Politics

[Alex 34459]

TV presenter gets some tickets and gives one to his wife  

Also, I’m assuming Swift paid for the protection? 

[Renton 20787]

Apart from having the most Scottish name ever, this man is spot on. 

 

 

 

[wykikitoon 19569]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DA4Lk9bo9od/?igsh=MXFvYml2OTU0cWg4eQ==

 

 

[wykikitoon 19569]

I got this from The Good Law Project (linky)

 

Quote

Good Law Project has just taken the first step in a legal process against Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

 

Before the general election, thousands of you emailed the major political parties to ask them what data they hold about you, and to delete that data.

Farage’s Reform didn’t bother responding to the vast majority of requests, even though that’s a legal obligation. So we’re taking action to make Reform stick to the same rules as everyone else.

 

What a CUNT that snake bastard is.

[RobinRobin 10928]

5 hours ago, wykikitoon said:

I got this from The Good Law Project (linky)

 

 

What a CUNT that snake bastard is.

Like Trump. Doesn't believe rules apply to him. 

[Gemmill 43570]

 

This prick. He's got 120 people to pick from and he's running a "strictly lunatics" policy. I really hope he wins. 

[Dr Gloom 21698]

5 hours ago, Gemmill said:

 

This prick. He's got 120 people to pick from and he's running a "strictly lunatics" policy. I really hope he wins. 

 

sounds like he wants to absorb farage and his band of merry racists into the tory party 

[PaddockLad 16846]

 

[NJS 4334]

Some of their ideology like "fiscal responsibility" aka austerity, NHS outsourcing, welfare and crime crackdowns and culture shit on immigration and tansgenderism have found a home in labour under Starmer and Reeves. 

[Gemmill 43570]

 

 

A pretty good, sober assessment of Labour's first 100 days. Probably won't appeal to the THEY'RE JUST TORIES crew on here (you know who you are), but it's pretty balanced imo. 

 

Laura K features for being a bellend that has forgotten how to do her job. 

 

 

[Renton 20787]

2 hours ago, Gemmill said:

 

 

A pretty good, sober assessment of Labour's first 100 days. Probably won't appeal to the THEY'RE JUST TORIES crew on here (you know who you are), but it's pretty balanced imo. 

 

Laura K features for being a bellend that has forgotten how to do her job. 

 

 

 

I'll try to get time to give that a listen to later.

They've done a lot under the radar in the first trimester of government but I agree with podcasters on the Newsagents and OGWN in that they are terrible at advertising it and still shit scared of the tory client media. It's time they stood up to these thundercunts and stopped worrying about them and their dwindling base. We do need better coms and some more positivity now though. Labour are here for at least 5 years, they face against lunatics in opposition, so should be a decade. That is time to turn things round but they hopefully will. 

 

21 hours ago, NJS said:

NHS outsourcing, welfare and crime crackdowns and culture shit on immigration and tansgenderism have found a home in labour under Starmer and Reeves

 

Well, I must have missed Starmer and Reeves banging on about the culture war, perhaps you can enlighten me? 

Edited Monday at 08:36 by Renton

[NJS 4334]

8 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

 

Well, I must have missed Starmer and Reeves banging on about the culture war, perhaps you can enlighten me? 

Starmer has moved from an "immigration is good" stance (to be fair that was his 10 pledges so obviously horseshit) to having exactly the same position as the Tories minus Rwanda - see meeting that fascist cunt in Italy and saying she had some interesting ideas as an example. 

 

Also via Streeting and their response to the Case report they've moved from a consensus of 5 or 6 years ago when even the tories under May supported self-identification for trans people to being cornered into a definition of womanhood straight from the gender critical idiots - ironically getting behind Duffield who then showed at least she had a conscience about non-trans issues. 

 

All trying to appeal to supposed social conservatives in the red wall. Funnily enough I saw a projection based on the latest polls yesterday showing Reform would win two seats in Sunderland including Bridget's. 

[Gemmill 43570]

Re Italy, they're trying to get closer ties with Europe where every country has a veto. You can't have closer ties with Europe and refuse to engage with Italy. They're in government, they have to engage with some people that we, and also they, would consider unsavoury. 

 

I want to see progress in some areas, but I expect to see some things I don't like along the way. It's the cost of being in government and wanting to stay there.

 

If you absolutely insist on ideological purity, you can only ever have that in opposition, and you'll only ever be in opposition. 

[Renton 20787]

26 minutes ago, NJS said:

Starmer has moved from an "immigration is good" stance (to be fair that was his 10 pledges so obviously horseshit) to having exactly the same position as the Tories minus Rwanda - see meeting that fascist cunt in Italy and saying she had some interesting ideas as an example. 

 

Also via Streeting and their response to the Case report they've moved from a consensus of 5 or 6 years ago when even the tories under May supported self-identification for trans people to being cornered into a definition of womanhood straight from the gender critical idiots - ironically getting behind Duffield who then showed at least she had a conscience about non-trans issues. 

 

All trying to appeal to supposed social conservatives in the red wall. Funnily enough I saw a projection based on the latest polls yesterday showing Reform would win two seats in Sunderland including Bridget's. 

 

So they scrapped Rwanda on day one and he met Meloni, who is the leader of a major EU economy and member of the G7, and like it or not has a big problem with small boat crossings in the Med. This bothers you somehow? Should he refuse to meet right wing leaders (might be a bit difficult considering their rise in Europe and Americas). 

As for immigration, we have gone from <200,000 per year pre-Brexit to >700,000 per year post-Brexit. I don't remember anywhere Starmer saying immigration was bad per se but do you really think those numbers are "good" or sustainable? It is a problem whether you like it or not, and needs to be managed. No going to be solved in 100 days though. 

I reckon Starmer is like me and 90% of people and probably doesn't want to get involved with issues with transgender. Doesn't matter what you say, someone is always going to be offended. Personally I don't want to see any of these culture war issues as political issues. I think you'll find the people who do are the current candidates for the Leadership of the tory party, but aye "all the same". 

 Fact is, it doesn't matter an single iota what Starmer does now to you, you will find a way to denigrate him and any achievements he has, just like you did with New Labour and Blair. You've no time for pragmatic politics, you just seem to believe in some social utopia which can never be achieved democratically or probably practically,and want to grouch from the sidelines, achieving nothing. Well enjoy, you'll have years more to do it. 

Edited Monday at 09:06 by Renton

[wykikitoon 19569]

Bloke on the pod 100% on the register 

[Gemmill 43570]

He's a good lad. Greek national, now lives here full time. Former civil servant and incredibly posh, but he's sound and a very astute political observer/commentator in my experience. 

 

He was the only person when Johnson won his big majority and everyone was saying Labour were done for, that was saying "I wouldn't be so sure. Set free to do what he wants to do, Johnson will be his own worst enemy, and it's much more likely that this ends in scandal and tears."

 

And he was absolutely bang on. 

[Gemmill 43570]

His current, yet to be proven take, is that he reckons that polling in America is failing to adequately take account of the huge voter registration numbers since Harris became the Dem ticket. He reckons that, plus increased turnover among women, could.... could result in a bigger than expected win for Harris than the polls are suggesting. 

 

Hope to fuck he's right this time too. 

[NJS 4334]

I don't expect Starmer yo refuse to meet Meloni but praising her ideas is a bit too far. 

 

I also don't despite what you suggest demand idealogical purity - but some idealogy that reflects the history of the party, it's membership and overall the views of the British people would be a start. 

 

Despite my misgivings Blair had a vision and a plan - I don't see any vision now. 

[wykikitoon 19569]

9 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

He's a good lad. Greek national, now lives here full time. Former civil servant and incredibly posh, but he's sound and a very astute political observer/commentator in my experience. 

 

He was the only person when Johnson won his big majority and everyone was saying Labour were done for, that was saying "I wouldn't be so sure. Set free to do what he wants to do, Johnson will be his own worst enemy, and it's much more likely that this ends in scandal and tears."

 

And he was absolutely bang on. 

Yeh it was a really good listen and I have shared it to a few.

One thing that jumped out on me was quite early when he said that the government in the first 100 days only had 25 official sit in days.  

[Renton 20787]

37 minutes ago, NJS said:

I don't expect Starmer yo refuse to meet Meloni but praising her ideas is a bit too far. 

 

I also don't despite what you suggest demand idealogical purity - but some idealogy that reflects the history of the party, it's membership and overall the views of the British people would be a start. 

 

Despite my misgivings Blair had a vision and a plan - I don't see any vision now. 

 

Genuine question here, regarding immigration and asylum seekers specifically, what issues do you have with Meloni's policies? 

I mean I know the results, which are 60% decrease in illegal crossings, but not much about how they were achieved other than the main policies were directed "upstream" (i.e. at prevention at source). I'm not aware of any human rights violations etc. 

 

As for vision, maybe a fair point, I don't see Starmer as a visionary. Problem though is the country is economically fucked right now and the government are pretty hamstrung in what it can do, especially after the promises made in the manifesto (which imo was forced on them to some extent). We're not in the happy 90s anymore, Blair is not a good comparator. There's a lot of criticism that Reeves didn't carry out an earlier than usual budget but personally I reject that, as she will only have had access to the full civil service data when she achieved office, and has to get it right. But maybe you should at least wait until the budget before judging.

 

Edited Monday at 10:21 by Renton

[Gemmill 43570]

Jenrick says he'll appoint Rees Mogg as party chair if he wins the leadership.

[Rayvin 5134]

8 hours ago, Gemmill said:

Re Italy, they're trying to get closer ties with Europe where every country has a veto. You can't have closer ties with Europe and refuse to engage with Italy. They're in government, they have to engage with some people that we, and also they, would consider unsavoury. 

 

I want to see progress in some areas, but I expect to see some things I don't like along the way. It's the cost of being in government and wanting to stay there.

 

If you absolutely insist on ideological purity, you can only ever have that in opposition, and you'll only ever be in opposition. 

 

Worth noting that the Tories had a fair stint of ideological purity mind you. If the Tories can do it, and Labour can't, then we are only ever going to move rightwards. I think we're appeasing too much personally, we're selling out truth and fairness for cheap votes. Maybe it does have to be that way but frankly I don't see the point in a country that operates like that. It means it's already over for the UK. A slow motion car crash into increasing shitness.

 

I know that's not news to anyone here though tbf.

[Rayvin 5134]

I think I would ask all the pragmatists on here something along the lines of... do you think Starmer would have lost if he'd come out with Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto minus the personal baggage and antisemitism stuff?

 

I don't think he would have. I don't for a second think he would have. I think Labour hugely underplayed their hand this election - maybe that makes them more sustainable over time but honestly I think we're going to start struggling to see daylight between them and Cameron's Tories, longer term. And if that is the case, what is even the point.

[Gemmill 43570]

Corbyn's manifesto was undeliverable at the time he proposed it and that was before the effects of Brexit, covid, and Truss. Starmer running on that manifesto in 2024 would have been one of the all time greatest acts of political self sabotage. 

[spongebob toonpants 3885]

54 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Corbyn's manifesto was undeliverable at the time he proposed it and that was before the effects of Brexit, covid, and Truss. Starmer running on that manifesto in 2024 would have been one of the all time greatest acts of political self sabotage. 

Bit of revisionism going on here. Corbyns manifesto seems radical mainly because everybody is singing to the Tories tune. They might have lost the election bit it seems everyone has bought their arguments

Corbyn manifesto would be centre left in any number of European countries