FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Starmer
Starmer
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is he less fit than Sunak, Truss or Johnson? He surely can't do any worse can he?" I think that is the problem, he is the least worse candidate for PM not the best | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is he less fit than Sunak, Truss or Johnson? He surely can't do any worse can he? I think that is the problem, he is the least worse candidate for PM not the best " Is he? He is the worst of the candidates, all of which are poor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?" There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is he less fit than Sunak, Truss or Johnson? He surely can't do any worse can he? I think that is the problem, he is the least worse candidate for PM not the best Is he? He is the worst of the candidates, all of which are poor." why dont we have someone with principals intelligence & charisma leading ether of the parties at the moment ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. " A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay?" I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer?" And what do you think those are? The fact that he still pays lip service to border controls whereas you would prefer it if we had de jure open borders as well as de facto open borders? The fact that he hasn’t come out as 100% in support of Hamas yet which no doubt you and the vast majority of Labour members would like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer? And what do you think those are? The fact that he still pays lip service to border controls whereas you would prefer it if we had de jure open borders as well as de facto open borders? The fact that he hasn’t come out as 100% in support of Hamas yet which no doubt you and the vast majority of Labour members would like?" More conspiracy nonsense! If you paused for a moment, returned to the real world you'd find real life reasons to criticise Starmer. All this made up angry rhubarb just invalidates any actual criticism of the Labour leader and Labour policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer? And what do you think those are? The fact that he still pays lip service to border controls whereas you would prefer it if we had de jure open borders as well as de facto open borders? The fact that he hasn’t come out as 100% in support of Hamas yet which no doubt you and the vast majority of Labour members would like? More conspiracy nonsense! If you paused for a moment, returned to the real world you'd find real life reasons to criticise Starmer. All this made up angry rhubarb just invalidates any actual criticism of the Labour leader and Labour policy. " Conspiracy! Disinformation! Anyone who disagrees with me is a fantasist! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer? And what do you think those are? The fact that he still pays lip service to border controls whereas you would prefer it if we had de jure open borders as well as de facto open borders? The fact that he hasn’t come out as 100% in support of Hamas yet which no doubt you and the vast majority of Labour members would like? More conspiracy nonsense! If you paused for a moment, returned to the real world you'd find real life reasons to criticise Starmer. All this made up angry rhubarb just invalidates any actual criticism of the Labour leader and Labour policy. Conspiracy! Disinformation! Anyone who disagrees with me is a fantasist! " You appear to have made up stuff, and the you got outraged about the stuff you made up. Meanwhile I actually made a suggestion for you, which would help in constructing criticism of Starmer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer? And what do you think those are? The fact that he still pays lip service to border controls whereas you would prefer it if we had de jure open borders as well as de facto open borders? The fact that he hasn’t come out as 100% in support of Hamas yet which no doubt you and the vast majority of Labour members would like? More conspiracy nonsense! If you paused for a moment, returned to the real world you'd find real life reasons to criticise Starmer. All this made up angry rhubarb just invalidates any actual criticism of the Labour leader and Labour policy. Conspiracy! Disinformation! Anyone who disagrees with me is a fantasist! You appear to have made up stuff, and the you got outraged about the stuff you made up. Meanwhile I actually made a suggestion for you, which would help in constructing criticism of Starmer. " But you won’t of course share any of your criticisms, because we know that sharing them would expose your nutty far left extremism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Getting feeling Rog is ignoring me "It’s easily done tbh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer? And what do you think those are? The fact that he still pays lip service to border controls whereas you would prefer it if we had de jure open borders as well as de facto open borders? The fact that he hasn’t come out as 100% in support of Hamas yet which no doubt you and the vast majority of Labour members would like? More conspiracy nonsense! If you paused for a moment, returned to the real world you'd find real life reasons to criticise Starmer. All this made up angry rhubarb just invalidates any actual criticism of the Labour leader and Labour policy. Conspiracy! Disinformation! Anyone who disagrees with me is a fantasist! You appear to have made up stuff, and the you got outraged about the stuff you made up. Meanwhile I actually made a suggestion for you, which would help in constructing criticism of Starmer. But you won’t of course share any of your criticisms, because we know that sharing them would expose your nutty far left extremism." See there's the problem, if you think anything based in real life, what's actually going on in the real world is "nutty far left extremism" then how do you expect your arguments to be taken seriously? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer? And what do you think those are? The fact that he still pays lip service to border controls whereas you would prefer it if we had de jure open borders as well as de facto open borders? The fact that he hasn’t come out as 100% in support of Hamas yet which no doubt you and the vast majority of Labour members would like? More conspiracy nonsense! If you paused for a moment, returned to the real world you'd find real life reasons to criticise Starmer. All this made up angry rhubarb just invalidates any actual criticism of the Labour leader and Labour policy. Conspiracy! Disinformation! Anyone who disagrees with me is a fantasist! You appear to have made up stuff, and the you got outraged about the stuff you made up. Meanwhile I actually made a suggestion for you, which would help in constructing criticism of Starmer. But you won’t of course share any of your criticisms, because we know that sharing them would expose your nutty far left extremism. See there's the problem, if you think anything based in real life, what's actually going on in the real world is "nutty far left extremism" then how do you expect your arguments to be taken seriously? " You see you are unable to actually share any criticisms of Starmer. Because you know your criticisms are just loony fringe opinions than nobody would take seriously outside of Islington. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Getting feeling Rog is ignoring me
It’s easily done tbh."Oh Rog that was a dagger to my heart. And at this time of good will to all men as well! There was me about to offer to pay your BBC licence for you (I know times are tough)  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is he less fit than Sunak, Truss or Johnson? He surely can't do any worse can he?" You want to bet on it… he’s simply a Trojan horse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? There's plenty of real life reasons to dislike starmer. You don't need to make up these fantasy reasons. A post from you that doesn’t mention “foreigners”, are you feeling okay? I'm good thanks. Why did you make up all this conspiracy style nonsense, instead of mentioning any of the actual real life reasons for disliking Starmer? And what do you think those are? The fact that he still pays lip service to border controls whereas you would prefer it if we had de jure open borders as well as de facto open borders? The fact that he hasn’t come out as 100% in support of Hamas yet which no doubt you and the vast majority of Labour members would like? More conspiracy nonsense! If you paused for a moment, returned to the real world you'd find real life reasons to criticise Starmer. All this made up angry rhubarb just invalidates any actual criticism of the Labour leader and Labour policy. Conspiracy! Disinformation! Anyone who disagrees with me is a fantasist! You appear to have made up stuff, and the you got outraged about the stuff you made up. Meanwhile I actually made a suggestion for you, which would help in constructing criticism of Starmer. But you won’t of course share any of your criticisms, because we know that sharing them would expose your nutty far left extremism. See there's the problem, if you think anything based in real life, what's actually going on in the real world is "nutty far left extremism" then how do you expect your arguments to be taken seriously? You see you are unable to actually share any criticisms of Starmer. Because you know your criticisms are just loony fringe opinions than nobody would take seriously outside of Islington." Unlike your conspiracy theories in the OP? In real life, here are some examples of what he actually