Challenger Posted Saturday at 15:38 Posted Saturday at 15:38 5 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: I'm worried that Starmer will say he's leaving the broom, then u turn, leaving the nation broomless, and unable to afford one as Burnham has spent all the money. Never mind the broom, just leave us a pot to piss in.
Holmes_and_Watson Posted Saturday at 16:00 Posted Saturday at 16:00 18 minutes ago, Challenger said: Never mind the broom, just leave us a pot to piss in. A pot?! We're terrified about losing the broom, and you want to burden the national debt with a pot?! 1
Lord Duckhunter Posted Saturday at 16:52 Posted Saturday at 16:52 (edited) Hopefully we can get back to grey, boring politics again after the crazy, psycho dramas of the last two years. Edited Saturday at 16:52 by Lord Duckhunter 3
Challenger Posted Saturday at 17:11 Posted Saturday at 17:11 1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: A pot?! We're terrified about losing the broom, and you want to burden the national debt with a pot?! Sorry I'm being a bit greedy, will have to be satisfied with a crock of shit. 1
badgerx16 Posted Saturday at 17:28 Posted Saturday at 17:28 36 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Hopefully we can get back to grey, boring politics again after the crazy, psycho dramas of the last two years. TWO years ? 1
Holmes_and_Watson Posted Saturday at 17:55 Posted Saturday at 17:55 43 minutes ago, Challenger said: Sorry I'm being a bit greedy, will have to be satisfied with a crock of shit. Now that we can do. Welcome to Britain. 🙂
Holmes_and_Watson Posted Saturday at 17:58 Posted Saturday at 17:58 1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Hopefully we can get back to grey, boring politics again after the crazy, psycho dramas of the last two years. That "hopefully" is creaking under a lot of weight in @sadoldgit's opener.
Turkish Posted Saturday at 21:09 Posted Saturday at 21:09 11 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: The Burnham Years - Will the Unions Give Him A Broom? thread. I thought it was traditional that @sadoldgit started these. But he's been taking a break from the lounge of late. Probably found an echo chamber on mumsnet or such like
Wade Garrett Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago Watching Kuenssberg now. Is there a more loathsome, self-serving politician than Peter Kyle. What an absolute cunt he is 😂.
Holmes_and_Watson Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago What an astounding surprise to hear that Starmer is now considering "what's best for the country." I'm astonished and would never, ever have thought he'd not put up a leadership fight. Almost as if he's been dragged kicking, and screaming to this position after months of offering all sorts to people to stop it happening.
Wade Garrett Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago 1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: What an astounding surprise to hear that Starmer is now considering "what's best for the country." I'm astonished and would never, ever have thought he'd not put up a leadership fight. Almost as if he's been dragged kicking, and screaming to this position after months of offering all sorts to people to stop it happening. He doesn’t give two shits what’s best for the country. Even his exit is about what’s best for him. I’n no fan of Burnham, but what a relief it will be to no longer have Starmer in charge. Hopefully, the new PM will sack Reeves and Milliband as well. Milliband in particular needs his wings clipped.
AlexLaw76 Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago 2 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said: He doesn’t give two shits what’s best for the country. Even his exit is about what’s best for him. I’n no fan of Burnham, but what a relief it will be to no longer have Starmer in charge. Hopefully, the new PM will sack Reeves and Milliband as well. Milliband in particular needs his wings clipped. Just wait till Milliband is appointed Chancellor 1
Wade Garrett Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago Just now, AlexLaw76 said: Just wait till Milliband is appointed Chancellor Apparently, Burnham is cooling on that idea. Probably because he knows he doesn’t now need Milliband’s support to be PM. Hopefully, we’ll see more of the likes of John Healey and Al Carns and less Milliband and Lammy. I won’t hold my breath though. 1
hypochondriac Posted 13 hours ago Posted 13 hours ago So now that Starmer appears to be on his way out, I think we can safely say that the new broom did not sweep clean. What will the bloke be remembered for? Chagos? Winter fuel allowance? Southport? Assisted suicide? Closing private schools? Inheritance tax on farmers? Getting rid of jury trials? Prosecuting veterans? Grooming gangs? 2
AlexLaw76 Posted 13 hours ago Posted 13 hours ago 2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: So now that Starmer appears to be on his way out, I think we can safely say that the new broom did not sweep clean. What will the bloke be remembered for? Chagos? Winter fuel allowance? Southport? Assisted suicide? Closing private schools? Inheritance tax on farmers? Getting rid of jury trials? Prosecuting veterans? Grooming gangs? He will go hard on Breakfast clubs..... I doubt though, he will mention "smashing the gangs" 1
Challenger Posted 13 hours ago Posted 13 hours ago Like the seemingly endless list of new brooms before it, this one failed to do it's job as well. Next. 1
hypochondriac Posted 13 hours ago Posted 13 hours ago 15 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said: He will go hard on Breakfast clubs..... I doubt though, he will mention "smashing the gangs" He will go all out on digital ID in the next few months to try to secure a "legacy".
