
Kath Campbell
4.9K posts





🏴 Graeme Souness says an unpleasant encounter with Cole Palmer changed his view of him: 🗣️ Souness: "I got a little insight in Dubai in February where he was extremely rude to someone in a restaurant."




This is horrific. Autistic boy who needs a care worker to go everywhere with him,failed capacity tests and the @NHS STILL removed his genitals. People should be in prison.

Pleas of orphaned 13-year-old girl at St Mary's Kenmure ignored after being locked up with older teenage male offenders scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/…

@RealStephenKerr @LucyHunterB Oh look, a vital national crisis! Thank goodness you’re on the case, Stephen. The entire future of Scotland surely hinges on this microscopic data dispute. How will the country survive without this crucial paperwork? Absolute peak performance in mountain-building.



Just 223 signatures required to get to 10,000 and only one day left to sign! We can do this 💪🏻 Please sign and share today. Research is needed into the effects of erasing the words women, mother, and breastfeeding in women’s healthcare. Don’t let them steal our words! Sign here 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 petition.parliament.uk/petitions/7486…


Provocative piece by my colleague Colm Murphy in @politicshome. As I read it, his view (and one shared by many academics, as he mentions) is Labour shouldn't bother trying to appeal to the small-c conservative, patriotic working-classes if it means offending socially liberal voters, including on issues like immigration. Some research (which I've not found terribly persuasive, to be honest) suggests that the former voters are just unattainable. I suppose there comes a point where one must ask is a party just a vessel to win votes, or is does it have a bigger purpose? Should a party seek to represent one group of voters, even if it means annoying another group that currently (but contingently) supports them? I think parties can be agents in making this trade-off. So, is the Labour Party to be purely a party of liberalism and the academically credentialed because those are the voters who have backed it recently? Or should the party very deliberately seek to represent the interests of labour (centred around class, solidarity, community, nation, social obligation), even if those voters don't always embrace all the tenets of social liberalism? I personally think the latter, even if those voters are harder to reach, but I accept many disagree with me. Perhaps it is a losing -- or even lost -- battle, but I don't see it just as nostalgia or some kind of historical hang-up but existential for the identity and purpose of the party. politicshome.com/opinion/articl…












