The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[whelk]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

Just a small guess that if net migration was going up you wouldn't be on here saying how wonderful that was.

He’d be delighted as he is one of these cunt landlords who loves to exploit

[whelk]

11 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I find it amusing that people that have no idea support labour still and pretend they are pro business..#mainlytheunemployedorgovernmentemployees

Do you have kids? I am thinking not

[egg]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

Who said ‘everything is getting worse’? I certainly didn’t. Any improvements in public sector stats are more than welcome and I’ve stated on here before that Streeting in particular is doing a good job. My comments were about the economy which of course is critical to fund all the public services.

It's the focus on negativity, and made up information, that grates.

Sure, labour aren't doing great after being dealt a shit hand, but there are successes. You yourself focused on some negatives yesterday, and with factual inaccuracy. I balanced with some factual positives.

I've never voted labour and probably never will, but the whole anti Starmer/labour environment we're in (in not talking this forum) is pathetic. People out there talk as if Starmer has somehow changed policy to invite illegal immigrants in, and open up the country, without any understanding of the facts or reality. You then get the likes of Duck suggesting that the huge reduction in net migration is a negative when we all know he'd be whining if it hadn't reduced. That's completely disingenuous of him and doesn't make for sensible discussion. 

 

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Do you have kids? I am thinking not

He definitely does not have kids. That is crystal clear to me.

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

He definitely does not have kids. That is crystal clear to me.

It's a transparent persona. I'm ignoring the bloke. There are posters I don't always agree with on politics - Turkish, Iansums, and others - but they're honest and reasonable. I know this isn't the real world, but have a bit of authenticity. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

It's the focus on negativity, and made up information, that grates.

Sure, labour aren't doing great after being dealt a shit hand, but there are successes. You yourself focused on some negatives yesterday, and with factual inaccuracy. I balanced with some factual positives.

I've never voted labour and probably never will, but the whole anti Starmer/labour environment we're in (in not talking this forum) is pathetic. People out there talk as if Starmer has somehow changed policy to invite illegal immigrants in, and open up the country, without any understanding of the facts or reality. You then get the likes of Duck suggesting that the huge reduction in net migration is a negative when we all know he'd be whining if it hadn't reduced. That's completely disingenuous of him and doesn't make for sensible discussion. 

 

A party doing some things well, some things less so, some as best it can and some it's stuck with? In this polarised world? Pick a side! 🙂

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Do you have kids? I am thinking not

Relevance to this point?