Jump to content

All things Labour Party


Recommended Posts

On 05/03/2021 at 21:47, Fan The Flames said:

What does that mean?

Eton's de Pfeffel Johnson and his cabinet are mainly private school and oxbridge education, they are the elite.

All very true. But they (the Conservatives) are able to speak to the working class* where as Labour cannot (and stuck talking into their metropolitan echo chamber).

*Conservatives are polling 25% ahead of Labour amongst the so-called working classes, and of course, trounced Labour at the last election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
On 06/04/2021 at 17:18, whelk said:

This is why Labour are fucked. Starmer no backbone. And yes pains me to put a Spectator link.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-was-wrong-to-say-sorry-for-visiting-jesus-house

Labour has been a uneasy alliance of ultra progressive liberals, unions and student types for a few years now. I think they need to actually try and appeal to the average person rather than trying to keep all these groups onside and actually keeping no one happy. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/03/2021 at 21:47, Fan The Flames said:

What does that mean?

Eton's de Pfeffel Johnson and his cabinet are mainly private school and oxbridge education, they are the elite.

It means that disliking and talking down the country, moaning about seeing the union Jack, having debates about all women shortlists that include men, not being able to define what a woman is, writing off anyone who voted brexit as a thick racist, refusing to condemn riots, kneeling for BLM etc etc is all part of the same sort of mindset that infests institutions like universities, the BBC and increasingly the Labour Party. None of these traits will appeal to traditional Labour voters and its why they are still doing badly. 

There's so much wrong with the Conservatives but imo the popular view is that at least they aren't labour at that should tell you how badly Labour have got it wrong and continue to get it wrong. 

Edited by hypochondriac
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Labour has been a uneasy alliance of ultra progressive liberals, unions and student types for a few years now. I think they need to actually try and appeal to the average person rather than trying to keep all these groups onside and actually keeping no one happy. 

Amazing their focus groups don’t appear to highlight what is obvious to many.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, whelk said:

Amazing their focus groups don’t appear to highlight what is obvious to many.

I expect they do. The problem is they don't want to risk upsetting the majority of their membership. I expect quite a few would rather stay with Corbyn's politics even if it meant never getting in power again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I expect they do. The problem is they don't want to risk upsetting the majority of their membership. I expect quite a few would rather stay with Corbyn's politics even if it meant never getting in power again. 

Agree. Labour is in danger of becoming a political cult / movement rather than a party. It us Starmer's job to change that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Agree. Labour is in danger of becoming a political cult / movement rather than a party. It us Starmer's job to change that.

And so far he's been very underwhelming. The one thing you could say about corbyn is that he had clear things that he stood for even if lots of those things were ridiculous things that the majority didn't want. The answer then isn't to stand for nothing and just exist with some nebulous positions in the centre. Starmer needs to start by actually standing for something appealing, reject identity politics and provide a viable alternative to the government that the average person actually wants to vote for. Corbyn had a clear appeal to a certain type of person, who does starmer appeal to and inspire? 

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

And so far he's been very underwhelming. The one thing you could say about corbyn is that he had clear things that he stood for even if lots of those things were ridiculous things that the majority didn't want. The answer then isn't to stand for nothing and just exist with some nebulous positions in the centre. Starmer needs to start by actually standing for something appealing, reject identity politics and provide a viable alternative to the government that the average person actually wants to vote for. Corbyn had a clear appeal to a certain type of person, who does starmer appeal to and inspire? 

That's modern political tactics. You don't set out your policies until relatively shortly before an election because otherwise you lose the 'fresh' appeal and also give the opposition the chance to build up a case against them.  Until then you just pick holes in the other side and undermine confidence whilst voting for things that are popular and would be passed anyway.      

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Another Labour secret weapon!!!

 

There will be plenty of batshit mental local councillors all over the country so I don't see the issue with this guy to be honest.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
50 minutes ago, rooney said:

Starmer had Boris on the ropes at PMQ;s today. I have never seen the latter so rattled over Flatgate.

Yep, battered him all around the chamber. The 4 simple choices question was brilliant. 

With that said, I couldn't care less who paid for the flat as long as it wasn't the tax layer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, egg said:

I couldn't care less who paid for the flat as long as it wasn't the tax layer. 

You should do, otherwise transparency disappears. Politicians allowing somebody else to pay for their home redecoration, school fees, holidays etc is just as corrupt as a pile of £50 notes in a paper bag.     

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, buctootim said:

You should do, otherwise transparency disappears. Politicians allowing somebody else to pay for their home redecoration, school fees, holidays etc is just as corrupt as a pile of £50 notes in a paper bag.     