did. So I assume this comes under your definition of "extreme far left". Speaking about the new licenses that Sunk granted for drilling oil and gas in the north sea “we will not be revoking any licences”. Talking about the recent conflict Starmer said Israel had the right to withhold power and water from Gaza. And cracked down on Labour party members who spoke out against the mass killings of civilians. There is lots to dislike about Starmer. Real life, actual things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?" I would say the first sentence and the last are the most interesting. The clowns we have been voting for have been blue. And is our voting of these clowns that have created the sorry indictment of the Tory party we see today. The British public voted for Boris and his circus of purged yes-men. And we voted empathetically. That's why there is no talent left in the Tory party (I'm not right, however I do see previous Tory MPs as being good at their job, even if I disagree with their policies). The more Tories attack SKS, the more they are holding up a mirror to their own voting habits. Ironically, I think that the next number of years of labour rule is of a consequence of voting to leave. Brexit created the platform for Boris. Boris created the vacuum for SKS and possibly also deep fissures in the Tory party that may take two GE plus to heal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will keep saying this until people get this through their thick skulls. Yes we can all or for the most part agree that the Tories have been poor and rubbish and we deserve better however if people think voting for Labour under Keir Starmer will be any better then some of you are living in cloud cuckoo land. They will be much worse and chaotic and thats not a prediction its straight up facts" I agree they will still be bad. But there's hope that they work less for the oil industry, more for British people. And I genuinely don't think they'd be as self serving or corrupt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will keep saying this until people get this through their thick skulls. Yes we can all or for the most part agree that the Tories have been poor and rubbish and we deserve better however if people think voting for Labour under Keir Starmer will be any better then some of you are living in cloud cuckoo land. They will be much worse and chaotic and thats not a prediction its straight up facts" Even if you are correct (I truly have no idea) what are these “straight up facts” you say there are? How is it you know this? Can you provide a list of these facts? Are they verifiable? By whom? Are the ones verifying reputable and non-partisan? Just asking  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"O dear some are going to lose it just been on BBC that labour if they win next election they would think about processing asylum seekers abroad are they just looking for votes of us knuckle draggers." why? As a plan it a) addresses directly the issues of reducing crossings while b) not turning out back on those in need. The 180 of Rwanda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"O dear some are going to lose it just been on BBC that labour if they win next election they would think about processing asylum seekers abroad are they just looking for votes of us knuckle draggers.why? As a plan it a) addresses directly the issues of reducing crossings while b) not turning out back on those in need. The 180 of Rwanda. " why 280 still It means processing abroad for some that's to far we should let them all in labour looking for votes as I think it's going to be closer than some think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll give Starmer a couple of years before the Corbynites get rid of him, then it will be full on economic meltdown, nationalising everything, property seizures, open borders, 90% tax rates and full on support for Hamas." 100% and then some even more extreme far left stuff like not even being racist, science, and other such horrors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"O dear some are going to lose it just been on BBC that labour if they win next election they would think about processing asylum seekers abroad are they just looking for votes of us knuckle draggers.why? As a plan it a) addresses directly the issues of reducing crossings while b) not turning out back on those in need. The 180 of Rwanda. why 280 still It means processing abroad for some that's to far we should let them all in labour looking for votes as I think it's going to be closer than some think " I have never seen anyone say let them all in. Why do you think this policy is aimed at knuckle draggers ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll give Starmer a couple of years before the Corbynites get rid of him, then it will be full on economic meltdown, nationalising everything, property seizures, open borders, 90% tax rates and full on support for Hamas. 100% and then some even more extreme far left stuff like not even being racist, science, and other such horrors. " I guess for the Left anti semitism doesn’t really count as racism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?" I stopped reading after you made another claim of low IQ and labour. Yawn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? I stopped reading after you made another claim of low IQ and labour. Yawn" Yes I think there were some words with three syllables in. Don’t want to take up too much of your Boxing Day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?I would say the first sentence and the last are the most interesting. The clowns we have been voting for have been blue. And is our voting of these clowns that have created the sorry indictment of the Tory party we see today. The British public voted for Boris and his circus of purged yes-men. And we voted empathetically. That's why there is no talent left in the Tory party (I'm not right, however I do see previous Tory MPs as being good at their job, even if I disagree with their policies). The more Tories attack SKS, the more they are holding up a mirror to their own voting habits. Ironically, I think that the next number of years of labour rule is of a consequence of voting to leave. Brexit created the platform for Boris. Boris created the vacuum for SKS and possibly also deep fissures in the Tory party that may take two GE plus to heal. " We can but hope | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will keep saying this until people get this through their thick skulls. Yes we can all or for the most part agree that the Tories have been poor and rubbish and we deserve better however if people think voting for Labour under Keir Starmer will be any better then some of you are living in cloud cuckoo land. They will be much worse and chaotic and thats not a prediction its straight up facts" You have a dodgy definition of facts then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? I stopped reading after you made another claim of low IQ and labour. Yawn Yes I think there were some words with three syllables in. Don’t want to take up too much of your Boxing Day." Sorry love, but work took up a huge portion of my working day (diseases and medication often are in excess of three syllables - I don't need to read a pathetic attempt at an attack on IQ holders to satiate any syllabic requirement). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns? I stopped reading after you made another claim of low IQ and labour. Yawn Yes I think there were some words with three syllables in. Don’t want to take up too much of your Boxing Day." Why the need to be so unpleasant Rog? Everyone is perfectly entitled to have different political opinions. It doesn’t make them thick or have a low IQ. One could argue that unless you earn a really decent income then voting Tory is rather silly, but plenty do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll give Starmer a couple of years before the Corbynites get rid of him, then it will be full on economic meltdown, nationalising everything, property seizures, open borders, 90% tax rates and full on support for Hamas." Do you think the far left still have that much influence? If Starmer wins the GE and secures a big majority, then barring some absolute disaster, I’s say he is good for two terms as PM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aside from verbally abusing his staff he's the ideal candidate "Oh no that was Dominic Raab. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"O dear some are going to lose it just been on BBC that labour if they win next election they would think about processing asylum seekers abroad are they just looking for votes of us knuckle draggers.why? As a plan it a) addresses directly the issues of reducing crossings while b) not turning out back on those in need. The 180 of Rwanda. why 280 still It means processing abroad for some that's to far we should let them all in labour looking for votes as I think it's going to be closer than some think I have never seen anyone say let them all in. Why do you think this policy is aimed at knuckle draggers ? " your not on here much then loads always saying let them all in and sort it once there here as for knuckle draggers I've been called it since Brexit as I'm happy keeping asylum economic migrants out it's a policy that he thinks would get me to vote for labour not a chance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll give Starmer a couple of years before the Corbynites get rid of him, then it will be full on economic meltdown, nationalising everything, property seizures, open borders, 90% tax rates and full on support for Hamas. 