Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: mugnapper on May 22, 2024, 04:42:23 pm
-
July 4th it is then. Inflation figure encourages Richie to go for it.
-
Thank the lord, we have a couple of bedwetters who were about to blow a gasket.
I'm no advocate for human suffering so i hope it goes "well" for them, would hate to think what a hung parliament would produce on here.
-
Good start for Sunak
The light reflecting off the rain on his jacket made it look like he was being shit on by a flock of pigeons. And you couldn't hear a word he was saying because someone was banging out Things Can Only Get Better.
-
Thank the lord, we have a couple of bedwetters who were about to blow a gasket.
I'm no advocate for human suffering so i hope it goes "well" for them, would hate to think what a hung parliament would produce on here.
Guess which political genius among us said this less than 24hrs ago?
''Starmer will cop for the blame, as the current favourite to become the next PM this bloke needs to convince many more people that he has the minerals to take us all the way''
But
From the bbc:
''There have been no sudden shifts in the opinion polls but there have been some noteworthy developments, writes BBC senior political analyst Peter Barnes.
The Conservative average has edged down further and they're now at their lowest level on the BBC poll tracker since October 2022 when Liz Truss was prime minister. Connected to that, the Labour lead over the Conservatives is almost at its biggest this year''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68079726
-
Things can only get wetter pmsl
-
God knows what his thinking is behind this. I can only assume he's had enough and wants to get the f*ck out of Dodge.
Count Binface, get ready.
-
SS.
Two possibilities.
1) The latest headline growth and inflation figures are as good as it's going to get. There's a strong chance that inflation will be rising again in the next few months, according to some economists I've been looking at, so maybe Sunak reckons this is the best time.
2) There have been rumours going round for weeks that there'd be a Tory coup to replace Sunak. His best defence against that would be to call an immediate election.
-
This from the BBC politics reporter Nick Watt, earlier today.
https://x.com/nicholaswatt/status/1793286414651572467
-
Point number 1 there was my thinking. No way it's a coincidence he announces this on the day the main headline makes inflation look a lot more favourable than it has been.
-
Well it's going to be a record breaking GE whatever happens. No Prime Minister has ever called a GE so far behind in the polls - so he is either going to have a record turn-around or a record thumping.
Last time we had an election in July was 1945 btw.
-
So finally we will get some policies and we'll see if Starmer is Darren Ferguson or not.
-
Well it's going to be a record breaking GE whatever happens. No Prime Minister has ever called a GE so far behind in the polls - so he is either going to have a record turn-around or a record thumping.
Last time we had an election in July was 1945 btw.
That's right, Wilts. The only trouble is, Starmer's no Clem Atlee.
-
So finally we will get some policies and we'll see if Starmer is Darren Ferguson or not.
As posted on another thread, the tories have just done some costings on exactly that, maybe you need another tune pud.
-
This from the BBC politics reporter Nick Watt, earlier today.
https://x.com/nicholaswatt/status/1793286414651572467
Confirmation of what I've always believed.
The Tories are truly revolting.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
Priorities.
-
So in the spirit of togetherness and to end the years of bickering, I’m hoping, nay expecting, that all members of this forum do the right thing for their families and themselves. (except hound who should vote for Jethro Q Bunwackett Stubble and Boot in the slab of concrete)
So remember to VOTE LABOUR on July 4th.
Thank you.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
So expats living in Spain?
I do find it weird that foreign nationals who have been here for many years can't vote in a GE.
-
Before I see any my nap bet is that most of the vox pop victims will say ‘They’re all the same’
-
Granted I'm no economist , but it's a hard sell to say that after years of basic food , utilities and mortgages getting more expensive week on on week, they now are just increasing at the old rate . Not much comfort that your £4 ketchup that was £2 will now only be £4.05
-
Granted I'm no economist , but it's a hard sell to say that after years of basic food , utilities and mortgages getting more expensive week on on week, they now are just increasing at the old rate . Not much comfort that your £4 ketchup that was £2 will now only be £4.05
Sauce?
-
Granted I'm no economist , but it's a hard sell to say that after years of basic food , utilities and mortgages getting more expensive week on on week, they now are just increasing at the old rate . Not much comfort that your £4 ketchup that was £2 will now only be £4.05
Sauce?
Ooohh you are awful....
-
Labour have no plan says man stood in the pouring rain without an umbrella
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
Ooh.
You lickle Englander.
-
Labour have no plan says man stood in the pouring rain without an umbrella
He'd have only been accused of a cover-up.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
So expats living in Spain?
I do find it weird that foreign nationals who have been here for many years can't vote in a GE.
If they are ordinarily resident here and paying taxes then I’d agree.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
So expats living in Spain?
I do find it weird that foreign nationals who have been here for many years can't vote in a GE.
Incredibly a lot of the blue rinse,dye in the wool Tories,Daily Heil readers that don't contribute to either country voted leave.
They then got all upset that the couldn't spend more than 3 months in their houses in Spain and complained about not being able to get cheaper prescriptions!
The thick tory c%nts.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
Ooh.
You lickle Englander.
Abandon the UK, forfeit the right to have a say about the UK pretty logical id say.
-
So in the spirit of togetherness and to end the years of bickering, I’m hoping, nay expecting, that all members of this forum do the right thing for their families and themselves. (except hound who should vote for Jethro Q Bunwackett Stubble and Boot in the slab of concrete)
So remember to VOTE LABOUR on July 4th.
Thank you.
Nah, Tommy. Count Binface.
The others are all the same.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
Ooh.
You lickle Englander.
Abandon the UK, forfeit the right to have a say about the UK pretty logical id say.
Abandon?
That's a little,no very silly.
-
Well it's going to be a record breaking GE whatever happens. No Prime Minister has ever called a GE so far behind in the polls - so he is either going to have a record turn-around or a record thumping.
Last time we had an election in July was 1945 btw.
That's right, Wilts. The only trouble is, Starmer's no Clem Atlee.
And Sunak is certainly no Churchill!
-
Rich-ie must be in trouble when even La Kuenssberg can only come up with one good reason for, inflation figure, but numerous against him calling an election
-
Sunak's had his moment of power and now will be cashing in more lucrative jobs post PM. I think the Lib Dems will make a massive comeback in this election by those tory voters who know the party is in disarray but won't vote for labour.
I'm still shocked he walked out in the pissing rain to announce it. He must have known how it would look.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
Ooh.
You lickle Englander.
Abandon the UK, forfeit the right to have a say about the UK pretty logical id say.
With that narrowed minded mentality,'abandon' Doncaster and forfeit the right to support Rovers.
-
So in the spirit of togetherness and to end the years of bickering, I’m hoping, nay expecting, that all members of this forum do the right thing for their families and themselves. (except hound who should vote for Jethro Q Bunwackett Stubble and Boot in the slab of concrete)
So remember to VOTE LABOUR on July 4th.
Thank you.
Tommy, are you losing the plot my friend?
You should know by now that I’m with you and will be voting Labour this time.
I really need to know if they can turn thing around as you and others have been promising.
Jethro won’t be able to count on me.
-
Word is that there were enough letters gone in to enable a leadership challenge, so he’s thrown them all under the bus
-
Very strange from Sunak in terms of timimg, given he was speaking of an autumn election a few days ago.
Maybe he has wind of a plot to unseat him, with the letters going in to the 1922 Committee, so he has decided to jump before being pushed.
Perhaps he has just had enough, and wants out to follow a more lucrative option outside politics.
Good riddance whatever, it has been a complete shitshow like the government before him!
-
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
So expats living in Spain?
I do find it weird that foreign nationals who have been here for many years can't vote in a GE.
If they are ordinarily resident here and paying taxes then I’d agree.
If they pay UK tax then regardless where they find themselves they should be able to vote.
Remember we also allow millions of none taxpayers to vote in this country, is that the right thing to do?
We also have forum members who think you should not be allowed a vote if they consider you are not "bright" enough, go figure!
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
So expats living in Spain?
I do find it weird that foreign nationals who have been here for many years can't vote in a GE.
If they are ordinarily resident here and paying taxes then I’d agree.
If they pay UK tax then regardless where they find themselves they should be able to vote.
Remember we also allow millions of none taxpayers to vote in this country, is that the right thing to do?
We also have forum members who think you should not be allowed a vote if they consider you are not "bright" enough, go figure!
Who DD?
-
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
I haven’t seen anyone say they want to see the country fail if there is a change of government.
Can you show us where that happened.
I assume you are talking about the UK.
-
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
I haven’t seen anyone say they want to see the country fail if there is a change of government.
Can you show us where that happened.
I assume you are talking about the UK.
Fantastic
-
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
I haven’t seen anyone say they want to see the country fail if there is a change of government.
Can you show us where that happened.
I assume you are talking about the UK.
Fantastic
So, no one wants the country to fail then.
Just more of your made up stuff.
How’s the weather over there today?
-
Interesting theory doing the rounds is that rishi wants out because he doesn't want to be a war time prime minister.
That we are at war with Russia and just haven't told us yet, and that they will tell us at some point this summer .
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
So expats living in Spain?
I do find it weird that foreign nationals who have been here for many years can't vote in a GE.
If they are ordinarily resident here and paying taxes then I’d agree.
If they pay UK tax then regardless where they find themselves they should be able to vote.
Remember we also allow millions of none taxpayers to vote in this country, is that the right thing to do?
We also have forum members who think you should not be allowed a vote if they consider you are not "bright" enough, go figure!
That last sentence dd, I remember that being posted.
-
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
I haven’t seen anyone say they want to see the country fail if there is a change of government.
Can you show us where that happened.
I assume you are talking about the UK.
Fantastic
So, no one wants the country to fail then.
Just more of your made up stuff.
How’s the weather over there today?
Graham,why not try to contribute to debates rather than snidey sniping and asking silly questions all the time?
It's the type of shit a golf club bore does.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
So expats living in Spain?
I do find it weird that foreign nationals who have been here for many years can't vote in a GE.
If they are ordinarily resident here and paying taxes then I’d agree.
If they pay UK tax then regardless where they find themselves they should be able to vote.
Remember we also allow millions of none taxpayers to vote in this country, is that the right thing to do?
We also have forum members who think you should not be allowed a vote if they consider you are not "bright" enough, go figure!
Who DD?
You'll have to do your own research, its in the forum.
You never know, they may just come on and tell you themselves.
-
Interesting theory doing the rounds is that rishi wants out because he doesn't want to be a war time prime minister.
That we are at war with Russia and just haven't told us yet, and that they will tell us at some point this summer .
Was that on Tok Tok news?
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
So expats living in Spain?
I do find it weird that foreign nationals who have been here for many years can't vote in a GE.
If they are ordinarily resident here and paying taxes then I’d agree.
If they pay UK tax then regardless where they find themselves they should be able to vote.
Remember we also allow millions of none taxpayers to vote in this country, is that the right thing to do?
We also have forum members who think you should not be allowed a vote if they consider you are not "bright" enough, go figure!
Who DD?
You'll have to do your own research, its in the forum.
You never know, they may just come on and tell you themselves.
No names then?
Don't get me wrong,I do like some Tories. Thatcher is a prime example.
She's dead.
-
I’ll vote for whoever pledges to stop non UK residents voting in UK elections
Ooh.
You lickle Englander.
Abandon the UK, forfeit the right to have a say about the UK pretty logical id say.
With that narrowed minded mentality,'abandon' Doncaster and forfeit the right to support Rovers.
Nope, but I dont expect to be able to vote in Doncaster and have an effect on the lives of people who do live there.
-
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
I haven’t seen anyone say they want to see the country fail if there is a change of government.
Can you show us where that happened.
I assume you are talking about the UK.
Fantastic
So, no one wants the country to fail then.
Just more of your made up stuff.
How’s the weather over there today?
Graham,why not try to contribute to debates rather than snidey sniping and asking silly questions all the time?
It's the type of shit a golf club bore does.
I was contributing to the thread until you hijacked it.
You made the accusation which I have highlighted above and when I looked to see who you were on about I couldn’t see anywhere where people said they wanted the country to fail so I asked you who it was.
Very obviously, you couldn’t do that so resorted to your usual tactics.
However when I was looking back through the thread almost all of your posts are arguments with other posters, or me, except for the one where you agreed with bst which of course isn’t a surprise to anyone.
Now try to behave like a grown up and leave the thread to those of us who want to have a discussion, there’s a good lad.
-
So there it is , the big fight everyone is desperate to see actually consists of the first bout of the evening on the undercard , the one when there's less than 200 people watching in a stadium holding 80k .
You couldn't get any less lightweights if this was the flyweight division for dwarfs .
The pre fight press conference consisted of one saying I'm a conservative and the other saying he's not .
If it pysses it down on election day like it's done today nobody will even bother to turn up at all , the ticket sales are likely to be thin gruel anyway .
The truth of the matter is that neither of these two party's are fit for purpose today and should have retired years ago when the first signs of punch drunk emerged .
About 1979 for one of the contestants and 1997 for the other .
-
SS.
Two possibilities.
1) The latest headline growth and inflation figures are as good as it's going to get. There's a strong chance that inflation will be rising again in the next few months, according to some economists I've been looking at, so maybe Sunak reckons this is the best time.
2) There have been rumours going round for weeks that there'd be a Tory coup to replace Sunak. His best defence against that would be to call an immediate election.
What are the potential factors contributing to another inflation increase?
-
SS.
Two possibilities.
1) The latest headline growth and inflation figures are as good as it's going to get. There's a strong chance that inflation will be rising again in the next few months, according to some economists I've been looking at, so maybe Sunak reckons this is the best time.
2) There have been rumours going round for weeks that there'd be a Tory coup to replace Sunak. His best defence against that would be to call an immediate election.
What are the potential factors contributing to another inflation increase?
Oil, shopping and wages are all things that have increased recently.
I don't think there are many good news pieces coming really for some time. At least until the conflicts around the world end.
-
SS.
Two possibilities.
1) The latest headline growth and inflation figures are as good as it's going to get. There's a strong chance that inflation will be rising again in the next few months, according to some economists I've been looking at, so maybe Sunak reckons this is the best time.
2) There have been rumours going round for weeks that there'd be a Tory coup to replace Sunak. His best defence against that would be to call an immediate election.
What are the potential factors contributing to another inflation increase?
It's not going to skyrocket like it did 2 years ago, but the CPI drop today was a bit of an exaggeration of the real, underlying state. That's because in the current CPI calculation, the fact that energy prices in April were well down on those from a year before had a big deflationary effect. But that's a once and for all effect. Energy prices will be broadly neutral on inflation for the rest of the year, because the price in say Sept 24 will be very similar to the price in Sept 23.
So, all other things being equal, CPI inflation will move closer to the core inflation figure which excludes volatile prices like food and energy. Core inflation is currently at 3.9% and coming down very slowly.
-
And for those expecting a change in the polling over the 6 week period, we dont really normally see that. You'd be hard pushed to bet against a labour majority of some size.
-
Good start for Sunak
The light reflecting off the rain on his jacket made it look like he was being shit on by a flock of pigeons. And you couldn't hear a word he was saying because someone was banging out Things Can Only Get Better.
It gets better.
Sky News have broadcast live their political correspondent being manhandled out of Sunak's campaign launch.
I thought they were shit at... y'know...running the country. Looks like they are just shite at everything. The campaign has started as an absolute car crash.
-
And for those expecting a change in the polling over the 6 week period, we dont really normally see that. You'd be hard pushed to bet against a labour majority of some size.
Unless Starmer gets caught on video skinning alive a baby, Labour are stuck on for a 200 seat majority over the Tories.
-
How many Portillo moments will there be on election night?
-
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
All over people changing votes,
along with their overcoat,
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway.
Absolutely fAcking incredible that certain people want the country to fail with a change of government.
Treasonable
I haven’t seen anyone say they want to see the country fail if there is a change of government.
Can you show us where that happened.
I assume you are talking about the UK.
Fantastic
So, no one wants the country to fail then.
Just more of your made up stuff.
How’s the weather over there today?
Graham,why not try to contribute to debates rather than snidey sniping and asking silly questions all the time?
It's the type of shit a golf club bore does.
I was contributing to the thread until you hijacked it.
You made the accusation which I have highlighted above and when I looked to see who you were on about I couldn’t see anywhere where people said they wanted the country to fail so I asked you who it was.
Very obviously, you couldn’t do that so resorted to your usual tactics.
However when I was looking back through the thread almost all of your posts are arguments with other posters, or me, except for the one where you agreed with bst which of course isn’t a surprise to anyone.
Now try to behave like a grown up and leave the thread to those of us who want to have a discussion, there’s a good lad.
Thanks for the telling off granpops.
I'll leave you old folk to vent your spleen and argue with the world.
Good luck wise man.
-
And for those expecting a change in the polling over the 6 week period, we dont really normally see that. You'd be hard pushed to bet against a labour majority of some size.
Unless Starmer gets caught on video skinning alive a baby, Labour are stuck on for a 200 seat majority over the Tories.
Kier Starmer is obviously a charlatan and womaniser.
There couldn't be any other reason for the vitriol he gets on here unless certain posters have got home to find their Mrs on all fours calling him daddy.
-
Sunak has seen a future where Donald” I don’t give a feck about nato” trump is back in power. We are back in 1937 except the main players now have nuclear weapons.
Starmer will need to find himself some very big balls for the next 5 years. He is going to need them . He thinks he is going to war with the tories. The battles ahead are going to be much much bigger than that.
-
Why didn't Richie either:-
A) Use an umbrella or
B) Use the expensive Press Room we all paid for?
(You know the one where that lady admitted they were all partying whilst we stayed at home)
-
Fluck me. Rumours from Westminster are suggesting Right Wing Tories are planning a coup against Sunak so they can cancel the election within the next 72 hours.
Is that legal/possible??
-
How many Portillo moments will there be on election night?
Not many. I suspect more than half of them won't even stand.
-
Here's that Sky reporter getting hoyed out by the Tory muscle.
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1793359440919380470
-
Fluck me. Rumours from Westminster are suggesting Right Wing Tories are planning a coup against Sunak so they can cancel the election within the next 72 hours.
Is that legal/possible??
Seen this reported. I've no idea if it's actually possible but if it is, this would be the absolute funniest thing that has ever happened in politics.
-
Fluck me. Rumours from Westminster are suggesting Right Wing Tories are planning a coup against Sunak so they can cancel the election within the next 72 hours.
Is that legal/possible??
Seen this reported. I've no idea if it's actually possible but if it is, this would be the absolute funniest thing that has ever happened in politics.
Was just about to post the same.
Yes it is possible if they can depose him as Tory leader before he can dissolve Parliament next Friday.
Absolute madness - but there you go
https://x.com/christopherhope/status/1793382405203456276
-
Fluck me. Rumours from Westminster are suggesting Right Wing Tories are planning a coup against Sunak so they can cancel the election within the next 72 hours.
Is that legal/possible??
Seen this reported. I've no idea if it's actually possible but if it is, this would be the absolute funniest thing that has ever happened in politics.
The days are long gone where you would dismiss this as too stupid to consider.
-
Well I have read some Fairy stories on here but this takes the biscuit! If this were true, the perpetrators would gain 4 months extra in office and then would preside over the utter destruction of the Tories as a party at the Election!.
-
‘Just Stinging and Grimacing in the rain’
-
It would be a fitting epitaph for this shower of shite if they DID do away with Sunak and cancelled the Election. They have been chaotic for years.
Anyone remember Cameron's campaign in 2015 where he said that Britain would descend into chaos if Labour won?
Instead we got
Brexit
One PM resigning
Maybot
3 years of internal civil war in the Tory party over what "Brexit" meant
Another PM resigning
Johnson lying over the Brexit deal he signed.
COVID running riot while Johnson took 4 weeks off to sort out his divorce.
Another PM resigning.
Truss and Kamikwaze.
Another PM resigning
Sunak living from month to month with the threat of another coup.
They have lost any right to be taken seriously as a political party for the next generation. Until they realise they are supposed to rule in the COUNTRY'S interests, not smash everything to try to hold onto power.
Get them out.
-
Sunak's had his moment of power and now will be cashing in more lucrative jobs post PM. I think the Lib Dems will make a massive comeback in this election by those tory voters who know the party is in disarray but won't vote for labour.
I'm still shocked he walked out in the pissing rain to announce it. He must have known how it would look.
What a 10 years he's had said a wag yesterday on Twitter
In that 10 years he's , become an MP , become Chancellor of E , then PM , then lost an Election and f***** off back into political oblivion"
Repeat , not my words. Mine could have been more scathing
-
Heard a Tory MP on the radio last night stating that a vote for Labour is a vote for more chaos and if we want real change then we should vote Conservative!!
Where do they find these people?
I’m curious about why he’s called an election now and seems to have blindsided his own MP’s. The depressing conclusion is that this is as good as it’s going to get and from late Summer onwards things are going to get even worse.
-
Sunak's had his moment of power and now will be cashing in more lucrative jobs post PM. I think the Lib Dems will make a massive comeback in this election by those tory voters who know the party is in disarray but won't vote for labour.
I'm still shocked he walked out in the pissing rain to announce it. He must have known how it would look.
I disagree on the Lib Dems.
The main discontent is from the Tory right. Reform will get a good vote share but not many seats without proportional representation (something the left wing advocates of it perhaps overlook but that’s another discussion).
In terms of the more liberal / moderate Tories, some will just stay put. A lot will go over to Labour. From an ideological perspective, what separates Labour from Lib Dem’s except that one is guaranteed to win and the other to be irrelevant?
It would be far from my cup of tea but if the 3rd party in this country was economically left-leaning but socially conservative I think it would do very well.
On your second point, perhaps he wanted to look like the tough guy who didn’t care about the rain? Lol
-
Heard a Tory MP on the radio last night stating that a vote for Labour is a vote for more chaos and if we want real change then we should vote Conservative!!
Where do they find these people?
I’m curious about why he’s called an election now and seems to have blindsided his own MP’s. The depressing conclusion is that this is as good as it’s going to get and from late Summer onwards things are going to get even worse.
Heard a Tory MP on the radio last night stating that a vote for Labour is a vote for more chaos and if we want real change then we should vote Conservative!!
Where do they find these people?
I’m curious about why he’s called an election now and seems to have blindsided his own MP’s. The depressing conclusion is that this is as good as it’s going to get and from late Summer onwards things are going to get even worse.
It was "guessed" that MPs had been putting in No confidence letters in to get Sunak and it was always said ( by people actually paid to speculate ) that if they did that HE would retaliate by calling a snap Election
If they had won he's out anyway , so from his viewpoint he takes a bet and tries to win and stays as Leader and PM
Incredibly the Letters seem to still be going in and I'm not paid to speculate or commentate on Politic BUT the reaction of Tobias Ellwood this morning when asked about the Letters going in suggested they were
He was raging which to me said they must be going in or he would have played it down
Presumably they can get them in in time to remove him otherwise it wouldn't be an issue but Ellwood was saying this is the very last thing we need now
-
Need the Tories out but ideally a Labour majority as low as possible.
-
Former Tory MP Rory Stewart has called Richie's decision to call an election, 'Insane'.
I wonder if Sunak is sick of all the infighting and plots to get rid of him, and just wants to get out asap and in the process ensure a good few of his detractors lose their jobs in the process?
He then could have the rest of the year off and start his new job in January. (My bet is in the USA, if he can find that Green Card of course, probably with Meta or a similar outfit).
-
so here we go.
In 6 weeks we'll have a new government which I suspect will be in power despite (maybe) 55-60% of votes in total being for other parties. if maybe 70-75% of the electorate actually vote, the winning party may only have the votes of around 30% of the whole electorate.
Yes for control of parliament the winners need an absolute majority of seats, but it is possible that one party can win just enough seats, most with tiny majorities, where their main opponent wins fewer seats but with huge individual majorities - therefore more votes in total than the winning party.
Surely it's time for PR.?
-
Need the Tories out but ideally a Labour majority as low as possible.
So the Tories can come back in 2029?
-
Interesting. Farage is staying out of the election.
-
I wonder what the note in the treasury will say this time?
-
I wonder what the note in the treasury will say this time?
“You thought last time was bad”
“We’ve given all the money to our cronies”
-
And for those expecting a change in the polling over the 6 week period, we dont really normally see that. You'd be hard pushed to bet against a labour majority of some size.
Unless Starmer gets caught on video skinning alive a baby, Labour are stuck on for a 200 seat majority over the Tories.
Be careful BST, pride often comes before a fall.
The overriding feeling I got from yesterday's initial 'vox pops' was utter apathy. There are probably millions of voters out there who are totally disillusioned with politics and won't even bother to vote.
That won't help Labour.
-
Need the Tories out but ideally a Labour majority as low as possible.
So the Tories can come back in 2029?
Why would they?
This is to do with the forthcoming election and not the one in 2029.
I think Tories have done a lot of damage over the past 14 years and in my opinion I think they will struggle to get in again.
But I also believe Labour will become even more unpopular when as expected they will get in.
But the Greens, Independents are making up ground slowly.
-
I wonder what the note in the treasury will say this time?
We'll see you again when both us identical parties trade back power in 2029.
-
And for those expecting a change in the polling over the 6 week period, we dont really normally see that. You'd be hard pushed to bet against a labour majority of some size.
Unless Starmer gets caught on video skinning alive a baby, Labour are stuck on for a 200 seat majority over the Tories.
Be careful BST, pride often comes before a fall.
The overriding feeling I got from yesterday's initial 'vox pops' was utter apathy. There are probably millions of voters out there who are totally disillusioned with politics and won't even bother to vote.
That won't help Labour.
Sunak has commissioned a long range forecast for July 4th.
Thunderstorms, lightning, floods and pestilence, otherwise a nice day for a stroll to a polling station!
-
And for those expecting a change in the polling over the 6 week period, we dont really normally see that. You'd be hard pushed to bet against a labour majority of some size.
Unless Starmer gets caught on video skinning alive a baby, Labour are stuck on for a 200 seat majority over the Tories.
Be careful BST, pride often comes before a fall.
The overriding feeling I got from yesterday's initial 'vox pops' was utter apathy. There are probably millions of voters out there who are totally disillusioned with politics and won't even bother to vote.
That won't help Labour.
Voting should be compulsory IMHO. But I also think there should be a “none of the above” option on the polling card.
If “none of the above” wins, have a fresh vote.
Or, if folks don’t vote, their vote automatically goes to the sitting MP.
-
I watched Sunak's announcement in Downing Street with mixed emotions and a degree of fascination.
Why on earth would you make such an important speech whilst getting piss wet through? You could argue that he remained composed in difficult circumstances, but it really wasn't a good look and was quite distracting to watch.
As for the goon at the end of Downing Street with the ghetto blaster - I couldn't help thinking 'can you imagine that happening in Russia, or China, or Georgia?'
I'm a bit old fashioned but at least let's show a bit of common decency and respect when the Prime Minister is making an important announcement.
And whatever happens between now and the election, let's be grateful we live in a democracy, unlike so many poor souls in other countries who aren't so fortunate.
-
I watched Sunak's announcement in Downing Street with mixed emotions and a degree of fascination.
Why on earth would you make such an important speech whilst getting piss wet through? You could argue that he remained composed in difficult circumstances, but it really wasn't a good look and was quite distracting to watch.
As for the goon at the end of Downing Street with the ghetto blaster - I couldn't help thinking 'can you imagine that happening in Russia, or China, or Georgia?'
I'm a bit old fashioned but at least let's show a bit of common decency and respect when the Prime Minister is making an important announcement.
And whatever happens between now and the election, let's be grateful we live in a democracy, unlike so many poor souls in other countries who aren't so fortunate.
We are slowly going into anti-democratic territory however.
It wouldn't happen because they have authoritarian regimes.
At the end of the day he shouldn't be so corrupt and have done such a bad job so in my eyes it was fully warranted.
-
Need the Tories out but ideally a Labour majority as low as possible.
So the Tories can come back in 2029?
Why would they?
This is to do with the forthcoming election and not the one in 2029.
I think Tories have done a lot of damage over the past 14 years and in my opinion I think they will struggle to get in again.
But I also believe Labour will become even more unpopular when as expected they will get in.
But the Greens, Independents are making up ground slowly.
Stop and think.
The only way Labour gets in with a small majority is if the Tories get 250 seats.
There is no other realistic scenario where that happens.
If the Tories get 250 seats, that's a massive win for them and they are well set to come back in 2029.
That's the reality. You can wish all you want that Greens and Independents will win 150 seats between them. Meanwhile, the rest of us deal with the world as it actually is.
-
Need the Tories out but ideally a Labour majority as low as possible.
So the Tories can come back in 2029?
Why would they?
This is to do with the forthcoming election and not the one in 2029.
I think Tories have done a lot of damage over the past 14 years and in my opinion I think they will struggle to get in again.
But I also believe Labour will become even more unpopular when as expected they will get in.
But the Greens, Independents are making up ground slowly.
Stop and think.
The only way Labour gets in with a small majority is if the Tories get 250 seats.
There is no other realistic scenario where that happens.
If the Tories get 250 seats, that's a massive win for them and they are well set to come back in 2029.
That's the reality. You can wish all you want that Greens and Independents will win 150 seats between them. Meanwhile, the rest of us deal with the world as it actually is.
When did I say greens and independents would get 150 seats between them?
In an ideal world yes but there will be some surprises along the way.
We will just see what happens come 4th July or whenever it is.
-
Tactical voting is going to be absolutely huge in this election and that's going to help Labour more than most. Without tactical voting they're going to require a massive swing following the calamity of 2019. To be fair, the polls suggest that they could probably get this swing, but tactical Labour/Liberal voting will certainly help. The fact that Reform will be taking away votes from the Conservatives will obviously help Labour too.
On a different note, I saw the PM on telly this morning and you could clearly see what their tactic is going be - A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for stability. I think they've got this wrong as I reckon that people will be asking themselves these questions to make their minds up who to vote for:
1. Can I/my kids afford to buy or rent a house
2. Are migration numbers falling
3. Can I see a Doctor or Dentist
4. Am I financially better off
-
Tactical voting is going to be absolutely huge in this election and that's going to help Labour more than most. Without tactical voting they're going to require a massive swing following the calamity of 2019. To be fair, the polls suggest that they could probably get this swing, but tactical Labour/Liberal voting will certainly help. The fact that Reform will be taking away votes from the Conservatives will obviously help Labour too.
On a different note, I saw the PM on telly this morning and you could clearly see what their tactic is going be - A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for stability. I think they've got this wrong as I reckon that people will be asking themselves these questions to make their minds up who to vote for:
1. Can I/my kids afford to buy or rent a house
2. Are migration numbers falling
3. Can I see a Doctor or Dentist
4. Am I financially better off
That swing needed is from the last election, that gap has been steadily eroded since then
-
Tactical voting is going to be absolutely huge in this election and that's going to help Labour more than most. Without tactical voting they're going to require a massive swing following the calamity of 2019. To be fair, the polls suggest that they could probably get this swing, but tactical Labour/Liberal voting will certainly help. The fact that Reform will be taking away votes from the Conservatives will obviously help Labour too.
On a different note, I saw the PM on telly this morning and you could clearly see what their tactic is going be - A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for stability. I think they've got this wrong as I reckon that people will be asking themselves these questions to make their minds up who to vote for:
1. Can I/my kids afford to buy or rent a house
2. Are migration numbers falling
3. Can I see a Doctor or Dentist
4. Am I financially better off
I would have thought heating our homes, feeding our families, childcare etc would be much more important than immigration?
-
When it comes down to it where are Tory voters going to turn? That's the big question.
So far in my head...
Tories - no vision, party all over place. Fine with Sunak but too many nutters.
Labour - strong leader, fairly moderate, policies quite uninspiring so far, change not overly radical, policy content key.
Lib Dems - are they just a protest party, what's their key points?
Reform - populists, nothing more.
Greens - just too left wing for me.
Count binface - can he stand in Doncaster central please?
You just look at it as ever and think they might be uninspiring but labour feels a safe bet to me right now unless the propose something stupid policy wise.
All set for Boris 2029 I suspect.
-
Need the Tories out but ideally a Labour majority as low as possible.
So the Tories can come back in 2029?
Why would they?
This is to do with the forthcoming election and not the one in 2029.
I think Tories have done a lot of damage over the past 14 years and in my opinion I think they will struggle to get in again.
But I also believe Labour will become even more unpopular when as expected they will get in.
But the Greens, Independents are making up ground slowly.
Stop and think.
The only way Labour gets in with a small majority is if the Tories get 250 seats.
There is no other realistic scenario where that happens.
If the Tories get 250 seats, that's a massive win for them and they are well set to come back in 2029.
That's the reality. You can wish all you want that Greens and Independents will win 150 seats between them. Meanwhile, the rest of us deal with the world as it actually is.
When did I say greens and independents would get 150 seats between them?
In an ideal world yes but there will be some surprises along the way.
We will just see what happens come 4th July or whenever it is.
Go on then.
How do you get a small Lab majority without:
a)The Tories getting enough seats not to be in total meltdown
Or
b)A bunch of small parties getting well over a hundred seats?
-
The small parties in the future would get over 100 Seats if we had PR
This time round Green Party will get about 10% of votes cast and equating to 65 seats under PR but will get 1 Seat in Brighton Pavilion maybe 1 more if they are lucky
It stinks because if they did get 65 seats the non voters totalling 13 million who say " my vote doesn't count , my vote is irrelevant , might just might see that it does (under PR) and begin to vote for them
That would be better than Pinocchio Johnson getting 43% of votes cast and getting way more than 279 Seats
-
Well that's a good start for Rich-ie.
At his Ilkeston meet the people q and a session this morning it now turns out at least 2 of the high viz wearing warehouse attendees were in fact disguised Conservative Councillors admitting to being asked to attend the event and both "chosen" to ask pre planned questions, as per Adam Bienkov Political Editor Byline Times ........ oh dear!
-
I agree Wolf
But this is the system we have.
-
The small parties in the future would get over 100 Seats if we had PR
This time round Green Party will get about 10% of votes cast and equating to 65 seats under PR but will get 1 Seat in Brighton Pavilion maybe 1 more if they are lucky
It stinks because if they did get 65 seats the non voters totalling 13 million who say " my vote doesn't count , my vote is irrelevant , might just might see that it does (under PR) and begin to vote for them
That would be better than Pinocchio Johnson getting 43% of votes cast and getting way more than 279 Seats
The trouble is the two main parties always go quiet on PR or don't mention it at all when they're in the ascendency. They don't give a stuff about the minor parties and would never want to promote or advance their aims. Talk about democracy for them means something completely different.
A great many people feel totally disenfranchised in their constituencies because of this system and would welcome the possibility of PR.
The Tories only allowed a referendum on PR at the cost of LD support last time this was raised. Ive on doubt that Labour will be very quite on this and will not wish it to be discussed at the top level.
When you look back at what we've had to endure from previous governments of both colours it would of been interesting to have seen how a PR system would have tempered their excesses.
Instead of lurching back and forth every time the government changes(don't you just get sick of listening to politicians saying they will need x amount of years to undo the mess the other side have made, before they proceed to make their own bigger mess) This nation needs stability and longer term planning, things that only a PR system would give us.
This really needs to be considered for the countries future long term benefit.
Not much chance of that in the next election cycle.
-
The small parties in the future would get over 100 Seats if we had PR
This time round Green Party will get about 10% of votes cast and equating to 65 seats under PR but will get 1 Seat in Brighton Pavilion maybe 1 more if they are lucky
It stinks because if they did get 65 seats the non voters totalling 13 million who say " my vote doesn't count , my vote is irrelevant , might just might see that it does (under PR) and begin to vote for them
That would be better than Pinocchio Johnson getting 43% of votes cast and getting way more than 279 Seats
UKIP had only one MP, Douglas Carswell, despite winning nearly four million votes and 12% of the total vote in 2015.
-
And the covid inquiry continues ............
''NEW: Simon Case says he knew nothing about Rishi Sunak’s ‘eat out to help out’ Covid hospitality scheme until the day it was announced - despite being both permanent secretary and the head of the government’s taskforce.
Case says he also had no idea about the public health worries until August 2020, when it was already running.
Hugo Keith: “Barnard Castle....
“ Simon Case, off-screen: *loud sigh*
Simon Case says both the Dominic Cummings/Barnard Castle jaunt and No 10 parties would “feel like a terrible insult” to bereaved families. He says government polling at the time showed Barnard Castle badly damaged public confidence in abiding by Covid rules.
Blimey - Hugo Keith says Simon Case’s witness statement says some failings under Boris Johnson and his team amounted to “the worst governing ever seen”. Asked about this, Case again becomes emotional: “There were some dark days when it felt that we just couldn’t get it right.”
The Guardian
Some election slogans being written as we speak.
-
And the covid inquiry continues ............
''NEW: Simon Case says he knew nothing about Rishi Sunak’s ‘eat out to help out’ Covid hospitality scheme until the day it was announced - despite being both permanent secretary and the head of the government’s taskforce.
Case says he also had no idea about the public health worries until August 2020, when it was already running.
Hugo Keith: “Barnard Castle....
“ Simon Case, off-screen: *loud sigh*
Simon Case says both the Dominic Cummings/Barnard Castle jaunt and No 10 parties would “feel like a terrible insult” to bereaved families. He says government polling at the time showed Barnard Castle badly damaged public confidence in abiding by Covid rules.
Blimey - Hugo Keith says Simon Case’s witness statement says some failings under Boris Johnson and his team amounted to “the worst governing ever seen”. Asked about this, Case again becomes emotional: “There were some dark days when it felt that we just couldn’t get it right.”
The Guardian
Some election slogans being written as we speak.
Have to say, I'm astonished this inquiry isn't suspended under purdah rules.
-
And the covid inquiry continues ............
''NEW: Simon Case says he knew nothing about Rishi Sunak’s ‘eat out to help out’ Covid hospitality scheme until the day it was announced - despite being both permanent secretary and the head of the government’s taskforce.
Case says he also had no idea about the public health worries until August 2020, when it was already running.
Hugo Keith: “Barnard Castle....
“ Simon Case, off-screen: *loud sigh*
Simon Case says both the Dominic Cummings/Barnard Castle jaunt and No 10 parties would “feel like a terrible insult” to bereaved families. He says government polling at the time showed Barnard Castle badly damaged public confidence in abiding by Covid rules.
Blimey - Hugo Keith says Simon Case’s witness statement says some failings under Boris Johnson and his team amounted to “the worst governing ever seen”. Asked about this, Case again becomes emotional: “There were some dark days when it felt that we just couldn’t get it right.”
The Guardian
Some election slogans being written as we speak.
Have to say, I'm astonished this inquiry isn't suspended under purdah rules.
Due to report in September. So possibly another reason why Sunak doesn't want an election in October.
-
Anyone fancy being a Tory MP? 93 constituencies still looking for a candidate apparently
https://x.com/christopherhope/status/1793676662997234096
-
Apparently Danny Kruger is looked upon as being one of the intellects in the Tory party. I think that might get somewhere towards the core of the problem.
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1793425368860541384
-
Apparently Danny Kruger is looked upon as being one of the intellects in the Tory party. I think that might get somewhere towards the core of the problem.
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1793425368860541384
Self awareness doesn’t appear an attribute there
-
I wonder what the note in the treasury will say this time?
“You thought last time was bad”
“We’ve given all the money to our cronies”
I remember someone on here saying it was traditional for the outgoing chancellor to leave a note for the incoming one.
I don’t suppose there is a standard note content.
-
I wonder what the note in the treasury will say this time?
“You thought last time was bad”
“We’ve given all the money to our cronies”
I remember someone on here saying it was traditional for the outgoing chancellor to leave a note for the incoming one.
I don’t suppose there is a standard note content.
In 1964, outgoing Tory chancellor Reggie Maudling left a note for his Labour successor, Jim Callaghan: “Good luck, old cock. Sorry to leave it in such a mess.” Callaghan reportedly thought he was talking about the state of his office at first, before he looked at the books.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/byrne-baby-byrne
-
I wonder what the note in the treasury will say this time?
“You thought last time was bad”
“We’ve given all the money to our cronies”
I remember someone on here saying it was traditional for the outgoing chancellor to leave a note for the incoming one.
I don’t suppose there is a standard note content.
In 1964, outgoing Tory chancellor Reggie Maudling left a note for his Labour successor, Jim Callaghan: “Good luck, old cock. Sorry to leave it in such a mess.” Callaghan reportedly thought he was talking about the state of his office at first, before he looked at the books.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/byrne-baby-byrne
Quite funny that.
And I bet that there have been equally as funny ones left by outgoing Labour chancellors.
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
-
And for those expecting a change in the polling over the 6 week period, we dont really normally see that. You'd be hard pushed to bet against a labour majority of some size.
Unless Starmer gets caught on video skinning alive a baby, Labour are stuck on for a 200 seat majority over the Tories.
Kier Starmer is obviously a charlatan and womaniser.
There couldn't be any other reason for the vitriol he gets on here unless certain posters have got home to find their Mrs on all fours calling him daddy.
How about him ditching almost every policy he stood on to get the Labour leadership, when he was pretending to be a left leaning MP with the interests of the working class at heart?
Haven't you seen the Beth Rigby interview with him?
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Till he's next elected, give me a break.
-
Can you imagine risky hanging around for another shot after any sort of period running that mob in opposition, he hasn't got the sense to come in out of the rain.
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Till he's next elected, give me a break.
Why should I give you a break? You're wrong, as usual.
Well, either that, or you were lying?
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Till he's next elected, give me a break.
Why should I give you a break? You're wrong, as usual.
Well, either that, or you were lying?
Up past your bedtime again bb?
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Till he's next elected, give me a break.
Why should I give you a break? You're wrong, as usual.
Well, either that, or you were lying?
Up past your bedtime again bb?
The Bullet never lies........ Unlike you, Sydernaye.
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Due to rain?
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Until when?
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Until when?
Until he's in a position to implement them.
-
Last gasp of the awful Rwanda policy.
It could never work.
It was never intended to work.
It's sole intention was to open up a front in the Culture War. Proposed but never implemented by a rabble that has no ideas left.
And it's cost up half a billion quid. Just to try to save a handful of wretched Tory MPs.
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Until when?
Until he's in a position to implement them.
Never then.
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Till he's next elected, give me a break.
Why should I give you a break? You're wrong, as usual.
Well, either that, or you were lying?
Up past your bedtime again bb?
The Bullet never lies........ Unlike you, Sydernaye.
the bullet must be a dumdum aye?
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
-
I guess you will be calling risky a liar for cancelling the Rwanda and non-smoking bills, aye bb?
Rishi hasn't cancelled Rwanda and the non-smoking bill, he's postponed them.
Till he's next elected, give me a break.
Why should I give you a break? You're wrong, as usual.
Well, either that, or you were lying?
Up past your bedtime again bb?
The Bullet never lies........ Unlike you, Sydernaye.
the bullet must be a dumdum aye?
Every country has its educated and its uneducated. The real problems come from the miseducated.
-
[quote author=Sprotyrover
Well I have read some Fairy stories on here but this takes the biscuit! If this were true, the perpetrators would gain 4 months extra in office and then would preside over the utter destruction of the Tories as a party at the Election!.
[/quote]
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-minister-asked-whether-she-could-submit-no-confidence-letter-after-pm-announced-election-sky-news-understands-13142247
Not a Fairy story, then?
The Health Minister, ie one of Richie's top team, wanted to throw in a No Confidence letter.
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
In all fairness it was the MSM murdoch run empire and his own MP's? I mean who would sabotage their own parties chances for them to get in? Very bizarre,
He is not everyone's cup of tea but because he represented what most people desire which is bringing all the previously privatised public services back into public ownership, taxing the rich fairly, opposition to war and austerity and the fact he was anti-semitic? Found to be false through the labour files.
They actually have more issues with excluding jews from the labour party under KS than they did before and Labour are now in favor of corporate and establishments interests.
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
Which is exactly my point, it's the human condition, nothing can ever be perfect.
I think nothing ever, can ever or will ever change, its the nature of the system we have in place.
Again we have soros, the WEF, big business, the banks etc dictating the agenda, its like a huge oil tanker pulling in one direction, a change of mps won't really change anything, as they are like a bunch of chaotic speed boats all over the place.
At best, at a local level they could change things but only for the short term .
-
Why won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
-
Why won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
Because two more u turns is better than six which will inevitably happen when under scrutiny
-
The best advice Starmer can get between now and the election.
Attend every interview and media briefing with his CHANGE placard army behind him.
Keep mumbling about change very three seconds and don't say very much else.
Send Raynor off on a battle bus to a Butlins long weekend at Skeggy that lasts until July5th.
Substitute himself for a cardboard cutout of himself in any debate he foolishly decides to attend.
Get Reeves some laughing gas canisters to take each morning so she actually sounds human.
In an extreme emergency shout CHANGE loud and often, and deny anything else.
Final deal breaker, do your shirt up and get a tie, the Tony Blair look just wont cut it with ya mutton chops.
That should seal the election!
-
Why won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
Did you complain when Johnson wouldn’t do debates?
-
Why won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
Did you complain when Johnson wouldn’t do debates?
Same old shtick stick form sprot!
-
Why won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
Why the hell do we need 6 debates? We're already sure to be absolutely fed up to the back teeth of the election and of politicians by the time all this is over, the last thing that we want is more of them on the telly. Two debates is more than enough.
-
Some interesting points made on the radio this morning. Apparently there are some very senior members of the Tory party who are putting more effort into their leadership bids than they are canvassing for the election. Also heard Rory Stewart stating that a cabinet member had told him that one of the drivers for Sunak calling the election was that so many Tory MP's were going to see him and pleading for an election as they're so exhausted trying to deal with all of the craziness going on around them.
-
Why won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
Did you complain when Johnson wouldn’t do debates?
[/quote
Don’t think so, Why don’t you or some other loser check my back Catalogue?
-
Why won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
Did you complain when Johnson wouldn’t do debates?
Same old shtick stick form sprot!
[/quoteWhy won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
Did you complain when Johnson wouldn’t do debates?
Same old shtick stick form sprot!
Why won’t Stammer agree to Six Debates, he only dare agree to two?
Did you complain when Johnson wouldn’t do debates?
Same old shtick stick form sprot!
You been on The VB again idiot?
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
f**k me it's like someone left a tap running from a far right cess pit.Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
Which is exactly my point, it's the human condition, nothing can ever be perfect.
I think nothing ever, can ever or will ever change, its the nature of the system we have in place.
Again we have soros, the WEF, big business, the banks etc dictating the agenda, its like a huge oil tanker pulling in one direction, a change of mps won't really change anything, as they are like a bunch of chaotic speed boats all over the place.
At best, at a local level they could change things but only for the short term .
Of course it's well established that when far right troublemakers say "Soros" they mean "Jews". If you're going to repeat racist tropes on here, at least have the balls not to hide them.
-
Surely the way this thread is going it is pointless.
It’s like a tennis match with insult rallies back and forth rather than a ball.
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
f**k me it's like someone left a tap running from a far right cess pit.Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
Which is exactly my point, it's the human condition, nothing can ever be perfect.
I think nothing ever, can ever or will ever change, its the nature of the system we have in place.
Again we have soros, the WEF, big business, the banks etc dictating the agenda, its like a huge oil tanker pulling in one direction, a change of mps won't really change anything, as they are like a bunch of chaotic speed boats all over the place.
At best, at a local level they could change things but only for the short term .
Of course it's well established that when far right troublemakers say "Soros" they mean "Jews". If you're going to repeat racist tropes on here, at least have the balls not to hide them.
Some real Horseshoe Theory topics there.
-
Surely the way this thread is going it is pointless.
It’s like a tennis match with insult rallies back and forth rather than a ball.
How right you are idler but prepare yourself for much worse to come over the next few weeks.
It is going to get really horrible.
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
f**k me it's like someone left a tap running from a far right cess pit.Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
Which is exactly my point, it's the human condition, nothing can ever be perfect.
I think nothing ever, can ever or will ever change, its the nature of the system we have in place.
Again we have soros, the WEF, big business, the banks etc dictating the agenda, its like a huge oil tanker pulling in one direction, a change of mps won't really change anything, as they are like a bunch of chaotic speed boats all over the place.
At best, at a local level they could change things but only for the short term .
Of course it's well established that when far right troublemakers say "Soros" they mean "Jews". If you're going to repeat racist tropes on here, at least have the balls not to hide them.
Absolute b*llocks billy, just the usual far leftist crap your spouting. Someone has a differing opinion to you ? You call them racist, it happens so much the words lost all meaning.
Tell you what, let's meet up and talk about it? Let's see what you'll say when your not hiding behind your keyboard old lad ?
Let's see if you've got the balls to say it to my face .
-
Surely the way this thread is going it is pointless.
It’s like a tennis match with insult rallies back and forth rather than a ball.
No worse than many of the football topics I've read over the past couple of years idler.
-
Here's most of the past 14 years in one package, I guess there will be the usual whining around who wrote/published it, but you could pick out anything that's missing or incorrect for debate.
''Make this the punishment election – damning the Tories for 14 years of cruelty and lies''
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/24/punishment-election-tories-voters-lies
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
f**k me it's like someone left a tap running from a far right cess pit.Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
Which is exactly my point, it's the human condition, nothing can ever be perfect.
I think nothing ever, can ever or will ever change, its the nature of the system we have in place.
Again we have soros, the WEF, big business, the banks etc dictating the agenda, its like a huge oil tanker pulling in one direction, a change of mps won't really change anything, as they are like a bunch of chaotic speed boats all over the place.
At best, at a local level they could change things but only for the short term .
Of course it's well established that when far right troublemakers say "Soros" they mean "Jews". If you're going to repeat racist tropes on here, at least have the balls not to hide them.
Absolute b*llocks billy, just the usual far leftist crap your spouting. Someone has a differing opinion to you ? You call them racist, it happens so much the words lost all meaning.
Tell you what, let's meet up and talk about it? Let's see what you'll say when your not hiding behind your keyboard old lad ?
Let's see if you've got the balls to say it to my face .
Far right thug, thats what happens when you can’t win a debate
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
Which is exactly my point, it's the human condition, nothing can ever be perfect.
I think nothing ever, can ever or will ever change, its the nature of the system we have in place.
Again we have soros, the WEF, big business, the banks etc dictating the agenda, its like a huge oil tanker pulling in one direction, a change of mps won't really change anything, as they are like a bunch of chaotic speed boats all over the place.
At best, at a local level they could change things but only for the short term .
A Corbyn led LP would have dealt with some of that. Keith is as likely to spread the wealth as much as Sunak. Fact.
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
f**k me it's like someone left a tap running from a far right cess pit.Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
Which is exactly my point, it's the human condition, nothing can ever be perfect.
I think nothing ever, can ever or will ever change, its the nature of the system we have in place.
Again we have soros, the WEF, big business, the banks etc dictating the agenda, its like a huge oil tanker pulling in one direction, a change of mps won't really change anything, as they are like a bunch of chaotic speed boats all over the place.
At best, at a local level they could change things but only for the short term .
Of course it's well established that when far right troublemakers say "Soros" they mean "Jews". If you're going to repeat racist tropes on here, at least have the balls not to hide them.
Absolute b*llocks billy, just the usual far leftist crap your spouting. Someone has a differing opinion to you ? You call them racist, it happens so much the words lost all meaning.
Tell you what, let's meet up and talk about it? Let's see what you'll say when your not hiding behind your keyboard old lad ?
Let's see if you've got the balls to say it to my face .
Far right thug, thats what happens when you can’t win a debate
It's Ronnie Pickering.
-
Meanwhile.
https://x.com/JamesRWithers/status/1794000019282186281
-
Michael Gove is the latest on a very long list of Tory MPs to announce they won't be seeking re-election. The rats are fleeing the sinking ship.
-
Andrea Leadsom bails out now, the whole cabal are jumping ship
EDIT: just a rumour at the moment
SECOND EDIT: now bailed out
-
Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
f**k me it's like someone left a tap running from a far right cess pit.Does anyone actually think anything will change? Seriously?
It's just a baton change .
The government doesn't have any real power anymore, the agenda is set by soros, the WEF, the globalists, big business etc and implemented by the civil service.
It's just an illusion of choice, plus labour will just bring their own problems and f**k ups, christ its the party who had jeremy corbyn running it !
Any comments on the party that had Liz Truss running it?
Which is exactly my point, it's the human condition, nothing can ever be perfect.
I think nothing ever, can ever or will ever change, its the nature of the system we have in place.
Again we have soros, the WEF, big business, the banks etc dictating the agenda, its like a huge oil tanker pulling in one direction, a change of mps won't really change anything, as they are like a bunch of chaotic speed boats all over the place.
At best, at a local level they could change things but only for the short term .
Of course it's well established that when far right troublemakers say "Soros" they mean "Jews". If you're going to repeat racist tropes on here, at least have the balls not to hide them.
Absolute b*llocks billy, just the usual far leftist crap your spouting. Someone has a differing opinion to you ? You call them racist, it happens so much the words lost all meaning.
Tell you what, let's meet up and talk about it? Let's see what you'll say when your not hiding behind your keyboard old lad ?
Let's see if you've got the balls to say it to my face .
Far right thug, thats what happens when you can’t win a debate
They.must have drpped at.last, time to change from Soprano to what tenor?
-
''Tory donors pour cash into seats held by big names at risk of losing
Exclusive: Over £2.5m for MPs such as Fox and Mordaunt in what will be the highest-spending UK election''
''Penny Mordaunt has received more than £70,000 from donors to defend her Portsmouth North seat''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/24/tory-donors-pour-cash-seats-big-names-risk-losing-gove-mordaunt
Wasn't there someone suggesting labour should do it without money or something similar?
-
Andrea Leadsom bails out now, the whole cabal are jumping ship
EDIT: just a rumour at the moment
SECOND EDIT: now bailed out
The count so far is 70 tories walking away.
-
Mmmm, Gove the government spokesman for the Sun. Only hours ago he was making an impassioned speech. Reign in democratic protest! Damn these racist bad Palestine protests...
And now. he's off. Just like that.
-
Strange one, Gove.
Highly intelligent. Clearly a competent minister, or he wouldn't have held office for 14 years.
But some of the shite he's pulled over the years...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/24/sunak-to-take-a-day-at-home-after-hapless-election-campaign-start?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This guy might actually be the worst campaigner there is. Two days spent talking to people who aren't his manservants and he's f**ked.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/24/sunak-to-take-a-day-at-home-after-hapless-election-campaign-start?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This guy might actually be the worst campaigner there is. Two days spent talking to people who aren't his manservants and he's f**ked.
I said months ago that he'd be a car crash in a GE campaign. Didn't expect it to fall apart so quickly though. He's not even been put under pressure yet.
-
Who on earth is advising him? Taking a day away from the campaign at this point is bordering on suicidal.
-
Read today the conservatives don't have a candidate in over 20% of seats with possibility of that increasing. This means instead of campaigning, they have to spend time selecting. It's like being able to decide when season starts and despite other teams being match ready, saying we will see you a 3pm tomorrow despite only having 3 players and weavers mate in goal.
How can this have been planned?
-
The Spectator gave give him a bashing for making himself the focus of the campaign with the lowest personal PM ratings since ww2, but then I guess if you don't know who will be standing down in the next couple of minutes you don't have much choice.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/24/sunak-to-take-a-day-at-home-after-hapless-election-campaign-start?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This guy might actually be the worst campaigner there is. Two days spent talking to people who aren't his manservants and he's f**ked.
Maybe he's having a Pool party whilst they decide whether to get Johnson on board with the campaign. They certainly need a World Statesman of his stature to boost their ratings.
Let's just hope Boris remembers his trunks; You know what he's like!!
-
The last thing Boris is, was, or ever could be, is a “statesman”..
-
The last thing Boris is, was, or ever could be, is a “statesman”..
I said 'World Statesman' IDM. 'World Statesman' lol
-
I wonder if some of them are walking away from a potential hiding in this election, only to volunteer to stand in the next election if things go badly for the next government. A bit like white knights riding to the rescue. One thing for sure is that Gove and his ilk won’t suffer financially despite failing miserably at their jobs.
-
I wonder if some of them are walking away from a potential hiding in this election, only to volunteer to stand in the next election if things go badly for the next government. A bit like white knights riding to the rescue. One thing for sure is that Gove and his ilk won’t suffer financially despite failing miserably at their jobs.
No one wants to be the Portillo moment
-
None of them want to be held accountable by the electorate
-
Looks like Putin's Bot Farm wants a Sunak victory.
-
Where are those quotes from?
-
X
-
Getting close to 80 now, what's the betting risky retires hurt next?
-
So Sunak sits at home nearly all day figuring out what the hell to do.
It's only the third day of the campaign and they are having to bootstrap a relaunch already. Absolutely unprecedented.
How does the BBC cover this?
By totally ignoring it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevvxwq9ypko
That's what happens when the entire governance of the BBC is filled with Tory placemen.
-
Even tory members of Parliament have accepted the the only good ones are either ex members, or dead.
-
You would think that something that is ''"pernicious" and "profoundly anti-Conservative" would be a high priority right?
When asked ..........
''if cutting inheritance the tax would be a priority''
Hunt said: "I hope it's something that over time a Conservative government would be able to look at.”
-
Looks like Johnson is using a shite GPT code to write his weekly pieces for his £1,000,000 per year from the Mail.
https://x.com/oldtrotter/status/1794274360947306835/photo/1
-
Judging by the last 6 Posts it looks like the Femi Nazis
Have taken over, are they all menstruating together I wonder?
-
https://x.com/David_Cameron/status/1794408108904603768
Yep. That's the man who called the Brexit referendum accusing someone else of having no plan.
-
The superb journalist and author John Sweeney, is standing for the LDs in Solihull. He's one LD MP I'd have a huge amount of respect for.
The news he is going to be a candidate brought this response on Twitter.
https://x.com/unilincolncoo/status/1794347014949343506
Sweeney's reaction?
https://x.com/johnsweeneyroar/status/1794423569117798597
Bravo sir.
-
Bloody hell, mandatory national service for young people. That's confirmed it; Sunak definitely has had enough and wants to f*ck off to his ranch in California.
-
Bloody hell, mandatory national service for young people. That's confirmed it; Sunak definitely has had enough and wants to f*ck off to his ranch in California.
“Home Secretary James Cleverly said National Service will help bottle the “Blitz Spirit” we saw during the pandemic.”
Cringe.
-
I’m sure there’s no coincidence that the time Cleverly’s quote refers to was their highest post-election peak in polling. (Correct me if I’m wrong).
They’re just trying to run off vague vibes aren’t they?
-
Embarrassing. Guess this is what he spent his day off dreaming up. Piss weak bait for Daily Mail readers who hate their kids.
-
Jesus f**king wept.
It's like that episode of the Thick of It, where they spent a day trying to come up with a name for the kind of True British qualities they wanted to support, and settled on "Quiet Bat-People".
Imagine being a moderately competent minister and having to go into the TV studios tomorrow morning to bat for this.
f**king ludicrous.
-
Embarrassing. Guess this is what he spent his day off dreaming up. Piss weak bait for Daily Mail readers who hate their kids.
https://x.com/RobDotHutton/status/1794484867750568215/photo/1
-
Fake news.
-
Fake news.
Hound, how dare you suggest it's fake news? I'll have you know it's on Twitter!
-
Fake news.
The National Service story? It’s on the front page of every paper tomorrow.
-
Fake news.
The National Service story? It’s on the front page of every paper tomorrow.
The Mirror & People run with ‘Eamon & Ruth Split Shock’.
-
Bloody hell, mandatory national service for young people. That's confirmed it; Sunak definitely has had enough and wants to f*ck off to his ranch in California.
“Home Secretary James Cleverly said National Service will help bottle the “Blitz Spirit” we saw during the pandemic.”
Cringe.
What's the next plan? Ask the Luftwaffe to bomb us every night to bring back the real Blitz Spirit?
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Maybe the National Service proposals shouldn't be aimed at everyone, as you rightly point out, some like your lad and his mates clearly don't need it and are setting a fine example.
Perhaps this should be used as a backstop for those who won't try to (or can't) better themselves?
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Being 18 is a really difficult stage in life, there’s a lot going on in life while you’re still trying to work out how the world works.
On top of that, if your lad and others had to be taken out of work it’s lost tax revenue for the government on top of the initial spending for this pointless policy.
And shops and bars will be short staffed on weekends with this! More stress on small businesses.
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Being 18 is a really difficult stage in life, there’s a lot going on in life while you’re still trying to work out how the world works.
On top of that, if your lad and others had to be taken out of work it’s lost tax revenue for the government on top of the initial spending for this pointless policy.
And shops and bars will be short staffed on weekends with this! More stress on small businesses.
Make it for the unemployed?
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Maybe the National Service proposals shouldn't be aimed at everyone, as you rightly point out, some like your lad and his mates clearly don't need it and are setting a fine example.
Perhaps this should be used as a backstop for those who won't try to (or can't) better themselves?
I’m with you on this IDM.
It should be for the types who are out at night stealing from people, car thieves, drug dealers and anti social kids.
Better for all involved than being sent to prison.
Those like the ones mentioned by Turnbull shouldn’t be drafted.
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Maybe the National Service proposals shouldn't be aimed at everyone, as you rightly point out, some like your lad and his mates clearly don't need it and are setting a fine example.
Perhaps this should be used as a backstop for those who won't try to (or can't) better themselves?
I’m with you on this IDM.
It should be for the types who are out at night stealing from people, car thieves, drug dealers and anti social kids.
Better for all involved than being sent to prison.
Those like the ones mentioned by Turnbull shouldn’t be drafted.
Where is the infrastructure to mange this Hound? You seem to be another easily swayed by a headline without thinking it through.
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Maybe the National Service proposals shouldn't be aimed at everyone, as you rightly point out, some like your lad and his mates clearly don't need it and are setting a fine example.
Perhaps this should be used as a backstop for those who won't try to (or can't) better themselves?
I’m with you on this IDM.
It should be for the types who are out at night stealing from people, car thieves, drug dealers and anti social kids.
Better for all involved than being sent to prison.
Those like the ones mentioned by Turnbull shouldn’t be drafted.
So someone like that should be helping out unsupervised at a MacMillan coffee morning?
-
Fake news.
The National Service story? It’s on the front page of every paper tomorrow.
I was commenting on the picture of Sunak allegedly asking an old lady about whether she would vote for them if they were to kill her grandchildren.
It was posted in isolation with no explanation about what it was linked to and for those of us who don’t do Twitter it meant nothing but what it portrayed.
I suppose it is a bit like blocking posters on here and not understanding a whole conversation because a part of it isn’t being read.
-
Just for your info NNK I've long been an advocate of National Service (of sorts, not necessarily for everyone), to instil a sense of discipline in those who would benefit. Some would still rebel as they always would.
Nowt to do with today's headlines, just prompted to discuss it now. As for infrastructure, no it's not there and would take years to implement, but it's the principle of having a National Service option I support.
As for a GE/political angle however, it's a very weak element to persuade voters. It doesn't tip the balance for me. Far far down on priorities.
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Maybe the National Service proposals shouldn't be aimed at everyone, as you rightly point out, some like your lad and his mates clearly don't need it and are setting a fine example.
Perhaps this should be used as a backstop for those who won't try to (or can't) better themselves?
I’m with you on this IDM.
It should be for the types who are out at night stealing from people, car thieves, drug dealers and anti social kids.
Better for all involved than being sent to prison.
Those like the ones mentioned by Turnbull shouldn’t be drafted.
So someone like that should be helping out unsupervised at a MacMillan coffee morning?
Why would they have to be unsupervised.
-
Just for your info NNK I've long been an advocate of National Service (of sorts, not necessarily for everyone), to instil a sense of discipline in those who would benefit. Some would still rebel as they always would.
Nowt to do with today's headlines, just prompted to discuss it now. As for infrastructure, no it's not there and would take years to implement, but it's the principle of having a National Service option I support.
As for a GE/political angle however, it's a very weak element to persuade voters. It doesn't tip the balance for me. Far far down on priorities.
Again, I’m with you on this IDM.
If that’s ok with you NNK.
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Maybe the National Service proposals shouldn't be aimed at everyone, as you rightly point out, some like your lad and his mates clearly don't need it and are setting a fine example.
Perhaps this should be used as a backstop for those who won't try to (or can't) better themselves?
I’m with you on this IDM.
It should be for the types who are out at night stealing from people, car thieves, drug dealers and anti social kids.
Better for all involved than being sent to prison.
Those like the ones mentioned by Turnbull shouldn’t be drafted.
So someone like that should be helping out unsupervised at a MacMillan coffee morning?
Why would they have to be unsupervised.
Exactly, that shows how this would turn in to a more expensive and disorganised mess, hound.
I see what you’re saying in principle, but that isn’t what’s being proposed by Sunak. It’s for every 18 year old.
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Maybe the National Service proposals shouldn't be aimed at everyone, as you rightly point out, some like your lad and his mates clearly don't need it and are setting a fine example.
Perhaps this should be used as a backstop for those who won't try to (or can't) better themselves?
I’m with you on this IDM.