Good of you to tell me what I should care about, but I really don't and need not. 

Political parties take donations. We know that. If the donation goes via, or bypasses, the party and ends up funding renovations I really don't mind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, egg said:

Good of you to tell me what I should care about, but I really don't and need not. 

Political parties take donations. We know that. If the donation goes via, or bypasses, the party and ends up funding renovations I really don't mind. 

Huge difference between declared donations going to a political party and hidden erm 'donations' going to personally benefit an elected politician  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, buctootim said:

Huge difference between declared donations going to a political party and hidden erm 'donations' going to personally benefit an elected politician  

It's gone to improve a public asset, its hardly buying Boris a yacht. It'll be declared, Boris has form for being tardy about these things. 

Storm in a teacup for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, egg said:

It's gone to improve a public asset, its hardly buying Boris a yacht. It'll be declared, Boris has form for being tardy about these things. 

Storm in a teacup for me. 

How about his holiday in Barbados paid for Carphone Warehouse? Also a public asset?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, buctootim said:

How about his holiday in Barbados paid for Carphone Warehouse? Also a public asset?  

No idea Tim, my comment related to today in Parliament and the flat.  I'm no Boris fan/tory by the way, but Labour have more interest in this point than the wider public do I suspect. Starmer was great today, but it'll get him and labour nowhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, egg said:

It's gone to improve a public asset

From the photos going around, I think that is debatable to the point of untrue.

For a temporary residence they seem to have done it up in such a niche/stylised way that it guarantees the next person in there will spend another thirty grand ripping it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, egg said:

No idea Tim, my comment related to today in Parliament and the flat.  I'm no Boris fan/tory by the way, but Labour have more interest in this point than the wider public do I suspect. Starmer was great today, but it'll get him and labour nowhere. 

I agree Labour aren't going to romp to victory because a snap election is triggered. But I do think Johnson's authority is starting to unravel. Most people have always known he was lazy, unprincipled and dishonest - but the Tories needed his ability to unite the party and 'get Brexit done'. Now it is, and his communication skills seem to be on the wane, who needs him?      

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

From the photos going around, I think that is debatable to the point of untrue.

For a temporary residence they seem to have done it up in such a niche/stylised way that it guarantees the next person in there will spend another thirty grand ripping it out.

To be fair I haven't seen any pics, and my understanding is that there's a £30k allowance to decorate etc.

The issue is whether it's an issue for a donor to pay for the works rather than the incumbent or the tax payer. For me, I'd rather a donor than me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, buctootim said:

I agree Labour aren't going to romp to victory because a snap election is triggered. But I do think Johnson's authority is starting to unravel. Most people have always known he was lazy, unprincipled and dishonest - but the Tories needed his ability to unite the party and 'get Brexit done'. Now it is, and his communication skills seem to be on the wane, who needs him?      

What will be interesting is the news reel of all his PMQ kickings from Starmer where he's squirmed and been disingenuous. Today will help with that if nothing else. 

Whether Boris is needed is academic as he ain't going anywhere any time soon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, egg said:

What will be interesting is the news reel of all his PMQ kickings from Starmer where he's squirmed and been disingenuous. Today will help with that if nothing else. 

Whether Boris is needed is academic as he ain't going anywhere any time soon. 

Sky seem to think Starmer lured Johnson into a trap of getting him to formally deny in Parliament that he said "let the bodies pile high".  If witnesses do come forward publicly lying to Parliament is a resigning matter. Who knows. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Sky seem to think Starmer lured Johnson into a trap of getting him to formally deny in Parliament that he said "let the bodies pile high".  If witnesses do come forward publicly lying to Parliament is a resigning matter. Who knows. 

Possibly, Starmer is a bright lad and often approaches PMQ,s as if it's cross examination. Boris is so dishonest its highly possible that Starmer will trip him up at some point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, egg said:

To be fair I haven't seen any pics, and my understanding is that there's a £30k allowance to decorate etc.

The issue is whether it's an issue for a donor to pay for the works rather than the incumbent or the tax payer. For me, I'd rather a donor than me. 

I'm the opposite in that I would prefer it if the leader of the country and our democratic institution is not bribed off by gifts from rich men seeking favours.

The idea that "well at least it isn't the tax payer" is really rather odd argument. Not particularly enthusiastic about our Prime Minister being so obviously and visibly a kept man.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CB Fry said:

I'm the opposite in that I would prefer it if the leader of the country and our democratic institution is not bribed off by gifts from rich men seeking favours.

