FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A day on the Labour Party.
A day on the Labour Party.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
 | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government "Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit"If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it  | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it "I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable? Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad? Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad! | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!"The only reason the scandals are not more damaging is the Labour party are not in power so are limited to what they can screw around with, but they are doing a great job of creating their own mess as they play in the sandpit. | |||
On the one hand, it's not great to think such ppl are are close tomorrow.
However the Labour party donseem to have responded appropriately.
In the funding, I'm sure theyd be dammed if they didn't adjust spending targets in light of events over last two years.
| |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!
The only reason the scandals are not more damaging is the Labour party are not in power so are limited to what they can screw around with, but they are doing a great job of creating their own mess as they play in the sandpit. "It's a concern that they get in this much trouble by just being in opposition. The scrutiny will only increase when they are elected | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!
The only reason the scandals are not more damaging is the Labour party are not in power so are limited to what they can screw around with, but they are doing a great job of creating their own mess as they play in the sandpit.
It's a concern that they get in this much trouble by just being in opposition. The scrutiny will only increase when they are elected"Rightly so. We should hold the ruling party to the highest possible standards. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!
The only reason the scandals are not more damaging is the Labour party are not in power so are limited to what they can screw around with, but they are doing a great job of creating their own mess as they play in the sandpit. "Hmmm not sure I agree with you fully. I do agree that less damage can be done in opposition clearly! But the actual things being done still do not seem to be 1. Of the same magnitude and 2. As many of them! | |||
| |||
"The Nick Brown situation is very odd. Do a Google search and literally nothing comes up on him since the day of his suspension. Clearly some major cover up going on involving the media. I wouldn't be surprised if the security services aren't involved given the total silence about it." Apart from all the news articles covering it. Various websites talking about it. Social media coverage. Not a peep. Maybe GBNews haven't got to it yet? | |||
"The Nick Brown situation is very odd. Do a Google search and literally nothing comes up on him since the day of his suspension. Clearly some major cover up going on involving the media. I wouldn't be surprised if the security services aren't involved given the total silence about it. Apart from all the news articles covering it. Various websites talking about it. Social media coverage. Not a peep. Maybe GBNews haven't got to it yet?" Why do you keep going on about GB News? It's just called competition. I'm sure the beloved Beeb can cope, it's such an excellent service. | |||
"The Nick Brown situation is very odd. Do a Google search and literally nothing comes up on him since the day of his suspension. Clearly some major cover up going on involving the media. I wouldn't be surprised if the security services aren't involved given the total silence about it. Apart from all the news articles covering it. Various websites talking about it. Social media coverage. Not a peep. Maybe GBNews haven't got to it yet? Why do you keep going on about GB News? It's just called competition. I'm sure the beloved Beeb can cope, it's such an excellent service." | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!"I'm not trying to compare, the OP was solely about Labour. If this is iow its gonna be then they can all fuck off (I don't really mean that) | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!
The only reason the scandals are not more damaging is the Labour party are not in power so are limited to what they can screw around with, but they are doing a great job of creating their own mess as they play in the sandpit.
It's a concern that they get in this much trouble by just being in opposition. The scrutiny will only increase when they are elected
Rightly so. We should hold the ruling party to the highest possible standards.
"Personally I think they should all be held to the highest standard. They are either in government or aspire to be. In effect the opposition are in an interview with the public for the job of running the country | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!
The only reason the scandals are not more damaging is the Labour party are not in power so are limited to what they can screw around with, but they are doing a great job of creating their own mess as they play in the sandpit.
It's a concern that they get in this much trouble by just being in opposition. The scrutiny will only increase when they are elected
Rightly so. We should hold the ruling party to the highest possible standards.
Personally I think they should all be held to the highest standard. They are either in government or aspire to be. In effect the opposition are in an interview with the public for the job of running the country"I've had this very same debate here previously. Apparently not so. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!
The only reason the scandals are not more damaging is the Labour party are not in power so are limited to what they can screw around with, but they are doing a great job of creating their own mess as they play in the sandpit.
It's a concern that they get in this much trouble by just being in opposition. The scrutiny will only increase when they are elected
Rightly so. We should hold the ruling party to the highest possible standards.
Personally I think they should all be held to the highest standard. They are either in government or aspire to be. In effect the opposition are in an interview with the public for the job of running the country"Fair point. They shouldn't get voted in if they aren't conducting themselves to the highest standards. | |||
Someone said here the other day that some people only come out when it's Tory bad news, I guess proves it | |||
"The usual suspects staying away I see. Yet all over the Boris and Nadine threads
Someone said here the other day that some people only come out when it's Tory bad news, I guess proves it "Impossible to argue against all representatives being held to the same standards. Is Mark François still an MP? | |||
| |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? " Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP?" Classic approach | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? Classic approach "Kinda proves the point though, doesn't it? | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP?" I’ve already said that we should hold our elected representatives to the highest standards, regardless of their rosette. Don’t you agree? | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? I’ve already said that we should hold our elected representatives to the highest standards, regardless of their rosette. Don’t you agree? " I said it before you buddy, been saying it forever on these forums. Thanks for proving the point made though. Enjoy your day, pet | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? I’ve already said that we should hold our elected representatives to the highest standards, regardless of their rosette. Don’t you agree? I said it before you buddy, been saying it forever on these forums. Thanks for proving the point made though. Enjoy your day, pet "Glad to hear it. So you’ll be pretty miffed about François, Rosindell etc, right? | |||
"The usual suspects staying away I see. Yet all over the Boris and Nadine threads
Someone said here the other day that some people only come out when it's Tory bad news, I guess proves it "In fairness, there's been so much corruption, sleaze, narcissism etc from the Tories, the occasional story from non-governmental parties can get missed. | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? I’ve already said that we should hold our elected representatives to the highest standards, regardless of their rosette. Don’t you agree? I said it before you buddy, been saying it forever on these forums. Thanks for proving the point made though. Enjoy your day, pet
Glad to hear it.
So you’ll be pretty miffed about François, Rosindell etc, right? "Create some threads about them buddy. Otherwise just deflection and whataboutery  | |||
"The usual suspects staying away I see. Yet all over the Boris and Nadine threads
Someone said here the other day that some people only come out when it's Tory bad news, I guess proves it
In fairness, there's been so much corruption, sleaze, narcissism etc from the Tories, the occasional story from non-governmental parties can get missed."
Who are you? Arsenal Wenger? | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? I’ve already said that we should hold our elected representatives to the highest standards, regardless of their rosette. Don’t you agree? I said it before you buddy, been saying it forever on these forums. Thanks for proving the point made though. Enjoy your day, pet
Glad to hear it.
So you’ll be pretty miffed about François, Rosindell etc, right?
Create some threads about them buddy. Otherwise just deflection and whataboutery "Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you banned conversation from being organic and growing, Would have been easy for you to just answer it straight, tbf. | |||
"The usual suspects staying away I see. Yet all over the Boris and Nadine threads
Someone said here the other day that some people only come out when it's Tory bad news, I guess proves it
In fairness, there's been so much corruption, sleaze, narcissism etc from the Tories, the occasional story from non-governmental parties can get missed."Nothing of the sort, head’s buried in the sand, fingers in ears | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? I’ve already said that we should hold our elected representatives to the highest standards, regardless of their rosette. Don’t you agree? I said it before you buddy, been saying it forever on these forums. Thanks for proving the point made though. Enjoy your day, pet
Glad to hear it.
So you’ll be pretty miffed about François, Rosindell etc, right?
Create some threads about them buddy. Otherwise just deflection and whataboutery
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you banned conversation from being organic and growing,
Would have been easy for you to just answer it straight, tbf.
"I haven't banned anything. As I said, deflection and whataboutery. | |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? I’ve already said that we should hold our elected representatives to the highest standards, regardless of their rosette. Don’t you agree? I said it before you buddy, been saying it forever on these forums. Thanks for proving the point made though. Enjoy your day, pet
Glad to hear it.
So you’ll be pretty miffed about François, Rosindell etc, right?
Create some threads about them buddy. Otherwise just deflection and whataboutery
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you banned conversation from being organic and growing,
Would have been easy for you to just answer it straight, tbf.
