comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 5 minutes ago
Tamwolf
That would be brilliant if they can, I'll believe it when I see it. So still sh-t in the rivers and seas then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they have a policy on that to block bonuses of bosses of water companies and make people in charge legally liable for failures.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/heres-how-labour-will-tackle-sewage-spills-in-uk-rivers-and-seas/
I would prefer nationalisation, but sometimes the extremes aren't feasible in the short term. What they are proposing is certainly an improvement on the current situation.
comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's already committed to renationalising the trains and setting up a state owned clean energy company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, he drops pledges and u-turns commitments at the first sign of disapproval from the press. If he does go ahead with it then great because the country needs change but he'll say anything to get a positive story
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another thing that gripes me with the common person's view of politics. Changing a policy or pledge based on updated information isn't always a negative. I would actually consider it worse if a political leader continues with a pledge after it becomes obvious it won't work or the timelines/funding aren't feasible.
The alternative to this is things like the Rwanda plan, where a government just keeps going on with it even after it has been shown to be a stupid idea.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 58 minutes ago
He's a pr-ck. I see Tory MP Elphicke defected to the Labour party yesterday, the MP who hassled Rashford over free school meals and voted for the fire and rehire initiatives, sounds perfect for this current version of Labour. And today it's come out that Starmer is being aided by the n-nce Mandelson.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She isn't standing in the next election, so won't really have any impact on Labour. She'll be out of politics by the end of the year.
The reason she was accepted was because her crossing the house is symbolic to the failures of the government. Their MPs are abandoning them in droves and it gives Starmer the chance to claim that even Tory MPs are seeing him as a more viable option.
It is typical of Labour supporters though to turn what should be a symbolic victory over a right wing government into a defeat. Most of the stuff I have read about this is people moaning about Starmer, rather than an MP defecting.
I actually think most Labour supporters would rather be out of power, rather than trying to influence a government in power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think a lot of social media Labour supporters also forget that the vast majority of voters aren't terminally online.
The average voter is unlikely to know what Elphicke has done in the past or her comments on things like Rashford. What they'll see however is the MP for the area most affected by boat crossings defect because she no longer backs the government.
Government opposition in the Corbyn mould is exactly the reason why we've found ourselves in the absolute shiiiiter with the Tories for as long as we have. His unelectable, protest politics just gave the Tories free reign to pretty much do what they wanted without being held to account by a credible threat. His luke warm stance on the EU I thought was unforgivable. Anyone that believes we're stronger apart than together is frankly stupid but that's another issue.
At least Starmer, on the centre left, is electable. He'll have the power to enforce change which is more than any pure socialist has ever done. There's a bit of Blair in the way he operates in the sense that he doesn't polarise. He recognises the issues with the welfare state but equally doesn't want to shut down enterprise. For too long we've had to listen to voices on the far left and the far right. Can we not just go back towards the middle where rational thinking and progress is usually made?
Oh, and on the Brexit thing, I've got a feeling Starmer will renegotiate things so that we're back in the EU in all but name. We might not have a seat around the table but imports and exports I'm pretty certain will be ironed out. Appease the meatheads who got us into this mess by claiming we're still out, but from an economical/logistical standpoint we're 'back in'.
Personally I think Andy Burnham would have made a better leader and potential PM than Starmer. He's quite happy with his cushy role as Mayor here in Manchester though and you can hardly blame him.
Leading either of the two main political parties is a
hiding to nothing let's be honest. You're immediately hated by half the country and it's very easy to even upset half your own party as everyone is pulling in different directions no matter which party it is.
It's a broken system. Labour over Tories any day though. Those crapbags are lucky they aren't in jail let alone in charge of the country soon.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 minute ago
Government opposition in the Corbyn mould is exactly the reason why we've found ourselves in the absolute shiiiiter with the Tories for as long as we have. His unelectable, protest politics just gave the Tories free reign to pretty much do what they wanted without being held to account by a credible threat. His luke warm stance on the EU I thought was unforgivable. Anyone that believes we're stronger apart than together is frankly stupid but that's another issue.
At least Starmer, on the centre left, is electable. He'll have the power to enforce change which is more than any pure socialist has ever done. There's a bit of Blair in the way he operates in the sense that he doesn't polarise. He recognises the issues with the welfare state but equally doesn't want to shut down enterprise. For too long we've had to listen to voices on the far left and the far right. Can we not just go back towards the middle where rational thinking and progress is usually made?
