Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Glyn_Wigley on June 09, 2023, 08:14:05 pm
-
That Partygate inquiry report must be a cracker!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65863267
-
In the statement issued after he stepped down, the former prime minister said: "I did not lie, and I believe that in their hearts the committee know it."
In other words the report says he DID lie but Boris is getting his version in first!
-
Prison is needed. He's a danger to society and his many kids.
-
It's everybody elses fault bar his
-
As always !
His words to the Committee were amazing . Absolve me and I will recognize you were fair , but find me guilty and I will have to conclude you were unfair (that's not verbatim just a paraphrase but it's on record somewhere)
For the record 7 MPs have judged him (presumably) as a liar . 4 are Conservative 2 are Labour 2 is an SNP.
Thought I would throw that in ( in case )
I suppose a simple Poll just asking did you think Johnson lied or lies to Parliament would be 60 40 saying he lies and or lies
-
Good riddance
-
Lets just hope this is the last we have to endure of this bumbling incompetent, the fact he's managed to get his mate Dorries to resign with immediate effect relieves the nation of two of the most incompetent individuals who could not have been any less suited to their previous roles.
I'm sure due process will ensure the buffoon cannot jump into the supposedly safe seat left by the fawning idiot in Mid Bedfordshire.
-
As always !
His words to the Committee were amazing . Absolve me and I will recognize you were fair , but find me guilty and I will have to conclude you were unfair (that's not verbatim just a paraphrase but it's on record somewhere)
For the record 7 MPs have judged him (presumably) as a liar . 4 are Conservative 2 are Labour 2 is an SNP.
Thought I would throw that in ( in case )
I suppose a simple Poll just asking did you think Johnson lied or lies to Parliament would be 60 40 saying he lies and or lies
Latest polling suggests 66% of the public believe Johnson lied to Parliament over Partygate. 15% think he did not. www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/two-thirds-brits-think-boris-29535502
It's very difficult to see anyway back for him politically based on these figures.
Though interestingly 78% thought he'd lied in April 2022 polling whilst only 8% thought he had not. yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/04/21/eight-10-britons-say-boris-johnson-lied-about-lock
-
He's going to go full on populist and hope for something really big to happen that gives him a route back as the Champion of the People.
He's not going away. This stench will linger for decades.
-
How typically Johnson is this?
In his rambling resignation letter he says "I have been an MP since 2001".
He hasn't. He was an MP from 2001-07, then London Mayor till 2015, then an MP after that.
A liar getting hoyed out for lying can't even tell the truth when he's moaning that he's not a liar.
-
Lets just hope this is the last we have to endure of this bumbling incompetent, the fact he's managed to get his mate Dorries to resign with immediate effect relieves the nation of two of the most incompetent individuals who could not have been any less suited to their previous roles.
I'm sure due process will ensure the buffoon cannot jump into the supposedly safe seat left by the fawning idiot in Mid Bedfordshire.
I think Dorries has jumped not because of Boris but because her tv job was about to be ruled against.
-
He's going to go full on populist and hope for something really big to happen that gives him a route back as the Champion of the People.
He's not going away. This stench will linger for decades.
He’s the U.K.’s Donald Trump.
Despite their lies, manipulations & law breaking, they’re the turd that just won’t flush.
-
Another MP resigns, forcing a third by-election
Interesting.
Sunak "only" has to lose 30 by-elections this way to lose his majority.
More interestingly, if the remaining Johnsonians are really out for blood, they could block any legislation in the House.
The ongoing Tory Civil War eh? Anyone remember Cameron saying in 2015 that if Labour won it would be chaos?
-
Don't forget the 2017 mantra of 'coalition of chaos' too...
-
The whole of the last 20 years of the Tory party has been about Johnson.
Everything.
No political philosophy. No new ideas. No basic competence even. Just a long fight to either keep him out, get him in, or turf him out of No 10.
Never been a case remotely like it in our history of our country being so roundly f**ked the the malign ego of one man.
Anyone who thinks he actually believed in Brexit when he fronted the campaign, or cared about the consequences, really shouldn't cross the road without a grown up to help them.
-
Hasn't the Tory "philosophy" always been about looking after the top nobs? It's merely dressed up in whatever clothes currently appeals to the lobotomised masses.
Churchill, Thatcher, Johnson. All different flavoured figureheads but simply the same cog in the same machine. Johnson is Trump flavour, possibly more sugar less artificial sweetener.
My point being, whilst I get your sentiment, please don't be suggesting the Tories have anything that can seriously be called a philosophy.
-
Their philosophy is low income tax, and while the country is crying out for more investment in basic services, Hunt is going to cut them so he can lower income tax.
Madness.
-
It's deeply ignorant of our political history to say the Tories haven't had political philosophies. They always have until the last couple of decades. Deep thinkers who had ideas of what sort of country they wanted us to be. You don't have to agree with them to note that there was intellectual weight and justification behind some of their thinking.
From Protection and support for the Union and Empire at the start of the 20th Century.
Through acceptance of the Keynesian revolution, the dissolution of Empire and the move to Europe in the mid-century. To the Thatcherite neoclassical rejection of the post-War consensus and re-assertion of Britain in foreign affairs.
You can agree or disagree with any of those approaches, but there were detailed intellectual arguments for them and the politicians of the eras engaged with those debates.
There's absolutely zero of any intelligent output from the Right these days. Just knee-jerk assertion of what they don't like (Europe, immigrants, woke) and brainless economic ideas that have been somewhere between bad and awful, and which the majority of economists look at with horror.
And into that void came the overweening narcissistic lump that has moulded the party in his image, and whose ego has dominated it.
I'd like to see intelligent policies coming from the Right. It's important that we have that. But we haven't had them for a long time now. And we won't while ever the party is just a playground for that t**t to work out his need to be centre of attention.
-
Hasn't the Tory "philosophy" always been about looking after the top nobs? It's merely dressed up in whatever clothes currently appeals to the lobotomised masses.
Churchill, Thatcher, Johnson. All different flavoured figureheads but simply the same cog in the same machine. Johnson is Trump flavour, possibly more sugar less artificial sweetener.
My point being, whilst I get your sentiment, please don't be suggesting the Tories have anything that can seriously be called a philosophy.
You can't in any seriousness be likening Winston Churchill to Boris Johnson. Can you?
Some of our greatest Prime Ministers have been Tories. Pitt, Peel, Disraeli, Churchill. Leaders who have made a positive impact on our country and indeed the wider world. Were they all simply the same cog in the same machine? No they were great thinkers and great men (as were Gladstone, Lloyd George and Attlee - I'm in no way being partisan here).
And to claim Margaret Thatcher didn't have anything that can be seriously called a philosophy. Come off it. Not heard of Thatcherism? She had a philosophy alright and the strength of leadership and discipline (there is no way she would ever have allowed drunken parties in Downing Street even outside of a pandemic) to see it through. Unfortunately.
And your lobotomised masses comment. Not a fan of democracy then? Not everyone sees the world the same way as you (or me for that matter) that doesn't make them stupid. If you don't let the 'lobotomised masses' have their say you end up in Russia or North Korea or Nazi Germany - seeing as you brought Churchill up. And you end up a hell of a lot poorer and living in a much. much unfairer society.
-
There seems to be few political posters missing from this thread
-
There seems to be few political posters missing from this thread
That's because they don't post about politics, they only use it to try and needle other posters. And they can't do that in this thread without looking like complete berks because they know as well as the rest of us that Boris is flouncing because he's been caught out.
-
Listening to some on here you have to wonder just what world they frequent.
To keep harping on back to what we had and how politicians conducted themselves, its all gone, those times and them people will not be coming back any time soon.
What we have today is people and by definition politicians with the intellect of goldfish, no one is prepared to look at issues and try to rationalise or work anything out , its just too hard for some to devote this amount of concentration to anything of any note, we really do have a dumbed down society, we have instant and mass communications that allow people to be fed all sorts of rumours, lies and just plain wrong thinking, we have political parties who are not prepared to put the hard yards in anymore and get to the nub of what society wants and is prepared to accept.
We have group think, focus groups, all sorts of irregular and extreme pressure groups attempting to push their narrative and force the mainstream to accept their minority views, even the real extreme and dodgy cabals.
We have political parties who latch onto any and every opportunity that comes their way to extract leverage and to impress on a populace who are being led by the nose in a direction that the vast majority don.t want or care to contemplate.
With all this we have our current political incumbents, i'll not say they're all the same here just to keep the blood pressure of a concerned forum member on the right side of safe.
What i will say is that as individuals they are by and large a vastly inferior model than some politicians that we had in the past, we've had some real statesmanship demonstrated from these people in the past and this current lot just do not measure up in any way, shape or form, they are easily swayed, have zero political convictions and are prepared to u turn at the drop of a hat or the results from their latest focus group survey.
Totally without any political nous or conviction, we have to suffer these fools from here on in, this raggy arsed cabal has given us incompetents like Johnson, Truss and their ilk, dangerous leaders like Farage and also spawned ditherers and chancers like Starmer, Davey and Rayner,
We truly are blessed in this day and age with the most incompetent, corrupt, lazy and opportunistic bunch of wasters that you could ever wish to have as your nations leaders.
