Will you keep your membership going? I still have mine but to be honest given the changes agreed it sounds like there probably won’t be much chance of a candidate standing on a platform that will resonate anymore.Arent they the same fiscal rules that McDonnell had (borrow for capital, tax for ongoing costs)?
Nick Robinson was still giving it the old “where will you get the money from?” Stuff to her this morning so not sure it’ll make much difference in messaging either.
TBH I’m pretty much done with the party at this point. Going back to my approach 2005-2015 of barely voting and sniping from the sidelines I think.
I think I'm just going to vote Green for a while.
I don't particularly like them either but if they get a bump it might focus some minds in the main parties that it's actually important.
I'd be very much behind compulsory voting with a none of the above optionThats basically what I've been doing since the 90s.....but I've given up on them now too....
Until the ballot provides a box for "none of the above" and it gets counted, I'll probably no longer bother or just vote for the loonies.....
Will you keep your membership going? I still have mine but to be honest given the changes agreed it sounds like there probably won’t be much chance of a candidate standing on a platform that will resonate anymore. ☹
I think I'm just going to vote Green for a while.
I don't particularly like them either but if they get a bump it might focus some minds in the main parties that it's actually important.
Who'd vote for these chumps? Genuinely not a chance I'll vote for new Labour mk II
We've just been in an economic shock event equivalent to WW2 with rising poverty and reducing living standards, broken energy markets, public services struggling after years of obliteration and this drivel is all they can come up with.
All the way through Blair's government I'd have called myself left, radical compared to that impersonation. Since then, I've become more pragmatic - Blair's government wasn't what I wanted, but it was a damned site better than what came before and after. Therefore, if that's what it takes to get the current lot out... I'll deal with the devil.Sadly , whilst people won't vote for these chumps , then what chance do we have of the tories losing an election ?
All the way through Blair's government I'd have called myself left, radical compared to that impersonation. Since then, I've become more pragmatic - Blair's government wasn't what I wanted, but it was a damned site better than what came before and after. Therefore, if that's what it takes to get the current lot out... I'll deal with the devil.
I can’t vote Green. Them and the LDs have gone full bat shit. If I’m voting left Labour is still the best of a bad bunch, but JFC what a bunch.
Seems Labour are doing the same.
All the crap going on and the thing Starmer decides to take a stance on - whether only a woman can have a cervix.
I'm sure this isn't him. Like with Milliband he's being made to look an idiot by his advisors. I can't see anybody thinking that that's the best thing to be talking about when we've got massive problems with the pandemic, more pressure on low-income people with UC cut and NI rise, corruption in govt contracts, Brexit problems aplenty including most of what Johnson promised not happening.
The only people that would do would be people with clipboards of market research that tell them that the people on the street are more concerned about who does and doesn't have a fanny than a government shafting them from every direction.
People don’t care about who has a fanny, but while Labours “top media performers” keep responding like this the media will keep asking for the lols:
Ironically they need to show some balls and just call it out for the nonsense it is.
Can't say I know anything about the procedure involved in gender reassignment surgery, but even then you wouldn't, biologically, have a cervix. At most you would have something that was a facsimile. A cerfakes.
Its not about that. It’s about some biological women not wanting to be identified as women but as trans men or non-binary. And also that trans women “are women” and don’t have a cervix.
Seems Labour are doing the same.
All the crap going on and the thing Starmer decides to take a stance on - whether only a woman can have a cervix.
I'm sure this isn't him. Like with Milliband he's being made to look an idiot by his advisors. I can't see anybody thinking that that's the best thing to be talking about when we've got massive problems with the pandemic, more pressure on low-income people with UC cut and NI rise, corruption in govt contracts, Brexit problems aplenty including most of what Johnson promised not happening.
The only people that would do would be people with clipboards of market research that tell them that the people on the street are more concerned about who does and doesn't have a fanny than a government shafting them from every direction.
People don’t care about who has a fanny, but while Labours “top media performers” keep responding like this the media will keep asking for the lols:
Shadow Cabinet member quits after Starmer 'tells him to oppose £15 minimum wage'
Shadow Cabinet member quits after Starmer 'tells him to oppose £15 minimum wage'
They really are a long way away from government.Why didn’t he quit under Corbyn then, who wanted £10 NMW?
They really are a long way away from government.
People don’t care about who has a fanny, but while Labours “top media performers” keep responding like this the media will keep asking for the lols:
Labour allow themselves to be caught up in this kind of debate because currently have no plans, ideas or vision at to what they stand for. Take the nationalisation of energy companies, it has majority support in this country, which includes across the political divide… and when their moment comes to sieze it they literally blow it…. The most open of open goals and Starmer bottles it. Again today, Reeves announces they will create a new government department focusing on not wasting money (that will undoubtedly waste shit loads of money in setting it up for no net gain) it’s truly fucking tragic. It’s like the shit bits from 15 years of the Apprentice all rolled into one.
Starmer’s single achievement of the conference is to give a bunch of shit MP’s even more control over who runs the cabal. And he thinks that’s what the electorate want.
Cabinet Office does it at the level she's talking about. She's coming up for a solution to a specific problem that was essentially the Tories capitalising on the panic of the early part of the pandemic.This non-money wasting govt dept - isn't that a main part of the OBR remit? So as far as I can see it'd pretty much just be a rebrand of something that already exists.
It's not that we need a new dept, it's that the people involved in it at the moment couldn't give a fuck.
Cabinet Office does it at the level she's talking about. She's coming up for a solution to a specific problem that was essentially the Tories capitalising on the panic of the early part of the pandemic.
The nutters have got a new favourite party.
The nutters have got a new favourite party.
I think they'll be splitting the tory vote. Although I hope not too much. My faith in the public of late is being tested but these lot should be a goose step too far to the right for most.Can only be a positive.
Slightly less tory votes at the next election , we just need traditional labour voters to not have a brain fart and vote Labour again , and also current Labour voters not to go green or the monster raving loony party
It won't be much at all, if their vote is as much as their rallies.I think they'll be splitting the tory vote. Although I hope not too much. My faith in the public of late is being tested but these lot should be a goose step too far to the right for most.
It won't be much at all, if their vote is as much as their rallies.
Even among the far right, they're a bit of a joke really!
Are they though? Or is it your Nick Ferrari's of the world constantly asking this sort of question to get outraged at something.why Labour keep this kind of politics at the front of its agenda
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?