The Death of the Tory Party and the Rebirth of the UK As We Know It (General Election 2024 Thread)

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps, knowing Mrs Ghey was in Parliament, which I strongly suspect he did given his later comments, he could have used a little bit of common sense and left that particular dig at Starmer for next PMQs.

Had keir actually managed to answer what a woman is before now, the question wouldn't have been relevant. 

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Had keir actually managed to answer what a woman is before now, the question wouldn't have been relevant. 

Obviously "woman" is a state of mind.

 ( My surmision, not necessarily my opinion ).

Edited February 7 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I ignored your posts for over a year. I didn't engage with you once. You referenced me many times over that period. 

It was a pile on of one. 

[whelk]

42 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Had keir actually managed to answer what a woman is before now, the question wouldn't have been relevant. 

Don’t think anyone needs to get too emotive about what is bit of a non-story. Although Sunak seems very childish thinking his ‘anti woke’ jibes ever land at PMQs. Just highlights he is out of ideas and any strategy other than keep stoking culture war shite

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

Don’t think anyone needs to get too emotive about what is bit of a non-story. Although Sunak seems very childish thinking his ‘anti woke’ jibes ever land at PMQs. Just highlights he is out of ideas and any strategy other than keep stoking culture war shite

Probably some truth in that. I do think continuing to question keir on this specific point has merit though as he still hasn't managed to formulate a proper answer and it makes him look ridiculous. Saying adult female human would have allowed him to move on months ago. 

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

 I do think continuing to question keir on this specific point has merit though 

What question did he ask?

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

What question did he ask?

I believe he was making a comment about Keir's inability to properly answer what a woman is. I'm happy for continued discourse on this point until Starmer answers it properly. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I believe he was making a comment about Keir's inability to properly answer what a woman is. I'm happy for continued discourse on this point until Starmer answers it properly. 

So he didn’t ask a question then  

[hypochondriac]

45 minutes ago, aintforever said:

So he didn’t ask a question then  

"I do think continuing to question Kier on this specific point has merit."

 

[egg]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps, knowing Mrs Ghey was in Parliament, which I strongly suspect he did given his later comments, he could have used a little bit of common sense and left that particular dig at Starmer for next PMQs.

Yep, but even then, it's a point that doesn't take the Tories anywhere unless they're so desperate to run an election with trans attitudes as a live issue.

Shit politics from a shit PM.  

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

"I do think continuing to question Kier on this specific point has merit."

 

I don’t think anyone has problems with people asking questions, it’s the inappropriate joking that’s the issue.

[Gloucester Saint]

6 hours ago, Winnersaint said:

Saints most famous fan might just have a dropped the biggest bollock at PMQs. Trying to make a crass transgender joke in response to Starmer 90 seconds after the latter had mentioned that the mother of Brianna Ghey was in the gallery. Oh dear!

Don’t think he cares, the culture war is their only tactic in the same way hitting long balls in the channel was Branfoot’s only tactic as Saints manager. If it’s not transgender jibes by the pack of animals and their media, it’s whether a top University has played the national anthem at a graduation ceremony or not. It smacks of all the irrelevant shit Trump spouted about the taking of the knee in the NFL.

They’re just Republican Trump-lite wannabes - keep pressing F5 on the culture war button where their and the IEA’s theories on the economy got blown to smithereens by Truss (who won’t take the hint either - the public doesn’t want her and never will), the NHS is saddled with huge waiting lists, no affordable dentists for anyone earning less than the national average, soaring food bank use, failing and most expensive transport in Europe and the HS2 disaster. Car insurance through the roof and it’s a brute trying to renovate a house with the cost of materials and impact of Brexit. The UK is twice as expensive as the EU per mile of road/rail built. Only Australia worse and they are in the middle of nowhere geographically. The new border checks fuck UK SMEs who export and import over royally. 

Instead, they restrict freedom of movement through Farage-esque 40% hikes in visas and surcharge costs which bar cancer science postdocs and people who could help bring clinical and allied waiting lists in a lot of key seats.

That’s what I want answers from Starmer on as a taxpayer, because the Tories sure as eggs is eggs have no answers at all, and no clue what to do even if they weren’t distracted by the latest civil war going on. Frost and the £40k poll wipeout forecast last week, Truss and Pop Chips (apologies to the snacks firm) this week. It's the economy stupid, followed by the NHS, and skills/R&D. As the CEO of Tesco said, none of which the Tories are even on the pitch for. I don’t know he or Reeves will have them to get out of this hole but since May went,and she was no great shakes, the UK and England especially has become exactly the rundown shithole of the late 1970s the Tories always said we risked voting Labour throughout the 1980s. They may have a point at the time but they don’t now. No downsides to voting them out for a generation. 

 

Edited February 7 by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I don’t think anyone has problems with people asking questions, it’s the inappropriate joking that’s the issue.

It was a joke based on his inability to answer a simple question. The fact he still hasn't answered it invites ridicule and mockery. 

Edited February 7 by hypochondriac

[SotonianWill]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Perhaps, knowing Mrs Ghey was in Parliament, which I strongly suspect he did given his later comments, he could have used a little bit of common sense and left that particular dig at Starmer for next PMQs.

How undemocratic! You can’t express your opinion MP as i’ve brought in someone who disagrees with you.

Sunak has been consistent on his views on this topic. The idea he should curve his opinion to suit someone (despite how disgusting the case was) is ridiculous, as is Starmers use of it as a political point scorer, desperate for a correlation between the two. 

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Probably some truth in that. I do think continuing to question keir on this specific point has merit though as he still hasn't managed to formulate a proper answer and it makes him look ridiculous. Saying adult female human would have allowed him to move on months ago. 

I’m more bothered about about the millions who can’t get basic dental care as one example of hundreds I could pick. It’s OK for me, I pay through the nose for a quality local surgery through a monthly plan to spread the bills but a lot of people don’t have that option. We’re back to what our grandparents did eg piece of string a door handle to extract teeth. The associated health problems being stored up which will cost far more to fix later than prevention now.

I hadn’t seen this article when I first typed this but shows the scale of the issue https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68228322

Thats one example of a burning priority, anyone who says this country is in a better state than 2010 deserves to be sectioned.

When Sunak debates key issues for a majority of voters, he’ll be taken more seriously. He needs to kick the worst from four of the five family factions out and clean it up for the One Nation strand as a centre right party. People say it’s boring when the parties are similar. Personally, I just want a few years at least of some consistency and not the latest faction launching whacky policies aimed at UKIP/Reform UK nutcases. Get the politics in the background and culture war off the front pages. 

With the hard right back seat driving, all we are getting is soundbites unworkable in practice - minimum service levels for train strikes, Rwanda policy etc. 

As a Lib Dem voter, I’m not exactly cheered up by Ed Davey either. Behind fucking Reform UK in the latest polls. Thought they blunted the worst of the coalition but Swinson knackered the party for a generation. 

Wake me up when GE is over. Months of this crap to go.

Edited February 7 by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It was a joke based on his inability to answer a simple question. The fact he still hasn't answered it invites ridicule and mockery. 

Do you think it was a good move for the Tories?

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

How undemocratic! You can’t express your opinion MP as i’ve brought in someone who disagrees with you.

Sunak has been consistent on his views on this topic. The idea he should curve his opinion to suit someone (despite how disgusting the case was) is ridiculous, as is Starmers use of it as a political point scorer, desperate for a correlation between the two. 

It is nothing to do with Sunak's opinion but his crass inability to relate to the sensitivities of 'real' people. He was so obsessed with pushing his culture wars smokescreen that he revealed himself in his true colours. Starmer didn't bring up Trans matters in his questions, and Sunak should have paused for a split second before launching into his rehearsed diatribe.

Perhaps he should have considered the mantra "Do not engage mouth before putting brain in gear".

Edited February 7 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

29 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It was a joke based on his inability to answer a simple question. The fact he still hasn't answered it invites ridicule and mockery. 

He did answer it though, something about 99.9% wasn’t it?

[The Kraken]

“A woman is an adult female” is what he has since said.

[SotonianWill]

42 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It is nothing to do with Sunak's opinion but his crass inability to relate to the sensitivities of 'real' people. He was so obsessed with pushing his culture wars smokescreen that he revealed himself in his true colours. Starmer didn't bring up Trans matters in his questions, and Sunak should have paused for a split second before launching into his rehearsed diatribe.

I don’t mean it in a way of an opinion being good or bad. Just that MPs are paid to give their opinion and make law. Not saying your opinion because it’s sensitive to someone else in the commons watching is cowardly. What’s the limit? Should someone be brought in every week to make sure certain topics are not discussed? Sunak was listing a myriad of Starmers U-Turns, he didn’t focus solely on trans issues. Discuss any issue, please don’t make it so we have a system in which parliament is suppressed as some person may get upset. Why was she there in the first place - i’ll tell you, as if you look at Starmers social media page it’s very obvious - political opportunism. 

Frankly, laughable is the idea that Starmer actually cared (he didn’t, he just made a big deal out of it as a cheap political football, much like Sunak in his silly list). She was planted there for the start. It’s quite sad. 

 

 

Edited Response as I was out of Posts:

 

How did Labour know he would make the jibe?

 

It’s really not very hard, he makes the same points and same jibes at Starmer every week. Not mentioning it would’ve been an oddity. I’m not saying the act was scripted, im merely saying Starmer wanted to use the woman as a political stick for opportunistic pictures - which he did look at his SM. 

 

 

I used the word planted as no one else mentioned the case other than Sir Starmer. If everyone else doesn’t see it as completely unrelated and political opportunism that’s fine. 

Edited February 7 by SotonianWill

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

He did answer it though, something about 99.9% wasn’t it?

Does that mean 1 in 1000 women have a penis? Is the opposite true for men with vaginas?

Genuine question. I don't know the official stats.

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

 She was planted there for the start. It’s quite sad. 

She was in Parliament to attend a meeting on "Mindfulness in schools" organised by her MP, unless you think the whole thing was a setup. ( But then, how did Labour ensure that Sunak made his jibe ? ).

[whelk]

10 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

I don’t mean it in a way of an opinion being good or bad. Just that MPs are paid to give their opinion and make law. Not saying your opinion because it’s sensitive to someone else in the commons watching is cowardly. What’s the limit? Should someone be brought in every week to make sure certain topics are not discussed? Sunak was listing a myriad of Starmers U-Turns, he didn’t focus solely on trans issues. Discuss any issue, please don’t make it so we have a system in which parliament is suppressed as some person may get upset. Why was she there in the first place - i’ll tell you, as if you look at Starmers social media page it’s very obvious - political opportunism. 

Frankly, laughable is the idea that Starmer actually cared (he didn’t, he just made a big deal out of it as a cheap political football, much like Sunak in his silly list). She was planted there for the start. It’s quite sad. 

Planted? FFS.

[CB Fry]

12 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

It’s really not very hard, he makes the same points and same jibs at Starmer every week. Not mentioning it would’ve been an oddity. I’m not saying the act was scripted, im not a conspiracy theorist, im merely saying Starmer wanted to use the woman as a political stick. 

"Let's put a mother of a murder victim in the gallery because we can easily rely on Rishi to make a twat of himself in front of her" is not the slam dunk attack on Labour you think it is, sweetheart.

[The Kraken]

Planted. Fuck me. The woman lost her child in horrific circumstances and has just begun a nationwide campaign to change child access to social media. She’s been given some help to get her point across at a high level.

But no, Willsy says she was planted to make titchy look bad.

 

Edited February 7 by The Kraken

[hypochondriac]

42 minutes ago, aintforever said:

He did answer it though, something about 99.9% wasn’t it?

Yes it's an absolutely insane answer that doesn't answer the question properly. Hence why it keeps coming up. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Do you think it was a good move for the Tories?

I don't think what the tories do at this point has much relevance. I would like the man who will be the next prime minister to be unequivocal about what a woman is though. If he can't get that right it doesn't bode well for a lot else. 

[badgerx16]

The Right Honourable Mamber for the 19th Century was interviewed after the "Pop Cons" meeting. In his reponse to one of the questions he said "...we had no ability to change the system until we had left the European Union." He folowed this with "...the way to get things done is through the structures of Government, and sometimes they need changing, and they were changed very effectively by Tony Blair".

 

Hands up all those who can see the contradiction.

[aintforever]

24 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yes it's an absolutely insane answer that doesn't answer the question properly. Hence why it keeps coming up. 

What percentage are trans then, I don’t know? Does it really matter?

Certainly no excuse for a joke about trans people when a grieving mother of a trans related murder victim was in the house.

[The Kraken]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/07/brianna-gheys-father-demands-apology-from-sunak-over-transgender-remarks

[egg]

46 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think what the tories do at this point has much relevance. I would like the man who will be the next prime minister to be unequivocal about what a woman is though. If he can't get that right it doesn't bode well for a lot else. 

Really? I don't think his views on that issue in any way shows his fitness to be PM. In contrast, Sunak's juvenile and misplaced crassness says a hell of a lot about his judgement. 

[CB Fry]

20 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/07/brianna-gheys-father-demands-apology-from-sunak-over-transgender-remarks

Kemi Badenoch will be along in a minute to tell him to shut up and stop trying to make cheap political points.

[pingpong]

If we're going to take this to its natural conclusion, we have to question why sunak used she/her pronouns for Brianna Ghey. If he is going to poke fun at those who acknowledge transwomen exist, he should also have referred to Brianna using he/him pronouns. Or does he also 'not know what a woman is'? 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Really? I don't think his views on that issue in any way shows his fitness to be PM. In contrast, Sunak's juvenile and misplaced crassness says a hell of a lot about his judgement. 

