Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: tyke1962 on September 25, 2023, 07:37:14 pm
-
Double Down News exposing the Labour leader for the despicable excuse of a man that he is .
https://youtu.be/mv7sZoQkkns?si=5fByGDTO6knZ5Exn
-
Double Down News exposing the Labour leader for the despicable excuse of a man that he is .
https://youtu.be/mv7sZoQkkns?si=5fByGDTO6knZ5Exn
Sunak or Starmer?
No detailed answer required, just one of those two names
-
Double Down News exposing the Labour leader for the despicable excuse of a man that he is .
https://youtu.be/mv7sZoQkkns?si=5fByGDTO6knZ5Exn
Sunak or Starmer?
No detailed answer required, just one of those two names
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which."
-
Double Down News exposing the Labour leader for the despicable excuse of a man that he is .
https://youtu.be/mv7sZoQkkns?si=5fByGDTO6knZ5Exn
It’s as though Starmer forgets what he has previously said.
-
Double Down News exposing the Labour leader for the despicable excuse of a man that he is .
https://youtu.be/mv7sZoQkkns?si=5fByGDTO6knZ5Exn
It’s as though Starmer forgets what he has previously said.
He just loves to contradict himself,
-
Zero credibility for Keith.
On the lying front, he is trying to outdo Johnson....what a pair of plonkers!
-
What an utterly depressing future we are all in store for. To have had to put up with years of delusion and lies from multiple discredited Tory PM's we now have the pitiful prospect of having this complete waster giving us another dose of corrupt and creepy leadership under his "new" "new" Labour party, the one that eats its own and gets into bed with vile corrupt forces like Murdoch and his like.
The image of that grinning disgrace Blair was enough to give anyone sleepless nights!
Im just hoping the populace of GB have the foresight to give none of these utter failures any sort of individual mandate.
This country deserves much better.
-
It's obvious Starmer is next PM and so of course the real people with power in this erm... democra... (I can't bear to dirty that word in the context of all this) get their hooks into him. He has become a robot.
All PMs look different when they get into power, the reality and futility of their position takes over. This has happened to Starmer already.
-
Same shit.
Just under a different name.
-
Labour may well be the next Government but will they have a working majority or is an alliance on the cards even though both Labour and Lib Dems are saying no to each other
-
Vote Starmer because he's....... er.....
honest, ....... er... genuine,...... er, has firm beliefs,...., er,....... is a true socialist,..... er, tells the truth,..... er.........., oh, f**k it........... he's Labour!
-
So no one is prepared to give an answer Sunak or Starmer
Just one word to type thats all
Lots of beating around the bush though, even an Animal Farm quote, but everyone evades the question, the OP, seems to have done a runner
-
We may not agree with Sunak but he has genuine beliefs and is honest and true with the public regarding them.
Starmer, is absolutely not anything remotely like that but people will vote for him because he's, well, he's ................. Oh f**k it, he's Labour.
-
Another question is of those ardent brexiteers (who still insist they are lefties) where did ones loyalties lie in 2019, sovereignty, freedom from Europe and embrace the looney who despises working people or sit on the fence with jeremy?
-
We may not agree with Sunak but he has genuine beliefs and is honest and true with the public regarding them.
Starmer, is absolutely not anything remotely like that but people will vote for him because he's, well, he's ................. Oh f**k it, he's Labour.
Well, in a forum often littered with utter b*llocks, this wins.
-
We may not agree with Sunak but he has genuine beliefs and is honest and true with the public regarding them.
Starmer, is absolutely not anything remotely like that but people will vote for him because he's, well, he's ................. Oh f**k it, he's Labour.
Well, in a forum often littered with utter b*llocks, this wins.
Now ain't that a surprise! You'd think that in a forum often littered with utter b*llocks it would be a refreshing change to hear the truth. Obviously, that only applies to those who know that the truth isn't always told by someone sporting a Red rosette.
-
We've had some utter dogs leading this country recently but can anyone of a Labour persuasion with hand on heart really say that a government led by this individual is going to drain the swamp and make the difference, really?