The idea that "well at least it isn't the tax payer" is really rather odd argument. Not particularly enthusiastic about our Prime Minister being so obviously and visibly a kept man.

Political parties take donations, and if some of that finds itself into renovations or general party contributions, I'm not sure that it matters. If it finds its way to the former, it's a saving to the tax payer. We see it differently, but for me, this isn't a big issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is no fucker cares about integrity these days. They know it and when their focus groups indicate the same apathy shown by Egg they just ride it out.  Won’t give a shit about Hancock and contracts either. Hey no stamp duty though so who cares these are corrupt bunch who hold us in contempt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

From the photos going around, I think that is debatable to the point of untrue.

For a temporary residence they seem to have done it up in such a niche/stylised way that it guarantees the next person in there will spend another thirty grand ripping it out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, whelk said:

Problem is no fucker cares about integrity these days. They know it and when their focus groups indicate the same apathy shown by Egg they just ride it out.  Won’t give a shit about Hancock and contracts either. Hey no stamp duty though so who cares these are corrupt bunch who hold us in contempt. 

Daft to link doing up a flat up and giving out billions of pounds of moody covid contracts. Completely different things, and seeing one as the same as the other is silly. 

I wouldn't seek to suggest Boris has integrity, he's as dodgy as they come, but a bit of perspective is needed about this issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, egg said:

Daft to link doing up a flat up and giving out billions of pounds of moody covid contracts. Completely different things, and seeing one as the same as the other is silly. 

I wouldn't seek to suggest Boris has integrity, he's as dodgy as they come, but a bit of perspective is needed about this issue. 

Yes but there is still a matter of shrug ‘so what’. They know this. Priti Patel would have gone in past years for the bullying enquiry. 
Clearly he got rattled today though….

4E8ACC3A-7E1B-4294-81DF-6D261D222A3B.jpeg

Edited by whelk
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, buctootim said:

Sky seem to think Starmer lured Johnson into a trap of getting him to formally deny in Parliament that he said "let the bodies pile high".  If witnesses do come forward publicly lying to Parliament is a resigning matter. Who knows. 

Knowing the press as we do, they drip these titbits out so that Boris can deny and then, sometime soon, they show the event from someone's phone. Toast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, egg said:

Daft to link doing up a flat up and giving out billions of pounds of moody covid contracts. Completely different things, and seeing one as the same as the other is silly. 

But the story is the guy funding his flat has been a beneficiary of such government contracts and could be in the future.

No not linking them  and not seeing them as part of the same issue is equally silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue isn't that de Pfeffel has shit taste in wallpaper, or even that he's somehow managed to spend over £100k in renovating a flat he will only live in for a few years; it's that, yet again, our politicians are easily (and so cheaply!) bought. Give him a small £58k and he'll give you millions in government contracts without having to go through a tender process. Everybody wins!

...apart from the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, igsey said:

This issue isn't that de Pfeffel has shit taste in wallpaper, or even that he's somehow managed to spend over £100k in renovating a flat he will only live in for a few years; it's that, yet again, our politicians are easily (and so cheaply!) bought. Give him a small £58k and he'll give you millions in government contracts without having to go through a tender process. Everybody wins!

...apart from the public.

Was there anything in the Tory manifesto about interior design and soft furnishings?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, igsey said:

This issue isn't that de Pfeffel has shit taste in wallpaper, or even that he's somehow managed to spend over £100k in renovating a flat he will only live in for a few years; it's that, yet again, our politicians are easily (and so cheaply!) bought. Give him a small £58k and he'll give you millions in government contracts without having to go through a tender process. Everybody wins!

...apart from the public.

Hand on heart, do you honestly believe that Boris is in charge of dishing out the contracts? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Hand on heart, do you honestly believe that Boris is in charge of dishing out the contracts? 

Hand on heart, do you honestly believe that Boris's cabinet of poodles would go against his wishes when dishing out the contracts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/04/2021 at 19:38, whelk said:

Problem is no fucker cares about integrity these days. They know it and when their focus groups indicate the same apathy shown by Egg they just ride it out.  Won’t give a shit about Hancock and contracts either. Hey no stamp duty though so who cares these are corrupt bunch who hold us in contempt. 

The £58k saved will cover the cost of the stamp duty lost on one road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

The £58k saved will cover the cost of the stamp duty lost on one road.

Who needs to focus on morality as long as Turkish inputs into his house price calculator and sees a rise all is good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

 

Starmer is a sneaky prick but a lame boxing effort isn't something to pull him up on. All politicians do this silly stuff during election time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})