I haven't banned anything. As I said, deflection and whataboutery."Again, you could have answered it by now, with less effort. It’s ok, I see ya
| |||
"What about Andrew Rosindell? Still knocking about? Deflection and whataboutery. What do you think about the actual OP? I’ve already said that we should hold our elected representatives to the highest standards, regardless of their rosette. Don’t you agree? I said it before you buddy, been saying it forever on these forums. Thanks for proving the point made though. Enjoy your day, pet
Glad to hear it.
So you’ll be pretty miffed about François, Rosindell etc, right?
Create some threads about them buddy. Otherwise just deflection and whataboutery
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you banned conversation from being organic and growing,
Would have been easy for you to just answer it straight, tbf.
I haven't banned anything. As I said, deflection and whataboutery.
Again, you could have answered it by now, with less effort.
It’s ok, I see ya
"Again, if you'd like to discuss it, create a thread. I'd like to discuss Labour on this one. It's really not difficult, there's a Burton to create a new thread at the too of the page  | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Nobody cares, all the news is about Alexander , it was a ‘good’ day for labour to bury bad news "I'm glad to know 'nobody cares' about Labour being shit. So long as they get the Tories out, ay? However, I think you're wrong, this shit could actually keep the Tories in. Why? Because, just like myself, plenty of people are getting tired of this shit. Labour had my vote, probably pretty easily but it's likely that vote will now be switched to an indie, meaning it'll be wasted and probably allow the Tories to win my seat (they would anyway tbf) | |||
"Nobody cares, all the news is about Alexander , it was a ‘good’ day for labour to bury bad news
I'm glad to know 'nobody cares' about Labour being shit. So long as they get the Tories out, ay?
However, I think you're wrong, this shit could actually keep the Tories in. Why? Because, just like myself, plenty of people are getting tired of this shit.
Labour had my vote, probably pretty easily but it's likely that vote will now be switched to an indie, meaning it'll be wasted and probably allow the Tories to win my seat (they would anyway tbf)"I feel so sorry for the Brexiteers. They hate so much. Pour souls. Never mind. Chin up. Sunlit uplands just round the corner and all that. | |||
"Nobody cares, all the news is about Alexander , it was a ‘good’ day for labour to bury bad news
I'm glad to know 'nobody cares' about Labour being shit. So long as they get the Tories out, ay?
However, I think you're wrong, this shit could actually keep the Tories in. Why? Because, just like myself, plenty of people are getting tired of this shit.
Labour had my vote, probably pretty easily but it's likely that vote will now be switched to an indie, meaning it'll be wasted and probably allow the Tories to win my seat (they would anyway tbf)
I feel so sorry for the Brexiteers. They hate so much. Pour souls.
Never mind. Chin up. Sunlit uplands just round the corner and all that.
"Wrong thread?? | |||
| |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government "Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint. Stories published on most regular news channels. I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see. I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press. Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly. What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters? | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?"I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way. Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it."So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated? What do you actually want then? If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless? If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice? | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?"I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible? I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles. I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto."How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"? You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much."Fucking hell, is it really so hard? The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that. Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much? | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
"So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither? | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?"I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much. I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read. I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it. I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?
I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much.
I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read.
I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it.
I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it."So this is exactly a "whataboutism" thread then. One party compared to another. Do you know what the comparison is over thirteen years? Labour MPs Vs Tory MPs suspended and being banned from the party and for what activities? It could be more Labour than Tory, but you don't actually know. Shouldn't that be the starting point? You have also said that you don't want to answer any questions about the finances (as a politician would) but also that you have no problem with the Labour party changing its policies because finances have changed. Yet you are also angry that they are "going back on a pledge". How many pledges and to what extent compared to the Tory party? Shouldn't that be the starting point? How aggravating to actually have to find out if one party is actually better or worse than the other rather than finding out and knowing rather than assuming. I read your complaints about a Labour MP being suspended and a policy being modified and no complaints about the reasons for this being done. No explanation as to why anyone is an "arsehole". What should I have read? | |||
| |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?
I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much.
I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read.
I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it.
I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it.
So this is exactly a "whataboutism" thread then. One party compared to another.
Do you know what the comparison is over thirteen years?
Labour MPs Vs Tory MPs suspended and being banned from the party and for what activities?
It could be more Labour than Tory, but you don't actually know.
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
You have also said that you don't want to answer any questions about the finances (as a politician would) but also that you have no problem with the Labour party changing its policies because finances have changed. Yet you are also angry that they are "going back on a pledge". How many pledges and to what extent compared to the Tory party?
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
How aggravating to actually have to find out if one party is actually better or worse than the other rather than finding out and knowing rather than assuming.
I read your complaints about a Labour MP being suspended and a policy being modified and no complaints about the reasons for this being done.
No explanation as to why anyone is an "arsehole".
What should I have read?"I'll be straight with you, I read your first sentence. This is not a whataboutism thread, this is a 'if this is what were getting I don't fucking want it' A stand alone thread, no whataboutery involved. Whatever else you wrote is no doubt whataboutery though. | |||
"Pie in the sky promises knowing full well that the promising something so far in advance is soundbite politics. Labour are no different than the tories and I think what is being asked for, is for the BS to be put to bed and real commitment to a strategy to get the country on the up is needed. Could you imagine a that, neither can I but we can hope. " Many posters on this forum have demanded clear, funded Labour policies. Do you disagree with policy direction? What is "BS" compared to what the Tory's have done with the levers of power available to them? | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?
I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much.
I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read.
I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it.
I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it.
So this is exactly a "whataboutism" thread then. One party compared to another.
Do you know what the comparison is over thirteen years?
Labour MPs Vs Tory MPs suspended and being banned from the party and for what activities?
It could be more Labour than Tory, but you don't actually know.
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
You have also said that you don't want to answer any questions about the finances (as a politician would) but also that you have no problem with the Labour party changing its policies because finances have changed. Yet you are also angry that they are "going back on a pledge". How many pledges and to what extent compared to the Tory party?
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
How aggravating to actually have to find out if one party is actually better or worse than the other rather than finding out and knowing rather than assuming.
I read your complaints about a Labour MP being suspended and a policy being modified and no complaints about the reasons for this being done.
No explanation as to why anyone is an "arsehole".
What should I have read?
I'll be straight with you, I read your first sentence.
This is not a whataboutism thread, this is a 'if this is what were getting I don't fucking want it'
A stand alone thread, no whataboutery involved.
Whatever else you wrote is no doubt whataboutery though."You aren't "being straight with me", are you? You have stated in the OP, quite plainly, that you have a problem with what is happening with the Labour party as our potential next Government, but then do not disagree with their actions. You bemoan the fact that they are supposed to be better than the Tory's bit don't know if they are or not. Then read one line and claim you know what else was written. You've ranted, have no idea if you are correct in your assertions and then just start making things up. Still idea what to make of what you wrote as it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what you angrily believe you were communicating. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?
I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much.
I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read.
I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it.
I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it.
So this is exactly a "whataboutism" thread then. One party compared to another.
Do you know what the comparison is over thirteen years?
Labour MPs Vs Tory MPs suspended and being banned from the party and for what activities?
It could be more Labour than Tory, but you don't actually know.
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
You have also said that you don't want to answer any questions about the finances (as a politician would) but also that you have no problem with the Labour party changing its policies because finances have changed. Yet you are also angry that they are "going back on a pledge". How many pledges and to what extent compared to the Tory party?
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
How aggravating to actually have to find out if one party is actually better or worse than the other rather than finding out and knowing rather than assuming.
I read your complaints about a Labour MP being suspended and a policy being modified and no complaints about the reasons for this being done.
No explanation as to why anyone is an "arsehole".
What should I have read?
I'll be straight with you, I read your first sentence.
This is not a whataboutism thread, this is a 'if this is what were getting I don't fucking want it'
A stand alone thread, no whataboutery involved.
Whatever else you wrote is no doubt whataboutery though.
You aren't "being straight with me", are you?
You have stated in the OP, quite plainly, that you have a problem with what is happening with the Labour party as our potential next Government, but then do not disagree with their actions.
You bemoan the fact that they are supposed to be better than the Tory's bit don't know if they are or not.
Then read one line and claim you know what else was written.
You've ranted, have no idea if you are correct in your assertions and then just start making things up.
Still idea what to make of what you wrote as it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what you angrily believe you were communicating."I was straight with you, I read no further than your first sentence. If you have no idea what to make of what I'm saying then maybe don't bother with it, you seem to be the only person who is confused. | |||
"British politics is just too corrupt " Any corruption is unacceptable, yet we apparently stand at 18/180 with a score of 73/100 according to the Corruption Perception Index. Down five places from 2021. Further to fall, I suspect. 12th in 1995 when it started with 8.57/10 11th 2015 81/100 11th 2016 80/100 8th 2017 82/100 11th 2018 80/100 12th 2019 77/100 when BoJo is elected 11th 2020 77/100 11th 2021 78/100 There is always an attempt to claim that "all politicians are the same". They really aren't. It's the actions of those on power that drive the news and affect perception as is rhetoric they drive about judges being "enemies of the people" and the civil service "blob". To be clear many, even the majority, of Conservative MPs are doing their best as honestly as they can. The head has been rotting for some time though. | |||
Cantankerous lot aren’t we in the politics forums! All need a bit more loving  | |||
"Feisty by name feisty by nature
Cantankerous lot aren’t we in the politics forums! All need a bit more loving "I'm not actually all that feisty, I just don't cope very well with people who struggle to read. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?
I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much.
I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read.
I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it.
I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it.
So this is exactly a "whataboutism" thread then. One party compared to another.
Do you know what the comparison is over thirteen years?
Labour MPs vs Tory MPs suspended and being banned from the party and for what activities?
It could be more Labour than Tory, but you don't actually know.
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
You have also said that you don't want to answer any questions about the finances (as a politician would) but also that you have no problem with the Labour party changing its policies because finances have changed. Yet you are also angry that they are "going back on a pledge". How many pledges and to what extent compared to the Tory party?
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
How aggravating to actually have to find out if one party is actually better or worse than the other rather than finding out and knowing rather than assuming.
I read your complaints about a Labour MP being suspended and a policy being modified and no complaints about the reasons for this being done.
No explanation as to why anyone is an "arsehole".
What should I have read?
I'll be straight with you, I read your first sentence.
This is not a whataboutism thread, this is a 'if this is what were getting I don't fucking want it'
A stand alone thread, no whataboutery involved.
Whatever else you wrote is no doubt whataboutery though.
You aren't "being straight with me", are you?
You have stated in the OP, quite plainly, that you have a problem with what is happening with the Labour party as our potential next Government, but then do not disagree with their actions.
You bemoan the fact that they are supposed to be better than the Tory's bit don't know if they are or not.
Then read one line and claim you know what else was written.
You've ranted, have no idea if you are correct in your assertions and then just start making things up.
Still idea what to make of what you wrote as it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what you angrily believe you were communicating.
I was straight with you, I read no further than your first sentence.
If you have no idea what to make of what I'm saying then maybe don't bother with it, you seem to be the only person who is confused."I have summarised your responses. Have more/the same/fewer Labour MPs behaved badly than Conservative ones? You don't know. Has Labour action against MPs under suspicion been appropriate? Apparently yes. Have there been more Labour "U-turns" than the Conservatives? You don't know. Have the Labour policy changes been for good reason? Apparently yes. You are expressing mistrust in the Labour party but without basis and query the possibility that they are better than the Tory's without basis. When questioned, you get angry and stop reading. This is on you, not me. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?
I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much.
I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read.
I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it.
I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it.
So this is exactly a "whataboutism" thread then. One party compared to another.
Do you know what the comparison is over thirteen years?
Labour MPs vs Tory MPs suspended and being banned from the party and for what activities?
It could be more Labour than Tory, but you don't actually know.
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
You have also said that you don't want to answer any questions about the finances (as a politician would) but also that you have no problem with the Labour party changing its policies because finances have changed. Yet you are also angry that they are "going back on a pledge". How many pledges and to what extent compared to the Tory party?
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
How aggravating to actually have to find out if one party is actually better or worse than the other rather than finding out and knowing rather than assuming.
I read your complaints about a Labour MP being suspended and a policy being modified and no complaints about the reasons for this being done.
No explanation as to why anyone is an "arsehole".
What should I have read?
I'll be straight with you, I read your first sentence.
This is not a whataboutism thread, this is a 'if this is what were getting I don't fucking want it'
A stand alone thread, no whataboutery involved.
Whatever else you wrote is no doubt whataboutery though.
You aren't "being straight with me", are you?
You have stated in the OP, quite plainly, that you have a problem with what is happening with the Labour party as our potential next Government, but then do not disagree with their actions.
You bemoan the fact that they are supposed to be better than the Tory's bit don't know if they are or not.
Then read one line and claim you know what else was written.
You've ranted, have no idea if you are correct in your assertions and then just start making things up.
Still idea what to make of what you wrote as it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what you angrily believe you were communicating.
I was straight with you, I read no further than your first sentence.
If you have no idea what to make of what I'm saying then maybe don't bother with it, you seem to be the only person who is confused.
I have summarised your responses.
Have more/the same/fewer Labour MPs behaved badly than Conservative ones?
You don't know.
Has Labour action against MPs under suspicion been appropriate?
Apparently yes.
Have there been more Labour "U-turns" than the Conservatives?
You don't know.
Have the Labour policy changes been for good reason?
Apparently yes.
You are expressing mistrust in the Labour party but without basis and query the possibility that they are better than the Tory's without basis.
When questioned, you get angry and stop reading.
This is on you, not me."Have more/the same/fewer Labour MPs behaved badly than Conservative ones? It doesn't matter. There have been too many. Has Labour action against MPs under suspicion been appropriate? Yes. I wasn't ranting about party dealing with problems, it was about the behaviour of the members. Have there been more Labour "U-turns" than the Conservatives? Again, it doesn't matter. Have the Labour policy changes been for good reason? Again, it doesn't matter. As I've said many many times. If this is supposed to be better, I don't want it. Maybe we should just say 'well they're not as bad as the Tories', that's basically what you're getting at, isn't it? I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. Thanks for summarising what you think I'm trying to say. You're wrong though, I've said it many times already on this thread but instead of reading, you definitely took the 'easy way', only it's not as easy as just reading. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. " This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them." Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. " Under FPTP we have to be realistic. Are labour as crispy clean as I’d like? No. Are they as left leaning as I’d like? Also no. Is there any other realistic alternative which is better than the tories? No. So until we have a working PR system, Labour it is. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Under FPTP we have to be realistic. Are labour as crispy clean as I’d like? No. Are they as left leaning as I’d like? Also no. Is there any other realistic alternative which is better than the tories? No. So until we have a working PR system, Labour it is. " If you want a party that is further left you need to work at it. Just accepting something you don't actually agree with doesn't help. Neither the Tories nor Labour are going to implement PR. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. " Is this reply real or was you going out of your way to prove my point
In case it is was a real reply... The 2 statements "less shit" and "slightly better" are the same, one is written from a negative person, the other a positive, both saying the same thing.
Which way would you write it?
| |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Is this reply real or was you going out of your way to prove my point
In case it is was a real reply... The 2 statements "less shit" and "slightly better" are the same, one is written from a negative person, the other a positive, both saying the same thing.
Which way would you write it?
"Does your explanation prove that I generally looks for positives rather than negatives? I like that | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Is this reply real or was you going out of your way to prove my point
In case it is was a real reply... The 2 statements "less shit" and "slightly better" are the same, one is written from a negative person, the other a positive, both saying the same thing.
Which way would you write it?
"One suggests that the two parties are good, one suggests they're bad. Neither are good, in my opinion. Hope that helps. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Is this reply real or was you going out of your way to prove my point
In case it is was a real reply... The 2 statements "less shit" and "slightly better" are the same, one is written from a negative person, the other a positive, both saying the same thing.
Which way would you write it?