-
13+ and still there are those that would look for reasons to vote for them it would seem.
-
13+ and still there are those that would look for reasons to vote for them it would seem.
I take it from your none answer you couldn't endorse Starmer as the man to make the difference then?
Lets just hope that others have to be involved, we can then spread the blame eh!
-
Follow 13+ years and a sunami of broken promises, lies and absolutely dumb decisions I would vote for Screaming Lord Such over this bunch of carpetbaggers and cronies.
-
I generally do like Peter Oborne, but he's spiralling into a place where what he wants to be true trumps reality.
Two things from that video.
1) Putting up the Wilson era as some sort of paragon of balanced politics? Just...what? The right and left of the Labour party were in outright war throughout Wilson's time. They ripped the holes in the party that would lead to it falling apart in the early 80s. And Wilson was renown for having no idelogical guidelines, and being prepared to tack whichever way he needed to on a daily basis. If anything, Starmer is precisely the new Wilson, in that he sees the need above everything else to get elected. Everything else comes a distant second, because if you don't get elected, it doesn't matter how superb your policies are, you've failed the people who you claim to represent.
2) He then says Starmer appeals to only a narrow proportion of the country. What? Has he seen the polls? And has he stopped to consider how narrow the section of the population was that Corbyn appealed to?
-
So nothing to say about a man who has absolutely no political ideology or any sort of firm conviction in anything and just swings wildly in the wind like a demented weather vane.
After all the blather we have had to endure from you about a government that is plainly not fit for purpose you are in effect endorsing something that could be just as bad if not worse?
-
DD.
I will guarantee you that the next Labour Government will not be worse than the shower of shit that we have had and still have.
Come back in 6 years and see.
Or, we could have another Sunak Govt that now wants to abolish Inheritance Tax, giving £7bn per year to 4% of the population.
Your call.
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
-
How anyone could give a guarantee on anything to do with governments of any standing is by its very nature foolish.
Interesting to see you don't agree with family's keeping their hard earned and taxed wealth in the family.
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
Neither!
I don't think labour are offering as yet anything to excite it's very much "not the Tories". But the Tories are just unvotable right now.
-
How anyone could give a guarantee on anything to do with governments of any standing is by its very nature foolish.
Interesting to see you don't agree with family's keeping their hard earned and taxed wealth in the family.
They CAN keep it. After paying inheritance tax. It's one of THE most progressive taxes you can have.
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
Neither!
I don't think labour are offering as yet anything to excite it's very much "not the Tories". But the Tories are just unvotable right now.
Neither isn't an option.
One or other of those two will be PM next December. You don't get your ideal choice. You get the choice life gives you.
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
Neither!
I don't think labour are offering as yet anything to excite it's very much "not the Tories". But the Tories are just unvotable right now.
Neither isn't an option.
One or other of those two will be PM next December. You don't get your ideal choice. You get the choice life gives you.
Neither is an option if the question is who do I want to be PM.
Another important question along with Starmer or Sunak, is Labour or Conservative?
Unfortunately, my answers to these really simple questions, if I have to choose one from each, are Sunak and Labour.
-
How anyone could give a guarantee on anything to do with governments of any standing is by its very nature foolish.
Interesting to see you don't agree with family's keeping their hard earned and taxed wealth in the family.
They CAN keep it. After paying inheritance tax. It's one of THE most progressive taxes you can have.
I don't see anything "progressive" about relatives paying a 40% tax on wealth that you have already paid tax on(probably at the higher rate) and after a lifetime of paying taxes(probably at a higher rate) into the state's purse.
Also why charge a rate that is far higher than most?
Seems like personal responsibility gets trumped by spending others people hard earned, i wonder what types would buy into this ?
-
I've voted Labour every time in national electons. Starmer is by far the worst leader Labour have had, but that wouldn't decide my choice. The whole Labour machine, how it has become authoritarian, the machine behind what's happening, the heavy veering away from its members toward being sponsored by business, its corruption in reganrds to a perverse take on anti semitism, and then its total lack of socialist policies.
