Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm just enjoying 'strong starmer' instead of 'torn tories' when it was the other party in power. " Lol.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm just enjoying 'strong starmer' instead of 'torn tories' when it was the other party in power. " Have you heard of Starmer, the sex symbol though? https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/victoria-starmer-keir-sex-symbol-labour-election-2024-b1170955.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm just enjoying 'strong starmer' instead of 'torn tories' when it was the other party in power. Have you heard of Starmer, the sex symbol though? https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/victoria-starmer-keir-sex-symbol-labour-election-2024-b1170955.html" Ewwwww.That would be like kissing my History Professor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In my opinion it was a stupid move on Starmer's part - as all it has done is sow division that is now being amplified in the press, across labour, and in the voices in other parties. As the article says 7 votes is neither here nor there bearing in mind the majority against. " It's an easy group to make an example of. Small, from the left that dislikes him... He's trying to assert himself, and this is an easy way in which to do it. Interesting to see how it plays out in the medium and longer term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though." Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though. Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment." There are some out there who will say that Labour didn’t win, the Conservatives lost. They’ll point at the number of people who voted (and make the leap that most of those who didn’t would normally have voted for the Tories). They’ll point at % vote share and wonder how Labour get a super majority with a smaller popular vote share than Corbyn got in 2019. They’ll then still argue that FPTP is a good system and better than PR | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though. Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment. There are some out there who will say that Labour didn’t win, the Conservatives lost. They’ll point at the number of people who voted (and make the leap that most of those who didn’t would normally have voted for the Tories). They’ll point at % vote share and wonder how Labour get a super majority with a smaller popular vote share than Corbyn got in 2019. They’ll then still argue that FPTP is a good system and better than PR "I agree with the above, however it is unlike you to get your point over in a 3rd person type point of view  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though. Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment. There are some out there who will say that Labour didn’t win, the Conservatives lost. They’ll point at the number of people who voted (and make the leap that most of those who didn’t would normally have voted for the Tories). They’ll point at % vote share and wonder how Labour get a super majority with a smaller popular vote share than Corbyn got in 2019. They’ll then still argue that FPTP is a good system and better than PR "My point was if Starmer was weak then would he have been able to turn Labour around (or any party) in only five years? Tactical voting in the 2024 election was higher and more sophisticated than ever before. Reform, the LibDems and to some extent the Greens cost the Tories many seats which is what matters. Percentage of the vote is meaningless and even Thatcher never got more than 42% of the vote and the country really was on its knees with IMF support. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though. Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment. There are some out there who will say that Labour didn’t win, the Conservatives lost. They’ll point at the number of people who voted (and make the leap that most of those who didn’t would normally have voted for the Tories). They’ll point at % vote share and wonder how Labour get a super majority with a smaller popular vote share than Corbyn got in 2019. They’ll then still argue that FPTP is a good system and better than PR
My point was if Starmer was weak then would he have been able to turn Labour around (or any party) in only five years?