Does your explanation prove that I generally looks for positives rather than negatives? I like that "Simply yes
As I said they say the same thing and it indicates very clearly who I can discuss things with clearly and without negative emotions dragging everything down to a level that is life sapping.
It is the subtle things that say so much | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Is this reply real or was you going out of your way to prove my point
In case it is was a real reply... The 2 statements "less shit" and "slightly better" are the same, one is written from a negative person, the other a positive, both saying the same thing.
Which way would you write it?
One suggests that the two parties are good, one suggests they're bad.
Neither are good, in my opinion.
Hope that helps."Heaps | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Is this reply real or was you going out of your way to prove my point
In case it is was a real reply... The 2 statements "less shit" and "slightly better" are the same, one is written from a negative person, the other a positive, both saying the same thing.
Which way would you write it?
Does your explanation prove that I generally looks for positives rather than negatives? I like that
Simply yes
As I said they say the same thing and it indicates very clearly who I can discuss things with clearly and without negative emotions dragging everything down to a level that is life sapping.
It is the subtle things that say so much"Life sapping, yeah I agree with that. Far too many on here for me who like to focus on negatives. Not that I can stop them but it's certainly draining. I know I'll be told I need not engage but hey, that's my choice. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Is this reply real or was you going out of your way to prove my point
In case it is was a real reply... The 2 statements "less shit" and "slightly better" are the same, one is written from a negative person, the other a positive, both saying the same thing.
Which way would you write it?
Does your explanation prove that I generally looks for positives rather than negatives? I like that
Simply yes
As I said they say the same thing and it indicates very clearly who I can discuss things with clearly and without negative emotions dragging everything down to a level that is life sapping.
It is the subtle things that say so much
Life sapping, yeah I agree with that. Far too many on here for me who like to focus on negatives. Not that I can stop them but it's certainly draining.
I know I'll be told I need not engage but hey, that's my choice."It is the glass half full or half empty example, those that are half empty will always tell you to not engage it stops the glass getting filled up. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Under FPTP we have to be realistic. Are labour as crispy clean as I’d like? No. Are they as left leaning as I’d like? Also no. Is there any other realistic alternative which is better than the tories? No. So until we have a working PR system, Labour it is. If you want a party that is further left you need to work at it. Just accepting something you don't actually agree with doesn't help. Neither the Tories nor Labour are going to implement PR." Yes, you have to work at it. And unfortunately under FPTP, simply voting for the party that you’re 100% aligned with doesn’t work - if such a party even exists and stands in your area. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Under FPTP we have to be realistic. Are labour as crispy clean as I’d like? No. Are they as left leaning as I’d like? Also no. Is there any other realistic alternative which is better than the tories? No. So until we have a working PR system, Labour it is. If you want a party that is further left you need to work at it. Just accepting something you don't actually agree with doesn't help. Neither the Tories nor Labour are going to implement PR. Yes, you have to work at it. And unfortunately under FPTP, simply voting for the party that you’re 100% aligned with doesn’t work - if such a party even exists and stands in your area. " If there are no parties that support your view then spoil your ballot, if enough people agree with you then they'll have to take notice, as I said, work at it. Don't just accept that it's all we are worth. Voting for one of the 2 main parties is never going to help change what you want changed. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Under FPTP we have to be realistic. Are labour as crispy clean as I’d like? No. Are they as left leaning as I’d like? Also no. Is there any other realistic alternative which is better than the tories? No. So until we have a working PR system, Labour it is. If you want a party that is further left you need to work at it. Just accepting something you don't actually agree with doesn't help. Neither the Tories nor Labour are going to implement PR. Yes, you have to work at it. And unfortunately under FPTP, simply voting for the party that you’re 100% aligned with doesn’t work - if such a party even exists and stands in your area. If there are no parties that support your view then spoil your ballot, if enough people agree with you then they'll have to take notice, as I said, work at it. Don't just accept that it's all we are worth. Voting for one of the 2 main parties is never going to help change what you want changed." Spoilt ballots mean nothing beyond being counted - comments aren’t noted, and they maintain the status quo. I’d rather vote labour than spoil my ballot and return my incumbent Tory. | |||
"I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you. This is usually written as "slightly less shit than the tories" by some on here.. Which says such a lot about negativity and outlooks of people, life must be a nightmare for them. Suggesting that people who have a realistic view of the difference between Labour and the Tories are somehow living in a negative nightmare is ridiculous. Under FPTP we have to be realistic. Are labour as crispy clean as I’d like? No. Are they as left leaning as I’d like? Also no. Is there any other realistic alternative which is better than the tories? No. So until we have a working PR system, Labour it is. If you want a party that is further left you need to work at it. Just accepting something you don't actually agree with doesn't help. Neither the Tories nor Labour are going to implement PR. Yes, you have to work at it. And unfortunately under FPTP, simply voting for the party that you’re 100% aligned with doesn’t work - if such a party even exists and stands in your area. If there are no parties that support your view then spoil your ballot, if enough people agree with you then they'll have to take notice, as I said, work at it. Don't just accept that it's all we are worth. Voting for one of the 2 main parties is never going to help change what you want changed. Spoilt ballots mean nothing beyond being counted - comments aren’t noted, and they maintain the status quo. I’d rather vote labour than spoil my ballot and return my incumbent Tory." Fair enough, I believe enough spoilt ballots would cause something to st least be looked at. I didn't say anything about making comments. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?
I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much.
I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read.
I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it.
I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it.
So this is exactly a "whataboutism" thread then. One party compared to another.
Do you know what the comparison is over thirteen years?
Labour MPs vs Tory MPs suspended and being banned from the party and for what activities?
It could be more Labour than Tory, but you don't actually know.
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
You have also said that you don't want to answer any questions about the finances (as a politician would) but also that you have no problem with the Labour party changing its policies because finances have changed. Yet you are also angry that they are "going back on a pledge". How many pledges and to what extent compared to the Tory party?
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
How aggravating to actually have to find out if one party is actually better or worse than the other rather than finding out and knowing rather than assuming.
I read your complaints about a Labour MP being suspended and a policy being modified and no complaints about the reasons for this being done.
No explanation as to why anyone is an "arsehole".
What should I have read?
I'll be straight with you, I read your first sentence.
This is not a whataboutism thread, this is a 'if this is what were getting I don't fucking want it'
A stand alone thread, no whataboutery involved.
Whatever else you wrote is no doubt whataboutery though.
You aren't "being straight with me", are you?
You have stated in the OP, quite plainly, that you have a problem with what is happening with the Labour party as our potential next Government, but then do not disagree with their actions.
You bemoan the fact that they are supposed to be better than the Tory's bit don't know if they are or not.
Then read one line and claim you know what else was written.
You've ranted, have no idea if you are correct in your assertions and then just start making things up.
Still idea what to make of what you wrote as it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what you angrily believe you were communicating.
I was straight with you, I read no further than your first sentence.
If you have no idea what to make of what I'm saying then maybe don't bother with it, you seem to be the only person who is confused.
I have summarised your responses.
Have more/the same/fewer Labour MPs behaved badly than Conservative ones?
You don't know.
Has Labour action against MPs under suspicion been appropriate?
Apparently yes.
Have there been more Labour "U-turns" than the Conservatives?
You don't know.
Have the Labour policy changes been for good reason?
Apparently yes.
You are expressing mistrust in the Labour party but without basis and query the possibility that they are better than the Tory's without basis.
When questioned, you get angry and stop reading.
This is on you, not me.
Have more/the same/fewer Labour MPs behaved badly than Conservative ones?
It doesn't matter. There have been too many.
Has Labour action against MPs under suspicion been appropriate?
Yes. I wasn't ranting about party dealing with problems, it was about the behaviour of the members.
Have there been more Labour "U-turns" than the Conservatives?
Again, it doesn't matter.
Have the Labour policy changes been for good reason?
Again, it doesn't matter.
As I've said many many times. If this is supposed to be better, I don't want it.
Maybe we should just say 'well they're not as bad as the Tories', that's basically what you're getting at, isn't it?
I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you.
Thanks for summarising what you think I'm trying to say. You're wrong though, I've said it many times already on this thread but instead of reading, you definitely took the 'easy way', only it's not as easy as just reading."You don't, actually know how many Labour or Conservative MPs have been suspended their behaviour. You are irate for something you have not checked at all. You literally wrote: "we keep getting told they're better than the Tories", so you absolutely are comparing them. You are saying it doesn't matter if a policy change is for a good reason or there is no alternative, it's still unacceptable to you. What do you want? A party with no individuals who are human and venal or make mistakes or get d*unk on power? When has that ever happened? The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly and are returned to power after failing to behave appropriately and,in fact,get promoted. Again, not all politicians are the same and I will always take imperfect and better over openly and proudly awful. At this point in time the Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Labour are clearly more fit to lead than the Conservatives, although even that party clearly has MPs (if not Ministers) with integrity At the very least they have the intention of trying to do the right thing. Perhaps one day the Tory party will get its sh*t together enough for me to be willing to vote for them again, but not today. So, stop lecturing everyone else on being negative. Take your own advice. | |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Shadow Minister suspended after formal complaint.
Stories published on most regular news channels.
I guess not that juicy (sex or lots of money or corruption) if there is not a bigger splash. I suppose we wait and see.
I don't see how the Labour party could cover anything up given the "non-left" lean of the press.
Green funding will have to be delayed. Interest rate rises likely to be higher for longer so spending options will need to be adjusted accordingly.
What else would any party be expected to do on either of these matters?
I'm not asking for the party to do anymore in terms of the suspension. Still, we keep getting told they're better than the Tories, looks that way.
Funding? Just another uturn, I know you think differently to me on this so there's no point in debating it.
So there is no better approach possible than that demonstrated?
What do you actually want then?
If the finances have changed, should they change their spending plans or carry on regardless?
If they carry on with unfindable funding then they are incompetent and put the country at risk. They chose to adjust their spending and "U-turn". What is your preference? It is either/or unless you have an alternative. If you don't then what's your choice?
I'd like some politicians that aren't complete arseholes? Is that maybe possible?
I told you I'm not debating finances and you turns, we will just go round in circles.
I'll wait and see what they actually propose in their manifesto.
How do the decisions make anybody a "complete arsehole"?
You already said that you would avoid the question? You sound like one of the politicians that you detest so much.
Fucking hell, is it really so hard?
The decision that the party have made, I have no problem with, I've already said that.
Imagine not being able to read that I won't go backwards and forwards re. 'pledges' but able to read the other thing I wrote, selective much?
So what do you have a problem with? The yet to be defined investigation on an MP or a policy being modified, or neither?
I think your inability to read is why we go backwards and forwards so much.
I have a problem with the amount of Labour MPs who are counts, being that were told 'they're better than Tories', as I've already said, if this is what's supposed to be better I don't want it. All you need to do is read.
I also have a problem with Labour going back on just about every single pledge they made, again, being that their highly likely to be our next Government, if this is how its going to be, I don't want it.
I'll state for the umpteenth time, all you ahev to do is read and I wouldn't have to keep writing it.
So this is exactly a "whataboutism" thread then. One party compared to another.
Do you know what the comparison is over thirteen years?
Labour MPs vs Tory MPs suspended and being banned from the party and for what activities?
It could be more Labour than Tory, but you don't actually know.
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
You have also said that you don't want to answer any questions about the finances (as a politician would) but also that you have no problem with the Labour party changing its policies because finances have changed. Yet you are also angry that they are "going back on a pledge". How many pledges and to what extent compared to the Tory party?
Shouldn't that be the starting point?
How aggravating to actually have to find out if one party is actually better or worse than the other rather than finding out and knowing rather than assuming.
I read your complaints about a Labour MP being suspended and a policy being modified and no complaints about the reasons for this being done.
No explanation as to why anyone is an "arsehole".
What should I have read?
I'll be straight with you, I read your first sentence.
This is not a whataboutism thread, this is a 'if this is what were getting I don't fucking want it'
A stand alone thread, no whataboutery involved.
Whatever else you wrote is no doubt whataboutery though.
You aren't "being straight with me", are you?
You have stated in the OP, quite plainly, that you have a problem with what is happening with the Labour party as our potential next Government, but then do not disagree with their actions.
You bemoan the fact that they are supposed to be better than the Tory's bit don't know if they are or not.
Then read one line and claim you know what else was written.
You've ranted, have no idea if you are correct in your assertions and then just start making things up.
Still idea what to make of what you wrote as it doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to what you angrily believe you were communicating.
I was straight with you, I read no further than your first sentence.
If you have no idea what to make of what I'm saying then maybe don't bother with it, you seem to be the only person who is confused.
I have summarised your responses.
Have more/the same/fewer Labour MPs behaved badly than Conservative ones?
You don't know.
Has Labour action against MPs under suspicion been appropriate?
Apparently yes.
Have there been more Labour "U-turns" than the Conservatives?
You don't know.
Have the Labour policy changes been for good reason?
Apparently yes.
You are expressing mistrust in the Labour party but without basis and query the possibility that they are better than the Tory's without basis.
When questioned, you get angry and stop reading.
This is on you, not me.
Have more/the same/fewer Labour MPs behaved badly than Conservative ones?
It doesn't matter. There have been too many.
Has Labour action against MPs under suspicion been appropriate?
Yes. I wasn't ranting about party dealing with problems, it was about the behaviour of the members.
Have there been more Labour "U-turns" than the Conservatives?
Again, it doesn't matter.
Have the Labour policy changes been for good reason?
Again, it doesn't matter.
As I've said many many times. If this is supposed to be better, I don't want it.
Maybe we should just say 'well they're not as bad as the Tories', that's basically what you're getting at, isn't it?
I do not accept that because they're 'a bit better than the Tories', we should be happy. No fucking thank you.
Thanks for summarising what you think I'm trying to say. You're wrong though, I've said it many times already on this thread but instead of reading, you definitely took the 'easy way', only it's not as easy as just reading.
You don't, actually know how many Labour or Conservative MPs have been suspended their behaviour.
You are irate for something you have not checked at all.
You literally wrote: "we keep getting told they're better than the Tories", so you absolutely are comparing them.
You are saying it doesn't matter if a policy change is for a good reason or there is no alternative, it's still unacceptable to you.
What do you want? A party with no individuals who are human and venal or make mistakes or get d*unk on power?
When has that ever happened?
The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly and are returned to power after failing to behave appropriately and,in fact,get promoted.
Again, not all politicians are the same and I will always take imperfect and better over openly and proudly awful.
At this point in time the Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Labour are clearly more fit to lead than the Conservatives, although even that party clearly has MPs (if not Ministers) with integrity
At the very least they have the intention of trying to do the right thing.
Perhaps one day the Tory party will get its sh*t together enough for me to be willing to vote for them again, but not today.
So, stop lecturing everyone else on being negative. Take your own advice." | |||
| |||
"'spoiling your ballot to send a message to the parties' is such a staggering naive view it hardly merits a response. Having counted the ballots at my local council they go in a pile and are counted at the end. That's it. No one gives a fudge. " They would matter if enough people spoiled their ballots. Do you honestly think it would be massive news if more ballots were spoilt than votes for parties cast? Do you work for the Electoral Commission or are you a volunteer? | |||
"'spoiling your ballot to send a message to the parties' is such a staggering naive view it hardly merits a response. Having counted the ballots at my local council they go in a pile and are counted at the end. That's it. No one gives a fudge. They would matter if enough people spoiled their ballots. Do you honestly think it would be massive news if more ballots were spoilt than votes for parties cast? Do you work for the Electoral Commission or are you a volunteer?" Well if that ever happened then yes it would be news but it's never going to happen. That's why it's a naive view. If Stockport County won the FA Cup next year it would be huge news but anyone putting a bet on it or talking about it is not a serious person. Same for the spoiled ballot discussion. Im not saying where I work. | |||
"'spoiling your ballot to send a message to the parties' is such a staggering naive view it hardly merits a response. Having counted the ballots at my local council they go in a pile and are counted at the end. That's it. No one gives a fudge. They would matter if enough people spoiled their ballots. Do you honestly think it would be massive news if more ballots were spoilt than votes for parties cast? Do you work for the Electoral Commission or are you a volunteer? Well if that ever happened then yes it would be news but it's never going to happen. That's why it's a naive view. If Stockport County won the FA Cup next year it would be huge news but anyone putting a bet on it or talking about it is not a serious person. Same for the spoiled ballot discussion. Im not saying where I work. " Not a serious person
Going to football, someone did bet on Leicester to win the league, bet he was laughed at. | |||
"'spoiling your ballot to send a message to the parties' is such a staggering naive view it hardly merits a response. Having counted the ballots at my local council they go in a pile and are counted at the end. That's it. No one gives a fudge. They would matter if enough people spoiled their ballots. Do you honestly think it would be massive news if more ballots were spoilt than votes for parties cast? Do you work for the Electoral Commission or are you a volunteer? Well if that ever happened then yes it would be news but it's never going to happen. That's why it's a naive view. If Stockport County won the FA Cup next year it would be huge news but anyone putting a bet on it or talking about it is not a serious person. Same for the spoiled ballot discussion. Im not saying where I work. " It's almost like saying anyone who votes for Labour in my constituency is not serious because historically Labour have absolutely no hope, just as a spoilt ballot in your opinion | |||
| |||
"'spoiling your ballot to send a message to the parties' is such a staggering naive view it hardly merits a response. Having counted the ballots at my local council they go in a pile and are counted at the end. That's it. No one gives a fudge. They would matter if enough people spoiled their ballots. Do you honestly think it would be massive news if more ballots were spoilt than votes for parties cast? Do you work for the Electoral Commission or are you a volunteer?" I think we live in a country which is so apolitical, it would barely cause a ripple. I’m all for mandatory voting, which would include a ‘none of the above’ option. But as with PR, there’s nothing to gain for the major parties to implement it. FPTP is sham democracy. | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ..." Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly"." You should look up this guy. "Boris Johnson" | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly"." "You should look up this guy. "Boris Johnson"" I asked for a current minister, Boris is no longer even an MP. But if you want to use him as an example, he was kicked out of office after being caught out in a lie. That doesn't suggest that Tories are able to tell lies "openly and blatantly". | |||
| |||
| |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". You should look up this guy. "Boris Johnson" I asked for a current minister, Boris is no longer even an MP. But if you want to use him as an example, he was kicked out of office after being caught out in a lie. That doesn't suggest that Tories are able to tell lies "openly and blatantly"." Suella Braverman Robert Jenrick | |||
"Also its funny how people like to bad name Boris for being a liar etc but his not the worse of them all considering you have ministers who been arrested of sexual assault and fraud is much worse in my view but nobody says anything about that " He promoted people who have sexually assaulted others. He was also the Prim Minister. The guy in charge. The person who sets an example. Why does he have to be "the worst of them" to be worthy of criticism? | |||
"Also its funny how people like to bad name Boris for being a liar etc but his not the worse of them all considering you have ministers who been arrested of sexual assault and fraud is much worse in my view but nobody says anything about that " They made the news, they were sacked | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ..." "Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly"." "Suella Braverman Robert Jenrick" When I said 'example', I meant an example of the lie that was told. I'm sure both of those people have lied at some point, but without trawling through years of speeches, I might not be able to find out exactly when. | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". Suella Braverman Robert Jenrick When I said 'example', I meant an example of the lie that was told. I'm sure both of those people have lied at some point, but without trawling through years of speeches, I might not be able to find out exactly when." Braverman lied about processing immigration numbers | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". Suella Braverman Robert Jenrick When I said 'example', I meant an example of the lie that was told. I'm sure both of those people have lied at some point, but without trawling through years of speeches, I might not be able to find out exactly when. Braverman lied about processing immigration numbers "What lies was this exactly? | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". You should look up this guy. "Boris Johnson" I asked for a current minister, Boris is no longer even an MP. But if you want to use him as an example, he was kicked out of office after being caught out in a lie. That doesn't suggest that Tories are able to tell lies "openly and blatantly"." Ah missed the word "current". Carry on. | |||
"Also its funny how people like to bad name Boris for being a liar etc but his not the worse of them all considering you have ministers who been arrested of sexual assault and fraud is much worse in my view but nobody says anything about that " Erm people say lots, about all this stuff. | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". Suella Braverman Robert Jenrick When I said 'example', I meant an example of the lie that was told. I'm sure both of those people have lied at some point, but without trawling through years of speeches, I might not be able to find out exactly when." Look it up. You're more than capable. | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". Suella Braverman Robert Jenrick When I said 'example', I meant an example of the lie that was told. I'm sure both of those people have lied at some point, but without trawling through years of speeches, I might not be able to find out exactly when. Look it up. You're more than capable." Braverman and Jenrick are liars, I won't go out of my way to prove it to you though. This place really has reached the depths | |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". Suella Braverman Robert Jenrick When I said 'example', I meant an example of the lie that was told. I'm sure both of those people have lied at some point, but without trawling through years of speeches, I might not be able to find out exactly when. Look it up. You're more than capable. Braverman and Jenrick are liars, I won't go out of my way to prove it to you though. This place really has reached the depths "Google is remarkably easy to use. You can, of course, argue over the difference between ignorance from incompetence and lying, but that is down to you. If you do not know what either of these two survivors of this Government's haemorrhage of party capability have been up to then perhaps you haven't been paying attention. | |||
| |||
"The difference over the last few years is a Government filled with individuals who are incompetent to hateful and lie openly and blatantly ... Would you like to give us an example of a current government minister lying "openly and blatantly". Suella Braverman Robert Jenrick When I said 'example', I meant an example of the lie that was told. I'm sure both of those people have lied at some point, but without trawling through years of speeches, I might not be able to find out exactly when. Look it up. You're more than capable. Braverman and Jenrick are liars, I won't go out of my way to prove it to you though. This place really has reached the depths
Google is remarkably easy to use.
You can, of course, argue over the difference between ignorance from incompetence and lying, but that is down to you.