I will probably vote Green who may well get in in my constituency, or a socialist candidate, or spoil the ballot paper.
For the record, Sunak is far far worse than Starmer.
-
How anyone could give a guarantee on anything to do with governments of any standing is by its very nature foolish.
Interesting to see you don't agree with family's keeping their hard earned and taxed wealth in the family.
They CAN keep it. After paying inheritance tax. It's one of THE most progressive taxes you can have.
I don't see anything "progressive" about relatives paying a 40% tax on wealth that you have already paid tax on(probably at the higher rate) and after a lifetime of paying taxes(probably at a higher rate) into the state's purse.
Also why charge a rate that is far higher than most?
Seems like personal responsibility gets trumped by spending others people hard earned, i wonder what types would buy into this ?
40% - after £450,000. That's more than fine. It should head up towards 90% as the amount gets to the silly levels.
As for "hard earned", you do know that under our capitalist system, especially with the machnery behnd it, that the amounts earned are not congruent with just "hard work"? I know plenty who have worked themselves to death who were left with barely a penny in the pot. If you have more than £450k, then you should be thankful for your good fortune.
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
Neither!
I don't think labour are offering as yet anything to excite it's very much "not the Tories". But the Tories are just unvotable right now.
Neither isn't an option.
One or other of those two will be PM next December. You don't get your ideal choice. You get the choice life gives you.
Neither is an option if the question is who do I want to be PM.
Another important question along with Starmer or Sunak, is Labour or Conservative?
Unfortunately, my answers to these really simple questions, if I have to choose one from each, are Sunak and Labour.
Then you are copping out.
It's a REALLY simple question.
Next year you have a choice between a Starmer/Labour led Govt and a Sunak/Tory one.
You don't have any other realistic choices.
Which one do you prefer?
I don't understand why so many people are so reticent on as simple a question as that.
-
I'ts a pity you don't get to have a say in where your taxes are allocated.
Would make very interesting reading, especially for governments who feel the need to relieve you of even more of it!
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
Neither!
I don't think labour are offering as yet anything to excite it's very much "not the Tories". But the Tories are just unvotable right now.
Neither isn't an option.
One or other of those two will be PM next December. You don't get your ideal choice. You get the choice life gives you.
Neither is an option if the question is who do I want to be PM.
Another important question along with Starmer or Sunak, is Labour or Conservative?
Unfortunately, my answers to these really simple questions, if I have to choose one from each, are Sunak and Labour.
Then you are copping out.
It's a REALLY simple question.
Next year you have a choice between a Starmer/Labour led Govt and a Sunak/Tory one.
You don't have any other realistic choices.
Which one do you prefer?
I don't understand why so many people are so reticent on as simple a question as that.
Why don't you start a poll?
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
Neither!
I don't think labour are offering as yet anything to excite it's very much "not the Tories". But the Tories are just unvotable right now.
Neither isn't an option.
One or other of those two will be PM next December. You don't get your ideal choice. You get the choice life gives you.
Neither is an option if the question is who do I want to be PM.
Another important question along with Starmer or Sunak, is Labour or Conservative?
Unfortunately, my answers to these really simple questions, if I have to choose one from each, are Sunak and Labour.
Then you are copping out.
It's a REALLY simple question.
Next year you have a choice between a Starmer/Labour led Govt and a Sunak/Tory one.
You don't have any other realistic choices.
Which one do you prefer?
I don't understand why so many people are so reticent on as simple a question as that.
I don’t know how clearer I could be, Billy.
I would rather be led by Sunak than Starmer.
But I’ll be voting for neither.
-
DD.
I will guarantee you that the next Labour Government will not be worse than the shower of shit that we have had and still have.
Come back in 6 years and see.
Or, we could have another Sunak Govt that now wants to abolish Inheritance Tax, giving £7bn per year to 4% of the population.
Your call.
Or we could have Starmer.
I have copied a post I made a few days ago, is Starmer the better bet?
12
Off Topic / Re: Why has Sunak changed Tory Green Policies?