I don't want anyone in charge who can't tell me what something as basic as a woman is. The reality is he knows exactly what a woman is but is too cowardly to say so which says a hell of a lot about him too. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, pingpong said:

If we're going to take this to its natural conclusion, we have to question why sunak used she/her pronouns for Brianna Ghey. If he is going to poke fun at those who acknowledge transwomen exist, he should also have referred to Brianna using he/him pronouns. Or does he also 'not know what a woman is'? 

Someone saying "her" to a man out of politeness doesn't mean they don't know what a woman is. Not that I'm particularly interested in defending Sunak as he'll be gone soon. 

Edited February 7 by hypochondriac

[egg]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't want anyone in charge who can't tell me what something as basic as a woman is. The reality is he knows exactly what a woman is but is too cowardly to say so which says a hell of a lot about him too. 

So you'd prefer someone in charge who behaved like Sunak did in the commons? It's one or the other. 

[Fan The Flames]

11 hours ago, SotonianWill said:

I don’t mean it in a way of an opinion being good or bad. Just that MPs are paid to give their opinion and make law. Not saying your opinion because it’s sensitive to someone else in the commons watching is cowardly. What’s the limit? Should someone be brought in every week to make sure certain topics are not discussed? Sunak was listing a myriad of Starmers U-Turns, he didn’t focus solely on trans issues. Discuss any issue, please don’t make it so we have a system in which parliament is suppressed as some person may get upset. Why was she there in the first place - i’ll tell you, as if you look at Starmers social media page it’s very obvious - political opportunism. 

Frankly, laughable is the idea that Starmer actually cared (he didn’t, he just made a big deal out of it as a cheap political football, much like Sunak in his silly list). She was planted there for the start. It’s quite sad. 

 

 

Edited Response as I was out of Posts:

 

How did Labour know he would make the jibe?

 

It’s really not very hard, he makes the same points and same jibes at Starmer every week. Not mentioning it would’ve been an oddity. I’m not saying the act was scripted, im merely saying Starmer wanted to use the woman as a political stick for opportunistic pictures - which he did look at his SM. 

 

 

I used the word planted as no one else mentioned the case other than Sir Starmer. If everyone else doesn’t see it as completely unrelated and political opportunism that’s fine. 

It's a shame if politicians are made to think twice over making a point for fear of being accused of political opportunism.

[Farmer Saint]

8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't want anyone in charge who can't tell me what something as basic as a woman is. The reality is he knows exactly what a woman is but is too cowardly to say so which says a hell of a lot about him too. 

What an odd opinion to have - you know it's a very complicated and emotive subject - whatever answer is given will create issues. I would leave it if I were him too. 

Personally I think there are bigger sticks to beat Keir with - his ability to define a war crime when done by the Russians, but not the Israelis. His ability to criticise, but then decide that he will not reverse, certain Tory policies.

I will vote for him (the Conservatives are a party of unsympathetic, entitled cunts, and anyone who votes for them at the next election will sit alongside those who voted for Brexit and won't admit their mistake, as a cretin of the highest order) but he has been wholly unimpressive over the last year, lacking integrity and values that I would like to see in a Leader.

Roll on PR where we can actually have a vote that matters. 

Edited February 8 by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

12 hours ago, SotonianWill said:

How undemocratic! You can’t express your opinion MP as i’ve brought in someone who disagrees with you.

Sunak has been consistent on his views on this topic. The idea he should curve his opinion to suit someone (despite how disgusting the case was) is ridiculous, as is Starmers use of it as a political point scorer, desperate for a correlation between the two. 

It wasn't political points scoring, it was Sunak being a twat. He is as bad as Johnson with his gaffes.

[hypochondriac]

7 hours ago, egg said:

So you'd prefer someone in charge who behaved like Sunak did in the commons? It's one or the other. 

Where did I say that? I am, aware there is no choice but labour at the next election it doesn't mean that it's not possible to discuss the positives and negatives of that decision. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What an odd opinion to have - you know it's a very complicated and emotive subject - whatever answer is given will create issues. I would leave it if I were him too. 

Personally I think there are bigger sticks to beat Keir with - his ability to define a war crime when done by the Russians, but not the Israelis. His ability to criticise, but then decide that he will not reverse, certain Tory policies.

I will vote for him (the Conservatives are a party of unsympathetic, entitled cunts, and anyone who votes for them at the next election will sit alongside those who voted for Brexit and won't admit their mistake, as a cretin of the highest order) but he has been wholly unimpressive over the last year, lacking integrity and values that I would like to see in a Leader.

