes down to parties being handed absolute majorities with a minority of the vote.
Iraq, Austerity, Brexit, not to mention......
Not in the case of austerity and the coalition government. The coalition government represented 59% of the 2010 general election vote.
Both the Tories and the LibDems fought the 2010 general election on a programme of austerity, they had a clear mandate from the majority of the electorate for austerity.
Whilst Labour offered the electorate austerity-lite promising to only half the deficit in 4 years.
Labour's stance undoubtedly helped the Tories and LibDems to win the argument. After all if Labour agreed that austerity and wiping out the deficit was necessary and vital why not back parties which were willing to do it quickly so that Britian would be on the road to recovery in no time at all?
It is important to remember that austerity wasn't necessarily foisted on an unwilling nation but that an electorate were sold a lie by all three major parties.
Reform have got their first MP!
Ok its Bridgen after the tories kicked him out but hey its a start.
It's not necessarily a start for Reform UK, it could represent the final conclusion.
After all quite a few Tories have over the years defected to UKIP, I'm not sure how many, but only person has ever been elected as a UKIP MP.
I very much doubt that Bridgen will retain his seat in the next general election or that there will be one single Reform UK MP in 18 months time.
In last week's local elections Reform UK only managed to win 6 council seats, their appeal to voters isn't obvious.
Which ones are they prepared to give up on and which will they fight to the death for
All and none respectively, just like any political party.
I couldn’t mention a second policy UKIP had. And yet here we are, out of the EU.
Oddly enough, out of all of them UKIP is the one party that I could list policies of. Their notoriety brought it to the fore.
You don’t change a country with a FPTP electoral system by voting one of the two big parties. You change it by not voting for the two main parties.
Good luck with that.
UKIP showed that if you stop voting for the Tories they will chase your vote by going where you went. No reason to think Labour wouldn’t do the same.
UKIP showed that the Tory party weren't quite racist enough for a good chunk of the electorate. Something which the Tories realised and capitalised on, resulting in UKIP imploding into obscurity once one of the Big Two had picked up the torch for them.
It’s not a football game. The important thing is not that your team wins. The important thing is to get the outcome you want.
"We won you lost get over it"
"What are you going to do, keep having a vote until you get the result you want?"
Of course it's a football game. It's well documented that there were no more World Cup matches after Uruguay won in 1930.
Can you not think of a definition of the gap in policy between Labour and Conservatives that isn’t a tautology?
Can you?
The problem here isn't the LDs, it's the creep of Labour closing the gap. Once of a time they were the Opposition, today they're the choice between being slapped or stabbed.
I get the impression you're just writing things because you have to have the last word and aren't really paying any attention to what I'm writing so I think I'll leave it at that and stop endlessly making the same points which you will once again ignore.
Feel free to say something after this so you can definitely have the last word.
1) it's striking that some of the biggest fans of the supposedly compromise and coalition-minded model in the Scottish Parliament are also the biggest critics of the Lib Dems...because they compromised and formed a coalition! 🤬😡🤬
Examples of why this is wrong. the brexit vote. Not a single area of Scotland voted for brexit and overall it was 2:1 remain
Or another. the highest UKIP reached in the polls here was 7%. In england 20+ %
2) If Scotland is unique because it never voted UKIP and voted overwhelmingly against Brexit...what about Northern Ireland and London? There hasn't been a Tory majority of MPs in London for 30 years now.
Hell, even if Blair were still in power – he simply ****ed up."
3) Sort of bizarre to see Thatcher's withdrawal of free milk in some schools bracketed with Blair's illegal war of aggression that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Oopsie! Maybe if he sends a box of Roses and a card to the Iraqi embassy it'll all be okay?
The Lib-Dems need to go balls to the wall for electoral reform.
That might make bigger parties less inclined to enter coalitions with them though.
Reform have got their first MP!
It's actually not Reform UK that Andrew Bridgen has joined it's the Reclaim Party. So he has even less chance of still being an MP in 18 months time.
The Reclaim Party don't have a single councillor, although they do have a temporary MP now.
Imagine what kind of stationary orbit you'd have to be in to be the spiritual home of a space cadet like Andrew Bridgen?