Tactical voting in the 2024 election was higher and more sophisticated than ever before. Reform, the LibDems and to some extent the Greens cost the Tories many seats which is what matters. Percentage of the vote is meaningless and even Thatcher never got more than 42% of the vote and the country really was on its knees with IMF support."I think you are overestimating Starmer here. The labour party had been out in the wilderness and needed a centrist leader to appeal to the voters who were put off by the Corbyn years and the left stigma. Starmer grabbed his opportunity, but I predicted and still do, that he wont last long in post. The left will now be able to go about its business and unpick his hold. He knows this, and demonstrated strength by removing the whip of 7 MP's who voted the wrong way, they all happened to be left wing supporters of Corbyn and co. As for the tories losing seats, it was always going to finish like this, with tory voters staying at home after an absolute shambles of the last 8 years. Some did vote reform but I think from a standpoint of dismay and putting the X in a box rather than not voting at all. The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900, and as a rule a change of government usually provides a low turnout, not all the time but most. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though. Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment. There are some out there who will say that Labour didn’t win, the Conservatives lost. They’ll point at the number of people who voted (and make the leap that most of those who didn’t would normally have voted for the Tories). They’ll point at % vote share and wonder how Labour get a super majority with a smaller popular vote share than Corbyn got in 2019. They’ll then still argue that FPTP is a good system and better than PR
I agree with the above, however it is unlike you to get your point over in a 3rd person type point of view "Like to mix things up now and then. Keep it fresh  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900, and as a rule a change of government usually provides a low turnout, not all the time but most." Surely if comparing Conservatives with Labour we need to timescale to begin with Labour’s formation or securing their first MP? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though. Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment." Are you making the mistake that strong leadership = the stick approach? A strong leader wouldn’t need to suspend the whip from a handful of MPs who are never going to get near even a junior ministerial role. Conversations could’ve been had before the vote, a simple explanation that the Labour Party is a broad church that encompasses a wide range of views. Suspending people for a first offence screams intolerance and insecurity, not strength. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900, and as a rule a change of government usually provides a low turnout, not all the time but most. Surely if comparing Conservatives with Labour we need to timescale to begin with Labour’s formation or securing their first MP?" That is why added 1900, it was when the labour party was formed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900" At the beginning 1900 the National Debt stood at a very manageable 30 percent of GDP | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900, and as a rule a change of government usually provides a low turnout, not all the time but most. Surely if comparing Conservatives with Labour we need to timescale to begin with Labour’s formation or securing their first MP? That is why added 1900, it was when the labour party was formed" Oops oh yes. Had it in my mind they formed during WWI my mistake | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900 At the beginning 1900 the National Debt stood at a very manageable 30 percent of GDP" Having an empire and colonies with raw materials and expanded markets will do that. As would not yet having fought two world wars. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though. Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment. Are you making the mistake that strong leadership = the stick approach? A strong leader wouldn’t need to suspend the whip from a handful of MPs who are never going to get near even a junior ministerial role. Conversations could’ve been had before the vote, a simple explanation that the Labour Party is a broad church that encompasses a wide range of views. Suspending people for a first offence screams intolerance and insecurity, not strength." The 7 MPs were elected on a Labour manifesto which included a commitment to introduce a Children's Wellbeing Bill and also not to do away with the 2 children support cap. This manifesto commitment was confirmed in the King's Speech, which sets out the government's legislative plans for the next Parliament. The 7 MPs decided that the manifesto they were elected on was wrong, so voted to amend the King's Speech legislation. Absolutely fine, but also it's perfectly fine for the government party to remove members who disagree with it. Those 7 MPs are now free to join Jeremy Corbyn's independents, or indeed the LibDems or Reform or rejoin the government if their views correspond with any of those parties. After 9 years of Tory infighting and rebellions, its good to see adults back in charge and rebels dealt with firmly by SKS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900" "At the beginning 1900 the National Debt stood at a very manageable 30 percent of GDP" In 1900 there was no welfare state, no health system, and most of the national infrastructure was privately owned. It's quite easy to keep the national debt down if you don't have to pay anything out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer is engaging in what our American cousins call ‘punching the hippies.’ It’s a very simple way of making idiots think you are a strong leader. It doesn’t work long term though. Is this the same Starmer who has taken Labour from one of its worst General Election results in 2019 to one of its best in 2024? Or did that not involve strong leadership? Ridiculous comment. Are you making the mistake that strong leadership = the stick approach? A strong leader wouldn’t need to suspend the whip from a handful of MPs who are never going to get near even a junior ministerial role. Conversations could’ve been had before the vote, a simple explanation that the Labour Party is a broad church that encompasses a wide range of views. Suspending people for a first offence screams intolerance and insecurity, not strength. The 7 MPs were elected on a Labour manifesto which included a commitment to introduce a Children's Wellbeing Bill and also not to do away with the 2 children support cap. This manifesto commitment was confirmed in the King's Speech, which sets out the government's legislative plans for the next Parliament. The 7 MPs decided that the manifesto they were elected on was wrong, so voted to amend the King's Speech legislation. Absolutely fine, but also it's perfectly fine for the government party to remove members who disagree with it. Those 7 MPs are now free to join Jeremy Corbyn's independents, or indeed the LibDems or Reform or rejoin the government if their views correspond with any of those parties. After 9 years of Tory infighting and rebellions, its good to see adults back in charge and rebels dealt with firmly by SKS." I think we saw with the last government what happens when you fail to engage with all areas of your party. We shall agree to differ. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900 At the beginning 1900 the National Debt stood at a very manageable 30 percent of GDP In 1900 there was no welfare state, no health system, and most of the national infrastructure was privately owned. It's quite easy to keep the national debt down if you don't have to pay anything out." I think for some (looking at you JRM) those were the good old days  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country has voted for a conservative government 66% of the time since 1900 At the beginning 1900 the National Debt stood at a very manageable 30 percent of GDP In 1900 there was no welfare state, no health system, and most of the national infrastructure was privately owned. It's quite easy to keep the national debt down if you don't have to pay anything out." £3.1trn economy 2023 6th largest on the globe Treasury tax revenue £1.1trn. Treasury spend £1.2trn. You do make a good point, but all the spending should be funded from taxes. The overspend is characterised by the ever increasing national debt, solely attributed to poor consecutive governments mismanagement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds" We can only hope for some improvement, I don’t think anyone is expecting miracles including Labour | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds" It couldn’t be any worse though! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds It couldn’t be any worse though!" Lol, that's what was often said about Boris when he was PM until Liz entered the equation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds" What planet are you on? I'm no Labour supporter, but at least we have grown ups in government now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds It couldn’t be any worse though!" I admire the optimism but I would do that with caution | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds What planet are you on? I'm no Labour supporter, but at least we have grown ups in government now." Dont know about you but Im on planet earth but give it a year and we will see how "grown up" really Labour are | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds What planet are you on? I'm no Labour supporter, but at least we have grown ups in government now. Dont know about you but Im on planet earth but give it a year and we will see how "grown up" really Labour are " True it's early days. But so far we've had no rhetoric attacking British citizens, no blaming foriegners for everything, no dodgy contracts to their mates, no concessions to the fossil fuels industry, no budgets that tanked the economy. It does feel nice not to have a bunch of clowns in government for a while anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds What planet are you on? I'm no Labour supporter, but at least we have grown ups in government now. Dont know about you but Im on planet earth but give it a year and we will see how "grown up" really Labour are True it's early days. But so far we've had no rhetoric attacking British citizens, no blaming foriegners for everything, no dodgy contracts to their mates, no concessions to the fossil fuels industry, no budgets that tanked the economy. It does feel nice not to have a bunch of clowns in government for a while anyway. " And in fairness they haven't had the time for any of the above. But for those who claim not to be labour supporters, get used to life in govt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds What planet are you on? I'm no Labour supporter, but at least we have grown ups in government now. Dont know about you but Im on planet earth but give it a year and we will see how "grown up" really Labour are True it's early days. But so far we've had no rhetoric attacking British citizens, no blaming foriegners for everything, no dodgy contracts to their mates, no concessions to the fossil fuels industry, no budgets that tanked the economy. It does feel nice not to have a bunch of clowns in government for a while anyway. And in fairness they haven't had the time for any of the above. But for those who claim not to be labour supporters, get used to life in govt "Truss managed some of those in just a few days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds It couldn’t be any worse though! Lol, that's what was often said about Boris when he was PM until Liz entered the equation" Good point Leroy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well if some of you people think Labour wont be as chaotic as the Tories were is quite frankly for the birds What planet are you on? I'm no Labour supporter, but at least we have grown ups in government now. Dont know about you but Im on planet earth but give it a year and we will see how "grown up" really Labour are True it's early days. But so far we've had no rhetoric attacking British citizens, no blaming foriegners for everything, no dodgy contracts to their mates, no concessions to the fossil fuels industry, no budgets that tanked the economy. It does feel nice not to have a bunch of clowns in government for a while anyway. And in fairness they haven't had the time for any of the above. But for those who claim not to be labour supporters, get used to life in govt
Truss managed some of those in just a few days.
"Even now the marionette doesn’t understand what actually happened! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