Oh, and on the Brexit thing, I've got a feeling Starmer will renegotiate things so that we're back in the EU in all but name. We might not have a seat around the table but imports and exports I'm pretty certain will be ironed out. Appease the meatheads who got us into this mess by claiming we're still out, but from an economical/logistical standpoint we're 'back in'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like it then join us in voting reform. We are taking are country back.
Would have preferred the symbol of rejecting the defection.
just tried him there .....
defo a challenging whank, but it can be done
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Would have preferred the symbol of rejecting the defection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely she just wouldn't have defected in that case.
Tamwolf
It also shows a Labour party who are becoming more right wing in their views taking in a right wing MP. We all know the Tories are falling apart, that doesn't mean Labour need to take them and what they represent. Add to that Labour actively kicking out those with a more left wing stance and it doesn't look very good.
comment by Jerry O'Driscoll (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 minute ago
Government opposition in the Corbyn mould is exactly the reason why we've found ourselves in the absolute shiiiiter with the Tories for as long as we have. His unelectable, protest politics just gave the Tories free reign to pretty much do what they wanted without being held to account by a credible threat. His luke warm stance on the EU I thought was unforgivable. Anyone that believes we're stronger apart than together is frankly stupid but that's another issue.
At least Starmer, on the centre left, is electable. He'll have the power to enforce change which is more than any pure socialist has ever done. There's a bit of Blair in the way he operates in the sense that he doesn't polarise. He recognises the issues with the welfare state but equally doesn't want to shut down enterprise. For too long we've had to listen to voices on the far left and the far right. Can we not just go back towards the middle where rational thinking and progress is usually made?
Oh, and on the Brexit thing, I've got a feeling Starmer will renegotiate things so that we're back in the EU in all but name. We might not have a seat around the table but imports and exports I'm pretty certain will be ironed out. Appease the meatheads who got us into this mess by claiming we're still out, but from an economical/logistical standpoint we're 'back in'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like it then join us in voting reform. We are taking are country back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't like what? I'd rather eat stale dogshiiit than vote for Reform. I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm a centre-left Labour voter.
Oh, and whilst you're at it, what on earth does 'taking our country back' actually mean?
As far as I'm concerned people that use lines like that are just trying to legitimise racism. It's sickening.
I like him, he hasn't caved over Israel and is doing what it takes to get the election win.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Would have preferred the symbol of rejecting the defection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely she just wouldn't have defected in that case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And denied she'd ever asked.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Would have preferred the symbol of rejecting the defection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely she just wouldn't have defected in that case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be preferable. Labour need to hold themselves to higher standards than the Tories, even if it is just symbolic. Allowing her into the party kinda undermines it, and doesn’t send out a good message to the left of the party - a faction they need to work with.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Tamwolf
It also shows a Labour party who are becoming more right wing in their views taking in a right wing MP. We all know the Tories are falling apart, that doesn't mean Labour need to take them and what they represent. Add to that Labour actively kicking out those with a more left wing stance and it doesn't look very good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given you were unaware of the policy to renationalise the trains, the policy to bring in a state energy company or the policies to improve water quality; I'm not sure you are best placed to make any comment on where Labour sit in the political spectrum to be honest.
I guess you were also unaware that she isn't standing in the next election. That she is only being given an unpaid role to advise on housing, which she actively campaigns for rent freezes and ending homelessness; which actually aligns with Labour views. Sometimes you can work with people who have differing views on other topics to improve an area where you align.
Like I said before though, some people are happier being out of power and complaining in an echo chamber, than they are actively trying to change things and work with those who disagree with them.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another thing that gripes me with the common person's view of politics. Changing a policy or pledge based on updated information isn't always a negative. I would actually consider it worse if a political leader continues with a pledge after it becomes obvious it won't work or the timelines/funding aren't feasible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right and is dropping pledges because there is apparently 'no money left' a common person view you have a gripe with too?
Power has decided it's Starmer's turn, that's it. He's an inexperienced and economically illiterate leader controlled by people with an ideological hatred of the left, and he's a liar too
The vast majority on here are Labour voters and against Brexit so my question is why the hell isn't a reversal of Brexit even on their agenda, let alone somewhere near the top of it?