It's not going to get any better from here on in, we loose a complete chancer and dangerous individual to be replace by more over promoted dross and have even worse to come, a total dither and two faced individual who will promise the earth and supply us with nothing but backtracking and false narrative.
What a delightful political future this country has.
-
Have to agree with everything the above post says
-
Hi Danumdon
I guess that post is partly a response to mine re 'harping back'.
TBF I was responding to a particular post about Tories never having had any philosophy and all Tory leaders always being of the same ilk throughout time.
Hence my historical comments.
I don't agree with everything you've said there but it's a great post and I agree with your general theme.
You're correct in that we haven't had any great politicians led by personal conviction for some time IMO of any party - and we're much poorer for this.
Re the current lot "they are easily swayed, have zero political convictions and are prepared to u turn at the drop of a hat or the results from their latest focus group survey. " Spot on. Political spin has defeated political substance.
Populism and what tomorrow's papers might say rule their heads. Rather than - This is what I think and I'm going to a) argue my case intellectually and b) aim to get my vision implemented for the good of the country
This is partly the fault of society. Too many people don't care. Too many people are not open to being persuaded. Short termism rules. People want things now not long term projects. And if a politician makes a mistake (even an honest one) they're banished and mocked for ever (Churchill would never have politically come back from Gallipoli in today's world).
So let me hark back to a time of great leaders, great thinkers and great politicians of conviction who altered our world for the better. And allow ourselves to argue a case for a return of some of the societal attitudes that allowed such people to thrive for our collective benefit.
-
Branton, sorry if my post has come across as berating your previous post, it was not meant to, i also mostly agree with your view and always consider your posts to be very fair, balanced and to the point.
My post was mainly referring to to the point about our politicians and the calibre that they demonstrate on a daily basis. Ive often been pulled up posting that they're all the same, obviously there not but the point was that our current miserable lot are in no way up to the standards and competence of most previous post holders, how the vast majority come across is really a great disservice to out nation.
Standards these days are so reduced that its almost embarrassing to listen to a great many being interviewed, they way they come across in such a disgraceful manner with their none answers, never getting to a point and always trying to score cheap shots against each other , it takes the voters for granted and also treats them like simple cannon fodder to be fought over like a field of sheep who need guiding in a certain direction. many have no interest in politics and live there lives oblivious to the facts, those who do take the time to hold these chancers to account listen to what they preach and make their own ideas about what they consider, right and wrong, most also take the time to check their facts from various sources.
Overall we have to live with these very average and in most cases, incompetent individuals, it doesn't help that our FPTP system allows these parties to get away with it mostly, but it also allows us to point out that they are on the whole, rubbish at what they do. If they worked in my business(and a great many others) they would be rooted out in no time and dismissed for capability.
This is the mentality that has spawned us cretins like Johnson and convictionless dithers like Starmer, with this type of intake we will struggle until something very dramatic happens to change the current mindset of the voting public.
"mostlyallthesame"
-
Here's one that's slipped under my radar.
One of the peerages that Johnson has given is to a 29 year old woman who worked with him as a part time special adviser for all of about 12 months.
She will be the youngest and most inexperienced life peer in history.
I'm sure it's a coincidence that she is blonde and good looking.
-
Media trying to imply she may be his daughter
-
And another "irony" ( it may be same woman but I don't know) , around the time Prince Philip was being buried there was a Party which was well photographed , the one with some people posing on the floor in front of tables of food
Several were given Fines but 2 have been given Honours by Johnson including a lady who doubled as DJ at the Party
The irony ? Charlie boy has to present her with a Damehood for partying as he and Queen were grieving
-
And another "irony" ( it may be same woman but I don't know) , around the time Prince Philip was being buried there was a Party which was well photographed , the one with some people posing on the floor in front of tables of food
Several were given Fines but 2 have been given Honours by Johnson including a lady who doubled as DJ at the Party
The irony ? Charlie boy has to present her with a Damehood for partying as he and Queen were grieving
The irony will pass over Charlie’s head like a Red Arrows formation.
“Whee…I’m ‘Knighting’ at last”.
-
Now found to be officially a lier and still won’t accept it, he should be barred from ever holding office again
-
Inevitable wasn't it?
The most egregious, pathological liar ever to make No10 ends up being outed by his peers as a compulsive liar.
If only we could have seen it coming...
-
Sunak as his Chancellor is complicit in the lies and cover up
-
And all these "they're all the same" folk. They'll be able to point us to where a previous PM has been booted out of Parliament for pathologically lying.
-
Did you attend a party?
No!
Has Sunak corrected the record?
-
Maybe now we can all concentrate on how great, sincere and veracious our next PM Keir Starmer is.
-
Now found to be officially a lier and still won’t accept it, he should be barred from ever holding office again
He is and always will be entitled to dispute that. I suspect he genuinely thinks he's right.
The main thing is there's not likely a huge way back for him, but our system means that he could easily return if elected, there's nothing to prevent that. I'm not sure the committee of MP's is the best way to determine things given their close involvements regardless of party but how else could it be done? Perhaps a committee of independent judges or something like that?
-
Now found to be officially a lier and still won’t accept it, he should be barred from ever holding office again
He is and always will be entitled to dispute that. I suspect he genuinely thinks he's right.
The main thing is there's not likely a huge way back for him, but our system means that he could easily return if elected, there's nothing to prevent that. I'm not sure the committee of MP's is the best way to determine things given their close involvements regardless of party but how else could it be done? Perhaps a committee of independent judges or something like that?
Durham police?
-
And all these "they're all the same" folk. They'll be able to point us to where a previous PM has been booted out of Parliament for pathologically lying.
You make it sound as if every previous PM was as saintly as Mother Theresa on her good days!
The point is not just some cretin like Johnson who just happened to become PM due to the disgracefully low standard of MP.s who could of been shoehorned into the job. The fact we have to be governed by individuals who are more concerned with their own career prospects and how they can better themselves by taking the state for every benefit and expense they can squeeze out of the public teat.
The fact that a great many of them , ultimately useless and failed in every job they were ever given to complete then get shunted up to the lords to further fill the beaks at the expense of the taxpayer.
They may not all be the same but they all certainly know when and how to extract the maximum they can sponge whist being in the role.
#mostlyabunchofspungers
-
You'd think that, on a day when, for the first time in history, Parliament is passing judgement on the established fact that we had a pathological liar in No10 for 3 years, the current PM would step up to the plate and address the nation on the issue.
You WOULD, wouldn't you?
But where's Sunak?
-
You might also think that, when a previous PM was found to have lied to Parliament about something so superficially trivial, but so illustrative of his belief in rules as allowing knees ups on his watch, a Government with the nation's interests at heart would be investigating what else he lied about.
Given his links to the Russian secret service, you might even think it was a matter of national security to go through this with a fine tooth comb.
-
You'd think that, on a day when, for the first time in history, Parliament is passing judgement on the established fact that we had a pathological liar in No10 for 3 years, the current PM would step up to the plate and address the nation on the issue.
You WOULD, wouldn't you?
But where's Sunak?
How can he address it when he was part of it?
As were every cabinet minister under Johnson
I see Penny Morduant is trying to distance herself from it, but she’s another that facilitated his lies
-
Quite astonishing that Sunak is refusing to comment on something as historically serious as this. BBC reporting that his media team say he'll not give any comment.
-
And all these "they're all the same" folk. They'll be able to point us to where a previous PM has been booted out of Parliament for pathologically lying.
I've no time for Johnson. Having read the report he is clearly as guilty as sin.
I wonder if the author of the above post, who is criticicing the "they're all the same" argument, being a political animal, has ever been caught out publicly stating wildly inaccurate information to further his political agenda - and then having been exposed of doing so if he had the honesty and integrity to correct the record?
See replies 8 and 17 to the following thread for the answer www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=288194.0
#They're all the same#
-
Billy tends to confuse ‘they’re all the same’ with ‘they all do exactly the same thing’.
It’s very silly of him.
-
Maybe now we can all concentrate on how great, sincere and veracious our next PM Keir Starmer is.
I wonder if the people on here who have never criticisied Johnson will do the same for Starmer?
Oh...
-
And all these "they're all the same" folk. They'll be able to point us to where a previous PM has been booted out of Parliament for pathologically lying.
I've no time for Johnson. Having read the report he is clearly as guilty as sin.
I wonder if the author of the above post, who is criticicing the "they're all the same" argument, being a political animal, has ever been caught out publicly stating wildly inaccurate information to further his political agenda - and then having been exposed of doing so if he had the honesty and integrity to correct the record?
See replies 8 and 17 to the following thread for the answer www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=288194.0
#They're all the same#
Very much a sign of the times for many. Failing standards means nothing to some, and if in the meantime i can advantage myself and push my narrative then who gives a hoot for standards.
How ironic when we're all commenting on an out and out liar,
-
When one or two of you have finished with the personal abuse, can we get back in topic?
My take for a while is that the quality of polical journalism in recent years has given an open line for a liar like Trump to ride through.
The BBC tonight has a piece about how some Tory MPs are supporting Johnson.
Get this. "So far 12 Conservatives have publicly criticised the committee with Johnson-ally Nadine Dorries suggesting Tories who vote for the report should be kicked out of the party.
Sir Simon Clarke said he was "amazed at the harshness" of the committee, while Sir James Duddridge tweeted: "Why not go the full way, put Boris in the stocks and provide rotten food to throw at him?""
Note the context-free use of these two's titles. Not a mention of the fact that their knighthoods were given to them last week by...well guess who?
-
Maybe now we can all concentrate on how great, sincere and veracious our next PM Keir Starmer is.
I wonder if the people on here who have never criticisied Johnson will do the same for Starmer?
Oh...
What do you mean like you, only the other way round?
-
And all these "they're all the same" folk. They'll be able to point us to where a previous PM has been booted out of Parliament for pathologically lying.
You make it sound as if every previous PM was as saintly as Mother Theresa on her good days!
The point is not just some cretin like Johnson who just happened to become PM due to the disgracefully low standard of MP.s who could of been shoehorned into the job. The fact we have to be governed by individuals who are more concerned with their own career prospects and how they can better themselves by taking the state for every benefit and expense they can squeeze out of the public teat.
The fact that a great many of them , ultimately useless and failed in every job they were ever given to complete then get shunted up to the lords to further fill the beaks at the expense of the taxpayer.
They may not all be the same but they all certainly know when and how to extract the maximum they can sponge whist being in the role.
#mostlyabunchofspungers
You might find this of interest mate .
https://twitter.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1668888187966455811?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1668888187966455811%7Ctwgr%5Ec6a4b61cb78599232e8b3ac56552d2d62f355082%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.taxresearch.org.uk%2FBlog%2F
-
More from the BBC.
One former minister told the BBC they were planning to vote for the report but, in a sign of the febrile mood, did not want to say so publicly yet in case "something happens" over the weekend.
Another said: "I think I'm hovering between voting for the report and abstaining, the latter solely because voting for it will rile members."
The Tory party eh? They just do not get it.
This is a historic moment for our democratic systems. Our whole method of Govt relies on the principle that the Leaders do not lie to the House.
This is about buttressing that basic principle and sending a shot across the bows of any other liar who seeks high office. And here's two ex-Ministers thinking about it entirely in terms of how it will affect them.
-
More from the BBC.
One former minister told the BBC they were planning to vote for the report but, in a sign of the febrile mood, did not want to say so publicly yet in case "something happens" over the weekend.
Another said: "I think I'm hovering between voting for the report and abstaining, the latter solely because voting for it will rile members."
The Tory party eh? They just do not get it.
This is a historic moment for our democratic systems. Our whole method of Govt relies on the principle that the Leaders do not lie to the House.
This is about buttressing that basic principle and sending a shot across the bows of any other liar who seeks high office. And here's two ex-Ministers thinking about it entirely in terms of how it will affect them.
while i would normally agree with you on this, it works both ways, labour are rolling back on all there pledges so they can win the election, they are becoming pretty much conservitive to do that and you dont seem to have a problem with that, as i dont its clever politics,but why would the tories damage there chances more than they already have by causing more infighting?
-
So rolling back on pledges and saying that they are doing it is the same as lying? I then have a chance when manifestos are produced to make up my mind. Times and situations change, lying doesn’t.
-
More from the BBC.
One former minister told the BBC they were planning to vote for the report but, in a sign of the febrile mood, did not want to say so publicly yet in case "something happens" over the weekend.
Another said: "I think I'm hovering between voting for the report and abstaining, the latter solely because voting for it will rile members."
The Tory party eh? They just do not get it.
This is a historic moment for our democratic systems. Our whole method of Govt relies on the principle that the Leaders do not lie to the House.
This is about buttressing that basic principle and sending a shot across the bows of any other liar who seeks high office. And here's two ex-Ministers thinking about it entirely in terms of how it will affect them.
while i would normally agree with you on this, it works both ways, labour are rolling back on all there pledges so they can win the election, they are becoming pretty much conservitive to do that and you dont seem to have a problem with that, as i dont its clever politics,but why would the tories damage there chances more than they already have by causing more infighting?
Our Billy doesn't like liars, though........ Apart from when wanting his beloved Labour Party to get into power by the only means it can, with more right-wing promises, and then showing that they lied to the electorate with more left-wing policies.
-
As ever, BB, you conflate two totally separate issues.
One is the machinations of political campaigning. The other is the ability of Parliament to be able to function.
If you don't think a party delivers on what it pledges to do, you can vote them out.
A far bigger problem emerges if you can't trust a PM to tell the truth to Parliament. Because then it is impossible to hold the Govt to account for what they are doing. And our entire political system is based on Parliament being the sovereign decision-making body.
I assume you know this, but you're in one of those moods again.
And, God help you if you think Starmer is a Marxist wolf in right wing clothing...
-
So rolling back on pledges and saying that they are doing it is the same as lying? I then have a chance when manifestos are produced to make up my mind. Times and situations change, lying doesn’t.
not at all, my point is the tories will not vote for something if it will not benefit them, just as labour are now not really labour because it soes not benefit them, labour could have voted to block the anti protest bill but they didnt they devious just like the tories and abstained
-
As ever, BB, you conflate two totally separate issues.
One is the machinations of political campaigning. The other is the ability of Parliament to be able to function.
If you don't think a party delivers on what it pledges to do, you can vote them out.
A far bigger problem emerges if you can't trust a PM to tell the truth to Parliament. Because then it is impossible to hold the Govt to account for what they are doing. And our entire political system is based on Parliament being the sovereign decision-making body.
I assume you know this, but you're in one of those moods again.
And, God help you if you think Starmer is a Marxist wolf in right wing clothing...
Of course, you can vote a party out, but when you know they have a track record of lying and deceiving regarding their policies, it is far better to not vote for them in the first place. Of course, Starmer and his cronies will be found out, and consequently thrown out of power. I dare say that Starmer could well be the last Labour PM ever.
-
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-in-clear-breach-of-rules-after-daily-mail-job-announced-says-mp-watchdog-12903648
He still thinks the rules apply to others, not him.
What a tosspot.
-
He might be BB.
But I'll bet you £100 to a pinch of shite that he doesn't get booted out of Parliament for lying to them.
-
So rolling back on pledges and saying that they are doing it is the same as lying? I then have a chance when manifestos are produced to make up my mind. Times and situations change, lying doesn’t.
not at all, my point is the tories will not vote for something if it will not benefit them, just as labour are now not really labour because it soes not benefit them, labour could have voted to block the anti protest bill but they didnt they devious just like the tories and abstained
Not all the same, but very nearly all the same.
If someone can tell me what Starmer believes in I'd appreciate it.
This is the fella who was ready to throw his mum in the fire if he didn't get his confirmation referendum he was that focused and up for it, in effect like a real politician with convictions and a desire to do what he thought was right.
Fast forward to now and we have an empty husk of a man, someone who apparently does not care to fight the brexit cause anymore and will now in effect work to make some sort of a success of it.
Does anyone actually believe this? does he actually believe that he can hoodwink a disillusioned and fed up electorate with his "made up agenda"
Id say a great many people see right through this charade and will be very wary of giving a vote to a leader who will say just about anything that will get him into the top job.
This guy is really just the same old chancer in unruffled clothes.
The electorate deserve so much better than this.
-
He might be BB.
But I'll bet you £100 to a pinch of shite that he doesn't get booted out of Parliament for lying to them.
Probably not, after all, he won't have an opposition party that only offers a combination of virtue signalling, and living off accusations and condemnation of the government, like his party did when in opposition. When he finds he can't "run to the referee" every two minutes, he'll find it much harder to actually push through his own ideas rather than condemn those of the opposition.
God help us, that's what I say. Just see if I'm right.
-
The thing is BB, you will be delighted if you are right.
I'm shocked and appalled to be right about Johnson.
-
Ideally, I would like to not get the opportunity to be right. If I am proved right, it will be the fault of those who voted for the wet wipe, not me.
-
You're a strange one BB.
You've spent years on here supporting a pathological liar and slagging off anyone who pointed out what he was.
When he was finally outed for what he was, you could perhaps have reflected on why you supported him and whether you were wrong. But there's not even a flicker of such reflection.
Almost as if all that ever matters to you is the argument...
-
I think you're getting confused between supporting someone and defending them against your constant search for accusations of Tory lies, and a complete rejection of any Labour Party lie stands out like Errol Flynn's cock in a brothel.
-
BB
You mean that regular pointing out of the pathological lies of a pathological liar, who has now for the third time lost an important job because of his inability to stop lying?
Is that what you are complaining about?
That one who you frequently defended as not being a liar?
And let me think.
Oh yeah. You have had a crusade of trying to find a false equivalence between:
On the one hand, a man who lies as often as he breathes, who was found to have broken the law by the police, lied about it, was found to have broken other rules by an independent inquiry, lied about that, then was finally hoyed out by a cross party committee of MPs
And on the other hand, a man who said he'd resign if he was found to have broken the law, was investigated by the police and entirely exonerated.
In your twisted head, someone who calls the first a liar and not the second is biased. It clearly never dawn's on you how cringingly embarrassing you look on your crusade to try to draw some equality between them.
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
-
What's that word for someone who is so acutely embarrassed at their own shortcomings that they can't face them, but instead accuses everyone else of having the same issues?
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
So, because a bloke looks at both points of view before making his mind up, he's not upfront with his intentions! Didn't you consider both sides of the Leave/Remain referendum before voting?
What side was the labour leader on?
Anyone who votes for Starmer because they think he tells the truth all the time needs their head examined.
-
What's that word for someone who is so acutely embarrassed at their own shortcomings that they can't face them, but instead accuses everyone else of having the same issues?
Don't know Billy lad but I'm sure your therapist will tell you.
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
So, because a bloke looks at both points of view before making his mind up, he's not upfront with his intentions! Didn't you consider both sides of the Leave/Remain referendum before voting?
What side was the labour leader on?
Anyone who votes for Starmer because they think he tells the truth all the time needs their head examined.
There’s a big difference between looking at both points and writing two separate and opposing speeches on the subject BB, a big difference!
By the way, anyone who thinks they are voting for the leader of any party, (other than those in his/her constituency), are totally delusional and don’t understand the voting system.
Your throwing your support for, and attempting to defend, a proven liar says much about you.
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
So, because a bloke looks at both points of view before making his mind up, he's not upfront with his intentions! Didn't you consider both sides of the Leave/Remain referendum before voting?
What side was the labour leader on?
Anyone who votes for Starmer because they think he tells the truth all the time needs their head examined.
BB and Nadine Dories. An undying love for Johnson. The only people left in the world who actually think Johnson agonised over whether Remain or Leave would be best for the country.
-
No surprise there BST. You and your disciples have been wrong all along about me so, well......... No surprise there.
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
So, because a bloke looks at both points of view before making his mind up, he's not upfront with his intentions! Didn't you consider both sides of the Leave/Remain referendum before voting?
What side was the labour leader on?
Anyone who votes for Starmer because they think he tells the truth all the time needs their head examined.
There’s a big difference between looking at both points and writing two separate and opposing speeches on the subject BB, a big difference!
By the way, anyone who thinks they are voting for the leader of any party, (other than those in his/her constituency), are totally delusional and don’t understand the voting system.
Your throwing your support for, and attempting to defend, a proven liar says much about you.
So why don't the lefties on this forum have a bit more understanding of the voting system and discuss the merits of members in his/her constituency, instead of delusionally wasting their time waxing lyrical about Starmer?
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
So, because a bloke looks at both points of view before making his mind up, he's not upfront with his intentions! Didn't you consider both sides of the Leave/Remain referendum before voting?
What side was the labour leader on?
Anyone who votes for Starmer because they think he tells the truth all the time needs their head examined.
There’s a big difference between looking at both points and writing two separate and opposing speeches on the subject BB, a big difference!
By the way, anyone who thinks they are voting for the leader of any party, (other than those in his/her constituency), are totally delusional and don’t understand the voting system.
Your throwing your support for, and attempting to defend, a proven liar says much about you.
So why don't the lefties on this forum have a bit more understanding of the voting system and discuss the merits of members in his/her constituency, instead of delusionally wasting their time waxing lyrical about Starmer?
There's a HUGE difference between 'waxing lyrical' and 'voting for' BB. People can wax lyrical about anyone, (as you do about Johnson), but they can only vote for whoever puts themselves forward in their own constituency.
Such voting should be based on what each party is proposing in their manifesto for the benefit of the country as a whole and the local candidate's perceived ability to pursue and deliver those benefits on behalf of that constituency.
Sadly, all too few people bother to read any of those manifestos, rather, they make their decisions based on what the MSM and Social Media tells them and the images the MSM and SM create.
This country has, worryingly, moved in a direction where image is put before substance, and it's not exclusive to politics either. It does not bode well for the future!
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
So, because a bloke looks at both points of view before making his mind up, he's not upfront with his intentions! Didn't you consider both sides of the Leave/Remain referendum before voting?
What side was the labour leader on?
Anyone who votes for Starmer because they think he tells the truth all the time needs their head examined.
There’s a big difference between looking at both points and writing two separate and opposing speeches on the subject BB, a big difference!
By the way, anyone who thinks they are voting for the leader of any party, (other than those in his/her constituency), are totally delusional and don’t understand the voting system.
Your throwing your support for, and attempting to defend, a proven liar says much about you.
So why don't the lefties on this forum have a bit more understanding of the voting system and discuss the merits of members in his/her constituency, instead of delusionally wasting their time waxing lyrical about Starmer?
There's a HUGE difference between 'waxing lyrical' and 'voting for' BB. People can wax lyrical about anyone, (as you do about Johnson), but they can only vote for whoever puts themselves forward in their own constituency.
Such voting should be based on what each party is proposing in their manifesto for the benefit of the country as a whole and the local candidate's perceived ability to pursue and deliver those benefits on behalf of that constituency.
Sadly, all too few people bother to read any of those manifestos, rather, they make their decisions based on what the MSM and Social Media tells them and the images the MSM and SM create.
This country has, worryingly, moved in a direction where image is put before substance, and it's not exclusive to politics either. It does not bode well for the future!
It’s a nice idea, Not, but it just doesn’t work that way. Has it ever?
If you thought the Tories had the ‘best’ manifesto last time and your local Tory MP looked like he could have delivered it, would you have voted for them, effectively voting for Johnson? Have you changed your allegiance historically, depending on the best manifesto/local MP at the time?
Credit to you if you do, but most people don’t.
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
So, because a bloke looks at both points of view before making his mind up, he's not upfront with his intentions! Didn't you consider both sides of the Leave/Remain referendum before voting?
What side was the labour leader on?
Anyone who votes for Starmer because they think he tells the truth all the time needs their head examined.
There’s a big difference between looking at both points and writing two separate and opposing speeches on the subject BB, a big difference!
By the way, anyone who thinks they are voting for the leader of any party, (other than those in his/her constituency), are totally delusional and don’t understand the voting system.
Your throwing your support for, and attempting to defend, a proven liar says much about you.
So why don't the lefties on this forum have a bit more understanding of the voting system and discuss the merits of members in his/her constituency, instead of delusionally wasting their time waxing lyrical about Starmer?
There's a HUGE difference between 'waxing lyrical' and 'voting for' BB. People can wax lyrical about anyone, (as you do about Johnson), but they can only vote for whoever puts themselves forward in their own constituency.
Such voting should be based on what each party is proposing in their manifesto for the benefit of the country as a whole and the local candidate's perceived ability to pursue and deliver those benefits on behalf of that constituency.
Sadly, all too few people bother to read any of those manifestos, rather, they make their decisions based on what the MSM and Social Media tells them and the images the MSM and SM create.
This country has, worryingly, moved in a direction where image is put before substance, and it's not exclusive to politics either. It does not bode well for the future!
It’s a nice idea, Not, but it just doesn’t work that way. Has it ever?
If you thought the Tories had the ‘best’ manifesto last time and your local Tory MP looked like he could have delivered it, would you have voted for them, effectively voting for Johnson? Have you changed your allegiance historically, depending on the best manifesto/local MP at the time?
Credit to you if you do, but most people don’t.
Yes, it's not a nice idea; it's the only sensible way to vote.
People doing as you say is stupid and one of the reasons the country is in the mess that it is!
And I don't have an allegiance, I have voted in the way I posted since I first started to vote.
Have you ever bothered to read the manifesto's of the main parties?
-
There's a MASSIVE difference between waxing lyrical about someone and defending them! I defend the Tories against the constant barrage of relentless one-sided bias that a handful of lefties spend their lives talking about on this forum.
-
As a bloke who shows such revulsion for lies, yet wants his own party to lie in order to get into power, I suggest you are the one with a twisted head.
People knew Boris Johnson was a liar when they voted him in, but they also knew that right or wrong, at least he was upfront with his intentions. That is something that cannot be said of Keir Starmer, who changes his mind like the weather. In that respect, there is absolutely no equality between them.
If you weren't so biased BST, YOU would be the one who's embarrassed.
Up front with his intentions? The guy who wrote two completely opposing speeches re the referendum to see which way the wind was blowing before picking one?
And anyone voting for a liar, knowing he's a liar, needs their head examining!
You really do have issues BB, stick to football and humour, at least you know something about those.
So, because a bloke looks at both points of view before making his mind up, he's not upfront with his intentions! Didn't you consider both sides of the Leave/Remain referendum before voting?
What side was the labour leader on?
Anyone who votes for Starmer because they think he tells the truth all the time needs their head examined.
There’s a big difference between looking at both points and writing two separate and opposing speeches on the subject BB, a big difference!
By the way, anyone who thinks they are voting for the leader of any party, (other than those in his/her constituency), are totally delusional and don’t understand the voting system.
Your throwing your support for, and attempting to defend, a proven liar says much about you.
So why don't the lefties on this forum have a bit more understanding of the voting system and discuss the merits of members in his/her constituency, instead of delusionally wasting their time waxing lyrical about Starmer?
There's a HUGE difference between 'waxing lyrical' and 'voting for' BB. People can wax lyrical about anyone, (as you do about Johnson), but they can only vote for whoever puts themselves forward in their own constituency.
Such voting should be based on what each party is proposing in their manifesto for the benefit of the country as a whole and the local candidate's perceived ability to pursue and deliver those benefits on behalf of that constituency.
Sadly, all too few people bother to read any of those manifestos, rather, they make their decisions based on what the MSM and Social Media tells them and the images the MSM and SM create.
This country has, worryingly, moved in a direction where image is put before substance, and it's not exclusive to politics either. It does not bode well for the future!
It’s a nice idea, Not, but it just doesn’t work that way. Has it ever?
If you thought the Tories had the ‘best’ manifesto last time and your local Tory MP looked like he could have delivered it, would you have voted for them, effectively voting for Johnson? Have you changed your allegiance historically, depending on the best manifesto/local MP at the time?
Credit to you if you do, but most people don’t.
Yes, it's not a nice idea; it's the only sensible way to vote.
People doing as you say is stupid and one of the reasons the country is in the mess that it is!
And I don't have an allegiance, I have voted in the way I posted since I first started to vote.
Have you ever bothered to read the manifesto's of the main parties?
I really don’t know why you felt the need to respond with passive aggression. My post was polite and asked some very reasonable questions. It seems I jumped the gun using your first name.
In answer to your question, I don’t read Manifestoes, though I know I probably should. Personally, I look at the leader of each party to begin with, and ask myself, ‘do I trust this person to do the best that she/he can and do I think they have the country’s best interests at heart?’.
I have said many times on here that I have only ever voted Labour. Because of my focus on the individual who may lead the country, this has resulted in me abstaining. For example, I didn’t vote in Blair’s final election, I did vote for Brown, I did not vote under Corbyn.
I have promised myself I will change this for the next election and vote for ‘someone’ even though I have absolutely zero faith in Starmer (as I did with Corbyn).
My dilemma is I would rather have Sunak running the country over Starmer (though only because he is the lesser of two evils).
Perhaps I need to take more notice of the leader of the Green Party.
-
Got to laugh BB. You, accusing others of one sided bias. Your the most unself aware person I've ever come across
You constantly accuse people of stuff that you are far more guilty of.
Anyway, I've been out this morning canvassing with Sally Jameson, our next MP in Donny Central.
We knocked on a door and said what we were there for
He said No! I'm for Boris.
I said summat like.. what even after this week.?
Yes, theyre all liars.
Who are?
Them on that commitee.
So you want him back?
Yes and he got us Brexit.
OK, nice to talk to you.
I had to check I wasn't in Bentley.
-
Got to laugh BB. You, accusing others of one sided bias. Your the most unself aware person I've ever come across
You constantly accuse people of stuff that you are far more guilty of.
Anyway, I've been out this morning canvassing with Sally Jameson, our next MP in Donny Central.
We knocked on a door and said what we were there for
He said No! I'm for Boris.
I said summat like.. what even after this week.?
Yes, theyre all liars.
Who are?
Them on that commitee.
So you want him back?
Yes and he got us Brexit.
OK, nice to talk to you.
I had to check I wasn't in Bentley.
Billy, Bentley, Tommy, Hound etc: they’re all the same.
On a more serious note about your post, Tommy. This bloke you spoke to today is the reason your and other’s ‘Brexit Benefit’ threads and your ‘told you so’ type of posts are a complete waste of time.
The blame for the Brexit result lies with, first of all, Cameron for being as far removed from the people of Britain as is imaginable, and secondly, the arses who were responsible for both the leave and remain campaigns.
-
BB's definitely always the same!
-
There's a MASSIVE difference between waxing lyrical about someone and defending them! I defend the Tories against the constant barrage of relentless one-sided bias that a handful of lefties spend their lives talking about on this forum.
You've spent years defending a pathological liar when people have pointed out his string of lies.
You told us he wasn't a liar.
Then when you couldn't defend that line any further, you stopped trying to pretend he wasn't a liar and instead claimed everyone from me to the Durham police were biased in not saying Starmer was just as big a liar.
Now you say everyone knew Johnson was a liar from the off and factored that in to their thinking, so only biased people would point out his lies.
It's pitiful to witness.
-
Nay lad, I see you're gaining confidence because your disciples are here to support you, but don't think you can get away with spouting your b*llocks to me. I'm made of different stuff to that!
I never said Boris wasn't a liar, and I've been consistent with my reasoning all along.
As your fwiend Mr Wiggerly said, "BB's definitely always the same."
For once, he's right.
-
Nay lad, I see you're gaining confidence because your disciples are here to support you, but don't think you can get away with spouting your b*llocks to me. I'm made of different stuff to that!
I never said Boris wasn't a liar, and I've been consistent with my reasoning all along.
As your fwiend Mr Wiggerly said, "BB's definitely always the same."
For once, he's right.
….and unusually, not aggressive.
-
Nay lad, I see you're gaining confidence because your disciples are here to support you, but don't think you can get away with spouting your b*llocks to me. I'm made of different stuff to that!
I never said Boris wasn't a liar, and I've been consistent with my reasoning all along.
As your fwiend Mr Wiggerly said, "BB's definitely always the same."
For once, he's right.
….and unusually, not aggressive.
I leave that to BB these days.
-
39. Our final conclusion is in relation to sanction. Although Mr Johnson’s resignation
as an MP renders it impossible for a sanction of suspension to be imposed, we draw
attention to the fact that before the events of Friday 9 June we had provisionally
agreed to recommend a suspension long enough to engage the provisions of the
Recall of MPs Act. In the light of Mr Johnson’s further contempts, we put on
record that if he had not resigned his seat, we would have recommended that he be
suspended from the service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for
seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:
• Deliberately misleading the House
• Deliberately misleading the Committee
• Breaching confidence
• Impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of
the House
• Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the
Committee
In view of the fact that Mr Johnson is no longer a Member, we recommend that he should
not be granted a former Member’s pass. (Paragraph 229)
Bunch of lefties eh BB?
-
You tell me BigH.
-
Well 4 tory MPs, 1 SNP, 2 Labour.
Let's see what Monday brings with the MP vote.
Any self-respecting tory - sorry leftie - will vote for it on Monday.
That this chump was ever made PM is a national scandal. Really is.
-
As an alternative to Corbyn, what did you expect?
-
Fair point.
We knew at the time that it'd be one or the other didn't we.
Corbyn would have been a disaster. Johnson has proved to be a disaster.
Surely, the only way is up from here.
-
As an alternative to Corbyn, what did you expect?
It always fascinates me when the Corbyn v Johnson conversation comes up .
It fascinates me even further when you consider that the 2019 Brexit GE was actually contested with only one true Leaver in the race and it wasn't Johnson .
Just exactly what was it about Corbyn that allowed Johnson to win so handsomely ? .
It wasn't policies was it given Johnson didn't have any and when he was pressed pre election he either hid in a fridge or simply refused to be interviewed by Andrew Neil .
Perhaps it was a solid ministerial record in government ?
Then again he'd been sacked several times from roles in the cabinet .
Yet his opponent had a near fourty year record as an elected MP , someone who won two Labour leadership contests by huge margins .
He also had two election manifestos that errr contained policies that the electorate actually liked , they still do but Keith apparently knows better .
And yet the UK electorate still preferred to elect someone who was on the record championing the merits of the Single Market as the greatest thing since sliced bread .
Didn't have a single policy to his name and didn't want to even discuss that kind of thing .
A solid record of incompetence in government .
And pretty much everyone with at least half a brain knew if he spoke five words four of them would probably be lies .
So when people do the " what did you expect with Corbyn " thing perhaps they should actually see things for what they actually were in 2019 and refrain from using it as some kind of justification for electing Boris Johnson .
-
Tyke
I was a keen Corbyn supporter at first and the 2019 manifesto was great, despite what Starmer says about it now, although Covid would probably have scuppered his plans.
But I shudder to think how he would have handled the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That would have been something to behold.
Not that Johnson's cosying up to the Russian oligarchs had anything to do with it either.
-
Tyke
You know as well as I do that Corbyn was grossly undermined by his colleagues in the Labour party who engineered a pro-Remain agenda onto the manifesto.
That's why they lost my (and many people I know) vote for the first time ever. That's why they lost the Red Wall seats. That's why they lost the Election.
Simple.
-
Tyke
I was a keen Corbyn supporter at first and the 2019 manifesto was great, despite what Starmer says about it now, although Covid would probably have scuppered his plans.
But I shudder to think how he would have handled the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That would have been something to behold.
Not that Johnson's cosying up to the Russian oligarchs had anything to do with it either.
TT.
If Corbyn had won in 2019, he wouldn't have survived the Ukraine issue. He would not and could not have supported Ukraine militarily, as it goes against everything he had ever believed. He's spent his entire life committed to the idea that the West is the great evil in the world, and so anyone who stands up to the West (such as Putin here) is not to be faced down.
I was astonished that the Labour party members didn't wake up to this when he gave his response to the Salisbury attack. But they would have seen him for what he is when the Russians took great swathes of Ukraine and he mumbled something about "condemning aggression but we mustn't fight back."
He's have faced a huge rebellion from Labour MPs and members in such a scenario, and would have been forced out.
But this isn't about a badly flawed PM that we never had. It's about the absolute car crash of the one that we did have.
-
Tyke
I was a keen Corbyn supporter at first and the 2019 manifesto was great, despite what Starmer says about it now, although Covid would probably have scuppered his plans.
But I shudder to think how he would have handled the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That would have been something to behold.
Not that Johnson's cosying up to the Russian oligarchs had anything to do with it either.
I'm not sure how Corbyn would have handled the Ukraine invasion either but my point to BB is not what could have occurred if he was elected PM of this country but rather what everyone knew going in to the 2019 election .
