FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A Britain built to last
A Britain built to last
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
The labour parties campaigning bible...
Where to begin with this? Firstly the obvious question, what about Northern Ireland?
Which leads me in to the Trump influence around the slogan, Make America Great Again, A Britain Built To Last. I can see the influence but the lack of punch makes it a nearly ran.
And finally another nod to Trump perhaps and one I'm hoping the progressives pick up on (I bet they don't) the campaign "bible".
A bold move by the labour party, I'm liking this new identity and I wonder if they are doing enough to tempt the tory vote, sounding more right of centre to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"The labour parties campaigning bible...
Where to begin with this? Firstly the obvious question, what about Northern Ireland?
Which leads me in to the Trump influence around the slogan, Make America Great Again, A Britain Built To Last. I can see the influence but the lack of punch makes it a nearly ran.
And finally another nod to Trump perhaps and one I'm hoping the progressives pick up on (I bet they don't) the campaign "bible".
A bold move by the labour party, I'm liking this new identity and I wonder if they are doing enough to tempt the tory vote, sounding more right of centre to me."
Is this on their website? Downloadable? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The labour parties campaigning bible..."
It seems to me that calling it a 'bible' is a really bad idea. It'll annoy the Christians obviously, plus it'll annoy other religious people who will think (wrongly) that Christianity is being pushed on them.
But most of all it plays straight into the hands of those people that say the Labour party is all about ideology and it does't have any sensible policies. If they see the Labour candidate reading from his bible, it will just confirm their suspicions that Labour aren't interested in running the country to the best of their ability, they're instead going to follow their deep-seated beliefs and push socialism on the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"The labour parties campaigning bible...
Where to begin with this? Firstly the obvious question, what about Northern Ireland?
Which leads me in to the Trump influence around the slogan, Make America Great Again, A Britain Built To Last. I can see the influence but the lack of punch makes it a nearly ran.
And finally another nod to Trump perhaps and one I'm hoping the progressives pick up on (I bet they don't) the campaign "bible".
A bold move by the labour party, I'm liking this new identity and I wonder if they are doing enough to tempt the tory vote, sounding more right of centre to me.
Is this on their website? Downloadable? "
Oh yes, it is the Bible |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The labour parties campaigning bible...
Where to begin with this? Firstly the obvious question, what about Northern Ireland?
Which leads me in to the Trump influence around the slogan, Make America Great Again, A Britain Built To Last. I can see the influence but the lack of punch makes it a nearly ran.
And finally another nod to Trump perhaps and one I'm hoping the progressives pick up on (I bet they don't) the campaign "bible".
A bold move by the labour party, I'm liking this new identity and I wonder if they are doing enough to tempt the tory vote, sounding more right of centre to me.
Is this on their website? Downloadable?
Oh yes, it is the Bible"
A work of complete fiction then!     |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The labour parties campaigning bible...
Where to begin with this? Firstly the obvious question, what about Northern Ireland?
Which leads me in to the Trump influence around the slogan, Make America Great Again, A Britain Built To Last. I can see the influence but the lack of punch makes it a nearly ran.
And finally another nod to Trump perhaps and one I'm hoping the progressives pick up on (I bet they don't) the campaign "bible".
A bold move by the labour party, I'm liking this new identity and I wonder if they are doing enough to tempt the tory vote, sounding more right of centre to me."
Labour really need to pay for better Par consulting. The slogan is too long for the electorate. They usually vote for stuff like Get Brexit Done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure."
It’s dismal isn’t it that out of 70 million people this is the best they can find for the most important job.
Isn’t it time UK politics took the same approach as football and important some decent overseas talent to run the country for them ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
It’s dismal isn’t it that out of 70 million people this is the best they can find for the most important job.
Isn’t it time UK politics took the same approach as football and important some decent overseas talent to run the country for them ? "
There’s a few experts on here who could clearly do a better job running the Govt. Give them a chance I say  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure."
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs. "
Would be nice if they spent it where it's needed, instead of funneling it to their pals for PPE start up companies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs. "
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
It’s only over comparatively recent decades that its role has extended to regulating every aspect of our lives and trying to solve every problem that anyone might face, whether or not it has the means or capability to do so.
Nowadays it doesn’t particularly believe in borders unless it’s in foreign countries in which case it will get the blank cheque out, and it’s just a matter of time before it runs out of every other means of funding its activities so has to resort to seizing private property. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs.
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
It’s only over comparatively recent decades that its role has extended to regulating every aspect of our lives and trying to solve every problem that anyone might face, whether or not it has the means or capability to do so.
Nowadays it doesn’t particularly believe in borders unless it’s in foreign countries in which case it will get the blank cheque out, and it’s just a matter of time before it runs out of every other means of funding its activities so has to resort to seizing private property."
I think that depends on what you mean Rog when you say “comparatively recent decades“?
I mean the Roman’s provided sanitation and disease mitigation activity in their cities and also a form of welfare state through food for “the mob”. They also provided a justice system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I mean the Roman’s provided sanitation and disease mitigation activity in their cities and also a form of welfare state through food for “the mob”. They also provided a justice system."
Well, yes, but apart from sanitation and disease mitigation and the welfare and justice systems, what have the Romans ever done for us? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I mean the Roman’s provided sanitation and disease mitigation activity in their cities and also a form of welfare state through food for “the mob”. They also provided a justice system.
Well, yes, but apart from sanitation and disease mitigation and the welfare and justice systems, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
The roads! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I mean the Roman’s provided sanitation and disease mitigation activity in their cities and also a form of welfare state through food for “the mob”. They also provided a justice system.
Well, yes, but apart from sanitation and disease mitigation and the welfare and justice systems, what have the Romans ever done for us?
The roads! "
Yes yes but...
The aqueduct |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs.
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
It’s only over comparatively recent decades that its role has extended to regulating every aspect of our lives and trying to solve every problem that anyone might face, whether or not it has the means or capability to do so.
Nowadays it doesn’t particularly believe in borders unless it’s in foreign countries in which case it will get the blank cheque out, and it’s just a matter of time before it runs out of every other means of funding its activities so has to resort to seizing private property."
So your argument is that they should only do this? As pointed out even the Romans did a bit on making sure Thier citizens diddnt live in squalor. If the government went back to doing this (and I would like to know when that was the case) we have no NHS, no social services stopping people abusing their children or older relatives, no one maintaining the roads, making sure food is safe, providing fire and rescue services, and (in theory) stopping business flood the environment with poop.
So what's your timeline to say comparatively recent decades?
Also we pretty recently had a vote about borders and things and reduced the amount we spent on foreign aid so could you enlighten me or is this just something you have lifted of a Facebook group as it sounds pretty uninformed to me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs.
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
It’s only over comparatively recent decades that its role has extended to regulating every aspect of our lives and trying to solve every problem that anyone might face, whether or not it has the means or capability to do so.
Nowadays it doesn’t particularly believe in borders unless it’s in foreign countries in which case it will get the blank cheque out, and it’s just a matter of time before it runs out of every other means of funding its activities so has to resort to seizing private property.
So your argument is that they should only do this? As pointed out even the Romans did a bit on making sure Thier citizens diddnt live in squalor. If the government went back to doing this (and I would like to know when that was the case) we have no NHS, no social services stopping people abusing their children or older relatives, no one maintaining the roads, making sure food is safe, providing fire and rescue services, and (in theory) stopping business flood the environment with poop.
So what's your timeline to say comparatively recent decades?
Also we pretty recently had a vote about borders and things and reduced the amount we spent on foreign aid so could you enlighten me or is this just something you have lifted of a Facebook group as it sounds pretty uninformed to me.
"
maintaining the roads made me laugh, its like driving round on the moon near me, craters all over the place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs.
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
It’s only over comparatively recent decades that its role has extended to regulating every aspect of our lives and trying to solve every problem that anyone might face, whether or not it has the means or capability to do so.
Nowadays it doesn’t particularly believe in borders unless it’s in foreign countries in which case it will get the blank cheque out, and it’s just a matter of time before it runs out of every other means of funding its activities so has to resort to seizing private property.
So your argument is that they should only do this? As pointed out even the Romans did a bit on making sure Thier citizens diddnt live in squalor. If the government went back to doing this (and I would like to know when that was the case) we have no NHS, no social services stopping people abusing their children or older relatives, no one maintaining the roads, making sure food is safe, providing fire and rescue services, and (in theory) stopping business flood the environment with poop.
So what's your timeline to say comparatively recent decades?
Also we pretty recently had a vote about borders and things and reduced the amount we spent on foreign aid so could you enlighten me or is this just something you have lifted of a Facebook group as it sounds pretty uninformed to me.
"
Starmer said he will defend the nanny state, it could be working out for you soon.
Can I keep 10p in the £ so I can afford to wipe the tear from my eye when I see how much better a nanny run state makes my life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs.
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
It’s only over comparatively recent decades that its role has extended to regulating every aspect of our lives and trying to solve every problem that anyone might face, whether or not it has the means or capability to do so.
Nowadays it doesn’t particularly believe in borders unless it’s in foreign countries in which case it will get the blank cheque out, and it’s just a matter of time before it runs out of every other means of funding its activities so has to resort to seizing private property.
So your argument is that they should only do this? As pointed out even the Romans did a bit on making sure Thier citizens diddnt live in squalor. If the government went back to doing this (and I would like to know when that was the case) we have no NHS, no social services stopping people abusing their children or older relatives, no one maintaining the roads, making sure food is safe, providing fire and rescue services, and (in theory) stopping business flood the environment with poop.
So what's your timeline to say comparatively recent decades?
Also we pretty recently had a vote about borders and things and reduced the amount we spent on foreign aid so could you enlighten me or is this just something you have lifted of a Facebook group as it sounds pretty uninformed to me.
"
It’s odd I think how leftists live in this fantasy world where they think they have been living through some far right libertarian period of government where the state has been slashed.
The state has continued to grow inexorably for decades and on through this current government.
But when we are faced with higher taxes and poorer service the refrain is always “ah but just tax that person over there some more and everything will be fine”.
So that’s what the government does because it just naturally wants to do more and control more and we get higher taxes and the service continues to get worse. It’s just people who are incompetent deluding themselves that they are omnipotent.
And on the refrain goes, all the while strangling the life out of the economy.
Of course Labour will continue this trend. If anyone thinks after five years of Labour there will be no potholes and we can all get a GP appointment tomorrow they are deluding themselves.
But we can guarantee that we will all be paying more tax. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
I wonder how many changes were made before this was signed off by SKS, I would love to have seen the first draft, as this one is poor to say the least....
Point 1 and 2 are saying pretty much the same thing, point 3 in the likelihood point 1 & 2 fails.
Point 4 sounds like Rwanda.
Securing the borders:
1) Smash the criminal gangs by using
counter-terror style tactics - strengthening powers and using the full force of Britain’s intelligence and policing to destroy the evil business model of human trafficking.
2) Deploy more police and investigators in
a Cross-Border Police Unit to go after the
smuggler and trafficking gangs who undermine
our border security and put lives at risk.
3) Set up a 1,000 strong Returns Unit to ensure failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be here are removed.
4) End hotel use for asylum seekers by clearing the asylum backlog with more staff to process claims and return people to safe countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs.
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
It’s only over comparatively recent decades that its role has extended to regulating every aspect of our lives and trying to solve every problem that anyone might face, whether or not it has the means or capability to do so.
Nowadays it doesn’t particularly believe in borders unless it’s in foreign countries in which case it will get the blank cheque out, and it’s just a matter of time before it runs out of every other means of funding its activities so has to resort to seizing private property.
So your argument is that they should only do this? As pointed out even the Romans did a bit on making sure Thier citizens diddnt live in squalor. If the government went back to doing this (and I would like to know when that was the case) we have no NHS, no social services stopping people abusing their children or older relatives, no one maintaining the roads, making sure food is safe, providing fire and rescue services, and (in theory) stopping business flood the environment with poop.
So what's your timeline to say comparatively recent decades?
Also we pretty recently had a vote about borders and things and reduced the amount we spent on foreign aid so could you enlighten me or is this just something you have lifted of a Facebook group as it sounds pretty uninformed to me.
It’s odd I think how leftists live in this fantasy world where they think they have been living through some far right libertarian period of government where the state has been slashed.
The state has continued to grow inexorably for decades and on through this current government.
But when we are faced with higher taxes and poorer service the refrain is always “ah but just tax that person over there some more and everything will be fine”.
So that’s what the government does because it just naturally wants to do more and control more and we get higher taxes and the service continues to get worse. It’s just people who are incompetent deluding themselves that they are omnipotent.
And on the refrain goes, all the while strangling the life out of the economy.
Of course Labour will continue this trend. If anyone thinks after five years of Labour there will be no potholes and we can all get a GP appointment tomorrow they are deluding themselves.
But we can guarantee that we will all be paying more tax."
No answer then in terms of when this was, as often with people who make the points you do it's an absolute fantasy land you live in and the accusation is put out by yourself as projection. Now here is how to back up a point. Watch and learn.
Under Labour there was a question time special were some lad was having a go at Blair because the GP appointments were only available to be booked within the next 48 hours and this made it hard for him to plan in advance. That's a fact. It happened. It's not fantasy land that was how things were and can be again. We can get a GP appointment tomorrow, it's just a matter of funding.
Google 'tony blair c-span GP appointment' it's the top result on YouTube.
This isn't your blog where you just spout nonsense then move onto the next thing when challenged as to when this time where countries only looked out for borders and private property, it's a discussion forum about politics. People are going to be switched on and might know something about what they are talking about. If you don't want to back up anything you say and you are riin a opinion piece I suggest you send it as a letter to the editor of the express. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lots of photos of Keith trying to look like Action Man but he just looks like some boring public sector manager you’d try and avoid in the vegan only canteen.
As for the policies seems to be the usual Labour array of more government spending. Interesting that they say the Tories favour the “Stand Aside State” which is odd given the increase in the size of the state and tax burden under this government.
Much of it is just a load of buzzwords. “Securonomics”. Sounds like “Bidenomics” but an even bigger failure.
I would very much like to hear the argument against spending money on things when there isn't a single thing that works properly in this country due to the cutting of spending by successive conservative governments.
We have the highest tax in history in trying to pay down the debt that doubled since 2012 (and that's before COVID).
Labour are going to have to spend money, as all governments do (millions on Bibby Stockholm, for Rwanda etc).
The entire reason of government is to collect tax and spend it on things for the country. It's what they will spend it on and how much that differs.
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
It’s only over comparatively recent decades that its role has extended to regulating every aspect of our lives and trying to solve every problem that anyone might face, whether or not it has the means or capability to do so.
Nowadays it doesn’t particularly believe in borders unless it’s in foreign countries in which case it will get the blank cheque out, and it’s just a matter of time before it runs out of every other means of funding its activities so has to resort to seizing private property.
So your argument is that they should only do this? As pointed out even the Romans did a bit on making sure Thier citizens diddnt live in squalor. If the government went back to doing this (and I would like to know when that was the case) we have no NHS, no social services stopping people abusing their children or older relatives, no one maintaining the roads, making sure food is safe, providing fire and rescue services, and (in theory) stopping business flood the environment with poop.
So what's your timeline to say comparatively recent decades?
Also we pretty recently had a vote about borders and things and reduced the amount we spent on foreign aid so could you enlighten me or is this just something you have lifted of a Facebook group as it sounds pretty uninformed to me.
It’s odd I think how leftists live in this fantasy world where they think they have been living through some far right libertarian period of government where the state has been slashed.
The state has continued to grow inexorably for decades and on through this current government.
But when we are faced with higher taxes and poorer service the refrain is always “ah but just tax that person over there some more and everything will be fine”.
So that’s what the government does because it just naturally wants to do more and control more and we get higher taxes and the service continues to get worse. It’s just people who are incompetent deluding themselves that they are omnipotent.
And on the refrain goes, all the while strangling the life out of the economy.
Of course Labour will continue this trend. If anyone thinks after five years of Labour there will be no potholes and we can all get a GP appointment tomorrow they are deluding themselves.
But we can guarantee that we will all be paying more tax.
No answer then in terms of when this was, as often with people who make the points you do it's an absolute fantasy land you live in and the accusation is put out by yourself as projection. Now here is how to back up a point. Watch and learn.
Under Labour there was a question time special were some lad was having a go at Blair because the GP appointments were only available to be booked within the next 48 hours and this made it hard for him to plan in advance. That's a fact. It happened. It's not fantasy land that was how things were and can be again. We can get a GP appointment tomorrow, it's just a matter of funding.
Google 'tony blair c-span GP appointment' it's the top result on YouTube.
This isn't your blog where you just spout nonsense then move onto the next thing when challenged as to when this time where countries only looked out for borders and private property, it's a discussion forum about politics. People are going to be switched on and might know something about what they are talking about. If you don't want to back up anything you say and you are riin a opinion piece I suggest you send it as a letter to the editor of the express. "
Boy you are Mr Angry. I should stay away from those YouTube videos for a while. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
For many centuries the purpose of government was to protect our borders and to protect private property and that was pretty much it.
"
Sure about that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"A few pages light now, as Labour drops £28bn green pledge from ‘campaigning bible’"
Last I heard on this was a couple of weeks ago where they were basically watering it down and the 28 billion was no longer set in stone. Are you saying it's been dropped all together. Be a bit surprised as it was supposed to be a flag ship policy or so I thought |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan
over a year ago
Ballyshannon |
As the OP said in first message, What about Northern Ireland?
GB isn't interested and the Tories aren't bothered. It was all song and dance around Brexit. However we are 23 months without a government thanks to the DUP who do not want a nationalist First Minister. Tomorrow 170000 public service workers will be on strike over pay. Time to let NI go. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense? "
You have a very strange definition of leftists. As you layed out before. But seems like you attribute Labour to be a left party?
They're centre or centre left under Starmer. So maybe the people who you label as "leftists" aren't that interested in Labour? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting ..."
Now you say, it is interesting. Given the level of support that the polls are showing for Labour, I would have expected quite a few people to come in and talk about what a great document it is.
Maybe they're all busy reading it, and getting ready to go out campaigning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense? "
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority"
I can’t see anything other than a clear majority, anything other than that, I would then be inclined to think the Labour Party won’t go 2 terms |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority"
Current polling suggests 1997 level wipeout for the Tories |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usybee73Man
over a year ago
in the sticks |
"The labour parties campaigning bible...
Where to begin with this? Firstly the obvious question, what about Northern Ireland?
Which leads me in to the Trump influence around the slogan, Make America Great Again, A Britain Built To Last. I can see the influence but the lack of punch makes it a nearly ran.
And finally another nod to Trump perhaps and one I'm hoping the progressives pick up on (I bet they don't) the campaign "bible".
A bold move by the labour party, I'm liking this new identity and I wonder if they are doing enough to tempt the tory vote, sounding more right of centre to me."
It's almost like they don't want to be elected...
Very weird terminology considering the problems labour have with the gaza conflict.
Then again, they elected a leader .... who was in charge of past prosecutions but was no where to be seen, as well a personality of a cardboard box ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Current polling suggests 1997 level wipeout for the Tories "
I still don't see why any Conservative voter would suddenly change to Labour now. Doesn't seem like they any more self serving or any less disinterested in running the country than any time in the last 13 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usybee73Man
over a year ago
in the sticks |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Current polling suggests 1997 level wipeout for the Tories
I still don't see why any Conservative voter would suddenly change to Labour now. Doesn't seem like they any more self serving or any less disinterested in running the country than any time in the last 13 years."
Plus iirc they have no chance without Scotland.... why do you think the tories encourage the sno in a bank hand way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority"
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usybee73Man
over a year ago
in the sticks |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories."
Typical London labour voter hates kahn, yet still gets in? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories."
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day"
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
"
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66 OP Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative. "
Labour voters are going to vote labour, why bother trying to attract them? They want to lure the wondering voter, which they are doing by playing dressy up in army combat clothing and using phrases such as control the borders, special operations and other tough guy messages they think attracts the typical tory voter.....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative. "
Labour's argument is basically they will actually achieve the same goals which Tories claim they want to achieve but failed misery. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative.
Labour voters are going to vote labour, why bother trying to attract them? They want to lure the wondering voter, which they are doing by playing dressy up in army combat clothing and using phrases such as control the borders, special operations and other tough guy messages they think attracts the typical tory voter.....
"
In which case. Pretty pointless. All their offering is a less self serving version of what we have now. It's not good enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative.
Labour's argument is basically they will actually achieve the same goals which Tories claim they want to achieve but failed misery. "
I'll be honest, I don't know what goals the Tories are claiming they want to achieve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative.
Labour's argument is basically they will actually achieve the same goals which Tories claim they want to achieve but failed misery.
I'll be honest, I don't know what goals the Tories are claiming they want to achieve."
Sunak's 5 promises
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/65647308 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative.
Labour's argument is basically they will actually achieve the same goals which Tories claim they want to achieve but failed misery.
I'll be honest, I don't know what goals the Tories are claiming they want to achieve.
Sunak's 5 promises
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/65647308"
Right but that's clearly a load of nonsense, is this a bit tongue in cheek when they say this shit or is it for real? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative.
Labour's argument is basically they will actually achieve the same goals which Tories claim they want to achieve but failed misery.
I'll be honest, I don't know what goals the Tories are claiming they want to achieve.
Sunak's 5 promises
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/65647308
Right but that's clearly a load of nonsense, is this a bit tongue in cheek when they say this shit or is it for real?"
Which part of that is nonsense? They are clear actionable goals. But the Tories failed to do anything meaningful to achieve these goals. Labour will mostly reword these goals, maybe add a couple more and claim that they can actually achieve it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
"
I can see the theory in what they are doing and would say it's working so far. As others say it's the same but less self serving though I'm not as convinced that they will be less self serving. Once they clearly demonstrate it then I will believe it. After all we were told a while back that absolutely anyone would be better as PM than Boris. Liz Truss becomes PM and puts that into doubt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
SKS plotting a steady route to downing st - trying not to shoot hindelf in the foot and lose the whole thing - kingswood by election will be a interesting test for all parties including reform to see how many Tory voters they take from the conservatives |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative.
Labour's argument is basically they will actually achieve the same goals which Tories claim they want to achieve but failed misery.
I'll be honest, I don't know what goals the Tories are claiming they want to achieve.
Sunak's 5 promises
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/65647308
Right but that's clearly a load of nonsense, is this a bit tongue in cheek when they say this shit or is it for real?
Which part of that is nonsense? They are clear actionable goals. But the Tories failed to do anything meaningful to achieve these goals. Labour will mostly reword these goals, maybe add a couple more and claim that they can actually achieve it."
It's clearly nonsense because if they cared about any of those things, what have they been dicking around doing these last 13 years?
I agree with you about Labour, for me they utterly useless and unvoteable for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find the lack of interest in the labour campaign bible on the forum rather interesting, I was expecting the lefties to be championing the campaign and the content of. Images of SKS in combat gear being a particular favourite of mine
The silence makes me wonder if labour has support, or is it tories don't have support that will win them the day, if that makes sense?
I think Labour will be in government after the GE but it's more to do with the Tories poor performance than Labour winning. I think the only question is the level of victory for Labour from a coalition with others to a decent majority
Yeah every typical London Labour voter I know hates SKS because he isn't really aligned with their values. Yet they would vote for him simply because they just don't want another term with Tories at the helm.
Moderates just don't mind SKS. If it's Corbyn at Labour, they might think differently.
Regular Tory voters are kind of split. Some would vote for SKS or just not vote because they feel that Tories need to sit in the opposition for awhile and regroup. Some have defected to Reform. And very few willing to still vote for Tories.
I can't comment on the London situation but the rest does ring true with me as a person that has mainly voted Tory in the past. SKS has made them the Tory party mk2 and I suspect it will work, though personally I will probably look for an independent candidate come the day
I think that is the driver behind the campaign bible to attract you the tory voter looking to switch.
It screams tory light in the soundbites, the photographs and the tougher than usual wording around border control, the only word missing is Rwanda.
If it isn't working on you they have in my opinion missed the mark.
If they're Tory lite, what's the point in voting for them. They're not offering an alternative.
Labour's argument is basically they will actually achieve the same goals which Tories claim they want to achieve but failed misery.
I'll be honest, I don't know what goals the Tories are claiming they want to achieve.
Sunak's 5 promises
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/65647308
Right but that's clearly a load of nonsense, is this a bit tongue in cheek when they say this shit or is it for real?
Which part of that is nonsense? They are clear actionable goals. But the Tories failed to do anything meaningful to achieve these goals. Labour will mostly reword these goals, maybe add a couple more and claim that they can actually achieve it.
It's clearly nonsense because if they cared about any of those things, what have they been dicking around doing these last 13 years?
I agree with you about Labour, for me they utterly useless and unvoteable for."
Three of the 5 became worse because of Covid and war- Debt, NHS and inflation. The boat issue is also fairly recent. Growing the economy is the only issue you can blame them for the 13 years time.
They have done terribly in most of these. I don't think the promises themselves are bad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