Roll on PR where we can actually have a vote that matters. 

I don't think it's odd at all. Many people consider it extremely odd that he won't answer as it says much about his mindset which is why it continues to be mentioned. I think there's a chance that Starmer has a child who believes they are trans and this will have an impact on his decision msking if true. 

Other than that though I agree with your post, Starmer doesn't really stand for anything and he basically picks and chooses policies that he thinks will win him the election rather than having any principles (Corbyn was a fool but you could never accuse him of that.) I too would like PR, it's shameful that alternative parties are popular across the country but get no representation. 

Edited February 8 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

It was a stupid thing for Sunak to say but Starmer isn’t exactly helping himself either. Why he couldn’t just say, “a woman is a person with female reproductive organs. You’re welcome to believe something different but if elected I won’t be passing any laws on it,” I don’t know. We could all just leave it at that and get on with the actual issues that people really care about, instead of these gutter politics.

[Fan The Flames]

I don't blame Starmer for offering a bland agenda, the political infrastructure in the UK seeks to first pick apart any Labour policies whilst letting the tory ones slide. We have no money to be radical, so what Starmer is doing makes political sense.

The tories only chance of winning this election is to scream 'look at what kind of country THEY want you to live in', then don't give them the chance, play percentage politics.

Johnson lied his way to number 10, Kier will biege his way there.

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It was a stupid thing for Sunak to say but Starmer isn’t exactly helping himself either. Why he couldn’t just say, “a woman is a person with female reproductive organs. You’re welcome to believe something different but if elected I won’t be passing any laws on it,” I don’t know. We could all just leave it at that and get on with the actual issues that people really care about, instead of these gutter politics.

Because those issues are far harder to answer than the gutter politics ones.  Once you start to mention how those issues will be fixed, the first question will be how do you pay for it and no-one is going to answer that in an election year.

[Fan The Flames]

7 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It was a stupid thing for Sunak to say but Starmer isn’t exactly helping himself either. Why he couldn’t just say, “a woman is a person with female reproductive organs. You’re welcome to believe something different but if elected I won’t be passing any laws on it,” I don’t know. We could all just leave it at that and get on with the actual issues that people really care about, instead of these gutter politics.

So other people are welcome to believe something different but Kier isn't. Odd.

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

So other people are welcome to believe something different but Kier isn't. Odd.

No, I never suggested anything like that. He can believe whatever he likes as well, but he doesn’t. That’s why the Tories keep dragging this up, Starmer doesn’t even know what he thinks it is that people want him to believe.

[Lord Duckhunter]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

 

Other than that though I agree with your post, Starmer doesn't really stand for anything and he basically picks and chooses policies that he thinks will win him the election rather than having any principles (Corbyn was a fool but you could never accuse him of that.) 

You are joking aren’t you?

 

The number 1 issue during Corbyns time in opposition was Brexit, Steptoe who spent his whole political life opposing Britains membership, suddenly becomes a Remainer. 😂 He abandoned that principle pretty quickly, knowing he’d be booted out of the leadership if he didn’t change. 

[Farmer Saint]

29 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think it's odd at all. Many people consider it extremely odd that he won't answer as it says much about his mindset which is why it continues to be mentioned. I think there's a chance that Starmer has a child who believes they are trans and this will have an impact on his decision msking if true. 

Other than that though I agree with your post, Starmer doesn't really stand for anything and he basically picks and chooses policies that he thinks will win him the election rather than having any principles (Corbyn was a fool but you could never accuse him of that.) I too would like PR, it's shameful that alternative parties are popular across the country but get no representation. 

I don't think he has a child that is trans or anything of that ilk, he just doesn't want to say something stupid that could lose him an election (even though it wouldn't). Just have to agree to disagree on that one. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You are joking aren’t you?

 

The number 1 issue during Corbyns time in opposition was Brexit, Steptoe who spent his whole political life opposing Britains membership, suddenly becomes a Remainer. 😂 He abandoned that principle pretty quickly, knowing he’d be booted out of the leadership if he didn’t change. 

Yeah good point I'd forgotten about that. I don't spend an awful lot of time thinking about Corbyn to be fair. 

Edited February 8 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I don't think he has a child that is trans or anything of that ilk, he just doesn't want to say something stupid that could lose him an election (even though it wouldn't). Just have to agree to disagree on that one. 

He referred to his daughter as he during an interview which could suggest you are incorrect but I accept this may have been a simple slip of the tongue. 

I agree this won't lose him an election but his inability to answer definitively is a clear weakness that the Tories are going to continue to exploit - even if the faux pearl clutching from some of the more me tall challenged MPs will attempt to ensure that he can't bring it up again: