• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK election night live

Sadly, it's not. Empty slogans don't provide services, it's running on staff goodwill just like England.

BMA: Scotland's NHS is stretched to 'breaking point' - BBC News
%when the NHS in Scotland requires the help of the Red Cross then you can criticise ... the problem Scotland is having is due to recruitment ... you do realise our medical staff are better paid than down south the real problem is their has been a collapse in recruits coming from the EU due to Brexit and their is something 12% points difference between the Scottish NHS and the English NHS on waiting times and operations etc that is even with our recruitment problems

and back to this nonsense Ruth Davidson is a better politician nonsense whenever s tough question at her she either hides or runs away

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson storms out of interview over DUP gay rights question | The Independent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBLNQcLEvOw&


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iie4EXnydwo&

i've just noticed that article of yours was from January the same period the English NHS was propped up by the Red Cross
 
American blind partisans can feel they aren't alone here.
The NHS is in dire straits north and south of the border. Do you think the Red Cross doesn't work with the NHS in Scotland? Was that not mentioned in the talking point Nicolagram? Did you know that the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary PFI deal means that the NHS will be paying rent and running costs forever, and never own the building? So much for well managed. I might have lived and worked most of my life in England, but I was born in Edinburgh, and started my NHS career there.
Your posts reek of the braggart posturing of Jamesie Cotter.
 
Partnering with the DUP is theoretically a violation of the Good Friday agreement, and the Irish and UK Governments are supposed to take rigorous impartiality as part of that agreement. The partnering with the DUP has the potential to re-ignite troubles in Ireland and put the Good Friday agreement at risk. I could easily see a legal challenge being launched to stop the partnership and just as easily see another GE in a few months. Labour will vote down the Queen's speech and no doubt other parties will too, meaning May will not have a leg to stand on.

But even if every single MP outside of the Conservatives/DUP voted against the queens speech May would still have a majority of three. The only way that May could loose would be if someone from the DUP or Conservatives voted against her or abstained, and I don´t think anyone in either one of those parties wants to go down in history as the person who put Jeremy Corbyn in power.
 
I don´t think anyone in either one of those parties wants to go down in history as the person who put Jeremy Corbyn in power.

I think you underestimate her unpopularity within her own party, and overestimate the survival rate within Westminster. There were 10 by-elections between the 2015 and 2017 elections, so if there's that many between now and March 2019 and just 2/10 go against them, that's a vote of no confidence and a Corbyn premiership.
 
I think you underestimate her unpopularity within her own party, and overestimate the mortality rate within Westminster. There were 10 by-elections between the 2015 and 2017 elections, so if there's that many between now and March 2019 and just 2/10 go against them, that's a vote of no confidence and a Corbyn premiership.

If it the alternative was Tony Blair or Ed Miliband I´m sure some tories would vote against her, but I think Corbyn would be some terrifying for your averge tory that none of them would dare. Though thats not to say that they won´t get rid of her futher down the road, nor that the present situation is likely to last due to by-elections.
 
Don't expect the GOP to splinter in our lifetimes. Now the DEMs, not even trump can help them mend their wounds .
What do you think of a Bernie 3rd Party?

There seems to be increasing calls from his supporters.
 
Maybe that's a good idea. I still think we need to get some new blood in there.
While I'd welcome a 3rd party, I think it would be a long haul to become a viable contender - several election cycles.

The fast one-cycle method, I believe, is to coerce one of the viable parties as Trump did.
 
While I'd welcome a 3rd party, I think it would be a long haul to become a viable contender - several election cycles.

The fast one-cycle method, I believe, is to coerce one of the viable parties as Trump did.

I can tell you that the Republicans would love the formation of such a third party, would be all but rescued from Trump's historically unpopular follies and thereafter domineer federal electoral politics for a long time.

Though I'm sure NIMBY would absolutely love it if Sanders ****ed off under normal circumstances, he and most of (believe me there are definite calls for getting Bernie to go among these people) his fellow establishment Dems know that this would be a death knell for their party, nevermind him starting up a spoiler third; this is why they're walking a precarious tightrope between attempting to limit and diminish his influence (so that they and theirs remain in charge) and letting him command DNC resources, and serve as party face (so that he and more importantly his followers/supporters stick around and add to the party base). There's a definite frenemies and love/hate undertone and tension between party brass and Bernie. Their obvious ideal is him continuing to bolster membership as an impotent figurehead/front man without resulting in a turn over of party leadership, or the implementation of his more ambitious and reformative ideas that would be costly to wealthy DNC donors.
 
Last edited:
I can tell you that the Republicans would love the formation of such a third party, would be all but rescued from Trump's historically unpopular follies and thereafter domineer federal electoral politics for a long time.

Though I'm sure NIMBY would absolutely love it if Sanders ****ed off under normal circumstances, he and most of (believe me there are definite calls for getting Bernie to go among these people) his fellow establishment Dems know that this would be a death knell for their party, nevermind him starting up a spoiler third; this is why they're walking a precarious tightrope between attempting to limit and diminish his influence (so that they and theirs remain in charge) and letting him command DNC resources, and serve as party face (so that he and more importantly his followers/supporters stick around and add to the party base). There's a definite frenemies and love/hate undertone and tension between party brass and Bernie. Their obvious ideal is him continuing to bolster membership as an impotent figurehead/front man without resulting in a turn over of party leadership, or the implementation of his more ambitious and reformative ideas that would be costly to wealthy DNC donors.
This is the problem.

The Republicans have already came to some level of grips with their interloper - their revolutionary. It was required, because at the Presidential level they were going down the tubes.

But the Dems have not. And it is costing them. Their status quo istheir failure.
 
The Dems appear to be in denial over their defeat, in very much the same way the right of the Labour Party in the UK was after their 2015 electoral defeat. They have it so ingrained in their consciousness that the third-way, centrist moderation of the likes of Clinton, Blair, Kerry etc is the only way a centre or centre-left party can appeal to a wide section of the electorate that they ignore the very deep and very fundamental level of disaffection that Bernie and Corbyn have tapped into, from a progressive and social democratic stand-point.

Until the Dems can actually offer something new, vital and untainted by the corruption of corporate capitalism they will continue to lose.
 
The Dems appear to be in denial over their defeat, in very much the same way the right of the Labour Party in the UK was after their 2015 electoral defeat. They have it so ingrained in their consciousness that the third-way, centrist moderation of the likes of Clinton, Blair, Kerry etc is the only way a centre or centre-left party can appeal to a wide section of the electorate that they ignore the very deep and very fundamental level of disaffection that Bernie and Corbyn have tapped into, from a progressive and social democratic stand-point.

Until the Dems can actually offer something new, vital and untainted by the corruption of corporate capitalism they will continue to lose.

I think you're being too generous; at a bare minimum most know on some level that their politics and message are waning in appeal, but persist with them nonetheless because that's precisely what their donors (still predominantly multinationals and corporates) pay them to do. I'm all but certain the highest echelons among the Blairites and Clintonites are fully aware of the failure of this approach, and are indifferent to the fact so long as they continue to accrue the benefits of championing monied interests as controlled 'good cop' opposition to conservative elements. As Bernie has said: "Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats."

On the flipside, progressives appear to be forcing this recognition to come about: Sorry, centrist liberals, the politics of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are the progressive path forward - Salon.com
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom