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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories" Amen sister | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't stand her" Oh dear, lol.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories" Lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Congratulations Kemi. "Labour and SKS will be delighted, although I doubt she will last until the next election  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Congratulations Kemi.
Labour and SKS will be delighted, although I doubt she will last until the next election "Yes, that's why Tories are ahead in polls for first time in years. Go Kier ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Congratulations Kemi.
Labour and SKS will be delighted, although I doubt she will last until the next election
Yes, that's why Tories are ahead in polls for first time in years. Go Kier ! "Polls don’t win elections, votes do, another 5 years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. " I think cleverly will be the next Tory prime minister in 10 years time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. " Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default." People said the same about the Tories when they brought in austerity. They stayed in power for 14 years . The last time a party only served one term was 1974 and that was before the fixed 5 year legislation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. People said the same about the Tories when they brought in austerity. They stayed in power for 14 years . The last time a party only served one term was 1974 and that was before the fixed 5 year legislation." No Govt in recent history has been elected with such a low vote % as Labour this year - they are in a uniquely weak position faced with 5 years of economic problems, both inherited and of their own making. The length of Labour Governments historically has been: 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 5 years, and then 13 for Blair/Brown. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. People said the same about the Tories when they brought in austerity. They stayed in power for 14 years . The last time a party only served one term was 1974 and that was before the fixed 5 year legislation. No Govt in recent history has been elected with such a low vote % as Labour this year - they are in a uniquely weak position faced with 5 years of economic problems, both inherited and of their own making. The length of Labour Governments historically has been: 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 5 years, and then 13 for Blair/Brown. " Well we’ll know in 5 years time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'new' Conservative. Party. leader." Excellent news, she will give Kier a good fight in especially at PM’s questions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'new' Conservative. Party. leader. Excellent news, she will give Kier a good fight in especially at PM’s questions." Starmer doesn’t answer questions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'new' Conservative. Party. leader. Excellent news, she will give Kier a good fight in especially at PM’s questions. Starmer doesn’t answer questions. " None of them have for years. It’s pointless theatre. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories" this 
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default." Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country needs a strong opposition party, and if she can rein-in Tory infighting she could do well. I like her no-nonsense, plain speaking approach daring to voice truths that people don't want to hear. " Hahahaha from a woman who thought doing a shift in McDonald’s made her working class. She’s emotional inept and will be a walking PR disaster with her misspeaking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have." hahaha thats funny you think things will improve, the country has been going downhill the last 20 years, you really think its gona be fixed in the nxt 2 or 3 years? Your looking at least ten years before things start improving for people, and now a days peole want instant results and if they aint given them they look elsewhere | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have." Attacking immigrants is one of the most successful tools in the arsenal of those political parties you mentioned. There's no way it's going away anytime soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Congratulations Kemi.
Labour and SKS will be delighted, although I doubt she will last until the next election
Yes, that's why Tories are ahead in polls for first time in years. Go Kier !