-
Tyke
I was a keen Corbyn supporter at first and the 2019 manifesto was great, despite what Starmer says about it now, although Covid would probably have scuppered his plans.
But I shudder to think how he would have handled the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That would have been something to behold.
Not that Johnson's cosying up to the Russian oligarchs had anything to do with it either.
TT.
If Corbyn had won in 2019, he wouldn't have survived the Ukraine issue. He would not and could not have supported Ukraine militarily, as it goes against everything he had ever believed. He's spent his entire life committed to the idea that the West is the great evil in the world, and so anyone who stands up to the West (such as Putin here) is not to be faced down.
I was astonished that the Labour party members didn't wake up to this when he gave his response to the Salisbury attack. But they would have seen him for what he is when the Russians took great swathes of Ukraine and he mumbled something about "condemning aggression but we mustn't fight back."
He's have faced a huge rebellion from Labour MPs and members in such a scenario, and would have been forced out.
But this isn't about a badly flawed PM that we never had. It's about the absolute car crash of the one that we did have.
Absolutely BST. His astonishing reaction to Salisbury showed everyone where his sympathies lay.
The country would have been in uproar if he gave the same response to the invasion.
-
Tyke
You know as well as I do that Corbyn was grossly undermined by his colleagues in the Labour party who engineered a pro-Remain agenda onto the manifesto.
That's why they lost my (and many people I know) vote for the first time ever. That's why they lost the Red Wall seats. That's why they lost the Election.
Simple.
The biggest crime Corbyn committed was getting elected leader of the Labour Party by those outside of the Westminster bubble .
However a stronger man would have dealt with it instead of believing he could make it work .
A stronger man in the Tory ranks would have taken part in the Andrew Neil interview and wouldn't have hid in a fridge from the media either .
A stronger man would also have behaved in a manner befitting of PM of this country during a pandemic .
My assessment of Corbyn and Johnson when it comes to strength is that Corbyn preferred dialogue , hated confrontation which allowed his enemies to undermine him .
Johnson was simply a coward .
-
Tyke
I was a keen Corbyn supporter at first and the 2019 manifesto was great, despite what Starmer says about it now, although Covid would probably have scuppered his plans.
But I shudder to think how he would have handled the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That would have been something to behold.
Not that Johnson's cosying up to the Russian oligarchs had anything to do with it either.
TT.
If Corbyn had won in 2019, he wouldn't have survived the Ukraine issue. He would not and could not have supported Ukraine militarily, as it goes against everything he had ever believed. He's spent his entire life committed to the idea that the West is the great evil in the world, and so anyone who stands up to the West (such as Putin here) is not to be faced down.
I was astonished that the Labour party members didn't wake up to this when he gave his response to the Salisbury attack. But they would have seen him for what he is when the Russians took great swathes of Ukraine and he mumbled something about "condemning aggression but we mustn't fight back."
He's have faced a huge rebellion from Labour MPs and members in such a scenario, and would have been forced out.
But this isn't about a badly flawed PM that we never had. It's about the absolute car crash of the one that we did have.
Absolutely BST. His astonishing reaction to Salisbury showed everyone where his sympathies lay.
The country would have been in uproar if he gave the same response to the invasion.
And yet the Tories association with the Russian Oligarchs doesn't receive the same uproar .
-
Tyke
I was a keen Corbyn supporter at first and the 2019 manifesto was great, despite what Starmer says about it now, although Covid would probably have scuppered his plans.
But I shudder to think how he would have handled the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That would have been something to behold.
Not that Johnson's cosying up to the Russian oligarchs had anything to do with it either.
TT.
If Corbyn had won in 2019, he wouldn't have survived the Ukraine issue. He would not and could not have supported Ukraine militarily, as it goes against everything he had ever believed. He's spent his entire life committed to the idea that the West is the great evil in the world, and so anyone who stands up to the West (such as Putin here) is not to be faced down.
I was astonished that the Labour party members didn't wake up to this when he gave his response to the Salisbury attack. But they would have seen him for what he is when the Russians took great swathes of Ukraine and he mumbled something about "condemning aggression but we mustn't fight back."
He's have faced a huge rebellion from Labour MPs and members in such a scenario, and would have been forced out.
But this isn't about a badly flawed PM that we never had. It's about the absolute car crash of the one that we did have.
Absolutely BST. His astonishing reaction to Salisbury showed everyone where his sympathies lay.
The country would have been in uproar if he gave the same response to the invasion.
And yet the Tories association with the Russian Oligarchs doesn't receive the same uproar .
Make your own mind up about the morals of each party.
Corbyn was elected by enthusiastic, naive people who rushed to join the Labour party to vote for him without really understanding him.
They wanted the mild socialism of his economics (which in 2017, were broadly similar to what Miliband and Balls had offered 2 years before ... and been condemned for as Red Tories by some).
But the Labour party members were also broadly supportive of EU membership and were very much against Putin.
Corbyn did a brilliant job of downplaying those aspects of his beliefs. As you say, he was always a militant believer in us leaving the EU. But he had to pretend he wasn't during the referendum.
In 2017 he fudged the issue brilliantly...by promising in the manifesto 2 totally contradictory policies - that we could end FoM and keep all the benefits. That never got explored because the 2017 election was dominated by the inability of May to get her brain to communicate with her mouth.
By 2019, Corbyn had come out as a full on Leave supporter. And despite the re-writing if history by some, the result was an implosion in Labour support well before the adoption of Ref2 in Sept 2019. The Corbynistas will always insist Starmer manoeuvred to undermine Corbyn on this. The fact is that without it, the 2019 election wouldn't have been bad for Labour - it could have been terminal.
And here's the thing which the Left and the Brexit supporters will never accept. The adoption of Ref2 was supported by the overwhelming majority of the Labour party. Including the very members who had voted for Corbyn as leader, and by Corbyn's closest political associate, McDonnell. Because they knew that Labour couldn't have a Brexit policy that kept both the Red Wall AND the younger, internationalist side of the party on side. And they knew that the latter outnumbered the former by 3-4 to 1.
That's why I've said ever since that 2019 was the worst choice of PM that we've ever had. On one side a pathological liar who believed in nothing other than his own ego. And on the other, a man who held committed views that damn near destroyed his party, because most of his devoted followers were blissfully unaware of them.
My take was always that Corbyn was the least bad choice in 2019 because a) at least he had the economics right and b) his party would, when push came to shove, control him on foreign affairs.
But Christ Alive it was an awful choice.
-
Some quite demented rewriting of history from the usual suspects in this thread.
Rather than replying to the tedious imagined drivel point by point, here is a more considered piece from ex-Torygraph journo Peter Oborne on Corbyn and Russia;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs
The truth will offend some zealots who prefer their unevidenced conspiracy theories.
So be it!
-
That piece shows how shamefully blinkered & blinded so many of the electorate became by the increasingly loud rhetoric of the right whilst they filled their coffers with blood money from Russia without a care or a thought for the country they & their like governed.
As a ‘close up magician’ needs distraction to con his audience the Tories & Tory press found their perfect distraction in Corbyn.
And we fell for it hook, line & sinker.
-
Despite the above two posts, the fact remains that Corbyn was pro Brexit, anti NATO and very slow (if at all, I can't remember) to attribute blame to Putin Re Salisbury.
I agree that Corbyn was crucified by the Right wing press but he made it easy for them.
Maybe if he'd told a few lies about his beliefs he'd have done better, but he wouldn't do that, quite rightly.
-
Tommy,
The basic problem people are struggling with is an assumption that a PM will drive his own personal agenda when in power.
Now Johnson and Starmer are both guilty of this top down model, disregarding other views unless they have the numbers to disrupt the agenda of the leader.
But in a democratic model, the views of the leader are tempered by other interests.
So the input from the membership, international partners and others are included to arrive at a decision.
Despite his faults, I don't see any evidence that Corbyn would ever have tried to impose his personal views over and above the democratic consensus. The biggest problem we have in UK politics at the moment is the "emperor syndrome" which regards difference of opinion as a barrier to be overcome, not a pause for reflection.
Perhaps we need to escape from top down autocrats to a more plural decision making tree.
Nothing in the current system supports this process.
-
Albie
If you read John Bews biography of Clement Attle, you will see that your post above describes exactly how he operated and how he managed to keep the warring parties within the Labour Party in check for 20 years.
Whether Corbyn could have done that we'll never know, but given how unpopular he was with the centre and right of the parliamentary party, no chance.
-
Albie.
Corbyn headed a Labour party that was avowedly pro-EU, both in the membership and in the vast majority of the voters.
Corbyn could easily have tipped the balance in 2016 if he had campaigned passionately for Remain, as his party wanted him to.
Instead, he went AWOL, culminating in that infamous webcast on an obscure American Chomskyist website the night before the vote, where he squirmed as he was quizzed by far left fellow travellers about what he really thought about the EU. And he responded by saying that he respected the left wing argument against the EU model but (and I shit you not) plastic bags dropped in the Pacific off Colombia ended up on beaches in Japan, therefore he was (clenched teeth) suppoeting remain. Then when asked if he would be campaigning on the last night, he said no, he was going to his local mosque for a meal.
Don't give me this b*llocks about Corbyn respecting the democratic views of his party.
-
And.