100% and then some even more extreme far left stuff like not even being racist, science, and other such horrors. I guess for the Left anti semitism doesn’t really count as racism." It does. But I can't speak for the left, you've identified me as extreme far left remember. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"O dear some are going to lose it just been on BBC that labour if they win next election they would think about processing asylum seekers abroad are they just looking for votes of us knuckle draggers.why? As a plan it a) addresses directly the issues of reducing crossings while b) not turning out back on those in need. The 180 of Rwanda. why 280 still It means processing abroad for some that's to far we should let them all in labour looking for votes as I think it's going to be closer than some think I have never seen anyone say let them all in. Why do you think this policy is aimed at knuckle draggers ? your not on here much then loads always saying let them all in and sort it once there here as for knuckle draggers I've been called it since Brexit as I'm happy keeping asylum economic migrants out it's a policy that he thinks would get me to vote for labour not a chance " tbh this policy doesn't change how many refugees we take on. It addresses the safety/criminal element. And possibly some of the cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Roger I dislike Starmer more than most but to call him an enabler of anti semites shows you don't have a clue. A he has thrown out anyone who has spoken out about Israel. B he received £50,000 from the pro Israel lobby during his leadership campaign (ps he failed to declare this)! So to say he is a anti semites enabler is clearly dog shit Most rational people can see anti semitism is a weapon used against sections of society who are anti war in reality or speak out against the occupation of Palestine. To go on 13 out of 31 Labour shadow cabinet members have taken money from the pro Israel lobby, the (LFI) labour friends of Israel. Now it's true that Starmer stood on a left wing platform but once he was elected he threw that out the window. For those calling left wing policy's loony NHS, employment law, weekends off, sick pay, maternity pay, weekends off, legal aid, social housing, social care, the list goes on but all fought for by the looney left - by the way it's those news papers & Tory's that keep telling you they are looney. The only political leader that put in his manafesto that all ex service personal would be housed was the biggest looney of them all - but the media don't tell you that. Or that any company given a government contract would have to pay tax into the UK - how looney is that ! Bringing extra revenue into the pot. Sadly however our political system is funded by big business and lobbyists - and the brutal truth is they don't give you money for nothing that is a fact. " I see. So Starmer’s years of support for the anti semite Corbyn is all a lie? It never happened? I appreciate the Left like historical revisionism but this nonsense is quite extraordinary. You make no mention of trade union funding. Another accidental omission? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is literally all you have? JC is long gone, people are getting sick of Sunak bringing him up at PMQs are you going to hold anyone who has served under a PM to that level of scrutiny?" All I have? That he has no integrity, doesn’t believe anything, is weak, has no charisma, is a lightweight, is very boring, has a history of supporting anti semites and a history of anti democratic behaviour? But apart from those minor flaws he is a political giant who will lead us to the promised land. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is literally all you have? JC is long gone, people are getting sick of Sunak bringing him up at PMQs are you going to hold anyone who has served under a PM to that level of scrutiny? All I have? That he has no integrity, doesn’t believe anything, is weak, has no charisma, is a lightweight, is very boring, has a history of supporting anti semites and a history of anti democratic behaviour? But apart from those minor flaws he is a political giant who will lead us to the promised land." Hey Rog why are you so worried about a Labour govt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is literally all you have? JC is long gone, people are getting sick of Sunak bringing him up at PMQs are you going to hold anyone who has served under a PM to that level of scrutiny? All I have? That he has no integrity, doesn’t believe anything, is weak, has no charisma, is a lightweight, is very boring, has a history of supporting anti semites and a history of anti democratic behaviour? But apart from those minor flaws he is a political giant who will lead us to the promised land. Hey Rog why are you so worried about a Labour govt? " Starmer has extreme far left views that we don't need in this country. If you need an example from their extremist website: "Create jobs, cut bills and boost energy security with zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero." We need a more moderate approach where we release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible and ensure that, quite rightly, oil company profits are on the top of our agenda. And furthermore, we need to hound the shit out of anyone who chooses to take the time to learn about climate science. I'd recommend accusing autistic kids of anti-Semitism based on conclusive proof such as a cuddly toy being in the background of a photo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never quite understood the outrage over Trade Unions providing funding to the Labour Party. I mean, people do know where the Labour Party came from right. The history and all that right? I mean don’t we all hate those fucking Trade Unions who fought for and secured workers rights, paid holiday, sick pay, a five day working week, etc etc. Bastards!" Totally agree never forget where you cam from and who fought for the rights we now have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never quite understood the outrage over Trade Unions providing funding to the Labour Party. I mean, people do know where the Labour Party came from right. The history and all that right? I mean don’t we all hate those fucking Trade Unions who fought for and secured workers rights, paid holiday, sick pay, a five day working week, etc etc. Bastards!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?" Plastic patriot.
He stands for whatever a focus group tells him to stand for.This is an example of the "man"( on the Hansard record,2022). Stands up in parliament and says "what you say in politics matters".He was immediately asked to condem the lynch Esther McVey,Scum and other comments.His reply? "Oh dear I thought we were having a sensible conversation".Slimy lawyer,says one thing then re words it into something else.Example "I'm not going to play politics",then proceeds to do exactly that claiming its "holding the government to account".A bigger cowboy than Tony (or should that be phoney) bLIAR. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cant have someone like Starmer as your PM who seems to flip flop on a lot of things " Cause Boris and Sunak had no u~turns... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer wants his £500.000 back from a Belgium Medical company that he lost when Brexit happend." 500 quid, you probably lost more than that due to it, the probably a few grand because of Truss. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"£500.000 he`s like the weather its yes then its no then back to maybe." Yeah, 500 quid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly " What are their policies and why do they appeal to you personally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One thing is for certain this Tory party have failed on just about everything they have touched. Deficit - huge Homelessness - huge Poverty - huge Utility bills - huge transport - expensive Food bills - expensive Rent - through the roof Health service - poor Social care - poor Wages - stagnant Economy - stagnant That's before the lies, dodgy PPE contracts And looking after their mates To be fair food banks seem to be doing well " And which of those outcomes would have been different if we’d had a Labour government since 2019? And how exactly would their policies have achieved a different outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never quite understood the outrage over Trade Unions providing funding to the Labour Party. I mean, people do know where the Labour Party came from right. The history and all that right? I mean don’t we all hate those fucking Trade Unions who fought for and secured workers rights, paid holiday, sick pay, a five day working week, etc etc. Bastards!"
I'd hazard a guess that had history been different, access to the internet would be elitist as most of us members would be serving our capitalistic paymasters six long days a week. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm a bit uneasy with starmer. He's not really convincing me that he's a sound leader of labour values." It's a proven method of being GE electable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One thing is for certain this Tory party have failed on just about everything they have touched. Deficit - huge Homelessness - huge Poverty - huge Utility bills - huge transport - expensive Food bills - expensive Rent - through the roof Health service - poor Social care - poor Wages - stagnant Economy - stagnant That's before the lies, dodgy PPE contracts And looking after their mates To be fair food banks seem to be doing well " And yet hard Tory voters want more of it.
Common sense tells me that if something has a 13/4 year crap record, you ought to give the alternative a try. OP falsely decries voting for Labour would be foolish. Hobson's choice! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cant have someone like Starmer as your PM who seems to flip flop on a lot of things " Yeah so much better to keep the govt in who have a proven record of... See danjenny's post above you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One thing is for certain this Tory party have failed on just about everything they have touched. Deficit - huge Homelessness - huge Poverty - huge Utility bills - huge transport - expensive Food bills - expensive Rent - through the roof Health service - poor Social care - poor Wages - stagnant Economy - stagnant That's before the lies, dodgy PPE contracts And looking after their mates To be fair food banks seem to be doing well And which of those outcomes would have been different if we’d had a Labour government since 2019? And how exactly would their policies have achieved a different outcome?" When the Tories defence is a moot point, you know Tory supporters have lost the plot  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?" Starmer was the head of the DPP Reeves was an actual economist at the Bank of England And lammy was the first black British person ever accepted into Harvard law school… And you say Labour are the thicko’s…. Sorry, I didn’t you needed ‘rizz to be the PM… I’d rather have one with a modicum of competence… looking at the last 3 at least I doubt that! Maybe what we need is a boring technocrat who actually just gets stuff done… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly " Yes, we need a party they shuns science and wants anyone not racist to be ineligible to be a teacher. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly Yes, we need a party they shuns science and wants anyone not racist to be ineligible to be a teacher. " Seems you now have a standard cut and paste response to every thread. Racism and “The Science TM”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly Yes, we need a party they shuns science and wants anyone not racist to be ineligible to be a teacher. Seems you now have a standard cut and paste response to every thread. Racism and “The Science TM”." Nope. These are two policies of the Reform party. Should we be banned from discussing them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly Yes, we need a party they shuns science and wants anyone not racist to be ineligible to be a teacher. Seems you now have a standard cut and paste response to every thread. Racism and “The Science TM”. Nope. These are two policies of the Reform party. Should we be banned from discussing them? " Racist teachers and ignoring science? Where are these policies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly Yes, we need a party they shuns science and wants anyone not racist to be ineligible to be a teacher. Seems you now have a standard cut and paste response to every thread. Racism and “The Science TM”. Nope. These are two policies of the Reform party. Should we be banned from discussing them? Racist teachers and ignoring science? Where are these policies? " In their website, somewhere under their policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly Yes, we need a party they shuns science and wants anyone not racist to be ineligible to be a teacher. Seems you now have a standard cut and paste response to every thread. Racism and “The Science TM”. Nope. These are two policies of the Reform party. Should we be banned from discussing them? Racist teachers and ignoring science? Where are these policies? In their website, somewhere under their policies. " I have a feeling you have exaggerated again and I'm going to waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist, call it a hunch. Do you have something you can quote directly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly Yes, we need a party they shuns science and wants anyone not racist to be ineligible to be a teacher. Seems you now have a standard cut and paste response to every thread. Racism and “The Science TM”. Nope. These are two policies of the Reform party. Should we be banned from discussing them? Racist teachers and ignoring science? Where are these policies? In their website, somewhere under their policies. I have a feeling you have exaggerated again and I'm going to waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist, call it a hunch. Do you have something you can quote directly?" If you can't be arsed to look, I also can't be arsed to go on their website for you and copy and paste it here. 100% your response will be to ask some irrelevant questions and/or turn the focus onto me instead of the subject matter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to vote for a different party that's not Tory or Labour, vote Reform as this country needs Reforming badly Yes, we need a party they shuns science and wants anyone not racist to be ineligible to be a teacher. Seems you now have a standard cut and paste response to every thread. Racism and “The Science TM”. Nope. These are two policies of the Reform party. Should we be banned from discussing them? Racist teachers and ignoring science? Where are these policies? In their website, somewhere under their policies. I have a feeling you have exaggerated again and I'm going to waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist, call it a hunch. Do you have something you can quote directly? If you can't be arsed to look, I also can't be arsed to go on their website for you and copy and paste it here. 100% your response will be to ask some irrelevant questions and/or turn the focus onto me instead of the subject matter. " You could have saved a lot of time and words by saying "no I haven't" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is he less fit than Sunak, Truss or Johnson? He surely can't do any worse can he? I think that is the problem, he is the least worse candidate for PM not the best " This is how all democracies work. Both the Netherlands and Germany operate under multi-party systems and the outcomes of the most recent Dutch election and polling in Germany would indicate the 'best' isn't always a great candidate. And democracy itself is a lot like that. It's not great but the alternatives are worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?" Pal. He could fuck me with a rake and (if I were English) I'd vote for him over ANY Tory. Thankfully even the Labour mob are kinda leftist in my nation. England gets what it deserves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You be mad to vote for Tories again and believe that Labour will be any better" Do you think Labour will be as corrupt and self serving as the Tories? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not saying this out of certainty but I just have this weird feeling that they will be worse " Would they have handed even more PPE contacts to their friends, neighbours, and donors? That's hard to believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not saying this out of certainty but I just have this weird feeling that they will be worse " Right. You can believe what you like but you must have a reason to think what you do? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Im not saying this out of certainty but I just have this weird feeling that they will be worse " So your guessing ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard way" I'm genuinely interested in what makes you think Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt and self serving than the current government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard way" I've seen an interesting idea that says labour are holding cards close to their chest to avoid Tories pulling the rug out Eg a policy in IHT bands may be scuppered if iht is pulled. There's also another (game) theory idea that says if they went live with ideas, then Tories can start planning to have policies "just to the right". (This works less well if reform are pinching the more right votes) As it stand, labour need to challenge HMG policies not write their own. Let's wait for _anifestos to see policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard way I'm genuinely interested in what makes you think Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt and self serving than the current government?" they wont be more corrupt they will just be more incompetent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard way I'm genuinely interested in what makes you think Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt and self serving than the current government? they wont be more corrupt they will just be more incompetent " Maybe. The other chap specifically mentioned he thinks they would be more corrupt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard way I'm genuinely interested in what makes you think Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt and self serving than the current government? they wont be more corrupt they will just be more incompetent Maybe. The other chap specifically mentioned he thinks they would be more corrupt. " You do realise people can read, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard wayI've seen an interesting idea that says labour are holding cards close to their chest to avoid Tories pulling the rug out Eg a policy in IHT bands may be scuppered if iht is pulled. There's also another (game) theory idea that says if they went live with ideas, then Tories can start planning to have policies "just to the right". (This works less well if reform are pinching the more right votes) As it stand, labour need to challenge HMG policies not write their own. Let's wait for _anifestos to see policies. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard way I'm genuinely interested in what makes you think Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt and self serving than the current government? they wont be more corrupt they will just be more incompetent "
Impossible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The writing is on the wall and unless Starmer goes feral, they will be in power in less than 12 months. It will take at least 4 years before they will be held accountable for any issues, as they blame it on the tories and that alone will probably be enough to get them re-elected. If it does go badly for labour they will call a GE early and possibly last 6-7 years. If it goes well we should see 10 years, I expect we will then rotate and start again with the tories. What I think could bring down the labour party quicker than the above is how Starmer reacts / manages world events such as we are seeing now. I'm not convinced the labour party would remain stable under his leadership even at the expense of losing power quickly. " Every now and then you get a minister on a programme such as QT or Sunday with LK still blame the Labour government. You couldn't make it up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard wayI've seen an interesting idea that says labour are holding cards close to their chest to avoid Tories pulling the rug out Eg a policy in IHT bands may be scuppered if iht is pulled. There's also another (game) theory idea that says if they went live with ideas, then Tories can start planning to have policies "just to the right". (This works less well if reform are pinching the more right votes) As it stand, labour need to challenge HMG policies not write their own. Let's wait for _anifestos to see policies. " Not a theory it is best practice. Wait for GE to be called then launch your _anifesto after the Tories launch their’s. At least I hope that is what Labour are doing otherwise I am confused! Easily done!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard wayI've seen an interesting idea that says labour are holding cards close to their chest to avoid Tories pulling the rug out Eg a policy in IHT bands may be scuppered if iht is pulled. There's also another (game) theory idea that says if they went live with ideas, then Tories can start planning to have policies "just to the right". (This works less well if reform are pinching the more right votes) As it stand, labour need to challenge HMG policies not write their own. Let's wait for _anifestos to see policies. Not a theory it is best practice. Wait for GE to be called then launch your _anifesto after the Tories launch their’s. At least I hope that is what Labour are doing otherwise I am confused! Easily done!!" We can only imagine that is Labour's plan. As someone who has been vocal about KS flip flopping on supposed plans, I'm actually much happier not hearing anything 'ideal' and will await a oper _anifesto. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The writing is on the wall and unless Starmer goes feral, they will be in power in less than 12 months. It will take at least 4 years before they will be held accountable for any issues, as they blame it on the tories and that alone will probably be enough to get them re-elected. If it does go badly for labour they will call a GE early and possibly last 6-7 years. If it goes well we should see 10 years, I expect we will then rotate and start again with the tories. What I think could bring down the labour party quicker than the above is how Starmer reacts / manages world events such as we are seeing now. I'm not convinced the labour party would remain stable under his leadership even at the expense of losing power quickly. " TBF the Tories have been blaming everything on the last Labour govt for 13 years and people still lap it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard way I'm genuinely interested in what makes you think Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt and self serving than the current government? they wont be more corrupt they will just be more incompetent
Impossible "The Tories are competent at funneling public money into their friends pockets. I don't think they're necessarily incompetent at running the country. I think they just don't care or try. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
. I'd not worry about Starmer, in comparison | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What Labour needs to do is persuade Kemi Badenoch to change sides and become their leader. After all, it doesn't matter to most career politicians which side they are on as long as they are getting paid. there is the small matter of representing a constituency which traditionally votes for a particular party but nowadays it is all about personalty ,popularity and TV persona. With Kemi in place, Labour could sail into power based on an initiative to get a black female PM into the history books. It is, of course, possible that she is waiting in the Tory wings for that to happen but even she must be wondering about their current electability. Just an idea. The whole thing is a farce anyway! Going by the number of men on fab dreaming of something exotic, the erectorate could be representative of the electorate..." I can’t see how that’s going to work. Don’t you have to be a middle aged white man to lead the Labour Party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck" Hey how's it going. We've been trying to get some more info from you. Maybe you can help us understand how Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt in power than the Tories have been? I'm genuinely interested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?" What you said… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck" wasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck" But he did answer: an adult female. So where's the problem? It's an improvement on the current PM: a woman is a woman. What uni did he go to and avoid . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. " How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question?" that's a whole other thread. However, even if we disagree with definitions, we can recognise that Sunak was a cop out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck Hey how's it going. We've been trying to get some more info from you. Maybe you can help us understand how Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt in power than the Tories have been? I'm genuinely interested. " I'd like to say that labour would be as bad, if not worse, than the Tories but none of us have a crystal ball. The fact is the Tories have made an arse of it for three teens, despite healthy majorities. They are stale and a period in opposition is overdue. My concern remains with SKS that the he enabled antisemitism, supported Corbyn, was a staunch remainer, is anti Rwanda but seems to be looking into the same thing in a different country despite the EU seemingly using unsafe Rwanda, his chancellor's sums don't add up, he would seem to be up for a coalition if it means getting in power, he is in favour of a shift in the voting system despite the public voting against it a few years ago and I could go on. I could list similar failings in relation to the Tories. I think both are a sack of shite and only in it for themselves before all else. These are my observations, please don't respond by nit picking as you won't change my opinion, I'm capable of doing that by my own research. Happy New Year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck Hey how's it going. We've been trying to get some more info from you. Maybe you can help us understand how Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt in power than the Tories have been? I'm genuinely interested. I'd like to say that labour would be as bad, if not worse, than the Tories but none of us have a crystal ball. The fact is the Tories have made an arse of it for three teens, despite healthy majorities. They are stale and a period in opposition is overdue. " I don't really mean their ability to lead. My question is more about things like fast tracking multi million £ PPE contracts for their friends and neighbours. The other chap seems to think Labour would be worse " My concern remains with SKS that the he enabled antisemitism, " This really isn't true at all. You should either read The Forde Report, or it's conclusion. " supported Corbyn, " Has since ditched any left wing policies and is now firmly in Tory-lite territory. " was a staunch remainer, " Is having an understanding of the impact of Brexit a bad thing? I would have thought it was a sensible approach " is anti Rwanda but seems to be looking into the same thing in a different country despite the EU seemingly using unsafe Rwanda, his chancellor's sums don't add up, " I agree here. He's jumped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon. Presumably a calculated move to win more voters that it loses him. " he would seem to be up for a coalition if it means getting in power, " I have no opinion on a coalition, if it gets the Tories out, I'm in favour. But I doubt it will. " he is in favour of a shift in the voting system despite the public voting against it a few years ago and I could go on. " This seems valid, although it's not a top issue for me personally. " I could list similar failings in relation to the Tories. I think both are a sack of shite and only in it for themselves before all else. These are my observations, please don't respond by nit picking as you won't change my opinion, I'm capable of doing that by my own research. Happy New Year " I don't want to change your opinion, but I did want to address your points individually, it's easier to see what's going on that way. Having said all that, I'm extremely unlikely to be voting Labour. For me they're no longer offering any kind of decent alternative. Just more of the same, but slightly less self serving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question?" If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard!" Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer…. "The answer it deserves is... Not a fucking clue anymore tbh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer." "How do you think Sunak should have answered the question?" "that's a whole other thread. However, even if we disagree with definitions, we can recognise that Sunak was a cop out." Starmer's answer was just as much of a cop out. Defining one word by using another undefined word isn't helpful. Stating that 'woman' means 'adult human female', just leaves us all wondering how he defines 'female'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh. "sks problem is he tried to give a serious answer to a stupid question. I can live with that as a position, and am sure it ID politics will not be brought into the GE at all... (We can wish) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer…. "If you say so. Context matters. Context was re trans and gender. It needed more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh. "A woman has a vulva. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? that's a whole other thread. However, even if we disagree with definitions, we can recognise that Sunak was a cop out. Starmer's answer was just as much of a cop out. Defining one word by using another undefined word isn't helpful. Stating that 'woman' means 'adult human female', just leaves us all wondering how he defines 'female'." Agreed. One of the biggest issues I politics, the journalism and even electorate that goes with it is the constant search for gotcha moments. Stupid questions should be met with stupid answers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva."Tell that to transwomen who haven't had bottom surgery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? that's a whole other thread. However, even if we disagree with definitions, we can recognise that Sunak was a cop out. Starmer's answer was just as much of a cop out. Defining one word by using another undefined word isn't helpful. Stating that 'woman' means 'adult human female', just leaves us all wondering how he defines 'female'." At least it's a definition (and the article I read stated he gave context and explication eg 99% don't have a penis | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? that's a whole other thread. However, even if we disagree with definitions, we can recognise that Sunak was a cop out. Starmer's answer was just as much of a cop out. Defining one word by using another undefined word isn't helpful. Stating that 'woman' means 'adult human female', just leaves us all wondering how he defines 'female'. Agreed. One of the biggest issues I politics, the journalism and even electorate that goes with it is the constant search for gotcha moments. Stupid questions should be met with stupid answers. " From stupid politicians .
Actually wasn't it part of his conference speech? Therefore not a question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery. "FTFY A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so)."So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed? As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so).
So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed?
As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore. "Well, I had to expand upon it but still with limitations. Personally I don't think transwomen are women until post op but the law states otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so).
So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed?
As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore.
Well, I had to expand upon it but still with limitations. Personally I don't think transwomen are women until post op but the law states otherwise.
"The second definition you gave, is that the legal definition? If so, I can understand the confusion around the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so).
So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed?
As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore.
Well, I had to expand upon it but still with limitations. Personally I don't think transwomen are women until post op but the law states otherwise.
The second definition you gave, is that the legal definition?
If so, I can understand the confusion around the topic. "No, mine. What is confusing? Should I simplify and say the labia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so).
So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed?
As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore.
Well, I had to expand upon it but still with limitations. Personally I don't think transwomen are women until post op but the law states otherwise.
The second definition you gave, is that the legal definition?
If so, I can understand the confusion around the topic.
No, mine.
What is confusing? Should I simplify and say the labia."What is confusing is you gave two different definitions, you also gave your personal opinion but it would appear none of them are the legal definition. Hence me asking for clarification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so).
So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed?
As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore.
Well, I had to expand upon it but still with limitations. Personally I don't think transwomen are women until post op but the law states otherwise.
The second definition you gave, is that the legal definition?
If so, I can understand the confusion around the topic.
No, mine.
What is confusing? Should I simplify and say the labia.
What is confusing is you gave two different definitions, you also gave your personal opinion but it would appear none of them are the legal definition.
Hence me asking for clarification. "Different definitions? No, the original was expanded upon. The most obvious depiction of a man and woman is the genital region: penis and (incorrectly) the vagina. The visual region is the labia of the vulva. The genitals can be deconstructed/constructed. So for a transperson to be a man or woman, they should have the physical attributes. Without the physical attributes they should remain a transwoman/transman. But legally they can become a man or woman after they've lived X number of years (did I read 6?) without the need for surgery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not guessing at all. As Starmer doesnt seem to have a clear plan on things should be a red flag to you all but you folks can vote for him all you and find out what I mean later if it means you lot learning it the hard way" If you cant say for certain and just have a weird feeling,then if thats not a guess then what is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so).
So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed?
As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore.
Well, I had to expand upon it but still with limitations. Personally I don't think transwomen are women until post op but the law states otherwise.
The second definition you gave, is that the legal definition?
If so, I can understand the confusion around the topic.
No, mine.
What is confusing? Should I simplify and say the labia.
What is confusing is you gave two different definitions, you also gave your personal opinion but it would appear none of them are the legal definition.
Hence me asking for clarification.
Different definitions?
No, the original was expanded upon.
The most obvious depiction of a man and woman is the genital region: penis and (incorrectly) the vagina. The visual region is the labia of the vulva. The genitals can be deconstructed/constructed. So for a transperson to be a man or woman, they should have the physical attributes. Without the physical attributes they should remain a transwoman/transman.
But legally they can become a man or woman after they've lived X number of years (did I read 6?) without the need for surgery."To gain a GRC it's only 2 years, along with some medical evidence. No requirement for any surgery. I actually agree with you on the 'remaining' trans without full surgery. I personally have no issue with man, woman, trans... It becomes more cloudy when we get to discrimination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so).
So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed?
As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore.
Well, I had to expand upon it but still with limitations. Personally I don't think transwomen are women until post op but the law states otherwise.
The second definition you gave, is that the legal definition?
If so, I can understand the confusion around the topic.
No, mine.
What is confusing? Should I simplify and say the labia.
What is confusing is you gave two different definitions, you also gave your personal opinion but it would appear none of them are the legal definition.
Hence me asking for clarification.
Different definitions?
No, the original was expanded upon.
The most obvious depiction of a man and woman is the genital region: penis and (incorrectly) the vagina. The visual region is the labia of the vulva. The genitals can be deconstructed/constructed. So for a transperson to be a man or woman, they should have the physical attributes. Without the physical attributes they should remain a transwoman/transman.
But legally they can become a man or woman after they've lived X number of years (did I read 6?) without the need for surgery.
To gain a GRC it's only 2 years, along with some medical evidence. No requirement for any surgery.
I actually agree with you on the 'remaining' trans without full surgery.
I personally have no issue with man, woman, trans...
It becomes more cloudy when we get to discrimination."It's six years without gender dysphoria diagnosis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luckwasn't sunaks answer that a man is a man and a women is a women. That's an awful self referencing answer. How do you think Sunak should have answered the question? If you ask a child "what is an apple?" And the child responds with apple, you'd correct said child. A definition does NOT include the subject of the question. I expect more from someone presumably educated to a decent standard! Seriously? The gotcha question of the last 3 years, what is a woman, that made everyone lose their minds
The question deserves the answer it got, from Sunak, a stop asking stupid fucking questions answer….
The answer it deserves is...
Not a fucking clue anymore tbh.
A woman has a vulva.
Tell that to transwomen who haven't had genital surgery.
FTFY
A woman is someone who has or intends to have a vulva (eventually, if it's safe to do so).
So a woman doesn't necessarily have a vulva as you previously claimed?
As I said, Not a fucking clue anymore.
Well, I had to expand upon it but still with limitations. Personally I don't think transwomen are women until post op but the law states otherwise.
The second definition you gave, is that the legal definition?
If so, I can understand the confusion around the topic.
No, mine.
What is confusing? Should I simplify and say the labia.
What is confusing is you gave two different definitions, you also gave your personal opinion but it would appear none of them are the legal definition.
Hence me asking for clarification.
Different definitions?
No, the original was expanded upon.
The most obvious depiction of a man and woman is the genital region: penis and (incorrectly) the vagina. The visual region is the labia of the vulva. The genitals can be deconstructed/constructed. So for a transperson to be a man or woman, they should have the physical attributes. Without the physical attributes they should remain a transwoman/transman.
But legally they can become a man or woman after they've lived X number of years (did I read 6?) without the need for surgery.
To gain a GRC it's only 2 years, along with some medical evidence. No requirement for any surgery.
I actually agree with you on the 'remaining' trans without full surgery.
I personally have no issue with man, woman, trans...
It becomes more cloudy when we get to discrimination.
It's six years without gender dysphoria diagnosis."But still plenty of boxes needing ticking, which I would assume rules out most people. From Gov.uk If you do not have a gender dysphoria diagnosis you might still be able to apply, but only if you meet ALL of the following requirements: You currently live in England, Wales or Scotland You were in a marriage or a civil partnership on 10 December 2014 and living in England or Wales, or on 15 December 2014 and living in Scotland You had been living in your affirmed gender for at least 6 years before those dates, and you have evidence of that You have had gender affirmation surgery | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck Hey how's it going. We've been trying to get some more info from you. Maybe you can help us understand how Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt in power than the Tories have been? I'm genuinely interested. I'd like to say that labour would be as bad, if not worse, than the Tories but none of us have a crystal ball. The fact is the Tories have made an arse of it for three teens, despite healthy majorities. They are stale and a period in opposition is overdue. I don't really mean their ability to lead. My question is more about things like fast tracking multi million £ PPE contracts for their friends and neighbours. The other chap seems to think Labour would be worse My concern remains with SKS that the he enabled antisemitism, This really isn't true at all. You should either read The Forde Report, or it's conclusion. supported Corbyn, Has since ditched any left wing policies and is now firmly in Tory-lite territory. was a staunch remainer, Is having an understanding of the impact of Brexit a bad thing? I would have thought it was a sensible approach is anti Rwanda but seems to be looking into the same thing in a different country despite the EU seemingly using unsafe Rwanda, his chancellor's sums don't add up, I agree here. He's jumped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon. Presumably a calculated move to win more voters that it loses him. he would seem to be up for a coalition if it means getting in power, I have no opinion on a coalition, if it gets the Tories out, I'm in favour. But I doubt it will. he is in favour of a shift in the voting system despite the public voting against it a few years ago and I could go on. This seems valid, although it's not a top issue for me personally. I could list similar failings in relation to the Tories. I think both are a sack of shite and only in it for themselves before all else. These are my observations, please don't respond by nit picking as you won't change my opinion, I'm capable of doing that by my own research. Happy New Year I don't want to change your opinion, but I did want to address your points individually, it's easier to see what's going on that way. Having said all that, I'm extremely unlikely to be voting Labour. For me they're no longer offering any kind of decent alternative. Just more of the same, but slightly less self serving. " I'm unable to respond in the same manner but will do my best: I disagree with your comment on sks and antisemitism If a Tory moved away from supporting someone in the same was as sks and Corbyn it would be classed as a U-turn Your and sks understanding of the benefits Brexit remains open to interpretation. You don't appear to disagree with the rest and we do seem to agree that they are both a bunch of self interested, incompetent individuals which is a start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck Hey how's it going. We've been trying to get some more info from you. Maybe you can help us understand how Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt in power than the Tories have been? I'm genuinely interested. I'd like to say that labour would be as bad, if not worse, than the Tories but none of us have a crystal ball. The fact is the Tories have made an arse of it for three teens, despite healthy majorities. They are stale and a period in opposition is overdue. I don't really mean their ability to lead. My question is more about things like fast tracking multi million £ PPE contracts for their friends and neighbours. The other chap seems to think Labour would be worse My concern remains with SKS that the he enabled antisemitism, This really isn't true at all. You should either read The Forde Report, or it's conclusion. supported Corbyn, Has since ditched any left wing policies and is now firmly in Tory-lite territory. was a staunch remainer, Is having an understanding of the impact of Brexit a bad thing? I would have thought it was a sensible approach is anti Rwanda but seems to be looking into the same thing in a different country despite the EU seemingly using unsafe Rwanda, his chancellor's sums don't add up, I agree here. He's jumped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon. Presumably a calculated move to win more voters that it loses him. he would seem to be up for a coalition if it means getting in power, I have no opinion on a coalition, if it gets the Tories out, I'm in favour. But I doubt it will. he is in favour of a shift in the voting system despite the public voting against it a few years ago and I could go on. This seems valid, although it's not a top issue for me personally. I could list similar failings in relation to the Tories. I think both are a sack of shite and only in it for themselves before all else. These are my observations, please don't respond by nit picking as you won't change my opinion, I'm capable of doing that by my own research. Happy New Year I don't want to change your opinion, but I did want to address your points individually, it's easier to see what's going on that way. Having said all that, I'm extremely unlikely to be voting Labour. For me they're no longer offering any kind of decent alternative. Just more of the same, but slightly less self serving. I'm unable to respond in the same manner but will do my best: I disagree with your comment on sks and antisemitism If a Tory moved away from supporting someone in the same was as sks and Corbyn it would be classed as a U-turn Your and sks understanding of the benefits Brexit remains open to interpretation. You don't appear to disagree with the rest and we do seem to agree that they are both a bunch of self interested, incompetent individuals which is a start " May I add that whilst he may have ditched any left wing policies, he as allowed a very powerful left wing section to remain within his party who many might think would oust him as soon as labour got into power | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck Hey how's it going. We've been trying to get some more info from you. Maybe you can help us understand how Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt in power than the Tories have been? I'm genuinely interested. I'd like to say that labour would be as bad, if not worse, than the Tories but none of us have a crystal ball. The fact is the Tories have made an arse of it for three teens, despite healthy majorities. They are stale and a period in opposition is overdue. I don't really mean their ability to lead. My question is more about things like fast tracking multi million £ PPE contracts for their friends and neighbours. The other chap seems to think Labour would be worse My concern remains with SKS that the he enabled antisemitism, This really isn't true at all. You should either read The Forde Report, or it's conclusion. supported Corbyn, Has since ditched any left wing policies and is now firmly in Tory-lite territory. was a staunch remainer, Is having an understanding of the impact of Brexit a bad thing? I would have thought it was a sensible approach is anti Rwanda but seems to be looking into the same thing in a different country despite the EU seemingly using unsafe Rwanda, his chancellor's sums don't add up, I agree here. He's jumped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon. Presumably a calculated move to win more voters that it loses him. he would seem to be up for a coalition if it means getting in power, I have no opinion on a coalition, if it gets the Tories out, I'm in favour. But I doubt it will. he is in favour of a shift in the voting system despite the public voting against it a few years ago and I could go on. This seems valid, although it's not a top issue for me personally. I could list similar failings in relation to the Tories. I think both are a sack of shite and only in it for themselves before all else. These are my observations, please don't respond by nit picking as you won't change my opinion, I'm capable of doing that by my own research. Happy New Year I don't want to change your opinion, but I did want to address your points individually, it's easier to see what's going on that way. Having said all that, I'm extremely unlikely to be voting Labour. For me they're no longer offering any kind of decent alternative. Just more of the same, but slightly less self serving. I'm unable to respond in the same manner but will do my best: I disagree with your comment on sks and antisemitism " Then you disagree with the findings of the enquiry? " If a Tory moved away from supporting someone in the same was as sks and Corbyn it would be classed as a U-turn " Maybe, depends. Some changes are slight, some are 180. " Your and sks understanding of the benefits Brexit remains open to interpretation. " I mean, there aren't any. Unless of course you're referring to the benefits for a handful of millionaires/billionaires " You don't appear to disagree with the rest and we do seem to agree that they are both a bunch of self interested, incompetent individuals which is a start " We do agree on the self interest. I don't see evidence that Labour would be worse in this aspect. However I don't think the Tories are incompetent at running the country. They're not attempting to, it's not high on their agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The guy can't even answer a simple question on what is a woman or what a working class citizen is but again if you want that as your PM then good luck Hey how's it going. We've been trying to get some more info from you. Maybe you can help us understand how Starmer and Labour would be even more corrupt in power than the Tories have been? I'm genuinely interested. I'd like to say that labour would be as bad, if not worse, than the Tories but none of us have a crystal ball. The fact is the Tories have made an arse of it for three teens, despite healthy majorities. They are stale and a period in opposition is overdue. I don't really mean their ability to lead. My question is more about things like fast tracking multi million £ PPE contracts for their friends and neighbours. The other chap seems to think Labour would be worse My concern remains with SKS that the he enabled antisemitism, This really isn't true at all. You should either read The Forde Report, or it's conclusion. supported Corbyn, Has since ditched any left wing policies and is now firmly in Tory-lite territory. was a staunch remainer, Is having an understanding of the impact of Brexit a bad thing? I would have thought it was a sensible approach is anti Rwanda but seems to be looking into the same thing in a different country despite the EU seemingly using unsafe Rwanda, his chancellor's sums don't add up, I agree here. He's jumped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon. Presumably a calculated move to win more voters that it loses him. he would seem to be up for a coalition if it means getting in power, I have no opinion on a coalition, if it gets the Tories out, I'm in favour. But I doubt it will. he is in favour of a shift in the voting system despite the public voting against it a few years ago and I could go on. This seems valid, although it's not a top issue for me personally. I could list similar failings in relation to the Tories. I think both are a sack of shite and only in it for themselves before all else. These are my observations, please don't respond by nit picking as you won't change my opinion, I'm capable of doing that by my own research. Happy New Year I don't want to change your opinion, but I did want to address your points individually, it's easier to see what's going on that way. Having said all that, I'm extremely unlikely to be voting Labour. For me they're no longer offering any kind of decent alternative. Just more of the same, but slightly less self serving. I'm unable to respond in the same manner but will do my best: I disagree with your comment on sks and antisemitism If a Tory moved away from supporting someone in the same was as sks and Corbyn it would be classed as a U-turn Your and sks understanding of the benefits Brexit remains open to interpretation. You don't appear to disagree with the rest and we do seem to agree that they are both a bunch of self interested, incompetent individuals which is a start May I add that whilst he may have ditched any left wing policies, he as allowed a very powerful left wing section to remain within his party who many might think would oust him as soon as labour got into power " We can but hope.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is he less fit than Sunak, Truss or Johnson? He surely can't do any worse can he? I think that is the problem, he is the least worse candidate for PM not the best Is he? He is the worst of the candidates, all of which are poor. why dont we have someone with principals intelligence & charisma leading ether of the parties at the moment ? " There is a lot written on governance and how it is little more than being a reflection of the society and culture on which it represents. The required change doesn't happen over night. It happens little by little with fallout as those trying to change do not last long because those around are not supportive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned" Do you have an example of this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned" You do know that the tories did a partial u turn on their immigration policy last week.. just putting it out there…ahem .. hs2… ahem … inheritance tax on off on the table…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned" Behave! You can only speculate re Starter. Vote Tory and we vote for continued shit. It's a no brainer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned You do know that the tories did a partial u turn on their immigration policy last week.. just putting it out there…ahem .. hs2… ahem … inheritance tax on off on the table…. " I think he just misspelled Sunak to be fair . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this?" Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this? Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century?" And yet 4 ish different Tory prime ministers in the last 5 years….  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this? Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century?" Enlighten us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this? Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century?" No, it's very clear why. But it has nothing to do with Starmer making the alleged U-turns. Speaking of which, do you have an example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a sorry indictment of the Tory party that there is a possibility of this guy becoming Prime Minister. He is completely unfit for the role. He was a long term enabler of anti semites in the Labour Party. Beside Starmer we have the plagiarist Reeves and Lammy and Rayner, both entirely comical figures. And beyond that a collection of low IQ extremists and economically illiterate nutcases that make up the Labour Party. What does Starmer actually believe? Nobody knows. For years he tried to overturn the biggest democratic vote in the nation’s history, and now he likes being filmed in front of the Union Jack and would have us believe that he is anything another than another cardboard cutout metropolitan liberal Britain-hater. He lacks charisma and is incredibly weak, flip flopping on issues from day to day. He will be nothing but another globalist EU/UN/WEF/WHO stooge. Expect another five years of economic stagnation, immigration out of control, failed public services, and international conflict. Why do we keep voting for these clowns?" Because the "insane" voters are living the dream.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this? Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century? No, it's very clear why. But it has nothing to do with Starmer making the alleged U-turns. Speaking of which, do you have an example?" You want an example of his U-turns? If so then remember when he said he would abolish tuition fees? He now changed his mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this? Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century? No, it's very clear why. But it has nothing to do with Starmer making the alleged U-turns. Speaking of which, do you have an example? You want an example of his U-turns? If so then remember when he said he would abolish tuition fees? He now changed his mind" This feels fairly standard for all parties. Not sure why this especially would lead to any more "chaos" or "conflict" than any other political party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this? Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century? No, it's very clear why. But it has nothing to do with Starmer making the alleged U-turns. Speaking of which, do you have an example? You want an example of his U-turns? If so then remember when he said he would abolish tuition fees? He now changed his mind This feels fairly standard for all parties. Not sure why this especially would lead to any more "chaos" or "conflict" than any other political party. " Well you did ask for an example implying you couldn't think of any. Just because many leaders do u-turns doesn't mean that they are weak or discredited, can mean they felt the first decision wasnt necessarily the best. Im sure we have all changed our minds abour something important, does that then mean we cannot be trysted or should be discredited? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this? Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century? No, it's very clear why. But it has nothing to do with Starmer making the alleged U-turns. Speaking of which, do you have an example? You want an example of his U-turns? If so then remember when he said he would abolish tuition fees? He now changed his mind" Wasn't that a Corbyn last election promise? A new broom sweeps clean comes to mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously folks do the maths, a vote for Starmer is a vote for more U-Turns which leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to conflict within the party which spills into chaos which potentially leads to catastrophe for the country. Up to you guys if you want to shoot yourself in the foot with Starmer but you were warned Do you have an example of this? Have you ever wondered why there's only been six Labour Prime Ministers in the last century? No, it's very clear why. But it has nothing to do with Starmer making the alleged U-turns. Speaking of which, do you have an example? You want an example of his U-turns? If so then remember when he said he would abolish tuition fees? He now changed his mind This feels fairly standard for all parties. Not sure why this especially would lead to any more "chaos" or "conflict" than any other political party. Well you did ask for an example implying you couldn't think of any. Just because many leaders do u-turns doesn't mean that they are weak or discredited, can mean they felt the first decision wasnt necessarily the best. Im sure we have all changed our minds abour something important, does that then mean we cannot be trysted or should be discredited? " Sorry I was meaning to ask for an example of a U-turn that the other poster worries will lead to chaos and conflict. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Frigging hell I have just seen Starmers new year speech on the news, 24 does not look promising at all." Care to share key points? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
