|
Post by gawa on Aug 9, 2024 18:41:58 GMT
Didn't know where stick this so thought I'd chuck it in here... Corbyn holds again 😁
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 10, 2024 6:01:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 10, 2024 9:47:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 11, 2024 10:11:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 11, 2024 10:18:22 GMT
Well well well.... If the cap fits.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 12, 2024 9:00:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 12, 2024 9:21:39 GMT
Keir Stalin is a globalist cunt, pushing the UK towards further totalitarianism.
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Aug 12, 2024 9:23:31 GMT
Oh we are fucked now lads. For the 172828th time the newspapers are warning us about the incoming devastation of millionaires fleeing because of tax rises Oh NO what about our jobs? How will we ever have a job without millionaires? And the sun? Maybe the sun won't come out anymore as there are no millionaires. We must do everything we can to stop the exodus. I am nothing without my slave master. Good old fearmongering from a newspaper owned by millionaires to make us all fear the utter devastation which may come if they have to pay an extra tenner in tax a week. Someone needs to check on on some of our posters. This is their biggest fear. Child poverty fine. Shit in our beaches fine. Pensioners going cold fine. Housing crisis fine. NHS gone to pot fine. But not the millionaires 🤣 Wonder how the exodus of Scottish millionaires is going since their tax rises. I hear they're all living on rations up there now and it's descended into civil war.
apparently 700 illegal potential millionaires arrived yesterday so no problem .
sadly 2 died crossing . RIP
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 12, 2024 9:41:38 GMT
He makes a good point on Starmers definition of 'working people '. When Starmer said 'no more tax on working people ' I naively took 'working people' to mean people who work. But that wasn't it at all, it was people who can't pay an unexpected bill. Which opens to door for clobering savings, private pensions...the whole 9 yards. Which is what we'll see in October.
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 12, 2024 9:53:57 GMT
He makes a good point on Starmers definition of 'working people '. When Starmer said 'no more tax on working people ' I took 'working people' to mean people who work. But that wasn't it at all, it was people who can't pay an unexpected bill. Which opens to door for clobering savings, private pensions...the whole 9 yards. Which is what we'll see in October. Can't suggest stuff like this GODS. Funny how GAWA and his merry army haven't commented on this. It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading.
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 12, 2024 9:57:57 GMT
Oh we are fucked now lads. For the 172828th time the newspapers are warning us about the incoming devastation of millionaires fleeing because of tax rises Oh NO what about our jobs? How will we ever have a job without millionaires? And the sun? Maybe the sun won't come out anymore as there are no millionaires. We must do everything we can to stop the exodus. I am nothing without my slave master. Good old fearmongering from a newspaper owned by millionaires to make us all fear the utter devastation which may come if they have to pay an extra tenner in tax a week. Someone needs to check on on some of our posters. This is their biggest fear. Child poverty fine. Shit in our beaches fine. Pensioners going cold fine. Housing crisis fine. NHS gone to pot fine. But not the millionaires 🤣 Wonder how the exodus of Scottish millionaires is going since their tax rises. I hear they're all living on rations up there now and it's descended into civil war.
apparently 700 illegal potential millionaires arrived yesterday so no problem .