It’s actually not Reform UK that Andrew Bridgen has joined it’s the Reclaim Party
Got confused between nutter parties.
I guess thats Lawrence fox now on the path to world domination.
Isn't reclaim / reclamation a posh word when what it really means is scrap / salvage in some contexts.
Maybe in this context too - a party where those discarded by the others end up.
His alcoholism was a real tragedy
Wonder if we'll be saying the same about Keir Starmer in a few years time? 😳
Imagine what kind of stationary orbit you’d have to be in to be the spiritual home of a space cadet like Andrew Bridgen?
He's not a space cadet. He's an out and out, copper-bottomed crook who has backed himself into a corner and (tragically) realises there is a big enough proportion of UK society that are deluded/stupid enough to keep him from having to get a proper job. He'll be a rent-a-gob like Farage for years off the back of these 'vulnerable' people.
More worrying is that Trump is (again) pulling the same trick with a massive numbers of US voters. It defies belief, let alone explanation.
That might make bigger parties less inclined to enter coalitions with them though.
I thought there was something in the last few years that labour would now support electoral reform? If not they really don't like helping themselves.
.....realises there is a big enough proportion of UK society that are deluded/stupid enough to keep him from having to get a proper job.
You really believe that Andrew Bridgen will still be an MP after the next general election - why?
The Reclaim Party couldn't even win a council seat in last week's local elections, what makes you think that they can win a parliamentary seat with someone who most voters wouldn't know from Adam?
This is I think a potential path to electoral reform - it won't easily come by making it a manifesto policy for the LD's (and Greens, etc.) if the hope is then they win the majority, that won't happen. The path in is to be kingmakers but absolutely insist it's part of their deal. No reform, no alliances.
Whether the main two will go for that depends if they want to be the main party of Gov in 12-18 months time. Whether LD would buckle as they did on other matters, also who knows.
Whether the main two will go for that depends if they want to be the main party of Gov in 12-18 months time.
I imagine that the Tories would rather be in opposition than agree to electoral reform.
Tbh I think it is very perfectly possible that the Tories would be quite happy to be in opposition for 5 years. They know that every now and again they have to be in opposition so why not now when Labour is led by someone who posses such a little threat to the status quo? The situation certainly doesn't have the urgency it had when Corbyn was Labour leader.
On the other hand it could be far more problematic for Starmer to resist electoral reform. The Labour overwhelmingly supports electoral reform so Starmer's only means of resisting the pressure is to come with some half-arsed nonsense that he wants to concentrate on doing other stuff and that it isn't important.
He will struggle with that argument if it is a LibDem/Green coalition demand.
Got confused between nutter parties.
I guess thats Lawrence fox now on the path to world domination.
I think that's how tbe Trump thread started...
ernielynch
Full MemberTbh I think it is very perfectly possible that the Tories would be quite happy to be in opposition for 5 years. They know that every now and again they have to be in opposition so why not now when Labour is led by someone who posses such a little threat to the status quo?
Especially when they've made such a mess of things, have no solutions, and are realising that blaming Labour when you've been in power for 13 years is getting a bit tired. Time to reset the clock.
I cannot believe people think a tory labour anti snp coalition is acceptable.
Working with a very right wing party against another social democratic party. It stinks to high heaven. Labour have forgotten who the enemy is
You really believe that Andrew Bridgen will still be an MP after the next general election – why?
Nope. Read the comment fully. I said he'd end up as a rent-a-gob treading a line somewhere between Farage and David Icke. There's plenty of bandwidth on GBeebies and the like to keep people like Bridgen in a job. And that is because it has an audience - when it absolutely should not have one. But one percent of 65 million is still enough for a few grifters to make a living.
I cannot believe people think a tory labour anti snp coalition is acceptable.
I can barely believe that's a sentence. What?
There’s plenty of bandwidth on GBeebies and the like to keep people like Bridgen in a job. And that is because it has an audience – when it absolutely should not have one.
Ah you think he will get a job with GB News I take it then, not remain an MP. Well I am sure that he won't still be an MP after the next general election.