Do you honestly believe that PM Corbyn, founder member of the Stop the War movement, would have given the thumbs up to the UK sending Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine?
He's spent the last 18 months saying we should just ask Russia to withdraw.
-
Albie.
Corbyn headed a Labour party that was avowedly pro-EU, both in the membership and in the vast majority of the voters.
Corbyn could easily have tipped the balance in 2016 if he had campaigned passionately for Remain, as his party wanted him to.
Instead, he went AWOL, culminating in that infamous webcast on an obscure American Chomskyist website the night before the vote, where he squirmed as he was quizzed by far left fellow travellers about what he really thought about the EU. And he responded by saying that he respected the left wing argument against the EU model but (and I shit you not) plastic bags dropped in the Pacific off Colombia ended up on beaches in Japan, therefore he was (clenched teeth) suppoeting remain. Then when asked if he would be campaigning on the last night, he said no, he was going to his local mosque for a meal.
Don't give me this b*llocks about Corbyn respecting the democratic views of his party.
Interested on your thoughts on reconciling the red wall losses with your statement saying the vast majority of labour voters were pro-eu. Members I get
-
Corbyn is in the past, as is Johnson. Now it's Sunak and Starmer who we should be judging.
-
Albie.
Corbyn headed a Labour party that was avowedly pro-EU, both in the membership and in the vast majority of the voters.
Corbyn could easily have tipped the balance in 2016 if he had campaigned passionately for Remain, as his party wanted him to.
Instead, he went AWOL, culminating in that infamous webcast on an obscure American Chomskyist website the night before the vote, where he squirmed as he was quizzed by far left fellow travellers about what he really thought about the EU. And he responded by saying that he respected the left wing argument against the EU model but (and I shit you not) plastic bags dropped in the Pacific off Colombia ended up on beaches in Japan, therefore he was (clenched teeth) suppoeting remain. Then when asked if he would be campaigning on the last night, he said no, he was going to his local mosque for a meal.
Don't give me this b*llocks about Corbyn respecting the democratic views of his party.
Interested on your thoughts on reconciling the red wall losses with your statement saying the vast majority of labour voters were pro-eu. Members I get
Loads of polling data. Very rarely after the 2017 election did more than 25% of those polled who supported Labour sat they had voted Leave in 2016.
The thing is - yes Labour lost Leave supporters in 2019. But those who support Corbyn and Leave never ever ask the counterfactual. What would have happened to Labour in 2019 if they'd not had a Ref2 policy. All the evidence is that they'd have polled in the very low 20s in Dec 2019. That's the sort of tipping point where parties get decimated.
-
Back on theme.
Has Sunak said a word in public yet about the Johnson Report?
-
Nope.
He’s in the ‘counting house’ counting all his money.
-
Apparently Kwarteng received £27,000 for a 30 minute speech in Switzerland the other day. You would think that his financial credibility had gone for ever.
I suppose it will help him pay his mortgage if he has one.
-
He has a very important message to the world.
"Do not ever listen to Liz Truss or Patrick Minford."
£54,000/hour is a giveaway if the world learns that lesson.
-
Vote Starmer - He's skint.
-
Corbyn is in the past, as is Johnson. Now it's Sunak and Starmer who we should be judging.
Hypocrisy alert.
This thread is about your favourite BJ.
How many times have you brought up JC over the last few years,when he hasn't been the Labour leader?
Did you ever judge BJ when he was PM? No, you were more like the Bullingdon Club pig's head,sucking up and swallowing and old guff that the Etonian old boy chucked out.
-
It never fails to surprise does it, when supporters can’t defend the indefensible they resort to whataboutery
-
It never fails to surprise does it, when supporters can’t defend the indefensible they resort to whataboutery
No one can defend the indefensible, otherwise, they'd be defensible, but if whataboutery means that one is applying similar indictments to all parties in the name of balance, then to think otherwise is plain one-sided bias, surely?
-
But no other party has been led by someone with a 30 year track record of lying through his teeth about anything an everything from the shape of bananas to where he put his cock.
No other party has been led by a liar who broke his own law then lied about it repeatedly.
No other party has ever had an ex-PM found by his peers to have deliberately and knowingly lied to the House.
What in earth are you trying to balance up here?
-
It never fails to surprise does it, when supporters can’t defend the indefensible they resort to whataboutery
No one can defend the indefensible, otherwise, they'd be defensible, but if whataboutery means that one is applying similar indictments to all parties in the name of balance, then to think otherwise is plain one-sided bias, surely?
Pure waffle
-
But no other party has been led by someone with a 30 year track record of lying through his teeth about anything an everything from the shape of bananas to where he put his cock.
No other party has been led by a liar who broke his own law then lied about it repeatedly.
No other party has ever had an ex-PM found by his peers to have deliberately and knowingly lied to the House.
What in earth are you trying to balance up here?
Which party leader led the UK into an illegal war.
Which party leader misled the house in his pursuit of taking the UK into an illegal war?
-
Yep. And I left the Labour party over that, refused to vote Labour while he was leader, and have frequently expressed my disgust at that.
What exactly is your point here?
-
Well, I won't be leaving the Conservative Party over Boris Johnson, even though he was 3 prime ministers ago, and therefore shouldn't really be in the equation for future voting. Well, that and I'm not a member of the Tory Party anyway! But I'm sure you will forgive those who do vote for the Tories next time, despite the disgusting Partygate incidents. I suppose just like you forgave the Labour Party for having a former PM who took the UK into a war that resulted in nearly half a million deaths.
-
Proper waffle
-
Sunak, like the coward he is has not turned up for the debate, that is shameful from the PM over something as serious as this
-
Sunak, like the coward he is has not turned up for the debate, that is shameful from the PM over something as serious as this
First time in history that an ex-PM has been booted out of the Commons by his peers for lying to them.
And the current PM can't find the balls to give a lead on this.
-
Don't know the first thing about Jess Phillips but my word was it good to see a politician talking with some emotion and seeming like she actually cares, saying what she really thinks while trying really hard to reign in the language.
-
Nick Fletcher is voting against the report, remember people of Don Valley!
-
Sunak, like the coward he is has not turned up for the debate, that is shameful from the PM over something as serious as this
First time in history that an ex-PM has been booted out of the Commons by his peers for lying to them.
And the current PM can't find the balls to give a lead on this.
If he can't stand-up to a few mad muppets in his own party how on earth is he going to stand up to someone like Putin? Is he going to wait for Rees-Mogg to tell him what he can & can't do? Or be afraid to do anything which makes him unpopular? Now you know why he lost to the person who lost to the lettuce.
Thank goodness for Theresa May (again) and congratulations to Penny Mordaunt for knowing what is right and what the right thing for a senior minister to do is. I think Starmer got lucky again when she failed to gain the leadership.
-
Nick Fletcher is voting against the report, remember people of Don Valley!
He's got no chance of getting re-elected.
-
118 Tory MPs and 28 Govt ministers tonight voted to accept the report that demonstrated Johnson is a liar.
Now, it's great that they've had the guts to do that tonight.
But they were in the party that he still led up until 10 months ago. Didn't any if them realise that he was a liar back then?
-
And The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary all refused to vote to accept that report. They all worked closely with Johnson. Don't they accept that he's a liar?
-
Nick Fletcher is voting against the report, remember people of Don Valley!
He's got no chance of getting re-elected.
Agree .... None whatsoever it would seem
He might get some reflected glory if DSA reopens but that looks too far away to save his skin
-
When he deposed Caroline Flint he got 19000 plus votes as Cons raised their share of the Vote 1.4%
Flint lost close to 18%
Very close to 40% didn't even bother to Vote and hopefully they will be persuaded this time for various reasons.
In my age range I know at least 6 people that voted for Johnson's "Get B****t done" mantra and they steadfastly think he and they are still right.
That's their prerogative of course but I also know others who concede that they were wrong to Vote for Fletcher / Johnson and despite them trying to extend the Constituency into the Isle of Axholme I am sure that Fletcher would be history.
He has appeared dreary , dismal and not surprising " loose" with the truth. In fact all most people will remember of him is showing a photo of himself in Thorne saying " out with the good people of Thorne today" BUT using a photo of a visit he made at Christmas time , some 6 months earlier
He should be returned to obscurity when we finally get a GE
-
I live in the Don Valley Constituency and i agree that this fella has not come across well at all.
Its very likely he will loose his seat at the next GE, however who will he be replaced by? the way these things are done these days its usually some party plant with no history or allegiance to the area, but with an activist record as long as your arm. Labour are now very proactive in ensuring that their prospective candidates are "vetted" to the 12th degree, they have to be on the same page as Starmer and they will no doubt align themselves with every policy and initiative that the party machine will wheel out, and then they will just as quickly as the party itself, disassociate themselves with policy that's deemed not for now or to put on the back burner.
Whatever happened to independent thinking and having the strengths of your own convictions in these people, it seems some will go to any lengths to get on the bandwagon.
I am aware that Flint was a plant from above when she first came and i will agree that she did put time and effort into the job, lived in the borough and made it her home, that she had her own mind and convictions was great and a credit to her but i very much doubt this will be the case this time, its a thing of the past now with Starmer's robotic army of disciples of everything and nothing.
Ill await to see what appertains but i doubt i will be proved wrong.