Brexit is still poison, Labour would sacrifice their lead re-litigating it and there's no chance they do that
It could be worse though, he could be Kristi Noem who’s honestly the most hilarious liar I’ve ever seen on US TV.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 second ago
The vast majority on here are Labour voters and against Brexit so my question is why the hell isn't a reversal of Brexit even on their agenda, let alone somewhere near the top of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're asking why a party which has never been pro-EU doesn't undermine a democratic outcome in order to appease the posters of ja606?
comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another thing that gripes me with the common person's view of politics. Changing a policy or pledge based on updated information isn't always a negative. I would actually consider it worse if a political leader continues with a pledge after it becomes obvious it won't work or the timelines/funding aren't feasible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right and is dropping pledges because there is apparently 'no money left' a common person view you have a gripe with too?
Power has decided it's Starmer's turn, that's it. He's an inexperienced and economically illiterate leader controlled by people with an ideological hatred of the left, and he's a liar too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really understand your question to be honest. It would depend on the variables that have affected the decision to drop a pledge I guess.
Based on the rest of your post though, I guess you are just on an ideological rant based on little of substance.
You want more drama and division?
Brexits done, maybe in a year or two we start talking about customs unions but there are things more pressing like housing, the NHS, clean water, rebuilding international trust
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 minutes ago
The vast majority on here are Labour voters and against Brexit so my question is why the hell isn't a reversal of Brexit even on their agenda, let alone somewhere near the top of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they came out now and said they wanted to re-join the EU I guarantee the Tories immediately surge +10 in the polls.
All it would achieve is making the 2025 election a repeat of 2019 where it was fought solely on Brexit.
Far better to get into Government and use that time to slowly convince people we should re-join.
comment by Robb Garnacho (U22716)
posted 2 minutes ago
It could be worse though, he could be Kristi Noem who’s honestly the most hilarious liar I’ve ever seen on US TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
she's met Kim jung un don't you know...
What's that? No she hasn't...
Starmer isn't stupid.
If he went all left wing then his chances of winning an election diminish. He has to play to the gallery a bit.
Whatever we thought of Blair IMO his first few terms in office were the best UK government we've had. Even though I go towards the left wing I realise being towards the centre is a bad thing.
Sign in if you want to comment
Keir Starmer
Page 2 of 6
6
posted on 9/5/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 5 minutes ago
Tamwolf
That would be brilliant if they can, I'll believe it when I see it. So still sh-t in the rivers and seas then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well they have a policy on that to block bonuses of bosses of water companies and make people in charge legally liable for failures.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/heres-how-labour-will-tackle-sewage-spills-in-uk-rivers-and-seas/
I would prefer nationalisation, but sometimes the extremes aren't feasible in the short term. What they are proposing is certainly an improvement on the current situation.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's already committed to renationalising the trains and setting up a state owned clean energy company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, he drops pledges and u-turns commitments at the first sign of disapproval from the press. If he does go ahead with it then great because the country needs change but he'll say anything to get a positive story
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another thing that gripes me with the common person's view of politics. Changing a policy or pledge based on updated information isn't always a negative. I would actually consider it worse if a political leader continues with a pledge after it becomes obvious it won't work or the timelines/funding aren't feasible.
The alternative to this is things like the Rwanda plan, where a government just keeps going on with it even after it has been shown to be a stupid idea.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 58 minutes ago
He's a pr-ck. I see Tory MP Elphicke defected to the Labour party yesterday, the MP who hassled Rashford over free school meals and voted for the fire and rehire initiatives, sounds perfect for this current version of Labour. And today it's come out that Starmer is being aided by the n-nce Mandelson.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She isn't standing in the next election, so won't really have any impact on Labour. She'll be out of politics by the end of the year.
The reason she was accepted was because her crossing the house is symbolic to the failures of the government. Their MPs are abandoning them in droves and it gives Starmer the chance to claim that even Tory MPs are seeing him as a more viable option.
It is typical of Labour supporters though to turn what should be a symbolic victory over a right wing government into a defeat. Most of the stuff I have read about this is people moaning about Starmer, rather than an MP defecting.
I actually think most Labour supporters would rather be out of power, rather than trying to influence a government in power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think a lot of social media Labour supporters also forget that the vast majority of voters aren't terminally online.
The average voter is unlikely to know what Elphicke has done in the past or her comments on things like Rashford. What they'll see however is the MP for the area most affected by boat crossings defect because she no longer backs the government.
posted on 9/5/24
Government opposition in the Corbyn mould is exactly the reason why we've found ourselves in the absolute shiiiiter with the Tories for as long as we have. His unelectable, protest politics just gave the Tories free reign to pretty much do what they wanted without being held to account by a credible threat. His luke warm stance on the EU I thought was unforgivable. Anyone that believes we're stronger apart than together is frankly stupid but that's another issue.