Polls don’t win elections, votes do, another 5 years "True. But the arse completely falling out of a PM’s popularity rating isn’t generally seen as a positive sign, is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'new' Conservative. Party. leader. Excellent news, she will give Kier a good fight in especially at PM’s questions. Starmer doesn’t answer questions. None of them have for years. It’s pointless theatre." Agreed. It serves no purpose whatsoever to the people of this country. It’s just a fun debate for these wankers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have." That simple, huh? Waiting lists come down and popularity soars? None of the bad stories and headlines of the first 4 months have had anything whatsoever to do with nhs waiting times. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have. That simple, huh? Waiting lists come down and popularity soars? None of the bad stories and headlines of the first 4 months have had anything whatsoever to do with nhs waiting times. " Those are stories based on throw away headlines. People won’t give a flying fcuk about some Taylor swift tickets in 6 month let alone 5 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have. Attacking immigrants is one of the most successful tools in the arsenal of those political parties you mentioned. There's no way it's going away anytime soon. " The attacks won’t stop but the gullibility of these they seek to mobilise and whip into a frenzy will fall faster than the appetite for brexit! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore"Amen to that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that "We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have." "Once NHS waiting lists start to come down" That is one hell of an assumption or wishful thinking on a biblical scale. Starmer will chuck a fortune at the NHS and very little if anything will change. So if the wait for a hip operation comes down by a few weeks or instead of 12 hours in A&E it comes down to 10, do you really think anyone will notice? The bulk of any new money will get swallowed up in pay rises and waste. The NHS needs root and branch reform but Starmers union paymasters will not allow that. The status quo is far too comfy for them. As for the Tory's. This leader, that leader or uncle Tom Cobleys leader won't make a jot of difference until they sort out the Reform party problem. A split vote will always be a loser. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people."Agree, because now even labour serves corporate interests' I vote for no one, I am a rising concern amongst politicians the no show voter, a person who will not vote for others to live in poverty, make war on others, let everything rise in price until it is no longer worth the price I could go on but I am still in bed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people."We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support. "Indeed. But those who benefit from the current system would have to change it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support. "So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
Indeed. But those who benefit from the current system would have to change it."As long as the electorate put up with this bull from all sides, nothing will or need to change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories" FUCK LIEBOUR | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories FUCK LIEBOUR " Haha , liebour? That’s brilliant, did you make the up yourself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education."No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education.
No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed."So who pays for it ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education.
No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed.
So who pays for it ?"Parties can organise their own funding. Membership fees. Coffee mornings. I don't really care how they do it. They shouldn't work in the interests of corporate donors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education.
No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed.
So who pays for it ?
Parties can organise their own funding. Membership fees. Coffee mornings. I don't really care how they do it.
They shouldn't work in the interests of corporate donors."Then you get into the world of those who have wealthier donors have bigger funding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education.
No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed.
So who pays for it ?
Parties can organise their own funding. Membership fees. Coffee mornings. I don't really care how they do it.
They shouldn't work in the interests of corporate donors.
Then you get into the world of those who have wealthier donors have bigger funding."That's what I am suggesting we should move away from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education.
No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed.
So who pays for it ?
Parties can organise their own funding. Membership fees. Coffee mornings. I don't really care how they do it.
They shouldn't work in the interests of corporate donors.
Then you get into the world of those who have wealthier donors have bigger funding.
That's what I am suggesting we should move away from. "So if one party has wealthier members than the other it’s ok because they aren’t corporations, irrespective if they are CEO of a company. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education.
No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed.
So who pays for it ?
Parties can organise their own funding. Membership fees. Coffee mornings. I don't really care how they do it.
They shouldn't work in the interests of corporate donors.
Then you get into the world of those who have wealthier donors have bigger funding.
That's what I am suggesting we should move away from.
So if one party has wealthier members than the other it’s ok because they aren’t corporations, irrespective if they are CEO of a company. "You may have missed my comment: "or other extremely high individual donations". If they're not able to donate more than the membership fee or more than the cost of a slice of cake. Doesn't matter how wealthy they are. I don't really know what point you're trying to make, that the political parties shouldn't, or wouldn't ever work in our interests? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have. That simple, huh? Waiting lists come down and popularity soars? None of the bad stories and headlines of the first 4 months have had anything whatsoever to do with nhs waiting times. Those are stories based on throw away headlines. People won’t give a flying fcuk about some Taylor swift tickets in 6 month let alone 5 years." I was thinking more about lying in their manifesto and shafting old folks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not convinced she has the charisma to win over voters in four and years time. Starmer won a huge majority despite being a stranger to any trace of charisma or character. If Labour carries on as they've begun they'll soon be the most unpopular governing party in recent history and the Tories will win by default. Once NHS waiting times start to come down, just watch as the popularity grows. Tory and reform have one think immigration, people will grow tired of that once other things start to improve because they won’t be looking to blame anyone. Dog whistle politics is all the right wing have. That simple, huh? Waiting lists come down and popularity soars? None of the bad stories and headlines of the first 4 months have had anything whatsoever to do with nhs waiting times. Those are stories based on throw away headlines. People won’t give a flying fcuk about some Taylor swift tickets in 6 month let alone 5 years. I was thinking more about lying in their manifesto and shafting old folks. " ‘Some ‘ old folks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support. "When has that ever happened? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories FUCK LIEBOUR Haha , liebour? That’s brilliant, did you make the up yourself "About as original as your response! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories FUCK LIEBOUR Haha , liebour? That’s brilliant, did you make the up yourself
About as original as your response! "Haha, good one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education.