If you do not know what either of these two survivors of this Government's haemorrhage of party capability have been up to then perhaps you haven't been paying attention."Or you could just answer the question in response to your claim. That's very easy to do | |||
"If you do not know what either of these two survivors of this Government's haemorrhage of party capability have been up to then perhaps you haven't been paying attention." Let's say that I haven't been paying attention. Would you like to give me an example of a blatant lie told by one of them, and have me admit that you were right all along? Or would you rather continue to look like someone deliberately misleading through hyperbole, and then squirming when called out for doing so? | |||
"If you do not know what either of these two survivors of this Government's haemorrhage of party capability have been up to then perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Let's say that I haven't been paying attention. Would you like to give me an example of a blatant lie told by one of them, and have me admit that you were right all along? Or would you rather continue to look like someone deliberately misleading through hyperbole, and then squirming when called out for doing so?" Ooh can I play? Robert Jenrick has been called out by Krishnan Guru-Murthy for falsely claiming the United Nations refugee convention dictates that migrants have to seek sanctuary in the first ‘safe’ country they arrive in. ++ The Home Secretary was accused of being a "liar" by SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn after she claimed: "Let's be honest, there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current rules. Let's be clear they are coming here." Stuart McDonald, the SNP’s shadow justice and immigration spokesperson, pledged his party would oppose the legislation “every step of the way”. He said: “We believe all who seek asylum and seek refugee status deserve a fair hearing and we are 100% behind the clear statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. ++ Braverman also apparently lied on her CV. | |||
"If you do not know what either of these two survivors of this Government's haemorrhage of party capability have been up to then perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Let's say that I haven't been paying attention. Would you like to give me an example of a blatant lie told by one of them, and have me admit that you were right all along? Or would you rather continue to look like someone deliberately misleading through hyperbole, and then squirming when called out for doing so?" Why not start with Fullfact on both of them? Follow that by looking up the circumstances around Robert Jenrick granting a planning application on behalf of Richard Desmond. You could then also look up Suella Braverman's claim as to contributing to a book published by her former chambers. You could have taken a couple of minutes to find this out yourself before demanding that someone else does it and then making accusations. This is not difficult to find or know from current affairs. All of this pales into insignificance compared to the tone set by the former Prime Minister, so there is a lot of BS to filter. | |||
"Ooh can I play?" Of course, you're very welcome. "Robert Jenrick has been called out by Krishnan Guru-Murthy for falsely claiming the United Nations refugee convention dictates that migrants have to seek sanctuary in the first ‘safe’ country they arrive in." If he said that, I believe him to be wrong. But there are a great many people, including some lawyers that are well versed in the subject, that would agree with his statement. An untruth, but not necessarily a lie, and certainly not a blatant lie. "The Home Secretary was accused of being a "liar" by SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn after she claimed: "Let's be honest, there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current rules. Let's be clear they are coming here."" Do we know the exact number of people around the world that would qualify? I'm going to say that she believes what she saying. It's certainly not a blatant lie. "Stuart McDonald..." I'll skip that one because I didn't understand the point you were making. Sorry. "Braverman also apparently lied on her CV." Just to remind you, we're looking for open and blatant lying here. That was the baseline Easy laid down. | |||
"Let's say that I haven't been paying attention. Would you like to give me an example of a blatant lie told by one of them, and have me admit that you were right all along? Or would you rather continue to look like someone deliberately misleading through hyperbole, and then squirming when called out for doing so?" "Why not start with Fullfact on both of them? Follow that by looking up the circumstances around Robert Jenrick granting a planning application ... blah blah blah" Again, it would be easy to quote a single example, and show us all that you are right. Instead you seem to be putting a lot of effort into describing how others might prove your claim for you. It's almost like you know that you were wrong, and you're just trying to muddy the waters enough that no one will notice. | |||
"Let's say that I haven't been paying attention. Would you like to give me an example of a blatant lie told by one of them, and have me admit that you were right all along? Or would you rather continue to look like someone deliberately misleading through hyperbole, and then squirming when called out for doing so? Why not start with Fullfact on both of them? Follow that by looking up the circumstances around Robert Jenrick granting a planning application ... blah blah blah Again, it would be easy to quote a single example, and show us all that you are right. Instead you seem to be putting a lot of effort into describing how others might prove your claim for you. It's almost like you know that you were wrong, and you're just trying to muddy the waters enough that no one will notice." You have done this before on many occasions. Asked a question that was easy to look up, then demand that you are given an answer before focusing on smaller and smaller details to try to demonstrate that you have "won" something unrelated to the original point. By now you could have looked at the Fullfact pages and other items that I have pointed you towards. I wouldn't have done this if I was trying to do any of the things that you are accusing me of. You could have looked up the Fullfact pages of Rees-Mogg and Coffey too. You can look up what Lucy Frazer said about hospitals. Anyone who is interested will have done so already. All that leaves is you doing, I don't know what. Carry on, stop, look up the information, don't. I don't really care. | |||
"You have done this before on many occasions. Asked a question that was easy to look up, then demand that you are given an answer ..." I didn't demand an answer. I just invited you to give an example, so that we could all see your point. But it seems that you don't want to show that you are honest. Oh well, such is life. | |||
"You have done this before on many occasions. Asked a question that was easy to look up, then demand that you are given an answer ... I didn't demand an answer. I just invited you to give an example, so that we could all see your point. But it seems that you don't want to show that you are honest. Oh well, such is life." | |||
"'spoiling your ballot to send a message to the parties' is such a staggering naive view it hardly merits a response. Having counted the ballots at my local council they go in a pile and are counted at the end. That's it. No one gives a fudge. They would matter if enough people spoiled their ballots. Do you honestly think it would be massive news if more ballots were spoilt than votes for parties cast? Do you work for the Electoral Commission or are you a volunteer? Well if that ever happened then yes it would be news but it's never going to happen. That's why it's a naive view. If Stockport County won the FA Cup next year it would be huge news but anyone putting a bet on it or talking about it is not a serious person. Same for the spoiled ballot discussion. Im not saying where I work. It's almost like saying anyone who votes for Labour in my constituency is not serious because historically Labour have absolutely no hope, just as a spoilt ballot in your opinion" It's not the same at all. It depends on what your motive is. If it's to get the Tories/lib Dems/SNP out then everyone voting labour is a serious step of tactical voting to get change. There is some evidence this happened in the locals. You may also be voting to increase the share so they don't lose their deposit. If you look to other places where people boycotted elections, for example in Kosovo, the ethnic Albanians got their mayor's in post with 200 votes in a population of a few thousand as the ethnic Serbs diddnt vote. The mayors got in. They did not think 'oh we need to change our offer to get the Serbs to vote for us'. They just got in, started to enact their policies and this caused riots by the ethnic Serbs. | |||
"'spoiling your ballot to send a message to the parties' is such a staggering naive view it hardly merits a response. Having counted the ballots at my local council they go in a pile and are counted at the end. That's it. No one gives a fudge. They would matter if enough people spoiled their ballots. Do you honestly think it would be massive news if more ballots were spoilt than votes for parties cast? Do you work for the Electoral Commission or are you a volunteer? Well if that ever happened then yes it would be news but it's never going to happen. That's why it's a naive view. If Stockport County won the FA Cup next year it would be huge news but anyone putting a bet on it or talking about it is not a serious person. Same for the spoiled ballot discussion. Im not saying where I work. It's almost like saying anyone who votes for Labour in my constituency is not serious because historically Labour have absolutely no hope, just as a spoilt ballot in your opinion It's not the same at all. It depends on what your motive is. If it's to get the Tories/lib Dems/SNP out then everyone voting labour is a serious step of tactical voting to get change. There is some evidence this happened in the locals. You may also be voting to increase the share so they don't lose their deposit. If you look to other places where people boycotted elections, for example in Kosovo, the ethnic Albanians got their mayor's in post with 200 votes in a population of a few thousand as the ethnic Serbs diddnt vote. The mayors got in. They did not think 'oh we need to change our offer to get the Serbs to vote for us'. They just got in, started to enact their policies and this caused riots by the ethnic Serbs. " I think you missed the point. Anyone voting Labour in my constituency would not be serious because the only viable winner other than Tories is LibDems. As for comparing our HOCs to Bosnia, are you actually being serious? It's hard to tell. | |||
| |||
"I'm perfectly serious. It's an example of what you suggested and how it doesn't work. Issues in other countries are repeated all over the world (like that national conservative conference having the US right wing talking points said by I'm politicians). I'm not making your own point for you. If you have an example please provide it. I said there may be other reasons for voting Labour, like not losing the deposit, which you ignored. Just a heads up this is the 2nd time in this one thread you have been called out on these two issues. Ignoring a point someone has made then trying to refocus on a slight tangent and not providing any evidence for your own points and hoping other people will do your homework for you. Maybe take that on board. " Are you trying to lecture me whilst taking my view that spoilt ballots in large enough numbers can work is comparable to 'election boycotts in Bosnia'? Meanwhile telling me that I'm going off on a tangent? Can you show me an example where spoilt ballots happened in significant numbers and were 'simply ignored'? | |||