At least Starmer, on the centre left, is electable. He'll have the power to enforce change which is more than any pure socialist has ever done. There's a bit of Blair in the way he operates in the sense that he doesn't polarise. He recognises the issues with the welfare state but equally doesn't want to shut down enterprise. For too long we've had to listen to voices on the far left and the far right. Can we not just go back towards the middle where rational thinking and progress is usually made?
Oh, and on the Brexit thing, I've got a feeling Starmer will renegotiate things so that we're back in the EU in all but name. We might not have a seat around the table but imports and exports I'm pretty certain will be ironed out. Appease the meatheads who got us into this mess by claiming we're still out, but from an economical/logistical standpoint we're 'back in'.
posted on 9/5/24
Personally I think Andy Burnham would have made a better leader and potential PM than Starmer. He's quite happy with his cushy role as Mayor here in Manchester though and you can hardly blame him.
Leading either of the two main political parties is a
hiding to nothing let's be honest. You're immediately hated by half the country and it's very easy to even upset half your own party as everyone is pulling in different directions no matter which party it is.
It's a broken system. Labour over Tories any day though. Those crapbags are lucky they aren't in jail let alone in charge of the country soon.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 minute ago
Government opposition in the Corbyn mould is exactly the reason why we've found ourselves in the absolute shiiiiter with the Tories for as long as we have. His unelectable, protest politics just gave the Tories free reign to pretty much do what they wanted without being held to account by a credible threat. His luke warm stance on the EU I thought was unforgivable. Anyone that believes we're stronger apart than together is frankly stupid but that's another issue.
At least Starmer, on the centre left, is electable. He'll have the power to enforce change which is more than any pure socialist has ever done. There's a bit of Blair in the way he operates in the sense that he doesn't polarise. He recognises the issues with the welfare state but equally doesn't want to shut down enterprise. For too long we've had to listen to voices on the far left and the far right. Can we not just go back towards the middle where rational thinking and progress is usually made?
Oh, and on the Brexit thing, I've got a feeling Starmer will renegotiate things so that we're back in the EU in all but name. We might not have a seat around the table but imports and exports I'm pretty certain will be ironed out. Appease the meatheads who got us into this mess by claiming we're still out, but from an economical/logistical standpoint we're 'back in'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like it then join us in voting reform. We are taking are country back.
posted on 9/5/24
Would have preferred the symbol of rejecting the defection.
posted on 9/5/24
just tried him there .....
defo a challenging whank, but it can be done
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Would have preferred the symbol of rejecting the defection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely she just wouldn't have defected in that case.
posted on 9/5/24
Tamwolf
It also shows a Labour party who are becoming more right wing in their views taking in a right wing MP. We all know the Tories are falling apart, that doesn't mean Labour need to take them and what they represent. Add to that Labour actively kicking out those with a more left wing stance and it doesn't look very good.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Jerry O'Driscoll (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 1 minute ago
Government opposition in the Corbyn mould is exactly the reason why we've found ourselves in the absolute shiiiiter with the Tories for as long as we have. His unelectable, protest politics just gave the Tories free reign to pretty much do what they wanted without being held to account by a credible threat. His luke warm stance on the EU I thought was unforgivable. Anyone that believes we're stronger apart than together is frankly stupid but that's another issue.
At least Starmer, on the centre left, is electable. He'll have the power to enforce change which is more than any pure socialist has ever done. There's a bit of Blair in the way he operates in the sense that he doesn't polarise. He recognises the issues with the welfare state but equally doesn't want to shut down enterprise. For too long we've had to listen to voices on the far left and the far right. Can we not just go back towards the middle where rational thinking and progress is usually made?
Oh, and on the Brexit thing, I've got a feeling Starmer will renegotiate things so that we're back in the EU in all but name. We might not have a seat around the table but imports and exports I'm pretty certain will be ironed out. Appease the meatheads who got us into this mess by claiming we're still out, but from an economical/logistical standpoint we're 'back in'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like it then join us in voting reform. We are taking are country back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't like what? I'd rather eat stale dogshiiit than vote for Reform. I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm a centre-left Labour voter.
Oh, and whilst you're at it, what on earth does 'taking our country back' actually mean?
As far as I'm concerned people that use lines like that are just trying to legitimise racism. It's sickening.
posted on 9/5/24
I like him, he hasn't caved over Israel and is doing what it takes to get the election win.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Would have preferred the symbol of rejecting the defection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely she just wouldn't have defected in that case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And denied she'd ever asked.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Would have preferred the symbol of rejecting the defection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely she just wouldn't have defected in that case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would be preferable. Labour need to hold themselves to higher standards than the Tories, even if it is just symbolic. Allowing her into the party kinda undermines it, and doesn’t send out a good message to the left of the party - a faction they need to work with.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 minute ago
Tamwolf
It also shows a Labour party who are becoming more right wing in their views taking in a right wing MP. We all know the Tories are falling apart, that doesn't mean Labour need to take them and what they represent. Add to that Labour actively kicking out those with a more left wing stance and it doesn't look very good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given you were unaware of the policy to renationalise the trains, the policy to bring in a state energy company or the policies to improve water quality; I'm not sure you are best placed to make any comment on where Labour sit in the political spectrum to be honest.
I guess you were also unaware that she isn't standing in the next election. That she is only being given an unpaid role to advise on housing, which she actively campaigns for rent freezes and ending homelessness; which actually aligns with Labour views. Sometimes you can work with people who have differing views on other topics to improve an area where you align.
Like I said before though, some people are happier being out of power and complaining in an echo chamber, than they are actively trying to change things and work with those who disagree with them.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another thing that gripes me with the common person's view of politics. Changing a policy or pledge based on updated information isn't always a negative. I would actually consider it worse if a political leader continues with a pledge after it becomes obvious it won't work or the timelines/funding aren't feasible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right and is dropping pledges because there is apparently 'no money left' a common person view you have a gripe with too?
Power has decided it's Starmer's turn, that's it. He's an inexperienced and economically illiterate leader controlled by people with an ideological hatred of the left, and he's a liar too
posted on 9/5/24
The vast majority on here are Labour voters and against Brexit so my question is why the hell isn't a reversal of Brexit even on their agenda, let alone somewhere near the top of it?
posted on 9/5/24
Brexit is still poison, Labour would sacrifice their lead re-litigating it and there's no chance they do that
posted on 9/5/24
It could be worse though, he could be Kristi Noem who’s honestly the most hilarious liar I’ve ever seen on US TV.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 second ago
The vast majority on here are Labour voters and against Brexit so my question is why the hell isn't a reversal of Brexit even on their agenda, let alone somewhere near the top of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're asking why a party which has never been pro-EU doesn't undermine a democratic outcome in order to appease the posters of ja606?
posted on 9/5/24
comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another thing that gripes me with the common person's view of politics. Changing a policy or pledge based on updated information isn't always a negative. I would actually consider it worse if a political leader continues with a pledge after it becomes obvious it won't work or the timelines/funding aren't feasible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right and is dropping pledges because there is apparently 'no money left' a common person view you have a gripe with too?
Power has decided it's Starmer's turn, that's it. He's an inexperienced and economically illiterate leader controlled by people with an ideological hatred of the left, and he's a liar too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really understand your question to be honest. It would depend on the variables that have affected the decision to drop a pledge I guess.
Based on the rest of your post though, I guess you are just on an ideological rant based on little of substance.
posted on 9/5/24
You want more drama and division?
Brexits done, maybe in a year or two we start talking about customs unions but there are things more pressing like housing, the NHS, clean water, rebuilding international trust
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 minutes ago
The vast majority on here are Labour voters and against Brexit so my question is why the hell isn't a reversal of Brexit even on their agenda, let alone somewhere near the top of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they came out now and said they wanted to re-join the EU I guarantee the Tories immediately surge +10 in the polls.
All it would achieve is making the 2025 election a repeat of 2019 where it was fought solely on Brexit.
Far better to get into Government and use that time to slowly convince people we should re-join.
posted on 9/5/24
comment by Robb Garnacho (U22716)
posted 2 minutes ago
It could be worse though, he could be Kristi Noem who’s honestly the most hilarious liar I’ve ever seen on US TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
she's met Kim jung un don't you know...
What's that? No she hasn't...
posted on 9/5/24
Starmer isn't stupid.
If he went all left wing then his chances of winning an election diminish. He has to play to the gallery a bit.
Whatever we thought of Blair IMO his first few terms in office were the best UK government we've had. Even though I go towards the left wing I realise being towards the centre is a bad thing.
Page 2 of 6
6