It should be for the types who are out at night stealing from people, car thieves, drug dealers and anti social kids.
Better for all involved than being sent to prison.
Those like the ones mentioned by Turnbull shouldn’t be drafted.
So someone like that should be helping out unsupervised at a MacMillan coffee morning?
Why would they have to be unsupervised.
I work in one of the organisations that would apparently be used as an alternative to military service. It would be entirely unsafe not to have them supervised... and due to austerity cuts over the years, we have nowhere near enough members of staff to facilitate this.
It's a pathetic policy suggestion that crumbles under any real scrutiny of the practicalities.
-
My lads 18, he's at work today . Been there since six , like yesterday saving up for Uni whilst he finishes his college course. Most of his mates are exactly same. What benefits would he be getting by presumably not being paid 'volunteering' in NHS or similar. I'm 51 old enough to have known blokes who did national service and described it as organised bullying doing menial tasks . If there is 1.5 billion to pay to develop the young as this fag packet panic proposal reckons it needs, there's equally same number of better ideas to spend it on.
Maybe the National Service proposals shouldn't be aimed at everyone, as you rightly point out, some like your lad and his mates clearly don't need it and are setting a fine example.
Perhaps this should be used as a backstop for those who won't try to (or can't) better themselves?
I’m with you on this IDM.
It should be for the types who are out at night stealing from people, car thieves, drug dealers and anti social kids.
Better for all involved than being sent to prison.
Those like the ones mentioned by Turnbull shouldn’t be drafted.
So someone like that should be helping out unsupervised at a MacMillan coffee morning?
Why would they have to be unsupervised.
Exactly, that shows how this would turn in to a more expensive and disorganised mess, hound.
I see what you’re saying in principle, but that isn’t what’s being proposed by Sunak. It’s for every 18 year old.
As I have said, I agree that it shouldn’t be for every 18 year old.
-
I'm all for it if it's paid, unpaid absolutely not. Just look at the countries that employ those kinds of schemes, ones that often are lauded as having better quality of life (Sweden, Denmark, France etc). It has legs if it was done correctly.
-
I'm all for it if it's paid, unpaid absolutely not. Just look at the countries that employ those kinds of schemes, ones that often are lauded as having better quality of life (Sweden, Denmark, France etc). It has legs if it was done correctly.
This is exactly why it would never work in this country.
The countries you mentioned still have a semblance of family and community responsability that we in this country have lost. We have people who live next door to each other who never even say hello never mind pass the time of day. I lived in London for 5 years, you never even knew who your neighbours were from one week to the next it was so transient.
Its this broken and isolationist attitude that this type of initiative would attempt to correct.
I grew up in a very socially disadvantaged area that had a great many issues to contend with, its one saving grace was that people knew each other, they were all in it together and people genuinely cared about each other and were ready and willing to help out.
Ive no idea what its like these days, but i've travelled through and it doesn't look great, its often in the local press for a variety of things that one would never wish to be involved in and reads like its pretty dire.
These are the areas of towns and cities that need some sort of help and assistance to improve the lot for the average citizen, if a government in power could attempt to correct these imbalances it would help massively in great many areas, like underachievement, crime, anti social behaviour, education and social acceptability.
Its been happening over that many years that it looks like government of all colours have struggled with the concept.
-
I'm picturing the discussions at Sunak's emergency reboot meeting yesterday.
Sunak: We're f**ked. I've f**ked it up.
Bright Young Adviser: Well, you HAVE been pretty shite, but there's 6 weeks left. Let's think.
Sunak: Who votes for us?
BYA: Racist pensioners and the rich.
Sunak: Well we're giving the rich tax cuts. What do the racist pensioners want?
BYA: Well they want someone to f**k over foreigners and other people's kids. We have to show we can do that, or they'll f**k off and vote for Farage.
Sunak: Well we gave them Brexit and Rwanda (yeah, ok, I know we didn't, but we chucked them the red meat). So that's the foreigners dealt with.
BYA: So. Other people's kids?
Sunak: Ok. How do we show how much we hate them?
BYA: Well. We f**ked their economic futures through Austerity. They can't afford houses. They haven't got pensions. Then we did Brexit to satisfy the old folk. That stops the young ones having the connections with Europe that they want. We took away a year of young folks' lives during COVID to save old people. And never once thanked them. And of course we've got that cracking policy of telling foreign students we don't want them subsidising our young people's university education. So that f**ks both groups.
Sunak: So what have we got left?
BYA: Ummm...
Sunak: Oh f**k it. Let's put them in uniforms and have them clean up dog shite.
-
Christ you have an obsession to label everyone who’s not in agreement with you been racist, seek help mate, regardless of what goes on this forum your mental state needs looking at
-
Ldr.
I know you sometimes have trouble with the finer points so let me explain.
1) I don't call ANYONE racist unless they say racist things. I disagree profoundly with you on many things, but as far as I can recall, you've never given any hint of supporting racist ideas. And I have never called you racist.
2) I believe that all of us have the responsibility to confront racist ideas whenever we come across them. Don't you?
3) I don't say the Tory party is trying to appeal to racists in a flippant way. It's shit through so many of their policies.
If you disagree with any of that, be grown up and argue each example I give on its merits. Rather than doing shit amateur psychoanalysis to convince yourself I'm wrong.
-
Ldr.
I know you sometimes have trouble with the finer points so let me explain.
1) I don't call ANYONE racist unless they say racist things. I disagree profoundly with you on many things, but as far as I can recall, you've never given any hint of supporting racist ideas. And I have never called you racist.
2) I believe that all of us have the responsibility to confront racist ideas whenever we come across them. Don't you?
3) I don't say the Tory party is trying to appeal to racists in a flippant way. It's shit through so many of their policies.
If you disagree with any of that, be grown up and argue each example I give on its merits. Rather than doing shit amateur psychoanalysis to convince yourself I'm wrong.
You Billy have got serious issues! Get some help!
-
Reading between the weasel words Reeves will not be increasing defence spending and probably reducing it drastically.
Labour's Rachel Reeves rules out increasing income tax or NI https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69063581
-
Ldr.
I know you sometimes have trouble with the finer points so let me explain.
1) I don't call ANYONE racist unless they say racist things. I disagree profoundly with you on many things, but as far as I can recall, you've never given any hint of supporting racist ideas. And I have never called you racist.
2) I believe that all of us have the responsibility to confront racist ideas whenever we come across them. Don't you?
3) I don't say the Tory party is trying to appeal to racists in a flippant way. It's shit through so many of their policies.
If you disagree with any of that, be grown up and argue each example I give on its merits. Rather than doing shit amateur psychoanalysis to convince yourself I'm wrong.
You Billy have got serious issues! Get some help!
Phew!
Now I DEFINITELY know I'm ok.
-
Ldr.
I know you sometimes have trouble with the finer points so let me explain.
1) I don't call ANYONE racist unless they say racist things. I disagree profoundly with you on many things, but as far as I can recall, you've never given any hint of supporting racist ideas. And I have never called you racist.
2) I believe that all of us have the responsibility to confront racist ideas whenever we come across them. Don't you?
3) I don't say the Tory party is trying to appeal to racists in a flippant way. It's shit through so many of their policies.
If you disagree with any of that, be grown up and argue each example I give on its merits. Rather than doing shit amateur psychoanalysis to convince yourself I'm wrong.
You Billy have got serious issues! Get some help!
Phew!
Now I DEFINITELY know I'm ok.
Try and rationalise that comment Why do you think you are ok when you clearly have mental health issues?
-
Both feted and gilded, Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak are two sides of the same rotten politics | Aditya Chakrabortty | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/25/election-pm-change-politics-keir-starmer-rishi-sunak
Unusually, the Guardian actually telling the truth about the choice on offer.
Small differences, but large areas of common interest.
-
I'm picturing the discussions at Sunak's emergency reboot meeting yesterday.
Sunak: We're f**ked. I've f**ked it up.
Bright Young Adviser: Well, you HAVE been pretty shite, but there's 6 weeks left. Let's think.
Sunak: Who votes for us?
BYA: Racist pensioners and the rich.
Sunak: Well we're giving the rich tax cuts. What do the racist pensioners want?
BYA: Well they want someone to f**k over foreigners and other people's kids. We have to show we can do that, or they'll f**k off and vote for Farage.
Sunak: Well we gave them Brexit and Rwanda (yeah, ok, I know we didn't, but we chucked them the red meat). So that's the foreigners dealt with.
BYA: So. Other people's kids?
Sunak: Ok. How do we show how much we hate them?
BYA: Well. We f**ked their economic futures through Austerity. They can't afford houses. They haven't got pensions. Then we did Brexit to satisfy the old folk. That stops the young ones having the connections with Europe that they want. We took away a year of young folks' lives during COVID to save old people. And never once thanked them. And of course we've got that cracking policy of telling foreign students we don't want them subsidising our young people's university education. So that f**ks both groups.
Sunak: So what have we got left?
BYA: Ummm...
Sunak: Oh f**k it. Let's put them in uniforms and have them clean up dog shite.
And we have a clear leader in the 2024 ludicrous post of the year competition.
-
Both feted and gilded, Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak are two sides of the same rotten politics | Aditya Chakrabortty | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/25/election-pm-change-politics-keir-starmer-rishi-sunak
Unusually, the Guardian actually telling the truth about the choice on offer.
Small differences, but large areas of common interest.
Would you like to point out where the guardian hasn't told the truth Albie?
-
We have had that many extreme political issues in the last 10 years that it’s possible to work out peoples core values by knowing their opinion on the fore mentioned issues. There’s no place to hide for bigots these days.
-
I'm picturing the discussions at Sunak's emergency reboot meeting yesterday.
Sunak: We're f**ked. I've f**ked it up.
Bright Young Adviser: Well, you HAVE been pretty shite, but there's 6 weeks left. Let's think.
Sunak: Who votes for us?
BYA: Racist pensioners and the rich.
Sunak: Well we're giving the rich tax cuts. What do the racist pensioners want?
BYA: Well they want someone to f**k over foreigners and other people's kids. We have to show we can do that, or they'll f**k off and vote for Farage.
Sunak: Well we gave them Brexit and Rwanda (yeah, ok, I know we didn't, but we chucked them the red meat). So that's the foreigners dealt with.
BYA: So. Other people's kids?
Sunak: Ok. How do we show how much we hate them?
BYA: Well. We f**ked their economic futures through Austerity. They can't afford houses. They haven't got pensions. Then we did Brexit to satisfy the old folk. That stops the young ones having the connections with Europe that they want. We took away a year of young folks' lives during COVID to save old people. And never once thanked them. And of course we've got that cracking policy of telling foreign students we don't want them subsidising our young people's university education. So that f**ks both groups.
Sunak: So what have we got left?
BYA: Ummm...
Sunak: Oh f**k it. Let's put them in uniforms and have them clean up dog shite.
And we have a clear leader in the 2024 ludicrous post of the year competition.
That’s good coming from you.
-
Both feted and gilded, Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak are two sides of the same rotten politics | Aditya Chakrabortty | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/25/election-pm-change-politics-keir-starmer-rishi-sunak
Unusually, the Guardian actually telling the truth about the choice on offer.
Small differences, but large areas of common interest.
Would you like to point out where the guardian hasn't told the truth Albie?
So many times, Syd.
You could start with the constant bleating about anti-semitism in Labour, now proven to be a complete fiction in the courts.
Pro-Israeli narratives have infected the opinion pieces.
Many articles written by Polly Toynbee, Jonathan Freedland and Raphael Behr have shown little grounding in reality.
You could move on to the failure to protect journalistic values in the case of Julian Assange, after publishing his work.
The Guardian has been under the oversight and control of the security services since Alan Rusbridger was replaced as editor.
The role of the publication is to corral left leaning liberal opinion into safe spaces for the establishment.
Why do you think that their best writers no longer work there?
Richard Norton-Taylor, David Hencke and others now publishing via alternative outlets.
The takeover of the Guardian has been well documented.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/how-the-uk-security-services-neutralised-the-countrys-leading-liberal-newspaper/
-
Will need some proof and links Albie, you have called so many false alarms on here it's not funny.
By the way you are going to tell me what the party you are voting for are promising aren't you?
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
-
Whoa. I'd missed this earlier today.
https://youtu.be/Vn_9lVvMkX4?si=xJDXLi_WV5wNESS5
That's Farage massively raising the ante. That's the most overtly race-baiting stuff he's ever come out with. He is clearly angling to sweep up the far right voters if the Tory party does actually implode.
-
C'mon people who really feels that this is for real?
Now speculation that Rich-ie could throw the towel in to be replaced by Cameroon, and really why when you are a multi millionaire would you want yo put yourself through 6 weeks of hell, when you could be lazing on a beach in California?
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
Disliking of foreigners or disliking of mass immigration Billy ?
Disliking of foreigners is a subtle attempt at pointing the finger towards racism .
Disliking mass immigration is a political issue , even Starmer has said it needs to be reduced although he says many things of course .
We see you Billy boy .
-
"old people who self identify as disliking foreigners."
Who are these "old" people??
Survey after survey show that the UK is one of the most tolerant and least racist countries in the world.
www.kcl.ac.uk/news/uk-public-among-most-trusting-of-their-neighbours-internationally-and-increasingly-comfortable-living-next-to-historically-marginalised-groups
Only 2% of the UK population would prefer not to have a neighbour of a different race. Only Sweden and Brazil score lower at 1%.
Only 5% of the UK population would prefer not to have an immigrant as a neighbour. Again one of the lowest scores in the world.
-
Whoa. I'd missed this earlier today.
https://youtu.be/Vn_9lVvMkX4?si=xJDXLi_WV5wNESS5
That's Farage massively raising the ante. That's the most overtly race-baiting stuff he's ever come out with. He is clearly angling to sweep up the far right voters if the Tory party does actually implode.
He's a truly revolting individual isn't he?
Farage is a C U Next Tuesday too
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
Disliking of foreigners or disliking of mass immigration Billy ?
Disliking of foreigners is a subtle attempt at pointing the finger towards racism .
Disliking mass immigration is a political issue , even Starmer has said it needs to be reduced although he says many things of course .
We see you Billy boy .
Disliking of foreigners is racist.
Just like a disliking of 6 fingered inbreds could be considered anti Barnsley.
-
C'mon people who really feels that this is for real?
Now speculation that Rich-ie could throw the towel in to be replaced by Cameroon, and really why when you are a multi millionaire would you want yo put yourself through 6 weeks of hell, when you could be lazing on a beach in California?
No chance of a change of leadership mid-election. Even with this mad lot.
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
Disliking of foreigners or disliking of mass immigration Billy ?
Disliking of foreigners is a subtle attempt at pointing the finger towards racism .
Disliking mass immigration is a political issue , even Starmer has said it needs to be reduced although he says many things of course .
We see you Billy boy .
Disliking of foreigners is racist.
Just like a disliking of 6 fingered inbreds could be considered anti Barnsley.
Disliking of foreigners is xenophobia not racism, read a dictionary sometime
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/xenophobia-and-racism-difference
-
We have had that many extreme political issues in the last 10 years that it’s possible to work out peoples core values by knowing their opinion on the fore mentioned issues. There’s no place to hide for bigots these days.
Do you have an xT value for that!
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
Disliking of foreigners or disliking of mass immigration Billy ?
Disliking of foreigners is a subtle attempt at pointing the finger towards racism .
Disliking mass immigration is a political issue , even Starmer has said it needs to be reduced although he says many things of course .
We see you Billy boy .
Disliking of foreigners is racist.
Just like a disliking of 6 fingered inbreds could be considered anti Barnsley.
They come in very handy at times , we almost needed them to count the first half goals that flew in to the back of your net the last time we played you .
-
I'm picturing the discussions at Sunak's emergency reboot meeting yesterday.
Sunak: We're f**ked. I've f**ked it up.
Bright Young Adviser: Well, you HAVE been pretty shite, but there's 6 weeks left. Let's think.
Sunak: Who votes for us?
BYA: Racist pensioners and the rich.
Sunak: Well we're giving the rich tax cuts. What do the racist pensioners want?
BYA: Well they want someone to f**k over foreigners and other people's kids. We have to show we can do that, or they'll f**k off and vote for Farage.
Sunak: Well we gave them Brexit and Rwanda (yeah, ok, I know we didn't, but we chucked them the red meat). So that's the foreigners dealt with.
BYA: So. Other people's kids?
Sunak: Ok. How do we show how much we hate them?
BYA: Well. We f**ked their economic futures through Austerity. They can't afford houses. They haven't got pensions. Then we did Brexit to satisfy the old folk. That stops the young ones having the connections with Europe that they want. We took away a year of young folks' lives during COVID to save old people. And never once thanked them. And of course we've got that cracking policy of telling foreign students we don't want them subsidising our young people's university education. So that f**ks both groups.
Sunak: So what have we got left?
BYA: Ummm...
Sunak: Oh f**k it. Let's put them in uniforms and have them clean up dog shite.
And we have a clear leader in the 2024 ludicrous post of the year competition.
That’s good coming from you.
It was only a matter of time………….
You ran him a close second Tommy.
I knew you wouldn’t let me down.
-
Is the victory of Southampton over Leeds an omen? Rishi "The Saint" Sunak on a roll?
-
Is the victory of Southampton over Leeds an omen? Rishi "The Saint" Sunak on a roll?
Not sure about Sunak being on a roll, but it was good to see even more Leeds fans crying their eyes out, again.
-
I'm surprised the comments on fire/rehire haven't had much more commentary. Labour now saying it's not to be banned if critical for business survival or restructure.
So essentially it isn't banned is it? Every business will just say it's a restructure surely?
-
Voters won't need to fire many tory mps as so many are walking away, they will have to be in very safe seats to be rehired I would think.
-
And in just another ordinary day in this campaign, the Editor of the Evening Standard (owned by the son of a KGB colonel) libels Rachel Reeves.
https://x.com/emilysheffield/status/1795043203101388817
For the record, as anyone with a phone and functioning thumbs can find online in 10 seconds, Reeves worked at the BoE for 6 years and at the BoS for 3.
-
I honestly don't know why people keep having a go at Rachel Reeves. She comes over as an extremely intelligent woman, and a nice person.
I've nothing against people voting Labour, I just think they're going to be disappointed if they're expecting change.
-
Very pleased to see Labour committing to making the minimum wage a genuine living wage that people can live on.
I remember working at the Job Centre just before the first Minimum Wage legislation was passed and seeing jobs advertised at scandalously low rates. One "Label Sticker wanted £1.20 per hour. No experience necessary" will always stick in my mind.
Not only the fair and moral thing to commit to but also the economic conditions means it makes absolute sense. Very low unemployment and a strong labour market.
-
Very pleased to see Labour committing to making the minimum wage a genuine living wage that people can live on.
I remember working at the Job Centre just before the first Minimum Wage legislation was passed and seeing jobs advertised at scandalously low rates. One "Label Sticker wanted £1.20 per hour. No experience necessary" will always stick in my mind.
Not only the fair and moral thing to commit to but also the economic conditions means it makes absolute sense. Very low unemployment and a strong labour market.
That must be classed as a difference, surely?
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
Disliking of foreigners or disliking of mass immigration Billy ?
Disliking of foreigners is a subtle attempt at pointing the finger towards racism .
Disliking mass immigration is a political issue , even Starmer has said it needs to be reduced although he says many things of course .
We see you Billy boy .
Disliking of foreigners is racist.
Just like a disliking of 6 fingered inbreds could be considered anti Barnsley.
Disliking of foreigners is xenophobia not racism, read a dictionary sometime
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/xenophobia-and-racism-difference
Well,thanks for the advice Ldr.
Maybe you can help me on the nitty gritty finer detail.
What's the difference between a xenophobe and racist?
I've always imagined they are typically overweight gammon faced losers.
Is that correct?
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
Disliking of foreigners or disliking of mass immigration Billy ?
Disliking of foreigners is a subtle attempt at pointing the finger towards racism .
Disliking mass immigration is a political issue , even Starmer has said it needs to be reduced although he says many things of course .
We see you Billy boy .
Disliking of foreigners is racist.
Just like a disliking of 6 fingered inbreds could be considered anti Barnsley.
Disliking of foreigners is xenophobia not racism, read a dictionary sometime
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/xenophobia-and-racism-difference
Well,thanks for the advice Ldr.
Maybe you can help me on the nitty gritty finer detail.
What's the difference between a xenophobe and racist?
I've always imagined they are typically overweight gammon faced losers.
Is that correct?
Am sure a man of your “intelligence” can get everything he needs from the link provided
-
Very pleased to see Labour committing to making the minimum wage a genuine living wage that people can live on.
I remember working at the Job Centre just before the first Minimum Wage legislation was passed and seeing jobs advertised at scandalously low rates. One "Label Sticker wanted £1.20 per hour. No experience necessary" will always stick in my mind.
Not only the fair and moral thing to commit to but also the economic conditions means it makes absolute sense. Very low unemployment and a strong labour market.
That must be classed as a difference, surely?
It would be very much a difference Syd, if Starmer doesn’t change his mind again.
I hope he doesn’t.
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
Disliking of foreigners or disliking of mass immigration Billy ?
Disliking of foreigners is a subtle attempt at pointing the finger towards racism .
Disliking mass immigration is a political issue , even Starmer has said it needs to be reduced although he says many things of course .
We see you Billy boy .
Disliking of foreigners is racist.
Just like a disliking of 6 fingered inbreds could be considered anti Barnsley.
Disliking of foreigners is xenophobia not racism, read a dictionary sometime
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/xenophobia-and-racism-difference
Well,thanks for the advice Ldr.
Maybe you can help me on the nitty gritty finer detail.
What's the difference between a xenophobe and racist?
I've always imagined they are typically overweight gammon faced losers.
Is that correct?
Am sure a man of your “intelligence” can get everything he needs from the link provided
Yep. I found 50 shades of gammon.
Not sure which one you are tho.
-
I'd be a lot more forgiving of Hound trolling me on this topic if he was able to explain which of the core points that I've made in that post (yes, yes, yes, obviously exaggerated for comic effects) are factually wrong.
The Tories ARE now disproportionately supported by old people who self identify as disliking foreigners.
The Tory party IS facing a major challenge to keep hold of those voters in the face of Reform doing the "we don't like foreigners" thing more effectively.
The Tory party HAS regularly enacted policies which have disproportionately hit the young, while insulating the old.
The idiotic National Service idea HAS been thought up on the hoof, in a panic at how badly the Tories have started, literally 2 days after a minister categorically said they were not going to bring back National Service.
But a right winger there thinks it's ludicrous to point these facts out. Thank goodness I've got him on ignore.
Disliking of foreigners or disliking of mass immigration Billy ?
Disliking of foreigners is a subtle attempt at pointing the finger towards racism .
Disliking mass immigration is a political issue , even Starmer has said it needs to be reduced although he says many things of course .
We see you Billy boy .
Disliking of foreigners is racist.
Just like a disliking of 6 fingered inbreds could be considered anti Barnsley.
Disliking of foreigners is xenophobia not racism, read a dictionary sometime
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/xenophobia-and-racism-difference
Well,thanks for the advice Ldr.
Maybe you can help me on the nitty gritty finer detail.
What's the difference between a xenophobe and racist?
I've always imagined they are typically overweight gammon faced losers.
Is that correct?
Am sure a man of your “intelligence” can get everything he needs from the link provided
Yep. I found 50 shades of gammon.
Not sure which one you are tho.
Oh you are grown up today aren't you?
-
I've given you a like.
That's what grown ups do.
Or do they just troll,ask pedantic questions when they disagree with someone's opinion?
You and I know exactly which category you gall into.
-
I've given you a like.
That's what grown ups do.
Or do they just troll,ask pedantic questions when they disagree with someone's opinion?
You and I know exactly which category you gall into.
You never said anything to agree / disagree with. Pedantry you may not like but is what I said wrong?
-
I've given you a like.
That's what grown ups do.
Or do they just troll,ask pedantic questions when they disagree with someone's opinion?
You and I know exactly which category you gall into.
You never said anything to agree / disagree with. Pedantry you may not like but is what I said wrong?
Pedantry.
It is.
Get a dictionary out every now and then.
-
I've given you a like.
That's what grown ups do.
Or do they just troll,ask pedantic questions when they disagree with someone's opinion?
You and I know exactly which category you gall into.
You never said anything to agree / disagree with. Pedantry you may not like but is what I said wrong?
Pedantry.
It is.
Get a dictionary out every now and then.
That makes no sense
-
When I first came down to London and worked on the building sites in the early 80's I was most definitely in the political minority as a Labour supporter. Virtually all of the other lads were your typical working class Tories who all loved Thatcher and I could never work out why their political views were as they were.
When the Miners strike was going on I'd go back to Donny to see family on a weekend and see for myself the effect that it was having on communities in Yorkshire. It was hugely depressing seeing towns like Donny being allowed to run down like it was. Going back to London afterwards was just like returning to a different planet though.
I used to tell the lads at work about what was going on and how people were suffering in Yorkshire and literally, nobody gave a shit. In fact, a lot of people were of the view that communities in Yorkshire deserved what they were getting for always voting Labour and, more pertinently, being part of or backing the Unions. They fell for the 'them and us' policy put forward by the government that the Socialists, Unions and their supporters were the 'enemy' and if we could just crush them then that'd improve the lot for everyone in the country.
It was from this point that I started to understand why working class lads from London and Essex were staunch Tories. They actually believed that they could only be successful (i.e. wealthy) if the rest of the country was put in it's place. And Maggie was the one to do it.
I see similar things now, except the 'enemy' right now are young people but soon it'll be immigrants again and then probably people on benefits again etc.. etc.. and it really, really depresses me.
-
HA
Your second last paragraph. I had a similar experience when I went to university in 1985. Someone I got to know (not someone I'd consider a close friend, but he was interesting and fun) was a firm Tory supporter. We got talking about the idea of extending university opportunities to other kids. I gave examples of people I'd known at school who had razor sharp minds, but who, for whatever reason, had left school at 16 and never even thought of university as a possibility.
He said he was glad they didn't. Because it was in his interests to keep the pool of graduates as small as possible to maximise his own market value.
It was a genuine eye opener into how Tory minds operate. Both selfish AND profoundly damaging for the country and society as a whole.
-
Very difficult to equate a place like Doncaster with London. There could not be a more extreme example, especially when the period you are talking about is the early 80's.
London then was on the cusp of a construction revolution (Canary Wharf, DLR, ect) Doncaster was in the midst of an industrial meltdown.
Do you not think that the working class Tories you worked with were in the process of filling their boots while the going was good.
It may sound harsh but i would imagine plenty of them were thinking along the lines of "i'm getting stuck in, working hard and making a mint, why are others not doing the same"
We all know life's not as easy or straight forward as that for everyone but for someone in that environment, its very easy to see their thought processes.
I don't agree with your statement that they thought the could only do well if the rest of the country was crushed and put in its place.
The Tories great mantra at that time was Tebbit's "get on your bike" attitude to aspiring people for them to reap a benefit from moving to where the opportunities existed.
I did something similar to you in the 90's, the opportunities in my field were very restricted in Donny and i moved to London to benefit from the vastly increased opportunities. I worked with plenty of people with the same attitude you explained, all of them to a man(and woman|) were determined to strive and make something of themselves from what lay in front of them. They didn't want or need unions to work for them, they were motivated to do it themselves, and they did.
If anything its this attitude that needs to be reinforced into people today, a sense of reliance and belief in oneself to achieve and go onto make something of their careers.
I now work back in the North and work with plenty of youngsters entering our industry who have taken this outlook on board, they all know they are starting from a difficult base but are determined to progress and succeed. Their a credit to themselves and with this attitude they will go on and the world is their oyster.
We need to see this more in this day and age, don't wait for someone to tell you what you should do or can do, go out and show them what you will do.
You and i did it, no reason why more can't go on and achieve.
-
HA
Your second last paragraph. I had a similar experience when I went to university in 1985. Someone I got to know (not someone I'd consider a close friend, but he was interesting and fun) was a firm Tory supporter. We got talking about the idea of extending university opportunities to other kids. I gave examples of people I'd known at school who had razor sharp minds, but who, for whatever reason, had left school at 16 and never even thought of university as a possibility.
He said he was glad they didn't. Because it was in his interests to keep the pool of graduates as small as possible to maximise his own market value.
It was a genuine eye opener into how Tory minds operate. Both selfish AND profoundly damaging for the country and society as a whole.
It's a bit of a long shot to equate what is one persons thoughts onto a whole section of people.
Its a bit like saying that all people who vote Labour think the same as Billy Smith in Edlo, who's brought up his family of 8 and lived entirely on benefits for the whole duration.
That's not a reasonable thing to say and anyone of a sound and grounded mind would think so.
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
So your doubling down on this!
Regardless what you think forms the core of Toryism your going to call out a whole tranche of society because "that's how you think they all are"
Tone deaf and tin eared comes to mind, and i don't think all Labour supporters are like you.
I'd say most people will think the best way to help someone is to make sure they have put themselves in a position to be able to help them first.
-
Very difficult to equate a place like Doncaster with London. There could not be a more extreme example, especially when the period you are talking about is the early 80's.
London then was on the cusp of a construction revolution (Canary Wharf, DLR, ect) Doncaster was in the midst of an industrial meltdown.
Do you not think that the working class Tories you worked with were in the process of filling their boots while the going was good.
It may sound harsh but i would imagine plenty of them were thinking along the lines of "i'm getting stuck in, working hard and making a mint, why are others not doing the same"
We all know life's not as easy or straight forward as that for everyone but for someone in that environment, its very easy to see their thought processes.
I don't agree with your statement that they thought the could only do well if the rest of the country was crushed and put in its place.
The Tories great mantra at that time was Tebbit's "get on your bike" attitude to aspiring people for them to reap a benefit from moving to where the opportunities existed.
I did something similar to you in the 90's, the opportunities in my field were very restricted in Donny and i moved to London to benefit from the vastly increased opportunities. I worked with plenty of people with the same attitude you explained, all of them to a man(and woman|) were determined to strive and make something of themselves from what lay in front of them. They didn't want or need unions to work for them, they were motivated to do it themselves, and they did.
If anything its this attitude that needs to be reinforced into people today, a sense of reliance and belief in oneself to achieve and go onto make something of their careers.
I now work back in the North and work with plenty of youngsters entering our industry who have taken this outlook on board, they all know they are starting from a difficult base but are determined to progress and succeed. Their a credit to themselves and with this attitude they will go on and the world is their oyster.
We need to see this more in this day and age, don't wait for someone to tell you what you should do or can do, go out and show them what you will do.
You and i did it, no reason why more can't go on and achieve.
I agree with some of your points there fella.
I stand by my point about keeping the rest of the country down though. That was absolutely the view of quite a few people that I worked with at the time. The left and the Unions were seen as an enemy who wanted to turn us into the Soviet Union was how some of them viewed it, and if those workers in the North were made to suffer as a result of these views then so be it. I get that it sounds contrived but it was absolutely the view held by quite a few.
I agree with your last point around aspirations and I also agree that young people seem to be more aspirational than when I was young. However, I was lucky that I was able to do it and that I was pushed to do it by my old man (after I'd been laid off 3 times in 2 years). But I also want to ensure that those who can't 'get on their bike' are helped and supported as much they need to be.
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
What do you make of Terry Brammall?
-
dd ''Its a bit like saying that all people who vote Labour think the same as Billy Smith in Edlo, who's brought up his family of 8 and lived entirely on benefits for the whole duration''
quite correct dd
'tone deaf' does come to mind
-
dd ''Its a bit like saying that all people who vote Labour think the same as Billy Smith in Edlo, who's brought up his family of 8 and lived entirely on benefits for the whole duration''
quite correct dd
'tone deaf' does come to mind
You do relise that everyone else can see the full quote and not just the selected for impact that you have posted!
Go to bed daft lad.
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
So your doubling down on this!
Regardless what you think forms the core of Toryism your going to call out a whole tranche of society because "that's how you think they all are"
Tone deaf and tin eared comes to mind, and i don't think all Labour supporters are like you.
I'd say most people will think the best way to help someone is to make sure they have put themselves in a position to be able to help them first.
Who said, there's no such thing as society?
-
dd ''Its a bit like saying that all people who vote Labour think the same as Billy Smith in Edlo, who's brought up his family of 8 and lived entirely on benefits for the whole duration''
quite correct dd
'tone deaf' does come to mind
You do relise that everyone else can see the full quote and not just the selected for impact that you have posted!
Go to bed daft lad.
What more do people need to see beyond the line highlighted above dd how can it get any better?
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
So your doubling down on this!
Regardless what you think forms the core of Toryism your going to call out a whole tranche of society because "that's how you think they all are"
Tone deaf and tin eared comes to mind, and i don't think all Labour supporters are like you.
I'd say most people will think the best way to help someone is to make sure they have put themselves in a position to be able to help them first.
Who said, there's no such thing as society?
So let me get this straight, because some long dead politician said something that's debatable at best and batshit crazy at worst and this was reinforced to you by a Tory voter, you deem a large proportion of the population to be sub optimal or unworthy of your "high standards"
Wasn't it you just the other day talking about older people hating young people, have you not just done the same?
My advice is go lay down in a darkened room for a few days. Barking!
-
What I hear from the above posts is how a kick ass attitude is important to be able to get on. I partly agree. Where this fails is first in creating a culture of selfishness - thanks Maggie and friends - and secondly in ignoring the creativity and energy in many people who are seriously disadvantaged. That costs everyone in benefit payments, health costs, policing, prisons, general societal chaos and destruction. Far better to see society values of support being valued, and effectively used. Overall, that is never a tory value. The tory value, the establishment value is, has always been, divide and rule. Blame the disadvantaged, the ones not fitting into the militaristic values of the mainstream.
Starmers Labour is largely on board with that society selfishness story.
-
What I hear from the above posts is how a kick ass attitude is important to be able to get on. I partly agree. Where this fails is first in creating a culture of selfishness - thanks Maggie and friends - and secondly in ignoring the creativity and energy in many people who are seriously disadvantaged. That costs everyone in benefit payments, health costs, policing, prisons, general societal chaos and destruction. Far better to see society values of support being valued, and effectively used. Overall, that is never a tory value. The tory value, the establishment value is, has always been, divide and rule. Blame the disadvantaged, the ones not fitting into the militaristic values of the mainstream.
Starmers Labour is largely on board with that society selfishness story.
You should send this information to tory HQ where they will try and instigate a police investigation.
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
So your doubling down on this!
Regardless what you think forms the core of Toryism your going to call out a whole tranche of society because "that's how you think they all are"
Tone deaf and tin eared comes to mind, and i don't think all Labour supporters are like you.
I'd say most people will think the best way to help someone is to make sure they have put themselves in a position to be able to help them first.
Who said, there's no such thing as society?
So let me get this straight, because some long dead politician said something that's debatable at best and batshit crazy at worst and this was reinforced to you by a Tory voter, you deem a large proportion of the population to be sub optimal or unworthy of your "high standards"
Wasn't it you just the other day talking about older people hating young people, have you not just done the same?
My advice is go lay down in a darkened room for a few days. Barking!
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
So your doubling down on this!
Regardless what you think forms the core of Toryism your going to call out a whole tranche of society because "that's how you think they all are"
Tone deaf and tin eared comes to mind, and i don't think all Labour supporters are like you.
I'd say most people will think the best way to help someone is to make sure they have put themselves in a position to be able to help them first.
Who said, there's no such thing as society?
So let me get this straight, because some long dead politician said something that's debatable at best and batshit crazy at worst and this was reinforced to you by a Tory voter, you deem a large proportion of the population to be sub optimal or unworthy of your "high standards"
Wasn't it you just the other day talking about older people hating young people, have you not just done the same?
My advice is go lay down in a darkened room for a few days. Barking!
What a very odd response.
I've described for you a central tenet of Toryism.
Traditional Toryism that is, the current bunch of shites for souls don't have a philosophical concept between them.
Traditional Toryism is founded on the principle that individuals should first and foremost look out for themselves.
The lad at university I described was simply taking that to its logical conclusion
His take was that what might be good for society as a whole, was sub optimal for him personally.
Why are you getting so wound up about this? What do YOU think Toryism stands for?
-
What I hear from the above posts is how a kick ass attitude is important to be able to get on. I partly agree. Where this fails is first in creating a culture of selfishness - thanks Maggie and friends - and secondly in ignoring the creativity and energy in many people who are seriously disadvantaged. That costs everyone in benefit payments, health costs, policing, prisons, general societal chaos and destruction. Far better to see society values of support being valued, and effectively used. Overall, that is never a tory value. The tory value, the establishment value is, has always been, divide and rule. Blame the disadvantaged, the ones not fitting into the militaristic values of the mainstream.
Starmers Labour is largely on board with that society selfishness story.
You should send this information to tory HQ where they will try and instigate a police investigation.
Sadly, police are dangerously under manned, and getting worst. Another policy of the Tories of deceiving the public whilst creating more social disharmony.
Tho if some of the lazy specialist departments took it on rather than sat in easy chairs watching TV then it could be worth it.
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
So your doubling down on this!
Regardless what you think forms the core of Toryism your going to call out a whole tranche of society because "that's how you think they all are"
Tone deaf and tin eared comes to mind, and i don't think all Labour supporters are like you.
I'd say most people will think the best way to help someone is to make sure they have put themselves in a position to be able to help them first.
Who said, there's no such thing as society?
So let me get this straight, because some long dead politician said something that's debatable at best and batshit crazy at worst and this was reinforced to you by a Tory voter, you deem a large proportion of the population to be sub optimal or unworthy of your "high standards"
Wasn't it you just the other day talking about older people hating young people, have you not just done the same?
My advice is go lay down in a darkened room for a few days. Barking!
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
So your doubling down on this!
Regardless what you think forms the core of Toryism your going to call out a whole tranche of society because "that's how you think they all are"
Tone deaf and tin eared comes to mind, and i don't think all Labour supporters are like you.
I'd say most people will think the best way to help someone is to make sure they have put themselves in a position to be able to help them first.
Who said, there's no such thing as society?
So let me get this straight, because some long dead politician said something that's debatable at best and batshit crazy at worst and this was reinforced to you by a Tory voter, you deem a large proportion of the population to be sub optimal or unworthy of your "high standards"
Wasn't it you just the other day talking about older people hating young people, have you not just done the same?
My advice is go lay down in a darkened room for a few days. Barking!
What a very odd response.
I've described for you a central tenet of Toryism.
Traditional Toryism that is, the current bunch of shites for souls don't have a philosophical concept between them.
Traditional Toryism is founded on the principle that individuals should first and foremost look out for themselves.
The lad at university I described was simply taking that to its logical conclusion
His take was that what might be good for society as a whole, was sub optimal for him personally.
Why are you getting so wound up about this? What do YOU think Toryism stands for?
You just can't see it can you,your so engrossed in your lefty bubble.
I don't know if its news to you but the vast majority of people in this country don't live their lives by proclamations and tenets of political parties, regardless of who they may stick an X against in an election.
People will always do what they think is best for them and their families at any particular time. Lots of people in this borough voted Tory last election, after probably being Labour voters all their lives, there's a very good possibility that they will return to the Labour fold this time.
Are these the same people who you caricatured previously? did they forgo their Socialist instincts and gain " shites for souls who don't have a philosophical concept between them" ?
Sometimes you just have to put it down and get on with your life.
Life's just to short fella, take a deep breath and try it.
-
Very difficult to equate a place like Doncaster with London. There could not be a more extreme example, especially when the period you are talking about is the early 80's.
London then was on the cusp of a construction revolution (Canary Wharf, DLR, ect) Doncaster was in the midst of an industrial meltdown.
Do you not think that the working class Tories you worked with were in the process of filling their boots while the going was good.
It may sound harsh but i would imagine plenty of them were thinking along the lines of "i'm getting stuck in, working hard and making a mint, why are others not doing the same"
We all know life's not as easy or straight forward as that for everyone but for someone in that environment, its very easy to see their thought processes.
I don't agree with your statement that they thought the could only do well if the rest of the country was crushed and put in its place.
The Tories great mantra at that time was Tebbit's "get on your bike" attitude to aspiring people for them to reap a benefit from moving to where the opportunities existed.
I did something similar to you in the 90's, the opportunities in my field were very restricted in Donny and i moved to London to benefit from the vastly increased opportunities. I worked with plenty of people with the same attitude you explained, all of them to a man(and woman|) were determined to strive and make something of themselves from what lay in front of them. They didn't want or need unions to work for them, they were motivated to do it themselves, and they did.
If anything its this attitude that needs to be reinforced into people today, a sense of reliance and belief in oneself to achieve and go onto make something of their careers.
I now work back in the North and work with plenty of youngsters entering our industry who have taken this outlook on board, they all know they are starting from a difficult base but are determined to progress and succeed. Their a credit to themselves and with this attitude they will go on and the world is their oyster.
We need to see this more in this day and age, don't wait for someone to tell you what you should do or can do, go out and show them what you will do.
You and i did it, no reason why more can't go on and achieve.
HA
Your second last paragraph. I had a similar experience when I went to university in 1985. Someone I got to know (not someone I'd consider a close friend, but he was interesting and fun) was a firm Tory supporter. We got talking about the idea of extending university opportunities to other kids. I gave examples of people I'd known at school who had razor sharp minds, but who, for whatever reason, had left school at 16 and never even thought of university as a possibility.
He said he was glad they didn't. Because it was in his interests to keep the pool of graduates as small as possible to maximise his own market value.
It was a genuine eye opener into how Tory minds operate. Both selfish AND profoundly damaging for the country and society as a whole.
It's a bit of a long shot to equate what is one persons thoughts onto a whole section of people.
Its a bit like saying that all people who vote Labour think the same as Billy Smith in Edlo, who's brought up his family of 8 and lived entirely on benefits for the whole duration.
That's not a reasonable thing to say and anyone of a sound and grounded mind would think so.
And that is exactly what you did in your post immediately before this.
-
DD.
Hang on.
I'm totally baffled now.
You started off berating me for drawing a lesson from what my old uni colleague believed and for saying that embodies Toryism.
No you're saying that EVERYONE thinks like that.
Are you having an argument with yourself here?
-
Very difficult to equate a place like Doncaster with London. There could not be a more extreme example, especially when the period you are talking about is the early 80's.
London then was on the cusp of a construction revolution (Canary Wharf, DLR, ect) Doncaster was in the midst of an industrial meltdown.
Do you not think that the working class Tories you worked with were in the process of filling their boots while the going was good.
It may sound harsh but i would imagine plenty of them were thinking along the lines of "i'm getting stuck in, working hard and making a mint, why are others not doing the same"
We all know life's not as easy or straight forward as that for everyone but for someone in that environment, its very easy to see their thought processes.
I don't agree with your statement that they thought the could only do well if the rest of the country was crushed and put in its place.
The Tories great mantra at that time was Tebbit's "get on your bike" attitude to aspiring people for them to reap a benefit from moving to where the opportunities existed.
I did something similar to you in the 90's, the opportunities in my field were very restricted in Donny and i moved to London to benefit from the vastly increased opportunities. I worked with plenty of people with the same attitude you explained, all of them to a man(and woman|) were determined to strive and make something of themselves from what lay in front of them. They didn't want or need unions to work for them, they were motivated to do it themselves, and they did.
If anything its this attitude that needs to be reinforced into people today, a sense of reliance and belief in oneself to achieve and go onto make something of their careers.
I now work back in the North and work with plenty of youngsters entering our industry who have taken this outlook on board, they all know they are starting from a difficult base but are determined to progress and succeed. Their a credit to themselves and with this attitude they will go on and the world is their oyster.
We need to see this more in this day and age, don't wait for someone to tell you what you should do or can do, go out and show them what you will do.
You and i did it, no reason why more can't go on and achieve.
HA
Your second last paragraph. I had a similar experience when I went to university in 1985. Someone I got to know (not someone I'd consider a close friend, but he was interesting and fun) was a firm Tory supporter. We got talking about the idea of extending university opportunities to other kids. I gave examples of people I'd known at school who had razor sharp minds, but who, for whatever reason, had left school at 16 and never even thought of university as a possibility.
He said he was glad they didn't. Because it was in his interests to keep the pool of graduates as small as possible to maximise his own market value.
It was a genuine eye opener into how Tory minds operate. Both selfish AND profoundly damaging for the country and society as a whole.
It's a bit of a long shot to equate what is one persons thoughts onto a whole section of people.
Its a bit like saying that all people who vote Labour think the same as Billy Smith in Edlo, who's brought up his family of 8 and lived entirely on benefits for the whole duration.
That's not a reasonable thing to say and anyone of a sound and grounded mind would think so.
[/b]
And that is exactly what you did in your post immediately before this.
Jesus wept, are you as demented as the halfwit down under.
That "quote" was made up by me to demonstrate how stupid the quote from BST was, do you not see the paragraph underneath it that says,
"That's not a reasonable thing to say and anyone of a sound and grounded mind would think so."
If you don't understand that then i can't help you mate.
-
Very difficult to equate a place like Doncaster with London. There could not be a more extreme example, especially when the period you are talking about is the early 80's.
London then was on the cusp of a construction revolution (Canary Wharf, DLR, ect) Doncaster was in the midst of an industrial meltdown.
Do you not think that the working class Tories you worked with were in the process of filling their boots while the going was good.
It may sound harsh but i would imagine plenty of them were thinking along the lines of "i'm getting stuck in, working hard and making a mint, why are others not doing the same"
We all know life's not as easy or straight forward as that for everyone but for someone in that environment, its very easy to see their thought processes.
I don't agree with your statement that they thought the could only do well if the rest of the country was crushed and put in its place.
The Tories great mantra at that time was Tebbit's "get on your bike" attitude to aspiring people for them to reap a benefit from moving to where the opportunities existed.
I did something similar to you in the 90's, the opportunities in my field were very restricted in Donny and i moved to London to benefit from the vastly increased opportunities. I worked with plenty of people with the same attitude you explained, all of them to a man(and woman|) were determined to strive and make something of themselves from what lay in front of them. They didn't want or need unions to work for them, they were motivated to do it themselves, and they did.
If anything its this attitude that needs to be reinforced into people today, a sense of reliance and belief in oneself to achieve and go onto make something of their careers.
I now work back in the North and work with plenty of youngsters entering our industry who have taken this outlook on board, they all know they are starting from a difficult base but are determined to progress and succeed. Their a credit to themselves and with this attitude they will go on and the world is their oyster.
We need to see this more in this day and age, don't wait for someone to tell you what you should do or can do, go out and show them what you will do.
You and i did it, no reason why more can't go on and achieve.
HA
Your second last paragraph. I had a similar experience when I went to university in 1985. Someone I got to know (not someone I'd consider a close friend, but he was interesting and fun) was a firm Tory supporter. We got talking about the idea of extending university opportunities to other kids. I gave examples of people I'd known at school who had razor sharp minds, but who, for whatever reason, had left school at 16 and never even thought of university as a possibility.
He said he was glad they didn't. Because it was in his interests to keep the pool of graduates as small as possible to maximise his own market value.
It was a genuine eye opener into how Tory minds operate. Both selfish AND profoundly damaging for the country and society as a whole.
It's a bit of a long shot to equate what is one persons thoughts onto a whole section of people.
Its a bit like saying that all people who vote Labour think the same as Billy Smith in Edlo, who's brought up his family of 8 and lived entirely on benefits for the whole duration.
That's not a reasonable thing to say and anyone of a sound and grounded mind would think so.
[/b]
And that is exactly what you did in your post immediately before this.
Jesus wept, are you as demented as the halfwit down under.
That "quote" was made up by me to demonstrate how stupid the quote from BST was, do you not see the paragraph underneath it that says,
"That's not a reasonable thing to say and anyone of a sound and grounded mind would think so."
If you don't understand that then i can't help you mate.
Piss weak defence. Your earlier post was doing exactly what you was accusing BST for.
-
DD.
Hang on.
I'm totally baffled now.
You started off berating me for drawing a lesson from what my old uni colleague believed and for saying that embodies Toryism.
No you're saying that EVERYONE thinks like that.
Are you having an argument with yourself here?
Seriously mate, i'm worried about your mental wellbeing.
If what i've just posted has you thinking this, then as above, i can't really help you.
-
DD
Let me explain in words of as few syllables as possible and see if you get the point.
1) The fundamental philosophical difference between politics of the (not extreme) right and left is this.
The Right believes that the over riding principle is that people should be responsible for their own outcomes.
The Left believes that we all have a responsibility for the good of society as a whole, not just ourselves and our families and friends.
Both arguments have merits and problems.
The ideal Right wing idea is predicated on the idea that with the freedom to do well, also comes responsibility to help people who through no fault of their own, are not able to succeed.
The left wing ideal is founded on the principle that in general, the basic ability to succeed is spread equally through the population, but that people born without advantage will always, always find it much harder to succeed than those born into successful environments. So you intervene to level the playing field.
In the real world of course, ideals don't exist.
The problem with the Left's approach is that you may disincentive hard work and reward failure.
The problem with the Right is that, in general, people DON'T look after anyone outside their immediate group, and people, given the opportunity, want to acquire as much as they can for them and theirs.
When Thatcher said, "There's no such thing as Society", she went on to say that there are only individuals, families and neighbouhoods. She was crisply and concisely describing the Right ideal. And for what it's worth, I think she did also believe in the responsibility that SHOULD impose on successful people to look after others.
But. They don't. Far more of them are like my old colleague. Selfish. Acquisitive. Uninterested in the problems of others, except when they scorn and blame the unsuccessful for their failure.
On balance, I prefer the failings of the other side. That's the side of the line I choose to be on. I don't hate Toryism because I'm left wing. I'm left wing because I hate Toryism.
Clear?
And by the way, if you can't make a point without repeated suggestions of the other person having mental issues, do yourself a favour and keep your trap shut, eh? It makes you look stupid and unpleasant, and I don't think you are either.
-
What I hear from the above posts is how a kick ass attitude is important to be able to get on. I partly agree. Where this fails is first in creating a culture of selfishness - thanks Maggie and friends - and secondly in ignoring the creativity and energy in many people who are seriously disadvantaged. That costs everyone in benefit payments, health costs, policing, prisons, general societal chaos and destruction. Far better to see society values of support being valued, and effectively used. Overall, that is never a tory value. The tory value, the establishment value is, has always been, divide and rule. Blame the disadvantaged, the ones not fitting into the militaristic values of the mainstream.
Starmers Labour is largely on board with that society selfishness story.
I absolutely agree with much of this. I support the encouragement of a 'get up and go' attitude but I also feel that a governments has a responsibility to support those who, for whatever reason, are unable to do this.
This is where Tory and Labour differ in my experience.
In the 80's the Tory government gave virtually nothing to support those affected by their policies apart from advice to get on your bike and find work. In the 90's Labour created the 'New Deal' and 'Sure Start' schemes. I saw this Sure Start scheme in action for myself just how it helped young people and it was an travesty when it was scrapped.
-
DD
Let me explain in words of as few syllables as possible and see if you get the point.
1) The fundamental philosophical difference between politics of the (not extreme) right and left is this.
The Right believes that the over riding principle is that people should be responsible for their own outcomes.
The Left believes that we all have a responsibility for the good of society as a whole, not just ourselves and our families and friends.
Both arguments have merits and problems.
The ideal Right wing idea is predicated on the idea that with the freedom to do well, also comes responsibility to help people who through no fault of their own, are not able to succeed.
The left wing ideal is founded on the principle that in general, the basic ability to succeed is spread equally through the population, but that people born without advantage will always, always find it much harder to succeed than those born into successful environments. So you intervene to level the playing field.
In the real world of course, ideals don't exist.
The problem with the Left's approach is that you may disincentive hard work and reward failure.
The problem with the Right is that, in general, people DON'T look after anyone outside their immediate group, and people, given the opportunity, want to acquire as much as they can for them and theirs.
When Thatcher said, "There's no such thing as Society", she went on to say that there are only individuals, families and neighbouhoods. She was crisply and concisely describing the Right ideal. And for what it's worth, I think she did also believe in the responsibility that SHOULD impose on successful people to look after others.
But. They don't. Far more of them are like my old colleague. Selfish. Acquisitive. Uninterested in the problems of others, except when they scorn and blame the unsuccessful for their failure.
On balance, I prefer the failings of the other side. That's the side of the line I choose to be on. I don't hate Toryism because I'm left wing. I'm left wing because I hate Toryism.
Clear?
And by the way, if you can't make a point without repeated suggestions of the other person having mental issues, do yourself a favour and keep your trap shut, eh? It makes you look stupid and unpleasant, and I don't think you are either.
A well written post
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
What do you make of Terry Brammall?
I think he's one of the better ones.
Why do you ask?
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
What do you make of Terry Brammall?
I think he's one of the better ones.
Why do you ask?
You're pushing the tories are all in it for themselves line on a forum of a club owned and funded by a Tory donor, you simply can't generalise as you have been, it's like saying everyone on benefits doesn't want to work or criticising Rwanda but wearing your team's shirt that has visit Rwanda as a key sponsor.
-
DD.
Individuals looking after and out for themselves form the core of Toryism.
Who was it who said there's no such thing as society?
If you hear a great icon of Toryism saying that, it's drawing a line. You choose which side of it you want to live your life on. I'm very happy that I chose a different position.
What do you make of Terry Brammall?
I think he's one of the better ones.
Why do you ask?
You're pushing the tories are all in it for themselves line on a forum of a club owned and funded by a Tory donor, you simply can't generalise as you have been, it's like saying everyone on benefits doesn't want to work or criticising Rwanda but wearing your team's shirt that has visit Rwanda as a key sponsor.
I've read posts from your good self saying exactly that pud 'my family comes first'
It could have been tempered by something such as 'I would want the government to look after those in need of food, housing, a job, medical care etc" then my family comes first.
-
Nah not for me Sydney, firmly in the my kids first other stuff second and that won't change. Thankfully life isn't binary it's not one or the other and both work fine.
-
DD
Let me explain in words of as few syllables as possible and see if you get the point.
1) The fundamental philosophical difference between politics of the (not extreme) right and left is this.
The Right believes that the over riding principle is that people should be responsible for their own outcomes.
The Left believes that we all have a responsibility for the good of society as a whole, not just ourselves and our families and friends.
Both arguments have merits and problems.
The ideal Right wing idea is predicated on the idea that with the freedom to do well, also comes responsibility to help people who through no fault of their own, are not able to succeed.
The left wing ideal is founded on the principle that in general, the basic ability to succeed is spread equally through the population, but that people born without advantage will always, always find it much harder to succeed than those born into successful environments. So you intervene to level the playing field.
In the real world of course, ideals don't exist.
The problem with the Left's approach is that you may disincentive hard work and reward failure.
The problem with the Right is that, in general, people DON'T look after anyone outside their immediate group, and people, given the opportunity, want to acquire as much as they can for them and theirs.
When Thatcher said, "There's no such thing as Society", she went on to say that there are only individuals, families and neighbouhoods. She was crisply and concisely describing the Right ideal. And for what it's worth, I think she did also believe in the responsibility that SHOULD impose on successful people to look after others.
But. They don't. Far more of them are like my old colleague. Selfish. Acquisitive. Uninterested in the problems of others, except when they scorn and blame the unsuccessful for their failure.
On balance, I prefer the failings of the other side. That's the side of the line I choose to be on. I don't hate Toryism because I'm left wing. I'm left wing because I hate Toryism.
Clear?
And by the way, if you can't make a point without repeated suggestions of the other person having mental issues, do yourself a favour and keep your trap shut, eh? It makes you look stupid and unpleasant, and I don't think you are either.
I think you need help with your Mental health too Billy!
-
DD
Let me explain in words of as few syllables as possible and see if you get the point.
1) The fundamental philosophical difference between politics of the (not extreme) right and left is this.
The Right believes that the over riding principle is that people should be responsible for their own outcomes.
The Left believes that we all have a responsibility for the good of society as a whole, not just ourselves and our families and friends.
Both arguments have merits and problems.
The ideal Right wing idea is predicated on the idea that with the freedom to do well, also comes responsibility to help people who through no fault of their own, are not able to succeed.
The left wing ideal is founded on the principle that in general, the basic ability to succeed is spread equally through the population, but that people born without advantage will always, always find it much harder to succeed than those born into successful environments. So you intervene to level the playing field.
In the real world of course, ideals don't exist.
The problem with the Left's approach is that you may disincentive hard work and reward failure.
The problem with the Right is that, in general, people DON'T look after anyone outside their immediate group, and people, given the opportunity, want to acquire as much as they can for them and theirs.
When Thatcher said, "There's no such thing as Society", she went on to say that there are only individuals, families and neighbouhoods. She was crisply and concisely describing the Right ideal. And for what it's worth, I think she did also believe in the responsibility that SHOULD impose on successful people to look after others.
But. They don't. Far more of them are like my old colleague. Selfish. Acquisitive. Uninterested in the problems of others, except when they scorn and blame the unsuccessful for their failure.
On balance, I prefer the failings of the other side. That's the side of the line I choose to be on. I don't hate Toryism because I'm left wing. I'm left wing because I hate Toryism.
Clear?
And by the way, if you can't make a point without repeated suggestions of the other person having mental issues, do yourself a favour and keep your trap shut, eh? It makes you look stupid and unpleasant, and I don't think you are either.
I think you need help with your Mental health too Billy!
Can we do something about this please?
-
It's bloody amazing the tories sure know how to create a diversion from their maladministration of the UK economy. Make up a stories and all the political lap dogs run around yapping away, repeating the rubbish, getting angry and accusing and abusing those that can actually tell the difference between shit and clay.
On top of that when they are called out they double down and make it worse.
-
77 and counting
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-standing-down-next-election#:~:text=next%20general%20election.-,How%20many%20MPs%20are%20standing%20down%20at%20the%20next%20election,at%20the%20next%20general%20election.
-
This is quite normal when a party has been in power for a while. And expect defeat at a GE. The 2010 election saw almost 150 MPs stand down, mainly from the Labour Party, which had been in power since 1997. It’s the circle of political life .
-
The 77 are all tory nr
-
The 77 are all tory nr
I can read ty. 100 Labour mps stood down in 2010.
-
If we'd of had a PR system i would imagine the broad church that is both Labour and Tory would of ensured that a good proportion of the 567 seats would of been split between more than the two parties.
Its interesting to see the quite wide divisions that we have in both main parties ranging from Looney left to extreme right.
Its always clear that a great many struggle to sign up fully to their parties official line. It would be good to see if any had the courage of their own convictions and did something about it.
Should all of these loose cannons still be rattling around in their respective parties, i'd say its an affront to their electorate when they win the seat under the party line but then spend the next 5 years pushing their own agenda.
Is this not false representation?
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
Why leave then instead of working to better the country?
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
Why leave then instead of working to better the country?
Why leave Donny instead of staying to improve the City and County?
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
Why leave then instead of working to better the country?
Why leave Donny instead of staying to improve the City and County?
For better prospects. Please note though I do not insist on involving myself greatly in politics in Doncaster or expect to cast a vote in local elections in Doncaster which would effect people living there . I also make no bones that my family situation comes before society to me. I don’t do what’s right for my family whilst insinuating that society comes first
-
Great
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5114q1x09eo
Clearing house?
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
So that shitty speech you made back in 2006 on the South Country was another load of twaddle forsaking your country and all that as we had gone to the dogs!
For gods sake don’t tell us they deported you back here?
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
So that shitty speech you made back in 2006 on the South Country was another load of twaddle forsaking your country and all that as we had gone to the dogs!
For gods sake don’t tell us they deported you back here?
Not sure what you are on about, but that's not unusual.
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
-
Mods, please.!!! This personal stuff is getting in the way of reasoned debate..
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
So that shitty speech you made back in 2006 on the South Country was another load of twaddle forsaking your country and all that as we had gone to the dogs!
For gods sake don’t tell us they deported you back here?
Not sure what you are on about, but that's not unusual.
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
Would you care to explain yourself?
-
The 77 are all tory nr
How many Labour MPs have been stood down by the Labour central office, and even against the local party members wishes? And what is the connection between them?
-
Luke Akehurst, employee of Israel and right wing Labour NEC member, is to be imposed upon North Durham CLP.
"Zionist Shitlord" by his own admission.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGOxcSVMW8AA6w_W.jpg
One of 5 NEC members to be given a safe seat......without any connection to the local party!
Here is veteran journo Michael Crick commenting on what is happening;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1796134762643365890/pu/vid/avc1/1280x714/NG_XPF4hBX3YJBPq.mp4?tag=12
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
So that shitty speech you made back in 2006 on the South Country was another load of twaddle forsaking your country and all that as we had gone to the dogs!
For gods sake don’t tell us they deported you back here?
Not sure what you are on about, but that's not unusual.
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
Would you care to explain yourself?
Snotty because you think you are better than someone totally your better.
I've never heard if dogging till you commented on it and still don't know what it means.
-
The question isn't whether Labour are Stalinist or not, but who exactly is pulling the strings? Whilst I didn't buy Starmer's patter in the leadership elections, he has been used by people and changed his direction drastically since then. This is not going to end well.
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
So that shitty speech you made back in 2006 on the South Country was another load of twaddle forsaking your country and all that as we had gone to the dogs!
For gods sake don’t tell us they deported you back here?
Not sure what you are on about, but that's not unusual.
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
Would you care to explain yourself?
Snotty because you think you are better than someone totally your better.
I've never heard if dogging till you commented on it and still don't know what it means.
Well if you don’t know what it means don’t use the term, ask your day Carer!
Oh and kindly evidence why you assume you are BETTER than me?
Quote from Syd
Snotty because you think you are better than someone totally your better.!!!
-
It seems "Zionist Shitlord" Luke Akehurst has deleted 1,500 tweets from X in the last week before his parachute drop into North Durham CLP.
If he imagines this will keep him in the clear, he has not understood how the internet works!
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
So that shitty speech you made back in 2006 on the South Country was another load of twaddle forsaking your country and all that as we had gone to the dogs!
For gods sake don’t tell us they deported you back here?
Not sure what you are on about, but that's not unusual.
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
Would you care to explain yourself?
Snotty because you think you are better than someone totally your better.
I've never heard if dogging till you commented on it and still don't know what it means.
Well if you don’t know what it means don’t use the term, ask your day Carer!
Oh and kindly evidence why you assume you are BETTER than me?
Quote from Syd
Snotty because you think you are better than someone totally your better.!!!
While you're making misogynist comments 99% + of the population are better than you snot.
-
The 77 are all tory nr
Why are you so interested in our business! You come across as a Billy no mates Whingeing Pomm?
Cos I'm Bwitish snotty
So that shitty speech you made back in 2006 on the South Country was another load of twaddle forsaking your country and all that as we had gone to the dogs!
For gods sake don’t tell us they deported you back here?
Not sure what you are on about, but that's not unusual.
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
You appear to be the local expert on dogs and dogging, snotty
Would you care to explain yourself?
Snotty because you think you are better than someone totally your better.
I've never heard if dogging till you commented on it and still don't know what it means.
Well if you don’t know what it means don’t use the term, ask your day Carer!
Oh and kindly evidence why you assume you are BETTER than me?
Quote from Syd
Snotty because you think you are better than someone totally your better.!!!
While you're making misogynist comments 99% + of the population are better than you snot.
Evidence please
-
99% + of what I read here and on the football forum and everywhere else is not misogynistic, if you hang out on other social media sites where it is, or you think you are correct somehow, you are wrong.
-
99% + of what I read here and on the football forum and everywhere else is not misogynistic, if you hang out on other social media sites where it is, or you think you are correct somehow, you are wrong.
Thank you!
-
The SNP now kicking off about Starmers plans for GB energy in Scotland.
-
The SNP now kicking off about Starmers plans for GB energy in Scotland.
He is surprisingly bad at campaigning isn't he? Early days but I'm getting Theresa May vibes.
Turns out he took a private jet to Scotland to make the big GB Energy launch. At least one of his advisors must be a Tory plant.
-
We all love a good set of hypocrites;
Labour's website on Sunak;
Out-of-touch Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is well-known for his use of private jets, including racking up a bill of over £500,000 in the space of less than two weeks.
Now his high-flying lifestyle is clearly starting to affect his judgement – and his Government’s policies.
Starmer this morning;
Yes, we did use a private jet because we needed to get very quickly to Scotland from Wales yesterday. We have to use the most efficient form of transport in the middle of a very, very busy, general election campaign. We offset the carbon. We always do whatever we use transport in the air. So, that’s the approach we’re taking. We’ve got five weeks to take our argument to the country. I need to get across the country to speak to as many people as possible and from time to time we have to do it as efficiently as possible.
Labour when Starmer used a private jet to Aberdeen to talk about energy;
Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, said: “We could all hear from the prime minister’s tetchy and disdainful response to the BBC that he is tired of being questioned about his addiction to helicopters and private jets. But he cannot simply wave away the rules in his own ministerial code.
“Like every other member of the cabinet, when it is essential to travel by air he is supposed to use scheduled flights where possible because that is cheaper for the taxpayer and better for the environment. If those are still the rules, then he needs to explain why he has not followed them.”
-
A desperately out of touch political elite, convinced that the world inside their bubble is how it is, and nothing needs to be done about it.
If challenged, just lie and rely on client media to amplify.
Reminded me again of this Peter Oborne DDN vid from September;
https://youtu.be/mv7sZoQkkns
Right on the money.
If people can't see what is happening, then it is because they don't want to see it.
-
Meanwhile that clown Iain Dale from LBC has withdrawn from the Tory safe seat of Tunbridge Wells after they found a clip of him slagging the place off. None of the parties really covering themselves in glory so far.
-
Meanwhile that clown Iain Dale from LBC has withdrawn from the Tory safe seat of Tunbridge Wells after they found a clip of him slagging the place off. None of the parties really covering themselves in glory so far.
It's really a mess isn't it?
-
Abbott allowed to stand as Labour's candidate.
Not really sure why this wasn't dealt with weeks/months ago. We all knew there'd be an election at some point this year.
-
Abbott allowed to stand as Labour's candidate.
Not really sure why this wasn't dealt with weeks/months ago. We all knew there'd be an election at some point this year.
Probably only being allowed to stand because of all the media coverage over the last few days.
Agreed with Chris Bx as well.
-
Abbott allowed to stand as Labour's candidate.
Not really sure why this wasn't dealt with weeks/months ago. We all knew there'd be an election at some point this year.
Agreed, but Starmer has stuck with the same story when questioned 'Abbott hasn't been barred from standing'
-
Dianne Abbott has had a lot of Grief with her son James who was a crystal Meth Addict makes you wonder what is going off in her life at the moment
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8246919/The-violent-rampage-Diane-Abbotts-diplomat-son-James-Abbott-Thompson.html
-
Abbott allowed to stand as Labour's candidate.
Not really sure why this wasn't dealt with weeks/months ago. We all knew there'd be an election at some point this year.
Agreed, but Starmer has stuck with the same story when questioned 'Abbott hasn't been barred from standing'
And Abbott has stuck with the story that she had been barred.
-
Abbott allowed to stand as Labour's candidate.
Not really sure why this wasn't dealt with weeks/months ago. We all knew there'd be an election at some point this year.
Agreed, but Starmer has stuck with the same story when questioned 'Abbott hasn't been barred from standing'
Why leave her in limbo until Newsnight breaks the story that the investigation was completed months ago? She might not have been officially barred, but it's clear the plan was to keep her in limbo by kicking the can down the road until it was too late for her to stand, which is functionally the same thing.
For what it's worth I'm not sure how much Starmer himself had to do with this. It stinks of score-settling and factional bullshit from the NEC/leadership team. But he's clearly turned a blind eye to it as it would've been a politically convenient outcome for him, when he should've put his foot down and throttled the story long before it became an issue.
-
Agreed
-
Keith is just the front man, the Labour machine is run by Morgan McSweeney in HQ.
They have decided to put a lid on the comms disaster for now.
After the GE, they will concoct a pretext to isolate Abbott.
Same tactics used against Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Shaheen.
Next targets will probably be Apsana Begum and Dawn Butler, unless they get cold feet after this foul up.
Don't forgot only last Friday Keith was briefing the media that DA was subject to an ongoing investigation, awaiting conclusion...now seen to be clearly untrue.
-
Keith is just the front man, the Labour machine is run by Morgan McSweeney in HQ.
They have decided to put a lid on the comms disaster for now.
After the GE, they will concoct a pretext to isolate Abbott.
Same tactics used against Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Shaheen.
Next targets will probably be Apsana Begum and Dawn Butler, unless they get cold feet after this foul up.
Don't forgot only last Friday Keith was briefing the media that DA was subject to an ongoing investigation, awaiting conclusion...now seen to be clearly untrue.
I’ve not heard of Morgan McSweeney.
Is he the Labour version of Cummings, who was apparently running the country when Boris was PM.
-
So is it a u turn? Or is Abbott a liar?
-
So is it a u turn? Or is Abbott a liar?
Neither.
Some t**t in the Labour office briefed the Times that Abbott had been barred from standing.
Abbott said she'd heard from the Times that she'd been barred.
Starmer said no decision had been made.
Both appear to have been true.
Issue for Starmer is that this has been very badly handled. He should absolutely root out the t**t who briefed the Times. And he's allowed this to grow instead of stamping on it immediately and saying, "of course she can stand."
I hope some lessons are being learned.
-
Some twit has been remanded to Prison for making
Threats to Kill Ed Milliband , even repeated it infront of a Police officer in the Custody Suite!
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/crime/man-admits-threatening-to-kill-ex-labour-leader-doncaster-mp-ed-miliband-4649562
-
A desperately out of touch political elite, convinced that the world inside their bubble is how it is, and nothing needs to be done about it.
If challenged, just lie and rely on client media to amplify.
Reminded me again of this Peter Oborne DDN vid from September;
https://youtu.be/mv7sZoQkkns
Right on the money.
If people can't see what is happening, then it is because they don't want to see it.
The general consensus is that politics is broken in the UK .
I think it's the opposite personally .
It's fixed and works perfectly well for those who have created it .
-
Does anyone know who the “tw*t in the Labour office” is or is it a story put out there to conveniently take the blame away from Starmer.
Something, allegedly, similar happened during covid if I remember right.
-
Some mind-blowing projections being published by Electoral Calculus tonight.
Seat projection:
LAB: 476
CON: 66
LD: 59
Green: 2
Reform: 0
Under this projection, James Cleverly, Penny Mourdant, Kemi Badenoch, and Jacob Rees-Mogg would all lose their seats.
While we're still 5 weeks away from polling day, Electoral Calculus were accurate in predicting the outcome of the 2019 at a similar stage in the campaign.
-
Some mind-blowing projections being published by Electoral Calculus tonight.
Seat projection:
LAB: 476
CON: 66
LD: 59
Green: 2
Reform: 0
Under this projection, James Cleverly, Penny Mourdant, Kemi Badenoch, and Jacob Rees-Mogg would all lose their seats.
While we're still 5 weeks away from polling day, Electoral Calculus were accurate in predicting the outcome of the 2019 at a similar stage in the campaign.
If that were to happen, I think it would be the highest number of seats any party had ever won. More even than 1931 when the majority of the Labour MPs joined the Tories to form a coalition in the battle against the Great Depression.
That's really not healthy. But given where the parties were in 2019, it's an almost unbelievable success for Labour.
-
I can understand why that wouldn't be healthy from the point of view of it being important to have a strong opposition to hold the government to account, but at least if the result was that big, it would demonstrate that our kind of democracy itself is healthy - and it feels like we need that demonstration right now. That when a party has taken the piss for so long, that the country can collectively come together to say "enough is enough" and use an election to bring about change - unlike the things we're seeing in America right now where democracy is being made (primarily by one side) to look like a bad joke.
None of the 52/48 shit like we had with Brexit, and not needing to wake up after the election and say things like "How can so many people continue to support the Tories after partygate, PPE contracts, Trussenomics, etc, etc" would certainly give me a sigh of relief. And I say all of that as the textbook definition of a floating voter. I voted Tory in 2019. I won't be doing so this time.
-
Politics is becoming far more unstable, everywhere
Sumat is up.
-
Politics is becoming far more unstable, everywhere
Sumat is up.
In America, this is the product of a long game.
Back in the 90s, Newt Gingrich saw the writing on the wall for the Republicans. Americans were getting better educated, more urbanised, more diverse and on average, younger. All those demographic drivers helped the Democrats. Plus, the Right hand no driving socio-economic philosophy. And they'd lost the Cold War threat that traditionally gave the Republicans the edge as a party that was for a strong military.
He wrote an influential argument that, in couched terms, but unmistakably called for a move to Culture War, to find cleavage points where they could strengthen the support of their base by sending the message that the Govt, and the liberals and the gays and the minorities were all trying to smash down true Americans.
They've been pushing that message for 30 years. The obvious conclusion is that a savvy narcissistic criminal like Trump takes that to the nth degree. So now you have him screaming conspiracies daily, trying to torment a coup, and getting prosecuted and STILL 40% love him.
And it's not going to get any better even if he loses this year. Those attitudes are now baked in for a generation at least.
If he wins, God help American democracy.
-
Keith is just the front man, the Labour machine is run by Morgan McSweeney in HQ.
They have decided to put a lid on the comms disaster for now.
After the GE, they will concoct a pretext to isolate Abbott.
Same tactics used against Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Shaheen.
Next targets will probably be Apsana Begum and Dawn Butler, unless they get cold feet after this foul up.
Don't forgot only last Friday Keith was briefing the media that DA was subject to an ongoing investigation, awaiting conclusion...now seen to be clearly untrue.
I’ve not heard of Morgan McSweeney.
Is he the Labour version of Cummings, who was apparently running the country when Boris was PM.
Morgan Mcsweeney is former Labour Chief of Staff, now Director of Campaigns since 2021.
He was involved with a strategy think tank called "Labour Together", which acts as a conduit between sponsors and the party policy development;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-prime-minister-morgan-mcsweeney-investigation-65fnh8zrt
Full article here;
https://archive.ph/AeaRS
It is a bit like the "Tufton St" network of paid influencers who advise the Tories, and shape the policy agenda.
Mcsweeney is seen as the organ grinder behind the monkey Keith, and is comparable to Alastair Campbell or Peter Mandelson, pulling the strings off stage.
This article by Peter Oborne sets out his view of the Labour shenanikins;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/keir-starmer-drawing-terrifying-blueprint-uk
-
Keith is just the front man, the Labour machine is run by Morgan McSweeney in HQ.
They have decided to put a lid on the comms disaster for now.
After the GE, they will concoct a pretext to isolate Abbott.
Same tactics used against Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Shaheen.
Next targets will probably be Apsana Begum and Dawn Butler, unless they get cold feet after this foul up.
Don't forgot only last Friday Keith was briefing the media that DA was subject to an ongoing investigation, awaiting conclusion...now seen to be clearly untrue.
I’ve not heard of Morgan McSweeney.
Is he the Labour version of Cummings, who was apparently running the country when Boris was PM.
Morgan Mcsweeney is former Labour Chief of Staff, now Director of Campaigns since 2021.
He was involved with a strategy think tank called "Labour Together", which acts as a conduit between sponsors and the party policy development;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-prime-minister-morgan-mcsweeney-investigation-65fnh8zrt
Full article here;
https://archive.ph/AeaRS
It is a bit like the "Tufton St" network of paid influencers who advise the Tories, and shape the policy agenda.
Mcsweeney is seen as the organ grinder behind the monkey Keith, and is comparable to Alastair Campbell or Peter Mandelson, pulling the strings off stage.
This article by Peter Oborne sets out his view of the Labour shenanikins;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/keir-starmer-drawing-terrifying-blueprint-uk
It’s good to see Labour getting rid of the discontented who all seem to be pursuing an different and clearly selfish agenda , but I will be voting Tory!
-
If you read the Oborne article in Middle East Eye, you will see that the selfish agenda is being pursued by the Starmerroids, Sproty.
The most chilling section is where Oborne says that:
"A new clause has been added to the Labour rulebook, which reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness … shall apply to the termination of party membership.” This is astonishing in what claims to be a democratic party."
Quite so, and it is strange that Labour supporters are not up in arms about this.
They appear to be saying that the new Labour rules over-ride the laws of the UK, a ridiculous suggestion.
-
If you read the Oborne article in Middle East Eye, you will see that the selfish agenda is being pursued by the Starmerroids, Sproty.
The most chilling section is where Oborne says that:
"A new clause has been added to the Labour rulebook, which reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness … shall apply to the termination of party membership.” This is astonishing in what claims to be a democratic party."
Quite so, and it is strange that Labour supporters are not up in arms about this.
They appear to be saying that the new Labour rules over-ride the laws of the UK, a ridiculous suggestion.
Albie.
Do your homework and look into this a bit more deeply before you start clutching your pearls.
What actions do that clause apply to?
-
Prohibited acts, BST.
What is your point?
This earlier article by Oborne links through to the Labour rulebook;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-starmer-authoritarianism-alarm-bells-ringing
"Neither the principles of natural justice nor
the provisions of fairness in Chapter 2, Clause
II.8 shall apply to the termination of Party
membership pursuant to Chapter 2, Clauses
I.4.A and C."
This is presumably what Faiza Shaheen is taking legal advice about.
Shaheen was criticised for a retweet of a post that refers to the Israeli lobby.
The existence of that lobby is a historical fact, and has been evident for many years past.
Wait for it to litigate out.
Which Labour rule has she broken, and is that rule itself lawful?
-
Prohibited acts, BST.
What is your point?
This earlier article by Oborne links through to the Labour rulebook;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-starmer-authoritarianism-alarm-bells-ringing
"Neither the principles of natural justice nor
the provisions of fairness in Chapter 2, Clause
II.8 shall apply to the termination of Party
membership pursuant to Chapter 2, Clauses
I.4.A and C."
This is presumably what Faiza Shaheen is taking legal advice about.
Shaheen was criticised for a retweet of a post that refers to the Israeli lobby.
The existence of that lobby is a historical fact, and has been evident for many years past.
Wait for it to litigate out.
Which Labour rule has she broken, and is that rule itself lawful?
And what actions do Clauses 1.4A and C cover?
In your own time.
-
Every time you think this Tory party has scraped the bottom of the barrel bare, they surprise you.
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1796531593814941810
This is f**king disgusting.
The background is that Brianna Grey's parents, who live in Nichols's constituency, were wanting her to be formally recorded as having lived as a female before she was murdered.
Badenoch uses this as yet another Culture War front, because all she's bothered about is showing the bigots in the Tory party membership how much she's on their side when the post-Election dog fight starts.
She is f**king repulsive.
-
BST,
I have literally just told you...prohibited acts!
See here:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Rule-Book-2023-FINAL_web_v3.pdf
Now do you have a point, I suspect not?
-
And what are the "prohibited acts"?
In your own time.
-
Kuenssberg: Labour stumble.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7220exjzvno
British people: Err, nope.
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1796979289667055976
Opinium is an interesting one. They e consistent reported the lowest Labour leads and the highest Tory support. That's because a lot of people who voted Tory last time, say they won't vote this time. And Opinium have assumed they all will, and will vote Tory.
So if even THEY are saying Labour are 20% ahead, that's some statement.
Kuenssberg though, eh? f**k me...
-
Interesting. Which party does this candidate support (zoom in on the text bottom left) - and people accuse Labour of being dishonest!!!
https://x.com/theobertram/status/1796880844667109642
-
Largan also has exactly the same poster in pale blue except it says Reform for Robert. Is this not against electoral rules?
-
Interesting. Which party does this candidate support (zoom in on the text bottom left) - and people accuse Labour of being dishonest!!!
https://x.com/theobertram/status/1796880844667109642
That is quite incredible to be honest. Surely that has to break some law or another.
-
It is incredible and very crafty.
However on the voting slip it will say his name and which Party he represents.
-
https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619
-
If you read the Oborne article in Middle East Eye, you will see that the selfish agenda is being pursued by the Starmerroids, Sproty.
The most chilling section is where Oborne says that:
"A new clause has been added to the Labour rulebook, which reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness … shall apply to the termination of party membership.” This is astonishing in what claims to be a democratic party."
Quite so, and it is strange that Labour supporters are not up in arms about this.
They appear to be saying that the new Labour rules over-ride the laws of the UK, a ridiculous suggestion.
Watch until the end. Lloyd Russell-Moyle in 2021:
https://x.com/tonymc39/status/1796105512586559731?s=46
Wasn’t it around this time that the hard-left were saying that any other opposition leader would be further ahead in the polls?
Sproty is right. These people just want to be protestors forever because it suits their capabilities.
-
Keith is just the front man, the Labour machine is run by Morgan McSweeney in HQ.
They have decided to put a lid on the comms disaster for now.
After the GE, they will concoct a pretext to isolate Abbott.
Same tactics used against Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Shaheen.
Next targets will probably be Apsana Begum and Dawn Butler, unless they get cold feet after this foul up.
Don't forgot only last Friday Keith was briefing the media that DA was subject to an ongoing investigation, awaiting conclusion...now seen to be clearly untrue.
I’ve not heard of Morgan McSweeney.
Is he the Labour version of Cummings, who was apparently running the country when Boris was PM.
Morgan Mcsweeney is former Labour Chief of Staff, now Director of Campaigns since 2021.
He was involved with a strategy think tank called "Labour Together", which acts as a conduit between sponsors and the party policy development;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-prime-minister-morgan-mcsweeney-investigation-65fnh8zrt
Full article here;
https://archive.ph/AeaRS
It is a bit like the "Tufton St" network of paid influencers who advise the Tories, and shape the policy agenda.
Mcsweeney is seen as the organ grinder behind the monkey Keith, and is comparable to Alastair Campbell or Peter Mandelson, pulling the strings off stage.
This article by Peter Oborne sets out his view of the Labour shenanikins;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/keir-starmer-drawing-terrifying-blueprint-uk
It’s good to see Labour getting rid of the discontented who all seem to be pursuing an different and clearly selfish agenda , but I will be voting Tory!
May I ask, how come?
-
Anyone who is saying they are going to vote Tory willing to explain or excuse this:
-
And what are the "prohibited acts"?
In your own time.
Anything?
Ok, I'll answer it for you.
The specific "Prohibited Acts" referred to by clause I.4A are defined in clause I.4B
as standing as a candidate for another party, and taking legal action against the Labour party that is classed by the judge in court as vexatious.
Clause I.4C gives, for each of those Acts, the specific documentary evidence that would conclusively and unarguably prove that the particular Act had taken place. Such as a copy of the nomination paper putting the member forward as a candidate for another party.
Now, I assume you agree that a person who stands for, say, Galloway's party, or indeed any other party, cannot remain a member of the Labour party. Neither can someone who brings deliberately troublemaking legal action against the Labour party so unambiguously that the judge takes the rare step of throwing it out of court as vexatious.
Agreed?
So, onto the "Natural Justice" thing.
What that means in law is that, in some but not all cases, the accused person has the right to a fair hearing.
But it doesn't apply to all processes. Specifically in this case, if the Labour party has documentary evidence that a Prohibited Act has taken place, they are under no legal obligation (or moral one) to allow the member to have a hearing to explain themselves. If they have stood for another party, they have stood for another party. There's no discussion of "why" or "how" to be had. They are out.
Agreed?
I used to have a lot of respect for Oborne. But that is shit journalism. He could have explained the detail behind those ckauses. But he didnt. He, either deliberately or through crap research, misled readers with something designed to wind up the gullible who are already convinced that Starmer is the devil incarnate. And of course it's been shared and forwarded by loads of people, like yourself. Ensuring it gets wide readership.
I wonder why he, a lifelong right winger, is doing that?
-
In other words, immediate dismissal for gross misconduct, like in most work environments.?
-
That's pretty much it IDM.
Plus of course, it insulates Labour from being dragged down by interminable appeals by deliberate infiltrators.
-
BST,
Your post 352 seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the point Oborne is making.
Oborne is talking about the revisions which apply to MEMBERSHIP.
Shaheen has been excluded from CANDIDACY, but her membership remains in place.
By the logic of your first point, are you saying that the inclusion of Tory defectors, like Natalie Elphicke or Christian Wakeford, meet those membership criteria?
Or Luciana Berger, who stood for the LibDems against Labour?
Consider the reasons given for the removal of Faiza Shaheen as a Labour candidate.
Liking tweets referring to the Green Party before she joined Labour, or retweeting a comedy sketch about the Israeli lobby, or commenting on her own experience of Islamophobia in Labour.
Now read the rules again, and point out the specific offence that means an automatic exclusion from being a candidate.
Not her membership, which is still valid, but her candidacy supported by her local party.
What is the "prohibited act" that is proven, and leads to disqualification as a CANDIDATE?
Is any such "prohibited act" lawfully included in the rulebook, and consistent with UK legislation on natural justice?
I have an open mind, I consider this unproven until it has been tested in the courts.
In your own time.
-
https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619
Seems Robert Largan has previous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66742672
-
https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619
Seems Robert Largan has previous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66742672
Wow! “Off with his Head!”
-
https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619
Seems Robert Largan has previous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66742672
Wow! “Off with his Head!”
Well, he did apologise.
Isn’t it ok if an MP apologised for an error.
-
BST,
Your post 352 seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the point Oborne is making.
Oborne is talking about the revisions which apply to MEMBERSHIP.
Shaheen has been excluded from CANDIDACY, but her membership remains in place.
By the logic of your first point, are you saying that the inclusion of Tory defectors, like Natalie Elphicke or Christian Wakeford, meet those membership criteria?
Or Luciana Berger, who stood for the LibDems against Labour?
Consider the reasons given for the removal of Faiza Shaheen as a Labour candidate.
Liking tweets referring to the Green Party before she joined Labour, or retweeting a comedy sketch about the Israeli lobby, or commenting on her own experience of Islamophobia in Labour.
Now read the rules again, and point out the specific offence that means an automatic exclusion from being a candidate.
Not her membership, which is still valid, but her candidacy supported by her local party.
What is the "prohibited act" that is proven, and leads to disqualification as a CANDIDATE?
Is any such "prohibited act" lawfully included in the rulebook, and consistent with UK legislation on natural justice?
I have an open mind, I consider this unproven until it has been tested in the courts.
In your own time.
Albie.
I really haven't got a clue what you are on about
YOU posted a comment by Oborne that it was chilling that Labour had introduced a clause denying natural justice in cases of expulsion.
In post 336, you said:
The most chilling section is where Oborne says that:
"A new clause has been added to the Labour rulebook, which reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness … shall apply to the termination of party membership.” This is astonishing in what claims to be a democratic party."
You said:
They appear to be saying that the new Labour rules over-ride the laws of the UK, a ridiculous suggestion.
The first quote was totally misleading.
The second one was flat wrong.
When I pointed out the actual facts, you've now gone into a rant about me not understanding that Oborne is talking about membership (I know that thank you) while you are talking about candidacy.
Except you WEREN'T talking about candidacy in your post 336 to which I replied. You were talking about membership.
Do you think maybe a bit of reading what you've actually said and what I've replied to before flying off the handle might help?
-
PS Albie.
In your post 338, you say:
This (the clauses we are discussing) is presumably what Faiza Shaheen is taking legal advice about.
Shaheen was criticised for a retweet of a post that refers to the Israeli lobby.
The existence of that lobby is a historical fact, and has been evident for many years past.
That's simply and irrefutably wrong. The clauses we are discussing relate to MEMBERSHIP. Shaheen's membership has not been revoked.
-
BST,
Stop trying to backtrack and rewrite your own basic mistakes.
You have completely misunderstood the issues, and are too egotistical to own up, preferring to drivel and obfuscate.
The point Oborne was making in relation to membership is correct.
No organisation can write into its rules that natural justice is set aside, irrespective of the clauses they identify.
It is simply not within their gift to do so.
As Shaheen is a Labour member, she is entitled to the full range of opportunities that membership brings.
She chose to stand for Labour in Chingford, and was approved as their candidate by Chingford Labour.
For the Starmer controlled NEC to set aside her standing, they need a valid reason under the rules.
They do not have one.
If you think that they have, please enlighten us!
What is this "gross misconduct" analogy, I can't see any relevance to Shaheen?
Labour mumbled on about the need to have the highest quality candidate.
Shaheen is an economics academic (at the LSE), and an authority on economic inequality.
It would be hard to find someone better qualified.
Shaheen will be taking legal advice upon whether the decision to deny her standing is consistent with her membership rights, and if the given explanation can be justified against the published rules of Labour, assuming these rules are themselves lawful.
Of course post 336 relates to candidacy.
The matter of whether membership can be withdrawn without consideration of natural justice is material to that. It is a contingent factor.
You cannot be a candidate if you are not a member. That is the issue in contention with Shaheen.
Take my advice BST, never enter the witness box for cross examination.
Barristers would salivate over the prospect of grilling you!
Your post 360 above simply rehearses what I actually said to you!
Any reply to the relevant questions I asked you in post 355?
You know, Wakeford, Berger and Co?
-
https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619
Seems Robert Largan has previous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66742672
Wow! “Off with his Head!”
Well, he did apologise.
Isn’t it ok if an MP apologised for an error.
If an MP apologises for an error then produces campaign material that so appear to mimic it being from another party that both the electoral commission and the police become involved - how sincere was that apology in the first place?
And does it not conform to the Tory stereotype that 'the rules are for the little people and not the likes of us'?
-
This is really very weird behaviour Albie.
I'll repeat. Shaheen has not had her membership revoked.(*) I KNOW you say you know that, but you then go on to say:
You cannot be a candidate if you are not a member. That is the issue in contention with Shaheen.
At this point, I genuinely do not have a clue what you are trying to say. You're contradicting yourself n every post and even in the same post.
(*) She certainly hasn't had ANY action taken against her that I'm aware of in conjunction with clause I.4A. Which is what Oborne and I (and I did think, you) were talking about.
-
Here is post 355 again, BST, as you don't seem to be able to read properly.
BST,
Your post 352 seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the point Oborne is making.
Oborne is talking about the revisions which apply to MEMBERSHIP.
Shaheen has been excluded from CANDIDACY, but her membership remains in place.
By the logic of your first point, are you saying that the inclusion of Tory defectors, like Natalie Elphicke or Christian Wakeford, meet those membership criteria?
Or Luciana Berger, who stood for the LibDems against Labour?
Consider the reasons given for the removal of Faiza Shaheen as a Labour candidate.
Liking tweets referring to the Green Party before she joined Labour, or retweeting a comedy sketch about the Israeli lobby, or commenting on her own experience of Islamophobia in Labour.
Now read the rules again, and point out the specific offence that means an automatic exclusion from being a candidate.
Not her membership, which is still valid, but her candidacy supported by her local party.
What is the "prohibited act" that is proven, and leads to disqualification as a CANDIDATE?
Is any such "prohibited act" lawfully included in the rulebook, and consistent with UK legislation on natural justice?
I have an open mind, I consider this unproven until it has been tested in the courts.
In your own time.
Now answer the questions you have been asked, please!
-
Albie.
I'll answer what Iike thank you. I joined discussion on this topic to point out a blatant misrepresentation that you posted. You refuse to accept that and you fire off in other directions instead. It's no way to have a grown up discussion.
-
"(*) She certainly hasn't had ANY action taken against her that I'm aware of in conjunction with clause I.4A. Which is what Oborne and I (and I did think, you) were talking about."
Yes, I told you that.
Which is why the reasons for refusing her candidacy need to be valid.
Neither Oborne nor I are saying the clauses are relevant...you said that, and they are not.
They are arbitrary, and irrelevant to the candidacy of a full member.
Now please answer the questions put to you.
Do Wakeford, Elphicke and Berger meet the standards for membership in the rules?
-
Albie.
So let's summarise.
You agree that the membership revelation clauses, including the one referring to "Natural Justice" are irrelevant to the Shaheen case?
You accept my one and only point in getting involved in this, which was that you were spreading a blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
If so, that's the discussion over.
If not, please explain to me clearly why you disagree with those two points.
Nothing else is relevant to the point I was making.
-
BST,
1)
"You agree that the membership revelation clauses, including the one referring to "Natural Justice" are irrelevant to the Shaheen case?"
No, they are relevant to the matter of her membership under the rules.
Whether the rules themselves are lawful is another consideration.
Natural justice applies to both the membership rules, and the rules on candidates, despite what the Labour Party say.
The rules on membership, and those on candidacy, have to be internally coherent and applied without prejudice.
These issues need to be tested in the courts.
2)
"You accept my one and only point in getting involved in this, which was that you were spreading a blatant misrepresentation of the facts?"
Absolutely not.
The only "blatant misrepresentation" has been your lame attempt to rewrite the story to cover your back.
I have explained to you several times the errors in your replies, only for you to avoid the issue by changing focus.
All of which is in keeping with bad faith posting, trying to deviate by ducking and diving.
The game for you seems to be defending your own team, not looking at the bigger picture.
A bit immature, isn't it?
-
Christ alive Albie, what are you doing man?
1) Shaheen's membership has not been questioned, so how in God's name can clauses about membership have any connection?
2) I have not re-written anything in this thread. I stand by every single word. I genuinely do not have an idea what point you are trying to make.
If you're going to explode like this accusing me of changing focus and "ducking and diving" as part of some "game", have the decency to point out EXACTLY where I have done that.
-
This should really be the one and only thing we should be talking about in the campaign.
https://x.com/BenChu_/status/1797249155661717526
As a Novel Prize winning Economist puts it, "Productivity isn't everything. But in the long run, it's very nearly everything."
This is the biggest economic disaster in decades, if not centuries. If we don't start to put that right, the future is bleak.
-
There is absolutely no point in being a member of a party which denies you the benefits of full membership.
That is the position of Faiza Shaheen.
Refused backing as a candidate, despite meeting all the stated criteria, is a denial of natural justice.
It means a second class status of Labour membership, where not all members enjoy equal rights.
If she decides to run as an Indy, her membership will then be revoked under the rules.
Meanwhile, ex Tories and LibDems are welcome having campaigned and stood against Labour candidates.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
This is what BST is struggling to understand, despite having said he was going to resign from the local party if Shaheen was prevented from standing..which she is!
In the real world, this is a form of constructive dismissal.
In this case it applies to a job opportunity, not a post occupied. At the very least it is a form of discrimination in the recruitment process.
Shaheen had passed all the hurdles to become a candidate, only to be downgraded at the eleventh hour on spurious grounds, in favour of a candidate from the Starmer faction.
A local candidate replaced with an outsider, and a Labour Friend of Israel to displace a supporter of Palestinian rights.
Go figure!
-
Albie.
I'll say again.
What I'm struggling with is the fact that you posted comnents about Labour's rules on membership that are;
a) highly misleading and
b) nothing whatsoever to do with Shaheen's case.
That's it. Nothing more,nothing less.
-
There is absolutely no point in being a member of a party which denies you the benefits of full membership.
That is the position of Faiza Shaheen.
Refused backing as a candidate, despite meeting all the stated criteria, is a denial of natural justice.
It means a second class status of Labour membership, where not all members enjoy equal rights.
If she decides to run as an Indy, her membership will then be revoked under the rules.
Meanwhile, ex Tories and LibDems are welcome having campaigned and stood against Labour candidates.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
This is what BST is struggling to understand, despite having said he was going to resign from the local party if Shaheen was prevented from standing..which she is!
In the real world, this is a form of constructive dismissal.
In this case it applies to a job opportunity, not a post occupied. At the very least it is a form of discrimination in the recruitment process.
Shaheen had passed all the hurdles to become a candidate, only to be downgraded at the eleventh hour on spurious grounds, in favour of a candidate from the Starmer faction.
A local candidate replaced with an outsider, and a Labour Friend of Israel to displace a supporter of Palestinian rights.
Go figure!
I was wondering whether bst would go through with that threat to resign if Shaheen wasn’t allowed to stand in the GE.
-
If anyone is in doubt about what the Governments key tactic at this election will be, then have a listen to Kemi Badenoch's interview on Today this morning:-
1. Let's create a 'Culture War' policy headline that blames some minority group for the ills of the country
2. Don't worry about the detail - nobody cares as long as we are seen to be having a pop at the young, immigrants, trans-sexuals, the poor etc...etc...
3. Send one of our leading ministers onto the media to explain and defend the policy
4. When the Minister is unable to answer very reasonable questions about the policy, ensure that she gets the arse on during the live interview and looks like an aggressive bully and doesn't actually tell us anything.
As shallow as a kids paddling pool
Rinse & Repeat...
-
If anyone is in doubt about what the Governments key tactic at this election will be, then have a listen to Kemi Badenoch's interview on Today this morning:-
1. Let's create a 'Culture War' policy headline that blames some minority group for the ills of the country
2. Don't worry about the detail - nobody cares as long as we are seen to be having a pop at the young, immigrants, trans-sexuals, the poor etc...etc...
3. Send one of our leading ministers onto the media to explain and defend the policy
4. When the Minister is unable to answer very reasonable questions about the policy, ensure that she gets the arse on during the live interview and looks like an aggressive bully and doesn't actually tell us anything.
As shallow as a kids paddling pool
Rinse & Repeat...
Reminds me of 1933 ish..
-
If anyone is in doubt about what the Governments key tactic at this election will be, then have a listen to Kemi Badenoch's interview on Today this morning:-
1. Let's create a 'Culture War' policy headline that blames some minority group for the ills of the country
2. Don't worry about the detail - nobody cares as long as we are seen to be having a pop at the young, immigrants, trans-sexuals, the poor etc...etc...
3. Send one of our leading ministers onto the media to explain and defend the policy
4. When the Minister is unable to answer very reasonable questions about the policy, ensure that she gets the arse on during the live interview and looks like an aggressive bully and doesn't actually tell us anything.
As shallow as a kids paddling pool
Rinse & Repeat...
Someone has commented on Twitter today about this, saying today Labour are talking about Defence and national security policy, while the Tories are talking about what paperwork you need to go for a piss.
Kind of sums up the approaches of the two parties at the moment.
-
This latest b*llocks really captures the reason why I genuinely think the Tories might be facing an existential threat.
Be under no misapprehension about what Badenoch is doing today.
This announcement isn't about trying to win the Election. That's gone.
This is about throwing some red meat to the old, very right wing Tory membership. So that she'll be their darling when the Leader dogfight gets underway this summer.
Anyone who wants to be the next Tory leader has to win over a hundred thousand old reactionaries in the shires.
But like I keep saying. Those people and the values they represent are literally dying out.
And every time the Tory big names align the party more closely with those opinions, they repel even more of the younger people who are going to be voting for the next 50 years.
The Tory party used to be smarter than that. It sniffed the wind and reinvented itself to appeal to the emerging society in every generation.
So, Macmillan embraced the Keynesian economics and One Nation approach that would have been anathema to the previous generation.
Thatcher made the party the home of the newly aspirational working class.
Cameron accepted social liberalism and did away with the old "tut-tut" attitude associated with the Party.
But this lot have no idea of their own history. They are preaching to a shrinking, dying subset of the Electorate. Who is going to vote for them, when that group is no longer here?
-
Unfortunately, BST a good few posters on here - and I include myself in this - may not be around to witness it.
-
No knowing when any of us are going Pies.
Here's some numbers from the YG poll at the weekend that show how apocalyptic the situation is for the Tories.
YG polled 2040 people.
291 said they'd vote Tory at the election.
158 of those were aged 65+
76 were 50-64
51 were 25-49
6 were 18-24
If I were a Tory strategist, I'd be tying down and gagging any MP who wanted to make this election a Culture War about how to make bigoted pensioners feel better about themselves. The Tories are writing their own obituary by concentrating on that strategy.
-
PS.
The figures for Labour were:
657 said they'd vote Labour at the election.
91 of those were aged 65+
156 were 50-64
337 were 25-49
73 were 18-24
That's an absolutely unprecedented split.
People between 18 and 50 are SEVEN TIMES more likely to support Labour rather than the Tories.
As recently as 2.5 years ago, the polls were saying that age group was only 1.6 times more likely to vote Labour.
-
In case you didn't realise that the Tories are in meltdown...
https://x.com/twlldun/status/1797582937820717520
This from the ex Headmaster of St Paul's school, which charges £30k a year fees and currently pays no VAT.
-
At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.
The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.
-
At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.
The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.
8th time (un)lucky?
-
At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.
The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.
8th time (un)lucky?
Probably, unless there's two constituencies in which Reform are polling particularly well. (Assuming Tice has cherry-picked the area where they're strongest)
That won't stop him getting considerable TV/radio time during the campaign. Whatever you think of him, he's an effective campaigner and the Tories will be very worried about him/Reform diverting votes away from their party.
-
Albie.
I'll say again.
What I'm struggling with is the fact that you posted comnents about Labour's rules on membership that are;
a) highly misleading and
b) nothing whatsoever to do with Shaheen's case.
That's it. Nothing more,nothing less.
BST,
Your points;
1)
The post is totally accurate.
What is misleading is your strange interpretation, which fails to see the link to the subsequent action in debarring Shaheen from standing.
2)
It is highly relevant, and central to the issue of eligibility to stand.
Labour are saying a member who wishes to stand, approved by Chingford Labour, cannot do so.
The democratic rights of Chingford Labour have thus been ignored.
Shaheens rights as a member are therefore restricted, and she does not hold the same status and privileges as other party members.
This is discriminatory, and potentially unlawful.
-
Here is Starmer with his highest quality candidate grift;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1797585302577356800/pu/vid/avc1/858x720/mUBtiGPfby6Swl2t.mp4?tag=12
She is a Professor of Economics!
-
Albie.
I'll say again.
What I'm struggling with is the fact that you posted comnents about Labour's rules on membership that are;
a) highly misleading and
b) nothing whatsoever to do with Shaheen's case.
That's it. Nothing more,nothing less.
BST,
Your points;
1)
The post is totally accurate.
What is misleading is your strange interpretation, which fails to see the link to the subsequent action in debarring Shaheen from standing.
2)
It is highly relevant, and central to the issue of eligibility to stand.
Labour are saying a member who wishes to stand, approved by Chingford Labour, cannot do so.
The democratic rights of Chingford Labour have thus been ignored.
Shaheens rights as a member are therefore restricted, and she does not hold the same status and privileges as other party members.
This is discriminatory, and potentially unlawful.
This is so far beyond weird, it's actually quite unsettling.
Last go.
YOU posted a quote from Osborne that was highly misleading.
That quote related to Prohibited Actions which automatically led to revocation of party membership.
The quote was misleading because it gave the impression, deliberately or not, that membership revocation without appeal could happen arbitrarily. It didn't inform the reader about the very precise and limited circumstances in which that applies. The entire and sole purpose of my contribution was to make that clear.
None of that has ANYTHING to do with the Shaheen issue.
She's not had her membership revoked.
She's had her candidacy blocked.
The specific clauses we have been discussing say nothing whatsoever about eligibility to be a Labour candidate.
I genuinely haven't got a clue how and why you are conflating two totally and utterly separate issues, but I wish you well with whatever strange logic you are using.
-
Oh hang on!
The post is totally accurate.
What is misleading is your strange interpretation, which fails to see the link to the subsequent action in debarring Shaheen from standing.
Are you suggesting the link is this:
Because, as you see it, the issue Oborne raises proves that Labour are able at will and with no right of appeal to arbitrarily revoke someone's membership, they presumably can block someone's candidacy equally arbitrarily?
-
At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.
The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.
https://x.com/cjayanetti/status/1797640969980133544
-
Jesus wept, Farage has gone and made himself party leader!
-
Jesus wept, Farage has gone and made himself party leader!
What have the good people of Clacton done to deserve him as a candidate??
-
Labour and Tories not the solution - Farage
He is probably right IMO, but Reform are definitely not the answer!
Farage is entertaining that's for sure. But so is Steve Evans and I wouldn't want him in power either.
-
BST,
I have explained it clearly, but you seem to want to recycle utter drivel to confuse the issue.
You have to wonder why you would do so!
There is no question that Labour are arbitrarily removing candidacy rights from individuals, Shaheen, Russell Moyle and the Abbott U-Turns fiasco illustrate the point.
The decision to remove was made long after Shaheen was democratically reselected by the local Party as their candidate, but when it was too late for a replacement to be democratically selected.
Nothing more to be said, until it is decided whether to issue a legal challenge.
So, to summarise;
1)
There is no valid reason to deny Shaheen the right to stand (that we know about).
2)
Ex Tories like Wakeford and Elphicke, and ex LibDem candidates like Berger, are allowed to join Labour.
All have campaigned against Labour in the past.
3)
The NEC can impose candidates on local Labour groups, despite the opposition of those local parties to the selection.
Candidates can be removed at the final hour, even if they have followed due process.
4)
Resources can be denied to candidates whose face doesn't fit with Labour HQ.
5)
Tactics of humiliation can be used to dissuade candidates not in the Starmer faction to withdraw (constructive dismissal).
6)
Supporters of Zionism, those found guilty of sexual misdemeanors and those with a racist history are welcome in Labour.
-
Unfortunately, BST a good few posters on here - and I include myself in this - may not be around to witness it.
You won't be missing anything. This country is just getting worse, and there's no political party that's able to do anything about it.
You'll realise that in the next 12 months.
-
Unfortunately, BST a good few posters on here - and I include myself in this - may not be around to witness it.
You won't be missing anything. This country is just getting worse, and there's no political party that's able to do anything about it.
You'll realise that in the next 12 months.
That sounds like my vote won’t make a pennorth of difference then mate.
I was hoping to witness a significant shift for the better.
-
BST,
I have explained it clearly, but you seem to want to recycle utter drivel to confuse the issue.
You have to wonder why you would do so!
There is no question that Labour are arbitrarily removing candidacy rights from individuals, Shaheen, Russell Moyle and the Abbott U-Turns fiasco illustrate the point.
The decision to remove was made long after Shaheen was democratically reselected by the local Party as their candidate, but when it was too late for a replacement to be democratically selected.
Nothing more to be said, until it is decided whether to issue a legal challenge.
So, to summarise;
1)
There is no valid reason to deny Shaheen the right to stand (that we know about).
2)
Ex Tories like Wakeford and Elphicke, and ex LibDem candidates like Berger, are allowed to join Labour.
All have campaigned against Labour in the past.
3)
The NEC can impose candidates on local Labour groups, despite the opposition of those local parties to the selection.
Candidates can be removed at the final hour, even if they have followed due process.
4)
Resources can be denied to candidates whose face doesn't fit with Labour HQ.
5)
Tactics of humiliation can be used to dissuade candidates not in the Starmer faction to withdraw (constructive dismissal).
6)
Supporters of Zionism, those found guilty of sexual misdemeanors and those with a racist history are welcome in Labour.
What on earth are you going on about?
Not one of your points has ANYTHING to do with the quote by Oborne that you posted. Once again, that is the one and only point I've been engaging on. I really don't get this insistence of yours of berating me repeatedly over something entirely unrelated to the point I was making.
-
Jesus wept, Farage has gone and made himself party leader!
Anybody got a stopwatch running on how long before BB goes off on one about politicians saying one thing and doing the opposite?
-
Good old Nige, straight as a die.
-
Jesus wept, Farage has gone and made himself party leader!
What have the good people of Clacton done to deserve him as a candidate??
They’ll want him.
From Britain Elects on X:
How Clacton would vote in an election held today, according to Britain Predicts:
CON: 32% (-40)
REF: 24% (+24)
LAB: 24% (+8)
-
Billy and Albie please continue your argument of grid and directly between the pair of you it is just getting absolutely boring
-
Jesus wept, Farage has gone and made himself party leader!
Got 100% of the vote I understand.
-
Billy and Albie please continue your argument of grid and directly between the pair of you it is just getting absolutely boring
Apologies for that. I'm genuinely bewildered at what the disagreement is about, and I do take it too personally when entirely unfair accusations get chucked my way.
I've made my point and am happy to draw a line.
-
Billy and Albie please continue your argument of grid and directly between the pair of you it is just getting absolutely boring
Yeah, same two all the time.
FFS get a room.
-
Can def rule out bb being Diane Abbott then
''Diane Abbott will be reselected to fight her seat at a meeting of the Labour party’s executive on Tuesday despite having suggested on social media that Keir Starmer was a liar, the Guardian understands''
She deleted the tweet.
-
Should have taken a screenshot of it then.
-
In case you thought it couldn't get any worse/funnier -
The Tories released their first Offical Election TV Broadcast today - included in which is a shot of a Union Jack being flown upside down (a signal of distress)!
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1797711070863466889
-
And so the Tories are shitting themselves about Farage and committing to move even further to the batshit Right.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1797692913302012245
Like somebody has said tonight, the problem with this approach is that the batshit Right voters will probably prefer the real thing rather than the tribute band.
-
Never been that keen on the Real Thing. You to me are everything I need to be swayed to the right.
-
Strange thing about this campaign.
I haven't heard a single senior Tory highlight the fact that they got Brexit done.
Almost as if...
-
Reform have a 6 year plan. Many People are rightly sick of a Tory govt . But by god they will be destitute after this coming labour shit show.con socialists the lot of em.
No one considered Brexit would actually happen. No one considers a govt run by anyone other than labour or Tory. We are in an era where anything can happen.
-
Reform have a 6 year plan. Many People are rightly sick of a Tory govt . But by god they will be destitute after this coming labour shit show.con socialists the lot of em.
No one considered Brexit would actually happen. No one considers a govt run by anyone other than labour or Tory. We are in an era where anything can happen.
Which of Labours policies do you think will make us destitute?
-
Another day, another example of the Tories tearing themselves apart with their ruinous culture war bullshit:
-
Reform have a 6 year plan. Many People are rightly sick of a Tory govt . But by god they will be destitute after this coming labour shit show.con socialists the lot of em.
No one considered Brexit would actually happen. No one considers a govt run by anyone other than labour or Tory. We are in an era where anything can happen.
What have you done about it nr? 14+ years of deep shit. Government has arguably the most influence over people's lives and yet ............
-
Farage standing is bad news for the Tories. I don’t profess to knowing much about politics but my guess is that he doesn’t really care about this election. What he wants is to crush the Tories to the extent that they come to him to be their leader and the Tory party would then become unrecognisable to what we know.
I’ve never voted Tory in my life, but if they moved to the centre ground and were led by someone such as Rory Stewart I’d always consider it. Right now though that seems light years away.
Quite chilling really.
-
Reform have a 6 year plan. Many People are rightly sick of a Tory govt . But by god they will be destitute after this coming labour shit show.con socialists the lot of em.
No one considered Brexit would actually happen. No one considers a govt run by anyone other than labour or Tory. We are in an era where anything can happen.
It’s a shame your fortune telling didn’t warn us of the past 14 years of a shit show
-
Reform have a 6 year plan. Many People are rightly sick of a Tory govt . But by god they will be destitute after this coming labour shit show.con socialists the lot of em.
No one considered Brexit would actually happen. No one considers a govt run by anyone other than labour or Tory. We are in an era where anything can happen.
Let me get this straight.
You're putting up the fact that Brexit happened as a good reason to support the Farragists?
-
Just a thought when people say that Labour are just Red Tories.
https://x.com/labour_history/status/906441586183094279
-
Just a thought when people say that Labour are just Red Tories.
https://x.com/labour_history/status/906441586183094279
Devolution, their version of it really served us well!
I wonder if he ever gave a thought to going into selling double glazing.
-
Just a thought when people say that Labour are just Red Tories.
https://x.com/labour_history/status/906441586183094279
Devolution, their version of it really served us well!
I wonder if he ever gave a thought to going into selling double glazing.
Go on. What disservice did it do to you.
Oh, and by the way. Every one of those achievements of the last Labour Government were things they committed to do in manifestos.
What exactly DO you want from politicians?
-
Reform have a 6 year plan. Many People are rightly sick of a Tory govt . But by god they will be destitute after this coming labour shit show.con socialists the lot of em.
No one considered Brexit would actually happen. No one considers a govt run by anyone other than labour or Tory. We are in an era where anything can happen.
Let me get this straight.
You're putting up the fact that Brexit happened as a good reason to support the Farragists?
No.
What I am saying is the huge predicted swing to the left will have consequences come 5/6 years time. I think even you yourself predicted similar. You only have to look at the geo politics in certain eu countries to see what’s happening . Populist movements are on the rise . Brexit was an outcome of such . It’s happened once . It’s possible it will happen again. But it won’t be around a referendum . It will be at a forthcoming GE.
-
Reform have a 6 year plan. Many People are rightly sick of a Tory govt . But by god they will be destitute after this coming labour shit show.con socialists the lot of em.
No one considered Brexit would actually happen. No one considers a govt run by anyone other than labour or Tory. We are in an era where anything can happen.
Let me get this straight.
You're putting up the fact that Brexit happened as a good reason to support the Farragists?
No.
What I am saying is the huge predicted swing to the left will have consequences come 5/6 years time. I think even you yourself predicted similar. You only have to look at the geo politics in certain eu countries to see what’s happening . Populist movements are on the rise . Brexit was an outcome of such . It’s happened once . It’s possible it will happen again. But it won’t be around a referendum . It will be at a forthcoming GE.
Populist movements are on the rise - hence why there is a big swing to the left in the UK. Are you just writing words down from some random thought cloud?
Populist movements are on the rise - but unless they are totalitarian governments like Putin's Russia or Orban's Hungary who clamp down on opposition and dissent - in the countries where they have held power, like the UK there is a backlash against their failed 'promises'. Right-wing economics policies of greed and austerity have done exactly what they were intended to do, give immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority.
That's why all opinion polls show that it's only the over 65's where populist ideas are even remotely 'popular'. And in 5/6 years time there will be less of that age group to vote for them.
-
In five or six years time wilts, people who are 60 now will be overs 65s then.
Why will there be less of them?
-
In five or six years time wilts, people who are 60 now will be overs 65s then.
Why will there be less of them?
My post is a response to a previous post which says there will be a rise in voting for a populist party/parties in 5/6 years time.
People over 60 now are in the demographic who support left-wing policies/parties as are all the age groups under 65.
Why will they have suddenly changed a lifetimes voting habits?
-
Reform have a 6 year plan. Many People are rightly sick of a Tory govt . But by god they will be destitute after this coming labour shit show.con socialists the lot of em.
No one considered Brexit would actually happen. No one considers a govt run by anyone other than labour or Tory. We are in an era where anything can happen.
Let me get this straight.
You're putting up the fact that Brexit happened as a good reason to support the Farragists?
No.
What I am saying is the huge predicted swing to the left will have consequences come 5/6 years time. I think even you yourself predicted similar. You only have to look at the geo politics in certain eu countries to see what’s happening . Populist movements are on the rise . Brexit was an outcome of such . It’s happened once . It’s possible it will happen again. But it won’t be around a referendum . It will be at a forthcoming GE.
Populist movements are on the rise - hence why there is a big swing to the left in the UK. Are you just writing words down from some random thought cloud?
Populist movements are on the rise - but unless they are totalitarian governments like Putin's Russia or Orban's Hungary who clamp down on opposition and dissent - in the countries where they have held power, like the UK there is a backlash against their failed 'promises'. Right-wing economics policies of greed and austerity have done exactly what they were intended to do, give immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority.
That's why all opinion polls show that it's only the over 65's where populist ideas are even remotely 'popular'. And in 5/6 years time there will be less of that age group to vote for them.
It’s not that simple though is it.?
Traditional Tory voters who are suitably disenfranchised with conservatives will vote reform, or not vote at all. Red wall voters that jumped ship to the tories will resume to type and vote labour.
Brexit attracted votes from across the political spectrum, none less than red wall areas.
You may even get red wall voters opt for reform. If they voted for brexit, then some of reforms policies will appeal.
But overall there will be a swing to the left for sure in this GE.
But a platform for Reform will be built. Just like the platform was built for brexit by UKIP many years before the referendum vote.
UKIP engineered brexit without holding any power at all.
My eyes are wide open to what’s happening politically in this country. There is a consensus that the Tory Party have betrayed the Brexit vote. It’s only a matter of time before this is reflected at the ballot box. We may see some of this in a few weeks.
And don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a Reform govt is necessarily what this country needs. But there is a very real prospect that their support will gain significant traction, especially during a term of Labour Govt.
-
I read recently (might be on here) that lots of people change their voting habits as they get older.
Who is to say that won’t continue to happen.
-
I'm not wealthy, but I'm better off than I've ever been. It's not just an age thing either. My two lads have got more in terms of wealth and possessions than I ever had at their age, in fact, I dare say they have got more wealth and possesions than me now!
My next-door neighbours have a new car and a mortgage that I could never have afforded at their age. My brothers kids, both my sisters kids, all have bigger and better houses and cars than me, and my brother and sister for that matter.
I can't think of any of my mates who are not better off than they have ever been. Come to think of it, their kids are better off than they've ever been also, if what they tell me is true.
"immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority."
b*llocks
-
Just a thought when people say that Labour are just Red Tories.
https://x.com/labour_history/status/906441586183094279
Devolution, their version of it really served us well!
I wonder if he ever gave a thought to going into selling double glazing.
Go on. What disservice did it do to you.
Oh, and by the way. Every one of those achievements of the last Labour Government were things they committed to do in manifestos.
What exactly DO you want from politicians?
It didn't do anything directly to me as i don't live in a devolved territory bar requiring me to pay more tax to offset their largess. For those that do live there its caused no end of issues, just ask any Scotts, Welsh or Irishman.
The the country overall it has caused resentment, duplication and a great deal of wasted money.
To do devolution properly it should of been a case of mostly home rule for the devolved areas, that means all collected tax and revenue from the devolved states should of been handed over in full with all areas of state devolved except for defence and security. No formulas and additional funds allocated, if you have a devolved government you stand on your own two feet with no handouts from central government to soften the blow.
Instead we have a miss mash of devolved areas that don't suit anyone with all sides complaining about how the finances have been divided and distributed, resulting in taxpayers money being unfairly allocated. Failed health and education outcomes are constantly thrown back as being the fault of the UK government when its down to devolved SNP and Labour who have royally messed up.
Was it in there manifesto to undersell taxpayer owned gold and to totally mess up a great swathe of peoples workplace pensions?
What exactly i'd like from politicians is to think of my taxes as if they belonged to themselves, and spend them wisely and appropriately. We haven't had this for a long time and we now have the prospect of this continuing furthermore.
-
Veteran journo Michael Crick on the complete shitshow of selection processes in both main parties:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUHowypN4nw&pp=ygUMbm92YXJhIG1lZGlh
Are they both the same....no, but they are both very poor.
No real commitment to party democracy, just a sham scam.
-
Just a thought when people say that Labour are just Red Tories.
https://x.com/labour_history/status/906441586183094279
Devolution, their version of it really served us well!
I wonder if he ever gave a thought to going into selling double glazing.
Go on. What disservice did it do to you.
Oh, and by the way. Every one of those achievements of the last Labour Government were things they committed to do in manifestos.
What exactly DO you want from politicians?
It didn't do anything directly to me as i don't live in a devolved territory bar requiring me to pay more tax to offset their largess. For those that do live there its caused no end of issues, just ask any Scotts, Welsh or Irishman.
The the country overall it has caused resentment, duplication and a great deal of wasted money.
To do devolution properly it should of been a case of mostly home rule for the devolved areas, that means all collected tax and revenue from the devolved states should of been handed over in full with all areas of state devolved except for defence and security. No formulas and additional funds allocated, if you have a devolved government you stand on your own two feet with no handouts from central government to soften the blow.
Instead we have a miss mash of devolved areas that don't suit anyone with all sides complaining about how the finances have been divided and distributed, resulting in taxpayers money being unfairly allocated. Failed health and education outcomes are constantly thrown back as being the fault of the UK government when its down to devolved SNP and Labour who have royally messed up.
Was it in there manifesto to undersell taxpayer owned gold and to totally mess up a great swathe of peoples workplace pensions?
What exactly i'd like from politicians is to think of my taxes as if they belonged to themselves, and spend them wisely and appropriately. We haven't had this for a long time and we now have the prospect of this continuing furthermore.
Od on.
Are you seriously telling me that the Scots don't want a devolved Parliament?
And that the Northern Irish don't want a devolved Parliament? You reckon we'd be a better country if NI was ruled from Westminster?
-
I read recently (might be on here) that lots of people change their voting habits as they get older.
Who is to say that won’t continue to happen.
That might have been me Hound. I was listening to a programme on the radio about how voting habits change, in general terms. There was one bloke on there who said that he'd voted Labour for all of his working life but now that he'd retired he 'didn't need them anymore' so had voted Conservative in 2017 as Labour's spending on public services didn't benefit him now (or words to that affect).
-
I'm not wealthy, but I'm better off than I've ever been. It's not just an age thing either. My two lads have got more in terms of wealth and possessions than I ever had at their age, in fact, I dare say they have got more wealth and possesions than me now!
My next-door neighbours have a new car and a mortgage that I could never have afforded at their age. My brothers kids, both my sisters kids, all have bigger and better houses and cars than me, and my brother and sister for that matter.
I can't think of any of my mates who are not better off than they have ever been. Come to think of it, their kids are better off than they've ever been also, if what they tell me is true.
"immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority."
b*llocks
In my opinion I would say that is true that if you have aspirations to do really good things you can have assets but the issue is more and more people the younger you go down the ages house ownership is a pipe dream.
-
I read recently (might be on here) that lots of people change their voting habits as they get older.
Who is to say that won’t continue to happen.
That might have been me Hound. I was listening to a programme on the radio about how voting habits change, in general terms. There was one bloke on there who said that he'd voted Labour for all of his working life but now that he'd retired he 'didn't need them anymore' so had voted Conservative in 2017 as Labour's spending on public services didn't benefit him now (or words to that affect).
There's a well established trend in many countries that voters have tended to move rightwards as they get older. But the point is that the Tory party has never in the history of polling been this unpopular with under-50s. If the "normal" rightward shift happens, that will not come remotely close to filling the gap left as 65+ Tory voters age and die.
-
I'm not wealthy, but I'm better off than I've ever been. It's not just an age thing either. My two lads have got more in terms of wealth and possessions than I ever had at their age, in fact, I dare say they have got more wealth and possesions than me now!
My next-door neighbours have a new car and a mortgage that I could never have afforded at their age. My brothers kids, both my sisters kids, all have bigger and better houses and cars than me, and my brother and sister for that matter.
I can't think of any of my mates who are not better off than they have ever been. Come to think of it, their kids are better off than they've ever been also, if what they tell me is true.
"immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority."
b*llocks
'Everyone's better off than you' hmmm answers a few questions ............
-
I read recently (might be on here) that lots of people change their voting habits as they get older.
Who is to say that won’t continue to happen.
That might have been me Hound. I was listening to a programme on the radio about how voting habits change, in general terms. There was one bloke on there who said that he'd voted Labour for all of his working life but now that he'd retired he 'didn't need them anymore' so had voted Conservative in 2017 as Labour's spending on public services didn't benefit him now (or words to that affect).
There's a well established trend in many countries that voters have tended to move rightwards as they get older. But the point is that the Tory party has never in the history of polling been this unpopular with under-50s. If the "normal" rightward shift happens, that will not come remotely close to filling the gap left as 65+ Tory voters age and die.
I think though as someone in that 35-50 demographic (just) that the opposition have actually moved right with the Tories. We don't really have any true left wing parties right now I would say.
The biggest risk for me is what happens if labour as is likely get in to government and fail to achieve much. The door is then wide open for a populist movement and that's a bit scary to me.
The point on devolution is interesting. I think local things should be for local politicians. But devolution certainly in Scotland has widened the gap across the UK. Scotland now feels much more different to England than it ever did and I say that as someone who grew up across the two countries.
-
I'm not wealthy, but I'm better off than I've ever been. It's not just an age thing either. My two lads have got more in terms of wealth and possessions than I ever had at their age, in fact, I dare say they have got more wealth and possesions than me now!
My next-door neighbours have a new car and a mortgage that I could never have afforded at their age. My brothers kids, both my sisters kids, all have bigger and better houses and cars than me, and my brother and sister for that matter.
I can't think of any of my mates who are not better off than they have ever been. Come to think of it, their kids are better off than they've ever been also, if what they tell me is true.
"immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority."
b*llocks
'Everyone's better off than you' hmmm answers a few questions ............
What questions are they Syd?
-
Just a thought when people say that Labour are just Red Tories.
https://x.com/labour_history/status/906441586183094279
Devolution, their version of it really served us well!
I wonder if he ever gave a thought to going into selling double glazing.
Go on. What disservice did it do to you.
Oh, and by the way. Every one of those achievements of the last Labour Government were things they committed to do in manifestos.
What exactly DO you want from politicians?
It didn't do anything directly to me as i don't live in a devolved territory bar requiring me to pay more tax to offset their largess. For those that do live there its caused no end of issues, just ask any Scotts, Welsh or Irishman.
The the country overall it has caused resentment, duplication and a great deal of wasted money.
To do devolution properly it should of been a case of mostly home rule for the devolved areas, that means all collected tax and revenue from the devolved states should of been handed over in full with all areas of state devolved except for defence and security. No formulas and additional funds allocated, if you have a devolved government you stand on your own two feet with no handouts from central government to soften the blow.
Instead we have a miss mash of devolved areas that don't suit anyone with all sides complaining about how the finances have been divided and distributed, resulting in taxpayers money being unfairly allocated. Failed health and education outcomes are constantly thrown back as being the fault of the UK government when its down to devolved SNP and Labour who have royally messed up.
Was it in there manifesto to undersell taxpayer owned gold and to totally mess up a great swathe of peoples workplace pensions?
What exactly i'd like from politicians is to think of my taxes as if they belonged to themselves, and spend them wisely and appropriately. We haven't had this for a long time and we now have the prospect of this continuing furthermore.
Od on.
Are you seriously telling me that the Scots don't want a devolved Parliament?
And that the Northern Irish don't want a devolved Parliament? You reckon we'd be a better country if NI was ruled from Westminster?
For you to read the post and come back with that?
Unbelievable.
-
https://x.com/TheIFS/status/1797891798293152156
Yeah but there's no difference between Labour and the Tories.
-
Latest polls
''NEW: Our first MRP of the 2024 General Election
Labour Set for Record Breaking Majority
LAB 487
CON 71
LD 43
SNP 26
RFM 3
PC 2
30,044 interviews conducted online and on the phone
Fwk 22 May - 2 June
Conducted on behalf of @BestForBritain''
-
I'm not wealthy, but I'm better off than I've ever been. It's not just an age thing either. My two lads have got more in terms of wealth and possessions than I ever had at their age, in fact, I dare say they have got more wealth and possesions than me now!
My next-door neighbours have a new car and a mortgage that I could never have afforded at their age. My brothers kids, both my sisters kids, all have bigger and better houses and cars than me, and my brother and sister for that matter.
I can't think of any of my mates who are not better off than they have ever been. Come to think of it, their kids are better off than they've ever been also, if what they tell me is true.
"immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority."
b*llocks
I’m mid-30s and have a senior and pretty well paid job as a CFO, whilst my wife is also a chartered accountant and works as a Financial Controller. We live in a 4 bed house in a nice area of Edinburgh, but it’s a house we’re only able to afford at this stage of our life because of help from our parents towards the first properties that we bought. And it’s pretty unlikely we’ll ever live in a house like my wife grew up in, a 7 bed property closer to town. Her parents were teachers, so our combined earnings are far higher than theirs ever were, but they were able to buy at the right time when property was far less expensive relative to salaries.
There are a lot of people my age who aren’t homeowners because, even with decent jobs, it’s just not affordable, whilst most folk in their 20s have no chance. I don’t know how old your children and neighbours’ children are but the reality for most people in their 20s & 30s is pretty different to how you describe it. The younger generations are in a much worse position than their parents to get on the property ladder.
-
I'm actively downsizing.
I don't care to keep up with the Joneses.
I make do with less. I don't fly.
We have experienced months of record high temperatures. This spring has seen hugely record breaking night time temperatures..
You might feel you are successful in life
You aren't.
-
I'm not wealthy, but I'm better off than I've ever been. It's not just an age thing either. My two lads have got more in terms of wealth and possessions than I ever had at their age, in fact, I dare say they have got more wealth and possesions than me now!
My next-door neighbours have a new car and a mortgage that I could never have afforded at their age. My brothers kids, both my sisters kids, all have bigger and better houses and cars than me, and my brother and sister for that matter.
I can't think of any of my mates who are not better off than they have ever been. Come to think of it, their kids are better off than they've ever been also, if what they tell me is true.
"immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority."
b*llocks
I’m mid-30s and have a senior and pretty well paid job as a CFO, whilst my wife is also a chartered accountant and works as a Financial Controller. We live in a 4 bed house in a nice area of Edinburgh, but it’s a house we’re only able to afford at this stage of our life because of help from our parents towards the first properties that we bought. And it’s pretty unlikely we’ll ever live in a house like my wife grew up in, a 7 bed property closer to town. Her parents were teachers, so our combined earnings are far higher than theirs ever were, but they were able to buy at the right time when property was far less expensive relative to salaries.
There are a lot of people my age who aren’t homeowners because, even with decent jobs, it’s just not affordable, whilst most folk in their 20s have no chance. I don’t know how old your children and neighbours’ children are but the reality for most people in their 20s & 30s is pretty different to how you describe it. The younger generations are in a much worse position than their parents to get on the property ladder.
When I was in my 20's I knew people of the same age who had new mortgages and were living in their new houses with no furniture because they'd spent all their spare cash on paying the mortgage, so it was a struggle for some back in the seventies.
I agree that today's youngsters have a real struggle getting on the housing ladder, and I hope something will be done to resolve that, but to say the majority of us have a worse standard of living is, in my experience, b*llocks.
-
In the last couple of years almost everyone is experiencing lower standards of living because of inflation. it's just a fact.
Over the last fourteen years people living standards haven't risen. The very wealthy have become richer.
Nobody we else has seen much improvement.
-
So what caused that inflation, and what will Starmer do about it?
-
I'm not wealthy, but I'm better off than I've ever been. It's not just an age thing either. My two lads have got more in terms of wealth and possessions than I ever had at their age, in fact, I dare say they have got more wealth and possesions than me now!
My next-door neighbours have a new car and a mortgage that I could never have afforded at their age. My brothers kids, both my sisters kids, all have bigger and better houses and cars than me, and my brother and sister for that matter.
I can't think of any of my mates who are not better off than they have ever been. Come to think of it, their kids are better off than they've ever been also, if what they tell me is true.
"immense wealth to a very small few and a worse standard of living for the majority."
b*llocks
I’m mid-30s and have a senior and pretty well paid job as a CFO, whilst my wife is also a chartered accountant and works as a Financial Controller. We live in a 4 bed house in a nice area of Edinburgh, but it’s a house we’re only able to afford at this stage of our life because of help from our parents towards the first properties that we bought. And it’s pretty unlikely we’ll ever live in a house like my wife grew up in, a 7 bed property closer to town. Her parents were teachers, so our combined earnings are far higher than theirs ever were, but they were able to buy at the right time when property was far less expensive relative to salaries.
There are a lot of people my age who aren’t homeowners because, even with decent jobs, it’s just not affordable, whilst most folk in their 20s have no chance. I don’t know how old your children and neighbours’ children are but the reality for most people in their 20s & 30s is pretty different to how you describe it. The younger generations are in a much worse position than their parents to get on the property ladder.
The help to buy scheme was everything to me, it gave me just enough to get on the property ladder and get that deposit together, my mortgage on that house was less than the rent on my previous flat.
A scheme like that definitely works but expanding that out and not causing price inflation is very difficult.
-
So what caused that inflation, and what will Starmer do about it?
By far the largest cause of inflation was Putin and his war in Ukraine.
Six months before the invasion he stated restricting the supply of gas in to Europe. gas prices exploded. Kwarteng had to bailout the UK CO2 and fertilizer industry.
Since then gas prices have peaked but are still much higher than we were used to.
Is it Sunaks fault? No. But he has still tried to take the credit for lowering inflation despite the fact it had nothing at all to do with him or the government
-
So why was it his fault when inflation went higher?
-
So why was it his fault when inflation went higher?
It wasn't
-
I'm quite sure some people feel worse off than previously.
The funny thing though is that like everything else in life its about choices and priorities.. Some plead they are struggling to get on the housing ladder because the deposit required is something that they could never afford to save for.
That's fair enough, but if you have a car on PCP, a new iPhone ever couple of years, big nights out every weekend coupled with Full SKy/Netfix/any other subscriptions then you will always be struggling to get that depot saved.
Everyone has a choice and priorities to make, you can't have your cake and eat the bugger as well.
-
I'm quite sure some people feel worse off than previously.
The funny thing though is that like everything else in life its about choices and priorities.. Some plead they are struggling to get on the housing ladder because the depot required is something that they could never afford to save for.
That's fair enough, but if you have a car on PCP, a new iPhone ever couple of years, big nights out every weekend coupled with Full SKy/Netfix/any other subscriptions then you will always be struggling to get that depot saved.
Everyone has a choice and priorities to make, you can't have your cake and eat the bugger as well.
Almost everyone is worse off because of the recent inflation which is not really the fault of the government but also the prior decade of stagnation which might well be the fault of the government.
-
So what caused that inflation, and what will Starmer do about it?
By far the largest cause of inflation was Putin and his war in Ukraine.
Six months before the invasion he stated restricting the supply of gas in to Europe. gas prices exploded. Kwarteng had to bailout the UK CO2 and fertilizer industry.
Since then gas prices have peaked but are still much higher than we were used to.
Is it Sunaks fault? No. But he has still tried to take the credit for lowering inflation despite the fact it had nothing at all to do with him or the government
So the years of QE and the ridiculously low interest rates had nothing to do with it?
Coupled with a society that also has to have everything on credit means that eventually the bills had to be squared up and dealt with.
-
So what caused that inflation, and what will Starmer do about it?
By far the largest cause of inflation was Putin and his war in Ukraine.
Six months before the invasion he stated restricting the supply of gas in to Europe. gas prices exploded. Kwarteng had to bailout the UK CO2 and fertilizer industry.
Since then gas prices have peaked but are still much higher than we were used to.
Is it Sunaks fault? No. But he has still tried to take the credit for lowering inflation despite the fact it had nothing at all to do with him or the government
So the years of QE and the ridiculously low interest rates had nothing to do with it?
Coupled with a society that also has to have everything on credit means that eventually the bills had to be squared up and dealt with.
What do you reckon would have happened to a desperately fragile economy without QE to prop it up?
Tighten the brakes into a desperately slow economy and...
-
So what caused that inflation, and what will Starmer do about it?
By far the largest cause of inflation was Putin and his war in Ukraine.
Six months before the invasion he stated restricting the supply of gas in to Europe. gas prices exploded. Kwarteng had to bailout the UK CO2 and fertilizer industry.
Since then gas prices have peaked but are still much higher than we were used to.
Is it Sunaks fault? No. But he has still tried to take the credit for lowering inflation despite the fact it had nothing at all to do with him or the government
What do you reckon would have happened to a desperately fragile economy without the QE to prop it up?
So the years of QE and the ridiculously low interest rates had nothing to do with it?
Coupled with a society that also has to have everything on credit means that eventually the bills had to be squared up and dealt with.
A great many economists stated that it was allowed to continue for too long.
-
So why was it his fault when inflation went higher?
It wasn't
It wasn't Sunak's fault.
Inflation was inevitable as we came back to normality after COVID and as Putin waged economic war on the West.
Neither of those were the fault of the Tories.
But the madness of the Kamikwaze Budget unquestionably added fuel on the inflationary fires and meant we needed higher interest rates for longer than most competitors to get inflation back down. And many economic experts are saying there's a strong chance of inflation rising again in Britain later this year, no matter who wins the Election.
-
So what caused that inflation, and what will Starmer do about it?
By far the largest cause of inflation was Putin and his war in Ukraine.
Six months before the invasion he stated restricting the supply of gas in to Europe. gas prices exploded. Kwarteng had to bailout the UK CO2 and fertilizer industry.
Since then gas prices have peaked but are still much higher than we were used to.
Is it Sunaks fault? No. But he has still tried to take the credit for lowering inflation despite the fact it had nothing at all to do with him or the government
What do you reckon would have happened to a desperately fragile economy without the QE to prop it up?
So the years of QE and the ridiculously low interest rates had nothing to do with it?
Coupled with a society that also has to have everything on credit means that eventually the bills had to be squared up and dealt with.
A great many economists stated that it was allowed to continue for too long.
A small number of right wing economists say that.
They were saying it for 15 years after the GFC led to the need for QE and low interest rates and they were consistently wrong.
-
So what caused that inflation, and what will Starmer do about it?
By far the largest cause of inflation was Putin and his war in Ukraine.
Six months before the invasion he stated restricting the supply of gas in to Europe. gas prices exploded. Kwarteng had to bailout the UK CO2 and fertilizer industry.
Since then gas prices have peaked but are still much higher than we were used to.
Is it Sunaks fault? No. But he has still tried to take the credit for lowering inflation despite the fact it had nothing at all to do with him or the government
What do you reckon would have happened to a desperately fragile economy without the QE to prop it up?
So the years of QE and the ridiculously low interest rates had nothing to do with it?
Coupled with a society that also has to have everything on credit means that eventually the bills had to be squared up and dealt with.
A great many economists stated that it was allowed to continue for too long.
A small number of right wing economists say that.
They were saying it for 15 years after the GFC led to the need for QE and low interest rates and they were consistently wrong.
You forgot to add "in your opinion"
-
So why was it his fault when inflation went higher?
It wasn't
It wasn't Sunak's fault.
Inflation was inevitable as we came back to normality after COVID and as Putin waged economic war on the West.
Neither of those were the fault of the Tories.
But the madness of the Kamikwaze Budget unquestionably added fuel on the inflationary fires and meant we needed higher interest rates for longer than most competitors to get inflation back down. And many economic experts are saying there's a strong chance of inflation rising again in Britain later this year, no matter who wins the Election.
Inflation is highly likely to rise later in the year as low inflation numbers fall out of the equation and new higher figures appear.
It's probably why Sunak called the election now. This is about as good as inflation will be in the next 6 months at least
-
So what caused that inflation, and what will Starmer do about it?
By far the largest cause of inflation was Putin and his war in Ukraine.
Six months before the invasion he stated restricting the supply of gas in to Europe. gas prices exploded. Kwarteng had to bailout the UK CO2 and fertilizer industry.
Since then gas prices have peaked but are still much higher than we were used to.
Is it Sunaks fault? No. But he has still tried to take the credit for lowering inflation despite the fact it had nothing at all to do with him or the government
What do you reckon would have happened to a desperately fragile economy without the QE to prop it up?
So the years of QE and the ridiculously low interest rates had nothing to do with it?
Coupled with a society that also has to have everything on credit means that eventually the bills had to be squared up and dealt with.
A great many economists stated that it was allowed to continue for too long.
A small number of right wing economists say that.
They were saying it for 15 years after the GFC led to the need for QE and low interest rates and they were consistently wrong.
You forgot to add "in your opinion"
No. Not in my opinion.
In the fact that they consistently claimed that QE and low interest rates would, by themselves, lead to runaway inflation.
They didn't.
-
So why was it his fault when inflation went higher?
It wasn't
It wasn't Sunak's fault.
Inflation was inevitable as we came back to normality after COVID and as Putin waged economic war on the West.
Neither of those were the fault of the Tories.
But the madness of the Kamikwaze Budget unquestionably added fuel on the inflationary fires and meant we needed higher interest rates for longer than most competitors to get inflation back down. And many economic experts are saying there's a strong chance of inflation rising again in Britain later this year, no matter who wins the Election.
Inflation is highly likely to rise later in the year as low inflation numbers fall out of the equation and new higher figures appear.
It's probably why Sunak called the election now. This is about as good as inflation will be in the next 6 months at least
I think both those points are very likely true.
-
But inflation is nowt to do with Sunak, so why will it affect his support?
-
But inflation is nowt to do with Sunak, so why will it affect his support?
It's just his bad luck to be in charge of the UK economy when it happened. Like when Gordon Brown was in charge when the financial crisis hit in 2008.
De facto it's Sunaks fault. Suck it up. ;)
Heh, I'm only an idiot on a low league football forum so I can say the truth and it makes no difference at all.
And we can't ignore the fact that Sunak is claiming he controls inflation.
-
And it's Sunak's bad luck that his party implemented no-deal brexit and had truss for a leader.
-
But inflation is nowt to do with Sunak, so why will it affect his support?
It's just his bad luck to be in charge of the UK economy when it happened. Like when Gordon Brown was in charge when the financial crisis hit in 2008.
De facto it's Sunaks fault. Suck it up. ;)
Heh, I'm only an idiot on a low league football forum so I can say the truth and it makes no difference at all.
And we can't ignore the fact that Sunak is claiming he controls inflation.
This.
The average voter thinks the government is responsible for a lot more than they actually are.
That was true in 2008 with Brown and it is true now.
-
And it's Sunak's bad luck that his party implemented no-deal brexit and had truss for a leader.
No Sunak can't escape the fact that the government he's been a part of, has got things wrong.
Look how much better the USA has coped under Biden in similar (not as bad but similar) circumstances.
-
And it's Sunak's bad luck that his party implemented no-deal brexit and had truss for a leader.
No Sunak can't escape the fact that the government he's been a part of, has got things wrong.
Look how much better the USA has coped under Biden in similar (not as bad but similar) circumstances.
The USA has done better than all of Europe.
-
And it's Sunak's bad luck that his party implemented no-deal brexit and had truss for a leader.
No Sunak can't escape the fact that the government he's been a part of, has got things wrong.
Look how much better the USA has coped under Biden in similar (not as bad but similar) circumstances.
The USA has done better than all of Europe.
Yes because it is much less reliant on Russian gas, having it's own huge energy reserves.
The supply shock did still impact the US too though. Markets remain international but the shock wasn't so bad over there.
Switzerland coped a lot better too because they rely much more on hydro not gas.
-
And it's Sunak's bad luck that his party implemented no-deal brexit and had truss for a leader.
No Sunak can't escape the fact that the government he's been a part of, has got things wrong.
Look how much better the USA has coped under Biden in similar (not as bad but similar) circumstances.
And if you go further back Austerity laid the foundations for a poor economy which cannot be ignored.
-
Fourteen years of stagnation. That's why the country feels like it's in decline because it is!
-
Fourteen years of stagnation. That's why the country feels like it's in decline because it is!
The country has been run for 14+ years without thought for the future with growth and wages stifled, little maintenance on services. Now the push is to get those whom are ill and cannot get timely treatment back into the workforce or at least blame them for state of the economy.
-
Yet the country is richer than it ever has been but with that wealth distributed ever more unequally. The rich are growing richer and the poor getting poorer - and more numerous. Which was the plan of both austerity and Brexit.
Vote Tory
-
Yet the country is richer than it ever has been but with that wealth distributed ever more unequally. The rich are growing richer and the poor getting poorer - and more numerous. Which was the plan of both austerity and Brexit.
Vote Tory
As Gary Stevenson points out, the government paid everyone's wages through furlough. Without that business expense the super wealthy just raked it in.
Furlough had to happen but the government made no effort to claw some of those billions back from those who benefited.
This has turbo charged inequality and left the country with vast debts.
-
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but all the Tories can do to discredit Labour is to make claims about what Starmer may or may not do - in the future. Conjecture.
Labour has the advantage of highlighting Tory “achievements” over the last 14 years, which can be fact checked.
Labour may or may not be any better, that remains to be seen. But surely they can’t be any worse.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm6nexlngo
-
Ed finally does something!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nn23kz2meo
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm6nexlngo
What a farce. That ruling just opens up leafleting and posters to all sorts of abuse.
-
Then the law needs tightening.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm6nexlngo
What a farce. That ruling just opens up leafleting and posters to all sorts of abuse.
That might be true but if it wasn’t illegal then there is no case to answer.
-
Do you want to share your opinion, hound, on a public figure engaging in deliberate deception of the public with the intention of causing them mistakenly to vote for him?
-
Interesting to see the predicted Bristol anomally. The boundary was changed slightly which will have made some difference. At the recent council elections, all the seats in this area were Green.
-
Do you want to share your opinion, hound, on a public figure engaging in deliberate deception of the public with the intention of causing them mistakenly to vote for him?
In my opinion, all politicians use anything they can get away with.
-
“And talking of getting Tory proposals analysed. Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator (which generally supports the Conservatives, but not slavishly) has published a blog pointing out that, if you look at how the tax burden is set to rise over the next four years, and then convert that into a tax increase per household figure using the same four-year cumulative counting method used by the Tories when costing Labour’s plans then you wil find the Tories are raising taxes by £3,000 per household.”
:lol:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/on-sunaks-maths-tories-will-lift-taxes-by-3000-per-household/
-
Do you want to share your opinion, hound, on a public figure engaging in deliberate deception of the public with the intention of causing them mistakenly to vote for him?
In my opinion, all politicians use anything they can get away with.
They need to be held accountable to what they commit to by more than a vote 5 years down the line, and for truth twisting and lies it should be very serious, imprisonable.
At least lets have a sin bin system. eg get caught lying and 18 months in the sin bin, no voting, and a fine of 50% of your income (all income Rishi). Breaking commitments and 6 months in there, 10% of total income fine. Without doing something serious about it, just like we're all subject to, then nothing will change, in fact it will get far worse.
-
So hands up who thought Sunak was suggesting the Labour tax bombshell would supposedly cost us £2,000 a year?...
Not the 4 year period he forgot to mention.
Sunak wanted to make it all about tax, Sky News is obliging
the tax rises we've all experienced under this Conservative government since 2019. They amount, all told, to an average of around £3,000 a year per household or, if we grit our teeth and tot it up as the Tories did in their dossier, over £13,000 over the course of the parliament. Which rather dwarfs that £2,000 figure.
https://news.sky.com/story/both-parties-are-in-fantasy-land-but-sunaks-tax-attack-on-labour-is-rich-given-what-his-government-has-cost-voters-13148314
-
If that really was the case wouldn't you have thought that they all would be up to tricks like his?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm6nexlngo
What a farce. That ruling just opens up leafleting and posters to all sorts of abuse.
How many people actually read the leaflets? i'd imagine most file straight into the recycling bin.
-
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but all the Tories can do to discredit Labour is to make claims about what Starmer may or may not do - in the future. Conjecture.
Labour has the advantage of highlighting Tory “achievements” over the last 14 years, which can be fact checked.
Labour may or may not be any better, that remains to be seen. But surely they can’t be any worse.
I could introduce you to a couple of my ex work colleagues who thought differently differently after they retired and drew their work pensions.
-
Do you want to share your opinion, hound, on a public figure engaging in deliberate deception of the public with the intention of causing them mistakenly to vote for him?
In my opinion, all politicians use anything they can get away with.
Like making up tax rises.?
-
Blame Pinocchio Johnson . Politicians have lied throughout history and despite allegations on here to the contrary I have not been around that long
So they lie, spin, go off topic, answer a question with a question and / or play for time in interviews.
However Johnson a serial liar sacked for lying took it all to new heights. No Parties for a start , but if there were all the rules were followed
He lies and lies so MUCH I even doubt it when he claims he had COVID and was close to dying. If he was would he risk a relapse by attending all the Parties he MUST have gone to
He's let a genie out of its bottle and they are mostly all at it now with impunity.
That Coutinho woman facing them down this morning saying Sunak didn't lie with his 2k claim and it was heresay.
Martin Lewis said straight to her " but I'm looking at THE letter itself which says you and he are and were not telling the truth"
However she batted on saying Sunak was in the right despite him telling her " I have the Letter here in my hand in black and white"
What people will do to get , get promoted , get prime jobs eh ?
-
Blame Pinocchio Johnson . Politicians have lied throughout history and despite allegations on here to the contrary I have not been around that long
So they lie, spin, go off topic, answer a question with a question and / or play for time in interviews.
However Johnson a serial liar sacked for lying took it all to new heights. No Parties for a start , but if there were all the rules were followed
He lies and lies so MUCH I even doubt it when he claims he had COVID and was close to dying. If he was would he risk a relapse by attending all the Parties he MUST have gone to
He's let a genie out of its bottle and they are mostly all at it now with impunity.
That Coutinho woman facing them down this morning saying Sunak didn't lie with his 2k claim and it was heresay.
Martin Lewis said straight to her " but I'm looking at THE letter itself which says you and he are and were not telling the truth"
However she batted on saying Sunak was in the right despite him telling her " I have the Letter here in my hand in black and white"
What people will do to get , get promoted , get prime jobs eh ?
Wolfie, we agree on some stuff in off topic then.
I somehow doubt whether you will be questioned on your (highlighted in red) views even though it is much along the lines of what I suggested earlier.
-
Blame Pinocchio Johnson . Politicians have lied throughout history and despite allegations on here to the contrary I have not been around that long
So they lie, spin, go off topic, answer a question with a question and / or play for time in interviews.
However Johnson a serial liar sacked for lying took it all to new heights. No Parties for a start , but if there were all the rules were followed
He lies and lies so MUCH I even doubt it when he claims he had COVID and was close to dying. If he was would he risk a relapse by attending all the Parties he MUST have gone to
He's let a genie out of its bottle and they are mostly all at it now with impunity.
That Coutinho woman facing them down this morning saying Sunak didn't lie with his 2k claim and it was heresay.
Martin Lewis said straight to her " but I'm looking at THE letter itself which says you and he are and were not telling the truth"
However she batted on saying Sunak was in the right despite him telling her " I have the Letter here in my hand in black and white"
What people will do to get , get promoted , get prime jobs eh ?
What appears to be different is that a lie is actually being called for what it is, a lie. I wonder if lies will now be called that in the HoC?
-
Sounds like the Conservatives are in full internal meltdown.
Latest yougov poll has Reform only 2 points behind them.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm6nexlngo
What a farce. That ruling just opens up leafleting and posters to all sorts of abuse.
How many people actually read the leaflets? i'd imagine most file straight into the recycling bin.
That's exactly the bloody point!
People will see these posters or leaflets and think "oh, Largan is the Labour candidate".
Nobody is going to look at the tiny font writing in the corner saying the poster or leaflet is from the Tories.
That is precisely the reason why it's scandalous that someone can do this.
-
Blame Pinocchio Johnson . Politicians have lied throughout history and despite allegations on here to the contrary I have not been around that long
So they lie, spin, go off topic, answer a question with a question and / or play for time in interviews.
However Johnson a serial liar sacked for lying took it all to new heights. No Parties for a start , but if there were all the rules were followed
He lies and lies so MUCH I even doubt it when he claims he had COVID and was close to dying. If he was would he risk a relapse by attending all the Parties he MUST have gone to
He's let a genie out of its bottle and they are mostly all at it now with impunity.
That Coutinho woman facing them down this morning saying Sunak didn't lie with his 2k claim and it was heresay.
Martin Lewis said straight to her " but I'm looking at THE letter itself which says you and he are and were not telling the truth"
However she batted on saying Sunak was in the right despite him telling her " I have the Letter here in my hand in black and white"
What people will do to get , get promoted , get prime jobs eh ?
Wolf.
If you can find me one example of a senior politician before 2010 lying openly about a matter of unarguable objective truth for personal or party gain, and not being called out on it, I'll send a hundred quid to any charity you like.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm6nexlngo
What a farce. That ruling just opens up leafleting and posters to all sorts of abuse.
How many people actually read the leaflets? i'd imagine most file straight into the recycling bin.
That's exactly the bloody point!
People will see these posters or leaflets and think "oh, Largan is the Labour candidate".
Nobody is going to look at the tiny font writing in the corner saying the poster or leaflet is from the Tories.
That is precisely the reason why it's scandalous that someone can do this.
If only they printed the candidate name and party on the ballot paper eh?
-
Or are you suggesting Labour voters are muppets who can’t understand a ballot paper?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm6nexlngo
What a farce. That ruling just opens up leafleting and posters to all sorts of abuse.
How many people actually read the leaflets? i'd imagine most file straight into the recycling bin.
That's exactly the bloody point!
People will see these posters or leaflets and think "oh, Largan is the Labour candidate".
Nobody is going to look at the tiny font writing in the corner saying the poster or leaflet is from the Tories.
That is precisely the reason why it's scandalous that someone can do this.
If only they printed the candidate name and party on the ballot paper eh?
Yes but the point is that this is designed to confuse people.
Like the candidate in a previous election that put himself forward as a Literal Democrat and won a big chunk of votes.
You assume everyone pays perfect attention in a polling booth do you?
Bigger question is: if you aren't trying to deceive people, why the f**k do this?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmm6nexlngo
What a farce. That ruling just opens up leafleting and posters to all sorts of abuse.
How many people actually read the leaflets? i'd imagine most file straight into the recycling bin.
That's exactly the bloody point!
People will see these posters or leaflets and think "oh, Largan is the Labour candidate".
Nobody is going to look at the tiny font writing in the corner saying the poster or leaflet is from the Tories.
That is precisely the reason why it's scandalous that someone can do this.
If only they printed the candidate name and party on the ballot paper eh?
Yes but the point is that this is designed to confuse people.
Like the candidate in a previous election that put himself forward as a Literal Democrat and won a big chunk of votes.
You assume everyone pays perfect attention in a polling booth do you?
Bigger question is: if you aren't trying to deceive people, why the f**k do this?
For the record I think its out of order,
I also think if you don’t pay attention in a polling station with something as important as voting you’re a thick runt who deserves everything they get
-
Some people don't pay close attention and can be deceived.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devon_and_East_Plymouth_(European_Parliament_constituency)
That's why we have laws to prevent electoral deception. This shit show demonstrates there's a loophole that obe amoral Kitson is prepared to exploit.
-
The problem with that Ldr is that it is everyone else who voted correctly for their chosen candidate that is placed at risk of undeservedly getting the candidate they didn't want.
-
In truth pies, most people who vote don’t get the candidate they wanted, unless it is a landslide victory of course.
-
Blame Pinocchio Johnson . Politicians have lied throughout history and despite allegations on here to the contrary I have not been around that long
So they lie, spin, go off topic, answer a question with a question and / or play for time in interviews.
However Johnson a serial liar sacked for lying took it all to new heights. No Parties for a start , but if there were all the rules were followed
He lies and lies so MUCH I even doubt it when he claims he had COVID and was close to dying. If he was would he risk a relapse by attending all the Parties he MUST have gone to
He's let a genie out of its bottle and they are mostly all at it now with impunity.
That Coutinho woman facing them down this morning saying Sunak didn't lie with his 2k claim and it was heresay.
Martin Lewis said straight to her " but I'm looking at THE letter itself which says you and he are and were not telling the truth"
However she batted on saying Sunak was in the right despite him telling her " I have the Letter here in my hand in black and white"
What people will do to get , get promoted , get prime jobs eh ?
Wolf.
If you can find me one example of a senior politician before 2010 lying openly about a matter of unarguable objective truth for personal or party gain, and not being called out on it, I'll send a hundred quid to any charity you like.
Well, Blair, Campbell and Co on the Iraq war would be a good place to start...would it not?
-
Albie.
Read what I said.
-
''Jeremy Hunt has warned the Conservatives that elections are won from the centre ground, amid fears that the party could lurch to the right in response to Nigel Farage’s return to frontline politics.
In an interview with the Guardian, the chancellor suggested the party must remain a “broad church” despite concerns that Reform UK could cost the Tories as many as 60 seats at the general election''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/05/jeremy-hunt-warns-against-tory-lurch-to-right-reform-farage
It's a little late in the day JH, this should have been tabled quite a few leaders ago.
-
I have read what you said.
Blair and Campbell "sexed up" the dodgy dossier to justify military action in support of the US.
The Labour Party in the HoC backed up that decision, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Blair was desperate to court US favour, and that was the political gain he sought to achieve.
They were called out by many at the time, including UN weapons inspectors.
The best available evidence contradicted the Blair/Bush line.
The late Dr David Kelly lost his life in very odd circumstances thereafter.
Open and shut case, Lad.
I will let Wolfie nominate the charity for your £100.
-
Albie.
1) Point out what matters of objective truth they lied about.
2) Point out what political or personal advantage you think they were going to get.
That destroyed Blair's career and set the Labour party as a whole into decline.
-
You know very well you are bang to rights on this.
More wriggling than a worm on a fishermans hook.
1)
It was objectively untrue Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
None were found, and the UN Weapons Inspectors said that both before and after the invasion.
2)
Support of Bush to expect US support with domestic and foreign policy goals.
Strategic positioning as a trusted ally/subordinate of US interests.
None of this is disputed, so pay up to Wolfie's choice!
-
Albie.
Show me the evidence that there was a conclusive and unarguable opinion among WMD investigators.
-
PS
Albie. Once again you haven't read what I wrote before diving in, even when I gave you a big hint.
I KNOW that Blair's justification for misleading people over WMD was to keep Britain close to America.
Many, many leaders have misled others for national strategic reasons. Whatever you think of the aims, it pretty well comes with the territory.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. Go back and try again.
-
More absolute bollox to try and shapeshift with the truth.
Start here, BST;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/30Qt6wblC043CQcSSpgRzhp/10-new-things-we-ve-learned-about-the-iraq-war-and-its-legacy
Re-writing the story on the hoof, Jesus wept!
-
More absolute bollox to try and shapeshift with the truth.
Start here, BST;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/30Qt6wblC043CQcSSpgRzhp/10-new-things-we-ve-learned-about-the-iraq-war-and-its-legacy
Re-writing the story on the hoof, Jesus wept!
You're having great difficulty staying on point these days Albie.
I don't need lecturing about the morality of the Iraq War thank you, despite you retreating further and further into that part of the Left that thinks no-one else has a soul but them.
I really don't want another discussion veering off into you misreading what I say then getting arsey about me pointing that out. So please either address the points I made or drop it.
-
You have had clear answers to your nonsense posts.
I have no difficulty in staying on point, thanks.
Pretending that you have a valid point, when you have no evidence to support your view, is the action of a bad faith poster.
If you want to look further into the issue, consider the views of Carne Ross on the matter;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomat-s-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html
No point in pursuing this and taking the topic sideways.
You are incorrect, and know that you are.
-
Only just dawned on me what Sunak said last night.
1) Labour has no plans
2) Labour's plans will add £2k to your taxes.
How thick does he think voters are?
-
In truth pies, most people who vote don’t get the candidate they wanted, unless it is a landslide victory of course.
Hound, you know what you are doing here. Of course it is true that the FPTP system results in a government from the minority but the point being discussed is an MP seeking to gain votes by deception. You know that but instead of engaging with that issue try to divert the discussion. You do this all the time.
-
In the end does Reform have enough support to win any seats at all?
I can't see it, even in a place like Clacton as many people are repulsed by Farage as are attracted to him.
I think Reform are just too extreme for the mainstream.
-
Just a slight deviation, but as we are out of the country on Ekection day we have applied for a postal vote. If anyone has had one how far in advance of the election do they arrive as we leave weekend after this.
-
We always have a postal vote and I think that it comes about two weeks before so you should just make it.
-
In truth pies, most people who vote don’t get the candidate they wanted, unless it is a landslide victory of course.
Hound, you know what you are doing here. Of course it is true that the FPTP system results in a government from the minority but the point being discussed is an MP seeking to gain votes by deception. You know that but instead of engaging with that issue try to divert the discussion. You do this all the time.
I say what I think pies, and get stick from certain posters because I don’t agree with the majority on here.
In this case I was simply pointing out the obvious, that the winners of elections don’t always get the majority of the votes.
I don’t see what is wrong with mentioning that.
There are far more skilled posters on here who regularly deflect the main discussion of a thread.
-
Ok, you say what you think, fair enough. So you think nothing of a politician using deception in an attempt to trick people into casting their vote his way, I wonder what you'd have to say had it been a Labour member doing that.
-
Ok, you say what you think, fair enough. So you think nothing of a politician using deception in an attempt to trick people into casting their vote his way, I wonder what you'd have to say had it been a Labour member doing that.
So, you don't think Keir Starmer has done that?
-
Well Sunak has well and truly blown it now.....surely no comeback from that. All to just carry on his lies for a programme that won't be broadcasted until next week.
-
Ok, you say what you think, fair enough. So you think nothing of a politician using deception in an attempt to trick people into casting their vote his way, I wonder what you'd have to say had it been a Labour member doing that.
So, you don't think Keir Starmer has done that?
Can't have done, Hound hasn't commented on it.
-
Well Sunak has well and truly blown it now.....surely no comeback from that. All to just carry on his lies for a programme that won't be broadcasted until next week.
Just think of the number of advisors he must have only for none of them to suggest this may have been a terrible idea.
-
Only just dawned on me what Sunak said last night.
1) Labour has no plans
2) Labour's plans will add £2k to your taxes.
How thick does he think voters are?
I think he meant "supportable" plans.
-
Well Sunak has well and truly blown it now.....surely no comeback from that. All to just carry on his lies for a programme that won't be broadcasted until next week.
Just think of the number of advisors he must have only for none of them to suggest this may have been a terrible idea.
He shouldn't need an adviser to know that this was just plainly a ridiculous and disrespectful thing to do.
The man just doesn't care and hasn't got an ounce of compassion in him. Selfish, arrogant and an out and out liar.
No Tory can ignore this or accept this as being acceptable behaviour for a PM.
-
They liked it when Johnson was doing it.
-
They liked it when Johnson was doing it.
I'm referring to him leaving the DDay Events in Normandy early to do a TV programme not the lying.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
From a bloke who supports a party who's strap line this week is to try to bring a party down by lying. Yeah makes sense.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
Your thoughts or comments on Sunak leaving the D-Day event early?
-
Ok, you say what you think, fair enough. So you think nothing of a politician using deception in an attempt to trick people into casting their vote his way, I wonder what you'd have to say had it been a Labour member doing that.
I have already said what I think.
Politicians use any methods they can get away with to gain an advantage.
If it had been a Labour member I would have said the same.
Total indifference from me because that is what they all do.
-
Interesting to see the Tory policy on child benefit - odd it's took them 14 years to figure out their policy is flawed. They seem oblivious to their own failings.
https://news.sky.com/story/tories-promise-tax-cut-for-parents-to-boost-families-financial-security-13149041
It's a crazy policy where single income families end up worse off than double income families so a very clear change. I'm surprised the other parties aren't proposing similar whilst continuing to criticise how it was set up in the first place.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
Your thoughts or comments on Sunak leaving the D-Day event early?
He should admit it was a mistake and apologise for not staying in France longer.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
Your thoughts or comments on Sunak leaving the D-Day event early?
He should admit it was a mistake and apologise for not staying in France longer.
The prime minister shouldn't be making that mistake, clueless.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
Your thoughts or comments on Sunak leaving the D-Day event early?
He should admit it was a mistake and apologise for not staying in France longer.
Nice deflection, I’m asking your opinion, was he right or was he wrong.
And by the way it wasn’t a mistake, the TV interview time was offered to ITV before the event, in my opinion it was downright arrogance
-
This D-Day thing is the end for Sunak.
You simply cannot, cannot do that as PM.
What in God's name was he thinking? Coming back home early to be interviewed by ITV about his lying in the debate.
Really wouldn't surprise me now if the Tories end up getting less than 20% of the vote.
I always thought he'd be a car crash in a campaign, but I'm genuinely astonished he's this bad at it.
-
Story coming out now is that last week, Sunak told the French Govt he wasn't going at all because he was too busy campaigning.
Beyond words.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
Your thoughts or comments on Sunak leaving the D-Day event early?
He should admit it was a mistake and apologise for not staying in France longer.
Nice deflection, I’m asking your opinion, was he right or was he wrong.
And by the way it wasn’t a mistake, the TV interview time was offered to ITV before the event, in my opinion it was downright arrogance
I said he should admit it was a mistake and apologise for not staying in France longer. That means I think it was a mistake he didn't stay in France longer, and should apologise.
-
Would that be after the Tory machine tweeted that it was a mistake he should have stayed longer in France and he's now sorry?
Nice snub to the other nations who took part in D Day, ammo for Farage and photo opp for Starmer.
Did we see the next leader of the Tory party posing with the other world leaders?
-
Story coming out now is that last week, Sunak told the French Govt he wasn't going at all because he was too busy campaigning.
Beyond words.
Every time you deflect from the inadequacies of your own beloved Labour Party by spending all your time condemning rival parties instead support my claim that this Labour Party is a party of protest and not a party of government. The Labour Party AND ITS SUPPORTERS can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
-
Story coming out now is that last week, Sunak told the French Govt he wasn't going at all because he was too busy campaigning.
Beyond words.
Every time you deflect from the inadequacies of your own beloved Labour Party by spending all your time condemning rival parties instead support my claim that this Labour Party is a party of protest and not a party of government. The Labour Party AND ITS SUPPORTERS can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
Billy’s resigned from the party though?
-
So the Minister for children goes on a radio chat show talking about an election promise of raising the threshold to £120k for child allowance but doesn't know what amount the child allowance is?
Unbelievable
https://x.com/LBC/status/1798975580274401331?t=bcBiTsCsq8-1jcobKlyO-g&s=19
-
So the Minister for children goes on a radio chat show talking about an election promise of raising the threshold to £120k for child allowance but doesn't know what amount the child allowance is?
Unbelievable
https://x.com/LBC/status/1798975580274401331?t=bcBiTsCsq8-1jcobKlyO-g&s=19
Nothing surprises anymore from this rabble. Reminiscent of how rovers were ran under Richardson
-
Angela Rayner needs to be straight into Rear Admiral Penny Morduant tonight about Sunak leaving the D-Day event, the Admiral representing a military seat will have no place to hide
-
Story coming out now is that last week, Sunak told the French Govt he wasn't going at all because he was too busy campaigning.
Beyond words.
Every time you deflect from the inadequacies of your own beloved Labour Party by spending all your time condemning rival parties instead support my claim that this Labour Party is a party of protest and not a party of government. The Labour Party AND ITS SUPPORTERS can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
Billy’s resigned from the party though?
Oh, he's finally kept his word, has he?
-
https://x.com/qandamazon/status/1798985791500419383?s=61&t=DCRm1C_BBr5pt7J45jXUsA
-
Story coming out now is that last week, Sunak told the French Govt he wasn't going at all because he was too busy campaigning.
Beyond words.
Every time you deflect from the inadequacies of your own beloved Labour Party by spending all your time condemning rival parties instead support my claim that this Labour Party is a party of protest and not a party of government. The Labour Party AND ITS SUPPORTERS can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
Billy’s resigned from the party though?
Oh, he's finally kept his word, has he?
Have to assume he has yes, he wouldn’t comprise his integrity
-
The interview he bailed on D Day for isn't even going to be shown until Weds night! So he could've easily recorded the interview whenever. I've never seen anyone so detached from humanity. He makes Maybot and Starmer look like Barney the Dinosaur when it comes to warmth and empathy.
-
I follow a broad range of views on social media, including those on the right of the political spectrum. I'm also currently listening to a radio phone-in on which the D-Day snub is being dissected. It's difficult to understate just how horrificly this has gone down with pretty much everyone. I suspect this is terminal for Sunak's chances of clawing back any support in the polls.
-
It does make you wonder just who is advising Sunak at the moment? I'm old enough to remember the shambles of the 1983 General Election where it almost seemed as if Labour were deliberately going out of their way to get trounced by Thatcher but this is taking it to an all new level.
-
A couple of thoughts from me on the right wing in the UK. Firstly, it really concerns me that so many people seem to be willing to vote for Reform who are quite open about the fact that they'd be willing to cut individuals freedoms and protections by leaving the ECHR and the WHO and abolishing the equalities act. How on earth could anyone vote for cutting freedom and liberty? These bench marks apply to and protect all of us.
Secondly, the Tories need to stop trying to out right wing Reform and return to a sensible centre right view point. Despite the state of the country, they do have some talented members left who, though I don't always agree with, are at least capable of doing a reasonable job. Until they do that they're going to remain light years behind Labour.
-
I follow a broad range of views on social media, including those on the right of the political spectrum. I'm also currently listening to a radio phone-in on which the D-Day snub is being dissected. It's difficult to understate just how horrificly this has gone down with pretty much everyone. I suspect this is terminal for Sunak's chances of clawing back any support in the polls.
Yes lots of traditional conservative cheerleaders such as Tim Montgomerie are apoplectic.
This is exactly the kind of thing that will produce another points swing to Reform.
That will put us in unprecedented territory. Lots of people vote Conservative simply because they are the biggest party on the right and help to keep the biggest party of the left out.
Because of our FPTP electoral system this could soon become a tipping point in Reform’s favour.
I disagreed with someone about this before but I now also forsee more centrist / liberal minded conservatives going from Tories to Lib Dems as Davey seems a capable and genuine bloke. Labour are centrist but have socialists in their ranks as a broad church. Could be one vote of no confidence from having someone like Raynor as PM.
-
I follow a broad range of views on social media, including those on the right of the political spectrum. I'm also currently listening to a radio phone-in on which the D-Day snub is being dissected. It's difficult to understate just how horrificly this has gone down with pretty much everyone. I suspect this is terminal for Sunak's chances of clawing back any support in the polls.
Yes lots of traditional conservative cheerleaders such as Tim Montgomerie are apoplectic.
This is exactly the kind of thing that will produce another points swing to Reform.
That will put us in unprecedented territory. Lots of people vote Conservative simply because they are the biggest party on the right and help to keep the biggest party of the left out.
Because of our FPTP electoral system this could soon become a tipping point in Reform’s favour.
I disagreed with someone about this before but I now also forsee more centrist / liberal minded conservatives going from Tories to Lib Dems as Davey seems a capable and genuine bloke. Labour are centrist but have socialists in their ranks as a broad church. Could be one vote of no confidence from having someone like Raynor as PM.
It'd be highly unlikely, but I'd be more than happy to have Raynor as PM. I suspect that she's one of the few in parliament who actually has any grasp of real life.
-
I follow a broad range of views on social media, including those on the right of the political spectrum. I'm also currently listening to a radio phone-in on which the D-Day snub is being dissected. It's difficult to understate just how horrificly this has gone down with pretty much everyone. I suspect this is terminal for Sunak's chances of clawing back any support in the polls.
Yes lots of traditional conservative cheerleaders such as Tim Montgomerie are apoplectic.
This is exactly the kind of thing that will produce another points swing to Reform.
That will put us in unprecedented territory. Lots of people vote Conservative simply because they are the biggest party on the right and help to keep the biggest party of the left out.
Because of our FPTP electoral system this could soon become a tipping point in Reform’s favour.
I disagreed with someone about this before but I now also forsee more centrist / liberal minded conservatives going from Tories to Lib Dems as Davey seems a capable and genuine bloke. Labour are centrist but have socialists in their ranks as a broad church. Could be one vote of no confidence from having someone like Raynor as PM.
It'd be highly unlikely, but I'd be more than happy to have Raynor as PM. I suspect that she's one of the few in parliament who actually has any grasp of real life.
There will be more than you give credit for but the likes of our recent leaders in Sunak and Johnson - absolutely not.
See Davey here:
https://youtu.be/d6LJEUKdjNI?si=-BzyQmn0Z9Agolgl
-
I follow a broad range of views on social media, including those on the right of the political spectrum. I'm also currently listening to a radio phone-in on which the D-Day snub is being dissected. It's difficult to understate just how horrificly this has gone down with pretty much everyone. I suspect this is terminal for Sunak's chances of clawing back any support in the polls.
Yes lots of traditional conservative cheerleaders such as Tim Montgomerie are apoplectic.
This is exactly the kind of thing that will produce another points swing to Reform.
That will put us in unprecedented territory. Lots of people vote Conservative simply because they are the biggest party on the right and help to keep the biggest party of the left out.
Because of our FPTP electoral system this could soon become a tipping point in Reform’s favour.
I disagreed with someone about this before but I now also forsee more centrist / liberal minded conservatives going from Tories to Lib Dems as Davey seems a capable and genuine bloke. Labour are centrist but have socialists in their ranks as a broad church. Could be one vote of no confidence from having someone like Raynor as PM.
It'd be highly unlikely, but I'd be more than happy to have Raynor as PM. I suspect that she's one of the few in parliament who actually has any grasp of real life.
There will be more than you give credit for but the likes of our recent leaders in Sunak and Johnson - absolutely not.
See Davey here:
https://youtu.be/d6LJEUKdjNI?si=-BzyQmn0Z9Agolgl
Fair shout. I do like Ed Davey.
-
They liked it when Johnson was doing it.
I'm referring to him leaving the DDay Events in Normandy early to do a TV programme not the lying.
Thanks, RTID88, I hadn't heard about Sunak leaving France early when I posted my response so I thought your earlier post was still about the 'lie'.
-
I follow a broad range of views on social media, including those on the right of the political spectrum. I'm also currently listening to a radio phone-in on which the D-Day snub is being dissected. It's difficult to understate just how horrificly this has gone down with pretty much everyone. I suspect this is terminal for Sunak's chances of clawing back any support in the polls.
Yes lots of traditional conservative cheerleaders such as Tim Montgomerie are apoplectic.
This is exactly the kind of thing that will produce another points swing to Reform.
That will put us in unprecedented territory. Lots of people vote Conservative simply because they are the biggest party on the right and help to keep the biggest party of the left out.
Because of our FPTP electoral system this could soon become a tipping point in Reform’s favour.
I disagreed with someone about this before but I now also forsee more centrist / liberal minded conservatives going from Tories to Lib Dems as Davey seems a capable and genuine bloke. Labour are centrist but have socialists in their ranks as a broad church. Could be one vote of no confidence from having someone like Raynor as PM.
It's fascinating that we could be at one of those historic tipping points where a major national party is eclipsed.
I've been saying for a good while that we might be heading there.
Remember, it does happen when parties become irrelevant. At the time of WWI, the Liberals and their previous name of Whigs had been one of the two natural parties of Govt for 200 years. They'd changed with the times and picked up the left leaning working class vote as the electorate was expanded to include them.
By the end of WWI, they'd been in power for the past 13 years and for 28 of the past 50 years.
And then...poof! By 1923 they'd been overtaken by Labour. By 1924 they were down to 40 seats and they've pretty much stayed there ever since.
That's the territory that the Tories are now moving into. I really don't want this to happen, but it's quite possible, maybe even likely, that they are going to be eclipsed by RefUK.
-
I can see the future ........ I see labour's tv ads with risky standing in the rain then crossing to real D-Day footage with Risky with him leaving early.
Maxwell Smart
-
Nevermind. Kuenssberg has an explanation for Sunak.
https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1798968915298496877
He's got to run the country.
Except...err...let me do your f**king job for you Laura.
1) He came back to do an interview with ITV about him lying in the leaders debate
2) Does Joe Biden not have a country to run? What about Zelensky? Presumably he's got the odd thing to deal with. Both of those two stayed for the whole day.
-
I can see the future ........ I see labour's tv ads with risky standing in the rain then crossing to real D-Day footage with Risky with him leaving early.
Maxwell Smart
I think this sums it up.
https://x.com/moorcraftjohn/status/1799003656441987117
-
Sunak: “the itinerary was set weeks ago”
I think someone in the Tory Party needs to take that shovel off him
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
How can anyone do a better job than risky falling on his own sword, the tories have been getting the big calls dead wrong for 14+ years, it's way, way too late to turn away from the iceberg now.
-
Sunak: “the itinerary was set weeks ago”
I think someone in the Tory Party needs to take that shovel off him
He tried to blame his 'team' for this.
Did ITV not have a reporter at the D Day commemorations who could have conducted this interview in France?
Or if no one there was suitable to do the interview, surely they could have done it via video link?
Just seen Richy 'apologising'. He looks like a man who knows the game is up.
-
Sunak: “the itinerary was set weeks ago”
I think someone in the Tory Party needs to take that shovel off him
He needs asking point blank. "Did you tell the French Govt last week that you were not planning to attend at all?"
And if the itinerary was set weeks ago, how come he ended up last night being interviewed about something that only happened a few days ago?
This is spiralling totally out of control.
-
The itinerary was set weeks ago
So the ITV interview to defend his lie was set before he made the lie?
-
I've never known a PM get hoyed out during an election campaign.
But watch this space.
If the Tories drop well below 20% in the polls this weekend, there's going to be some serious panic going on.
-
Christ, it's getting worse by the minute. His line now is "I attended all the British events."
He might not even make it to the weekend with how this is going.
Note the total absence of any senior ministers hitting the boards to defend him.
-
They rolled out an obscure junior onto the Today programme on R4 this morning. He was asked, "where was the PM yesterday evening." He answered "I don't know."
-
Jesus this is horrific.
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1799034908758946110
He just repeats the same lines over and over again. It's like he's been lobotomised.
-
The itinerary was set weeks ago
So the ITV interview to defend his lie was set before he made the lie?
Pretty sure D-Day commemorations have been on the calendar for a whole lot longer than that, Rishi!
-
Interesting to see what line Mordaunt takes in the debate tonight. She's in a military seat and has ambitions to be the next Tory leader. Does she go down defending Sunak or throw him under the bus?
-
Under the bus if she wants any cred going forward
-
Double edged sword that one. If she throws him under the bus (as I think she should) yes she'll have credibility going forward with some people, she also be called a kingslayer by others (stabbing her leader in the back for those not fans of Game of Thrones, haha).
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPe-jnlX0AAga8W.jpg)
This is the sort of thing that follows politicians around forever.
-
There isn't "forever" in his case. He'll be off to America to rejoin the finance world within a year.
-
Just an observation.
In summing up tonight, Farage was the one who sounded like a human.
Whatever you think of him, he's an adept communicator.
-
He IS a brilliant communicator.
-
Just an observation.
In summing up tonight, Farage was the one who sounded like a human.
Whatever you think of him, he's an adept communicator.
And the only one without autocue.
-
I'm surprised they scheduled another debate in the same week on Friday night with lots of sport on etc. Did we all miss anything?
-
I'm surprised they scheduled another debate in the same week on Friday night with lots of sport on etc. Did we all miss anything?
f**k all from Wembley!
-
Just an observation.
In summing up tonight, Farage was the one who sounded like a human.
Whatever you think of him, he's an adept communicator.
yes the labour and tory ones just yelled at each other, pathetic at times
-
Mordant and rayner were pathetic. Tonight displayed everything that’s wrong with the current binary dominance we have in uk politics. A party desperate to hang on to power at all costs and another devoid of any believable credible plan.
Bickering like children.
Undignified.
Uninspiring.
Unelectable.
-
Just an observation.
In summing up tonight, Farage was the one who sounded like a human.
Whatever you think of him, he's an adept communicator.
Thought Stephen Flynn countered him well tbf.
IMO just based on getting their opinion across and how confident they came across.
1. Stephen Flynn
2. Nigel Farage
3. Angela Rayner
4. Daisy Cooper
5. Carla Denyer
6. Rhun ap Iorwerth
7. Penny Mordaunt
-
You can dismiss all the other participants apart from Farage in that debate as all the others were reading off an autocue, so have not got an opinion.
And he for the most part buried them anyway as they showed how hesitant they are themselves looking for the opinion of a snotty nosed youngster in Moscow controlling the autocue for all we know.
They cannot handle people who can think on their feet, if they go off track they are lost, wooden, no real grasp on the working man who would be the but of jokes like fetch me a sky hook from the stores and off they would toddle.
Or if you were in a piece work situation and the size of your wage packet depended on them actually doing something.
I am not working with them they are F-ing useless.
-
You can dismiss all the other participants apart from Farage in that debate as all the others were reading off an autocue, so have not got an opinion.
And he for the most part buried them anyway as they showed how hesitant they are themselves looking for the opinion of a snotty nosed youngster in Moscow controlling the autocue for all we know.
They cannot handle people who can think on their feet, if they go off track they are lost, wooden, no real grasp on the working man who would be the but of jokes lik
Insane how impressed you are with not using autocue for a 15 second closing speech. How dare the others prepare what they were going to say, very poor of them.
The whole debate prior to that closing statement was surely an indication of how they can think on their feet having to respond to other parties including your mate Nigel.
-
Maudant although saying risky was completely wrong over D-Day joined him in the lie over the $2000. It's bad enough repeating a lie but worse when the lie has already been exposed.
-
Donny, they never at all said anything we have not heard before, labour have one line 14years and all that 14years they have tried to stop everything going through in both houses, have done their best to overthrow the Brexit vote, and will try to overturn it led by a Quisling
Both major parties have brought this country down economically and have been willing, and still are, to see living standards, and education and training standards, lower for the vast majority of the population for the last quarter of a century, while spivs and no marks have flourished together with drugs and gang culture
It's time for a big change, and time to dump those responsible into the garbage bag.
-
You can dismiss all the other participants apart from Farage in that debate as all the others were reading off an autocue, so have not got an opinion.
And he for the most part buried them anyway as they showed how hesitant they are themselves looking for the opinion of a snotty nosed youngster in Moscow controlling the autocue for all we know.
They cannot handle people who can think on their feet, if they go off track they are lost, wooden, no real grasp on the working man who would be the but of jokes lik
Insane how impressed you are with not using autocue for a 15 second closing speech. How dare the others prepare what they were going to say, very poor of them.
The whole debate prior to that closing statement was surely an indication of how they can think on their feet having to respond to other parties including your mate Nigel.
What you stand for should come from the heart, not the autocue.
I agree that the debate indicated how they can think on their feet, but I disagree with your assessment of Angela Rayner being third best. In my opinion, she was out of her depth.
-
What you stand for should come from the heart, not the autocue.
I agree that the debate indicated how they can think on their feet, but I disagree with your assessment of Angela Rayner being third best. In my opinion, she was out of her depth.
So ministers should go into meetings without notes and secretaries to advise them on various points, you're wrong again bb.
-
Syd, it is the wrong amount, they don't have to change any rate of tax, that is all any party have said, All they have to do is impose tax on more everyday items, especially food, whether basic items or takeaway meals, and squeeze the motorists more, let local government raise local taxes as they want ( not their fault)
I think fuel both domestic and transport will be the biggy, we have already seen it a lot higher, they know we will pay it, and a back up excuse is we are saving the world, electric cars will be brought into the fold of tax in the name of equality
That £2000 will be more. You stay where you are you could be better off, and we will have a little comfort we can turn to.
-
Farage, Galloway - Like Scargill 50 years ago great rabble rousers certainly but to be trusted? FMD!
-
Syd, it is the wrong amount, they don't have to change any rate of tax, that is all any party have said, All they have to do is impose tax on more everyday items, especially food, whether basic items or takeaway meals, and squeeze the motorists more, let local government raise local taxes as they want ( not their fault)
I think fuel both domestic and transport will be the biggy, we have already seen it a lot higher, they know we will pay it, and a back up excuse is we are saving the world, electric cars will be brought into the fold of tax in the name of equality
That £2000 will be more. You stay where you are you could be better off, and we will have a little comfort we can turn to.
It's not the amount or what its intended use. we are debating here the fact that risky and now maudant are using a figure is an invention and proved to be so.
-
Donny, they never at all said anything we have not heard before, labour have one line 14years and all that 14years they have tried to stop everything going through in both houses, have done their best to overthrow the Brexit vote, and will try to overturn it led by a Quisling
Both major parties have brought this country down economically and have been willing, and still are, to see living standards, and education and training standards, lower for the vast majority of the population for the last quarter of a century, while spivs and no marks have flourished together with drugs and gang culture
It's time for a big change, and time to dump those responsible into the garbage bag.
The country was doing alright until the Global Recession in '08 and it is time for change. What's brought the country down economically is austerity and Brexit, way before the comparable things to other countries, such as Covid and the Ukraine war. I don't think voting for the party that has made decisions such as austerity and enacted hard Brexit is a sensible idea as I don't have Stockholm Syndrome or am I a masochist.
Voting for Reform is pretty much along the same lines, why pick the snake oil salesman who has ties to Russia and told you how much better off we would be out of the EU (yet were not) and wants to privatise healthcare, which would make it difficult for poorer people to seek quality medical treatment.
Hopefully the people that promoted and voted for the last 14 years numerous times will be making better choices for the country and other fellow human beings in a few weeks time. They need to have a look and see that it's not worked and to carry on doing the same shit would be very naive.
-
This^^
-
Donny, they never at all said anything we have not heard before, labour have one line 14years and all that 14years they have tried to stop everything going through in both houses, have done their best to overthrow the Brexit vote, and will try to overturn it led by a Quisling
Both major parties have brought this country down economically and have been willing, and still are, to see living standards, and education and training standards, lower for the vast majority of the population for the last quarter of a century, while spivs and no marks have flourished together with drugs and gang culture
It's time for a big change, and time to dump those responsible into the garbage bag.
The country was doing alright until the Global Recession in '08 and it is time for change. What's brought the country down economically is austerity and Brexit, way before the comparable things to other countries, such as Covid and the Ukraine war. I don't think voting for the party that has made decisions such as austerity and enacted hard Brexit is a sensible idea as I don't have Stockholm Syndrome or am I a masochist.
Voting for Reform is pretty much along the same lines, why pick the snake oil salesman who has ties to Russia and told you how much better off we would be out of the EU (yet were not) and wants to privatise healthcare, which would make it difficult for poorer people to seek quality medical treatment.
Hopefully the people that promoted and voted for the last 14 years numerous times will be making better choices for the country and other fellow human beings in a few weeks time. They need to have a look and see that it's not worked and to carry on doing the same shit would be very naive.
But we are better off after Brexit, we are not swamped with several hundred thousand more Undesirable Migrants who under free movement could come and go as they please, you clearly don’t pay any attention to the problems they are causing across Europe, time to wake up and smell the Coffee!
-
Thought Farage had a surprisingly poor night. A lot of his big lines fell flat with the audience who weren't buying what he was selling.
The SNP and Greens were the big winners from that performance. Probably did enough to pull a few wavering Labour voters over to their side.
-
I was hoping to hear some news of possible tax cuts from Labour, did I miss them?
-
The TV debates are a waste of time. Almost everyone (me included) watches them through the lens of their own political bias. Given that, everyone’s opinion on who did best is valid.
I thought Rayner and the bloke from the SNP were the ‘winners’, Mordaunt screwed it up and Farage threw around rabble rousing sound bites.
But then I would think that.
-
I was hoping to hear some news of possible tax cuts from Labour, did I miss them?
No because we don’t need tax cuts. We need the taxes that we do pay to be used more wisely for the benefit of everyone in the country and not just the wealthy.
-
So RefUK have got some stellar intellects in their team.
https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1799324769822613945
-
Here we go. First batshit Tory far-righter having a nervous breakdown in public.
https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1799140972397318277
"What? I thought Nigel was our friend and was going to help us if we took the Tory party far enough to the Right. How can he possibly do this to us? To ME? I thought you f**king loved me Nigel. What did I ever do to you!"
-
I was hoping to hear some news of possible tax cuts from Labour, did I miss them?
No because we don’t need tax cuts. We need the taxes that we do pay to be used more wisely for the benefit of everyone in the country and not just the wealthy.
Well it was mentioned by Rayner that we are all paying more by stealth as the tax allowance remains the same and a large proportion of folks are now in the top tax bracket because of that,due to pay rises, if we followed the example of the SNP even more voters would suffer as the 40% would become 45%.
-
I was hoping to hear some news of possible tax cuts from Labour, did I miss them?
No because we don’t need tax cuts. We need the taxes that we do pay to be used more wisely for the benefit of everyone in the country and not just the wealthy.
Well it was mentioned by Rayner that we are all paying more by stealth as the tax allowance remains the same and a large proportion of folks are now in the top tax bracket because of that,due to pay rises, if we followed the example of the SNP even more voters would suffer as the 40% would become 45%.
Many have been dragged into taxation by the freeze on the tax threshold, canceling any pay increase they may have got, add that to the cost of living crisis and inflation, those people are worse off, the poorest members of society, do you think that is right?
-
This general election is affectively replacing someone really bad with a bunch that are a little bit less bad.
-
This general election is affectively replacing someone really bad with a bunch that are a little bit less bad.
For what reasons Padge?
-
Many have been dragged into taxation by the freeze on the tax threshold, canceling any pay increase they may have got...
A huge part of the issue with political debate is the constant innaccuracy - either maliciously done to mislead, or completely by accident either through misspeaking or missunderstanding.
Sorry to pick on your comment specifically Filo (I have no axe to grind with you), it's just a really easy one to highlight the point...
Nobody has ever lost their entire payrise through being pulled into a higher tax bracket, because we have no marginal taxation rate higher than 100%.
Getting a payrise, even if it pulls you into a higher tax bracket, always results in you having more take-home money after tax.
My understanding is that the worst marginal tax rate applies to those people earning between 100k and 125k a year with young children, as they lose a proportion of their personal allowance and the ability to claim free childcare at the same time, so for every £1 they earn in this bracket they only get to keep about 35p of it (not 100% sure if that's right but I think it's pretty close).
I'm not advocating for low tax thresholds - raising them is long overdue, but to say that somebody moving into a higher tax bracket has resulted in "cancelling any pay increase they may have got" is simply not true - and if we want to be able to properly debate policy decisions surely everybody has to take a starting point of presenting objective truth about the matter?
-
Sydney, you'll have seen me make this point loads of times. The worst bracket has been those over 50k with kids and student loans, they lose 40% tax, child benefit and a student loan charge, depending on the number of kids that can be quite excessive albeit the new rules have reduced it slightly. When you add in rises to council tax, inflation on general bills and interest rates that's quite nasty and people are worse off.
Of course in the north that's not too bad of an issue, cost of living here is way worse, but in London, the South etc a 50k salary doesn't go far, especially if only one earner in a house.
-
Sydney, you'll have seen me make this point loads of times. The worst bracket has been those over 50k with kids and student loans, they lose 40% tax, child benefit and a student loan charge, depending on the number of kids that can be quite excessive albeit the new rules have reduced it slightly. When you add in rises to council tax, inflation on general bills and interest rates that's quite nasty and people are worse off.
Of course in the north that's not too bad of an issue, cost of living here is way worse, but in London, the South etc a 50k salary doesn't go far, especially if only one earner in a house.
Pud, I think you misread Superspy's tag as mine
-
https://x.com/FisherAndrew79/status/1799351891962339698?t=jb0wZ1Q3Sg9ZG6j68p616A&s=19
-
Sydney, you'll have seen me make this point loads of times. The worst bracket has been those over 50k with kids and student loans, they lose 40% tax, child benefit and a student loan charge, depending on the number of kids that can be quite excessive albeit the new rules have reduced it slightly. When you add in rises to council tax, inflation on general bills and interest rates that's quite nasty and people are worse off.
Of course in the north that's not too bad of an issue, cost of living here is way worse, but in London, the South etc a 50k salary doesn't go far, especially if only one earner in a house.
Pud, I think you misread Superspy's tag as mine
And if he did, and it was supposed to be a response to me, then my answer is that I'm fairly sure the 100-125k bracket is worse (in % terms) than the 50-60k bracket (which is now the 60-80k bracket because it moved this year), but even if I'm wrong, or there's not a lot in it, those are definitely the 2 worst spots to be in with regard to marginal rates. And I don't dispute that adding all of those other factors in can leave people worse off - ultimately it's obvious that if your expenses go up more than your income then you're going to have less money - I was just pointing out that the first part of Filo's statement was wrong...income tax alone will never result in somebody having less money after a payrise as a result of being pulled into a higher bracket.
Unfortunately there are loads of people out there who don't realise this and think that as soon as you move into a higher rate that it gets applies to everything you earn resulting in you taking home less because they don't understand how maringal rates work. Not suggesting that's what Filo thinks either before I get jumped on.
-
Richy has cancelled all media appointments today.
Hoping things will calm down or pondering resigning?
Interesting times.
-
Richy has cancelled all media appointments today.
Hoping things will calm down or pondering resigning?
Interesting times.
They’ve probably told him to keep his gob shut
-
That's the best thing he could do.
I wonder if he's hiding in a fridge?
Incredibly,looking at the poll there are still 3 people dumb enough to vote for him.
-
Richy has cancelled all media appointments today.
Hoping things will calm down or pondering resigning?
Interesting times.
And here’s me thinking he likes to stick to pre arranged schedule’s
-
What was it Mordaunt said when Rayner mentioned the highest level of taxation brought in by this lot "yes, and we hated doing it" really?
-
''Rishi Sunak’s chances were always slim. And the numbers just get worse
Robert Ford''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/08/rishi-sunaks-chances-were-always-slim-and-the-numbers-just-get-worse
Have a gander at the last bar chart about who the public trust on major issues, all 9 of them to be exact.
-
Have they ran out of Roubles?
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1799518676472709442?s=61&t=DCRm1C_BBr5pt7J45jXUsA
-
Where have the senior Tory ministers vanished to?
-
Where have the senior Tory ministers vanished to?
It seems they are either concerned about their own seat like Hunt or getting out of Dodge, like Gove.
There is no fight there. They know they are done for. We have the sitting Tory MP sending out leaflets without the colour blue or Conservative logo on it.
It's everyman for himself.
-
I would particularly like to see Rees Mogg have a Portillo moment. it might happen.
-
He'll be off having another reset. Get ready for some reactionary back of a fag packet policy announcement when he re emerges. Death penalty for cyclists, perhaps.
-
Most depressing thing about this election campaign is this.
The Tories' fiscal plans following the Budget in March are totally unrealistic. The numbers just do not add up. They require unprecedentedly large cuts in public services which are already crumbling. And they say they won't cut Defence or Health or Pensions, which are three of the biggest costs.
None of it adds up.
Get this straight. Taxes are going to have to rise whoever wins.
But we don't have a mature enough electorate to deal with that.
No party in my lifetime has ever won an election having had a manifesto saying "we will increase taxes."
They HAVE to say we won't increase taxes or people won't vote for them.
And then when taxes have to go up, voters claim they've been misled.
It's all so very childish.
-
I see Farage is dog-whistling again.
He's said that Sunak doesn't understand "our culture". Then of course, rowed back and said of course it's nothing to do with race, he means because he's rich and privileged.
He's the most dangerous sort of rabble rouser. A smooth, well oiled one, not a Tommy Robinson gobshite.
-
Which person standing for election has been married twice to European ladies and has children with EU passports but hates immigration, rails against the furlough payments yet took over £100k for his own company, and believes in Christian forgiveness for a man convicted of wire fraud and served an 8month jail sentence - the same man that he disowned in 2017 but is now a member of said prospective MPs Advisory Board?
https://bylinetimes.com/2024/06/06/who-is-posh-george-meet-the-aristocrat-and-convicted-fraudster-advising-nigel-farage/
-
See, it doesn't take a second to see through that b*llocks from Farage. He claims that when he said Sunak doesn't understand our culture, he meant it to mean because Sunak is rich and privileged.
So presumably rich and privileged people can't understand our culture.
That's coming from the Dulwich College educated Farage. That's Dulwich College whose fees are £55,000 a year.
Oh yeah, and here's Farage with the bankroller of RefUK, Richard Tice.
That's multi-millionaire Richard Tice who was educated at £48,000 a year Uppingham School.
(https://www.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/GettyImages-1036436816.jpg)
-
And this is Farage with boarding school educated multi-millionaire Arron Banks who bankrolled Leave.EU and gave Farage £500,000 in cars, flats and cash after the referendum.
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2017/02/17/13/farage-banks.jpg)
Does anyone with an ounce of self-respect actually think that Farage believes rich, privileged people don't understand his culture?
Does anyone with a shred of self respect really believe that Farage wasn't referring to Sunak's race?
Vote for him if you want, by all means. Just don't come here and claim that you don't know he's a racist rabble rouser.
And a liar. Clearly and demonstrably a liar after this little act.
-
So do rich and privileged people not understand our culture? There's a very very small number of politicians from working class backgrounds who started with nothing. Very few at all.
-
So do rich and privileged people not understand our culture? There's a very very small number of politicians from working class backgrounds who started with nothing. Very few at all.
Isn't our culture all about the rich and privileged pulling the strings? That, with the story of people power as whitewashing sugar.
-
The longer this goes on the more convinced I am that this election is going to be to the Tories what 1983 was to Labour. In 1983 the SDP split the left-of-centre vote and crippled Labour whereas this time Reform are going to split the right-of-centre vote and hobble the Tories. The next important result of the election is who on earth will be left and have enough calibre to challenge for the leadership of the Tories after Rishi resigns.
-
Will he still be leader or even still standing on July 4th
-
I live quite close to what, for many years, was the home of Douglas Hurd. A very, very beautiful house it is too. When I drove past it the other day I couldn't help but think, despite my long time loathing of Mrs Thatcher and her works, I do now pine for people like Hurd, Heseltine, Whitelaw and Howe. I might not agree with them on plenty, but they were honest and they were people I respected. Contrast them with the craven, corrupt and cretinous lot we've all had to suffer this last 4 or 5 years...
No doubt I will come to equally detest Farage, but a Conservative Party that thought it right to foist these moribund parasites on the nation does not deserve to survive.
BobG
-
Good opinion piece by A L Kennedy in the Guardian, unusually;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/09/uk-election-two-party-system-green-independent-al-kennedy
Sums up the whole shebang quite well, I think.
-
Will he still be leader or even still standing on July 4th
There's no way of the Tories getting a new leader as there is now no official Parliamentary Party to vote for one.
-
Good opinion piece by A L Kennedy in the Guardian, unusually;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/09/uk-election-two-party-system-green-independent-al-kennedy
Sums up the whole shebang quite well, I think.
Did the author pen that at the Student Uni?
-
Been in France, she says Sproty.
Sometimes looking in from outside gives you a different perspective.
For the record, I don't agree with all of it....a hung parliament is unlikely I think, but it is quite entertaining in describing the mess we are in, and the poor choices on offer.
-
Will he still be leader or even still standing on July 4th
There's no way of the Tories getting a new leader as there is now no official Parliamentary Party to vote for one.
So if he says sod it I've had enough what happens then?
-
Most depressing thing about this election campaign is this.
The Tories' fiscal plans following the Budget in March are totally unrealistic. The numbers just do not add up. They require unprecedentedly large cuts in public services which are already crumbling. And they say they won't cut Defence or Health or Pensions, which are three of the biggest costs.
None of it adds up.
Get this straight. Taxes are going to have to rise whoever wins.
But we don't have a mature enough electorate to deal with that.
No party in my lifetime has ever won an election having had a manifesto saying "we will increase taxes."
They HAVE to say we won't increase taxes or people won't vote for them.
And then when taxes have to go up, voters claim they've been misled.
It's all so very childish.
I understand what you are saying bst about both sides having to say they won’t increase taxes, and then when they win, increasing taxes is inevitable.
You have endorsed such a situation frequently on here, that it is acceptable to set out a plan then change it once elected.
The thing is, most of the electorate aren’t really interested in politics and won’t know that what you have said is the only way to go.
So when the majority of people complain it shouldn’t be deemed to be childish people complaining.
It will happen and should be expected.
As for Farage, it does sound as though you are slightly worried about him.
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
-
Will he still be leader or even still standing on July 4th
There's no way of the Tories getting a new leader as there is now no official Parliamentary Party to vote for one.
So if he says sod it I've had enough what happens then?
From Nadine Dorries on Twitter...
"Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…"
-
The leader of the Green Party everyone:
https://x.com/lbc/status/1799818739938127997?s=46
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
Why not just lie to the electorate with more right-wing policies than intended, and then change to more left-wing policies once elected, like you want Labour to do?
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
Why not just lie to the electorate with more right-wing policies than intended, and then change to more left-wing policies once elected, like you want Labour to do?
fmd it's rip van winkle, isn't the debate about how to get out of a 14+ year economic nightmare?
-
Border Force Command! Sounds like a Netflix comedy show! set not a Labour Party Quango!
-
Great British Energy sounds like another Netflix Tv comedy show, not a Labour Quango to appease the Scots!
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
Why not just lie to the electorate with more right-wing policies than intended, and then change to more left-wing policies once elected, like you want Labour to do?
I suggested a few months ago that the main ideological opposition to Starmer in this country could be from further left. With Labour on track to win so many seats it doesn’t sound so silly now.
With the main pressure on the self-professed socialist Starmer coming from inside his own party could we see a creep towards something that the electorate didn’t vote for?
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
Why not just lie to the electorate with more right-wing policies than intended, and then change to more left-wing policies once elected, like you want Labour to do?
I suggested a few months ago that the main ideological opposition to Starmer in this country could be from further left. With Labour on track to win so many seats it doesn’t sound so silly now.
With the main pressure on the self-professed socialist Starmer coming from inside his own party could we see a creep towards something that the electorate didn’t vote for?
Absolutely, and there are hypocrites on this forum who want that to happen. You know, those fakes who preach about honesty and integrity in politics, and want the liars removed from politics altogether!
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
Why not just lie to the electorate with more right-wing policies than intended, and then change to more left-wing policies once elected, like you want Labour to do?
I suggested a few months ago that the main ideological opposition to Starmer in this country could be from further left. With Labour on track to win so many seats it doesn’t sound so silly now.
With the main pressure on the self-professed socialist Starmer coming from inside his own party could we see a creep towards something that the electorate didn’t vote for?
If that does happen (spoiler: it won't) then he can be held to account by the electorate in 5 years time. That's kinda how democracy works.
-
Good news
They've brought back The Day Today!
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1799859124047593566
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
Why not just lie to the electorate with more right-wing policies than intended, and then change to more left-wing policies once elected, like you want Labour to do?
I suggested a few months ago that the main ideological opposition to Starmer in this country could be from further left. With Labour on track to win so many seats it doesn’t sound so silly now.
With the main pressure on the self-professed socialist Starmer coming from inside his own party could we see a creep towards something that the electorate didn’t vote for?
If that does happen (spoiler: it won't) then he can be held to account by the electorate in 5 years time. That's kinda how democracy works.
So what do you mean by quoting “We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected” ?
Would you like Starmer to get elected and then creep further left during his first term or propose a more left wing manifesto to the electorate in the next election?
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
Why not just lie to the electorate with more right-wing policies than intended, and then change to more left-wing policies once elected, like you want Labour to do?
I suggested a few months ago that the main ideological opposition to Starmer in this country could be from further left. With Labour on track to win so many seats it doesn’t sound so silly now.
With the main pressure on the self-professed socialist Starmer coming from inside his own party could we see a creep towards something that the electorate didn’t vote for?
If that does happen (spoiler: it won't) then he can be held to account by the electorate in 5 years time. That's kinda how democracy works.
So what do you mean by quoting “We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected” ?
Would you like Starmer to get elected and then creep further left during his first term or propose a more left wing manifesto to the electorate in the next election?
I for one Haven’t got a problem with Starmer, Rachel Reeves is absolutely sound with her message so far! But will ‘THE IDIOTS’ take over the asylum, just imagine the mess if we have a Civil War in the new Government and the extreme left wing come out on top!
We we so near to insanity back in 2019!
-
Does the fact that the Sunaks must have an annual passive income in the tens of millions (how does that square with the tax they pay BTW) mean they don't really understand the concerns of ordinary British people?
I think the fact that Sunak asked a homeless man if he worked in the city answers that.
-
Good news
They've brought back The Day Today!
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1799859124047593566
Imagine going out to be interviewed (while Rishi is hiding in a fridge no doubt),and not wanting to be questioned.
Utter embarrassment.
-
Well I've heard it all now. After accusing Boris and the Tories of being liars, which they undoubtedly are, it's now being suggested that Starmer deliberately lies to the public that he won't put taxes up, when he knows that he will.
Furthermore, if the public then complain about it, they're just being childish. Well, a lot of traditional Labour supporters since Brexit have been called thick, racist, and gammon, so childish can be the new moniker.
-
It seems fair to point out that saying you will do one thing, or not saying what you really plan to do, then doing something undeclared, is a clear attempt to mislead voters.
Deliberately misleading voters is fraud, plain and simple.
Your mandate in a democracy rests on the voting public having an informed choice.
Whoever sets out to restrict that choice, by disinformation or incomplete explanation, is subverting the democratic process.
Some are so ethically challenged that this seems reasonable to them.
-
Given the state of the nations finances, any party claiming they will cut taxes is on thin ice
As the Spectator has made plain, based on the commitments the Tories have made, using their own methodology they will have to raise an additional £3,000 in tax from hard working families over the course of a government.
Much is unknown, we don't know what the future holds. Should things with the Russians worsen, we can forget all about tax commitments.
How optimistic are you about the future? Given the state of the economy, the state of the climate, the geopolitical situation... It's difficult to be optimistic.
-
Well I've heard it all now. After accusing Boris and the Tories of being liars, which they undoubtedly are, it's now being suggested that Starmer deliberately lies to the public that he won't put taxes up, when he knows that he will.
Furthermore, if the public then complain about it, they're just being childish. Well, a lot of traditional Labour supporters since Brexit have been called thick, racist, and gammon, so childish can be the new moniker.
Cruel to be kind and all that SS.
-
One word.
Well I've heard it all now. After accusing Boris and the Tories of being liars, which they undoubtedly are, it's now being suggested that Starmer deliberately lies to the public that he won't put taxes up, when he knows that he will.
Furthermore, if the public then complain about it, they're just being childish. Well, a lot of traditional Labour supporters since Brexit have been called thick, racist, and gammon, so childish can be the new moniker.
It seems fair to point out that saying you will do one thing, or not saying what you really plan to do, then doing something undeclared, is a clear attempt to mislead voters.
Deliberately misleading voters is fraud, plain and simple.
Your mandate in a democracy rests on the voting public having an informed choice.
Whoever sets out to restrict that choice, by disinformation or incomplete explanation, is subverting the democratic process.
Some are so ethically challenged that this seems reasonable to them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
In a word...... FAKES
-
One word.
Well I've heard it all now. After accusing Boris and the Tories of being liars, which they undoubtedly are, it's now being suggested that Starmer deliberately lies to the public that he won't put taxes up, when he knows that he will.
Furthermore, if the public then complain about it, they're just being childish. Well, a lot of traditional Labour supporters since Brexit have been called thick, racist, and gammon, so childish can be the new moniker.
It seems fair to point out that saying you will do one thing, or not saying what you really plan to do, then doing something undeclared, is a clear attempt to mislead voters.
Deliberately misleading voters is fraud, plain and simple.
Your mandate in a democracy rests on the voting public having an informed choice.
Whoever sets out to restrict that choice, by disinformation or incomplete explanation, is subverting the democratic process.
Some are so ethically challenged that this seems reasonable to them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
In a word...... FAKES
It seems to be accepted by at least two of them now that it is ok to deceive the electorate.
-
Good news
They've brought back The Day Today!
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1799859124047593566
That parrot is dead .................. no it's not
-
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious, 4 weeks out from an election the tories have to declare that sunak will remain leader .......... for the next 4 weeks.
-
What is funny is that France has gone into meltdown tonight due to issues of Illegal Immigration!
Vote foe Starmer is a vote for the floodgates being opened!
-
Good news
They've brought back The Day Today!
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1799859124047593566
Oh dear, it looks like he was going to burst into tears, looking at his advisor with the sad eyes to bail him out
-
A more intelligent discussion would talk about the tax increases already baked in, and what the parties propose to do in response.
Resolution Foundation take summarised in the FT;
https://archive.ph/DqKAq
All we have is posturing fools dedicated to avoiding hard questions.
Vote for us and we will do something we haven't told you about, after the election.
Yes Albie.
But as some left-leaning politician once said, "We all know which policies are the best. What we don't know is how to campaign on those and get elected."
Why not just lie to the electorate with more right-wing policies than intended, and then change to more left-wing policies once elected, like you want Labour to do?
I suggested a few months ago that the main ideological opposition to Starmer in this country could be from further left. With Labour on track to win so many seats it doesn’t sound so silly now.
With the main pressure on the self-professed socialist Starmer coming from inside his own party could we see a creep towards something that the electorate didn’t vote for?
If that does happen (spoiler: it won't) then he can be held to account by the electorate in 5 years time. That's kinda how democracy works.
Or, if that does happen, then he can be held to account by the electorate in 5 years time... with the media paid off saying it didn't happen. Or maybe it doesn't happen, but the media etc weren't paid off enough, so they say it did happen.
That's how UK "democracy" works.
-
It would be good if UK media actually asked the Sunak/Starmer consortium what will happen if the new government fails to increase taxes?
The answer of course is best avoided.
It would mean either:
1) further severe cuts to public services, to a similar level that austerity brought, or
2) borrowing to support "day to day spending", which means the idiotic "fiscal rule" of reducing public debt by year 5 cannot be met.
Either way, not a good look if you want to smile for the camera.
Conspiracy of silence on this across the board.
-
Labour announced a policy on free breakfast clubs for all kids. I like that, I'd love to send my kids but it's £5 each a day at our school which I refuse to pay for a slice of toast. Cannot see how schools have space for it though.
-
Just another normal day on the campaign trail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko
-
Yet another Tory shambles. Are they trying to deliberately lose?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceddenl8xz4o
-
Just another normal day on the campaign trail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjmmrwexv4ko
"Candidate for fascist party supports fascist" is hardly news is it.
Fascinating how the Faragists get a free pass from the media on this.
Farage was lauding the bravery of the D-Day vets just the other day.
And yet.
They risked and gave there lives as part of the struggle to stop an ethno-fascist dictator from dominating Europe.
Today we have another ethno-fascist dictator whose stated aim is to dominate Europe. And Farage is on record as saying he's the leader he most admires in the world.
Vote for him if you want folks. But have the self-respect to know what you are voting for.
-
Billy you really want to pull in calling everyone you don't agree with a Fascist it just makes you look like a third rate Commy from the KGB.
-
Billy you really want to pull in calling everyone you don't agree with a Fascist it just makes you look like a third rate Commy from the KGB.
Facists!, facists and racists everywhere!!!!!
-
Selby.
I get that you have difficulty forming coherent thoughts when you address me. But if you actually read what I write, you'll see I don't call everyone who disagrees with me "fascist". Just the fascist ones. Like Putin. Like his admirer, Farage. And like the would-be Hitler appeaser, yer man Gribbin here.
-
Here's Farage 2 and a bit years ago. As Putin was preparing to invade a sovereign country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtUwrtDanck
There's Farage saying the solution was to give the politician he admires more than any other in the world, exactly what he wanted.
Almost as if...
-
Funny how the majority of folk on here voted for this fella in 2019.
“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
J Corbyn.
-
No billy I'm not having it, your not choosy, anyone who has a different opinion is a fascist to you, your a died in the wool commy who throws the word and its meaning about when you disagree with someone politically, like a small kid wanting a sweetie after being naughty and told no.
-
To be fair, having just read what this Reform candidate is reported to have said, 'Fascist' seems to be a fairly accurate description in this instance.
-
Labour announced a policy on free breakfast clubs for all kids. I like that, I'd love to send my kids but it's £5 each a day at our school which I refuse to pay for a slice of toast. Cannot see how schools have space for it though.
I agree with you there pud 5 quid for a slice ofr dry toast ffs.
-
I had a quick gander at the main points of the Liberals manifesto earlier. As you'd expect its very tight on Rights, Equality and Political reform. I like the sound of it & it's quite a pity they won't get anywhere near power.
-
Labour announced a policy on free breakfast clubs for all kids. I like that, I'd love to send my kids but it's £5 each a day at our school which I refuse to pay for a slice of toast. Cannot see how schools have space for it though.
I agree with you there pud 5 quid for a slice ofr dry toast ffs.
It was even worse than that, when asked repeatdly this morning the Shadow schools spokeswoman could not give an answer as to how many places would be provided in the scheme, also asked about how many kids are currently in public schools, did not have a Scooby, so no idea of the possibility of numbers to be catered and planned for in the state sector when they start to dismantle that system. When asked how they would pay for the additional staff required for the scheme same again did not even attempt to answer the question sensibly, saying something about some schools would provide it via teachers and others would require additional staff. Yea, teachers working extra hours for nothing (in who's world)
Sounds to me like something that's been quickly rushed out after being scribbled on the back of a fag pocket.
And this is current Labour policy? what have they been doing for 14 years except whinging constantly on a regular basis?
She made Diane Abbott sound like a PhD student.
-
It seems to be female opposition politicians you always get enraged by DD.
I wonder why?
-
Fasciniating how someone criticises a Reform candidate for saying Britain should have made peace with Hitler - and some posters criticise the poster rather than the Nazi apologist.
It's almost as if they were...
-
It seems to be female opposition politicians you always get enraged by DD.
I wonder why?
Nowt to do with sex fella, if their incompetent and useless then they will be called out on it.
Why do you always come across as a dirty, seedy old man?
I wonder why?
-
Why will a 20% fee increase in publc schools under Labour cause pupils to leave public schools - when a 30% fee increase under the Tories didn't?
https://x.com/RussInCheshire/status/1800063753314287929
-
Funny how the majority of folk on here voted for this fella in 2019.
“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
J Corbyn.
Omg I can't believe he said that!!!1!!!
I don't get it? What's wrong with wanting peace in the world? When did pacifists become the extremists?
-
It seems to be female opposition politicians you always get enraged by DD.
I wonder why?
Nowt to do with sex fella, if their incompetent and useless then they will be called out on it.
Why do you always come across as a dirty, seedy old man?
I wonder why?
Stubbed your toe and touched a nerve perhaps?
Why do you come a cross as a such a mys
ah,forget it
-
Why will a 20% fee increase in publc schools under Labour cause pupils to leave public schools - when a 30% fee increase under the Tories didn't?
https://x.com/RussInCheshire/status/1800063753314287929
Well you and your like have been having your fill of slating everything that's been wrecked by this current government, could it be that this final straw could break the camels back.
Or will it be ok for them because they have some extra cash that they scrimped and saved for to educate their kids?
-
That really doesn't make sense.
Spend a bit of time and read back what you posted.
-
It seems to be female opposition politicians you always get enraged by DD.
I wonder why?
Nowt to do with sex fella, if their incompetent and useless then they will be called out on it.
Why do you always come across as a dirty, seedy old man?
I wonder why?
Stubbed your toe and touched a nerve perhaps?
Why do you come a cross as a such a mys
ah,forget it
Don't be shy now fella , lets hear what you have to say so we can all see what type of person you really are and how you think, lets all have our say, i'm quite sure most would agree with me about you and your seedy attitude.
If you like we could run a poll?
-
It seems to be female opposition politicians you always get enraged by DD.
I wonder why?
Nowt to do with sex fella, if their incompetent and useless then they will be called out on it.
Why do you always come across as a dirty, seedy old man?
I wonder why?
Stubbed your toe and touched a nerve perhaps?
Why do you come a cross as a such a mys
ah,forget it
Don't be shy now fella , lets hear what you have to say so we can all see what type of person you really are and how you think, lets all have our say, i'm quite sure most would agree with me about you and your seedy attitude.
If you like we could run a poll?
Are you looking for the cavalry to back you up lad?
-
You have posted so many misogynistic contributions on here that Sid the Sexist looks up to you.
Yet you call me seedy.
Give up.
-
It seems to be female opposition politicians you always get enraged by DD.
I wonder why?
Nowt to do with sex fella, if their incompetent and useless then they will be called out on it.
Why do you always come across as a dirty, seedy old man?
I wonder why?
Stubbed your toe and touched a nerve perhaps?
Why do you come a cross as a such a mys
ah,forget it
Don't be shy now fella , lets hear what you have to say so we can all see what type of person you really are and how you think, lets all have our say, i'm quite sure most would agree with me about you and your seedy attitude.
If you like we could run a poll?
Are you looking for the cavalry to back you up lad?
Not at all, just calling you out as some weird old perv, shall we ask all your "mates" on here what they think about you?
-
It seems to be female opposition politicians you always get enraged by DD.
I wonder why?
Nowt to do with sex fella, if their incompetent and useless then they will be called out on it.
Why do you always come across as a dirty, seedy old man?
I wonder why?
Stubbed your toe and touched a nerve perhaps?
Why do you come a cross as a such a mys
ah,forget it
Don't be shy now fella , lets hear what you have to say so we can all see what type of person you really are and how you think, lets all have our say, i'm quite sure most would agree with me about you and your seedy attitude.
If you like we could run a poll?
Are you looking for the cavalry to back you up lad?
Not at all, just calling you out as some weird old perv, shall we ask all your "mates" on here what they think about you?
Yep you are right about Pearly!
-
It seems to be female opposition politicians you always get enraged by DD.
I wonder why?
Nowt to do with sex fella, if their incompetent and useless then they will be called out on it.
Why do you always come across as a dirty, seedy old man?
I wonder why?
Stubbed your toe and touched a nerve perhaps?
Why do you come a cross as a such a mys
ah,forget it
Don't be shy now fella , lets hear what you have to say so we can all see what type of person you really are and how you think, lets all have our say, i'm quite sure most would agree with me about you and your seedy attitude.
If you like we could run a poll?
Are you looking for the cavalry to back you up lad?
Not at all, just calling you out as some weird old perv, shall we ask all your "mates" on here what they think about you?
Yep you are right about Pearly!
Made me laugh also.
You keep some good company on here.
-
Labour announced a policy on free breakfast clubs for all kids. I like that, I'd love to send my kids but it's £5 each a day at our school which I refuse to pay for a slice of toast. Cannot see how schools have space for it though.
I agree with you there pud 5 quid for a slice ofr dry toast ffs.
It was even worse than that, when asked repeatdly this morning the Shadow schools spokeswoman could not give an answer as to how many places would be provided in the scheme, also asked about how many kids are currently in public schools, did not have a Scooby, so no idea of the possibility of numbers to be catered and planned for in the state sector when they start to dismantle that system. When asked how they would pay for the additional staff required for the scheme same again did not even attempt to answer the question sensibly, saying something about some schools would provide it via teachers and others would require additional staff. Yea, teachers working extra hours for nothing (in who's world)
Sounds to me like something that's been quickly rushed out after being scribbled on the back of a fag pocket.
And this is current Labour policy? what have they been doing for 14 years except whinging constantly on a regular basis?
She made Diane Abbott sound like a PhD student.
I think pud is talking about the here and now rather than what is being offered in the future, by anyone. However a quick look shows maybe there is better value elsewhere
https://www.hawthorn.doncaster.sch.uk/parent-information/breakfast-club
-
Labour announced a policy on free breakfast clubs for all kids. I like that, I'd love to send my kids but it's £5 each a day at our school which I refuse to pay for a slice of toast. Cannot see how schools have space for it though.
I agree with you there pud 5 quid for a slice ofr dry toast ffs.
It was even worse than that, when asked repeatdly this morning the Shadow schools spokeswoman could not give an answer as to how many places would be provided in the scheme, also asked about how many kids are currently in public schools, did not have a Scooby, so no idea of the possibility of numbers to be catered and planned for in the state sector when they start to dismantle that system. When asked how they would pay for the additional staff required for the scheme same again did not even attempt to answer the question sensibly, saying something about some schools would provide it via teachers and others would require additional staff. Yea, teachers working extra hours for nothing (in who's world)
Sounds to me like something that's been quickly rushed out after being scribbled on the back of a fag pocket.
And this is current Labour policy? what have they been doing for 14 years except whinging constantly on a regular basis?
She made Diane Abbott sound like a PhD student.
I think pud is talking about the here and now rather than what is being offered in the future, by anyone. However a quick look shows maybe there is better value elsewhere
https://www.hawthorn.doncaster.sch.uk/parent-information/breakfast-club
That setup sounds fine, i think more schools should have a similar model, it would produce much more focused kids, ready for a days learning, which can only be a good thing in the longer term.
-
I think if you care to have a look plenty of schools offer better value, in fact I can't find one that does charge five quid, probably because it would defeat the object.
-
My kids' old primary school runs a Breakfast Club and charges a fiver.
But it's not a fiver for a slice of toast. You're paying for the supervision costs if you drop your kids off early because you've got to get to work.
-
Here we go. Bravermann positioning herself for the coming dogfight.
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1800056816140718443
Excellent response here:
https://x.com/andrewhunterm/status/1800097201974350271
-
It's perfectly reasonable to suspect she's playing to an audience of one. If the Tories implode she'll need a new home. Maybe improving her career prospects, brown nosing as we call it, looks a sensible option.
,
BobG
-
The Tories might lose 250 MPs. But after the Election, they'll still have 100,000 members and all the organisational structure that gives them.
It would be a very tempting thing for Farage to swallow. And there's Bravermann inviting him to do so.
-
My kids' old primary school runs a Breakfast Club and charges a fiver.
But it's not a fiver for a slice of toast. You're paying for the supervision costs if you drop your kids off early because you've got to get to work.
[/quote
That’s a valid point!
-
A snippet from the bbc .......
''Do the Conservatives' sums add up?
(hint - look at the economy) (me)
How are the Conservatives planning to fund their pledges? And do their plans add up?
Let's look at two examples.
Firstly, their plans to raise £6bn by closing the tax gap - that is, the tax that should be collected but isn't. Labour have a similar plan to raise about £5bn.
But it won't be easy, say experts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says there's uncertainty around what's possible. Tax Policy Associates say it's credible, but careful targeting and management will be needed.
Then there's the bigger target; raising £12bn through welfare reforms. Some experts are unconvinced.
The IFS has said delivering the cuts "looks difficult in the extreme". The Resolution Foundation agrees - saying they "look extremely challenging to deliver".
It's useful context when thinking about the pledges made today. We'll know a lot more later about how the Conservatives plan to make the sums add up.
And if this sounds familiar – it is. Then-Chancellor George Osborne offered almost the exact same thing in 2015; £12bn welfare savings and £5bn extra tax collection.
A few years later, the spending watchdog made clear about a third of the welfare savings didn’t materialise.
-
Looks like tory campaign ads will warn of a massive labour majority .............
'don't completely f**k it up as we did'
-
A big majority is going to cause major problems for Starmer. Every Labour MP with an axe to grind will know that it will be perfectly safe for him/her to rebel without endangering anything. Splinter groups could easily form too. He's gonna need a stonkingly good Chief Whip....
BobG
-
Labour announced a policy on free breakfast clubs for all kids. I like that, I'd love to send my kids but it's £5 each a day at our school which I refuse to pay for a slice of toast. Cannot see how schools have space for it though.
I used breakfast and after school clubs for my oldest when he was Primary School age. Possibly the same school you're talking about. The cost was very reasonable for childcare in a safe, welcoming and professional setting. The light snack was a small part of the service.
-
Just heard about Nigel Farage in Barnsley. I wonder how many people that 'greeted him warmly' realise that he represents a party that is committed to eradicating their rights and cutting public services to fund huge tax cuts for the rich?
Quite worrying really.
-
It's time for Labour to begin sharing what it is they're going to do to get the country out of the mess it's in now. They don't need to go on the offensive at the Tories too much now as they're doing a great job themselves of losing this election.
I think that they're launching their manifesto tomorrow so hopefully they should start being clear on what they're going to do.
-
Labour announced a policy on free breakfast clubs for all kids. I like that, I'd love to send my kids but it's £5 each a day at our school which I refuse to pay for a slice of toast. Cannot see how schools have space for it though.
I used breakfast and after school clubs for my oldest when he was Primary School age. Possibly the same school you're talking about. The cost was very reasonable for childcare in a safe, welcoming and professional setting. The light snack was a small part of the service.
Might be the same school, not sure. They recently outsourced it so it doubled in price unfortunately. £2.50 a day was ok £5 each a day is just too much. Thankfully I now work not too far from home so I just start late, no Biggie for me but is for others.
-
It's time for Labour to begin sharing what it is they're going to do to get the country out of the mess it's in now. They don't need to go on the offensive at the Tories too much now as they're doing a great job themselves of losing this election.
I think that they're launching their manifesto tomorrow so hopefully they should start being clear on what they're going to do.
That's all they've done so far. They're going to win by telling us all how bad the last 14 years have been. I think even Corbyn might have got a minority win if he was still here.
-
Just heard about Nigel Farage in Barnsley. I wonder how many people that 'greeted him warmly' realise that he represents a party that is committed to eradicating their rights and cutting public services to fund huge tax cuts for the rich?
Quite worrying really.
Absolutely bang out of order what that idiot did. Mind you he looked a "bit special" to say the least.
Tax cuts for the rich? Like what ?
-
It's time for Labour to begin sharing what it is they're going to do to get the country out of the mess it's in now. They don't need to go on the offensive at the Tories too much now as they're doing a great job themselves of losing this election.
I think that they're launching their manifesto tomorrow so hopefully they should start being clear on what they're going to do.
That's all they've done so far. They're going to win by telling us all how bad the last 14 years have been. I think even Corbyn might have got a minority win if he was still here.
Which policies released so far do you disagree with Padge?
-
This is a beauty from the Tories.
They have massively reduced spending per pupil in the state sector, and are now in the process of f**king up our Universities as part of their Culture War. But I guess some folk must swallow this.
-
Just heard about Nigel Farage in Barnsley. I wonder how many people that 'greeted him warmly' realise that he represents a party that is committed to eradicating their rights and cutting public services to fund huge tax cuts for the rich?
Quite worrying really.
Absolutely bang out of order what that idiot did. Mind you he looked a "bit special" to say the least.
Tax cuts for the rich? Like what ?
Couldn't agree more TS,he did look a bit special.
Imagine being a bit 'special' enought ot go around Barnsley on an ope topped double-decker bus like he's won the Champions league.
It really does take someone a bit 'special' to have that type of 'a bit special' mentality.
Edit. Plus doffing a flat cap to look like one of those northern oiks or a 50 year plus football hooligan type.
-
Any word from our man in Barnsley?
-
The more these lunatics keep doing it the more people will vote for him.
Prats. You don't share the same views as mine so I'll chuck stuff at you.
-
Agreed Padge, no matter how obnoxious they are, they have the right to speak.
-
It's time for Labour to begin sharing what it is they're going to do to get the country out of the mess it's in now. They don't need to go on the offensive at the Tories too much now as they're doing a great job themselves of losing this election.
I think that they're launching their manifesto tomorrow so hopefully they should start being clear on what they're going to do.
Well the Lib Dem manifesto is pretty bold with rejoining the single market and PR amongst other things. It probably won’t lie any further to the right than Labour’s manifesto on the economic spectrum either. Labour will have to set themselves apart somewhat.
Latest Sky / YouGov poll today
LAB 38% (-3),
CON 18% (-1),
RefUK 17% (+1),
LDEM 15% (+4),
GRN 8% (+1)
-
It's time for Labour to begin sharing what it is they're going to do to get the country out of the mess it's in now. They don't need to go on the offensive at the Tories too much now as they're doing a great job themselves of losing this election.
I think that they're launching their manifesto tomorrow so hopefully they should start being clear on what they're going to do.
Well the Lib Dem manifesto is pretty bold with rejoining the single market and PR amongst other things. It probably won’t lie any further to the right than Labour’s manifesto on the economic spectrum either. Labour will have to set themselves apart somewhat.
Latest Sky / YouGov poll today
LAB 38% (-3),
CON 18% (-1),
RefUK 17% (+1),
LDEM 15% (+4),
GRN 8% (+1)
Projects them as the opposition too. Would love that.
-
This, from one of the 20th century's most intelligent men, ought to give us all some pause for thought:
“If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.”
- Bertrand Russell, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1943)
-
As should this...
"If Labour win this time, they'll change the rules so they're in power for a very long time,"says Rishi Sunak, whose party has:
- Rejigged electoral systems
- Changed seat boundaries
- Introduced Voter ID
- Raised election spending limits
- Extended voting overseas
Anyone care to wonder why all these were deemed more important than paying more attention to boats, to the finances of the nation, to global warming - amongst many, many other more important, and more urgent, things?
BobG
-
Abolish NI contributions for the self employed, would that be the same self employed that he threw under the bus during Covid?
-
Wonder how many 1st time buyers will be looking at £450k houses?
-
As should this...
"If Labour win this time, they'll change the rules so they're in power for a very long time,"says Rishi Sunak, whose party has:
- Rejigged electoral systems
- Changed seat boundaries
- Introduced Voter ID
- Raised election spending limits
- Extended voting overseas
Anyone care to wonder why all these were deemed more important than paying more attention to boats, to the finances of the nation, to global warming - amongst many, many other more important, and more urgent, things?
BobG
Political parties don't change seat boundaries, that's done by the independent Boundary commission.
Have you just thrown that in to make your point ?
-
But the delay to the review was politically motivated. Care to guess which party did that DD?
-
Tory Manifesto.
NI cuts to be funded by £12bn of totally unspecified "Welfare cuts".
Also, Media: Are you going to put taxes up by £2000 to pay for your promises Ms Reeves?
-
Well done Barnsley!
https://x.com/socket1sophie/status/1800514643489935396?s=48&t=4W-pRUT5RAEjZ4eu3LyoiQ
BobG
-
So Sunak says he wants to abolish NI altogether.
But. Err.
If they do, how will workers build up enough stamp to qualify for a state pension...
OHH! I get it now!
-
What's the rationale for reducing NI rather than income tax? I get that an IT giveaway of equivalent value would produce a less headline grabbing figure, but can that be the only motivation?
BobG
-
Bob.
1) It's cheaper than reducing income tax because people who don't work but still have an income don't pay it.
2) There's an argument that reducing NI makes it cheaper to employ people.
Problem is of course, if you want decent public services, someone has to pay tax.
-
Employers also pay National Insurance. A cut in employer and employee National Insurance rates would offer support for businesses.
-
Its pretty obvious that most of us are going to have to whistle for the state pension.
This just makes it a bigger kick in the knackers that our work pensions are never going to be as good as they should of been because of constant government tinkering with pensions.
How is anyone supposed to plan ahead and save for their retirement when its constantly used as a political football by both main parties. It just seems the lure of pensions savings is too much of a temptation for these people to leave well alone.
Its been suggested that Reeves will be looking in due course to change the taxable benefit on private/company pensions,resulting in reduced outcomes for the vast majority, if this is the case then who knows what they will end up with when reaching retirement age.
This is something that really pisses me off, you plan ahead to ensure you are not reliant on the state for anything and they just use your prudent nature to plan to hive off another lump asap.
No wonder some people just don't bother and will be throwing themselves onto the kindness of the state when they reach that point.
What a busted nation we are.
-
Whenever you momentarily forget what a f**king disgusting rag The Mail is, they always helpfully remind you.https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1800424412916973786/photo/1
Absolutely repulsive. Say what you like about the LDs, but Ed Davey has consistently argued for greatly improved social care. He knows what it is like looking after a child with serious neurological problems and he knows how little help there is.
And an obnoxious t**t like Quentin Letts who has been spewing his filth in The Mail for years thinks that his job is to throw shite at him for that.
-
Its pretty obvious that most of us are going to have to whistle for the state pension.
This just makes it a bigger kick in the knackers that our work pensions are never going to be as good as they should of been because of constant government tinkering with pensions.
How is anyone supposed to plan ahead and save for their retirement when its constantly used as a political football by both main parties. It just seems the lure of pensions savings is too much of a temptation for these people to leave well alone.
Its been suggested that Reeves will be looking in due course to change the taxable benefit on private/company pensions,resulting in reduced outcomes for the vast majority, if this is the case then who knows what they will end up with when reaching retirement age.
This is something that really pisses me off, you plan ahead to ensure you are not reliant on the state for anything and they just use your prudent nature to plan to hive off another lump asap.
No wonder some people just don't bother and will be throwing themselves onto the kindness of the state when they reach that point.
What a busted nation we are.
There's probably never been a better time to get the next lot out than now!
-
Aye. The paper that consistently batted for the Blackshirts has never changed.
BobG
-
Yep! We're all Mail readers, Bob!
-
-
Shapps .... why does he have to glance down at his Crib notes so obviously ?
Usually does it but today it was off the scale
-
Shapps .... why does he have to glance down at his Crib notes so obviously ?
Usually does it but today it was off the scale
What was he talking about? You must know you were clearly hanging on every word! Be careful in your reply as if you make the slightest error Wilts Rover and Co will be calling you a liar
-
Who else was as destitute as Sunak when growing up without Sky Tv, when Sky TV wasn’t around for the first nine years of his life?
-
He was probably as distraught because they couldn't afford a dishwasher.
However, things improved over time abd just before they got Sky TV they got one.
Her name was Doreen and she also washed, ironed and cleaned for them 3 days a week.
She lived on a nearby Council Estate, earned £5 a week and was a prime example of how Trickle Down economics successfully works.
-
Its pretty obvious that most of us are going to have to whistle for the state pension.
This just makes it a bigger kick in the knackers that our work pensions are never going to be as good as they should of been because of constant government tinkering with pensions.
How is anyone supposed to plan ahead and save for their retirement when its constantly used as a political football by both main parties. It just seems the lure of pensions savings is too much of a temptation for these people to leave well alone.
Its been suggested that Reeves will be looking in due course to change the taxable benefit on private/company pensions,resulting in reduced outcomes for the vast majority, if this is the case then who knows what they will end up with when reaching retirement age.
This is something that really pisses me off, you plan ahead to ensure you are not reliant on the state for anything and they just use your prudent nature to plan to hive off another lump asap.
No wonder some people just don't bother and will be throwing themselves onto the kindness of the state when they reach that point.
What a busted nation we are.
"If your pension is considered a 'state benefit' and they decide to act upon this new classification, they can assess you and decide you don't need it even though you've paid into it all your working life.
Now, for the next 42 days, think about that and not the distraction that is national service.
Nigel Farage.
-
If NI is reduced to nothing for self employed how will they qualify for State Pension? And will someone in work still contribute even though self employed don't, until it is zero for them?
-
Guarantee Sunak’s parents didn’t have Sky TV back then because they thought it was something “common people” did
-
He’d be better off just owning it. “No, I didn’t have to forgo anything, I had a privileged upbringing thanks to my parents…” would be the truthful answer, so just go with it. Strange bloke.
-
He’d be better off just owning it. “No, I didn’t have to forgo anything, I had a privileged upbringing thanks to my parents…” would be the truthful answer, so just go with it. Strange bloke.
A senior Tory said several months ago that he was dreading the campaign because Sunak is just awful at the optics.
He's got no idea how he appears.
The thought that they've gone into this campaign with no answer to the privilege barb is beyond belief. And then to try to answer it with "Well my parents had to scrimp and save to send me to one of the oldest and most distinguished public schools in the world"...
There's another clip doing the rounds this morning. Him turning up at ITV studios last week having left the D Day celebration. Apologising for being late because the ceremony "ran over time a bit". Like it was something he couldn't wait to run away from so he could tell ITV about how he was from a home too poor to have a satellite dish.
-
There’ll be a new Movie made by the Minty Python team or similar about this campaign
-
Guarantee Sunak’s parents didn’t have Sky TV back then because they thought it was something “common people” did
No there are Asian White Collar, probably didn’t even have it to ensure the Kids weren’t distracted from their Homework and Studies! I had a colleague was went to boarding school and they were allowed an hours TV on a Saturday and an hour on a Sunday (songs of Praise) her dad was a widower and wouldn’t re Mary he had money and was a businessman so it was boarding school for her!
-
You know when I say RefUK is a home to fascists and some folk have a giggle?
I'm not saying that as a lazy insult.
I'm stating a fact.
https://x.com/PickardJE/status/1800782573188116926
When you vote for them lads, don't pretend you don't know what you are voting for.
-
Nevertheless, BST it won't stop some on here throwing around their usual accusation that you label anyone who disagrees with you fascist.
-
Anyone else despairing about the issues and discussion around this election? No party really has a grasp of a positive big picture, and even if they did then they wouldn't talk about it. Corbyn did to some extent. The only big picture that seems to be seen and embraced is the ever increasing dominance of the UK by US corporate interests, and the overall subjugation of the population. A country of castrated lemmings. Even calling us a country is beginning to become a joke.
So we have the biggest election issues - immigration, National Insurance rates, and even National Service. Immigration especially has to be the main issue for fools - all the fuss over a few thousand desperate people coming over when we send £billions upon $billions to the US fat cats. Petty arguments, clear as day lies. Is this for real? Does the winner of this election rule over Beanoland?
-
Who's going to bet on the next gaffe by risky or one of his team.
-
Judging by the story that's just come out about Sunak's senior aide putting a bet on the election date days before he announced it, it think it's his team's turn.
-
Yeah but did he get the date right?
Given the incompetence of this shit shower, it wouldn't surprise me if he got it wrong.
-
Story about Sunak's aides by the way, is that Sunak's said he'll look after them once they lose their jobs. He's reported to have said he'll invest in any businesses they set up.
Can you imagine that lot running businesses?
A group who never thought to check the weather forecast before sending their boss out to look like Withnail and I when he announced the election.
A group that thought: "Here's an idea boss. Let's f**k off the D Day thing and do an ITV interview about how deprived your childhood was."
A group that thought it'd be a great idea to show how ordinary their boss was by having him take a little car to the petrol station, fill up and pay. And then never thought to row back when the video showed he didn't actually didn't know how to pay.
-
I've said right from the start that he wants out.
His California ranch and Silicon Valley are beckoning.
-
I've said right from the start that he wants out.
His California ranch and Silicon Valley are beckoning.
Making the tea for the guy who makes the coffee at Google?
-
Rishi Sunak looked like a beaten man during the Sky debate this evening. He seemed tired and fed up at times, as if he could no longer galvanise any sort of enthusiasm. I must admit, I felt a little bit sorry for him.
Starmer lacked a bit of detail and was caught out a bit around tax. I wish that Labour would be open about possible tax increases. We all know that they've got to happen if we're to maintain (and hopefully improve) public services and I'm sure that many people would not object paying a little extra tax if it's being spent correctly.
It was certainly another win for Starmer though. I think that people would quite welcome 'boring' politics after the disaster of personality politics over the past few years.
-
I didn't see the second debate so can't comment on it, but when you say 'another win for Starmer', When was his previous win?
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
-
Is he in the starting 11?
Let's hope he doesn't miss a penalty and get dogs abuse like the last Euros.
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
Yeah. I remember when England got to the semi in 96 and everyone was saying, "Great! It's ok to be a fascist now!"
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
Yeah. I remember when England got to the semi in 96 and everyone was saying, "Great! It's ok to be a fascist now!"
Far too easy :lol:.
So farage is a fascist? And anyone who votes for them ?
How so ? Your literally clueless, it's the far left, the woke agenda and the net zero policies where the real fascists lie.
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
Patriotism doesn’t equate to nationalism
-
Isn't Farage one of the main bedwetters who said they wouldn't support England because the players took the knee?
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
Yeah. I remember when England got to the semi in 96 and everyone was saying, "Great! It's ok to be a fascist now!"
Far too easy :lol:.
So farage is a fascist? And anyone who votes for them ?
How so ? Your literally clueless, it's the far left, the woke agenda and the net zero policies where the real fascists lie.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=291308.msg1322243#msg1322243
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
Yeah. I remember when England got to the semi in 96 and everyone was saying, "Great! It's ok to be a fascist now!"
Far too easy :lol:.
So farage is a fascist? And anyone who votes for them ?
How so ? Your literally clueless, it's the far left, the woke agenda and the net zero policies where the real fascists lie.
How can you have a left wing fascist?
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
"Guehi plays the ball into Mainoo, across to Eze, who takes on his man, drills it across... SAKKAAAAAAA. BUKAYO SAKA SCORES THE GOAL TO WIN ENGLAND THE EUROS!"
Rights wingers - "f**k yeah, close the borders and sell off the NHS!"
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
Yeah. I remember when England got to the semi in 96 and everyone was saying, "Great! It's ok to be a fascist now!"
Far too easy :lol:.
So farage is a fascist? And anyone who votes for them ?
How so ? Your literally clueless, it's the far left, the woke agenda and the net zero policies where the real fascists lie.
How can you have a left wing fascist?
The irony is, our wannabe gangster here is doing exactly what he accuses other people of doing.
He's using "fascist" as a bone idle insult meaning "people I don't agree with".
Whereas I'm using "fascist" to mean "people who believe in or agree with fascist ideas."
Like the 10% of RefUK candidates who have friended a someone who openly brags on FB about being a fascist. Or the RefUK leader who says the world leader he most admires is an ethno-fascist dictator.
-
If england do well in the euros I can see a swell of support for Nigel and reform.
Yeah. I remember when England got to the semi in 96 and everyone was saying, "Great! It's ok to be a fascist now!"
Far too easy :lol:.
So farage is a fascist? And anyone who votes for them ?
How so ? Your literally clueless, it's the far left, the woke agenda and the net zero policies where the real fascists lie.
How can you have a left wing fascist?
Joe Stalin Springs to mind, Pol Pot ,Chairman Mao,Fidel Castro etc!
-
I'd love to see comparisons of the main parties manifestos 2019 Vs now compared. The labour manifesto doesn't feel particularly far away from that or the Tories. Very safe, but that's probably exactly what was needed.
-
I'd love to see comparisons of the main parties manifestos 2019 Vs now compared. The labour manifesto doesn't feel particularly far away from that or the Tories. Very safe, but that's probably exactly what was needed.
Compared to previous Labour manifestos
https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1801233554849886382?s=46
Compared to LibDem / Cons
https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1801232841990083035?s=46
The Labour manifesto needs some serious fact-checking. Surely they are massively underestimating how much things cost?
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
Tax expats more, no representation without taxation!!
-
I'd love to see comparisons of the main parties manifestos 2019 Vs now compared. The labour manifesto doesn't feel particularly far away from that or the Tories. Very safe, but that's probably exactly what was needed.
Ben Chu from the BBC posted this;
https://nitter.poast.org/BenChu_/status/1801202947860103353#m
Trickle down here we come....or not!
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
BB can help you make a start he knows a tax dodger and there was someone else I remember said that his bank manager gave him the third degree when he drew cash out to pay for some work.
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
BB can help you make a start he knows a tax dodger and there was someone else I remember said that his bank manager gave him the third degree when he drew cash out to pay for some work.
You need to worry about the mess Albinese is making for you! Hope you been paying your stamp duty!
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
BB can help you make a start he knows a tax dodger and there was someone else I remember said that his bank manager gave him the third degree when he drew cash out to pay for some work.
You need to worry about the mess Albinese is making for you! Hope you been paying your stamp duty!
As I've said before, I'm quite happy paying taxes towards the upkeep of services.
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
Tax expats more, no representation without taxation!!
Very hypocritical, the other week you were saying people should only vote where they pay tax ans Social Security!!!!!
It's a great slogan tho,sounds like something from the student(singular) union tory party piss up.
-
I'd love to see comparisons of the main parties manifestos 2019 Vs now compared. The labour manifesto doesn't feel particularly far away from that or the Tories. Very safe, but that's probably exactly what was needed.
Compared to previous Labour manifestos
https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1801233554849886382?s=46
Compared to LibDem / Cons
https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1801232841990083035?s=46
The Labour manifesto needs some serious fact-checking. Surely they are massively underestimating how much things cost?
How very small c conservative.
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
Tax expats more, no representation without taxation!!
Very hypocritical, the other week you were saying people should only vote where they pay tax ans Social Security!!!!!
It's a great slogan tho,sounds like something from the student(singular) union tory party piss up.
Deliberately paraphrasing the American revolution Iberian. Yes people should only vote where they pay tax so expats should pay here to vote here, I’m been consistent there
-
Doesn't this sum up the shite, childish attitude of our media to politics?
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1801207591894147367
A generation of f**king w**k political journalists who think there job is to make politics into some sort of light entertainment cack.
And then complain when we get w**k entertainers for politicians.
And THEN complain when someone just tries to like... y'know...just competent at the job.
God knows I don't agree with everything Starmer has done and I DO think he is being too under ambitious.
But a boring, sober, steady hand will feel like the first step on the road back to a functional country after the play centre politics of the past decade.
-
Doesn't this sum up the shite, childish attitude of our media to politics?
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1801207591894147367
A generation of f**king w**k political journalists who think there job is to make politics into some sort of light entertainment cack.
And then complain when we get w**k entertainers for politicians.
And THEN complain when someone just tries to like... y'know...just competent at the job.
God knows I don't agree with everything Starmer has done and I DO think he is being too under ambitious.
But a boring, sober, steady hand will feel like the first step on the road back to a functional country after the play centre politics of the past decade.
Steady and stable is what’s needed atm, not fireworks
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
Tax expats more, no representation without taxation!!
Very hypocritical, the other week you were saying people should only vote where they pay tax ans Social Security!!!!!
It's a great slogan tho,sounds like something from the student(singular) union tory party piss up.
Deliberately paraphrasing the American revolution Iberian. Yes people should only vote where they pay tax so expats should pay here to vote here, I’m been consistent there
I am familiar with where it came from. ;)
-
There isn’t much scope for Labours very modest plans, no Piggy Banks to plunder, it’s going to be even austerity
I might decide to make a few Bob chasing Tax Dodgers that job is just up my street!
Tax expats more, no representation without taxation!!
Very hypocritical, the other week you were saying people should only vote where they pay tax ans Social Security!!!!!
It's a great slogan tho,sounds like something from the student(singular) union tory party piss up.
Deliberately paraphrasing the American revolution Iberian. Yes people should only vote where they pay tax so expats should pay here to vote here, I’m been consistent there
I am familiar with where it came from. ;)
Thought you would be tbh
-
Doesn't this sum up the shite, childish attitude of our media to politics?
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1801207591894147367
A generation of f**king w**k political journalists who think there job is to make politics into some sort of light entertainment cack.
And then complain when we get w**k entertainers for politicians.
And THEN complain when someone just tries to like... y'know...just competent at the job.
God knows I don't agree with everything Starmer has done and I DO think he is being too under ambitious.
But a boring, sober, steady hand will feel like the first step on the road back to a functional country after the play centre politics of the past decade.
Fair play to Boris this BST.
He was the best we've ever had at the w#nk entertainers game.
He is without doubt the biggest w@#ker elected to Parliament.
-
Right back to his schooldays... The evidence is easy to find: a liar, a selfish self promoter, a conspirator in illegality, a bombast. There has never, ever been any doubt about his unfitness for any public office.
BobG
-
Reform just overtook Conservatives in the latest YouGov poll. Has the sinking ship just hit tipping point?
-
This is exactly the reason why Labour has to occupy the centre ground.
It's looking more and more like Farage has dealt the knockout blow to this version of the Tory party. And he's already talking about a merger after the election with him as leader.
I've been saying for months that if that happens, which way the centrist Tory voters jump will determine the medium term future of this country.
The Left aren't going to want to hear this, but there just aren't enough votes on the Left to keep out a right wing party if RefUK and the usual Tory voters join forces. If Labour can keep just a tenth or a fifth of normal Tory voters from jumping into bed with Farage, then he can be kept out.
-
BST
Would you say that Labour are currently to the right of the Lib Dems looking at the manifestos?
-
LD manifestos mean less than nothing.
Clegg campaigned in 2010 on the line that they were well to the left of Labour.
Then immediately signed up to the most ridiculous and damaging right wing ideological economic policy since the War.
They know they will never form a Govt on their own, so they can promise whatever they want in a manifesto. The problem comes, as Clegg found out, when you go into coalition supporting everything you said you were dead against.
-
''The Telegraph newspaper has received a warning shot from the Electoral Commission after promoting a series of ads on Meta (as well as X) that read as anti-Labour attack stories.
The right-wing outlet is running ads warning of “disaster” if Labour is elected and introduces VAT on private school fees.
On the 28th May, a few days after Sunak announced the snap election, the paper spent at least £500 promoting a piece: “Learn why Labour’s plans for private school fees could spell disaster.”
The day after, another ad ran, reaching around a million people. It was an interview with PM Sunak leading on his claim that he and Boris Johnson “were in touch the other day, talking about the risk that Starmer would pose to our country’s security”. Over £1,000 was spent'' ....... cont'
https://bylinetimes.com/2024/06/13/telegraph-pours-thousands-of-pounds-pushing-anti-labour-stories-on-social-media/
-
This is exactly the reason why Labour has to occupy the centre ground.
It's looking more and more like Farage has dealt the knockout blow to this version of the Tory party. And he's already talking about a merger after the election with him as leader.
I've been saying for months that if that happens, which way the centrist Tory voters jump will determine the medium term future of this country.
The Left aren't going to want to hear this, but there just aren't enough votes on the Left to keep out a right wing party if RefUK and the usual Tory voters join forces. If Labour can keep just a tenth or a fifth of normal Tory voters from jumping into bed with Farage, then he can be kept out.
That's only half the story Billy , I'm not looking for a quarrel by the way .
Labour have to put money in the pockets of people who will be attracted to vote for New Conservatism .
They have to make their lives better .
It's not simply enough to woo centrist Tory voters .
I warned about New Conservatism a month or two back on here and they could be formidable with Farage capturing the lower paid vote .
I said watch that bloody Braverman , these feckers can't be underestimated .
Throw in some Douglas Murray's and Matt Goodwin's for good measure and you've got a problem .
If these feckers win in 2029 you know whose put them there don't you Billy ?
One elected Starmer needs to up his game not park the bus .
-
LD manifestos mean less than nothing.
Clegg campaigned in 2010 on the line that they were well to the left of Labour.
Then immediately signed up to the most ridiculous and damaging right wing ideological economic policy since the War.
They know they will never form a Govt on their own, so they can promise whatever they want in a manifesto. The problem comes, as Clegg found out, when you go into coalition supporting everything you said you were dead against.
Is that a yes or a no?
-
LD manifestos mean less than nothing.
Clegg campaigned in 2010 on the line that they were well to the left of Labour.
Then immediately signed up to the most ridiculous and damaging right wing ideological economic policy since the War.
They know they will never form a Govt on their own, so they can promise whatever they want in a manifesto. The problem comes, as Clegg found out, when you go into coalition supporting everything you said you were dead against.
Is that a yes or a no?
It's a "That's a non-question because no-one knows how right or left the LDs are till they have to decide."
Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear.
-
BST
Would you say that Labour are currently to the right of the Lib Dems looking at the manifestos?
There is no doubt about that. Whilst the details of LD policies may or may not be fully worked out, neither are Labour's or the Tory's. What really counts is where they are coming from because as real life happens, the adjustments are based on exactly that - barring a mass screw up of the economy. But then the Greens are the ones owning the socialist ground.
-
LD manifestos mean less than nothing.
Clegg campaigned in 2010 on the line that they were well to the left of Labour.
Then immediately signed up to the most ridiculous and damaging right wing ideological economic policy since the War.
They know they will never form a Govt on their own, so they can promise whatever they want in a manifesto. The problem comes, as Clegg found out, when you go into coalition supporting everything you said you were dead against.
Is that a yes or a no?
It's a "That's a non-question because no-one knows how right or left the LDs are till they have to decide."
Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear.
And I made my question (not a non-question) pretty clear. I also said “looking at the manifestos” not “looking at what Nick Clegg did 10 years ago in a coalition where he was outnumbered by 305 to 57”.
-
Watching the TV debate - Farage is managing to get progressively thicker, whilst Reform are getting higher in the polls, and he personally is apparently the most popular leader in the country right now. Bonkers.
-
Watching the TV debate - Farage is managing to get progressively thicker, whilst Reform are getting higher in the polls, and he personally is apparently the most popular leader in the country right now. Bonkers.
That might be your opinion, but many people, including me, will disagree with you regarding his performance.
Love him or loathe him he was very convincing putting his points across.
-
Watching the TV debate - Farage is managing to get progressively thicker, whilst Reform are getting higher in the polls, and he personally is apparently the most popular leader in the country right now. Bonkers.
That might be your opinion, but many people, including me, will disagree with you regarding his performance.
Love him or loathe him he was very convincing putting his points across.
About as convincing as Johnson, so yep, you're probably on board.
He lied about the comparison with the French healthcare system - the French pay more. He changed his party's policy on the fly about the two child benefit cap. He brought everything down to migration. He's got a nonsense, and clearly uncosted, policy of no tax until £20k. I'm waiting for his pledge on a bus.
Populist tripe to the last. Is that your diet?
-
LD manifestos mean less than nothing.
Clegg campaigned in 2010 on the line that they were well to the left of Labour.
Then immediately signed up to the most ridiculous and damaging right wing ideological economic policy since the War.
They know they will never form a Govt on their own, so they can promise whatever they want in a manifesto. The problem comes, as Clegg found out, when you go into coalition supporting everything you said you were dead against.
Is that a yes or a no?
It's a "That's a non-question because no-one knows how right or left the LDs are till they have to decide."
Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear.
And I made my question (not a non-question) pretty clear. I also said “looking at the manifestos” not “looking at what Nick Clegg did 10 years ago in a coalition where he was outnumbered by 305 to 57”.
And I'm telling you it's a non-question because the LD manifesto is literally meaningless.
You CAN'T just ignore the one time in the last century that that has been demonstrated. Of COURSE the LDs want to paint themselves as further to the left than Labour. That means nothing about what they would actually do if that was put to the test.
Your question is identical to this one.
You've got grey paint. A shop is selling tins that say white paint but the last time you bought one, it was black when you opened it. Is your paint whiter than the "white" one?
-
The point is that the LD's entire strategy is based on APPEARING to be more left wing than Labour to try and grab some votes of disillusioned Labour voters.
The Greens are trying to do the same thing by saying they'd have a massive programme of increased public spending and increase the overall tax take by 3-4% of GDP, at a time when we already have the highest tax take since the War.
They can both do that to grab votes off Labour while knowing there's zero chance of having to put that into action.
-
It is perfectly possible to advocate for tax changes to raise revenue by taking a greater proportion from the wealthy, either via assets or earnings, and reducing the tax pressure on the least well off. These are not mutually exclusive options.
Sadly, Labour no longer supports the use of the tax system for a progressive redistribution.
The word redistribution did not feature in the manifesto launch, which tells you how far into the pit of deplorable objectives Labour have fallen.
Growth is to provide a pathway to a better future, but Labour cannot find the resources to pump prime that growth.
It will come from the private sector, the unicorns have advised.
No revisions will be made to the tax system changes already set in place by the Tories.
The consequence will be reduced public spending in unprotected sectors, such as criminal justice.
Austerity it is then, despite what Keith and Rachel say.
With a bit of luck, there might be some incidental "trickle down", like in the Thatcherite playbook.
Economically illiterate drivel, from people who have no core values to support the interests of working class folk, just cheerleading for corporate sponsors.
Just know what you are voting for!
-
Thank you Albie. I am going to keep that analysis close by me. It's clarity and incisiveness are valuable.
BobG
-
This is exactly the reason why Labour has to occupy the centre ground.
It's looking more and more like Farage has dealt the knockout blow to this version of the Tory party. And he's already talking about a merger after the election with him as leader.
I've been saying for months that if that happens, which way the centrist Tory voters jump will determine the medium term future of this country.
The Left aren't going to want to hear this, but there just aren't enough votes on the Left to keep out a right wing party if RefUK and the usual Tory voters join forces. If Labour can keep just a tenth or a fifth of normal Tory voters from jumping into bed with Farage, then he can be kept out.
I think the overall majority are in the central portion be that centre right or left. Farage just is not going to attract those conservatives who are not particularly right wing just as labour under Starmer aren't going to attract the left if their policies remain unchanged ( I suspect they'll move left post election again).
We appear to keep pushing these parties with a coalition of policies and wings, we seem unable to have true principled parties that you can really get behind.
Let's be honest labour or Tories, the policies announced mean very little change for any of us. Labour will win by being not the Tories, the Tory leadership is a joke and the other parties are just protesting.
Farage is a real danger in future, he's got that knack of pulling in the left and right with his policies, but I still don't see it's strong enough to attract the vast majority in the centre, unless labour massively struggle (and I feel they are going to find it very hard).
-
This is exactly the reason why Labour has to occupy the centre ground.
It's looking more and more like Farage has dealt the knockout blow to this version of the Tory party. And he's already talking about a merger after the election with him as leader.
I've been saying for months that if that happens, which way the centrist Tory voters jump will determine the medium term future of this country.
The Left aren't going to want to hear this, but there just aren't enough votes on the Left to keep out a right wing party if RefUK and the usual Tory voters join forces. If Labour can keep just a tenth or a fifth of normal Tory voters from jumping into bed with Farage, then he can be kept out.
I think the overall majority are in the central portion be that centre right or left. Farage just is not going to attract those conservatives who are not particularly right wing just as labour under Starmer aren't going to attract the left if their policies remain unchanged ( I suspect they'll move left post election again).
We appear to keep pushing these parties with a coalition of policies and wings, we seem unable to have true principled parties that you can really get behind.
Let's be honest labour or Tories, the policies announced mean very little change for any of us. Labour will win by being not the Tories, the Tory leadership is a joke and the other parties are just protesting.
Farage is a real danger in future, he's got that knack of pulling in the left and right with his policies, but I still don't see it's strong enough to attract the vast majority in the centre, unless labour massively struggle (and I feel they are going to find it very hard).
I think that during their first term, it's going to be all about creating a steady ship for Labour. However, there are some key differences that make them stand out from the Tories for me. For example VAT on private schools and a commitment to supporting food sustainability are different from what the Tories intend to do.
-
It's disappointing that you write off the LD manifesto so readily, BST. I mentioned before that I believe the current LD party to be closer to the Labour Party of John Smith than the current iteration of the Labour Party are.
Was I pissed off with the way the Clegg administration conceded their flagship policy? Absolutely, yes. It was as clear as the nose on your face that the Tories were going to give a few soft wins on policies that were very much under the radar on the condition that they could harpoon the one issue that most LD voters of the day cared about. Does that mean the current party and its manifesto are irrelevant? Absolutely not.
You've been extremely critical of some of the policies that Jeremy Corbyn would've implemented had he won a GE (I can think of several times that you've said how disastrous his foreign and defence policies would've been). By your logic of "Look what happened ten years ago" I could just as easily say "Look what Labour were saying five years ago" but I'm not going to say that because as we both know, things change, society moves on, macro-economic conditions dictate necessary evolution of policy and the rise of the far right as a knee-jerk reaction to the disillusionment felt by the public at large necessitates a different way of doing politics.
On the question of what the panellists would each do to restore trust in politicians, Daisy Cooper's response was easily the best received last night. If we want to make people feel vlaued and included by their government we need to make changes and that would go a long way towards quashing the groundswell of populist support for right-wing loons like Farage.
Edited to add: As I've stated previously that I'm a LD member it would be easy to say "Well of course you take that position because they're your party." But on the contrary, they're my party because I take that position and they best reflect it. I joined after Clegg's destruction of the party because I wanted to help rebuild a progressive centre-left option from the ashes left behind.
-
This is exactly the reason why Labour has to occupy the centre ground.
It's looking more and more like Farage has dealt the knockout blow to this version of the Tory party. And he's already talking about a merger after the election with him as leader.
I've been saying for months that if that happens, which way the centrist Tory voters jump will determine the medium term future of this country.
The Left aren't going to want to hear this, but there just aren't enough votes on the Left to keep out a right wing party if RefUK and the usual Tory voters join forces. If Labour can keep just a tenth or a fifth of normal Tory voters from jumping into bed with Farage, then he can be kept out.
I think the overall majority are in the central portion be that centre right or left. Farage just is not going to attract those conservatives who are not particularly right wing just as labour under Starmer aren't going to attract the left if their policies remain unchanged ( I suspect they'll move left post election again).
We appear to keep pushing these parties with a coalition of policies and wings, we seem unable to have true principled parties that you can really get behind.
Let's be honest labour or Tories, the policies announced mean very little change for any of us. Labour will win by being not the Tories, the Tory leadership is a joke and the other parties are just protesting.
Farage is a real danger in future, he's got that knack of pulling in the left and right with his policies, but I still don't see it's strong enough to attract the vast majority in the centre, unless labour massively struggle (and I feel they are going to find it very hard).
I think that during their first term, it's going to be all about creating a steady ship for Labour. However, there are some key differences that make them stand out from the Tories for me. For example VAT on private schools and a commitment to supporting food sustainability are different from what the Tories intend to do.
Yep I get that, but 99% of people on the ground aren't going to notice any of that are they? How do Labour make it noticeable so that people do see that they've offered the change they are pushing? I think that's very difficult.
-
BRR you are calling Farage thick , Wow, I bet the most influential politician of our times is flabbergasted, I know I am, knowing that someone can underestimate someone so much.
That even this early in the day is the joke of the day
-
Unfortunately, he's far from thick. He is an accomplished public speaker and he knows exactly how to present his Machiavellian schemes with enough veneer of acceptability to persuade turkeys to vote for Christmas.
-
The point is that the LD's entire strategy is based on APPEARING to be more left wing than Labour to try and grab some votes of disillusioned Labour voters.
The Greens are trying to do the same thing by saying they'd have a massive programme of increased public spending and increase the overall tax take by 3-4% of GDP, at a time when we already have the highest tax take since the War.
They can both do that to grab votes off Labour while knowing there's zero chance of having to put that into action.
The LD plans are nowhere near as crazy as the green’s yet you lump them together because you’re in canvassing mode.
Greens want to scale down nuclear power and deterrent because they are both ‘unsafe’ to them. Germany did that now have to burn coal. Getting rid of trident jeopardises everything.
They want rent controls while having a “world without borders” and only building half the new homes that Labour and LD are promising because they won’t build on the green belt. Subsidising demand rather than sorting out supply.
They want to ban domestic flights but generally oppose new rail developments.
They want to put massive pressure on small businesses by introducing a £15 minimum wage. This would lead to bankruptcies, job losses and lots more people on their cushty universal income.
Their tax propositions would lead to businesses simply leaving the country. Tax rises on those earning £50k per year too. There’s a cost of living for people like that with mortgages too.
They evidently think de-growth is justified but that never solves any issues. I’m surprised they are doing so well on this site’s poll.
-
I couldn't agree more about the Greens NC.
My point is that neither they nor the LDs will be in a position to have to implement their policies. So they are shaping their policies in a way that attracts as many voters as possible.
I'm not canvassing by the way.
-
I couldn't agree more about the Greens NC.
My point is that neither they nor the LDs will be in a position to have to implement their policies. So they are shaping their policies in a way that attracts as many voters as possible.
I'm not canvassing by the way.
Fair enough!
-
I'm quite surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that the deputy leader of the Labour party had "firmly" nailed Labour policy to "never rejoining the EU"
Is this something that will be coming back to biting her, and the party square in the arse during the next administration?
Also find it quite illuminating that some are very dismissive of the LD's and their "not really anything" agenda.
Interesting because if for some reason the GE was tighter than now thought they would be the first party that Starmer would have to start having serious conversations with.
With an extremist like Farage managing to surpass Tory party support who knows where this could end in a couple of weeks?
The landslide may just not materialise as expected.
-
Some odd views on the Green Party offer there, ncRover.
The Greens are in support of rail, and want to see public ownership and improvements across the network.
They were against Hs2, correctly because it diverted resource from more important projects, and because the business case did not meet the criteria set out by the Treasury for transport projects at the time.
Now it has advanced to the current stage, it makes little sense to abandon the work short of the London termini.
The pressing need is for a high quality trans-pennine link, connecting Leeds/Sheffield to Manchester/Liverpool and joining to the East Coast mainline.
You can hear Zack Polanski (Green deputy leader) speak for himself here;
https://youtu.be/_-4ek_ke3fY
Trident is a complete irrelevance, and has no real military significance.
Entirely under the control of the US military, the UK has no real say in the potential deployment.
The money saved by scrapping the obsolete nuclear submarine fleet could be much better spent, both within the defence budget and on wider social objectives.
By all means feel free to disagree, but do first understand what they are saying!
-
I'm quite surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that the deputy leader of the Labour party had "firmly" nailed Labour policy to "never rejoining the EU"
Is this something that will be coming back to biting her, and the party square in the arse during the next administration?
Also find it quite illuminating that some are very dismissive of the LD's and their "not really anything" agenda.
Interesting because if for some reason the GE was tighter than now thought they would be the first party that Starmer would have to start having serious conversations with.
With an extremist like Farage managing to surpass Tory party support who knows where this could end in a couple of weeks?
The landslide may just not materialise as expected.
It's not a secret dd, it's not politically possible at this point in time.
''Sir Keir Starmer has insisted there is no case for rejoining the European Union, after the government accused him of wanting to reverse Brexit''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66887576
-
I'm quite surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that the deputy leader of the Labour party had "firmly" nailed Labour policy to "never rejoining the EU"
Is this something that will be coming back to biting her, and the party square in the arse during the next administration?
Also find it quite illuminating that some are very dismissive of the LD's and their "not really anything" agenda.
Interesting because if for some reason the GE was tighter than now thought they would be the first party that Starmer would have to start having serious conversations with.
With an extremist like Farage managing to surpass Tory party support who knows where this could end in a couple of weeks?
The landslide may just not materialise as expected.
It's not a secret dd, it's not politically possible at this point in time.
''Sir Keir Starmer has insisted there is no case for rejoining the European Union, after the government accused him of wanting to reverse Brexit''
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66887576
Syd, we're all aware its not politically possible at this time(or for the foreseeable future)
My point was, the way she answered the question on a program watched by a great many people who are not political animals would in all effect ensure some people would not be voting Labour because of this very issue.
What may or may not happen during the next administration is another thing entirely.
In some marginal seats this could make a difference.
-
DD, are you aware of the consequences of labour stating that yes they want to rejoin the EU before the election?
-
DD, are you aware of the consequences of labour stating that yes they want to rejoin the EU before the election?
No doubt we will see after the election.
The "Tory" media would obviously make a big deal of it, but they will haemorrhage votes either way they play it.
-
Improving the economy has got to be the priority for Labour. Brexitiers told us that leaving the EU would open up a world of opportunity to us, that’s not happened because the world is becoming much more protectionist (fed by populist bullshitters). We need to at least rejoin the single market. Labour need to be nuanced about this though.
-
Improving the economy has got to be the priority for Labour. Brexitiers told us that leaving the EU would open up a world of opportunity to us, that’s not happened because the world is becoming much more protectionist (fed by populist bullshitters). We need to at least rejoin the single market. Labour need to be nuanced about this though.
I'd say that the economy should always be the very first priority for any government.
The trouble many will be having is looking at the Labour manifesto and wondering just where this improvement in the economy is going to come from.
Saying you are going to transform the economy and then ruling out virtually every avenue open to achieving this just doesn't computate.
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Why are you bothered ?
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Why are you bothered ?
Why are you bothered about me snotty, I have a partner.
-
https://x.com/theousherwood/status/1801682668762914837?s=08
Count the different ways in which this is bloody dreadful.
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Why are you bothered ?
Why are you bothered about me snotty, I have a partner.
That’s great is he a little twit like you as well!
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Why are you bothered ?
Why are you bothered about me snotty, I have a partner.
That’s great is he a little twit like you as well!
snotty all over, playing the men not the ball
-
https://x.com/theousherwood/status/1801682668762914837?s=08
Count the different ways in which this is bloody dreadful.
The thing is, who is going to hold him to account ........... before the election.
-
It has started already, the plans Labour have for North Sea Oil and Gas has caused small cap companies to lose up to 19% on share price.
Meanwhile the use of oil is on line to increase 2% in 2024 and a further 4% in 2025 setting new records for US oil production and at the premium expected price of 100 dollars a barrel, bank of America, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, are all pushing this agenda.
If the middle east countries get more involved in spats and shipping prices also go higher together with our new government following their high tax make it hard to exploit what we have an abundance of, expect a cold or expensive winter period.
Or we could try and tap into the hot air they develop with their gobs and we could get a glimpse of the just stop oil future some have got in mind for us, and we are due a hard winter.
With more coal being burnt world wide and production at its highest ever tonnage world wide P***ing in the wind comes to mind.
-
Or there could be another truss waiting in the wings or a johnson with some end of the pier entertainment maybe or risky who can't take a trick and all the while the economy is just dragging along the bottom ...........
-
Or there could be another truss waiting in the wings or a johnson with some end of the pier entertainment maybe or risky who can't take a trick and all the while the economy is just dragging along the bottom ...........
If Starmer wins but then falls out of favour with his left of Party members he could get the chop then the next Truss could well be in the form
of Rayner, Cooper or Reeves if one of them steps up to be PM.
-
The labour agenda is now coming under scrutiny as are the personalities of the Labour Party and they are not the shining light some thought they were.
Plus they are now up against the best orator apart from Gorgeous George on the scene at the moment, and over the next few weeks their policy of saying nothing will not wash or be allowed to by Farage, he will dictate the agenda and talking points from now on as he gets more and more air time and publicity.
It's going to be fun if nothing else.
-
Going up against the past 14+ years of government is going to be tough, quivering in their boots I should think.
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Bump for DD.
-
Is it expected that if Labour win that Sunak as a losing leader stands down?
-
I'm quite surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that the deputy leader of the Labour party had "firmly" nailed Labour policy to "never rejoining the EU"
Is this something that will be coming back to biting her, and the party square in the arse during the next administration?
Also find it quite illuminating that some are very dismissive of the LD's and their "not really anything" agenda.
Interesting because if for some reason the GE was tighter than now thought they would be the first party that Starmer would have to start having serious conversations with.
With an extremist like Farage managing to surpass Tory party support who knows where this could end in a couple of weeks?
The landslide may just not materialise as expected.
Absolutely no chance of Britain rejoining the EU in the next Parliament.
-
Is it expected that if Labour win that Sunak as a losing leader stands down?
Not a chance he stays, I think. The man can't wait to get out of there. I think he'd be on the next flight to California today if he could.
-
https://x.com/theousherwood/status/1801682668762914837?s=08
Count the different ways in which this is bloody dreadful.
So. This doesn't merit any interest in the media then.
Sunak here, has:
1) Broken the rules on not using a Govt event to electioneer.
2) Lied about Labour's defence plans.
3) Done all that at a conference whose central aim was showing Putin that the West is united against him.
And it doesn't even warrant a "meh".
That where this bunch of f**king spivs and barrow boys have taken us. It's an embarrassment to have them representing us.
-
Sadly, the enormity of the likely Labour majority is going to cause significant problems to whoever is Leader. Rebels willl feel free to make whatever 'statements' they want without ever endangering rhe government majority. The left wingers will make a lot of noise. Tony Blair had the problem in days gone by. In a different milieu so did Mrs T once upon a time.
BobG
-
Sadly, the enormity of the likely Labour majority is going to cause significant problems to whoever is Leader. Rebels willl feel free to make whatever 'statements' they want without ever endangering rhe government majority. The left wingers will make a lot of noise. Tony Blair had the problem in days gone by. In a different milieu so did Mrs T once upon a time.
BobG
Isn't that what people send MP's to parliament for, you know to politic?
Or are we back on the page where people have to keep shtum because the leader says so?
Is that not what democracy is about, or are we going to get another rendition of your old mantra ?
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Bump for DD.
Come on DD otherwise what you said above is just waffle.
-
Sadly, the enormity of the likely Labour majority is going to cause significant problems to whoever is Leader. Rebels willl feel free to make whatever 'statements' they want without ever endangering rhe government majority. The left wingers will make a lot of noise. Tony Blair had the problem in days gone by. In a different milieu so did Mrs T once upon a time.
BobG
In our system it is the exact opposite of this Bob.
When a party has a massive majority, the leader can get through any legislation they want, without having to compromise. If a few MPs rebel, frankly, so what?(1)
The real problems for PMs come when they have little or no majority and they have to bend and twist to accommodate every single rebel. Look at the problems that gave Callaghan, May and Major, widely seen as the three weakest(2) PMs of recent times.
(1) For the record, before the usual suspects pile in, I'm not saying this is a good situation. I'm saying it's what the situation is.
2) "Weakest" not "worst". The last three have an unshakeable hold on that crown.
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Bump for DD.
Come on DD otherwise what you said above is just waffle.
You know exactly what i'm referring to but i'll indulge you anyway.
Labour have promised to not raise tax on income, vat or national insurance. They have promised to make limited borrowing on the strength of a tax on non-doms and private schools. They have indicated that they will not rape the country on CGT or stamp duty.
Everyone and his dog knows this is nowhere near enough to maintain what we currently have and with their commitment to raise and improve public services this looks very doubtful.
To state that they will be able to implement their program on blind faith that growth will suddenly appear under their watch is fanciful and not realistic.
The only conclusion you can make is that this is a massive charade and when attaining power will revert to the tried and tested under the false assumption that "things are worse than we expected" and we need to rip it up and start again.
Never to be trusted, Labour and someone else's money.
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Bump for DD.
Come on DD otherwise what you said above is just waffle.
You know exactly what i'm referring to but i'll indulge you anyway.
Labour have promised to not raise tax on income, vat or national insurance. They have promised to make limited borrowing on the strength of a tax on non-doms and private schools. They have indicated that they will not rape the country on CGT or stamp duty.
Everyone and his dog knows this is nowhere near enough to maintain what we currently have and with their commitment to raise and improve public services this looks very doubtful.
To state that they will be able to implement their program on blind faith that growth will suddenly appear under their watch is fanciful and not realistic.
The only conclusion you can make is that this is a massive charade and when attaining power will revert to the tried and tested under the false assumption that "things are worse than we expected" and we need to rip it up and start again.
Never to be trusted, Labour and someone else's money.
And yet the tories are saying they are going to do it and cut taxes???
You haven't been watching have you, Starmer has said time and time again that the economy cannot be fixed overnight.
Maybe you and Albie would make a good team?
-
As you are kind enough to give me a mention, I feel that I should point out that Keith's understanding of economics is virtually nil.
Starmer has no plan to fix the economy apart from wishful thinking.
On reflection, I take that back....it is absolutely nil!
-
As you are kind enough to give me a mention, I feel that I should point out that Keith's understanding of economics is virtually nil.
Starmer has no plan to fix the economy apart from wishful thinking.
On reflection, I take that back....it is absolutely nil!
I would think that he's been working in close consultation with Reeves, but you seem to know better Albie.
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Bump for DD.
Come on DD otherwise what you said above is just waffle.
You know exactly what i'm referring to but i'll indulge you anyway.
Labour have promised to not raise tax on income, vat or national insurance. They have promised to make limited borrowing on the strength of a tax on non-doms and private schools. They have indicated that they will not rape the country on CGT or stamp duty.
Everyone and his dog knows this is nowhere near enough to maintain what we currently have and with their commitment to raise and improve public services this looks very doubtful.
To state that they will be able to implement their program on blind faith that growth will suddenly appear under their watch is fanciful and not realistic.
The only conclusion you can make is that this is a massive charade and when attaining power will revert to the tried and tested under the false assumption that "things are worse than we expected" and we need to rip it up and start again.
Never to be trusted, Labour and someone else's money.
And yet the tories are saying they are going to do it and cut taxes???
You haven't been watching have you, Starmer has said time and time again that the economy cannot be fixed overnight.
Maybe you and Albie would make a good team?
Why do you keep quoting the Tories?
What do they have to do with the price of fish, everyone knows they are now a busted flush and irrelevant.
What we all want to know is what Starmer is going to do, he will be in the driving seat.
So what's he going to do?
So far no one's buying the BS, he's either a fantasist or Billy liar, which is it?
-
And just for good measure Albie 99% of your predictions about the demise of the labour party have been totally wrong so why would anyone believe you?
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Bump for DD.
Come on DD otherwise what you said above is just waffle.
You know exactly what i'm referring to but i'll indulge you anyway.
Labour have promised to not raise tax on income, vat or national insurance. They have promised to make limited borrowing on the strength of a tax on non-doms and private schools. They have indicated that they will not rape the country on CGT or stamp duty.
Everyone and his dog knows this is nowhere near enough to maintain what we currently have and with their commitment to raise and improve public services this looks very doubtful.
To state that they will be able to implement their program on blind faith that growth will suddenly appear under their watch is fanciful and not realistic.
The only conclusion you can make is that this is a massive charade and when attaining power will revert to the tried and tested under the false assumption that "things are worse than we expected" and we need to rip it up and start again.
Never to be trusted, Labour and someone else's money.
And yet the tories are saying they are going to do it and cut taxes???
You haven't been watching have you, Starmer has said time and time again that the economy cannot be fixed overnight.
Maybe you and Albie would make a good team?
Why do you keep quoting the Tories?
What do they have to do with the price of fish, everyone knows they are now a busted flush and irrelevant.
What we all want to know is what Starmer is going to do, he will be in the driving seat.
So what's he going to do?
So far no one's buying the BS, he's either a fantasist or Billy liar, which is it?
All the polls must be wrong then, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Bump for DD.
Come on DD otherwise what you said above is just waffle.
You know exactly what i'm referring to but i'll indulge you anyway.
Labour have promised to not raise tax on income, vat or national insurance. They have promised to make limited borrowing on the strength of a tax on non-doms and private schools. They have indicated that they will not rape the country on CGT or stamp duty.
Everyone and his dog knows this is nowhere near enough to maintain what we currently have and with their commitment to raise and improve public services this looks very doubtful.
To state that they will be able to implement their program on blind faith that growth will suddenly appear under their watch is fanciful and not realistic.
The only conclusion you can make is that this is a massive charade and when attaining power will revert to the tried and tested under the false assumption that "things are worse than we expected" and we need to rip it up and start again.
Never to be trusted, Labour and someone else's money.
And yet the tories are saying they are going to do it and cut taxes???
You haven't been watching have you, Starmer has said time and time again that the economy cannot be fixed overnight.
Maybe you and Albie would make a good team?
Why do you keep quoting the Tories?
What do they have to do with the price of fish, everyone knows they are now a busted flush and irrelevant.
What we all want to know is what Starmer is going to do, he will be in the driving seat.
So what's he going to do?
So far no one's buying the BS, he's either a fantasist or Billy liar, which is it?
Starmer has answered this in nearly every interview throughout the campaign and before. He made a particular point of answering it at the Manifesto launch. It's almost as if people dont want to listen to him - they just want to imagine what they think he has said.
He is going to grow the economy. That economic growth will lead to higher GDP and thus higher tax take.
Is this realistic or achievable? No idea. But as people have said - this is exactly the same aim that both Sunak and Farage have said they have - and no-one appears to be questioning them on it?
-
And just for good measure Albie 99% of your predictions about the demise of the labour party have been totally wrong so why would anyone believe you?
I haven't made any predictions about the imminent demise of the Labour Party, Syd.
The voices in your head are singing the wrong song again.
-
And just for good measure Albie 99% of your predictions about the demise of the labour party have been totally wrong so why would anyone believe you?
I haven't made any predictions about the imminent demise of the Labour Party, Syd.
The voices in your head are singing the wrong song again.
It must have been the other Albie's diatribe about falling membership, costly legal matters from the corbyn era. etc
-
What avenues that labour has ruled out would you like to see used dd?
Bump for DD.
Come on DD otherwise what you said above is just waffle.
You know exactly what i'm referring to but i'll indulge you anyway.
Labour have promised to not raise tax on income, vat or national insurance. They have promised to make limited borrowing on the strength of a tax on non-doms and private schools. They have indicated that they will not rape the country on CGT or stamp duty.
Everyone and his dog knows this is nowhere near enough to maintain what we currently have and with their commitment to raise and improve public services this looks very doubtful.
To state that they will be able to implement their program on blind faith that growth will suddenly appear under their watch is fanciful and not realistic.
The only conclusion you can make is that this is a massive charade and when attaining power will revert to the tried and tested under the false assumption that "things are worse than we expected" and we need to rip it up and start again.
Never to be trusted, Labour and someone else's money.
Because...err...the last time Labour got to power then ripped up the manifesto and went off to the Left was...
You're going to have to help me out here DD.
-
Have the Tories totally given up?
This from the minister Greg Hands today in the Telegraph:
"Labour’s new 20% tax on independent school parents will have a catastrophic impact on Britain’s choirs."
-
Have the Tories totally given up?
This from the minister Greg Hands today in the Telegraph:
"Labour’s new 20% tax on independent school parents will have a catastrophic impact on Britain’s choirs."
That's pure comedy.
-
Have the Tories totally given up?
This from the minister Greg Hands today in the Telegraph:
"Labour’s new 20% tax on independent school parents will have a catastrophic impact on Britain’s choirs."
That's pure comedy.
It's black comedy.
One in five state schools running food banks? No problem.
Threaten private school choirs? Time for class war my fellow Conservatives.
-
And just for good measure Albie 99% of your predictions about the demise of the labour party have been totally wrong so why would anyone believe you?
I haven't made any predictions about the imminent demise of the Labour Party, Syd.
The voices in your head are singing the wrong song again.
It must have been the other Albie's diatribe about falling membership, costly legal matters from the corbyn era. etc
Syd, the points you raise have already been covered on here.
Telling silly lies that are easily proven wrong is not a helpful approach to a discussion.
Labour membership has fallen dramatically from the peak under Corbyn, reducing income from subscriptions.
Membership reached a peak at the end of 2019 when it hit over 532,000.
Party general secretary, David Evans, revealed that membership, which had stood at 390,000 in January (2024), had plummeted to 366,604 at the latest count, with more than 11,700 of these being in arrears (according to your Guardian).
Since then, further resignations have been made in response to the pro-Israel stance of Starmer.
Starmer incurred avoidable costs for the legal action he had to settle out of court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggr3pg4ljo
The final amount is not yet known.
-
And just for good measure Albie 99% of your predictions about the demise of the labour party have been totally wrong so why would anyone believe you?
I haven't made any predictions about the imminent demise of the Labour Party, Syd.
The voices in your head are singing the wrong song again.
It must have been the other Albie's diatribe about falling membership, costly legal matters from the corbyn era. etc
Syd, the points you raise have already been covered on here.
Telling silly lies that are easily proven wrong is not a helpful approach to a discussion.
Labour membership has fallen dramatically from the peak under Corbyn, reducing income from subscriptions.
Membership reached a peak at the end of 2019 when it hit over 532,000.
Party general secretary, David Evans, revealed that membership, which had stood at 390,000 in January (2024), had plummeted to 366,604 at the latest count, with more than 11,700 of these being in arrears (according to your Guardian).
Since then, further resignations have been made in response to the pro-Israel stance of Starmer.
Starmer incurred avoidable costs for the legal action he had to settle out of court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggr3pg4ljo
The final amount is not yet known.
Yes but as with all your posts about the labour party your intention appears to show that labour with Starmer won't amount to anything, they won't win or they will win but somehow unfairly that they are no better than the tories.
You use projections to show that those that win seats for labour won't work for labour or the people they will work in the interests of business.
I happen to think that under Starmer they won't duplicate the maladministration of the tories that Starmer will be a better leader than that.
Starmer is by no means perfect or a magician and his government will have problems, but not like anything we've seen for the past 14+ years.
-
You can believe whatever you like Syd, but the evidence you keep ignoring sits in plain sight.
Keith has promoted a private health businessman as candidate for Labour in Islington North, without the consent of the local party members.
The Labour manifesto on health relies upon greater involvement of the sector, despite there being no significant additional capacity, and despite a competitive reliance on NHS qualified staff.
A briefing here from your favourite news source;
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/15/labour-and-tories-would-both-leave-nhs-worse-off-than-under-austerity-says-thinktank
Both main parties have policies which impoverish the NHS, and go nowhere near addressing the issues it faces.
If you can't see that candidates wearing 2 hats are going to be interested in supporting their financial backers, I don't know what to say.
That is entirely the point of them taking the role!
-
Halfway through the campaign and it's astonishing how little any of the big shots in the Tory party have been involved.
Where's Hunt? Or Cleverly? Or Rees-Mogg? Or Braverman? Or Patel? Who even IS the Health Secretary?
-
Probably a lot are focused on local campaigning. Suspect a couple of those names will be out of a job come 5th July, if you believe the MRP polling. Badenoch another name to add to that list.
As for Braverman...
https://x.com/PoliticsMoments/status/1802090458958479863?t=4W3X_-BfwXjiMxd4UgjxAg&s=19
-
Syd, Starmer is not the leader, he is a figurehead. There is little sign of him speaking from his heart, or even his self. Labour may well manage the country more successfully than the Tories under every guise they've had, it'd be hard not to. But this will not be down to Leadership. I think you'll see the cracks appear soon enough. Even the rhetoric will be fkakey. I wouldn't employ Starmer as a lawyer, there is little forensic reality in his skill set. He is the safe figurehead of those who are in power above him. Safe to a robotic level. This won't work out when he is leader of the country.
-
Syd, Starmer is not the leader, he is a figurehead. There is little sign of him speaking from his heart, or even his self. Labour may well manage the country more successfully than the Tories under every guise they've had, it'd be hard not to. But this will not be down to Leadership. I think you'll see the cracks appear soon enough. Even the rhetoric will be fkakey. I wouldn't employ Starmer as a lawyer, there is little forensic reality in his skill set. He is the safe figurehead of those who are in power above him. Safe to a robotic level. This won't work out when he is leader of the country.
So just your opinion really then
-
Syd, Starmer is not the leader, he is a figurehead. There is little sign of him speaking from his heart, or even his self. Labour may well manage the country more successfully than the Tories under every guise they've had, it'd be hard not to. But this will not be down to Leadership. I think you'll see the cracks appear soon enough. Even the rhetoric will be fkakey. I wouldn't employ Starmer as a lawyer, there is little forensic reality in his skill set. He is the safe figurehead of those who are in power above him. Safe to a robotic level. This won't work out when he is leader of the country.
So just your opinion really then
We can all only have an opinion. Some are deluded that by quoting others opinions, whether illustrated by opinion based figures and stats or not, whether published in a journal, paper or not, they are passing on fact. Take the Graniad for example.
Meanwhile, the Starmer robot continues to not answer questions he is asked on the telly and wireless. As if he is pre programmed. Maybe you have another explanation than him being robotic? Maybe you haven't conceived how the Labour Party is controlled by others than the leader and NEC? Maybe you have yet to experience the Dreamtime, and are trapped in a blink of reality that people want you to be in? I'm not having a go, just suggesting that all you see and read is not as you think it is.
-
A good example of Starmer being a robot is his recent Sky News interview where he mentioned his dad being a toolmaker and the audience laughed. In a GB news interview he was asked about this, and became defensive about his dad and his suppressed pain about this, not realising the bleedin obvious that he was laughed at because he ALWAYS comes out with the "my dad was a toolmaker" line.
Lord knows if he realised the other very comic angle on that repeated line of his! Implosion? He's not good in the real world is he?
-
A good example of Starmer being a robot is his recent Sky News interview where he mentioned his dad being a toolmaker and the audience laughed. In a GB news interview he was asked about this, and became defensive about his dad and his suppressed pain about this, not realising the bleedin obvious that he was laughed at because he ALWAYS comes out with the "my dad was a toolmaker" line.
Lord knows if he realised the other very comic angle on that repeated line of his! Implosion? He's not good in the real world is he?
His dad made that have been a tool maker but he also might have owned the business.
Starmer had never denied this when asked about it.
-
The Guardian now telling us by the the respected Nuffield Trust both the Conservative and Labour manifestos would put the NHS in a worse funding situation than they suffered under the Austerity period of the current government in 2010/11 and 2014/15.
“The assessment by the respected Nuffield Trust of the costed NHS policies of both parties, announced in their manifestos last week, says the level of funding increases would leave them struggling to pay existing staff costs, let alone the bill for massive planned increases in doctors, nurses and other staff in the long-term workforce plan agreed last year”.
Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that for Labour to deliver the change it is promising there would need to be more money on the table. “Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this,” he said.
-
People don't like to hear it but the NHS model in the current modern world isn't working and we've little to no answer for it have we?
-
I had an interesting conversation about it with an NHS biomedical scientist yesterday. It could be much more efficietn with some fairly straightforward structural reforms. The example we discussed in most detail was supply chain.
She works in a lab at the Northern General and she was expressing frustration at the delays to deliveries on things like diagnostic kits from Germany post Brexit. I was astounded that every lab the length and breadth of the country needs to order their own kits direct from the supplier. Think how many hospitals there are in the UK needing kits for things like blood tests. It would surely make much more sense for them to manage stock like a supermarket; Roll up a forecast of how many items are needed on a weekly basis be that test kits, instruments, gloves, sharps bins, whatever and have central buyers responsible for dealing with suppliers on their portfolio of products. Have them delivered into half a dozen UK RDCs from whihc the individual hospitals/labs can call off stock as and when required.
That would mean front line staff could spend more time on front line activities and less time chasing orders, stock could be managed more quickly and efficiently, turning around important results quicker, reducing waiting times and no doubt saving huge sums of money thanks to the economies of scale and purchasing power that the central contracts would bring.
Apparently it used to work a bit like that, certainly with things like stationery which was supplied through HM stationery office to all public sector services. Thatcher's government decided to make the NHS act more like a set of competing businesses through the devolution to local NHS trusts which led to this lack of scalability and increased local bureaucracy which of course needs more managers to administer it, pulling funding away from front line services.
-
People Forget that there was a Labour Government after Thatcher!
-
People don't like to hear it but the NHS model in the current modern world isn't working and we've little to no answer for it have we?
The NHS has been designed NOT to work efficiently, in order to prepare the ground for a sell off to the private sector.
The example given by MikeF above is just one case where rationalisation would bring efficiency gains.
It is perfectly possible to re-organise how the service operates within a public funding, free to use model.
Successive governments have either kicked the can down the road, or are actively opposed to a public service in all sectors.
-
People Forget that there was a Labour Government after Thatcher!
Being a bit of a pedant, there was actually a Tory government after Thatcher!!
Anyway, once Labour got to grips with the NHS it worked much better for more people. Not perfect, but much better.
-
2/ ''What is the new operating model? 2018''
''The new operating model is the design of the new NHS Supply Chain service that will deliver
improved procurement and logistics support to the NHS. Working as part of the NHS, the new
NHS Supply Chain will deliver clinically safe, high quality products for the best possible value,
and aims to realise £2.4bn of savings in its first five years of operation, which can be used by
the NHS for reinvestment in front line services.
The new NHS Supply Chain will achieve this by:
• increasing uptake/volume of products purchased via the national route to market to
aggregate national demand, and secure value for money for the NHS and taxpayers;
• increasing use by the NHS of a standard range of clinically appropriate products to
reduce unwarranted variation in the system; and
• using increased buying power to affect purchasing behaviours and deliver the best
products at the best value for the NHS''
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://wwwmedia.supplychain.nhs.uk/media/Customer_FAQ_November_2018.pdf
ermmmm
2020
''How has NHS procurement changed since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic?''
''NHS England has taken on CCGs’ powers to purchase services.[10] This allows it to buy private sector beds on block and gives it greater ability to support the provision of services across the NHS during the crisis. CCGs will continue to purchase services as well.
The Cabinet Office has issued guidance on emergency procurement which sets out the routes government bodies can take to access goods rapidly, such as direct award (meaning no competition) and accelerated procedures.[11]''
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/nhs-procurement
''Boss of US firm given £4bn in UK Covid contracts accused of squandering millions on jets and properties''
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/17/boss-us-firm-uk-covid-contracts-accused-squandering-millions-on-jets-properties
If you voted tory did you vote for that?
-
By 2010, The NHS was top or close to the top of all the health outcomes per pound spent in the OECD.
This lot have f**ked it up grandly, as they did in the 80s and 90s.
And then right wingers say, "Oh the NHS model doesn't work."
-
By 2010, The NHS was top or close to the top of all the health outcomes per pound spent in the OECD.
This lot have f**ked it up grandly, as they did in the 80s and 90s.
And then right wingers say, "Oh the NHS model doesn't work."
Of course if it was solely political party driven you'd expect the NHS in Wales under Labour to be in a better place than England under the Conservatives?
-
By 2010, The NHS was top or close to the top of all the health outcomes per pound spent in the OECD.
This lot have f**ked it up grandly, as they did in the 80s and 90s.
And then right wingers say, "Oh the NHS model doesn't work."
Of course if it was solely political party driven you'd expect the NHS in Wales under Labour to be in a better place than England under the Conservatives?
Forgive me for being a bit brusque, but I'm literally at this very moment trying to deal with the personal consequences of a f**ked up NHS.
So I've not got time or inclination to be polite to that post. It is smug, ignorant b*llocks.
The Welsh NHS, like the English NHS, is in crisis because of the awful decision, supported wholeheartedly by you 14 years ago, to slash Govt spending.
The Welsh Govt doesn't get to choose what its overall budget is. That is set by London, and was savaged as part of the Austerity plans.
-
Best of luck with that, BST.
I have been waiting for an op since 2016. Not urgent, but it would be good to get it sorted.
All the more reason to be worried about Streeting and his plan for more private sector involvement in the NHS.
Both Streeting and Starmer have accepted big donations from private health interests;
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24250557.wes-streeting-takes-175k-donors-linked-private-health-firms/
Outsourcing will continue to make inroads under Labour.
In whose interests will the NHS be run in future;
https://inwhoseinterests.uk/2022/06/08/hedge-fund-labour-why-is-the-party-of-the-nhs-now-receiving-money-from-private-health-investors/comment-page-1/
-
The whole discussion on health is messed up by "scientists", med tech, pharmacy, protectionist med organisations, and then people trying to live by quantity not quality of years.
More personal engagement, relationships, from medics would help, less production line method. Sorting out all the protectionist rules, systems, organisations. Changing the basic "rule" of if an intervention is not done there is more comeback on a medic than if one is done - savings, and increased health all round.
More use of natural alternatives that work with the body and mind would improve health, save money. Integration of social services, care, and health. Making dentistry free - not the cosmetic BS. High taxes on unnecessary cosmetic interference like botox, breast aug etc.
So much that can be done, none of it even up for discussion. Journalists mostly clueless around it. In fact any doc or medic interviewed is treated like some holy voice of truth. It's BS, and it costs us money and health.
Also, consistently, Labour, and socialists in general, are the worst around the above. Generally so stuck in a repressive system.
-
I'm sorry to hear that Albie.
My case is more serious, but the system is falling apart. Took 16 months between being referred by my GP and getting to see a consultant.
I cannot listen to the crap that some people spout people talk about the system not working. The system worked perfectly well 14 years ago. There's been a political decision not to fund our health service to the level it needs. And this is the result.
I disagree with you on outsourcing though.
We have an absolute crisis in the number of people who are waiting ridiculous times for treatment. That cannot be fixed overnight by the NHS. It's going to take years to rebuild capacity and we cannot wait years. We have to buy in treatment to get on top of the crisis.
-
The NHS was a world standard for universal health care, if for nothing else the tories need dismantling just for the wrecking ball they used to trash it.
-
Best of luck with that, BST.
I have been waiting for an op since 2016. Not urgent, but it would be good to get it sorted.
Albie,that is soobviously the fault of the Labour Party
-
Best of luck with that, BST.
I have been waiting for an op since 2016. Not urgent, but it would be good to get it sorted.
Albie,that is soobviously the fault of the Labour Party
Don't forget global warming
-
The NHS is in a mess right now but the signs are that Labour won’t improve things when they take over.
The Guardian now telling us by the the respected Nuffield Trust both the Conservative and Labour manifestos would put the NHS in a worse funding situation than they suffered under the Austerity period of the current government in 2010/11 and 2014/15.
“The assessment by the respected Nuffield Trust of the costed NHS policies of both parties, announced in their manifestos last week, says the level of funding increases would leave them struggling to pay existing staff costs, let alone the bill for massive planned increases in doctors, nurses and other staff in the long-term workforce plan agreed last year”.
Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that for Labour to deliver the change it is promising there would need to be more money on the table. “Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this,” he said.
My wife is also awaiting a much needed operation so we aren’t expecting too much after 4th July.
-
The NHS is in a mess right now but the signs are that Labour won’t improve things when they take over.
The Guardian now telling us by the the respected Nuffield Trust both the Conservative and Labour manifestos would put the NHS in a worse funding situation than they suffered under the Austerity period of the current government in 2010/11 and 2014/15.
“The assessment by the respected Nuffield Trust of the costed NHS policies of both parties, announced in their manifestos last week, says the level of funding increases would leave them struggling to pay existing staff costs, let alone the bill for massive planned increases in doctors, nurses and other staff in the long-term workforce plan agreed last year”.
Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that for Labour to deliver the change it is promising there would need to be more money on the table. “Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this,” he said.
My wife is also awaiting a much needed operation so we aren’t expecting too much after 4th July.
I Hooe you weren't clinging all your hopes on before July 4th,or the last 15 years.
Let's hope things improve for her as they can't get any worse
-
Talking about parties assuming voters are thick.
https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1802715027876532697
Err...who has been in power for the past 14 years?
-
Best of luck with that, BST.
I have been waiting for an op since 2016. Not urgent, but it would be good to get it sorted.
Albie,that is soobviously the fault of the Labour Party
Don't forget global warming
I don't understand these posts, where have I said that Labour are responsible for the wait for my elective surgery?
Just weird...sometimes you wonder are folk on drugs!
There is very little excess capacity in the private sector to ramp up treatment, and much of the work is done by the same staff.
They can't be in 2 places at the same time.
The real kicker is the cost increase carried by the health budget from using additional private provision;
https://weownit.org.uk/blog/analysis-nhs-has-lost-10-million-week-private-profits-2012
Much better to increase capacity (and staff wages) in the NHS, and retain that capability in house.
Outsourcing has been the means by which inefficiency has been introduced into procurement and service provision. It adds no value to the NHS.
-
I'm sorry to hear that Albie.
My case is more serious, but the system is falling apart. Took 16 months between being referred by my GP and getting to see a consultant.
I cannot listen to the crap that some people spout people talk about the system not working. The system worked perfectly well 14 years ago. There's been a political decision not to fund our health service to the level it needs. And this is the result.
I disagree with you on outsourcing though.
We have an absolute crisis in the number of people who are waiting ridiculous times for treatment. That cannot be fixed overnight by the NHS. It's going to take years to rebuild capacity and we cannot wait years. We have to buy in treatment to get on top of the crisis.
Sorry to hear that, BST. I sincerely hope that whatever you have to have done, it will be successful.
-
Go private to the consultant Billy, if required he will refer you back to the NHS for treatment, all you will pay is for the consultation the treatment will be on the NHS.
I have a number of friends who have done this and have got the required treatment quickly, wheels within wheels.
One had a knee operation within two weeks, and the other had stents inserted and later a bypass within a week of the consultations.
Its a few hundred quid if the wife thinks it's worth it.
-
Keith getting rinsed on LBC over the disgraceful 2 child benefit cap, which puts many children over the poverty line;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1803009238765039616/pu/vid/avc1/1280x706/K__jcELjP0qXUffr.mp4?tag=12
The UK economy is the 6th largest in the world.
The idea that we can't afford this safety net is bonkers, and offensive.
Here is Labour spokesman Jonathan Reynolds in the HoC in 2020;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1680537009301991424/pu/vid/858x720/xEomJug2F6DJ98nJ.mp4?tag=12
So they know what is needed, but they are choosing to pretend that the money can't be found.
This is beyond words.
Why do they indulge in this pointless performative cruelty?
-
tell me where the money can be found for everything you want Albie ....... and still win the election
-
Governments control the money supply, Syd.
They can raise as much as they need. They can also issue bonds, or borrow at preferential rates.
The issue is making sure that money released into the economy goes into productive capacity, and not into asset bubbles like property.
There is an inflation potential, but that is supposed to be managed down by the BoE.
Reversing the 2 child benefit cap needs only a very small amount of money, to do a great deal of social support;
https://www.ft.com/content/7b0600fe-c78a-4a5d-acf2-feacd5faa49e
There is no economic reason why you would not do this, it is simply a gesture of performative cruelty.
Paying for it is simple.
Equalise Capital Gains Tax with Income Tax and you have revenue to spare for other investments.
This is the type of economic stupidity you get when playing games with the inequality narrative.
The manifesto makes little sense when you see "growth" as the only means to address social questions.
-
Governments control the money supply, Syd.
They can raise as much as they need. They can also issue bonds, or borrow at preferential rates.
The issue is making sure that money released into the economy goes into productive capacity, and not into asset bubbles like property.
There is an inflation potential, but that is supposed to be managed down by the BoE.
Reversing the 2 child benefit cap needs only a very small amount of money, to do a great deal of social support;
https://www.ft.com/content/7b0600fe-c78a-4a5d-acf2-feacd5faa49e
There is no economic reason why you would not do this, it is simply a gesture of performative cruelty.
Paying for it is simple.
Equalise Capital Gains Tax with Income Tax and you have revenue to spare for other investments.
This is the type of economic stupidity you get when playing games with the inequality narrative.
The manifesto makes little sense when you see "growth" as the only means to address social questions.
Except for the truss factor, if labour cannot show how any of it will be paid for the rw media is in waiting
added ........... the guardian would also call it out.
I do agree however the the uk is a rich country, it's just not been run properly, but you cannot turn atound 14+ years of maladministration overnight or promise to without scaring the horses.
-
The 2 child benefit cap is morally repugnant and economically illiterate. Letting kids grow up in abject poverty is ALWAYS more economically costly in the long run that spending today to lift them out.
But here's the problem.
That policy is popular among the electorate.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/11/fa421/1
Labour are still so scared of being labelled as fiscally irresponsible that they are not prepared to take a moral lead on this. And that poll explains why. Because the public, wrongly, thinks it's about supporting scroungers.
I'll stand by what I've said before on this topic. You win nothing in politics by showing how sound your principles are. You can be against child poverty as much as you want, but if you don't achieve power, you can do f**k all about it.
I will guarantee that after five years of a Labour Government, child poverty, measures by whatever metric you want, will be lower than it is today. And that is what matters.
-
thanks for the link bst, I hadn't seen that, the polling is fairly even except in politics and age factors.
-
For the record, I think Labour are being way overly defensive on this topic. This is one where they could take a moral lead and set an example without losing much if any support.
But I understand the reason for taking this stance. It's an iron discipline against doing anything that could derail the line that Labour will be fiscally responsible.
The way it's being painted by the jilted Left, as vast iron evidence that Labour is heartless and evil is a ridiculous reaction. Like I say, the proof will be in what actually happens rather than what is said during a campaign.
-
First time I have seen the FT painted as the "jilted left"!
There is nothing "fiscally responsible" about keeping the 2 child benefit cap.
It is simply an unwanted legacy from Tory mismanagement, which should be reversed as an immediate priority.
There is no excuse for it, either ethically or in economic terms. So say so!
It is just vacuous gibber.
-
Labour could easily go on the attack and spell out how rich people benefit from the system, how redistribution is the right thing to do - not general taxation, nor wasteful over the top taxation. And then point out very clearly how Reform and the Tories are all about feeding the rich. Easy, especially with Sunak and Farage there to be shot down.
But they won't because they are serving the rich, the establishment. It is that simple.
-
First time I have seen the FT painted as the "jilted left"!
There is nothing "fiscally responsible" about keeping the 2 child benefit cap.
It is simply an unwanted legacy from Tory mismanagement, which should be reversed as an immediate priority.
There is no excuse for it, either ethically or in economic terms. So say so!
It is just vacuous gibber.
looks like it's the voters you have to convince Albie
-
First time I have seen the FT painted as the "jilted left"!
There is nothing "fiscally responsible" about keeping the 2 child benefit cap.
It is simply an unwanted legacy from Tory mismanagement, which should be reversed as an immediate priority.
There is no excuse for it, either ethically or in economic terms. So say so!
It is just vacuous gibber.
looks like it's the voters you have to convince Albie
Not at all. Labour will win massively with or without this policy. The issue is with those that lead the Labour Party (ie not Starmer). It's about whether they want to help the poorest or not. Clearly this is a case of the Labour Party choosing not to.
It is one of their many needless shuffles to the right. I say needless - but someone there needs it. Who might that be?
-
Again this is only your opinion brr, voters appear to like steady-as-she-goes, especially the centre which is what Starmer is, a centrist of the labour movement.
Further to my position, I would prefer more direct action to mitigate the damage done to peoples lives, but, would I risk getting a whole suite of policies that risk another 5 years of tories, no thank you.
-
Voters with three or more kids will probably not be happy with the benefit cap though Syd.
Try explaining to that group why you think it is ok for them to be denied the extra money.
-
First time I have seen the FT painted as the "jilted left"!
There is nothing "fiscally responsible" about keeping the 2 child benefit cap.
It is simply an unwanted legacy from Tory mismanagement, which should be reversed as an immediate priority.
There is no excuse for it, either ethically or in economic terms. So say so!
It is just vacuous gibber.
Albie.
I agree.
The problem is that the country doesn't.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/11/fa421/1
Like it or not, Labour's electoral strategy is to not be diverted into anything where the Tories will have an apparent advantage. I don't like it but I understand it. Win power, THEN make changes.
As I say, if after 5 years of a Labour Govt, child poverty is not significantly reduced, I will crawl on my knees and apologise.
-
Hard to believe that after years of accusing the Tory’s of lying it is somehow okay now for Labour to lie to get power and change policy when they win.
-
Hard to believe that after years of accusing the Tory’s of lying it is somehow okay now for Labour to lie to get power and change policy when they win.
Oh dear,deary me.
They weren't accusations,they were facts.
Unbelievable that people will not accept that.
-
Hard to believe that after years of accusing the Tory’s of lying it is somehow okay now for Labour to lie to get power and change policy when they win.
Oh dear,deary me.
They weren't accusations,they were facts.
Unbelievable that people will not accept that.
So, let’s get this straight then.
Are you in favour of Labour saying something in their manifesto then after they win, changing their stance and doing the opposite.
In other words, deceiving some of the people who would have voted for them.
No bullshit answers about what has gone before, just answer my question.
-
Hard to believe that after years of accusing the Tory’s of lying it is somehow okay now for Labour to lie to get power and change policy when they win.
Oh dear,deary me.
They weren't accusations,they were facts.
Unbelievable that people will not accept that.
And of course there has been plenty of time to complain about policy or lies ..................
''In April 2015, David Cameron denied any such plans to cut child benefits or tax credits. However, three months later, George Osborne, the then Chancellor, announced that child tax credits would be limited to the first two children only. This was to come into force from the 2017/2018 financial year and apply to children born after that date only.[75] From February 2019 however the policy becomes retrospective. Families making a new benefit claim (or whose circumstances change) will have the 2-child policy applied to them irrespective of when their children were born''
-
Do you think it is okay to deceive your voters as well Syd.
Come on, let us all know!
Yes or no will do.
-
You still going to vote Labour, Hound?
-
Hard to believe that after years of accusing the Tory’s of lying it is somehow okay now for Labour to lie to get power and change policy when they win.
Oh dear,deary me.
They weren't accusations,they were facts.
Unbelievable that people will not accept that.
For the record, no-one is talking about changing policy.
Labour clearly cannot say they are not going to reverse that specific policy, then get elected and reverse it.
The point is, they can still have a *strategy* of reducing child poverty by other means.
As I keep saying, if Labour don't do that, they aren't a Labour party I recognise.
I think they will. Albie (I think) thinks they won't.
Let's see.
PS. I'm really, really fed up of constantly being misinterpreted like this, but I guess it doesn't matter how many times I explain myself - if some people are determined to read what they want to read into what I say, what can I do?
-
Hard to believe that after years of accusing the Tory’s of lying it is somehow okay now for Labour to lie to get power and change policy when they win.
Oh dear,deary me.
They weren't accusations,they were facts.
Unbelievable that people will not accept that.
For the record, no-one is talking about changing policy.
Labour clearly cannot say they are not going to reverse that specific policy, then get elected and reverse it.
The point is, they can still have a *strategy* of reducing child poverty by other means.
As I keep saying, if Labour don't do that, they aren't a Labour party I recognise.
I think they will. Albie (I think) thinks they won't.
Let's see.
PS. I'm really, really fed up of constantly being misinterpreted like this, but I guess it doesn't matter how many times I explain myself - if some people are determined to read what they want to read into what I say, what can I do?
Billy, perhaps you haven’t said anything about Labour changing policy on child benefit (I didn’t say you had by the way) but you have suggested that it would be acceptable for Labour to change strategy on tax implications if (sorry, when) they win.
Are you still comfortable that it is okay for that to happen and for them to deceive their voters.
Genuine question.
-
Don't expect a straight answer Hound, just stand by for gobbledegook in a long drawn out answer if any answer that is.
-
You still going to vote Labour, Hound?
Gee, even John Caudwell is voting labour
-
Postal vote all done and dusted, feet up for the next 2 weeks
-
Snap , all sorted
Postal vote all done and dusted, feet up for the next 2 weeks
-
Hope you're on the mend soon bst.
Positive inflation news today, you'd think the Tories would be pleased but I doubt many of them care right now.
-
Hard to believe that after years of accusing the Tory’s of lying it is somehow okay now for Labour to lie to get power and change policy when they win.
Oh dear,deary me.
They weren't accusations,they were facts.
Unbelievable that people will not accept that.
So, let’s get this straight then.
Are you in favour of Labour saying something in their manifesto then after they win, changing their stance and doing the opposite.
In other words, deceiving some of the people who would have voted for them.
No bullshit answers about what has gone before, just answer my question.
Very telling that nobody on the left has yet bothered to answer this question from Hound!
Interesting, it raises all sorts of questions about honesty, morality and judgement.
Anyone?
-
DD
Because it's a question that shouldn't even be asked and says more about the asker than anything else.
No-one should be in favour of that.
-
What the hell is this?
https://x.com/conservatives/status/1803364858022281700?s=46
-
Correct answer BST, glad to see that someone had the minerals to speak up.
I look forward to reading your assessment of Starmer and Labour if the situation arises. After all no one on here was slow to very rightly castigate a government that has done likewise in its dealings over the last 14 years including referendum outcome.
-
What the hell is this?
https://x.com/conservatives/status/1803364858022281700?s=46
It’s all they have left
2 weeks to go before this poisonous lot are history!
-
What the hell is this?
https://x.com/conservatives/status/1803364858022281700?s=46
That's possibly the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in a General Election campaign.
Absolutely f**king appalling.
-
Correct answer BST, glad to see that someone had the minerals to speak up.
I look forward to reading your assessment of Starmer and Labour if the situation arises. After all no one on here was slow to very rightly castigate a government that has done likewise in its dealings over the last 14 years including referendum outcome.
DD.
If Labour flagrantly do the opposite of any specific policy statement in their manifesto, I'll certainly call it out.
-
What the hell is this?
https://x.com/conservatives/status/1803364858022281700?s=46
It’s all they have left
2 weeks to go before this poisonous lot are history!
Actually I'm quite looking forward to watching the Labour party making a bigger b*llocks of the job than the tories. This will be the medicine the country needs to take to realise that fptp and the liblabcon does not work. At least at the election following this one hopefully we will see a rise of different parties with new ideas.
-
What the hell is this?
https://x.com/conservatives/status/1803364858022281700?s=46
It’s all they have left
2 weeks to go before this poisonous lot are history!
Actually I'm quite looking forward to watching the Labour party making a bigger b*llocks of the job than the tories. This will be the medicine the country needs to take to realise that fptp and the liblabcon does not work. At least at the election following this one hopefully we will see a rise of different parties with new ideas.
What are you worried about getting worse under Labour? The use of food banks? Longer NHS waiting times? A stagnant economy? More schools falling apart? Increased homeless?
-
m You will be calling out when you get your tax bill Billy, they sure have got plans for the likes of you.
-
You still going to vote Labour, Hound?
Gee, even John Caudwell is voting labour
Yes, and like you it terrified me as well Syd.
Here he is talking to Times Radio;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1803377092945379328/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/NzBYApu7wXY7cnmt.mp4?tag=12
This is a bloke who supported Liz Truss, for God's sake!
-
Herbert A,
Here is a quick list of the policies Labour supports;
Keep bedroom tax,
Keep NHS outsourcing,
Keep tuition fees,
Keep 2 child cap,
No wealth tax,
Keep private water,
Keep free schools,
Keep Trident,
Remove cap on bankers bonuses,
Keep oil drilling licences,
Keep House of Lords,
Keep energy companies private,
Keep mail private,
I could add more, but which of these should be in a Labour offer for a GE?
-
m You will be calling out when you get your tax bill Billy, they sure have got plans for the likes of you.
Speaking for myself, I'm likely to see an increase in my tax when labour win and I don't mind that at all. I just want a country that works and functions again and if Tax increases are needed for that then I'm fine with it. Right now, I'm paying a load of tax and have no idea where it's going cos bugger all is working.
-
First time I have seen the FT painted as the "jilted left"!
There is nothing "fiscally responsible" about keeping the 2 child benefit cap.
It is simply an unwanted legacy from Tory mismanagement, which should be reversed as an immediate priority.
There is no excuse for it, either ethically or in economic terms. So say so!
It is just vacuous gibber.
Albie.
I agree.
The problem is that the country doesn't.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/07/11/fa421/1
Like it or not, Labour's electoral strategy is to not be diverted into anything where the Tories will have an apparent advantage. I don't like it but I understand it. Win power, THEN make changes.
As I say, if after 5 years of a Labour Govt, child poverty is not significantly reduced, I will crawl on my knees and apologise.
I'm sure it's the very same BST who bangs on about appeasement and Hitler at every opportunity. Strangely, not here.
-
You still going to vote Labour, Hound?
Gee, even John Caudwell is voting labour
Yes, and like you it terrified me as well Syd.
Here he is talking to Times Radio;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1803377092945379328/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/NzBYApu7wXY7cnmt.mp4?tag=12
This is a bloke who supported Liz Truss, for God's sake!
the thing is, as always you take the worst possible outcome, because the tory party have sucked it up and sold out to others you without any evidence think the same of labour.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgeekd4nzvkt?page=2
Don’t often find myself agreeing with the SNP but Swinney is along the right lines here “ Decisions about Scotland should be made by people who live there” same for the whole of the UK really
-
There is no good outcome with this muppet, Syd.
The fella is a billionaire who backed changing the law to make it easier to hire and fire workers, and wanted to slash the minimum wage for young workers.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/phones4u-billionaire-says-hell-leave-14580334
He is opposed to traditional Labour values in every respect.
Here is an explainer on the manifesto issue from someone who was responsible for one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T28aFimDfBw
Labour is now to the right of Reform on the 2 child benefit cap.
Farage wants to abolish it, but Keith wants to keep it.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cgeekd4nzvkt?page=2
Don’t often find myself agreeing with the SNP but Swinney is along the right lines here “ Decisions about Scotland should be made by people who live there” same for the whole of the UK really
That a real hypocrite speaking there (swinney), he wants to cast off the yoke of Westminster and replace it with the yoke of Brussels!
-
There is no good outcome with this muppet, Syd.
The fella is a billionaire who backed changing the law to make it easier to hire and fire workers, and wanted to slash the minimum wage for young workers.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/phones4u-billionaire-says-hell-leave-14580334
He is opposed to traditional Labour values in every respect.
Here is an explainer on the manifesto issue from someone who was responsible for one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T28aFimDfBw
Labour is now to the right of Reform on the 2 child benefit cap.
Farage wants to abolish it, but Keith wants to keep it.
Reform wants to abolish benefits full stop
-
Seems like Starmer and Reeves are now at odds on what constitutes a "working person"
Apparently Starmer believes a "working person" does not have any money set aside (as in savings)
What planet does this bloke live on?
Reeves, being the economic powerhouse she is by the way, suggested that a broader definition should include "pensioners and savers"
Looks like nothings going to change, if you just happen to be someone who has savings then god help us all.
The mask is already starting to slip.
-
There is no good outcome with this muppet, Syd.
The fella is a billionaire who backed changing the law to make it easier to hire and fire workers, and wanted to slash the minimum wage for young workers.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/phones4u-billionaire-says-hell-leave-14580334
He is opposed to traditional Labour values in every respect.
Here is an explainer on the manifesto issue from someone who was responsible for one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T28aFimDfBw
Labour is now to the right of Reform on the 2 child benefit cap.
Farage wants to abolish it, but Keith wants to keep it.
He's ''a muppet'' and yet you take his word, I can see quite clearly who the muppet is Albie.
-
Oh by the way, certain posters keep harping on about the lack of handouts to the poor and needy of South Yorks since we had Brexit! We will hopefully see the extra £10 billion unaccounted for start to be lavished up here, having said that most posters on here are affluent enough to welcome a huge increase in their Tax burden and are quite cosy about it.
-
Worst period of government ever ................. no kidding
-
So Hunt with silent C is recorded as saying he agrees with LetTruss financial policy
-
So what's this about Labour's economic plans being no different than the Tories'?
Not according to 16 highly qualified and very eminent economists.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/19/labour-plan-end-economic-stagnation-uk-economists
Who you going to believe on the economics?
Owen Jones or three Nobel Prize winners?
-
You still going to vote Labour, Hound?
Hound?
-
Hard to believe that after years of accusing the Tory’s of lying it is somehow okay now for Labour to lie to get power and change policy when they win.
Oh dear,deary me.
They weren't accusations,they were facts.
Unbelievable that people will not accept that.
So, let’s get this straight then.
Are you in favour of Labour saying something in their manifesto then after they win, changing their stance and doing the opposite.
In other words, deceiving some of the people who would have voted for them.
No bullshit answers about what has gone before, just answer my question.
Very telling that nobody on the left has yet bothered to answer this question from Hound!
Interesting, it raises all sorts of questions about honesty, morality and judgement.
Anyone?
Correct answer BST, glad to see that someone had the minerals to speak up.
I look forward to reading your assessment of Starmer and Labour if the situation arises. After all no one on here was slow to very rightly castigate a government that has done likewise in its dealings over the last 14 years including referendum outcome.
DD.
If Labour flagrantly do the opposite of any specific policy statement in their manifesto, I'll certainly call it out.
BST, I remember you telling us all recently that none of the Party’s would tell the electorate that they intended to raise taxes because it isn’t going to get them elected.
That is fair enough and I agree with the sentiment.
However, you did infer that it would be acceptable for them to change that once in power.
Several posters have mentioned this to you over the last few weeks but you have declined to comment.
Now you are saying that you will call out any action which is the opposite of policy statement.
-
You still going to vote Labour, Hound?
Hound?
bump
-
So what's this about Labour's economic plans being no different than the Tories'?
Not according to 16 highly qualified and very eminent economists.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/19/labour-plan-end-economic-stagnation-uk-economists
Who you going to believe on the economics?
Owen Jones or three Nobel Prize winners?
I got a sneaking suspicion that the B of E will not be reducing interest rates until the late Summer if at all,
They will be very wary of any new Government, including the Tories!
-
Another Tory candidate caught for getting on the election date.
I'm wondering if the next scandal is going to be that there's loads of them bet that the Tories will get under 100 seats?
-
There is no good outcome with this muppet, Syd.
The fella is a billionaire who backed changing the law to make it easier to hire and fire workers, and wanted to slash the minimum wage for young workers.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/phones4u-billionaire-says-hell-leave-14580334
He is opposed to traditional Labour values in every respect.
Here is an explainer on the manifesto issue from someone who was responsible for one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T28aFimDfBw
Labour is now to the right of Reform on the 2 child benefit cap.
Farage wants to abolish it, but Keith wants to keep it.
Reform wants to abolish benefits full stop
Where have they said that ?
-
campaign director Tony Lee, 2 weeks out from election taking leave of absence .........
-
will you be coming back to the land of milk and honey Syd when your dreams come true?
-
campaign director Tony Lee, 2 weeks out from election taking leave of absence .........
It turns out that he's the husband on the candidate being investigated for claims that she had a bet on what the date of the election would be!
-
This has to be the most insane election campaign ever by the Tories. I remember going out and actively supporting Labour in 1983 and I though that was bad, but this is just a different level!
Maybe though, there's a method to the Tories madness? The 1974 general election has been called the election that nobody really wanted to win, as the country was in such a god awful mess that neither Heath nor Wilson were confident that they could fix it. Maybe the Tories feel the same now?
-
This has to be the most insane election campaign ever by the Tories. I remember going out and actively supporting Labour in 1983 and I though that was bad, but this is just a different level!
Maybe though, there's a method to the Tories madness? The 1974 general election has been called the election that nobody really wanted to win, as the country was in such a god awful mess that neither Heath nor Wilson were confident that they could fix it. Maybe the Tories feel the same now?
Despite the supposed narrative of "standing firm", "fighting them on the beaches", "never surrender" as adopted by the Tory's and other right wingers, when the going gets tough, they leave like rats from the sinking ship. Conservatives are self centred, "for the individual", or is it just selfish? Anyway, self preservationists. The ones still there wearing the blue rosette are just treading water, looking lost, waiting for the total implosion and then the hope for the new mainstream build whether it's the Conservatives or Reform.
-
will you be coming back to the land of milk and honey Syd when your dreams come true?
How come it's not like that for you selby?
-
You still going to vote Labour, Hound?
Hound?
Any news yet?
bump
-
Becoming less likely ill vote tory by the day.
Absolutely no way I'll vote Labour in a million years, but Reform however look very appealing.
I think Redorm will be the big winners in this election, and I'm looking forward to seeing Nigel tear Starmer to pieces in the commons ! :lol:
-
Becoming less likely ill vote tory by the day.
Absolutely no way I'll vote Labour in a million years, but Reform however look very appealing.
I think Redorm will be the big winners in this election, and I'm looking forward to seeing Nigel tear Starmer to pieces in the commons ! :lol:
I think we worked that out before you did
-
Becoming less likely ill vote tory by the day.
Absolutely no way I'll vote Labour in a million years, but Reform however look very appealing.
I think Redorm will be the big winners in this election, and I'm looking forward to seeing Nigel tear Starmer to pieces in the commons ! :lol:
I think we worked that out before you did
50/50 at the minute
-
Becoming less likely ill vote tory by the day.
Absolutely no way I'll vote Labour in a million years, but Reform however look very appealing.
I think Redorm will be the big winners in this election, and I'm looking forward to seeing Nigel tear Starmer to pieces in the commons ! :lol:
I think we worked that out before you did
50/50 at the minute
go for it, the entertainment factor will be good value over the next few years
-
Sounds like an interest rate cut will be coming in August. Lucky Starmer!
-
Sounds like an interest rate cut will be coming in August. Lucky Starmer!
Quarter of a percent? That'll pee off Tory investers and pension investors. Though it may begin to move the housing market for them.
-
I am surprised nobody has mentioned this.
Reform's promises are looking incredibly unrealistic. Perhaps journalists should stop asking Farage about something he is strong on (immigration) and start to question him on the costing of his manifesto. If those voting for him are interested.
-
I am surprised nobody has mentioned this.
Reform's promises are looking incredibly unrealistic. Perhaps journalists should stop asking Farage about something he is strong on (immigration) and start to question him on the costing of his manifesto. If those voting for him are interested.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=291466.msg1323177#msg1323177
That's Farage's strategy.
Lie, but lie with great confidence. And assume that half of those who support you are too thick to realise you're lying and the other half knows you are but will still support you anyway.
-
Remember, he called the most catastrophic budget in a century "the best for a generation". That's how much he cares or knows about economics. And the RefUK budget would be like that on steroids.
Yet people in here are going to vote for him, while insisting that Labour can't be trusted to keep their word.
We are totally through the looking glass.
-
I am surprised nobody has mentioned this.
Reform's promises are looking incredibly unrealistic. Perhaps journalists should stop asking Farage about something he is strong on (immigration) and start to question him on the costing of his manifesto. If those voting for him are interested.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=291466.msg1323177#msg1323177
That's Farage's strategy.
Lie, but lie with great confidence. And assume that half of those who support you are too thick to realise you're lying and the other half knows you are but will still support you anyway.
Good insight.
20% of reform voters on here please explain / justify this.
-
Sounds like an interest rate cut will be coming in August. Lucky Starmer!
Yep just in time to soften the blow that will be coming after Labour start to help themselves to your savings and investments.
Im just waiting for the bombshell that will explode in a great many households when they realise that Labour's manifesto commitments that look nice and controlled, morph into huge revaluations of council tax, reduced pensions freedoms, limits on your isa's savings and an absolute kidnapping if you have the temerity to sell your house that may have gained a few quid in value.
Its going to be this sly and underhanded approach that will really hit home to a great many who have been sensible with their finances.
If your in a position, get out of dodge before they absolutely fleece us all.
-
Come on, capital gains is not for your average homeowner, you know that. Basic BS there.
Seems you're unable to check your own "facts". Here's a random link. Go make a cuppa tea, read, relax, and give your maid a tip.
https://moneyweek.com/economy/general-election/will-capital-gains-tax-rise-after-the-general-election#:~:text=On%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20Labour,revenue%20to%20fund%20its%20policies.
-
Sounds like an interest rate cut will be coming in August. Lucky Starmer!
Yep just in time to soften the blow that will be coming after Labour start to help themselves to your savings and investments.
Im just waiting for the bombshell that will explode in a great many households when they realise that Labour's manifesto commitments that look nice and controlled, morph into huge revaluations of council tax, reduced pensions freedoms, limits on your isa's savings and an absolute kidnapping if you have the temerity to sell your house that may have gained a few quid in value.
Its going to be this sly and underhanded approach that will really hit home to a great many who have been sensible with their finances.
If your in a position, get out of dodge before they absolutely fleece us all.
Whereas everything has been hunky dory this last decade and a half?
-
This thing about Tories close to Sunak betting on the election date.
Apart from it being illegal.
And immoral.
How f**king stupid must they be to have thought they'd get away with it?
These are the best the Tories can put forward. Thick as mince criminals.
-
Jeez, some of the self centred perspectives on here show how blissfully obsequious people have become. For one, Labour, and more so the Tories and Reform, are shamelessly for shifting wealth to the rich. DD is fearful, blindly so, that this will be worse with Labour.
Secondly, we all benefit from greater equality. Capitalism, as it is, skews to the wealthy disproportionately. This creates a spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive - all a direct result of blind "me, me, me". You're all gonna die folks, what's wrong with a happy, cooperative, productive, caring, life meanwhile?
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
-
What the hell is this?
https://x.com/conservatives/status/1803364858022281700?s=46
I've been thinking what it is about this that is so offensive.
Apart from playing politics with national security at such a dangerous time, I'll tell you what is so awful about it.
The Labour Defence Secretary will be John Healey. He's widely seen as one of the very best of his generation of MPs. (Ironic that my birthplace will be represented by someone of his stature after 5 years of having that waste of skin, Fletcher.)
He's committed a Labour run Britain to being rigourously supportive of NATO, and standing up against Xi and Putin.
He's absolutely committed to the need to re-equip and rearm our forces.
More than that, he's an intellect who understands some of the strategic inefficiencies of MoD, and who has written detailed discussions of what needs improving (which have very much impressed the military top brass).
And...err... he'll be replacing Grant Shapps.
And Sunak's team try to denigate Labour as being untrustworthy on national security. While they give the job to a pyramid scheme salesman.
-
Come on, capital gains is not for your average homeowner, you know that. Basic BS there.
Whats an average homeowner?
After the CGT has been harmonised with income tax it will become a different story Sounds like an interest rate cut will be coming in August. Lucky Starmer!
Yep just in time to soften the blow that will be coming after Labour start to help themselves to your savings and investments.
Im just waiting for the bombshell that will explode in a great many households when they realise that Labour's manifesto commitments that look nice and controlled, morph into huge revaluations of council tax, reduced pensions freedoms, limits on your isa's savings and an absolute kidnapping if you have the temerity to sell your house that may have gained a few quid in value.
Its going to be this sly and underhanded approach that will really hit home to a great many who have been sensible with their finances.
If your in a position, get out of dodge before they absolutely fleece us all.
Whereas everything has been hunky dory this last decade and a half?
These you go folks, Mr Stubbs thinks because we have just had to endure a crappy decade we deserve another one from a different colour but same flavour of deceit and maladministration.
Its going to be the vast swaths of voters who have put their hopes into Starmer after being left disenfranchised with no viable option to vote for that will be the ones screaming blue murder when they realise what Starmer has in store for them.
Of course by that stage it will be too late and the damage will be done.
If you happen to be someone who works hard, saves for the future and brought yourself a nice house because you wanted to, look out, you will be earmarked to not only pay your fair share but plenty on top to facilitate a government who will be determined to ensure that YOU will be paying for their largess.
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
-
Come on, capital gains is not for your average homeowner, you know that. Basic BS there.
Whats an average homeowner?
Come on... It's someone living in their home. As opposed to someone buying to let, or having a holiday home, or building a portfolio of properties. Are you pitying them? Either way, why be lying about this?
-
DD.
How much do you want to bet that CGT on house sales will not be introduced for people whose dwelling place is anything remotely close to the average price?
Your call.
You keep up this constant stream of moaning about things you expect to happen. Walk the walk then.
-
Come on, capital gains is not for your average homeowner, you know that. Basic BS there.
Whats an average homeowner?
Come on... It's someone living in their home. As opposed to someone buying to let, or having a holiday home, or building a portfolio of properties. Are you pitying them? Either way, why be lying about this?
I know people who became disillusioned with getting their pensions savings fleeced from every type of government that decided to invest their pensions savings into BTL instead to tide them over when reaching retirement.
These are just ordinary people who just happened to invest their pensions into BTL, are we to castigate these people because they took the chance and oppertunity to look after themselves?
Its a bit of misnomer to talk about average homeowners.
-
DD.
How much do you want to bet that CGT on house sales will not be introduced for people whose dwelling place is anything remotely close to the average price?
Your call.
You keep up this constant stream of moaning about things you expect to happen. Walk the walk then.
BST, will you along with the vast majority of voters be happy to see a substantial increase in the amount of tax's you will be paying if after the event you notice nothing has been improved ?
Are we all going to be expected to keep pouring more cash into bottomless pits for no discernable improvements?
-
This thing about Tories close to Sunak betting on the election date.
Apart from it being illegal.
And immoral.
How f**king stupid must they be to have thought they'd get away with it?
These are the best the Tories can put forward. Thick as mince criminals.
Ooh, eh up. This gets worse by the minute.
https://x.com/xtophercook/status/1803808084747264108
That is a graph from Betfair of hour-by-hour value of bets on a July election just before Sunak announced it.
Ignore the big spike on the right. That was normal punters piling in once the rumours got out early on 22 May.
The interesting thing is those bets on 21st May, totting up to several £k being lumped on when no-one outside Sunak's team had any inkling that they were planning this surprise announcement.
It's not "just" being a couple of people sticking £100 on, illegal though that would be. It looks like there's been a string of bets totting up to several grand.
What an appropriate epitaph for a bunch of barrow boys and spivs.
-
DD.
How much do you want to bet that CGT on house sales will not be introduced for people whose dwelling place is anything remotely close to the average price?
Your call.
You keep up this constant stream of moaning about things you expect to happen. Walk the walk then.
BST, will you along with the vast majority of voters be happy to see a substantial increase in the amount of tax's you will be paying if after the event you notice nothing has been improved ?
Are we all going to be expected to keep pouring more cash into bottomless pits for no discernable improvements?
Do you accept that
a) public services improved beyond recognition under the last Labour Govt
And
b) Taxes did not go up dramatically?
If you don't, I'd love to hear why not.
If you do, why do you think Labour would be so bad this time?
What's happened is that we've had quite spectacular economic mismanagement from the Tories, resulting in the highest taxes since the War and a collapse of public services.
And all you can do is complain about things that the incoming Labour Govt absolutely will not do.
I'll ask again since you raised the issue.
Will you put your money where your mouth is on the subject of CGT on dwellings?
YOU raised that point. Address it or stop whining.
-
Come on, capital gains is not for your average homeowner, you know that. Basic BS there.
Whats an average homeowner?
Come on... It's someone living in their home. As opposed to someone buying to let, or having a holiday home, or building a portfolio of properties. Are you pitying them? Either way, why be lying about this?
I know people who became disillusioned with getting their pensions savings fleeced from every type of government that decided to invest their pensions savings into BTL instead to tide them over when reaching retirement.
These are just ordinary people who just happened to invest their pensions into BTL, are we to castigate these people because they took the chance and oppertunity to look after themselves?
Its a bit of misnomer to talk about average homeowners.
So you agree, not average homeowners, but investors. Investing always caries a risk. The bottom line is those houses can be sold. No great loss if they do, or they can hold onto them in which case there is no CGT. I really don't see a problem. It does however even up the tax burden between those working and those investing - at least at the point of sale.
-
Sounds like an interest rate cut will be coming in August. Lucky Starmer!
Yep just in time to soften the blow that will be coming after Labour start to help themselves to your savings and investments.
Im just waiting for the bombshell that will explode in a great many households when they realise that Labour's manifesto commitments that look nice and controlled, morph into huge revaluations of council tax, reduced pensions freedoms, limits on your isa's savings and an absolute kidnapping if you have the temerity to sell your house that may have gained a few quid in value.
Its going to be this sly and underhanded approach that will really hit home to a great many who have been sensible with their finances.
If your in a position, get out of dodge before they absolutely fleece us all.
10000%
Work hard? have ambition? Own your own home? Want to help your kids financially? have savings? Have a private pension?
Then labour are absolutely NOT the party you should be voting for.
-
Sounds like an interest rate cut will be coming in August. Lucky Starmer!
Yep just in time to soften the blow that will be coming after Labour start to help themselves to your savings and investments.
Im just waiting for the bombshell that will explode in a great many households when they realise that Labour's manifesto commitments that look nice and controlled, morph into huge revaluations of council tax, reduced pensions freedoms, limits on your isa's savings and an absolute kidnapping if you have the temerity to sell your house that may have gained a few quid in value.
Its going to be this sly and underhanded approach that will really hit home to a great many who have been sensible with their finances.
If your in a position, get out of dodge before they absolutely fleece us all.
Whereas everything has been hunky dory this last decade and a half?
Vastly better than the way things are heading under a labour government.
-
Explain to me TS, which proposed or likely Labour tax policy will penalise people owning their own home?
-
Explain to me TS, which proposed or likely Labour tax policy will penalise people owning their own home?
Buying a house ? TAXED
Selling a house after its risen in value? TAXED
Worked hard and bought a house deemed too big? MANSION TAX
gift to kids to help them to buy. TAXED.
Labour just want to tax everyone into oblivion so that everyone is poor.
-
DD.
How much do you want to bet that CGT on house sales will not be introduced for people whose dwelling place is anything remotely close to the average price?
Your call.
You keep up this constant stream of moaning about things you expect to happen. Walk the walk then.
BST, will you along with the vast majority of voters be happy to see a substantial increase in the amount of tax's you will be paying if after the event you notice nothing has been improved ?
Are we all going to be expected to keep pouring more cash into bottomless pits for no discernable improvements?
Do you accept that
a) public services improved beyond recognition under the last Labour Govt
And
b) Taxes did not go up dramatically?
If you don't, I'd love to hear why not.
If you do, why do you think Labour would be so bad this time?
What's happened is that we've had quite spectacular economic mismanagement from the Tories, resulting in the highest taxes since the War and a collapse of public services.
And all you can do is complain about things that the incoming Labour Govt absolutely will not do.
I'll ask again since you raised the issue.
Will you put your money where your mouth is on the subject of CGT on dwellings?
YOU raised that point. Address it or stop whining.
You monger! Taxes did not go up because Brown Bottom raided the massive Pension funds, including the Mineworkers pension fund then plundered our Gold reserves selling them off at a loss of £21 Billions by todays standards, rode in on the back of a Conservative Government and squandered and plundered with Largesse!
-
Mansion tax seems to be something that occurs on the very rich. And happens under the Tories. As you understand, a tax on very high wealth is a progressive tax, one based on ability to pay at the very high end. A positive thing no?
As for the CGT you insinuate, that is not on homes being lived in but on money making schemes. Simply making that equitable with income tax. Makes sense I think. After the people that are paying can easily afford it, so your last sentence doesn't add up.
-
Christ alive this grunting by old men about Browns Bottom.
It was worth about 0.75% of GDP.
Once.
Austerity cost us at least £1trn in lost output. And we never, ever recovered from it.
It's like obsessing about a pinprick 30 years ago and ignoring the fact that your house has burnt down since.
Plus, f**king well grown up and stop using words like "monger". The 1970s were a long time ago.
-
Explain to me TS, which proposed or likely Labour tax policy will penalise people owning their own home?
Buying a house ? TAXED
Selling a house after its risen in value? TAXED
Worked hard and bought a house deemed too big? MANSION TAX
gift to kids to help them to buy. TAXED.
Labour just want to tax everyone into oblivion so that everyone is poor.
Apart from stamp duty on buying a house, every single other thing you say is incorrect.
So full of anger and no f**king idea why.
-
Whichever way you vote, it doesn't matter. There is no real vision or game plan from any part of the political spectrum. All the party leaders must be reading from Southgate's play book. Politics and football are p**s poor at the moment. Roll on the start of the new season...
-
What's really going to get up peoples noses is the total disregard towards people who stand on their own feet and pay their own way.
Everyone agrees that their needs to be some semblance of balance in how the funds for these schemes are constructed.
What i don't like is that the squeezed middle will be the ones left paying for it all again. You know the ones who keep their heads down, get up in a morning and are productive for themselves and the economy overall, pay their way through life, never qualify for any giveaways (as if they ever wanted a handout) and generally put the hard yards in and for what?
Governments of all persuasions being very willing to squander this plunder they have managed to extract from them. Its the realisation that if we don't manage to squeeze through this little rouse then we will manage to get you in another manner.
Whatever happens these people are going to be the looser's, and for what?
What will they do when people finally say enough, and ensure they protect themselves and their families from increasingly greedy governments who just cannot wait to squander YOUR tax money.
I had no confidence in the last lot of looser's and i certainly have absolutely no confidence in a Starmer government being any more successful.
Time will no doubt tell but the optics already don't look right.
Beware a wolf in a sheep's clothing.
-
Whichever way you vote, it doesn't matter. There is no real vision or game plan from any part of the political spectrum. All the party leaders must be reading from Southgate's play book. Politics and football are p**s poor at the moment. Roll on the start of the new season...
The analogy is dead right, a country that should be cruising with the wealth of knowledge, enterprise and ingenuity being wasted and run into the ground with management by imbeciles.
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
So BST
That resigning from the party thing?
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
The CGT thing means bugger all in the bigger scheme of things, its the fact they will tinker around the edges until as such a time that they can really stick the knife in. By pretending to not raise the big tax generators they will squeeze through on others like the council tax re-assessment, pensions freedoms and isa restrictions. All things that will hit the very type of people who keep this country on an even keel.
Have no doubt if they could slide their hands into your personal finance they would.
You may be very much willing and in agreement.
I know many that will not be so accommodating.
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
More important things in life, I'm off to watch two real teams play some football
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
The CGT thing means bugger all in the bigger scheme of things, its the fact they will tinker around the edges until as such a time that they can really stick the knife in. By pretending to not raise the big tax generators they will squeeze through on others like the council tax re-assessment, pensions freedoms and isa restrictions. All things that will hit the very type of people who keep this country on an even keel.
Have no doubt if they could slide their hands into your personal finance they would.
You may be very much willing and in agreement.
I know many that will not be so accommodating.
Right.
So that's one thing you were ranting about that you're now saying isn't going to happen.
Do you see the point?
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
So BST
That resigning from the party thing?
Doing the board equivalent of hiding in a fridge to avoid the question Billy?
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
The CGT thing means bugger all in the bigger scheme of things, its the fact they will tinker around the edges until as such a time that they can really stick the knife in. By pretending to not raise the big tax generators they will squeeze through on others like the council tax re-assessment, pensions freedoms and isa restrictions. All things that will hit the very type of people who keep this country on an even keel.
Have no doubt if they could slide their hands into your personal finance they would.
You may be very much willing and in agreement.
I know many that will not be so accommodating.
Right.
So that's one thing you were ranting about that you're now saying isn't going to happen.
Do you see the point?
WTF?
Where did i say it won't now happen?
DO you actually read peoples posts or just look at it and want it to mean what suits?
For the record i do think it will be aligned with general taxation, just in time to catch out a great many BTL's who may be thinking of getting out while they can, before they get fleeced by another bunch of Liberal Democrats, who just need to be spending everyone's taxes, wastefully.
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
So BST
That resigning from the party thing?
Doing the board equivalent of hiding in a fridge to avoid the question Billy?
I'm not hiding from anything. I don't recall you asking me.
I'm holding fire until I hear the outcome of the legal action Shaheen is taking.
Abbott was allowed to stand.
The Shaheen case is not as clear cut as I thought. The original claim was that she'd been barred from standing because she'd like a tweet of a Jon Stewart video.
It later turned out that was ONE of the tweets that was part of the case against her, and she's been strangely evasive about giving the full details. Which leaves me thinking there's more to it.
We'll see. If it is as clear cut as it was first presented then yes I will certainly resign my membership.
-
So DD.
That CGT thing?
So BST
That resigning from the party thing?
Doing the board equivalent of hiding in a fridge to avoid the question Billy?
I'm not hiding from anything. I don't recall you asking me.
I'm holding fire until I hear the outcome of the legal action Shaheen is taking.
Abbott was allowed to stand.
The Shaheen case is not as clear cut as I thought. The original claim was that she'd been barred from standing because she'd like a tweet of a Jon Stewart video.
It later turned out that was ONE of the tweets that was part of the case against her, and she's been strangely evasive about giving the full details. Which leaves me thinking there's more to it.
We'll see. If it is as clear cut as it was first presented then yes I will certainly resign my membership.
Fair play
-
DD.
You raised the issue
Then said it means bugger all.
And point blank refused my challenge about whether it will happen.
Then you get cross that I misunderstood what you're trying to say.
By all means be angry about what you think Labour might or might not do.
But if you want to be taken seriously, be prepared to revisit your opinion later on. That's the reason I challenged you to a bet. I don't understand why you won't take that challenge. Doesn't have to have any money involved. It's just about being grown up and revisiting things you say in the light of what actually happens.
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
-
Explain to me TS, which proposed or likely Labour tax policy will penalise people owning their own home?
Buying a house ? TAXED
Selling a house after its risen in value? TAXED
Worked hard and bought a house deemed too big? MANSION TAX
gift to kids to help them to buy. TAXED.
Labour just want to tax everyone into oblivion so that everyone is poor.
Apart from stamp duty on buying a house, every single other thing you say is incorrect.
So full of anger and no f**king idea why.
Except it's not though is it ?
-
Explain to me TS, which proposed or likely Labour tax policy will penalise people owning their own home?
Buying a house ? TAXED
Selling a house after its risen in value? TAXED
Worked hard and bought a house deemed too big? MANSION TAX
gift to kids to help them to buy. TAXED.
Labour just want to tax everyone into oblivion so that everyone is poor.
Apart from stamp duty on buying a house, every single other thing you say is incorrect.
So full of anger and no f**king idea why.
Except it's not though is it ?
You got anything on the credibility of Reform’s spending plans TS?
-
Explain to me TS, which proposed or likely Labour tax policy will penalise people owning their own home?
Buying a house ? TAXED
Selling a house after its risen in value? TAXED
Worked hard and bought a house deemed too big? MANSION TAX
gift to kids to help them to buy. TAXED.
Labour just want to tax everyone into oblivion so that everyone is poor.
Apart from stamp duty on buying a house, every single other thing you say is incorrect.
So full of anger and no f**king idea why.
Except it's not though is it ?
Yes
It is.
You don't get taxed on any profit for selling your residence.
You don't get taxed on gifts to your children.
There's no such thing as a Mansion Tax.
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*
Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.
*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?
-
DD.
How much do you want to bet that CGT on house sales will not be introduced for people whose dwelling place is anything remotely close to the average price?
Your call.
You keep up this constant stream of moaning about things you expect to happen. Walk the walk then.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/21/labour-drafts-options-for-wealth-taxes-to-unlock-funds-for-public-services
The momentum starts.
Where does it stop?
-
The NHS is in a mess right now but the signs are that Labour won’t improve things when they take over.
The Guardian now telling us by the the respected Nuffield Trust both the Conservative and Labour manifestos would put the NHS in a worse funding situation than they suffered under the Austerity period of the current government in 2010/11 and 2014/15.
“The assessment by the respected Nuffield Trust of the costed NHS policies of both parties, announced in their manifestos last week, says the level of funding increases would leave them struggling to pay existing staff costs, let alone the bill for massive planned increases in doctors, nurses and other staff in the long-term workforce plan agreed last year”.
Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that for Labour to deliver the change it is promising there would need to be more money on the table. “Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this,” he said.
My wife is also awaiting a much needed operation so we aren’t expecting too much after 4th July.
Just giving this a bump as no long time Labour supporters have given an opinion on whether the highly respected Nuffield Trust are talking rubbish.
Starmer is consistently not giving straight answers to valid questions being asked of him.
This is the man who will be PM in a couple of weeks time.
-
Explain to me TS, which proposed or likely Labour tax policy will penalise people owning their own home?
Buying a house ? TAXED
Selling a house after its risen in value? TAXED
Worked hard and bought a house deemed too big? MANSION TAX
gift to kids to help them to buy. TAXED.
Labour just want to tax everyone into oblivion so that everyone is poor.
Apart from stamp duty on buying a house, every single other thing you say is incorrect.
So full of anger and no f**king idea why.
Except it's not though is it ?
Yes
It is.
You don't get taxed on any profit for selling your residence.
You don't get taxed on gifts to your children.
There's no such thing as a Mansion Tax.
Not yet, which is my point.
Labour can't be trusted with your money
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*
Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.
*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?
You conveniently take your chosen period as after ww2, tho if the last 80 years, millions were still to die in ww2, including those two bombs. Doesn't sound too peaceful to me. Then Vietnam, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Mexico, Nigeria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Congo, Burundi, Bosnia, Rwanda, Algeria, Somalia, iran/Iraq, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Colombia, Angola, Korea, India. Apparently some died there, far, far more than at any other time in history.
A big wow to your starred bit at the end. Can you think that a war involving a capitalist country might be due to them being expansionist? Or in ones not directly involving a capitalist country that they may be sponsoring one side, proxy wars?
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*
Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.
*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?
As you leave the Cloth Hall in Ypres, (destroyed by the Germans in WW1 and rebuilt to the exact same design afterwards), and now a museum to WW! there's a scrolling display headed "Since the end of the War To End All Wars there hasn't been a single day on this planet where a war hasn't been, or isn't being, fought" The scrolling display lists each one complete with dates. It's quite frightening!
The fact that there has been no military conflicts between former foes within Europe is simply down to the formation and existence of the EU - you remember, that thing that the little englanders voted to leave.
-
not yet, wait and see, just around the corner, my aunt fanny
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*
Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.
*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?
As you leave the Cloth Hall in Ypres, (destroyed by the Germans in WW1 and rebuilt to the exact same design afterwards), and now a museum to WW! there's a scrolling display headed "Since the end of the War To End All Wars there hasn't been a single day on this planet where a war hasn't been, or isn't being, fought" The scrolling display lists each one complete with dates. It's quite frightening!
The fact that there has been no military conflicts between former foes within Europe is simply down to the formation and existence of the EU - you remember, that thing that the little englanders voted to leave.
You’d attribute anything to the EU, nothing to do with NATO is it?
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*
Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.
*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?
As you leave the Cloth Hall in Ypres, (destroyed by the Germans in WW1 and rebuilt to the exact same design afterwards), and now a museum to WW! there's a scrolling display headed "Since the end of the War To End All Wars there hasn't been a single day on this planet where a war hasn't been, or isn't being, fought" The scrolling display lists each one complete with dates. It's quite frightening!
The fact that there has been no military conflicts between former foes within Europe is simply down to the formation and existence of the EU - you remember, that thing that the little englanders voted to leave.
You’d attribute anything to the EU, nothing to do with NATO is it?
Even if it's a combination it's working as kato said
-
I find it fascinating how so many people are determined to ignore the role of the EU in maintaining peace and democracy across a continent that has been riven by instability and friction for centuries.
Of course NATO also played a big role. But it didn't stop civil wars going on inside large parts of NATO states, like the UK and Spain. It didn't stop fascist military dictators seizing power in coups in Greece and Portugal when they were NATO members.
The entire purpose of the EU from its start was to make the countries of Europe realise that they had so much more to gain by collaborative neighbourliness than by fighting every other generation. In that it has been an astonishing success.
Why do you think Putin's number 1 aim is to weaken the EU?
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*
Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.
*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?
As you leave the Cloth Hall in Ypres, (destroyed by the Germans in WW1 and rebuilt to the exact same design afterwards), and now a museum to WW! there's a scrolling display headed "Since the end of the War To End All Wars there hasn't been a single day on this planet where a war hasn't been, or isn't being, fought" The scrolling display lists each one complete with dates. It's quite frightening!
The fact that there has been no military conflicts between former foes within Europe is simply down to the formation and existence of the EU - you remember, that thing that the little englanders voted to leave.
You’d attribute anything to the EU, nothing to do with NATO is it?
Nope.
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*
Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.
*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?
As you leave the Cloth Hall in Ypres, (destroyed by the Germans in WW1 and rebuilt to the exact same design afterwards), and now a museum to WW! there's a scrolling display headed "Since the end of the War To End All Wars there hasn't been a single day on this planet where a war hasn't been, or isn't being, fought" The scrolling display lists each one complete with dates. It's quite frightening!
The fact that there has been no military conflicts between former foes within Europe is simply down to the formation and existence of the EU - you remember, that thing that the little englanders voted to leave.
You’d attribute anything to the EU, nothing to do with NATO is it?
Nope.
You are one brainwashed or deluded individual
-
It's a very nuanced issue.
Undoubtedly the presence of a common enemy in the Soviet Union did much to keep Western Europe united in NATO.
But membership of NATO didn't stop Turkey invading a sovereign European state in 1974. And it didn't stop Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, from pointing hundreds of tank barrels at each other across the border.
I'm not aware of any pair of EU countries that spent years on a hair trigger of going to war against each other.
-
It's a very nuanced issue.
Undoubtedly the presence of a common enemy in the Soviet Union did much to keep Western Europe united in NATO.
But membership of NATO didn't stop Turkey invading a sovereign European state in 1974. And it didn't stop Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, from pointing hundreds of tank barrels at each other across the border.
I'm not aware of any pair of EU countries that spent years on a hair trigger of going to war against each other.
Agreed but to say NATO had nothing to do with it is simply delusional
-
I agree. But far more often you hear people insisting it's ALL down to NATO and the EU is irrelevant. Which to my mind is a far less defensible position
-
I find it fascinating how so many people are determined to ignore the role of the EU in maintaining peace and democracy across a continent that has been riven by instability and friction for centuries.
Of course NATO also played a big role. But it didn't stop civil wars going on inside large parts of NATO states, like the UK and Spain. It didn't stop fascist military dictators seizing power in coups in Greece and Portugal when they were NATO members.
The entire purpose of the EU from its start was to make the countries of Europe realise that they had so much more to gain by collaborative neighbourliness than by fighting every other generation. In that it has been an astonishing success.
Why do you think Putin's number 1 aim is to weaken the EU?
Putin has made it clear that he doesn't give a fig about the EU. NATO is the issue.
-
I agree. But far more often you hear people insisting it's ALL down to NATO and the EU is irrelevant. Which to my mind is a far less defensible position
It was the UK that reigned in the Turks in 1974, they told the Turks in no uncertain terms what would happen if there were excessive casualties, this caused the Turks to advance at 3 miles per day a snail pace, we opened the Dekerlia base up to Refugees from the North of Cypress and a humanitarian disaster was averted!
-
I find it fascinating how so many people are determined to ignore the role of the EU in maintaining peace and democracy across a continent that has been riven by instability and friction for centuries.
Of course NATO also played a big role. But it didn't stop civil wars going on inside large parts of NATO states, like the UK and Spain. It didn't stop fascist military dictators seizing power in coups in Greece and Portugal when they were NATO members.
The entire purpose of the EU from its start was to make the countries of Europe realise that they had so much more to gain by collaborative neighbourliness than by fighting every other generation. In that it has been an astonishing success.
Why do you think Putin's number 1 aim is to weaken the EU?
Putin has made it clear that he doesn't give a fig about the EU. NATO is the issue.
Putin also made it clear that he had no intention of invading Ukraine.
-
He doesn't give a fig about the EU?
That's a gem.
I assume he funded Leave.EU and Salvini and Le Pen and AfD just because he thinks they'd be better for their countries then!
-
He doesn't give a fig about the EU?
That's a gem.
I assume he funded Leave.EU and Salvini and Le Pen and AfD just because he thinks they'd be better for their countries then!
Give over with your conspiracy theories! :lol:
-
He doesn't give a fig about the EU?
That's a gem.
I assume he funded Leave.EU and Salvini and Le Pen and AfD just because he thinks they'd be better for their countries then!
FASCISTS,RACISTS,RACISTS!!! It’s like listens to that old buddy sat in the Armchair in Father Teds House!
-
No two democracies have ever been at war with one another. In Europe. In the world. Ever.
Democracy is the key that underpins our peace and prosperity.
The main player in ensuring peace in Western Europe over the last 80 years is the United States of America. No question.
No USA no NATO - and an almost certain Soviet invasion mid 20th Century.
No USA no EU. The USA were the diplomatic midwives of the EEC/EU - and it's insistence that only democracies could participate in it's free trade area.
Also the USA used it's financial might to support Western democracies (in particular West Germany and Japan hence their rise at economic heavyweights) to ensure Democracy won the cold war over Communism.
Since the fall of the USSR the USA has taken it's eye of the ball on promoting global democracy. Hence why we're living in increasingly worrying times globally
Failing to bring Russia into the tent of free, democratic nations when it had the chance in the 1990s (as it did with West Germany and Japan).
Cosying up to China, and thereby massively increasing Chinese wealth and global influence, to take advantage of it's huge population for cheap labour for short term economic gain.
Standing idly by whilst Europe puts in place treaties which slowly abandon democracy and centralise power which risks the rise of Nationalism and extremism on the continent.
Any civilisation which embraces democracy ultimately benefits in terms of peace and prosperity - as Western Europe has done in the last 80 years largely thanks to US intervention.
But civilisations which abandon democracy only go backward in terms of internal strife, security and prosperity. We're seeing the start of that decline now.
-
Branton.
I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.
But let me get this straight.
Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?
Really?
-
Branton.
I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.
But let me get this straight.
Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?
Really?
Nope - the exact opposite. Read my 5th paragraph.
The main thrust of my post was recognition of the USA's major role in securing peace in W Europe - which everyone else had so far ignored
-
spiral of ever increasing poverty. And then there is the discontent with that to pay for - benefits, violence, crime, and the health effects which are massive
Sounds like socialist Venezuela.
If you have any research studies that show socialism has greater long-term outcomes for poor people than capitalism then please, be my guest.
You completely missed the point and gut reacted. The point there is that capitalist systems survive on subordination and selfishness, divided and ruled. State capitalism or otherwise, just the same, ruled by gangsters.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith.
Divide and rule? Capitalism has brought liberalism with it. And has contributed to the most stable geopolitical world too.
Have you seen the news recently? Unbelievable.
Have you studied history? Name me a more peaceful period and better time to be alive than the last 80 years.*
Or a socialist, communist or autocratic country where people have been wealthy compared to today’s standards and free to be whoever they want to be.
*have any wars in that period involved 2 secular, liberal, capitalist countries?
I'm gonna use this as an opportunity to talk philosophy.
Depends on the level of socialism... The Nordic countries for a long time have been Social Democracies which are capitalist but have a lot of socialist policies, a welfare state. Social Democrats are what Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are. WeThey usually show on most polls as the happiest, healthiest, etc countries in the world.
Extremes on either side don't work.
True communism probably requires dictatorship to meet it's aims and then is open by governments to be corrupt.
Socialism sounds good in principle but isn't really open to meritocracy or the creativity capitalism brings.
Capitalism fails as we've seen in this country over the last decade due to funneling upwards and services becoming unobtainable to normal folk, whilst exploiting the workers, which we see more in the US.
The only feasible option that's good for all people in a country is the middle ground, social democracy, which promotes meritocracy, freedom, creativity and make sure citizens have their basic needs met with healthcare, housing, food, etc.
-
Branton.
I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.
But let me get this straight.
Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?
Really?
Nope - the exact opposite. Read my 5th paragraph.
The main thrust of my post was recognition of the USA's major role in securing peace in W Europe - which everyone else had so far ignored
And the EU was an entirely American project?
-
Branton.
I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.
But let me get this straight.
Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?
Really?
Nope - the exact opposite. Read my 5th paragraph.
The main thrust of my post was recognition of the USA's major role in securing peace in W Europe - which everyone else had so far ignored
And the EU was an entirely American project?
There's very little point in having a discussion/sensible debate if you insist on a) ignoring what I write or b) misrepresenting what I write.
No the EEC was not an entirely American project. But they had a major diplomatic influence on it's set up and founding principles.
The US learnt the lesson of Versaille with regards to not treating West Germany as a pariah state. They were genuinely fearlful of the whole of Germany falling to Communism and slipping behind the iron curtain.
Western Europe was on it's knees economically. The US had significant economic power to diplomatically insist that West Germany's neighbours did not treat them as pariahs (as would understandably be their first instinct) but trade with and enter trade agreements with them. Under terms that matched the USA's vision - of a democratic, peaceful Western Europe.
-
Branton.
I agree with the fact that no democracies have ever gone to war.
But let me get this straight.
Are you actually saying that the EU has had no role in securing the rule of democracy across Europe?
Really?
Nope - the exact opposite. Read my 5th paragraph.
The main thrust of my post was recognition of the USA's major role in securing peace in W Europe - which everyone else had so far ignored
And the EU was an entirely American project?
There's very little point in having a discussion/sensible debate if you insist on a) ignoring what I write or b) misrepresenting what I write.
No the EEC was not an entirely American project. But they had a major diplomatic influence on it's set up and founding principles.
The US learnt the lesson of Versaille with regards to not treating West Germany as a pariah state. They were genuinely fearlful of the whole of Germany falling to Communism and slipping behind the iron curtain.
Western Europe was on it's knees economically. The US had significant economic power to diplomatically insist that West Germany's neighbours did not treat them as pariahs (as would understandably be their first instinct) but trade with and enter trade agreements with them. Under terms that matched the USA's vision - of a democratic, peaceful Western Europe.
I'm glad someone else has noticed this trait, happens on far too many occasions.
You could say it verge's on hysterical blind faith and an inflexible mind that's not prepared to acknowledge other solutions that don't match its own.
-
BR.
OK, let's clarify.
Do you think the EU was PREDOMINANTLY a US-driven project?
And do you think the EU, whatever the nature of its birth, was vital in cementing democracy across a continent in which the overwhelming majority of nations had been ruled by non-democracies in the previous few decades?
Or, are you saying democracy would have been established across Europe WITHOUT the EU?
-
BR.
OK, let's clarify.
Do you think the EU was PREDOMINANTLY a US-driven project?
And do you think the EU, whatever the nature of its birth, was vital in cementing democracy across a continent in which the overwhelming majority of nations had been ruled by non-democracies in the previous few decades?
Or, are you saying democracy would have been established across Europe WITHOUT the EU?
I find it a bit bizarre that you're repeating the exact same questions, did you not believe my answers first time round? But for clarity: -
No - but to repeat myself they had a major diplomatic influence on it's set up and founding principles.
Yes - to repeat myself due to it's insistence that only democracies could participate in it's free trade area.
No - where have I said or even inferred anything of the sort?!
Stating that US foreign policy has had a major impact on ensuring Western European peace doesn't mean I don't think the EEC played an important role too. They're not mutually exclusive opinions.
-
Yep, ok. I disagree about the extent that the EU was a child of American policy, and how much it was driven by European policymakers. I also disagree on the extent to which America dictated membership terms. But I don't disagree that peace and democracy in Europe is the result of both American involvement and the EU.
Apologies if I misread your meaning.
-
no wonder the tories are struggling with their campaign, they are all down at the bookies
-
Is there no end to this, oh yes july 4.
''Tory MPs paid £100,000 of public funds to party’s in-house web designers
Exclusive: Conservatives including Hunt and Truss used Bluetree for websites and claimed costs as expenses''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/23/tory-mps-paid-100000-of-public-funds-to-partys-in-house-web-designers
-
No two democracies have ever been at war with one another. In Europe. In the world. Ever.
Somebody obviously doesn't watch QI. They shot this crap down in flames years ago.
-
FT summary of the various analyses of the Labour budget possibilities;
https://archive.ph/IRBPy
Some heroic assumptions without revenue raising measures to increase financial headroom.
Retaining Tory commitments makes little sense in this context.
Growth depends upon the up front investment from the public purse, difficult to see how it can happen at scale without that spending.
-
And once again.
Reeves had said explicitly that they will invest in publicly funded capital infrastructure.
How many times are you going to ignore that?
-
Politicians say many things when in election mode.
"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS
Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.
Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.
As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."
-
Politicians say many things when in election mode.
"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS
Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.
Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.
As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."
I heard that on the lunchtime news dd.
No doubt that their statement will be discredited.
-
Politicians say many things when in election mode.
"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS
Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.
Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.
As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."
Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?
-
Politicians say many things when in election mode.
"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS
Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.
Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.
As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."
Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?
The IFS report is looking forward, not back.
Something we should all be doing.
-
Politicians say many things when in election mode.
"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS
Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.
Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.
As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."
Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?
Paul Johnson is basically talking about the evidence he has in front of him.
What it tells him is that none of them have produced a trueful and fully costed plan to take the country forward.
He's not bothered about what's been and gone, he's dealt with that on a number of occasions, funnily enough quite a few on here hung on his every word when it was admonishing the last government. He's interested in the future, like we all are.
The sad fact is that the future is going to resemble the past very closely, he's not the only one to think so.
We have nothing to look forward to, only more spin, deceit and fantasy.
-
Politicians say many things when in election mode.
"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS
Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.
Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.
As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."
Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?
Paul Johnson is basically talking about the evidence he has in front of him.
What it tells him is that none of them have produced a trueful and fully costed plan to take the country forward.
He's not bothered about what's been and gone, he's dealt with that on a number of occasions, funnily enough quite a few on here hung on his every word when it was admonishing the last government. He's interested in the future, like we all are.
The sad fact is that the future is going to resemble the past very closely, he's not the only one to think so.
We have nothing to look forward to, only more spin, deceit and fantasy.
When you want to look to the future, look at past records and that will give a good indication of habits, traits and what to expect. As you have a habit of dismissing the excellent position of the NHS and any other number of things labour had achieved I expect you to ignore the facts once again and probably every occasion you comment on that right up to the election.
-
''Tories are a ‘shower of shit’, says Conservative candidate James Cracknell
Former Olympian standing in Colchester adds: ‘If one of my teammates got caught for cheating they’d be dead to me''
From someone whom should know ..............
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/tories-are-a-shower-of-shit-says-conservative-candidate-james-cracknell
-
And once again.
Reeves had said explicitly that they will invest in publicly funded capital infrastructure.
How many times are you going to ignore that?
And once again, BST,
I have not ignored what Nanny Plum Reeves has said, and it is taken into account in the FT summaries,(post 1038 above).
The plain fact is that Reeves cannot expend additional Capex on infrastructure without creating a further demand for financial support for ongoing maintenance.
This latter category is subject to her silly 5 year debt reduction rule, which runs counter to her declared Capex intention.
This is just how it is, unless Labour exceed expectations in relation to growth and provide additional financial headroom that way.
No-one is optimistic about the chances of that.
-
No two democracies have ever been at war with one another. In Europe. In the world. Ever.
Somebody obviously doesn't watch QI. They shot this crap down in flames years ago.
Somebody obviously bases their acquired knowledge on popular TV shows.
You are incorrect based on your QI episode - as far as my above statement is concerned.
Based on the common definition of "democracy" and me stating "at war".
QI (I did watch the episode but had to go back to remind myself) quoted 3 instances: -
1) UK-Finish war 1941. The Soviet Union invaded Finland so Finland declared war on all the Soviet Union's allies including the UK. Clearly an incidental war.
No military action was taken by Finland against the UK. The UK carried out 1 raid on a Finnish port but that was before War was declared (and not a reason for it).
Two countries are hardly "at war" if they are not fighting each other.
2) The Anglo-Dutch War in the 18th Century.
No sensible historian would consider 18th Century Great Britain a democracy. Only a tiny fraction of the population could vote. So that clearly rules that one out.
3) The Football War between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. Violence which started after a world cup qualifier between both countries' teams.
Neither countries' Government had control over their own military - essentially meaning they were military dictatorships rather than democracies. It was the military on both sides which escalated the violence started by football hooligans.
The fighting lasted only 4 days.
In reality it was 2 sets of military thugs acting off their own bat.
Oh and don't be so rude re "crap" - totally unnecessary.
-
Politicians say many things when in election mode.
"Manifestos provide ‘thin gruel’ on tax policies, says IFS
Voters will be making their choice on July 4 in a “knowledge vacuum” because the party manifestos provide so little information on big tax and spending decisions, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.
Paul Johnson, the think-tank’s director, said that the Labour and Tory manifestos provide “thin gruel” when it comes to on tax policy, welfare and public spending.
As things stand, spending on many public services will probably have to be cut in the next parliament if debt is to be held in check, the IFS said in an analysis of the manifestos. This is partly because of a £50bn a year increase in debt interest spending relative to forecasts and a growing welfare budget."
Any mention of how the economy got into such a parlous state?
Paul Johnson is basically talking about the evidence he has in front of him.
What it tells him is that none of them have produced a trueful and fully costed plan to take the country forward.
He's not bothered about what's been and gone, he's dealt with that on a number of occasions, funnily enough quite a few on here hung on his every word when it was admonishing the last government. He's interested in the future, like we all are.
The sad fact is that the future is going to resemble the past very closely, he's not the only one to think so.
We have nothing to look forward to, only more spin, deceit and fantasy.
When you want to look to the future, look at past records and that will give a good indication of habits, traits and what to expect. As you have a habit of dismissing the excellent position of the NHS and any other number of things labour had achieved I expect you to ignore the facts once again and probably every occasion you comment on that right up to the election.
IFS have looked to the past, present and future, and in their opinion,
"The UK’s two main parties have set out plans to improve public services that are “essentially unfunded”, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said on Monday.
In a scathing verdict on the Labour and Conservative manifestos, the think-tank said the parties had “hidden and ducked” the hard economic choices ahead, despite claiming their tax and public spending plans were “fully costed”.
“Regardless of who takes office . . . they will — unless they get lucky — soon face a stark choice,” said Paul Johnson, IFS director. “Raise taxes by more than they have told us in their manifesto. Or implement cuts to some areas of spending. Or borrow more and be content for debt to rise for longer.”
“On 4 July, we will be voting in a knowledge vacuum,” he added.
The damning account of the economic dilemma facing both parties comes as the election campaign enters its final stretch. Labour is widely expected to win next week, while the Tory party’s struggling campaign has been dealt a further blow by a spiralling betting scandal.
The IFS said both parties had pledged debt would be falling in five years’ time, while also entering a “tax lock arms race”, competing with each other to rule out many of the ways in which they might raise extra revenue.
“These tax locks are a mistake,” Johnson said. “They will constrain policy if a future government decides that it does in fact want to raise more money to fund public services. They also put serious constraints on tax reform.”
Helen Miller, IFS deputy director, said that if a Labour government wanted to raise “big money” in the areas where it had not yet ruled out changes, it would need to make politically difficult reforms to capital gains tax, which could discourage investment.
A Labour spokesperson said: “While we’re under no illusions about the scale of the challenge we’d inherit if elected, we don’t accept that the economy can’t be better than it is now under the Tories.”
They added that the party’s manifesto was “a fully funded plan to change the country and offer economic stability”.
Labour’s campaign has focused heavily on its plan to bolster the public finances through reforms to raise economic growth, a claim the IFS called into question.
The body estimated the government could avoid £30bn of spending cuts if the Office for Budget Responsibility upgraded its forecast for UK GDP growth by 0.5 percentage points.
However, it added the OBR’s forecast was already more optimistic than most, and luck could just as easily turn against the new government.
“Good policymaking can boost growth but it certainly can’t do it quickly,” said Carl Emmerson, IFS deputy director.
The IFS described Labour’s manifesto commitments to new public service spending — for example, on teacher recruitment and school breakfast clubs — as “trivial”.
But it added that the party’s biggest pledge, to boost green investment by £5bn a year, would still leave public sector net investment falling.
The IFS said both parties promised to cut NHS waiting times, deliver an ambitious expansion of the NHS workforce and build more hospitals, as well as tackling crime, without allocating new money.
“These ‘fully costed’ manifestos appear to imply all this can be delivered for free. It can’t,” Johnson said.
Implementing the NHS workforce plan could require extra funding equivalent to 3.6 per cent of national income per year. Both parties also aspire to increase defence spending and have promised to maintain schools spending in real terms, while funding new childcare entitlements.
This implies steep cuts to unprotected areas of spending, such as courts, prisons and local government — equivalent to £9bn a year by 2028 under Labour’s plans and £18bn a year under Conservative plans, the IFS said.
The IFS also criticised pledges by Reform UK and the Green party, saying they had made “unattainable” claims on tax and were helping to “poison the entire political debate”.
-
Strange dd, I'm talking about you not what a think tank is writing about although I do respect what they say, it's your version of reality I do not accept, that fact that you in turn will not accept that labour when in power have largely run the country well and left the economy in a better place than when the tories run the same country.
The undeniable fact is that for over 14 years (and before that) the tories have run the country and it's services into the ground, fomented racial troubles, trashed the gfa and used their money, power and position to pitch people against each other for their own benefit.
-
Strange dd, I'm talking about you not what a think tank is writing about although I do respect what they say, it's your version of reality I do not accept, that fact that you in turn will not accept that labour when in power have largely run the country well and left the economy in a better place than when the tories run the same country.
The undeniable fact is that for over 14 years (and before that) the tories have run the country and it's services into the ground, fomented racial troubles, trashed the gfa and used their money, power and position to pitch people against each other for their own benefit.
Says the little Runaway who slagged off the Labour Government claiming that after 11 years of misrule the country had gone to the Dogs!
Interesting to see you kept dual Nationality you little turn coat!
-
Strange dd, I'm talking about you not what a think tank is writing about although I do respect what they say, it's your version of reality I do not accept, that fact that you in turn will not accept that labour when in power have largely run the country well and left the economy in a better place than when the tories run the same country.
The undeniable fact is that for over 14 years (and before that) the tories have run the country and it's services into the ground, fomented racial troubles, trashed the gfa and used their money, power and position to pitch people against each other for their own benefit.
Says the little Runaway who slagged off the Labour Government claiming that after 11 years of misrule the country had gone to the Dogs!
Interesting to see you kept dual Nationality you little turn coat!
You're the self confessed dogging sprotter aye.
-
I see Sunak has finally pulled the plug on the two candidates in the vetting scandal, after days of ducking the issue.
He's really not very good at this politics thing is he?
-
This.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1805538525552562415
Imagine what it's like being one of the ministers who, time after time, are rolled out in front of the media to defend Sunak doing nothing over the latest shit show.
Only to find he's then flipped and not told you.
He's like a kid playing some sort of My First PM roleplay game.
-
Christ alive, this is one of the betting scandal candidates.
(https://www.politics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cnphoto_0_0_0_0_14113662_1200.jpg)
Makes Harry Enfield's Tory Boy look like Che Guevara.
Anyway, the Tories seem to have found a hill to die on.
William Hill.
-
Go back to the time he was chancellor, and the covid briefs, every man and his dog was saying how brilliant he was, not me, I saw straight through him, he’s coming out now as the snake I saw then
-
Christ alive, this is one of the betting scandal candidates.
Makes Harry Enfield's Tory Boy look like Che Guevara.
The Tories have given plenty of ammunition for complaint/ridicule with their politics and behaviour over recent years without the need of having to go down the route of mocking people over their appearance.
Surely you're better than that.
-
The sheer cheek of this Kitson trying to play the Elder Statesman on economic issues.
https://x.com/nickclegg/status/1805261692592431437
Yes, our recovery after the GFC was no worse than that across much of Europe.
But Europe had a catastrophic recovery because of the Euro. Having a common monetary policy but no common fiscal policy was an absolute disaster. It meant that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal who needed to borrow to boost their economies were unable to do so without their bond rates going ballistic. That was the core of the Euro crisis and it was truly a disaster.
Similarly, the recovery in the USA was hampered by the Republicans sabotaging Obama's spending plans.
We had a similarly bad recovery. But that was entirely self inflicted. We had control over our own monetary policy which meant we could have effectively borrowed as much as we liked, to invest in capital infrastructure, at negative real interest rates at the time.
Clegg was instrumental in blocking that. He signed up lock stock and barrel to Cameron's Austerity. So we had our own self inflicted appalling non-recovery
His fault. He was the one who could have insisted on a different course.
And here's the irony.
The depressed living standards due to Austerity led directly to the rise of UKIP from being nothing in 2010, to being a threat to the Tories by 2014. That's what led to Cameron offering a Brexit referendum. And the subsequent shit show as the Tory party lurched into civil war and forgot about actually running the country.
All down to the 2010 decision of that t**t. If he had an ounce of self respect, he'd spend his life looking into his soul and praying for forgiveness, instead of tweeting this trite b*llocks.
-
Strange dd, I'm talking about you not what a think tank is writing about although I do respect what they say, it's your version of reality I do not accept, that fact that you in turn will not accept that labour when in power have largely run the country well and left the economy in a better place than when the tories run the same country.
The undeniable fact is that for over 14 years (and before that) the tories have run the country and it's services into the ground, fomented racial troubles, trashed the gfa and used their money, power and position to pitch people against each other for their own benefit.
Very strange reply indeed, we're not talking about what i think or my opinion of the situation, i told you that i think they are both taking the voting public for a ride and the "fully costed" manifestoes are fantasy and deceit.
I then give you a direct quote from a respected economist who basically backs up my initial notions and you start ranting about 14 years of crap government?
Nobody here can give a definitive answer to what Labour are going to do or achieve over the next cycle, we don't know yet, time will tell us if they are going to do a grand job.
Plenty have grave doubts, regardless what you or i think.
-
Strange dd, I'm talking about you not what a think tank is writing about although I do respect what they say, it's your version of reality I do not accept, that fact that you in turn will not accept that labour when in power have largely run the country well and left the economy in a better place than when the tories run the same country.
The undeniable fact is that for over 14 years (and before that) the tories have run the country and it's services into the ground, fomented racial troubles, trashed the gfa and used their money, power and position to pitch people against each other for their own benefit.
Very strange reply indeed, we're not talking about what i think or my opinion of the situation, i told you that i think they are both taking the voting public for a ride and the "fully costed" manifestoes are fantasy and deceit.
I then give you a direct quote from a respected economist who basically backs up my initial notions and you start ranting about 14 years of crap government?
Nobody here can give a definitive answer to what Labour are going to do or achieve over the next cycle, we don't know yet, time will tell us if they are going to do a grand job.
Plenty have grave doubts, regardless what you or i think.
Strange I thought the above nailed your position quite well.
Strange 14+ years of crap government that trashed the NHS the police service and water etc ................ and you presumably because labour made a hugely better fist of government don't want to accept that.
If you accept that labour left services in a far better position than they are now then maybe we can agree to move forward.
-
Just a little update/reminder of the tories in action ............
''PPE worth £1.4bn from single Covid deal destroyed or written off
UK government deal struck at height of pandemic described as ‘colossal misuse of public funds’''
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/25/ppe-worth-14bn-from-single-covd-deal-destroyed-or-written-off
Just in case you forgot, the tories denied there was a VIP lane and then the non-existent VIP lane was found to be unlawful.
''Use of 'VIP lane' to award Covid PPE contracts unlawful, high court rules. The government's operation of a “VIP lane” for suppliers of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus pandemic was illegal, a high court judge has ruled.12 Jan 2022''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/12/use-of-vip-lane-to-award-covid-ppe-contracts-unlawful-high-court-rules#:~:text=2%20years%20old-,Use%20of%20'VIP%20lane'%20to%20award%20Covid%20PPE,contracts%20unlawful%2C%20high%20court%20rules&text=The%20government's%20operation%20of%20a,high%20court%20judge%20has%20ruled.
-
So Labour do not plan to reconsider regressive taxation like Council Tax, not a priority according to this chump Kendall;
https://video-ec.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1805853915797192704/pu/vid/avc1/1280x712/RpFOrj7z2Uei1oRs.mp4?tag=12
That means that alongside a promise not to increase tax on the wealthy in the manifesto, Labour are missing the open goal of reforming the existing inequalities in the tax system.
No policy agenda for redistribution, and no commitment to level up the tax liabilities of the most vulnerable.
Council tax was brought in after the poll tax fiasco, and was based on banded property values at the time.
Not only have property values increased more in some areas than in others, but the CT discount for single people is only 25%, meaning single folk are subsidising married couples.
It is bonkers!
-
So Labour do not plan to reconsider regressive taxation like Council Tax, not a priority according to this chump Kendall;
https://video-ec.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1805853915797192704/pu/vid/avc1/1280x712/RpFOrj7z2Uei1oRs.mp4?tag=12
That means that alongside a promise not to increase tax on the wealthy in the manifesto, Labour are missing the open goal of reforming the existing inequalities in the tax system.
No policy agenda for redistribution, and no commitment to level up the tax liabilities of the most vulnerable.
Council tax was brought in after the poll tax fiasco, and was based on banded property values at the time.
Not only have property values increased more in some areas than in others, but the CT discount for single people is only 25%, meaning single folk are subsidising married couples.
It is bonkers!
Gee Albie, if you had had this much energy pursuing the tories maybe Corbyn could have won, one of them at least.
-
Another idiot labour will be better off without ............
''Islington Labour member arrested over alleged honeytrap plot, party confirms
Labour says man administratively suspended after Met inquiry into sexting scam targeting men in political circles''
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/26/man-arrested-after-alleged-honeytrap-plot-targeting-men-in-political-circles
-
Christ alive, this is one of the betting scandal candidates.
(https://www.politics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cnphoto_0_0_0_0_14113662_1200.jpg)
Makes Harry Enfield's Tory Boy look like Che Guevara.
Anyway, the Tories seem to have found a hill to die on.
William Hill.
I know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but nobody is going to tell me they can look at his face and think "He's going to be a pleasant person, isn't he?"
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/7750/production/_131944503_jenrick_epa.jpg)
AS YOU CAN SEE HE'S DONE THIS STROKE BEFORE AND BLESS HIM BILLY IS NO OIL PAINTING
AS I MENTIONED YESTERDAY ON ANOTHER THREAD I PULLED HIM UP ABOUT TAKING THE PI$$ OUT OF SOMEONES GAIT
Bit like Gove really
How on earth is Billy Buoy going to survive without Gove
Billy has had a fixation with Gove's arse and his gait over the years 3 times in the past I have pulled him up on this site when he has criticised his walk ... what's wrong with a fixation you might say
anyhow maybe he can put it behind him and move on.
"in the alternative " Gove moved out of the family home quite a while ago "opportunity knocks"
-
The reason Labour are under scrutiny is that they are the incoming government, Syd.
You will see I have posted many times about the Tories, but they have now thrown in the towel.
No point harping on about yesterday's men.
Classic contribution today from Ellie Reeves, younger sister of Nanny Plum.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1805961002086719488/pu/vid/avc1/1280x714/nxRgSaxXPsJtaqpt.mp4?tag=12
Reeves junior reckons borrowing for capital expenditure would crash the economy.
Referencing Liz Truss, she does not make any distinction between borrowing to make big tax cuts, and investment to deliver greater economic returns.
So if borrowing is out, and taxes on the wealthy are out....then austerity is the last man standing.
BST will be so disappointed to learn that!
-
and I made a note of this from the BBC WAS IT YESTERDAY ?
Main parties 'largely' ignoring economic challenges in manifestos - IFS
published at 10:00
10:00
BREAKING
The UK's future economic challenges are being "largely ignored" by the Conservatives and Labour in their election manifestos, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
In its analysis of the main parties' manifestos, the think tank says "huge decisions" will need to be made - which, it says, will "in all likelihood, mean either higher taxes or worse public services".
But "you would not guess that from reading" the Labour or Conservative manifestos, it says.
"They have singularly failed even to acknowledge some of the most important issues and choices to have faced us for a very long time."
We'll have more from the IFS in the next couple of posts, stay with us.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckrrx571jklt
NOW WE SEE WHY WE GOT THE 34 PHOTOS OF STARMER IN THE MANIFESToh
-
Latest MRP poll.
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1805972901553643975
If this is right, then...wow! That's the Tories in existential danger.
-
Well, i've just watched the last head to head between two blokes offering themselves to be the next PM of the country.
Now, i'm no lover of "celebrity" and all the crappy media hype that surrounds these type of occasions leading upto to a GE but by god, if anyone can come here now and endorse either of those two they really want to have a word with themselves.
One fella in the audience got it bang right, what do either of them have to offer this country.
Its just looks very bleak, i don't fancy our chances against anyone with either of these pipsqueaks at the helm.
And i thought the Yanks had a raw deal!
-
Christ DD. Get some uppers down you.
-
Strange goings on in Clacton from Labour;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/26/labour-not-putting-up-a-fight-against-farage-in-clacton
Free run for Nige, local Labour fella too much coverage instead of Keith???
-
The reason Labour are under scrutiny is that they are the incoming government, Syd.
You will see I have posted many times about the Tories, but they have now thrown in the towel.
No point harping on about yesterday's men.
Classic contribution today from Ellie Reeves, younger sister of Nanny Plum.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1805961002086719488/pu/vid/avc1/1280x714/nxRgSaxXPsJtaqpt.mp4?tag=12
Reeves junior reckons borrowing for capital expenditure would crash the economy.
Referencing Liz Truss, she does not make any distinction between borrowing to make big tax cuts, and investment to deliver greater economic returns.
So if borrowing is out, and taxes on the wealthy are out....then austerity is the last man standing.
BST will be so disappointed to learn that!
Not true Albie you've been banging on about labour and Starmer since corbyn massively lost the second election as I recently reminded you about your posts predicting labour was losing all its members, legal fees and unions were abandoning them etc
-
You know when I say politics isn't about some fairytale utopia of high ideals and that politicians have to engage with real voters?
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/1806238748536922386
-
Angela raynor "every borough will have to take its fair share of immigrants"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-every-uk-borough-must-take-fair-share-migrants/
I bet that odious cretin doesn't take any in her neck of the woods.
Get ready for the flood gates to open, like they first did under Tony Bliar.
Get ready for longer hospital waiting times.
Get ready for it being harder to get a GP appointment
Get ready for overcrowded schools
Get ready for the emergency services stretched to breaking point.
Get ready for constant gridlock on our road network
Get ready for tax hikes.
Get ready for sharia law in areas.
Get ready for more overcrowded trains
Get ready for rampant anti semitism being normalised
But this is the biggy for me, if you've worked hard all your life and saved for your retirement, our your kids university tuition etc. Then for the love of God DO NOT vote Labour, because they will just think that money is theirs.
ANYONE but labour, think about it, don't let those scum get in power!
-
We know johnson waited till the tory papers told him what to do but I didn't think they were running the labour party
-
Angela raynor "every borough will have to take its fair share of immigrants"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-every-uk-borough-must-take-fair-share-migrants/
I bet that odious cretin doesn't take any in her neck of the woods.
Get ready for the flood gates to open, like they first did under Tony Bliar.
Get ready for longer hospital waiting times.
Get ready for it being harder to get a GP appointment
Get ready for overcrowded schools
Get ready for the emergency services stretched to breaking point.
Get ready for constant gridlock on our road network
Get ready for tax hikes.
Get ready for sharia law in areas.
Get ready for more overcrowded trains
Get ready for rampant anti semitism being normalised
But this is the biggy for me, if you've worked hard all your life and saved for your retirement, our your kids university tuition etc. Then for the love of God DO NOT vote Labour, because they will just think that money is theirs.
ANYONE but labour, think about it, don't let those scum get in power!
EVERY LABOUR PICTURE SPELLS A STORY NIGHTMARE
-
Was watching them try and explain gb energy this morning. I'm struggling to understand the point of it at the moment. What difference will it make?
-
Explains a lot on why one person in this forum seems to have become unhinged over Starmer.
https://x.com/redhistorian/status/1807322495562719612
-
Explains a lot on why one person in this forum seems to have become unhinged over Starmer.
https://x.com/redhistorian/status/1807322495562719612
We've got f**k all to over after 14 years of catastrophe, so let's try panicking a few vulnerable pensioners into voting for us.
-
Angela raynor "every borough will have to take its fair share of immigrants"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-every-uk-borough-must-take-fair-share-migrants/
I bet that odious cretin doesn't take any in her neck of the woods.
Get ready for the flood gates to open, like they first did under Tony Bliar.
Get ready for longer hospital waiting times.
Get ready for it being harder to get a GP appointment
Get ready for overcrowded schools
Get ready for the emergency services stretched to breaking point.
Get ready for constant gridlock on our road network
Get ready for tax hikes.
Get ready for sharia law in areas.
Get ready for more overcrowded trains
Get ready for rampant anti semitism being normalised
But this is the biggy for me, if you've worked hard all your life and saved for your retirement, our your kids university tuition etc. Then for the love of God DO NOT vote Labour, because they will just think that money is theirs.
ANYONE but labour, think about it, don't let those scum get in power!
Anyone but Labour?? You’ve basically produced a list that largely describes the country now!!
-
It’s fascinating hearing how each political party has positioned themselves in the last week of the campaign. It seems to go something like this:
Labour - Don’t cause too much of a fuss. Let the Tories destroy themselves as everyone knows they’re hopeless. .
Tories - We are hopeless but Labour will be even more hopeless
Lib Dems - everyone is hopeless but we are nice
Reform - Everything is the fault of people with brown skin.
-
Watched Sunak being interviewed by Kuennsberg.
He seems obsessed with tax. He’ll reduce tax, Labour will increase tax.
His mantra is that we’ll have a few quid more of our own money to spend or save.
What he doesn’t seem to realise is that people are more concerned with the NHS, basic public services, social care, pot holes, mortgages, housing, education etc.
Apart from that I thought he came across very well. Passionate and fighting his corner.
I hope he does well in his new job in the US.
-
Angela raynor "every borough will have to take its fair share of immigrants"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/26/labour-every-uk-borough-must-take-fair-share-migrants/
I bet that odious cretin doesn't take any in her neck of the woods.
Get ready for the flood gates to open, like they first did under Tony Bliar.
Get ready for longer hospital waiting times.
Get ready for it being harder to get a GP appointment
Get ready for overcrowded schools
Get ready for the emergency services stretched to breaking point.
Get ready for constant gridlock on our road network
Get ready for tax hikes.
Get ready for sharia law in areas.
Get ready for more overcrowded trains
Get ready for rampant anti semitism being normalised
But this is the biggy for me, if you've worked hard all your life and saved for your retirement, our your kids university tuition etc. Then for the love of God DO NOT vote Labour, because they will just think that money is theirs.
ANYONE but labour, think about it, don't let those scum get in power!
f**king hell. Sharia Law? You're gonna be daft enough to vote Reform, aren't ya?
-
It’s fascinating hearing how each political party has positioned themselves in the last week of the campaign. It seems to go something like this:
Labour - Don’t cause too much of a fuss. Let the Tories destroy themselves as everyone knows they’re hopeless. .
Tories - We are hopeless but Labour will be even more hopeless
Lib Dems - everyone is hopeless but we are nice
Reform - Everything is the fault of people with brown skin.
Wonder if the Tories are coming round to realise that the country is in a state, they've been in denial until now. All the other parties can see it they just blame different people depending on the side they're on.
Labour, Greens, Lib Dems - Blame Austerity and also Brexit but you're not allowed to criticise the latter as it doesn't win votes.
Tories - Denies any problems with the country but any problems are the foreigners coming over on boats fault.
Reform - Anyone who isn't Englishs fault, especially them Muslims. This includes the Welsh and Scottish, f*ck em!
-
It was in a state when they took office mainly due to the last Labour Government, and they will be dishing up old sour recipes like PFI! The other culprits you seem to have missed out are the Chinese who caused Covid,and VLAD Putins Russia whose war has caused issues all over Europe!
-
What country isn't in a state ? Answers please
In fact the whole world is in a state especially Germany and it is NEVER going to get any better !
-
It was in a state when they took office mainly due to the last Labour Government, and they will be dishing up old sour recipes like PFI! The other culprits you seem to have missed out are the Chinese who caused Covid,and VLAD Putins Russia whose war has caused issues all over Europe!
No it wasn't. Other than the effects of the Global financial crisis we were in a decent place as a country. Compare 2010 to 2019 (pre-covid) and the number of people needing food banks, people on NHS waiting list, etc have sky rocketed. Factual, not just opinions.
-
It was in a state when they took office mainly due to the last Labour Government, and they will be dishing up old sour recipes like PFI! The other culprits you seem to have missed out are the Chinese who caused Covid,and VLAD Putins Russia whose war has caused issues all over Europe!
No it wasn't. Other than the effects of the Global financial crisis we were in a decent place as a country. Compare 2010 to 2019 (pre-covid) and the number of people needing food banks, people on NHS waiting list, etc have sky rocketed. Factual, not just opinions.
[/quote
Foodbanks ? Like the bloke my lad went to see about an incident he had his entire arm covered in clingfilm
Had just spent £350 on a Tatoo,” sorry can’t help you I got to get to food bank before it shuts”
How many more are there taking the Pish! Taking food out of the mouths of the really needy.!
-
State of this.
https://x.com/Gilesyb/status/1807146033203540060
Jenrick, the bloke who fiddled the Towns Fund has some brass neck about him.
"Labour will transform us to a high immigration, low growth country."
You know that theory that sociopaths most criticise in others what they know are their own worst failings...
-
BEWARE OF LABOUR SUPERMAJORITY .............. we can still win
-
It was in a state when they took office mainly due to the last Labour Government, and they will be dishing up old sour recipes like PFI! The other culprits you seem to have missed out are the Chinese who caused Covid,and VLAD Putins Russia whose war has caused issues all over Europe!
oshit
-
''Boris Johnson takes swipe at Starmer and scorns Sunak in first campaign appearance
Ex-PM claims Labour will be ‘most leftwing government since the war’ at Tory election rally in National Army Museum''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/02/boris-johnson-makes-first-tory-election-campaign-appearance
Albie, can you speak to this?
-
''Boris Johnson takes swipe at Starmer and scorns Sunak in first campaign appearance
Ex-PM claims Labour will be ‘most leftwing government since the war’ at Tory election rally in National Army Museum''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/02/boris-johnson-makes-first-tory-election-campaign-appearance
Albie, can you speak to this?
You've started to take what Johnson says as fact now ?
Aye
-
Come on Syd, be true to type.
You know what a liar Johnson is.
Or are you doing what you did when Cummings became a turncoat, that is believing that he is telling the truth when what he says suits your cause.
-
''Boris Johnson takes swipe at Starmer and scorns Sunak in first campaign appearance
Ex-PM claims Labour will be ‘most leftwing government since the war’ at Tory election rally in National Army Museum''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/02/boris-johnson-makes-first-tory-election-campaign-appearance
Albie, can you speak to this?
You've started to take what Johnson says as fact now ?
Aye
Recognising fact would be a new string to your bow tyke?
-
New YouGov poll of why people are voting Labour is interesting;
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRjt-SLX0AA4BcP.jpg
It does suggest support is very broad, but also very shallow.
It won't take much to tip up the seesaw!
-
New YouGov poll of why people are voting Labour is interesting;
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRjt-SLX0AA4BcP.jpg
It does suggest support is very broad, but also very shallow.
It won't take much to tip up the seesaw!
You can live alone in deluded hope, albie.
-
Whatever the outcome tomorrow, at least we'll be seeing the back of an MP so dense that light bends around him.
Farewell John Redwood. Your final babbling in the Telegraph is a masterpiece. "Brexit is a great success". Over a picture of lorries queuing up to get through border checks at Dover. The bitter irony will not even register in your head.
Now f**k off.
-
Pies,
What is your point?
If you disagree with the YouGov poll, give reasons why.
-
Whatever the outcome tomorrow, at least we'll be seeing the back of an MP so dense that light bends around him.
Farewell John Redwood. Your final babbling in the Telegraph is a masterpiece. "Brexit is a great success". Over a picture of lorries queuing up to get through border checks at Dover. The bitter irony will not even register in your head.
Now f**k off.
Class comment! :lol:
-
State of this.
https://x.com/Gilesyb/status/1807146033203540060
Jenrick, the bloke who fiddled the Towns Fund has some brass neck about him.
"Labour will transform us to a high immigration, low growth country."
You know that theory that sociopaths most criticise in others what they know are their own worst failings...
He's dead right though.
-
What's the predictions for how well reform will do. I think it will be a pleasant surprise, more than the current predictions of between 5 and 10 million votes and between 5 and 10 seats.
-
State of this.
https://x.com/Gilesyb/status/1807146033203540060
Jenrick, the bloke who fiddled the Towns Fund has some brass neck about him.
"Labour will transform us to a high immigration, low growth country."
You know that theory that sociopaths most criticise in others what they know are their own worst failings...
He's dead right though.
Embarrassing to have to spell it out, but have you seen growth and immigration figures over the spell of this Government. HIS Government has done precisely what they say Labour will do!
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
-
Pies,
What is your point?
If you disagree with the YouGov poll, give reasons why.
From your constant whining since 2019 at anything and everything Starmer for a start. Then with less than 24 hours to polling day you quote a line which presents two parallel characteristics of a poll and can only bring yourself to comment on the bit that brings solace to your obsessive desire to see Starmer fail. You are one bitter individual.
-
Pies,
What is striking from the YouGov poll is the overwhelming urge to be rid of the Tories.
There is very weak support for Labour beyond that primary objective.
Once Labour win the GE tomorrow, that main reason is satisfied.
So after that, it is how much traction the Labour offer has as the government puts into practiice the manifesto.
Perfectly possible of course that Starmer junks the manifesto in short order...its job done.
It seems to me that a lack of enthusiasm for further cuts and privatisations will be a problem going forwards.
I think we will see within a year or so.
-
Just a thought, given that Labour's 1997 manifesto was very light on detail.
Do you think a major reason why Blair won in 1997 was that people were sick of the mess that the Tories were?
And hey! Here's a thought. Do you reckon in 2010, people voted for Cameron out of a joyous expectation that he was going to usher in the worst decade of growth and living standard improvements since Napoleon ruled Europe? Or do you think they might have been fed up with Labour?
And back in 1979, did people vote for Thatcher because she said she'd see to it that we had 21% inflation, then 4 million on the dole? Or do you think they might have been ready to see the back of Labour after the Winter of Discontent.
First rule of politics. Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them when people's patience with their inadequacies snap. The YG poll says nothing that wouldn't have been said most times a long-serving Govt is kicked out.
-
''Boris Johnson takes swipe at Starmer and scorns Sunak in first campaign appearance
Ex-PM claims Labour will be ‘most leftwing government since the war’ at Tory election rally in National Army Museum''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/02/boris-johnson-makes-first-tory-election-campaign-appearance
Albie, can you speak to this?
You've started to take what Johnson says as fact now ?
Aye
Recognising fact would be a new string to your bow tyke?
Here's a fact Sydney
Britain will not rejoin EU in my lifetime, says Starmer https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/03/britain-will-not-rejoin-eu-in-my-lifetime-says-starmer?CMP=share_btn_url
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
16 cabinet ministers projected to lose their seats in the latest Yougov poll, that is total wipeout
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
Your probably right about ten million tomorrow but I still detect you are underestimating Reform .
Word over here is they are going to win Barnsley South and if they are successful in that constituency they may well win more seats than they are projected to in other towns .
20 seats tomorrow is a huge alarm going off and I wouldn't say that was impossible .
The former industrial towns of the North and Midlands have aligned with safe Tory seats before and safe Tory seats can easily become Reform seats by 2029 .
We all know Labour are going to walk it tomorrow but it's going to be an interesting night none the less .
The Reform vote tomorrow will be interesting .
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
Your probably right about ten million tomorrow but I still detect you are underestimating Reform .
Word over here is they are going to win Barnsley South and if they are successful in that constituency they may well win more seats than they are projected to in other towns .
20 seats tomorrow is a huge alarm going off and I wouldn't say that was impossible .
The former industrial towns of the North and Midlands have aligned with safe Tory seats before and safe Tory seats can easily become Reform seats by 2029 .
We all know Labour are going to walk it tomorrow but it's going to be an interesting night none the less .
The Reform vote tomorrow will be interesting .
I entirely agree about the importance of the RefUK vote.
As I've been saying for months, there's a choice coming for the Tory party, and for mild Tory supporters if the party chucks its lot in with Farage after the Election.
-
But other than immigration they have no intelligent plans, the rest make the ordinary folk of the UK worse off.
That's no me saying their immigration policy is good, it's just the most obvious thing they stand for.
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
Your probably right about ten million tomorrow but I still detect you are underestimating Reform .
Word over here is they are going to win Barnsley South and if they are successful in that constituency they may well win more seats than they are projected to in other towns .
20 seats tomorrow is a huge alarm going off and I wouldn't say that was impossible .
The former industrial towns of the North and Midlands have aligned with safe Tory seats before and safe Tory seats can easily become Reform seats by 2029 .
We all know Labour are going to walk it tomorrow but it's going to be an interesting night none the less .
The Reform vote tomorrow will be interesting .
I entirely agree about the importance of the RefUK vote.
As I've been saying for months, there's a choice coming for the Tory party, and for mild Tory supporters if the party chucks its lot in with Farage after the Election.
My view is that there are enough right wing voters to win a GE , It's the Tory Party that's collapsed , the voters are still there .
What's not getting discussed either is that Farage is capable of getting voters who wouldn't normally vote ( disenfranchised ) to get out and vote because they feel they are voting for something rather than against .
This is what happened in the referendum and was probably the difference in the end .
People can call him anything they want but he's a sharp political operator and he's bloody good at what he does .
There's many metropolitan and progressive liberals who aren't going to like this but to keep Farage out Labour are going to have to take the steam out of his engine , not capitulate but let's say get on top of things .
Farage ain't going away for the next five years that I do know .
-
Just watched look. North and Igot the impression we might see one or 2 of Reform Candidates as MP’s Strange lot You would expect them to be Rabid Labour.
-
has anyone thought how they will hammer ciggies & drink . I reckon cigarettes will go up 10% let's see
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
Lest we forget you chewed the right one off when we won "BREXIT" :zzz:
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
Lest we forget you chewed the right one off when we won "BREXIT" :zzz:
Only Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Rishi Sunak and that ilk who bet against the country won Brexit. No one on this forum won that.
-
Just watched look. North and Igot the impression we might see one or 2 of Reform Candidates as MP’s Strange lot You would expect them to be Rabid Labour.
There's a significant difference between the two Barnsley constituencies and I can only really speak about the makeup over here .
I'd expect Dan Jarvis in Barnsley North to hold his seat but there's a bit more money kicking about in my constituency than in Barnsley South , not that I've any mind .
Wombwell , Darfield and Hoyland are pretty economically challenged areas in the South whilst Darton , Mapplewell and Staincross are pretty decent in the North .
Many in those villages commute to Leeds just up the M1 , I'm right on the border with Wakefield and my road leads to the M1 junction and sometimes I'm five to ten minutes just getting off the drive and that's at 6.30 AM because of the traffic .
-
has anyone thought how they will hammer ciggies & drink . I reckon cigarettes will go up 10% let's see
Not who I get them off they won't .
:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:
-
I disagree actually on reform. Any tory voters who are to the right will already be voting reform, the more central set of tory voters won't at all consider reform.
Bst is correct. The tories are at a crossroads (one Labour have just had actually). Do they go properly right and become unelectable or stick with more traditional Conservative policies. I suspect it will be the former and be a huge problem for them, people like Braverman aren't the answer.
Labour have an easy win simply because a lot of people will vote for them because they aren't the current government. If they can avoid factional fighting left vs centre they'll probably keep power for a long time, but if they can't deliver change as we saw after Boris Johnson majority it spells trouble.
I think there is an appetite for new parties and political reform. But it isn't the current reform at all, a more central party pushing government reform etc would be much more successful.
-
Your correct.
Its just a shame that when parties are fighting to become electable they produce policy that talks about electoral reform (as Labour did) but as soon as they become electable they quickly drop any notion of such a thing.
They all do it.
You could well see an emerging a new centre right party from the debris of Tory and Reform.
A new party without the baggage of these two would fill a void to the right of this current labour party, policy would be very similar but they should or would be prepared to implement rather than threaten and never actually achieve.
This Labour party are now the next taxi on the rank, it will be interesting to see if the have the vision and drive to implement what requires to be done, time will tell. If they don't then they could well be in the position the Tories are now occupying, in five years time.
-
DD ''Its just a shame that when parties are fighting to become electable they produce policy that talks about electoral reform (as Labour did) but as soon as they become electable they quickly drop any notion of such a thing''
They haven't totally dropped it, but as far as this election goes it's dead. This is why I say more should get involved in politics (from any party) to nullify the extremists and help make changes to improve the country in the long term.
-
To me, any party that did implement electoral reform whilst in power would in effect have a head start when it came to election time.
They could in all possibility make themselves unstoppable from being the leading force in any future coalition governments. It could ensure they then have a program of action for the next generation(25yrs) and the time to implement it.
This in my opinion would be far preferable to the short term thinking that we have suffered from for eons in this country.
The policies that this country desperately needs would require a timeframe similar to come to fruition.
-
To me, any party that did implement electoral reform whilst in power would in effect have a head start when it came to election time.
They could in all possibility make themselves unstoppable from being the leading force in any future coalition governments. It could ensure they then have a program of action for the next generation(25yrs) and the time to implement it.
This in my opinion would be far preferable to the short term thinking that we have suffered from for eons in this country.
The policies that this country desperately needs would require a timeframe similar to come to fruition.
14+ years should be long enough for any management group to get it together wouldn't you think?
-
To me, any party that did implement electoral reform whilst in power would in effect have a head start when it came to election time.
They could in all possibility make themselves unstoppable from being the leading force in any future coalition governments. It could ensure they then have a program of action for the next generation(25yrs) and the time to implement it.
This in my opinion would be far preferable to the short term thinking that we have suffered from for eons in this country.
The policies that this country desperately needs would require a timeframe similar to come to fruition.
14+ years should be long enough for any management group to get it together wouldn't you think?
Not if your formulating policy in 5 year cycles.
-
There should be some policies that only require maintenance once a course has been set. Such as railways.
Economics, the theories are known and should only require major adjustments in such times as the gfc.
A bloc such as the UK has enough of a turnover to be able to look after all its people and ensure they have a good education, food , shelter and healthcare. It's when extremists start running with stories that too many don't want to work etc. Some have to accept that at times there isn't enough work for everyone and look after those until such times that there is.
No country will never be perfect but politics should not suffer from the shopping trolley effect.
-
To me, any party that did implement electoral reform whilst in power would in effect have a head start when it came to election time.
They could in all possibility make themselves unstoppable from being the leading force in any future coalition governments. It could ensure they then have a program of action for the next generation(25yrs) and the time to implement it.
This in my opinion would be far preferable to the short term thinking that we have suffered from for eons in this country.
The policies that this country desperately needs would require a timeframe similar to come to fruition.
14+ years should be long enough for any management group to get it together wouldn't you think?
Not if your formulating policy in 5 year month cycles.
Fixed that for you.
The past 14 years, we've had:
5 PMs
7 Chancellors
8 Foreign Secretaries
7 Defence Secretaries
8 Health Secretaries
10 Business Secretaries
9 Work and Pensions Secretaries
10 Education Secretaries
7 Transport Secretaries
13 Culture Secretaries
16 Housing Secretaries
8 Northern Ireland Secretaries
7 Welsh Secretaries
5 Scottish Secretaries
11 Chief Secretaries to the Treasury
8 Attorney Generals
10 Environment Secretaries
10 Local Government Secretaries
Is it any wonder this lot have left the country so broken?
You need stability of policy in a Cabinet. This has looked more like speed dating than a proper Cabinet. Absolute shambles.
-
To me, any party that did implement electoral reform whilst in power would in effect have a head start when it came to election time.
They could in all possibility make themselves unstoppable from being the leading force in any future coalition governments. It could ensure they then have a program of action for the next generation(25yrs) and the time to implement it.
This in my opinion would be far preferable to the short term thinking that we have suffered from for eons in this country.
The policies that this country desperately needs would require a timeframe similar to come to fruition.
14+ years should be long enough for any management group to get it together wouldn't you think?
Not if your formulating policy in 5 year month cycles.
Fixed that for you.
The past 14 years, we've had:
5 PMs
7 Chancellors
8 Foreign Secretaries
7 Defence Secretaries
8 Health Secretaries
10 Business Secretaries
9 Work and Pensions Secretaries
10 Education Secretaries
7 Transport Secretaries
13 Culture Secretaries
16 Housing Secretaries
8 Northern Ireland Secretaries
7 Welsh Secretaries
5 Scottish Secretaries
11 Chief Secretaries to the Treasury
8 Attorney Generals
10 Environment Secretaries
10 Local Government Secretaries
And a partridge in a pear tree.!!!
-
Beat me to it!
-
I disagree actually on reform. Any tory voters who are to the right will already be voting reform, the more central set of tory voters won't at all consider reform.
Bst is correct. The tories are at a crossroads (one Labour have just had actually). Do they go properly right and become unelectable or stick with more traditional Conservative policies. I suspect it will be the former and be a huge problem for them, people like Braverman aren't the answer.
Labour have an easy win simply because a lot of people will vote for them because they aren't the current government. If they can avoid factional fighting left vs centre they'll probably keep power for a long time, but if they can't deliver change as we saw after Boris Johnson majority it spells trouble.
I think there is an appetite for new parties and political reform. But it isn't the current reform at all, a more central party pushing government reform etc would be much more successful.
The direction they turn will surely be down to who out of the current rabble left standing win their seat?
-
Does changing the boundaries for individual seats constitute "political reform".?
-
Not really no. I imagine we'll hear a lot from farage tomorrow on the disparity of vote share. For all Labour successes it appears they may get less vote share than the current government did and more seats, that is the system ultimately.
-
To me, any party that did implement electoral reform whilst in power would in effect have a head start when it came to election time.
They could in all possibility make themselves unstoppable from being the leading force in any future coalition governments. It could ensure they then have a program of action for the next generation(25yrs) and the time to implement it.
This in my opinion would be far preferable to the short term thinking that we have suffered from for eons in this country.
The policies that this country desperately needs would require a timeframe similar to come to fruition.
14+ years should be long enough for any management group to get it together wouldn't you think?
Not if your formulating policy in 5 year month cycles.
Fixed that for you.
The past 14 years, we've had:
5 PMs
7 Chancellors
8 Foreign Secretaries
7 Defence Secretaries
8 Health Secretaries
10 Business Secretaries
9 Work and Pensions Secretaries
10 Education Secretaries
7 Transport Secretaries
13 Culture Secretaries
16 Housing Secretaries
8 Northern Ireland Secretaries
7 Welsh Secretaries
5 Scottish Secretaries
11 Chief Secretaries to the Treasury
8 Attorney Generals
10 Environment Secretaries
10 Local Government Secretaries
And a partridge in a pear tree.!!!
On that note, Steve Coogan's "Gareth Cheeseman" character is often cited as a major reason for the sales failure of the Ford Probe in the UK. Partridge would absolutely be a Reform voter; if Coogan had played on this he could've dealt a blow to their campaign.
-
The real problem the Tories have now is they have a membership made up of insane libertarians who will put a lunatic culture warrior in to replace Sunak.
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
You really are in your leftist bubble aren't you ?
I've not met one person who's voting Labour, not one.
Most at my work are voting reform.
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
You really are in your leftist bubble aren't you ?
I've not met one person who's voting Labour, not one.
Most at my work are voting reform.
Maybe they're just telling you that so they don't have to continue talking to you...
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
You really are in your leftist bubble aren't you ?
I've not met one person who's voting Labour, not one.
Most at my work are voting reform.
I suspect that says a lot more about you that you realise.
-
I'm in a couple of telegram discussion groups relating to stock market invesment discussion and I was quite shocked and concerned to see that in poll launched last night, of the c.320 votes cast, Reform were polling well over 40%
Farage's city background must be resonating with these people more than I would have hoped.
-
I live in Thorne, near me are 2 Council properties proudly displaying Reform posters, make Britain great again . Genuinely interested in what they think he's going to do that's make their lives better. I'm fairly confident they don't know themselves bar the snake oil headlines
-
I'm in a couple of telegram discussion groups relating to stock market invesment discussion and I was quite shocked and concerned to see that in poll launched last night, of the c.320 votes cast, Reform were polling well over 40%
Farage's city background must be resonating with these people more than I would have hoped.
Telegram... a big red flag there!
-
I'm in a couple of telegram discussion groups relating to stock market invesment discussion and I was quite shocked and concerned to see that in poll launched last night, of the c.320 votes cast, Reform were polling well over 40%
Farage's city background must be resonating with these people more than I would have hoped.
Telegram... a big red flag there!
Thought that was Switzerland
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
You really are in your leftist bubble aren't you ?
I've not met one person who's voting Labour, not one.
Most at my work are voting reform.
I presume you work from home then?
-
I'm in a couple of telegram discussion groups relating to stock market invesment discussion and I was quite shocked and concerned to see that in poll launched last night, of the c.320 votes cast, Reform were polling well over 40%
Farage's city background must be resonating with these people more than I would have hoped.
Telegram... a big red flag there!
It's not a platform that I use a great deal but it's quite common in share/investment discussion circles.
-
If RefUK get more than ten million votes, I will chew my left bollock off.
You really are in your leftist bubble aren't you ?
I've not met one person who's voting Labour, not one.
Most at my work are voting reform.
I've not met you but if online counts, I did.
I live in Thorne, near me are 2 Council properties proudly displaying Reform posters, make Britain great again . Genuinely interested in what they think he's going to do that's make their lives better. I'm fairly confident they don't know themselves bar the snake oil headlines
Not much election stuff up round here, but reform is the most common for sure, mind we had a UKIP councillor here at one point so not too surprising.
-
Just had a long chat with a few colleagues, seems the general concensus is that everyone is voting for whoever they think has the best chance to beat Labour.
-
Well, that's it sorted then.
-
Just had a long chat with a few colleagues, seems the general concensus is that everyone is voting for whoever they think has the best chance to beat Labour.
Sounds a lot like a bubble that, doesn't it?
-
Allister Heath is the editor of the Sunday Telegraph.
If you see Alister this evening, please take extreme caution. He may spontaneously combust as the results start coming in.
-
Just had a long chat with a few colleagues, seems the general concensus is that everyone is voting for whoever they think has the best chance to beat Labour.
They're using pencil for voting at polling stations so make sure to take your crayon so they can't rub it out. Try not to eat it or stick it up your nose though.
-
Bit more from Alister.
-
Maybe our wannabe gangster works for the Telegraph?
Oh aye. And there's also this from him, about the KamiKwasi Budget that damn nearly tanked the economy.
-
Allister Heath is the editor of the Sunday Telegraph.
If you see Alister this evening, please take extreme caution. He may spontaneously combust as the results start coming in.
Heath may have a point BST.
I remember you posting that the Tories were so bad that after they lose this election they might be out of power for 25 years.
If that was to be the case then I’m not sure which other Party will have enough to challenge Labour.
(I might be wrong with the number of years but it was something along the lines of 25 years.)
-
Vote cast, now to sit and wait!
The polls predict a Labour landslide, but they've been wrong before eg in 1992. They're also predicting a Tory wipeout. Will Reform take many Tory voters? It's a bit like Labour & SDP in 1983; a split vote and Maggie romped home.
An old bloke who lives near me had been out canvassing for Labour today and told my mate that many people had said that they'd vote for Labour but as they're already going to win easily, what's the point? What affect with voter apathy have? Interesting. If you don't vote then you can't complain about the state of the country.
To be honest, it'll probably not make a huge amount of difference to me who's in power, but for the good of the nation as a whole I hope Labour get in. I think that they're the only ones who are able to sort out the country for the young 'uns.
I hope there's enough smart people in the country to ignore Farage and his racist rabble too. Despite asking 5 times on here, nobody has been able to tell me which policies/opinions they find most attractive from Reform! Anyway, I'm too old to start booting the fascists down the Old Kent Road again so hopefully we'll see them off at the ballot box.
I hope that the Tory Party get a kicking and become a moderate/centre ground party again. They do still have some talented people who've been drowned out by the right wing nutters.
Anyway, good health one and all & see you on the other side.
-
I wonder if this 100% genuine RefUK voter goes to the same local drink place as Soprano?
https://x.com/Srvpeople/status/1808855832236376422
-
Here's a thought since Leeanderthal defected to Reform will his pension and payoff be based on a basic MPs wage? That would be nice
-
Congrats to Kier Starmer and the team.
There has been some terrific 'debates' on here since johnson became PM (and before) and this result validates imho what I and others have said about the tories during this period.
For those unhappy with the result ........... suck it up, the UK deserves better.
-
oops Farage's mob is going to win Hartlepool
-
Interesting to note that the 4 results through so far are showing Reform are getting on average a few percent more than yougov MRP predictions, and Labour a couple less. Possibly in line with the exit polls.
-
and Jeremy is 6/1 on to win which will be the ONLY LABOUR LOSS :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying:
-
Dehenna Davison sheesh
Being handed their arse on a plate, going from an historic win to an historic loss in a single term -
'we've been in too long'
-
and Jeremy is 6/1 on to win which will be the ONLY LABOUR LOSS :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying:
Thangam Debbonaire in my constituency will lose to Carla Denyer.
-
Interesting to note that the 4 results through so far are showing Reform are getting on average a few percent more than yougov MRP predictions, and Labour a couple less. Possibly in line with the exit polls.
I'm thinking that at least partly, 2 to 4 in a hundred previously intentioned Labour voters chose reform in the last few days or even in the ballot box. Protest induced, or maybe bought by the Farage charisma?
-
and Jeremy is 6/1 on to win which will be the ONLY LABOUR LOSS :crying: :crying: :crying: :crying:
Thangam Debbonaire in my constituency will lose to Carla Denyer.
yep just said that result in 90 minutes
-
Jarvis comfortably holds his seat in Barnsley. Reform won't be getting those 13 seats it seems.
-
Jarvis comfortably holds his seat in Barnsley. Reform won't be getting those 13 seats it seems.
they looked a rough lot at Barnsley North
-
Definitely not as much fun without the 'they're all the same' bunch 'live' on the forum.
-
oops Farage's mob is going to win Hartlepool
hmmm
-
My prediction for Reform pre-exit poll was 3 seats. I still think I'll be closer than the exit poll.
-
Definitely not as much fun without the 'they're all the same' bunch 'live' on the forum.
Are you sayng the revolution has begun?
-
Definitely not as much fun without the 'they're all the same' bunch 'live' on the forum.
Are you sayng the revolution has begun?
Nope, if labour repair all the damage in one term (hint they won't) we'll still hear the same chorus.
-
Shapps gone ............. woo hooo
-
Thumping win for Corbyn
-
My prediction for Reform pre-exit poll was 3 seats. I still think I'll be closer than the exit poll.
Over 4 million votes for reform. Considerably more than the Lib Dem’s. 14.3% of the overall vote.
-
My prediction for Reform pre-exit poll was 3 seats. I still think I'll be closer than the exit poll.
Over 4 million votes for reform. Considerably more than the Lib Dem’s. 14.3% of the overall vote.
Cue years of campaigning from him on changing the voting system. I think this election adds a bit of weight to the argument for reform and the greens, but there's no easy system is there?
-
What's the predictions for how well reform will do. I think it will be a pleasant surprise, more than the current predictions of between 5 and 10 million votes and between 5 and 10 seats.
Doesn't look like that's gonna happen Tony mate.
-
Absolutely shocked that here in Cornwall, which is Tory through and through, has now not one Tory MP.
-
Labour looking like they've won with less votes than in 2019. Tories with about half of what they got in 2019.
-
SNP in the mud. Love to see it
-
What's the predictions for how well reform will do. I think it will be a pleasant surprise, more than the current predictions of between 5 and 10 million votes and between 5 and 10 seats.
Doesn't look like that's gonna happen Tony mate.
Look much closer at the results. Have a look at some humberside seats, and many in Lincolnshire. Reform have stripped thousands of votes from the tories in many constituencies.
Look at the 2 Barnsley seats.
The seats in and around Stoke.
Newcastle and the north east.
In fact much of the red wall.
The tories are finished, and probably for many years.
But Let’s see what happens after this labour govt. because if they are perceived to have f**ked things up, like the tories have, in a few years time, then uk politics will be in for big reform. Because there is now a third movement patiently waiting in the wings. Who have come from literally no where to get the third biggest overall vote.
-
jees nr labour haven't been sworn in yet
-
jees nr labour haven't been sworn in yet
And for the record I wish them luck. They are going to need it. I am not a labour voter but I want this country to succeed and prosper.
I think I can see what going to unfold over the next few years though.
My advice to starmer is get a grip of the boat situation. Number one priority.
You will then garner support from the populist movement that is gaining traction across the country. Fail to do so. And you will fail, no matter what else you achieve.
Love or loathe farage he has the ability to tap into the minds of people in this country. He knows what people want to hear and want to see happen. This has been the immigration election. And labours term in office will be judged on their ability to tackle it more than anything else.
-
And for the record again, I (and probably others) would have preferred the tories to run the country better, nobody in their right mind wanted what they did.
-
We have to remember that people vote tactically in certain seats. Vote share % isn’t necessarily a more accurate representation of how popular certain parties are compared to seats won.
Brilliant result for the Lib Dems, which I think is being overlooked on here.
-
jees nr labour haven't been sworn in yet
And for the record I wish them luck. They are going to need it. I am not a labour voter but I want this country to succeed and prosper.
I think I can see what going to unfold over the next few years though.
My advice to starmer is get a grip of the boat situation. Number one priority.
You will then garner support from the populist movement that is gaining traction across the country. Fail to do so. And you will fail, no matter what else you achieve.
Love or loathe farage he has the ability to tap into the minds of people in this country. He knows what people want to hear and want to see happen. This has been the immigration election. And labours term in office will be judged on their ability to tackle it more than anything else.
Not for me, couldn’t disagree more.
It’s about getting a stronger economy, so that everything else that needs to be done, is affordable - including fixing the “boats” issue.
-
Very True
A lot of seats that Lib dem won were not contested at all by Labour, as was the case here in North Cornwall. So Lib dem got my vote. I would say a large % of lib dem voters were tactical so hard to gauge what would have been the Labour vote share if that had not been the case. I saw on some of the stats that in held labour seats, labour lost a lot of votes to Reform, so it's not all one way.
We have to remember that people vote tactically in certain seats. Vote share % isn’t necessarily an accurate idea of how popular certain parties are.
Brilliant result for the Lib Dems, which I think is being overlooked on here.
-
We have to remember that people vote tactically in certain seats. Vote share % isn’t necessarily a more accurate representation of how popular certain parties are compared to seats won.
Brilliant result for the Lib Dems, which I think is being overlooked on here.
The Lib Dems have played a blinder, less votes than reform yet 15 times the seat number is incredible.
Never did I expect to see a huge majority on less than 34% vote share. Farage will have a field day with this. A lot of labour voters wanted PR etc in tory governments, one assumes that has changed this morning. I think the changing face of UK politics means change on voting is closer (but not likely).
-
Did anyone else see Robert Buckland (Con) speak after losing his seat last night (Swindon) - one of the first to declare a result.
I don't know much of the man, but from how he spoke, and also how his victorious Labour opponent spoke of him, he came across as a genuine passionate man dedicated to serving his constituents and therefore his country. He seems to have integrity in spades, far more than most of the headlining Tories we have seen in recent months/years.
Had they had more of his ilk in leading positions in recent times, they would probably still be in government today.
-
Pretty sure he voted against same sex marriage more than a few times.
Did anyone else see Robert Buckland (Con) speak after losing his seat last night (Swindon) - one of the first to declare a result.
I don't know much of the man, but from how he spoke, and also how his victorious Labour opponent spoke of him, he came across as a genuine passionate man dedicated to serving his constituents and therefore his country. He seems to have integrity in spades, far more than most of the headlining Tories we have seen in recent months/years.
Had they had more of his ilk in leading positions in recent times, they would probably still be in government today.
-
I really can't stand our political voting system. Greens get 2 million votes only 4 seats, Reform get double that only 4 seats, Lib Dems 3.5 million ... 71 seats.
-
As a Lib Dem member I'm absolutely delighted with the number of seats we've gained. I also wholeheartedly agree that percentage of the vote isn't an accurate yardstick to measure the "will of the people." The election was fought with a full and focused understanding of how the electoral system currently works. For example there was a huge push from the Leeds Lib Dems to support the campaign in Harrogate and Knaresborough with very little focus on seats in Leeds. It worked and we returned a thumping majority in what had been a Tory stronghold. I, on the other hand wanted to see the back of Andrea Jenkyns in my constituency so I contributed to a big win for Labour. I know many, many Lib Dem supporters will have made similar decisions so our vote share across the board will have been significantly depressed in favour of picking up votes where they really counted.
In the interest of democracy I would still be in favour of electoral reform whether that's AV or PR, both have their merits in terms of delivering the government that most people would find acceptable/most representative/least controversial.
What the LD's have done here is build a strong platform to influence voting in the HoC and hold the two bigger parties to account with one eye on building form this base to credibly challenge for the official opposition spot at the next GE. It's absolutely VITAL that the parliamentary party are seen to be absolutely beyond reproach in terms of standing by the manifesto promises and fighting for the issues on which the seats were gained. Any hint whatsoever of hypocrisy or duplicity would be ruinous at a time when the party and its membership has worked so hard to put the disaster that was Nick Clegg firmly in the history books.
-
Pretty sure he voted against same sex marriage more than a few times.
Did anyone else see Robert Buckland (Con) speak after losing his seat last night (Swindon) - one of the first to declare a result.
I don't know much of the man, but from how he spoke, and also how his victorious Labour opponent spoke of him, he came across as a genuine passionate man dedicated to serving his constituents and therefore his country. He seems to have integrity in spades, far more than most of the headlining Tories we have seen in recent months/years.
Had they had more of his ilk in leading positions in recent times, they would probably still be in government today.
Are you saying that it's not possible for someone to be passionate, dedicated and possess integrity if their views don't align with yours then?
-
I really can't stand our political voting system. Greens get 2 million votes only 4 seats, Reform get double that only 4 seats, Lib Dems 3.5 million ... 71 seats.
I'm in favour of PR but there's difficulties implementing it. If (notionally) Labour won 60% of the seats individually, but with only 40% of the total votes, then only 2/3 of those seats would end up with a Labour MP. That's not fair on the remaining third.?
I've an idea. Vote in constituencies as now, but use PR to work out how power is shared in Parliament.
Say for example, Labour wins 60% seats with 40% of the vote, then each Labour MP's parliamentary vote is worth 2/3 of a vote.
Say Greens have 1% of seats with 10% of the vote, each MP has a vote worth 10 votes.
Lib Dems have 10% seats with 10% votes, MPs vote =1 each, etc etc for each party.
This means each constituency has an MP it voted for, who can speak out in Parliament and represent his/her constituents as now.
Of course, unless a party won 50% or more of the vote, it would be more difficult to pass their laws, so there wold need to be more reasoned debate, flexibility, and compromise in Parliament. Or alliances formed with other parties - either temporary for each issue, or formally as in a coalition. In the case of the latter you get some ministers from a minority party.
This would give the likes of the Greens much more of a say in government policy, and the majority party would need to accommodate the others' views to a greater extent they do now.
Complicated, yes. Workable, I dunno, but surely fairer than what we have now?
And voting should be compulsory.
-
Pretty sure he voted against same sex marriage more than a few times.
Did anyone else see Robert Buckland (Con) speak after losing his seat last night (Swindon) - one of the first to declare a result.
I don't know much of the man, but from how he spoke, and also how his victorious Labour opponent spoke of him, he came across as a genuine passionate man dedicated to serving his constituents and therefore his country. He seems to have integrity in spades, far more than most of the headlining Tories we have seen in recent months/years.
Had they had more of his ilk in leading positions in recent times, they would probably still be in government today.
You don't have to agree with a person's opinions and beliefs to accept that they are genuine in what they believe in, and that they act with integrity. There's often a lot of respect and even friendship between MPs of differing parties, despite their political differences.
-
I'm torn on compulsory voting. While I think that universal suffrage is a hard-won privilege, forcing people to vote by law could skew the political process unfavourably. To a degree, those who vote now do so because they have taken an interest and should know broadly what they're voting for. If you made everyone vote you'd end up with a lot of votes being cast for very spurious reasons.
I know two people in my extended family who aren't the most active voters but have shared opinions along the lines of:
Person 1:
- They should never have got rid of Boris, at least he had a bit of personality.
Person 2:
- I voted for David Cameron (she didn't; she voted for the Tory MP in her constituency) because he's dishy so if I have to see someone on the TV all the time I'd rather it be him than that scruffy Corbyn bloke.
- Rishi is the right man for the job. He's so rich that he's obviously not in it for the money, he must really care about people.
-
Pretty sure he voted against same sex marriage more than a few times.
Did anyone else see Robert Buckland (Con) speak after losing his seat last night (Swindon) - one of the first to declare a result.
I don't know much of the man, but from how he spoke, and also how his victorious Labour opponent spoke of him, he came across as a genuine passionate man dedicated to serving his constituents and therefore his country. He seems to have integrity in spades, far more than most of the headlining Tories we have seen in recent months/years.
Had they had more of his ilk in leading positions in recent times, they would probably still be in government today.
You don't have to agree with a person's opinions and beliefs to accept that they are genuine in what they believe in, and that they act with integrity. There's often a lot of respect and even friendship between MPs of differing parties, despite their political differences.
This in spades. I believe a great many people (including many on here) have completely lost sight of this.
In effect a great many MP's have not acted with integrity and respect and have had their due desserts handed to them on a plate. You have to feel for the ones who have lost their seat due to the pathetic and disgraceful attitude of some leading members from their party. This includes MP's from all parties.
With Labour now in power the spotlight will be turned up to max on their members, it will be interesting to see what happens because if Starmer has been forthright on anything its his adherence to demonstrating a respectful figure in public and demanding it from his members. If things go well , especially right from the start it would stand Labour in good stead for later when some issues may arise.
It would be great to see an end to the "celebrity culture crap" from certain quarters, aided and abetted by a voracious press. We just want our legislators to get on with a massive job, keep their heads down and let their policy's and actions do their talking, that's probably asking for a great deal but if they can keep this in mind we stand a better chance of progress.
Lets see some decisive and transformative action, that this country has long been waiting for.
-
Did anyone else see Robert Buckland (Con) speak after losing his seat last night (Swindon) - one of the first to declare a result.
I don't know much of the man, but from how he spoke, and also how his victorious Labour opponent spoke of him, he came across as a genuine passionate man dedicated to serving his constituents and therefore his country. He seems to have integrity in spades, far more than most of the headlining Tories we have seen in recent months/years.
Had they had more of his ilk in leading positions in recent times, they would probably still be in government today.
Yes I saw that IDM, and it struck me the same way it did you.
I was very impressed by Robert Buckland and the incoming Labour candidate Heidi Alexander. He was gracious in defeat and she was humble in victory.
If only poiltics could be done like this.
-
Did anyone else see Robert Buckland (Con) speak after losing his seat last night (Swindon) - one of the first to declare a result.
I don't know much of the man, but from how he spoke, and also how his victorious Labour opponent spoke of him, he came across as a genuine passionate man dedicated to serving his constituents and therefore his country. He seems to have integrity in spades, far more than most of the headlining Tories we have seen in recent months/years.
Had they had more of his ilk in leading positions in recent times, they would probably still be in government today.
Yes I saw that IDM, and it struck me the same way it did you.
I was very impressed by Robert Buckland and the incoming Labour candidate Heidi Alexander. He was gracious in defeat and she was humble in victory.
If only poiltics could be done like this.
His fingerprints are all over the damage the Tories caused to the justice system. Good speech but good riddance.
-
Did anyone else see Robert Buckland (Con) speak after losing his seat last night (Swindon) - one of the first to declare a result.
I don't know much of the man, but from how he spoke, and also how his victorious Labour opponent spoke of him, he came across as a genuine passionate man dedicated to serving his constituents and therefore his country. He seems to have integrity in spades, far more than most of the headlining Tories we have seen in recent months/years.
Had they had more of his ilk in leading positions in recent times, they would probably still be in government today.
Yes I saw that IDM, and it struck me the same way it did you.
I was very impressed by Robert Buckland and the incoming Labour candidate Heidi Alexander. He was gracious in defeat and she was humble in victory.
If only poiltics could be done like this.
His fingerprints are all over the damage the Tories caused to the justice system. Good speech but good riddance.
If he was that bad, why was his opponent so magnanimous in her victory speech.? She could have only praised her own team, and damned him with silence.
-
Good speech from Starmer, to be fair. Let's hope he can back it up.
-
Hopefully today is the end of culture wars, we can be more tolerant to people. We'll hopefully be more cooperative and respectful to other nations.
-
Hopefully today is the end of culture wars, we can be more tolerant to people. We'll hopefully be more cooperative and respectful to other nations.
I think we'll have a Govt that fits that bill.
But if you reckon the Right are going to give up on Culture War and Little England stuff, good luck with that.
-
Anyway, the stars are now aligned.
You know that England have only ever won a tournament under a Labour Govt...
-
I really can't stand our political voting system. Greens get 2 million votes only 4 seats, Reform get double that only 4 seats, Lib Dems 3.5 million ... 71 seats.
I'm in favour of PR but there's difficulties implementing it. If (notionally) Labour won 60% of the seats individually, but with only 40% of the total votes, then only 2/3 of those seats would end up with a Labour MP. That's not fair on the remaining third.?
I've an idea. Vote in constituencies as now, but use PR to work out how power is shared in Parliament.
Say for example, Labour wins 60% seats with 40% of the vote, then each Labour MP's parliamentary vote is worth 2/3 of a vote.
Say Greens have 1% of seats with 10% of the vote, each MP has a vote worth 10 votes.
Lib Dems have 10% seats with 10% votes, MPs vote =1 each, etc etc for each party.
This means each constituency has an MP it voted for, who can speak out in Parliament and represent his/her constituents as now.
Of course, unless a party won 50% or more of the vote, it would be more difficult to pass their laws, so there wold need to be more reasoned debate, flexibility, and compromise in Parliament. Or alliances formed with other parties - either temporary for each issue, or formally as in a coalition. In the case of the latter you get some ministers from a minority party.
This would give the likes of the Greens much more of a say in government policy, and the majority party would need to accommodate the others' views to a greater extent they do now.
Complicated, yes. Workable, I dunno, but surely fairer than what we have now?
And voting should be compulsory.
I like it!
Voting compulsory if contains a "non of the above" section, and if the recent voter id rules are removed.
-
Hopefully today is the end of culture wars, we can be more tolerant to people. We'll hopefully be more cooperative and respectful to other nations.
Just not Palestine, who shall remain a non nation. .
-
''Voting compulsory if contains a "non of the above" section, and if the recent voter id rules are removed''
Don't take a pencil
-
I really can't stand our political voting system. Greens get 2 million votes only 4 seats, Reform get double that only 4 seats, Lib Dems 3.5 million ... 71 seats.
How can that be right.
-
I really can't stand our political voting system. Greens get 2 million votes only 4 seats, Reform get double that only 4 seats, Lib Dems 3.5 million ... 71 seats.
How can that be right.
Labour got 65% of the seats on a vote share of 34%.
34% of an overall turnout of 60%
9.7m out of 28.7m who voted.
-
Very True
A lot of seats that Lib dem won were not contested at all by Labour, as was the case here in North Cornwall. So Lib dem got my vote. I would say a large % of lib dem voters were tactical so hard to gauge what would have been the Labour vote share if that had not been the case. I saw on some of the stats that in held labour seats, labour lost a lot of votes to Reform, so it's not all one way.
We have to remember that people vote tactically in certain seats. Vote share % isn’t necessarily an accurate idea of how popular certain parties are.
Brilliant result for the Lib Dems, which I think is being overlooked on here.
I'm not sure what you mean Keith.
I'm in the North Cornwall constituency and I'm certain we had a labour candidate to vote for.
-
I was in your neck of the woods last week and thought I'd see a few Labour posters. Just checked. Robyn Harris got 2958 votes.
-
What a bizarre thing to say after your party has had a historic defeat.
https://x.com/andreww1967/status/1809067850461483428
Jenrick is one to keep an eye on. He's determined to take the Tory party even further to the right. This "silent majority" b*llocks is a dog whistle. The "I know what you really believe but don't feel you can say" dangerous shite.
-
Labour's vote share in 2024 is 33.8% (9,712,011), turnout 59.9%
2019 it was 32.1% (10,269,051), turnout 67.3%
2017 it was 40.0% (12,877,918), turnout 68.8%
Then for interest:
2015 it was 30.4% (9,347,324), turnout 66.4%
2010 it was 29.0% (8,609,517), turnout 65.1%
2005 it was 35.2% (9,552,376), turnout 61.4%
2001 it was 40.7% (10,724,953), turnout 59.4%
1997 it was 43.2% (13,518,167), turnout 71.3%
This tells a lot of stories, though does omit the significant 2019 backstabbing.
-
I was in your neck of the woods last week and thought I'd see a few Labour posters. Just checked. Robyn Harris got 2958 votes.
Congratulations Mike on an incredible result last night.
I was aghast at the Exit Poll predictions but you actually did even better than that!
Credit to your leader who played a brilliant campaign and appears to be a very decent human being.
-
Thanks, I really hope the party can resign the whole Clegg debacle to the history books and build a home for the sensible and caring centre-left to give a real credible alternative to the increasingly right-wing positions of the other big parties.
-
Lib Dem’s 600000 less votes than reform yet 67 more seats.
I accept the fptp system now because it’s what we have. I get it.
But it has to change surely if we are to have representative government.
14% of the vote yet just 0.77 % of seats? Has there ever been such a huge disparity? In 1983 the Lib Dem’s got 25% of the vote for just 3 % of seats.
Which pales Into relative insignificance compared to today.
-
Lib Dem’s 600000 less votes than reform yet 67 more seats.
I accept the fptp system now because it’s what we have. I get it.
But it has to change surely if we are to have representative government.
14% of the vote yet just 0.77 % of seats? Has there ever been such a huge disparity? In 1983 the Lib Dem’s got 25% of the vote for just 3 % of seats.
Which pales Into relative insignificance compared to today.
But do we want a representative government or a strong government that can get things done. Imagine pr and what the make up of parliament would be. How do things get done?
-
Lib Dem’s 600000 less votes than reform yet 67 more seats.
I accept the fptp system now because it’s what we have. I get it.
But it has to change surely if we are to have representative government.
14% of the vote yet just 0.77 % of seats? Has there ever been such a huge disparity? In 1983 the Lib Dem’s got 25% of the vote for just 3 % of seats.
Which pales Into relative insignificance compared to today.
The thing with this is, Reform is still a minority view.
The Lib Dems can command wide support amongst some communities. Reform doesn't often do that yet.
So I'm conflicted about whether or not FPTP is good or not. PR seems to produce more centrist government but more division and difficult negotiation.
I'm begining to think our contrived system has it's merits.
Generally though I am a centrist and I don't like a system that allows extreme views to take hold. I like political power to be limited.
If you look at Germany after the war, the political system we set up for them, has served them pretty well
-
I know Billy will be trying to find the end of the queue for the new Labour handouts, but due to their majority it’s gonna be one hell of a long Queue!
Rachel Reeves being honest on BBC News, not a lot of money about, they are hoping to attract Private investment and are looking to modernise the Public planning sector, there was a magazine article a few weeks ago which listed several dozen big and expensive Planning applications made by private investors and they where knocked back by a whole plethora or negative responses from local councils! Some of them were very bizarre!
-
I know Billy will be trying to find the end of the queue for the new Labour handouts, but due to their majority it’s gonna be one hell of a long Queue!
There's a special on for sour grapes down at the markets and the queue is fairly short, snot,
-
I’ve had a busy few days so this morning I’ve had a quick scan through the election news.
A quick skim read through off topic has been done and unless I missed it, is it right that Labour won with the lowest vote share by a single party since WW2, according the the respected political analyst Sir John Cutice.
Also that a 34% vote share won them 63% of the seats.
Looking at his comments below seem to indicate that we need to review our voting system:
“General election results 2024 so far
Share of the UK vote and share of seats in Parliament, with one seat to come
Two bar charts show the percentage share of the vote and the percentage of seats won in Parliament.
Labour so far have about 34% of the vote, but nearly two-thirds of seats.
The Conservatives have nearly a quarter of the vote but just under a fifth of seats.
Reform UK has just 1% of seats but has 14% of the vote share.”
Not to mention the LibDems of course.
I’m a political novice in truth so can anyone explain to me how it could or should be improved to give a fairer outcome.
Surely the above isn’t fair, and a change might encourage more people to vote.
-
I’ve had a busy few days so this morning I’ve had a quick scan through the election news.
A quick skim read through off topic has been done and unless I missed it, is it right that Labour won with the lowest vote share by a single party since WW2, according the the respected political analyst Sir John Cutice.
Also that a 34% vote share won them 63% of the seats.
Looking at his comments below seem to indicate that we need to review our voting system:
“General election results 2024 so far
Share of the UK vote and share of seats in Parliament, with one seat to come
Two bar charts show the percentage share of the vote and the percentage of seats won in Parliament.
Labour so far have about 34% of the vote, but nearly two-thirds of seats.
The Conservatives have nearly a quarter of the vote but just under a fifth of seats.
Reform UK has just 1% of seats but has 14% of the vote share.”
Not to mention the LibDems of course.
I’m a political novice in truth so can anyone explain to me how it could or should be improved to give a fairer outcome.
Surely the above isn’t fair, and a change might encourage more people to vote.
People on the left have been calling for PR for years on here which would address this issue. It's only become a big issue now after Reform got done over by FPTP.
-
I’ve had a busy few days so this morning I’ve had a quick scan through the election news.
A quick skim read through off topic has been done and unless I missed it, is it right that Labour won with the lowest vote share by a single party since WW2, according the the respected political analyst Sir John Cutice.
Also that a 34% vote share won them 63% of the seats.
Looking at his comments below seem to indicate that we need to review our voting system:
“General election results 2024 so far
Share of the UK vote and share of seats in Parliament, with one seat to come
Two bar charts show the percentage share of the vote and the percentage of seats won in Parliament.
Labour so far have about 34% of the vote, but nearly two-thirds of seats.
The Conservatives have nearly a quarter of the vote but just under a fifth of seats.
Reform UK has just 1% of seats but has 14% of the vote share.”
Not to mention the LibDems of course.
I’m a political novice in truth so can anyone explain to me how it could or should be improved to give a fairer outcome.
Surely the above isn’t fair, and a change might encourage more people to vote.
People on the left have been calling for PR for years on here which would address this issue. It's only become a big issue now after Reform got done over by FPTP.
If I heard correctly, John Curtice on the news this morning mentioned that Labour were in favour of PR in 2011 but he thinks that they are unlikely to persue that stance now.
-
I’ve had a busy few days so this morning I’ve had a quick scan through the election news.
A quick skim read through off topic has been done and unless I missed it, is it right that Labour won with the lowest vote share by a single party since WW2, according the the respected political analyst Sir John Cutice.
Also that a 34% vote share won them 63% of the seats.
Looking at his comments below seem to indicate that we need to review our voting system:
“General election results 2024 so far
Share of the UK vote and share of seats in Parliament, with one seat to come
Two bar charts show the percentage share of the vote and the percentage of seats won in Parliament.
Labour so far have about 34% of the vote, but nearly two-thirds of seats.
The Conservatives have nearly a quarter of the vote but just under a fifth of seats.
Reform UK has just 1% of seats but has 14% of the vote share.”
Not to mention the LibDems of course.
I’m a political novice in truth so can anyone explain to me how it could or should be improved to give a fairer outcome.
Surely the above isn’t fair, and a change might encourage more people to vote.
People on the left have been calling for PR for years on here which would address this issue. It's only become a big issue now after Reform got done over by FPTP.
If I heard correctly, John Curtice on the news this morning mentioned that Labour were in favour of PR in 2011 but he thinks that they are unlikely to persue that stance now.
Get over it, you won you dirty Labour voter!
-
I’ve had a busy few days so this morning I’ve had a quick scan through the election news.
A quick skim read through off topic has been done and unless I missed it, is it right that Labour won with the lowest vote share by a single party since WW2, according the the respected political analyst Sir John Cutice.
Also that a 34% vote share won them 63% of the seats.
Looking at his comments below seem to indicate that we need to review our voting system:
“General election results 2024 so far
Share of the UK vote and share of seats in Parliament, with one seat to come
Two bar charts show the percentage share of the vote and the percentage of seats won in Parliament.
Labour so far have about 34% of the vote, but nearly two-thirds of seats.
The Conservatives have nearly a quarter of the vote but just under a fifth of seats.
Reform UK has just 1% of seats but has 14% of the vote share.”
Not to mention the LibDems of course.
I’m a political novice in truth so can anyone explain to me how it could or should be improved to give a fairer outcome.
Surely the above isn’t fair, and a change might encourage more people to vote.
People on the left have been calling for PR for years on here which would address this issue. It's only become a big issue now after Reform got done over by FPTP.
If I heard correctly, John Curtice on the news this morning mentioned that Labour were in favour of PR in 2011 but he thinks that they are unlikely to persue that stance now.
Get over it, you won you dirty Labour voter!
No need for that pies.
Uncalled for.
For the record, I voted for Lee Pitcher who I have had conversations with when he took interest in a local community group that I am part of.
Have you any comment on the questions I asked?
-
I think people are overplaying the % vote v seats thing. There was some kind of ‘election expert’ on the wireless yesterday who explained Labours tactic. Basically they concentrated their efforts on Tory seats that they knew they could win and less effort on safer seats. Consequently they were willing to take a hit on vote numbers in safer seats to win the extra seats needed to win a majority.
Plus they had to turn around a huge Tory majority which seems to be forgotten by some.
It’s a remarkable and very smart result.
-
Hound
Labours vote share was low because there was an unprecedented share of the vote for smaller parties, particularly Reform Ltd Co.
The reform vote obviously contributed to the landslide.
PR would produce a very different set of results. Whether this would be a good thing is open to debate.
I sincerely hope that this was a flash in the pan and Farage and his ilk disappear back into the swamp they came from.
I’ve met Lee Pitcher several times, a nicer bloke you’d be hard pressed to meet,he will make a great MP for your constituency.
-
Hound
Labours vote share was low because there was an unprecedented share of the vote for smaller parties, particularly Reform Ltd Co.
The reform vote obviously contributed to the landslide.
I sincerely hope that this was a flash in the pan and Farage and his ilk disappear back into the swamp they came from.
I’ve met Lee Pitcher several times, a nicer bloke you’d be hard pressed to meet,he will make a great MP for your constituency.
It was also down to tactical canvassing by Labour apparently. Very nuanced approach.
As for Lee Pitcher, apparently he worked out in East Yorkshire for a while where a mate of mine met him. A very nice and smart bloke by all accounts.
-
Don't be so touchy, Hound, it was meant only as a light hearted prod.
-
Don't be so touchy, Hound, it was meant only as a light hearted prod.
In that case pies, I will forgive you.
I am just so used to getting aggressive responses from some posters.
Thinking about that, because I voted for a Labour candidate this time that might change. :whistle:
-
I think people are overplaying the % vote v seats thing. There was some kind of ‘election expert’ on the wireless yesterday who explained Labours tactic. Basically they concentrated their efforts on Tory seats that they knew they could win and less effort on safer seats. Consequently they were willing to take a hit on vote numbers in safer seats to win the extra seats needed to win a majority.
Plus they had to turn around a huge Tory majority which seems to be forgotten by some.
It’s a remarkable and very smart result.
Agreed HA, we didn’t do any canvassing in our constituency for a couple of days, no knocking up on election day even. Our MP and helpers went to Hemel Hempstead to help there.
-
But far from a stunning vote, even in an election where the opposition were that bad. Worse than Corbyn's first one, and then marginally better than the following backstabbing one. There needs to be significant moves from Starmer to get people on board, there is little support as a cushion.
-
We had one to vote for but labour were certainly not wanting to win the seat. The last labour candidate from 2019 who I voted for actually backed the Lib Dem candidate this election, that finally got rid of Scott Mann.
We had 7 letters/leaflets put through our door by the lib dems. We had one from the cons, and that delivered by mistake as was addressed to another house. Nothing from anyone else. It's clear the lib Dems were gunning for this area and labour were hardly ever going to land a blow.
Very True
A lot of seats that Lib dem won were not contested at all by Labour, as was the case here in North Cornwall. So Lib dem got my vote. I would say a large % of lib dem voters were tactical so hard to gauge what would have been the Labour vote share if that had not been the case. I saw on some of the stats that in held labour seats, labour lost a lot of votes to Reform, so it's not all one way.
We have to remember that people vote tactically in certain seats. Vote share % isn’t necessarily an accurate idea of how popular certain parties are.
Brilliant result for the Lib Dems, which I think is being overlooked on here.
I'm not sure what you mean Keith.
I'm in the North Cornwall constituency and I'm certain we had a labour candidate to vote for.
-
Did anyone watch the BBC coverage on election night. Clive Myree was so out of his depth, started off trying to be clued up, then confused until he decided to try to be a comedian. Hopeless.
He even made the sour faced Tory apologist Kuennsberg look competent.
-
Did anyone watch the BBC coverage on election night. Clive Myree was so out of his depth, started off trying to be clued up, then confused until he decided to try to be a comedian. Hopeless.
He even made the sour faced Tory apologist Kuennsberg look competent.
They were both absolutely dreadful.
They are the perfect examples of political journalists who have only a superficial knowledge of political facts, theory and history. They play it as light entertainment.
Then you wonder why we get shit politicians. Imagine being a serious political thinker who has to deal with these lightweight but influential w**kers.
-
Did anyone watch the BBC coverage on election night. Clive Myree was so out of his depth, started off trying to be clued up, then confused until he decided to try to be a comedian. Hopeless.
He even made the sour faced Tory apologist Kuennsberg look competent.
I reckon it's out-of-their-depth politicians you should be more worried about, than the presenters.
Besides, why would you watch such a 'Right-wing biased' channel in the first place?
-
Can’t resist it can you BB?
-
Can’t resist it can you BB?
No
-
One of the predictions was that Duncan Smith had a 99% chance of losing his seat - I think that the BBC who said that
-
The national swing to Labour from the Tories was 10.8%.
The swing in Doncaster East was around 14.5%. If it had been 10.8% then Fletcher would have held on.
So it appears that the mass canvassing support from Doncaster Central (me included) had a successful outcome.
If I don’t do owt else in the rest of me sad life I can take comfort that I helped to get that person out of office.
The word is however, that he’s going to stand against Ros Jones in the next Mayoral election.
So more work to do then.
-
One of the predictions was that Duncan Smith had a 99% chance of losing his seat - I think that the BBC who said that
IDS has only kept his seat because Labour prevented Faiza Shaheen standing as the official candidate, and the anti IDS vote was split.
A peculiar decision from Starmer, but I suppose he wanted to avoid having an economist critical of the guff Reeves keeps spouting on the team.
-
The national swing to Labour from the Tories was 10.8%.
The swing in Doncaster East was around 14.5%. If it had been 10.8% then Fletcher would have held on.
So it appears that the mass canvassing support from Doncaster Central (me included) had a successful outcome.
If I don’t do owt else in the rest of me sad life I can take comfort that I helped to get that person out of office.
The word is however, that he’s going to stand against Ros Jones in the next Mayoral election.
So more work to do then.
I appreciate the work that you and the others do (from afar) recently we caught up with friends who's son was a candidate for labour in 2010 and now a councillor in south London, they had just attended a meet and greet/thankyou with Starmer and Raynor kissing babies etc they echoed your sentiments that AR whom they had a chat with that was warm and genuine.
-
One of the predictions was that Duncan Smith had a 99% chance of losing his seat - I think that the BBC who said that
IDS has only kept his seat because Labour prevented Faiza Shaheen standing as the official candidate, and the anti IDS vote was split.
A peculiar decision from Starmer, but I suppose he wanted to avoid having an economist critical of the guff Reeves keeps spouting on the team.
On the subject of Shaheen, I seem to recall that bst wrote to the LP to threaten his resignation should they not reinstate Shaheen and allow her to stand.
He appears to have rowed back on that position.
-
You need to read all his posts since then Hound
-
Dame Therese Coffey ffs
-
You need to read all his posts since then Hound
Crikey, that will be a big job.
That kind of suggests that he has changed his mind, which I had expected when Starmer didn’t change his mind and bring her back.
-
One of the predictions was that Duncan Smith had a 99% chance of losing his seat - I think that the BBC who said that
IDS has only kept his seat because Labour prevented Faiza Shaheen standing as the official candidate, and the anti IDS vote was split.
A peculiar decision from Starmer, but I suppose he wanted to avoid having an economist critical of the guff Reeves keeps spouting on the team.
On the subject of Shaheen, I seem to recall that bst wrote to the LP to threaten his resignation should they not reinstate Shaheen and allow her to stand.
He appears to have rowed back on that position.
Same with Diane Abbot etc etc -- empty cans make the most noise . A pair of scissors would be needed to cut up the member card (if you actually have one) you simply can't tear one even if you believe you have the strength of Hercules and think you are "above everyone on this site"
That "mouse jiggler" of yours is certainly taking some stick must be nearly worn out
-
Roll on the start of the season
-
Tommy Toes,
"The national swing to Labour from the Tories was 10.8%."
How do you come to that conclusion?
The important thing is surely the underlying trend.
Tories lost votes to Reform, and also lost votes to stay at home refuseniks.....these are not vote transfers direct to Labour.
If anything, there is a move to the right in these figures.
Labour increased their share of votes cast by only 1.6% on 2019, in the context of a lower overall turnout.
Some red wall voters returned as expected, after a brief affair with Johnson, but support for Labour is very shallow.
The total number of Labour votes cast across the UK fell again, below the numbers for 2017 and 2019, slightly higher than Miliband in 2015.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRtwreoWEAAcUoN.png
Not as poor as the low levels set by Brown in 2010, but heading in that direction.
If we are looking at a national swing, it is away from the duopoly of Labour and Tories, and towards Reform, Greens and Independents.
The big winner is "none of the above", romping home with a massive victory of 43% of the eligible electorate choosing "I couldn't be arsed" over the others.
-
It's going to be a long five years, Albie, sucking on those sour grapes.
-
It is not sour grapes, Pies.....it is the correct interpretation of data, and it is important.
-
There's an issue to be investigated in that the very first general election after the Tories' introduction of photo ID requirements coincided with the lowest turnout in our history.
-
There's an issue to be investigated in that the very first general election after the Tories' introduction of photo ID requirements coincided with the lowest turnout in our history.
Voter turnout across the UK as a whole was reportedly 60%, declining from 67.3% in 2019. That would be the lowest since 2001 when it dropped to 59.4%, and the second lowest since 1918 when turnout was 57.2%, according to the House of Commons Library.
In many elections prior to 1997, voter turnout was consistently more than 70%, with peaks of 83.9% in 1950 and 82.6% in 1951.
-
Albie
I got the figure of 10.8% in a email from Lee Pitcher.
Didn’t check myself, so don’t know if he’s right.
-
I thought the election might be the last we saw of non-entities like Gavin Williamson. But no. He's determined to remind us how bereft of talent the Tory party is.
https://x.com/GavinWilliamson/status/1810340037331947865
Here's summat else that Labour is going to do. Not have an incompetent waste of skin like you as Defence and Education Secretaries.
-
Albie
I got the figure of 10.8% in a email from Lee Pitcher.
Didn’t check myself, so don’t know if he’s right.
Fair enough, Tommy.
I think Lee is getting a bit carried away.
There is a good video by George Monbiot on the same issues;
https://youtu.be/H3zWYMCwy8I
-
Tommy Toes,
"The national swing to Labour from the Tories was 10.8%."
How do you come to that conclusion?
The important thing is surely the underlying trend.
Tories lost votes to Reform, and also lost votes to stay at home refuseniks.....these are not vote transfers direct to Labour.
If anything, there is a move to the right in these figures.
Labour increased their share of votes cast by only 1.6% on 2019, in the context of a lower overall turnout.
Some red wall voters returned as expected, after a brief affair with Johnson, but support for Labour is very shallow.
The total number of Labour votes cast across the UK fell again, below the numbers for 2017 and 2019, slightly higher than Miliband in 2015.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGRtwreoWEAAcUoN.png
Not as poor as the low levels set by Brown in 2010, but heading in that direction.
If we are looking at a national swing, it is away from the duopoly of Labour and Tories, and towards Reform, Greens and Independents.
The big winner is "none of the above", romping home with a massive victory of 43% of the eligible electorate choosing "I couldn't be arsed" over the others.
Possibility that reform may have registered candidates that don't exist, watch this space.
-
What has that got to do with my post Syd?
I am talking about the votes cast.
You've lost me, I'm afraid.
-
What has that got to do with my post Syd?
I am talking about the votes cast.
You've lost me, I'm afraid.
You need a political satnav Albie, everyone you post to has missed the point, aye?
If fake candidates (not proven yet) have been put up by reform it has distorted the numbers of genuine votes cast/received not only to them but other parties where those votes may have gone, wouldn't you say?
-
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1810573877900136674
Jenrick is a t**t of the highest order.
He's been a minister for years in a Government that has allowed a prison crisis to develop and grow to breaking point.
Now he's doing the gutter politics thing of trying to make angry, ignorant people think this is a choice that Labour are making.
Awful, awful man. If he wins the Tory leadership, it says everything about the direction they are heading.
-
''‘If It Looks Like the Law Was Broken, Police Investigations Must Follow’: Elections Watchdog Receives Flood of Complaints Over ‘Phantom’ Reform Party Candidates''
''A spokesperson for the Electoral Commission – which was stripped of its powers to launch prosecutions by the last Government – said: “If a false statement was provided on nomination papers, it would be for the police rather than the Commission to investigate.”
https://bylinetimes.com/2024/07/09/if-it-looks-like-the-law-was-broken-police-investigations-must-follow-elections-watchdog-receives-flood-of-complaints-over-phantom-reform-party-candidates/
A voter needs more ID than a candidate, that's fair aye?
-
Yes . Incredibly it seems you need less I'd to be a prospective MP than any voter voting for an MP
If the whole issue is proven , what then ? Would all results in every ghost Vote be rerun
I'm sure there will be calls by Tories who on the face of it "lost" because Reform fielded bogus Candidates but there were numerable interviews with Voters pre election who said I don't want Tories at all , not keen on Labour so I'll vote for Reform
In cases like that , who can say the Voter would not have voted Labour
Sort that f***** out someone !