Jump to content

The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ender4 said:

Never think it's obvious. 

Anecdotal, but I know quite a few Tory voters and they haven't changed their mind at all over the last 2 years.  They liked Boris, they like Truss, they like the budget today.

I bet there is a significant majority like this and not that many swing voters.

Look at the Daily Mail online now and the headline article is "It's a good day for the UK"   (followed by a story about Jack Grealish sleeping with a 23 year old). 

Going completely off topic but why is Grealish sleeping with a 23 year old a story when he's only 27 himself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

What will be interesting is that if there's a complete collapse in Conservative voting, we could see a Labour government with a very large majority and with that the ability to erm...get things done.

I think that would put a fair bit of pressure on Keir Starmer in terms of the big questions over what it is he actually wants to get done.

 

They will win by a large majority then when things go wrong and people get fed up with labour after 12 years the tories will get back in.

Rinse and repeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Going completely off topic but why is Grealish sleeping with a 23 year old a story when he's only 27 himself?

Because it came out during the Benjamin Mendy rape trial that it happened at one of his parties and the woman has accused Mendy's friend of raping her later that same night. The Grealish part was consensual supposedly and doesn't really seem relevant to the trial, but the papers lead with it anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said:


I dont post this to bash Labour but I thought it was interesting

AL Jaz is hardly an unbiased reporter when it comes to Corbyn's Labour

And Corbyn is history, ancient history

Not watched it because I don't see the point

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jareth said:

Starmer not touching PR, whatever the conference votes on. Can only hope Labour and other parties get on the case once the tories are defeated. 

I've seen this sentiment expressed a few times, essentially "he can't say what he wants to do, so he just needs to trick his way into Number 10 and then he can do what we want him to".

Firstly, it's disgusting anti-democratic, and secondly, why on earth would you think that while he lies and lies about what he really wants, that when he pulls the mask down after winning power that he's really on your side?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside...Has something changed to allow him to do that?

I recall Corbyn being hamstrung in some discussions where his own personal opinion was at odds with Labour policy, e.g., Trident, was he just being a "soft" leader deferring to conference when he didn't have to, or have they changed the rules since Starmer took over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I've seen this sentiment expressed a few times, essentially "he can't say what he wants to do, so he just needs to trick his way into Number 10 and then he can do what we want him to".

Firstly, it's disgusting anti-democratic, and secondly, why on earth would you think that while he lies and lies about what he really wants, that when he pulls the mask down after winning power that he's really on your side?

Well we have a Tory leader who's not been elected,  in any shape or form, who's making decisions that's impacting our next 20 years. 

Whatever he says will be turned against him by the pro right media and tbh the Tory's are beating themselves with each moronic policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I've seen this sentiment expressed a few times, essentially "he can't say what he wants to do, so he just needs to trick his way into Number 10 and then he can do what we want him to".

Firstly, it's disgusting anti-democratic, and secondly, why on earth would you think that while he lies and lies about what he really wants, that when he pulls the mask down after winning power that he's really on your side?

I've no faith whatsoever 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, tinker said:

Well we have a Tory leader who's not been elected,  in any shape or form, who's making decisions that's impacting our next 20 years. 

 

Well yes, obviously. I can end all of my posts about Labour with "but obviously the tories are a disgraceful bunch of words removed", but I thought it went without saying :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Well yes, obviously. I can end all of my posts about Labour with "but obviously the tories are a disgraceful bunch of words removed", but I thought it went without saying :)

 

My point was winners don't always play fair and thats been labours down fall,  especially with Corbyn who was a right wing media's dream with his opinions on everything and anything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I've no faith whatsoever 

If the party decides its policy at conference, its policy

There are ways and means around certain things but I imagine there's not much leway around electoral reform. Lets not forget that the only reason it failed last time was because "the Unions" opposed it on the grounds they needed more time to think (sorry consult the members). So the motion was shelved not defeated. Since then at least two big unions have come out in favour of PR which would have been enough to swing the vote last year and the membership itself was 60/40 in favour.

I think it's one of those issues that he can't go against conference on, it would be suicidal for him to do so especially as that 60% are likely to be the ones that voted for him and the 40% more likely against

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, tinker said:

Well we have a Tory leader who's not been elected

The UK has a parliamentary election system, where we vote for 'the party' and general arm-waving policies, and not some charismatic idiot. Well in principle at least.

 

How long have you been in the States?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

The UK has a parliamentary election system, where we vote for 'the party'

No we don't. We have a FPTP parliamentary system where we vote for an individual candidate to represent us in parliement.

If you've been voting for a particular party you've been doing it wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

No we don't. We have a FPTP parliamentary system where we vote for an individual candidate to represent us in parliement.

If you've been voting for a particular party you've been doing it wrong

Ahh, I see, if I want to see a labour government and labour principles I should vote for the best candidate. I have been doing it wrong. My apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bickster said:

I think it's one of those issues that he can't go against conference on, it would be suicidal for him to do so especially as that 60% are likely to be the ones that voted for him and the 40% more likely against

I also fail to see why he would personally give a shit one way or the other.

If he's there to enact the policy, he's there because he won via FPTP. And a reformed voting system makes it more, rather than less likely that he gets to govern for a second term. Beyond that - why does it really matter to him? 

The only reason I can imagine him being against it is because he thinks it's a vote loser.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

No we don't. We have a FPTP parliamentary system where we vote for an individual candidate to represent us in parliement.

If you've been voting for a particular party you've been doing it wrong

In principle you're right, in practice, it's completely irrelevant. 99% of people are "doing it wrong". If the average voter on a street isn't voting for a party, it's because they're voting for the president of the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â