| |||
"Again I'm not hearing people condemning people like Chris Pincher for being a sexual predator or Nicola Sturgeon getting arrested for being a fraudster or want to find out the Tory MP accused of r*pe who I'm hearing is standing in the next year Election. Just taking aim at Boris for having parties during lockdown or having affairs and kids all the place. While I hate him for his behaviour people can't say his worse then the people I've mentioned " I will happily say that Johnson is a far shadier character than Nicola Sturgeon. As far as I’m aware Sturgeon hasn’t attempted to have a reporter beaten up. | |||
"Again I'm not hearing people condemning people like Chris Pincher for being a sexual predator or Nicola Sturgeon getting arrested for being a fraudster or want to find out the Tory MP accused of r*pe who I'm hearing is standing in the next year Election. Just taking aim at Boris for having parties during lockdown or having affairs and kids all the place. While I hate him for his behaviour people can't say his worse then the people I've mentioned " I will condemn any sexual abuse or assault. I will condemn any fraud. I will also condemn anybody who doesn't take action against these people and condem those that then put them in positions of power knowing they are predators etc. | |||
"Again I'm not hearing people condemning people like Chris Pincher for being a sexual predator or Nicola Sturgeon getting arrested for being a fraudster or want to find out the Tory MP accused of r*pe who I'm hearing is standing in the next year Election. Just taking aim at Boris for having parties during lockdown or having affairs and kids all the place. While I hate him for his behaviour people can't say his worse then the people I've mentioned " This thread was about two Labour party events that the OP chose to highlight but can find no fault with. Is it necessary to actually say that what Chris Pincher did or some sexual predator did was bad? Is that not implicit and obvious, especially if they have been punished? The point of interest is around those concealing the wrong-doing for whatever reason and those defending them. | |||
"You have done this before on many occasions. Asked a question that was easy to look up, then demand that you are given an answer ... I didn't demand an answer. I just invited you to give an example, so that we could all see your point. But it seems that you don't want to show that you are honest. Oh well, such is life." Anyone interested can see the information that confirms the point that I made in Fullfact for multiple Conservative MPs lies. You can post the examples here yourself if you are so eager, unless you are incapable of following simple pointers for an internet search. Is that the problem that you face? Your accusation of dishonesty is a laughable one when you are categorically refusing to look at the information when shown where to find it. That implies very clearly that you aren't actually interested, you are just trying to make an unrelated point. Good for you in "proving" something or other | |||
"Anyone interested can see the information that confirms the point that I made in Fullfact for multiple Conservative MPs lies." I'm sure the site has plenty of examples of things that Tory MPs have said that subsequently turned out to be untrue. Some will be mistakes, some will be genuine beliefs that were wrong, and some will turn out to be twisting the truth. But your original claim was that our government is "filled with individuals [that] lie openly and blatantly". You can't back that up, and you're now trying desperately to twist it round to saying "MPs don't always tell the truth". But I've had enough of your slipperiness. I'm sure everyone else has already made their minds up about who is being disingenuous here. | |||
"Anyone interested can see the information that confirms the point that I made in Fullfact for multiple Conservative MPs lies. I'm sure the site has plenty of examples of things that Tory MPs have said that subsequently turned out to be untrue. Some will be mistakes, some will be genuine beliefs that were wrong, and some will turn out to be twisting the truth. But your original claim was that our government is "filled with individuals [that] lie openly and blatantly". You can't back that up, and you're now trying desperately to twist it round to saying "MPs don't always tell the truth". But I've had enough of your slipperiness. I'm sure everyone else has already made their minds up about who is being disingenuous here." I genuinely forgot about our less than impressive foreign Secretary James Cleverly. Chalk him down as another one who’s lied repeatedly and brazenly in interviews, on social media. Not to mention crashing his car whilst on his phone. Are all MP’s liars? No I don’t believe they are. Do we exist in an era where MP’s lying is accepted more than ever before? Sadly I think we do. | |||
"Anyone interested can see the information that confirms the point that I made in Fullfact for multiple Conservative MPs lies. I'm sure the site has plenty of examples of things that Tory MPs have said that subsequently turned out to be untrue. Some will be mistakes, some will be genuine beliefs that were wrong, and some will turn out to be twisting the truth. But your original claim was that our government is "filled with individuals [that] lie openly and blatantly". You can't back that up, and you're now trying desperately to twist it round to saying "MPs don't always tell the truth". But I've had enough of your slipperiness. I'm sure everyone else has already made their minds up about who is being disingenuous here. I genuinely forgot about our less than impressive foreign Secretary James Cleverly. Chalk him down as another one who’s lied repeatedly and brazenly in interviews, on social media. Not to mention crashing his car whilst on his phone. Are all MP’s liars? No I don’t believe they are. Do we exist in an era where MP’s lying is accepted more than ever before? Sadly I think we do. " Liars but they get away with it because they are wordsmiths | |||
"Anyone interested can see the information that confirms the point that I made in Fullfact for multiple Conservative MPs lies. I'm sure the site has plenty of examples of things that Tory MPs have said that subsequently turned out to be untrue. Some will be mistakes, some will be genuine beliefs that were wrong, and some will turn out to be twisting the truth. But your original claim was that our government is "filled with individuals [that] lie openly and blatantly". You can't back that up, and you're now trying desperately to twist it round to saying "MPs don't always tell the truth". But I've had enough of your slipperiness. I'm sure everyone else has already made their minds up about who is being disingenuous here." It seems so  | |||
| |||
"Ok name one MP you know personally that's pure heart and corrupt free and doesnt lie and delivers to their constituents on promises? I cant think of one" Id struggle to name one person that fits that bil tbh. | |||
"Ok name one MP you know personally that's pure heart and corrupt free and doesnt lie and delivers to their constituents on promises? I cant think of one" Can’t speak of his “pure of heart” (would need to be a psychic) but Peter Kyle seems to be genuine and corruption free and appears to work hard for constituents. | |||
"Ok name one MP you know personally that's pure heart and corrupt free and doesnt lie and delivers to their constituents on promises? I cant think of one" How much do you hear about any MPs who just get on and do their jobs? There are 650 of them. How many do you hear about at all? It's the same in nearly all jobs. People rarely get credit for competently doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. Only if they are brilliant or horrible at them. So, very few cross my radar. Even if they do, all that you can see is their voting record and speeches to discover how "pure" their hearts are. That is subjective if you do not agree with their party's policies or if they travel over policies you disagree with. Have they expensed excessive amounts of money? Most do not. How much does anyone know about what they do locally for their constituents? Is intervening to prevent a building development on a park a good or a bad thing? What about a new road? So no, I don't know of many. I would be inclined to look at the parties furthest from power. Green and Lib Dem. | |||
| |||
"Now that people know Labour are planning to bring in ULEZ style schemes to other parts of country as confirmed by the shadow deputy leader herself Angela Raynor, are people in here really telling me they still happy to vote for them?" We already have one here. It's pretty good. If I don't vote Labour, it'll be for reasons other than being pro-clean and and pro-environment. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Another suspension, this time a shadow minister. Not to mention the green fund promise will now have to be delayed. What the fuck is going on here? Thisnis supposed to be our next Government
Barring some sort of amazing turn around this is our next government. This is the slightly better bit
If this is slightly better, I don't fucking want it
I agree there are some bad optics and a few concerning things around Labour but really...is this comparable? If we did a side-by-side list of “scandals” (may be a better word) who would have the longer list? Also if those “scandals” could be quantified for their impact on, for example, national security or taxpayers/treasury coffers, would the list really be comparable?
Not saying it is ok. But is it AS bad?
Although not a great choice between bad or very very bad!
The only reason the scandals are not more damaging is the Labour party are not in power so are limited to what they can screw around with, but they are doing a great job of creating their own mess as they play in the sandpit.
It's a concern that they get in this much trouble by just being in opposition. The scrutiny will only increase when they are elected
Rightly so. We should hold the ruling party to the highest possible standards.
Personally I think they should all be held to the highest standard. They are either in government or aspire to be. In effect the opposition are in an interview with the public for the job of running the country"This is the correct stance. | |||
"Now that people know Labour are planning to bring in ULEZ style schemes to other parts of country as confirmed by the shadow deputy leader herself Angela Raynor, are people in here really telling me they still happy to vote for them?" Since the only realistic other option is a continuation of the last 13 years, yes. | |||
| |||
"You can’t possibly believe anyone would vote for that bag of shit government again " Why not, if they voted for it the last 4 times. Why not again? Genuinely interested. Because they have been fucking atrocious the entire time. What's the difference now? | |||
| |||
"They are the most corrupt,self serving bag of shit i have ever encountered " Indeed. But no change since the last few elections when people thought it was a good idea to vote for them. What's different now? | |||
| |||
"If the same people vote them in again they are delusional,they have ruined the country " I can 100% see the same people voting for them relentlessly. I don't see anything different in the government since the last few elections. | |||
| |||
"I don't think he's listening." | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Since the Tories and Labour both suck lets not vote for none of them" Bit of pedantry (surprised it’s me and not the other chap) but that is a double negative “not vote for none” which actually means the opposite of what you think ie “vote for one/some”. | |||
| |||
| |||