badgerx16 Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago 58 minutes ago, Challenger said: Like the seemingly endless list of new brooms before it, this one failed to do it's job as well. Next. Maybe we need to stop utilising brooms and employ a vacuum cleaner.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 12 hours ago Posted 12 hours ago Trump announcing he’s going before official announcement. Ends his premiership as it started. Shambles, can’t even resign properly.
badgerx16 Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago 46 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Trump announcing he’s going before official announcement. Ends his premiership as it started. Shambles, can’t even resign properly. That cunt should focus more on trying to sort out his own many failures. 1
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago (edited) The Ginger Growler 24/10/2024 “Rishi Sunak has been crowned by Tory MPs. It’s a coronation not an election. He has no mandate and the British people have had no say. #GeneralElectionNow” Edited 11 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter
Gloucester Saint Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago (edited) 21 minutes ago, badgerx16 said: That cunt should focus more on trying to sort out his own many failures. Which include: - Illegal war at the behest of his weak-chinned Zionist son-in-law and a corrupt far right government in Israel which has actually strengthened the IRG’s hand, not weakened it, costing a vast amount of money and killing thousands of civilians - Tariffs which have harmed his own economy severely and everyone else’s - Murder of his own citizens by ICE Starmer’s been a crap PM but he’s got a long way to go to plumb the depths of anywhere near the above. Edited 11 hours ago by Gloucester Saint
badgerx16 Posted 11 hours ago Posted 11 hours ago 11 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: The Ginger Growler 24/10/2024 “Rishi Sunak has been crowned by Tory MPs. It’s a coronation not an election. He has no mandate and the British people have had no say. #GeneralElectionNow” Since 1900 there have been 12 "elected" Prime Ministers, many of whom served more than 1 term. There have been 18 "unelected" PMs, some of whom subsequently went on to win a GE mandate. 1
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 35 minutes ago, badgerx16 said: Since 1900 there have been 12 "elected" Prime Ministers, many of whom served more than 1 term. There have been 18 "unelected" PMs, some of whom subsequently went on to win a GE mandate. What’s that got to do with anything? You either believe a change of leader should trigger a GE or you don’t. You can’t say it should when another party does it, but shouldn’t when it means you”ll get a cabinet position out of it….
badgerx16 Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: What’s that got to do with anything? You either believe a change of leader should trigger a GE or you don’t. You can’t say it should when another party does it, but shouldn’t when it means you”ll get a cabinet position out of it…. Ange was wrong in what she said, and the history reveals how much chaos such a precedent would create, we would have had nearly twice as many GEs as we actually have.
hypochondriac Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said: Ange was wrong in what she said, and the history reveals how much chaos such a precedent would create, we would have had nearly twice as many GEs as we actually have. Or the prime ministers wouldn't have resigned at the rate they have done. We all know why Ange said that and why she now won't repeat it despite this situation being identical.
Holmes_and_Watson Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 38 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: Or the prime ministers wouldn't have resigned at the rate they have done. We all know why Ange said that and why she now won't repeat it despite this situation being identical. But...but...that would make her a hypocrite! As shocked as I am that Starmer is doing a final U-turn, I am stunned that another politician is caught being an inconsistent liar. 4 hours ago, hypochondriac said: So now that Starmer appears to be on his way out, I think we can safely say that the new broom did not sweep clean. What will the bloke be remembered for? Chagos? Winter fuel allowance? Southport? Assisted suicide? Closing private schools? Inheritance tax on farmers? Getting rid of jury trials? Prosecuting veterans? Grooming gangs? Mandelson.
hypochondriac Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 4 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: But...but...that would make her a hypocrite! As shocked as I am that Starmer is doing a final U-turn, I am stunned that another politician is caught being an inconsistent liar. Mandelson. Good shout. 1
Farmer Saint Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago 2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said: What’s that got to do with anything? You either believe a change of leader should trigger a GE or you don’t. You can’t say it should when another party does it, but shouldn’t when it means you”ll get a cabinet position out of it…. Unfortunately the Tories set the precedent with a huge number of unelected leaders. 1
whelk Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago 5 hours ago, hypochondriac said: Chagos? Winter fuel allowance? Southport? Assisted suicide? Closing private schools? Inheritance tax on farmers? Getting rid of jury trials? Prosecuting veterans? Grooming gangs? What the fuck are you on about? Someone’s had too much social media
hypochondriac Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago 29 minutes ago, whelk said: What the fuck are you on about? Someone’s had too much social media Odd response. It's not some conspiracy to suggest that Starmer and his government have been involved with all of those things to a lesser or greater extent. Nothing to do with social media.
hypochondriac Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago 37 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said: Unfortunately the Tories set the precedent with a huge number of unelected leaders. I though Labour held themselves to a higher standard. They like to think they do anyway.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago Wilson to Callaghan, Blair to Brown. 25 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: I though Labour held themselves to a higher standard. They like to think they do anyway. They’re exactly the same. The last 2 labour Governments changed leader without an election, now this one will. Personally, I don’t think they should, that’s not our system (although “”our Andy” will be well advised to do so,before he becomes unpopular). But I’m consistent, Labour politicians, and no doubt the Soggys of this world aren’t. The Ginger Growler calling out Sunak, but then joining Our Andy’s cabinet sums her, and the lot of them, up. 1
Farmer Saint Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 43 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: I though Labour held themselves to a higher standard. They like to think they do anyway. Why do you think that?
iansums Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 4 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said: Which include: - Illegal war at the behest of his weak-chinned Zionist son-in-law and a corrupt far right government in Israel which has actually strengthened the IRG’s hand, not weakened it, costing a vast amount of money and killing thousands of civilians - Tariffs which have harmed his own economy severely and everyone else’s - Murder of his own citizens by ICE Starmer’s been a crap PM but he’s got a long way to go to plumb the depths of anywhere near the above. There’s another thread for this mate
iansums Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 18 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said: Wilson to Callaghan, Blair to Brown. They’re exactly the same. The last 2 labour Governments changed leader without an election, now this one will. Personally, I don’t think they should, that’s not our system (although “”our Andy” will be well advised to do so,before he becomes unpopular). But I’m consistent, Labour politicians, and no doubt the Soggys of this world aren’t. The Ginger Growler calling out Sunak, but then joining Our Andy’s cabinet sums her, and the lot of them, up. It’s happened under both Tory and Labour governments, it’s acceptable under our system, let’s just accept it.
hypochondriac Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 51 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said: Why do you think that? Because many of their MPs made a huge deal out of it before and how they were going to do things differently.
The Kraken Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 45 minutes ago, iansums said: It’s happened under both Tory and Labour governments, it’s acceptable under our system, let’s just accept it. I don’t like it in the slightest, but I don’t know what the answer is. In an ideal world, a re run of the election, but that’s just not practical or even a good idea in so many circumstances. I was first put off with the idea of it with Blair/Brown agreement. Speculation about it existed for years before it finally happened, I thought the whole thing looked extremely grubby and made Brown look weak IMO. Theresa May called an early election, and Boris Johnson did the same. The less said about Liz Truss the better, and by the time Sunak got his hands on it, the Tory leadership had become a complete farce. So, yeah, it’s a definite weakness when a PM leaves early or gets ousted. As much as people can say that the UK votes for a local MP, the prospective PMs for each party are an enormously contributory justification for voting one way or the other. But, yeah, dunno what the solution is that’s different to what it is now.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now