No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed.
So who pays for it ?
Parties can organise their own funding. Membership fees. Coffee mornings. I don't really care how they do it.
They shouldn't work in the interests of corporate donors.
Then you get into the world of those who have wealthier donors have bigger funding."Exactly. The suggestion seems to be that parties operate with no funding at all .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck the tories this
but fuck the labour party too and the lib dems and all the other selfish greedy c8NTS who claim to serve the public ... dont trust any of them anymore
Amen to that
We need a political party not corporate funded. That will prioritise the country and the people.
We need a political party and system that is not reliant on vested interests for support.
So who pays for these parties with no outside support ?. Do you think the public ae going to see their taxes go up to pay for politicians. Hell they are having a melt down when Labour suggest spending it on the NHS and Education.
No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed.
So who pays for it ?
Parties can organise their own funding. Membership fees. Coffee mornings. I don't really care how they do it.
They shouldn't work in the interests of corporate donors.
Then you get into the world of those who have wealthier donors have bigger funding.
Exactly.
The suggestion seems to be that parties operate with no funding at all .. "Then you haven't read my suggestion at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed." Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'?" I wondered when someone would mention that. I would be very interested in the answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'?" That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'?" Yed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? Yed" Yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'new' Conservative. Party. leader." Have you seen that state of her new cabinet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much." It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums" Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. " That would be a step up from this labour government if they did...... I couldn't help it, you set it up so well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. " I was interested to see if I had understood your proposal correctly in reference to funding. Personally I want a government to govern for all as opposed to particular groups | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'new' Conservative. Party. leader. Have you seen that state of her new cabinet "Only governments have cabinets | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The 'new' Conservative. Party. leader. Have you seen that state of her new cabinet
Only governments have cabinets "Shadow cabinet, either way, it’s terrible | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. " Only rich people vote Tory? That’s the laziest stereotype in this country. There aren’t enough rich people for them to ever get in government | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. That would be a step up from this labour government if they did...... I couldn't help it, you set it up so well "
I mean the nirvana is for any political party in power to work in the interests of the British people. Just to have different visions on now to do it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. I was interested to see if I had understood your proposal correctly in reference to funding. Personally I want a government to govern for all as opposed to particular groups" I'd like them to represent the interests of British people, instead of whomever donated the most to the election campaign. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. Only rich people vote Tory? " No, there's the 'working class Tory' phenomenon. " That’s the laziest stereotype in this country. There aren’t enough rich people for them to ever get in government " Indeed. But ther is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. Only rich people vote Tory? No, there's the 'working class Tory' phenomenon. That’s the laziest stereotype in this country. There aren’t enough rich people for them to ever get in government Indeed. But ther is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people"." It is far more nuanced than that…. Conservative governments have lead government 66- 33% labour. What rends to happen is labour go down the same rabbit holes and the tories look solid again. The rabbit holes are appearing already, I was convinced it would be a 2 term labour government until they took office and the budget was announced. If the tories had a more centre leaning leader they could make it a 1 term labour government, Kemi is not going to lead the conservatives to that position, they’ve put all their eggs in the win back the right of the party basket. That could be a labour win and 2nd term. The country vote for a stable centre. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. Only rich people vote Tory? No, there's the 'working class Tory' phenomenon. That’s the laziest stereotype in this country. There aren’t enough rich people for them to ever get in government Indeed. But ther is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". It is far more nuanced than that…. Conservative governments have lead government 66- 33% labour. What rends to happen is labour go down the same rabbit holes and the tories look solid again. The rabbit holes are appearing already, I was convinced it would be a 2 term labour government until they took office and the budget was announced. If the tories had a more centre leaning leader they could make it a 1 term labour government, Kemi is not going to lead the conservatives to that position, they’ve put all their eggs in the win back the right of the party basket. That could be a labour win and 2nd term. The country vote for a stable centre. " I agree, they should have gone got Cleverley, however, she is better that Jenryk | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the 'shallow' cabinet" Very shallow, and braverman couldn’t even get it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. Only rich people vote Tory? No, there's the 'working class Tory' phenomenon. That’s the laziest stereotype in this country. There aren’t enough rich people for them to ever get in government Indeed. But ther is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". It is far more nuanced than that…. Conservative governments have lead government 66- 33% labour. What rends to happen is labour go down the same rabbit holes and the tories look solid again. The rabbit holes are appearing already, I was convinced it would be a 2 term labour government until they took office and the budget was announced. If the tories had a more centre leaning leader they could make it a 1 term labour government, Kemi is not going to lead the conservatives to that position, they’ve put all their eggs in the win back the right of the party basket. That could be a labour win and 2nd term. The country vote for a stable centre. " I don't disagree with the content of your post. But I'm not sure how it relates to what I said? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. Only rich people vote Tory? No, there's the 'working class Tory' phenomenon. That’s the laziest stereotype in this country. There aren’t enough rich people for them to ever get in government Indeed. But ther is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". It is far more nuanced than that…. Conservative governments have lead government 66- 33% labour. What rends to happen is labour go down the same rabbit holes and the tories look solid again. The rabbit holes are appearing already, I was convinced it would be a 2 term labour government until they took office and the budget was announced. If the tories had a more centre leaning leader they could make it a 1 term labour government, Kemi is not going to lead the conservatives to that position, they’ve put all their eggs in the win back the right of the party basket. That could be a labour win and 2nd term. The country vote for a stable centre. I don't disagree with the content of your post. But I'm not sure how it relates to what I said?" you said "Indeed. But there is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". It never comes down to rich people, because rich people can ands will always ride the wave out. This country sides on conservatism because it offers more centre led policies compared to labour. Meaning it is the general public, the people who work, the cleaner the banker the whoever, it is not rich people who decide the government. However, rich people influence the government whoever it may be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. Only rich people vote Tory? No, there's the 'working class Tory' phenomenon. That’s the laziest stereotype in this country. There aren’t enough rich people for them to ever get in government Indeed. But ther is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". It is far more nuanced than that…. Conservative governments have lead government 66- 33% labour. What rends to happen is labour go down the same rabbit holes and the tories look solid again. The rabbit holes are appearing already, I was convinced it would be a 2 term labour government until they took office and the budget was announced. If the tories had a more centre leaning leader they could make it a 1 term labour government, Kemi is not going to lead the conservatives to that position, they’ve put all their eggs in the win back the right of the party basket. That could be a labour win and 2nd term. The country vote for a stable centre. I don't disagree with the content of your post. But I'm not sure how it relates to what I said? you said "Indeed. But there is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". It never comes down to rich people, because rich people can ands will always ride the wave out. This country sides on conservatism because it offers more centre led policies compared to labour. Meaning it is the general public, the people who work, the cleaner the banker the whoever, it is not rich people who decide the government. However, rich people influence the government whoever it may be. " Ah I see. In my opinion, the party that best represents the interests of those who can and do donate large sums of money, will get those large sums of money, will be supported by the media and will gain power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. Only rich people vote Tory? No, there's the 'working class Tory' phenomenon. That’s the laziest stereotype in this country. There aren’t enough rich people for them to ever get in government Indeed. But ther is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". It is far more nuanced than that…. Conservative governments have lead government 66- 33% labour. What rends to happen is labour go down the same rabbit holes and the tories look solid again. The rabbit holes are appearing already, I was convinced it would be a 2 term labour government until they took office and the budget was announced. If the tories had a more centre leaning leader they could make it a 1 term labour government, Kemi is not going to lead the conservatives to that position, they’ve put all their eggs in the win back the right of the party basket. That could be a labour win and 2nd term. The country vote for a stable centre. I don't disagree with the content of your post. But I'm not sure how it relates to what I said? you said "Indeed. But there is enough money to get them in government. And the "them" is whomever best represents the interests of the "rich people". It never comes down to rich people, because rich people can ands will always ride the wave out. This country sides on conservatism because it offers more centre led policies compared to labour. Meaning it is the general public, the people who work, the cleaner the banker the whoever, it is not rich people who decide the government. However, rich people influence the government whoever it may be. Ah I see. In my opinion, the party that best represents the interests of those who can and do donate large sums of money, will get those large sums of money, will be supported by the media and will gain power." Money, and the power that goes with it, has always had a significant influence in politics, and always will. It’s pretty pointless trying to imagine something different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mark Francois Shadow Defence Secretary. "Haha, they are really scrapping the barrel? Have they got enough MPs to fill the shadow cabinet ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, I'm not suggesting that taxes fund political parties. I'm suggesting that corporate sponsorship, or other extremely high individual donations shouldn't be allowed. Would you be classing the various unions as 'extremely high individual donators'? That’s where it gets complicated. Yes the union donates as a block but they consist of individual members. Wealthy individuals or corporations not so much. It could get complicated but if I understand the proposal, the members could not donate anymore than the membership fee which would be the same for all members. I'm not sure if that would end up more or less than the union's currently give. It's the same rule to restrict wealthy Tories donating huge sums Or it might encourage the Conservatives to want to represent the interests of ordinary working people. I was interested to see if I had understood your proposal correctly in reference to funding. Personally I want a government to govern for all as opposed to particular groups I'd like them to represent the interests of British people, instead of whomever donated the most to the election campaign." Yes you mentioned that and I agree, assuming you mean the British people as a whole | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't stand her" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Giving Kier a good going over about Lammy's Trump abuse. "Is that all she has got? Lame stuff tbh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Giving Kier a good going over about Lammy's Trump abuse. "Trump is a kunt same as kemi | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Giving Kier a good going over about Lammy's Trump abuse.
Trump is a kunt same as kemi"Yet the most powerful man on the planet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mark Francois Shadow Defence Secretary.
Haha, they are really scrapping the barrel? Have they got enough MPs to fill the shadow cabinet ? "I don't think any Party who had Diane Abbott in their Cabinet is in any position to chuck bricks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mark Francois Shadow Defence Secretary.
Haha, they are really scrapping the barrel? Have they got enough MPs to fill the shadow cabinet ?
I don't think any Party who had Diane Abbott in their Cabinet is in any position to chuck bricks."lol nice one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mark Francois Shadow Defence Secretary.
Haha, they are really scrapping the barrel? Have they got enough MPs to fill the shadow cabinet ?
I don't think any Party who had Diane Abbott in their Cabinet is in any position to chuck bricks."Dianne Abbot is not in the current cabinet, she has only ever been in a shadow cabinet, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mark Francois Shadow Defence Secretary.
Haha, they are really scrapping the barrel? Have they got enough MPs to fill the shadow cabinet ?
I don't think any Party who had Diane Abbott in their Cabinet is in any position to chuck bricks.
Dianne Abbot is not in the current cabinet, she has only ever been in a shadow cabinet, "Same as mark Francois then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mark Francois Shadow Defence Secretary.
Haha, they are really scrapping the barrel? Have they got enough MPs to fill the shadow cabinet ?
I don't think any Party who had Diane Abbott in their Cabinet is in any position to chuck bricks."A shadow cabinet that was resoundingly rejected by the electorate. Maybe the Tories could learn from Labour mistakes. When you lose it’s doesn’t mean the people think you weren’t left or right wing enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mark Francois Shadow Defence Secretary.
Haha, they are really scrapping the barrel? Have they got enough MPs to fill the shadow cabinet ?
I don't think any Party who had Diane Abbott in their Cabinet is in any position to chuck bricks.
Dianne Abbot is not in the current cabinet, she has only ever been in a shadow cabinet,
Same as mark Francois then "Good observation, well made | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