But I have no idea whether GB News will offer him a job. Personally I can't see why they would - I think it is fair to say that most people probably haven't heard of Andrew Bridgen and those that have only know him as the geezer who got kicked out of the Tory Party for talking bollocks about covid vaccinations.
Only yesterday GB News got into serious trouble for giving a platform to people talking bollocks about the Covid jab. They were forced to apologize and could have their license withdrawn if they carry on with that nonsense. I can't see them offering some unknown geezer the opportunity to get themselves into further trouble.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65532879
A spokesperson for the channel said: "We accept Ofcom's finding that our former presenter Mark Steyn and his guest Naomi Wolf breached the Ofcom code in their broadcast about Covid vaccines last October. Mr Steyn last appeared on the channel five months ago."
I can barely believe that’s a sentence. What?
He's banging on about Scotland and how on some councils where no party has a majority councillors sometimes sort out an arrangement to run the council which doesn't necessarily involve the SNP.
Arrangements which exclude the SNP in minority-run Scottish councils is apparently unacceptable to TJ, even though he doesn't vote SNP, alledgedly.
Cougar
All over scotland in local and national elections labour and the Tories are working together either in formal coalitions or informal pacts in order to freeze out the snp
Even to the point of labour withdrawing the whip from dissenting elected representatives
No ernie
Whats unacceptable to me is labour in formal coalition with the Tories
To see labour MSPs cheering wins for the tories
To see labour councillors being expelled for refusing to join these coalitions
How can labour have so lost their way to work with a nasty right wing party to thwart a social democratic party on councils where the constitution is not an issue
How can labour vote down such policies as providing meals for school children.
How can labour vote down such policies as providing meals for school children.
I don't know TJ.
SCHOOLKIDS have been denied a free soup and roll throughout the winter months after Labour and Tory councillors teamed up to vote down the proposal.
The SNP group in Stirling put forward the idea as a way of helping those who are not eligible for free school meals get through the toughest winter months when people will be really feeling the pinch after Christmas.
But the £160,000 plan – which would’ve given every secondary school pupil and older primary kids soup and a roll from January to March – was shot down by the minority Labour administration who were supported by Tory councillors.
Labour did however agree to put £50 000 towards a coronation "party"
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23186491.stirling-pupils-denied-soup-roll-labour-tory-councillors/
Thats an utter disgrace especially given that we know the labour councilors represent some of the most deprived wards in the UK.
The hung parliament nonsense the Tories are trying to spin isn't looking too rosy
https://twitter.com/BNHWalker/status/1656340357070585880?t=JEVeArdU-WPHsRAjrboFKA&s=19
was shot down by the minority Labour administration who were supported by Tory councillors
So that example apparently isn't a Labour-Tory coalition on Stirling council at all. It is a minority Labour administration which the Tories decided to vote with when the SNP proposal came up for consideration.
Thats an utter disgrace
Yes I totally agree. Free soup and roll throughout the winter months for school children sounds like something which should be affordable. However my expectations of the Labour Party aren't very high, I thought yours weren't either?
But more importantly is free soup and roll throughout the winter months for school children an active policy in all SNP controlled councils?
The SNP can make any proposal they wish whilst in opposition, especially ones which make the Labour Party appear Dickensian towards hungry children, but how do they behave when they are in power?
It is a labour tory pact - just informal - as on many councils in Scotland. the labour / tory pact has been running for a decade now. its disgraceful. It runs for national ( holyrood and UK) and local elections.
Sarwar said no coalitions so now they are doing deals like this. Underhand, under the table and it all stems from the labour party in Scotlands tribal hatred of the SNP. I expect the next holyrood government to be a labour / tory coalition
The hung parliament nonsense the Tories are trying to spin isn’t looking too rosy
To be fair it is Starmer that has fed the hung parliament narrative. Yesterday he publicity and categorically ruled out any post-general election deal with the SNP, but refused 7 times to rule out a deal with the LibDems.
Apparently he doesn't comment on hypothetical situations involving the LibDems, only hypothetical situations involving the SNP.
Starmer could have ruled out any deal with any party when he was asked yesterday, claiming that it wasn't necessary to discuss it as he was confident that Labour would have a majority.