« on: September 22, 2023, 04:33:51 pm »
On the subject of political partys changing their mind on things, I read today about Labours plans to ditch their plans to raise sick pay and guarantee it to all. Last week Raynor received a standing ovation at Trade Union Congress after telling attendees that that the next Labour government will strengthen and increase statutory sick pay.
Days later Labour has U Turned on this pledge and weakened its policies to strengthen workers rights.
How come this hasn’t been mentioned on here?
-
We may not agree with Sunak but he has genuine beliefs and is honest and true with the public regarding them.
Starmer, is absolutely not anything remotely like that but people will vote for him because he's, well, he's ................. Oh f**k it, he's Labour.
Rishi Sunak's lies exposed:
Peter Stefanovic has a (large) number of examples on his twitter feed - with video confirmation
https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2
also in comment by Peter Oborne & others:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/23/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-truth-integrity
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/rishi-sunak-commons-vote-tory-party-integrity-b2360930.html
https://earthbound.report/2023/09/21/10-lies-rishi-sunak-is-telling-about-net-zero/
Not particuarly a fan of Starmer or his political drift. But I understand why he has done it in his attempt to attract the Sc*m and Daily Mail readers. Who will never vote for him even if he adopted every Thatcherite policy - which he isn't far from doing.
-
I'ts a pity you don't get to have a say in where your taxes are allocated.
Would make very interesting reading, especially for governments who feel the need to relieve you of even more of it!
Shall we have a talk about how societies work? And about how some of the happiest and most productive societies on earth have some of the very highest taxes?
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
Neither!
I don't think labour are offering as yet anything to excite it's very much "not the Tories". But the Tories are just unvotable right now.
Neither isn't an option.
One or other of those two will be PM next December. You don't get your ideal choice. You get the choice life gives you.
Neither is an option if the question is who do I want to be PM.
Another important question along with Starmer or Sunak, is Labour or Conservative?
Unfortunately, my answers to these really simple questions, if I have to choose one from each, are Sunak and Labour.
Then you are copping out.
It's a REALLY simple question.
Next year you have a choice between a Starmer/Labour led Govt and a Sunak/Tory one.
You don't have any other realistic choices.
Which one do you prefer?
I don't understand why so many people are so reticent on as simple a question as that.
I don’t know how clearer I could be, Billy.
I would rather be led by Sunak than Starmer.
But I’ll be voting for neither.
Belton
Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious, but you are answering a question that doesn't exist.
You cannot have what you want.
You have a binary choice next year. If you are genuinely saying that you're not particularly bothered which one wins, say that.
-
How anyone could give a guarantee on anything to do with governments of any standing is by its very nature foolish.
Interesting to see you don't agree with family's keeping their hard earned and taxed wealth in the family.
They CAN keep it. After paying inheritance tax. It's one of THE most progressive taxes you can have.
I don't see anything "progressive" about relatives paying a 40% tax on wealth that you have already paid tax on(probably at the higher rate) and after a lifetime of paying taxes(probably at a higher rate) into the state's purse.
Also why charge a rate that is far higher than most?
Seems like personal responsibility gets trumped by spending others people hard earned, i wonder what types would buy into this ?
The Tories have put up taxes for ordinary people in 25 consecutive budgets. The only one Hunt cut in the last one was for City Bankers:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/fury-18-billion-tory-giveaway-28517889
Now they want to cut one that only the richest 4% of the country pay:
https://www.ft.com/content/3996c757-3395-413c-a490-3af257cab18f
at a cost of £7 Billion. How much do you think Income Tax should go up for the rest of us to pay for this tax break for billionaires?
-
I know you you are all shy in revealing which option,so I’ll start you all off
STARMER
Neither!
I don't think labour are offering as yet anything to excite it's very much "not the Tories". But the Tories are just unvotable right now.
Neither isn't an option.
One or other of those two will be PM next December. You don't get your ideal choice. You get the choice life gives you.
Neither is an option if the question is who do I want to be PM.
Another important question along with Starmer or Sunak, is Labour or Conservative?
Unfortunately, my answers to these really simple questions, if I have to choose one from each, are Sunak and Labour.
Then you are copping out.
It's a REALLY simple question.
Next year you have a choice between a Starmer/Labour led Govt and a Sunak/Tory one.
You don't have any other realistic choices.
Which one do you prefer?
I don't understand why so many people are so reticent on as simple a question as that.
Why don't you start a poll?
You want hide behind a poll?
I can’t believe my question was that difficult to answer, I made easy and asked for no detailed answer, but everyone has given a detailed answer and avoided the question!
-
Come on Filo, you know very well that there are many many questions that go unanswered on here.
-
Come on Filo, you know very well that there are many many questions that go unanswered on here.
I do, I’m just wondering why this one is so had to answer given it a a binary choice
-
OK, we all know that Sunak is a crap PM. That's got that out of the way.
Now, can any of you Starmer fans out there cite ONE single thing that suggests he might be a decent PM?
Or to put it more concisely, what part of "they're both exactly the f*cking same" are you not getting?
-
OK, we all know that Sunak is a crap PM. That's got that out of the way.
Now, can any of you Starmer fans out there cite ONE single thing that suggests he might be a decent PM?
Or to put it more concisely, what part of "they're both exactly the f*cking same" are you not getting?
But I never asked that question, I specifically asked for poster to type one name only from the two choices, so far no one from either side has has done that apart from me, what are you all shy about?
-
What if neither of those is your choice?
-
Braverman gave a speech today that was within spitting distance of Powell's rivers of blood.
On the other hand, you have Labour threatening to have families of refugees coming over on boats classed as terrorists.
I wonder why people can't tell the difference between the two parties!
-
My take on Starmer is this:
1) Do I think he will be a first rate PM? No. But compared to the alternative, who
- supported Brexit from the off
-introduced the quite insane Eat Out To Help Out policy
-brought idiots like Heneghan and Gupta into Downing St to talk Johnson out of an early lockdown in late 2020, arguably killing 60,000 people and costing us far more when the inevitable lockdown did finally come
- is campaigning on nothing but Culture War and tax cuts for the very wealthiest
- has a borderline fascist as his Home Secretary
- openly bragged about diverting money from northern towns to Tonbridge
I'll take Starmer every time.
2) Was there a better Labour alternative? I think Burnham will be leader within 10 years, but he wasn't available at the time. The one and only alternative to Starmer in 2020 was Rebecca Long-Bailey. Think about that...
3) Do I like his changes of policy? No and I do think he's gone too far to the Right. But this is politics, not a debating club. If Labour, starting where they started in early 2020, were going to win the next Election, two things needed to happen i) the new Leader had to be elected by a membership that had effectively been hijacked by people WAY to the Left of the population as a whole. ii) The leader then had to sell Labour to the population as a whole.
Before you knee jerk criticise Starmer, just stop and think what a near-impossible task it is to do that and stay 100% pure on every policy stance. The Left that took over the party in the late 2010s effectively had to be hoodwinked for the greater good. Then he had to marginalise them, because the Corbyn strand of the Labour party was, like it or not, poison to the electorate. Any Labour supporter who doesn't accept that never went out canvassing opinion at the last election.
What Starmer had to do was to appeal to the Corbynistas to become leader. Then can them, to have a chance of becoming PM. Do I like it? No. But what was the alternative? Leave Labour to go into the next Election with posters of Starmer as a puppet with Corbyn's hand up his arse all over the country.
It's far, far from perfect. It's grubby. It's unpleasant. But if it gets us a shot at a Government that can replace the cluster f**k of this past few years and make the first steps towards repairing the damage that 14 years of Tory economics and infighting has done, so be it. It's real life, not some soft focus video of what we'd like life to be.
-
Billy. The question was Starmer or Sunak. My answer was Sunak.
I won’t be voting for Sunak, because the Conservative party need to stand down, or be stood down.
I won’t vote for Labour because I don’t trust Starmer.
I will vote, though.
It’s that bleeding obvious.
-
Braverman gave a speech today that was within spitting distance of Powell's rivers of blood.
On the other hand, you have Labour threatening to have families of refugees coming over on boats classed as terrorists.
I wonder why people can't tell the difference between the two parties!
Excellent out-of-context summary of Labour's policy there. Remember that the Left's insistence that Brown couldn't be supported in 2010 because he was a Red Tory was instrumental in putting the Tories in power. And it turned out there was a f**king chasm of difference.
-
Belton.
With respect, you're doing the syntax thing again. Arguing about words rather than content. Because, if you stop and think about it, it's obvious that the choice you actually have is, from the end of next year, to live in a country with a Tory led Govt, headed by Sunak. Or to live in a country with a Labour led Govt, headed by Starmer.
That actually IS the choice. I don't understand why people are so reluctant to say which of those they would prefer to live in.
-
If there was just a choice between Starmer and Sunak I'd go for Sunak.
-
Belton.
With respect, you're doing the syntax thing again. Arguing about words rather than content. Because, if you stop and think about it, it's obvious that the choice you actually have is, from the end of next year, to live in a country with a Tory led Govt, headed by Sunak. Or to live in a country with a Labour led Govt, headed by Starmer.
That actually IS the choice. I don't understand why people are so reluctant to say which of those they would prefer to live in.
I just knew you would accuse me of that again.
The question was actually a silly, pointless one then wasn’t it?
One minute you are saying it is a simple question that requires a simple answer, and I am copping out by not answering it simply. The next minute you are telling me what the question really means.
And I’m the one playing the syntax game.
I’ll try to answer a slightly different way:
I choose Sunak and the Conservatives.
Then, when Starmer is gone, maybe Labour will get a good leader for the next election.
But that’s highly unlikely to happen, isn’t it?
-
So the takeaway here is that ppl don’t care that Starmer may be a lying hypocrite with no principles but he’s “our” lying hypocrite with no principles aye?
#vote Labour (not cos they are any good but simply cos they ain’t the tories)
-
So the takeaway here is that ppl don’t care that Starmer may be a lying hypocrite with no principles but he’s “our” lying hypocrite with no principles aye?
#vote Labour (not cos they are any good but simply cos they ain’t the tories)
That sums it up very well mate.
-
So the takeaway here is that ppl don’t care that Starmer may be a lying hypocrite with no principles but he’s “our” lying hypocrite with no principles aye?
#vote Labour (not cos they are any good but simply cos they ain’t the tories)
No the question is simple, but you avoided it
-
Personally I would bring back Boris. That would make the idiots happy.
It might also stop them blahing on and f**king on about a party that isn't in power.
-
If there was just a choice between Starmer and Sunak I'd go for Sunak.
Likewise between the two but it's not just them it's both front benches. The Tory front bench is incredibly weak there's only a few of them anywhere close to being strong. I tend to think labour have with their current set more competent leaders all round.
-
One of BST's points, and the standard line of signed up Labour activists when they are canvessing is that Starmer had to appeal to the electorate. If only that's what it is. Wrong. The fact is he has chosen to appeal to business, the media (the Murdoch etc wing), and the controlling elites.
The alternative of putting even diluted socialist policies forward has been cast aside. Not only that, but his Labour party fought against Corbyn before both elections. He himself kept largely in the shadows - I wonder why?
Voting for Starmer is not going to bring anything remotely socialist into being, not even a better deal for the majority who are the victims of an elite controlled system that enslaves them.
Playing the game as BST refers to is accepting the rules, being complicit in affirming this. Honesty has value, it's a way of being that brings about positive change.
This is the worst Labout party ever, an insult to all who created and built it.
-
Another reasoned response but why Sunak over Starmer?
Sunak is going back on his word WHILE he is in power!
Edit.
That was a reply to BFYP
-
Another reasoned response but why Sunak over Starmer?
Sunak is going back on his word WHILE he is in power!
Edit.
That was a reply to BFYP
Starmer has gone back on his word whilst in power of the Labour party. Of course he will be deceitful when he's PM. He's a people pleaser, the worst kind of person. He's made most of his team, most of the party people pleasers. People pleasers change their direction. They cause chaos. But, the people Starmer is pleasing are the msm, business and the elites - THAT is the big problem. They will demand more, he will give them more.