-
I live in the Don Valley Constituency and i agree that this fella has not come across well at all.
Its very likely he will loose his seat at the next GE, however who will he be replaced by? the way these things are done these days its usually some party plant with no history or allegiance to the area, but with an activist record as long as your arm. Labour are now very proactive in ensuring that their prospective candidates are "vetted" to the 12th degree, they have to be on the same page as Starmer and they will no doubt align themselves with every policy and initiative that the party machine will wheel out, and then they will just as quickly as the party itself, disassociate themselves with policy that's deemed not for now or to put on the back burner.
Whatever happened to independent thinking and having the strengths of your own convictions in these people, it seems some will go to any lengths to get on the bandwagon.
I am aware that Flint was a plant from above when she first came and i will agree that she did put time and effort into the job, lived in the borough and made it her home, that she had her own mind and convictions was great and a credit to her but i very much doubt this will be the case this time, its a thing of the past now with Starmer's robotic army of disciples of everything and nothing.
Ill await to see what appertains but i doubt i will be proved wrong.
You prefer a Martin Redmond?
-
I live in the Don Valley Constituency and i agree that this fella has not come across well at all.
Its very likely he will loose his seat at the next GE, however who will he be replaced by? the way these things are done these days its usually some party plant with no history or allegiance to the area, but with an activist record as long as your arm. Labour are now very proactive in ensuring that their prospective candidates are "vetted" to the 12th degree, they have to be on the same page as Starmer and they will no doubt align themselves with every policy and initiative that the party machine will wheel out, and then they will just as quickly as the party itself, disassociate themselves with policy that's deemed not for now or to put on the back burner.
Whatever happened to independent thinking and having the strengths of your own convictions in these people, it seems some will go to any lengths to get on the bandwagon.
I am aware that Flint was a plant from above when she first came and i will agree that she did put time and effort into the job, lived in the borough and made it her home, that she had her own mind and convictions was great and a credit to her but i very much doubt this will be the case this time, its a thing of the past now with Starmer's robotic army of disciples of everything and nothing.
Ill await to see what appertains but i doubt i will be proved wrong.
Danum
I am hoping that Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg gets the Labour ticket in Don Valley.
She's currently the leader of the Labour Council in North Herts, but is a Donny lass through and through.
She's a brilliant communicator and cares passionately about Donny and district.
I know she was very keen at one point to go for Don Valley, but last time I spoke to her she was not confident about being selected. We'll see.
Edit
Just looked at Google her cooling it might be summat to do with recent issues in her job
-
I live in the Don Valley Constituency and i agree that this fella has not come across well at all.
Its very likely he will loose his seat at the next GE, however who will he be replaced by? the way these things are done these days its usually some party plant with no history or allegiance to the area, but with an activist record as long as your arm. Labour are now very proactive in ensuring that their prospective candidates are "vetted" to the 12th degree, they have to be on the same page as Starmer and they will no doubt align themselves with every policy and initiative that the party machine will wheel out, and then they will just as quickly as the party itself, disassociate themselves with policy that's deemed not for now or to put on the back burner.
Whatever happened to independent thinking and having the strengths of your own convictions in these people, it seems some will go to any lengths to get on the bandwagon.
I am aware that Flint was a plant from above when she first came and i will agree that she did put time and effort into the job, lived in the borough and made it her home, that she had her own mind and convictions was great and a credit to her but i very much doubt this will be the case this time, its a thing of the past now with Starmer's robotic army of disciples of everything and nothing.
Ill await to see what appertains but i doubt i will be proved wrong.
You prefer a Martin Redmond?
I certainly dont,
Also anyone who has had any involvement with Doncaster Council in any of its disguises over the years should never be considered for anything higher than maybe helping on on a bin round.
The standard of councillors in Doncaster going back many years has been shocking, when a job lot of them got arrested for fiddling a few years back they should of all been removed and in effect started again from scratch.
Awful governance and neglect of a borough for many many years.
-
I live in the Don Valley Constituency and i agree that this fella has not come across well at all.
Its very likely he will loose his seat at the next GE, however who will he be replaced by? the way these things are done these days its usually some party plant with no history or allegiance to the area, but with an activist record as long as your arm. Labour are now very proactive in ensuring that their prospective candidates are "vetted" to the 12th degree, they have to be on the same page as Starmer and they will no doubt align themselves with every policy and initiative that the party machine will wheel out, and then they will just as quickly as the party itself, disassociate themselves with policy that's deemed not for now or to put on the back burner.
Whatever happened to independent thinking and having the strengths of your own convictions in these people, it seems some will go to any lengths to get on the bandwagon.
I am aware that Flint was a plant from above when she first came and i will agree that she did put time and effort into the job, lived in the borough and made it her home, that she had her own mind and convictions was great and a credit to her but i very much doubt this will be the case this time, its a thing of the past now with Starmer's robotic army of disciples of everything and nothing.
Ill await to see what appertains but i doubt i will be proved wrong.
Danum
I am hoping that Elizabeth Dennis-Harburg gets the Labour ticket in Don Valley.
She's currently the leader of the Labour Council in North Herts, but is a Donny lass through and through.
She's a brilliant communicator and cares passionately about Donny and district.
I know she was very keen at one point to go for Don Valley, but last time I spoke to her she was not confident about being selected. We'll see.
Edit
Just looked at Google her cooling it might be summat to do with recent issues in her job
You've probably just described exactly why she wont be getting the nomination. She sounds like she might have a mind of her own, we all know Starmer doesn't like people who can think independently.
Shame really, if she's anywhere near as good as you think then she would be a massive improvement on the current cabal who happen to sit in Doncaster seats but have next to bugger all to do with the place.
-
A bit harsh Danum.
Rosie Winterton spends most of her time supporting one thing in Donny then another, and standing up for the community.
She came to our fundraiser on Friday night and then to the opening of a miners memorial in the village on Sunday and donated and spoke at both.
Her successir Sally Jameson attends everything and works her socks off despite having a full time job at the Prison.
-
A bit harsh Danum.
Rosie Winterton spends most of her time supporting one thing in Donny then another, and standing up for the community.
She came to our fundraiser on Friday night and then to the opening of a miners memorial in the village on Sunday and donated and spoke at both.
Her successir Sally Jameson attends everything and works her socks off despite having a full time job at the Prison.
I have friends who live in her constituency, they had a not so good experience with her when they required her assistance.
-
I live in the Don Valley Constituency and i agree that this fella has not come across well at all.
Its very likely he will loose his seat at the next GE, however who will he be replaced by? the way these things are done these days its usually some party plant with no history or allegiance to the area, but with an activist record as long as your arm. Labour are now very proactive in ensuring that their prospective candidates are "vetted" to the 12th degree, they have to be on the same page as Starmer and they will no doubt align themselves with every policy and initiative that the party machine will wheel out, and then they will just as quickly as the party itself, disassociate themselves with policy that's deemed not for now or to put on the back burner.
Whatever happened to independent thinking and having the strengths of your own convictions in these people, it seems some will go to any lengths to get on the bandwagon.
I am aware that Flint was a plant from above when she first came and i will agree that she did put time and effort into the job, lived in the borough and made it her home, that she had her own mind and convictions was great and a credit to her but i very much doubt this will be the case this time, its a thing of the past now with Starmer's robotic army of disciples of everything and nothing.
Ill await to see what appertains but i doubt i will be proved wrong.
You prefer a Martin Redmond?
I certainly dont,
Also anyone who has had any involvement with Doncaster Council in any of its disguises over the years should never be considered for anything higher than maybe helping on on a bin round.
The standard of councillors in Doncaster going back many years has been shocking, when a job lot of them got arrested for fiddling a few years back they should of all been removed and in effect started again from scratch.
Awful governance and neglect of a borough for many many years.
Then what DO you want Labour to do?
-
I live in the Don Valley Constituency and i agree that this fella has not come across well at all.
Its very likely he will loose his seat at the next GE, however who will he be replaced by? the way these things are done these days its usually some party plant with no history or allegiance to the area, but with an activist record as long as your arm. Labour are now very proactive in ensuring that their prospective candidates are "vetted" to the 12th degree, they have to be on the same page as Starmer and they will no doubt align themselves with every policy and initiative that the party machine will wheel out, and then they will just as quickly as the party itself, disassociate themselves with policy that's deemed not for now or to put on the back burner.
Whatever happened to independent thinking and having the strengths of your own convictions in these people, it seems some will go to any lengths to get on the bandwagon.
I am aware that Flint was a plant from above when she first came and i will agree that she did put time and effort into the job, lived in the borough and made it her home, that she had her own mind and convictions was great and a credit to her but i very much doubt this will be the case this time, its a thing of the past now with Starmer's robotic army of disciples of everything and nothing.
Ill await to see what appertains but i doubt i will be proved wrong.
You prefer a Martin Redmond?
I certainly dont,
Also anyone who has had any involvement with Doncaster Council in any of its disguises over the years should never be considered for anything higher than maybe helping on on a bin round.
The standard of councillors in Doncaster going back many years has been shocking, when a job lot of them got arrested for fiddling a few years back they should of all been removed and in effect started again from scratch.
Awful governance and neglect of a borough for many many years.
Then what DO you want Labour to do?
If you actually read the post you wouldn't need to ask.