If he had done that Rishi Sunak would not have had the ammunition during today's prime minister questions to attack him over his refusal to rule out a deal with the LibDems.
It would also have made the Labour Party look more confident that voters will back them at the next general election.
TJ do you know the answer to this question?
But more importantly is free soup and roll throughout the winter months for school children an active policy in all SNP controlled councils?
The disgust at Labour and the Tories on Stirling council for not supporting the SNP proposal is only valid if all SNP controlled councils are providing school children free soup and roll throughout the winter months.
I don't know is the answer I have not heard of any. SNP councils do not have a central manifesto
Its just an example of labour and tories working together to thwart the SNP - on any and every issue.
Labour and SNP did work together on some councils previously but Sarwqr ( under orders from london I believe) cancelled all such arrangements
I don’t know is the answer I have not heard of any.
Well it's quite an important question. If there aren't any SNP controlled councils which are giving school children free soup and roll throughout the winter months then that means that Stirling council is not behaving any different to an SNP controlled council, in that respect.
Our disgust at school children not receiving free soup and rolls during the winter months should be expanded to also include the SNP.
Boils my p p proverbial that the tories can collapse the country to the state it us now, then basically hand over the stinking wreck to (probably) Labour and then blame them for it and no doubt get back in for another 13 years afterwards.
informal pacts in order to freeze out the snp
It is a constant source of frustration that non-SNP elected officials won't stop being unreasonable and just support the SNP and independence. Why are they being so pig-headed? (As an aside, is there a tally of on how many occasions the SNP's MPs has voted with the Tory UK government?)
Interesting that the soup-snatching Labour council appear to have been responding to, err, council staff that said the free soup idea wasn't practical:
Officers developed the option of soup and a roll for all young people in secondary schools, but said there was an issue with providing it to primary school pupils “due to the specific nutritional requirements that apply to younger children, the cost of equipment, the recruitment challenges and the very high costs of staffing across so many settings.”
The final recommendation from officers in their report was not to proceed with the idea
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23186491.stirling-pupils-denied-soup-roll-labour-tory-councillors/
But why doesn't the SNP just legislate universal free school meals at national level, anyway?
(As an aside, is there a tally of on how many occasions the SNP’s MPs has voted with the Tory UK government?)
Not since the 1970s I don't think.
You vote for the Scottish Green Party don't you TJ?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16123031.snp-tories-join-forces-green-plan-abolish-council-tax/
Not since the 1970s I don’t think.
But when Labour doesn't vote with the SNP, you call them inspired by tribal hatred, undemocratic spoilers, unconstructive reactive oppositionists, working against Scottish values of compromise, etc etc. 🤔
No I did not say that. Stop making stuff up
Try reading what I post
What I said is labour working with the tories is a disgrace because they are supposed to be a social democratic party and they are working with a hard right party against another social democratic party.
I have no issue with coalitions, S+C deals or other pacts - thats how holyrood and scottish councils are supposed to work
How anyone in the labour movement can countenance a deal with the tories is beyond me. Its why I and many other previously lifelong labour party members can no longer vote labour - because the labour party in Scotland have forgotten who the enemy is. I expect the lib dems to work with the tories. I do not expect the labour party to do so
I do not expect labour representatives to be urging the voters to vote tory. I do not expect them to be cheering tory wins. I do not expect them to be doing coalition deals with the tories
its an utter disgrace for a supposed left of centre party to behave like this.
If yo cannot understand that then I am sorry for you. tories are the enemy and labour need to remember that.
Ernie - you do realise that was a green motion and would have fallen no matter which way the tories voted?
So "SNP and Tories join forces against Green plan to abolish council tax" is okay then? And as a Green Party supporter abolition of council tax is presumably a policy which you voted for.
I am not entirely clear what is and isn't acceptable. To add to the confusion you have given an example of Labour and the Tories not supporting a policy which the SNP, it turns out, also doesn't support. Unless apparently they are in opposition, in Sterling.
I don't think you understand how Holyrood or councils in Scotland work. Never mind.
Never mind.
It's usual for you not to pursue an issue and attempt to provide clarity! 😉