-
The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.
-
The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.
Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.
I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.
Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.
And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.
Here's a thought experiment.
It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.
Do you:
a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?
b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?
Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.
-
One of the enduring myths about Signals Intelligence in the Second World War is that Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill knew from intercepted messages that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in December 1941 but kept the fact secret to bring the USA into the war on the Allied side. A variant of the myth has US President Roosevelt as part of the secret, looking for a pretext to bring his country into the war.
The myth is false. The strategic situation in the Far East was such that war with Japan had become more likely. Rumours of a Japanese attack in South East Asia had been reported from Bletchley Park some days before the actual attacks, and, ironically, the report had been shared with US intelligence, but the report was vague and assumed that the Japanese would invade Thailand.
-
The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.
Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.
I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.
Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.
And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.
Here's a thought experiment.
It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.
Do you:
a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?
b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?
Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.
What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.
-
That's correct. It is a myth probably built on the sinking of the SS Scillin.
On the night of 14th November 1942 the Scillin was being used by the Italian Navy to transport at least 814 (other reports have it at over 1000) British POW's from North Africa to Italy when it was intercepted and sunk by the Royal Navy sub HMS Sahib.
Full details of what was known and by whom have never been released by the govenment, despite numerous requests by relatives, and it was only in 1996 that the government actually admitted any responsibility for the deaths of the POW.
The reason for this, it is assumed, is that Churchill and the government knew the Scillin was carrying POW's as they had broken the Italian Ultra codes some time earlier. But refused to notify the captain of HMS Sahib in case the Italians knew a sub was in the area and suspected an attack.
Several other POW transports were sunk in the Med in the same way. Leading to the deaths of c2000 British POW's which Churchill could have prevented.
That's probably where the myth comes from.
-
The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.
Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.
I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.
Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.
And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.
Here's a thought experiment.
It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.
Do you:
a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?
b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?
Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.
What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.
You did vote for Boris Johnson as Tory leader and have still never criticised him to this day.
Bit rich of you to crticise someone else for what you did.
-
The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.
Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.
I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.
Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.
And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.
Here's a thought experiment.
It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.
Do you:
a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?
b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?
Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.
What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.
You did vote for Boris Johnson as Tory leader and have still never criticised him to this day.
Bit rich of you to crticise someone else for what you did.
There's nothing unusual in the inaccuracy of a Wilts rover post, and this one is no different.
-
The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.
Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.
I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.
Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.
And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.
Here's a thought experiment.
It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.
Do you:
a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?
b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?
Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.
What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.
I would never, ever support a pathological liar. Someone who has built his entire professional and personal life upon lying for the purpose of self-aggrandisement.
There's the big difference between thee and me.
-
One of the enduring myths about Signals Intelligence in the Second World War is that Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill knew from intercepted messages that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in December 1941 but kept the fact secret to bring the USA into the war on the Allied side. A variant of the myth has US President Roosevelt as part of the secret, looking for a pretext to bring his country into the war.
The myth is false. The strategic situation in the Far East was such that war with Japan had become more likely. Rumours of a Japanese attack in South East Asia had been reported from Bletchley Park some days before the actual attacks, and, ironically, the report had been shared with US intelligence, but the report was vague and assumed that the Japanese would invade Thailand.
Sproty.
Precisely why I said it was a thought experiment.
There are times in politics where deception is essential.
There are other times when a pathological liar in No 10 lies to protect himself when he has f**ked up.
Anyone not seeing the difference is really not trying very hard.
-
The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.
Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.
I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.
Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.
And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.
Here's a thought experiment.
It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.
Do you:
a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?
b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?
Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.
What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.
I would never, ever support a pathological liar. Someone who has built his entire professional and personal life upon lying for the purpose of self-aggrandisement.
There's the big difference between thee and me.
People who pathologically lie may do so to manipulate or deceive others. Does that ring any bells? If it doesn't, it ought to, because that is what you encourage your great leader to do.
I would never, and have never supported someone who does that.
That's the big difference between thee and me.