sadly 2 died crossing . RIP
There is 0 danger of any millionaires coming here. Bit of a shit joke to make light of people dieing trying to get here. Fully expected from lefty know it alls though.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 12, 2024 9:58:03 GMT
He makes a good point on Starmers definition of 'working people '. When Starmer said 'no more tax on working people ' I naively took 'working people' to mean people who work. But that wasn't it at all, it was people who can't pay an unexpected bill. Which opens to door for clobering savings, private pensions...the whole 9 yards. Which is what we'll see in October. You must be aware of this then? www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65037136
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 12, 2024 10:00:56 GMT
This guy isn't bothered about losing his seat
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 12, 2024 10:01:10 GMT
He makes a good point on Starmers definition of 'working people '. When Starmer said 'no more tax on working people ' I naively took 'working people' to mean people who work. But that wasn't it at all, it was people who can't pay an unexpected bill. Which opens to door for clobering savings, private pensions...the whole 9 yards. Which is what we'll see in October. You must be aware of this then? www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65037136Oh he's a fucker alright.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 12, 2024 10:25:28 GMT
He makes a good point on Starmers definition of 'working people '. When Starmer said 'no more tax on working people ' I took 'working people' to mean people who work. But that wasn't it at all, it was people who can't pay an unexpected bill. Which opens to door for clobering savings, private pensions...the whole 9 yards. Which is what we'll see in October. Can't suggest stuff like this GODS. Funny how GAWA and his merry army haven't commented on this. It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading. Why are you mentioning me and then saying "It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading." You can preach to me all day about what the main stream media tell you about Labour if you so wish but not sure what it has to do with me personally. I'd recommend reading through the recent history of the thread. That may help give you an indication of my views on Labour. Maybe Wannabee, Oggy, Seymour Beaver or CHKUB will come back to you on this as they're more supportive than others of Labour on here. I guess they must all be the far left which buy into Starmers policies and I must just be centre right myself then?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Aug 12, 2024 12:15:00 GMT
Can't suggest stuff like this GODS. Funny how GAWA and his merry army haven't commented on this. It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading. Why are you mentioning me and then saying "It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading." You can preach to me all day about what the main stream media tell you about Labour if you so wish but not sure what it has to do with me personally. I'd recommend reading through the recent history of the thread. That may help give you an indication of my views on Labour. Maybe Wannabee, Oggy, Seymour Beaver or CHKUB will come back to you on this as they're more supportive than others of Labour on here. I guess they must all be the far left which buy into Starmers policies and I must just be centre right myself then? Some people just don’t read other people’s posts on here and just spit out shite cliches 😂 I got accused of being a Starmer loving Guardian reader the other other week, I think very little of Starmer and would love to see the Guardian shitrag disappear into oblivion…..
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Aug 12, 2024 12:29:38 GMT
Why are you mentioning me and then saying "It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading." You can preach to me all day about what the main stream media tell you about Labour if you so wish but not sure what it has to do with me personally. I'd recommend reading through the recent history of the thread. That may help give you an indication of my views on Labour. Maybe Wannabee, Oggy, Seymour Beaver or CHKUB will come back to you on this as they're more supportive than others of Labour on here. I guess they must all be the far left which buy into Starmers policies and I must just be centre right myself then? Some people just don’t read other people’s posts on here and just spit out shite cliches 😂 I got accused of being a Starmer loving Guardian reader the other other week, I think very little of Starmer and would love to see the Guardian shitrag disappear into oblivion….. Beeeeeeg ishhheeeew please!
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 12, 2024 12:33:18 GMT
Why are you mentioning me and then saying "It's ironic the people who profess to support and know the Labour party are absolutely clueless as to the direction its heading." You can preach to me all day about what the main stream media tell you about Labour if you so wish but not sure what it has to do with me personally. I'd recommend reading through the recent history of the thread. That may help give you an indication of my views on Labour. Maybe Wannabee, Oggy, Seymour Beaver or CHKUB will come back to you on this as they're more supportive than others of Labour on here. I guess they must all be the far left which buy into Starmers policies and I must just be centre right myself then? Some people just don’t read other people’s posts on here and just spit out shite cliches 😂 I got accused of being a Starmer loving Guardian reader the other other week, I think very little of Starmer and would love to see the Guardian shitrag disappear into oblivion….. Yeah I just don't get it. The iorny is that Keir Starmers politics are much closer to his politics than mine.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 12, 2024 12:37:13 GMT
He makes a good point on Starmers definition of 'working people '. When Starmer said 'no more tax on working people ' I naively took 'working people' to mean people who work. But that wasn't it at all, it was people who can't pay an unexpected bill. Which opens to door for clobering savings, private pensions...the whole 9 yards. Which is what we'll see in October. You must be aware of this then? www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65037136A tax-unregistered pension scheme, you couldn't make it up!
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 12, 2024 12:37:51 GMT
Some people just don’t read other people’s posts on here and just spit out shite cliches 😂 I got accused of being a Starmer loving Guardian reader the other other week, I think very little of Starmer and would love to see the Guardian shitrag disappear into oblivion….. Yeah I just don't get it. The iorny is that Keir Starmers politics are much closer to his politics than mine. What you think his politics are.
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 12, 2024 12:38:04 GMT
Some people just don’t read other people’s posts on here and just spit out shite cliches 😂 I got accused of being a Starmer loving Guardian reader the other other week, I think very little of Starmer and would love to see the Guardian shitrag disappear into oblivion….. Beeeeeeg ishhheeeew please! Right weird bloke you are.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 12, 2024 12:48:58 GMT
Yeah I just don't get it. The iorny is that Keir Starmers politics are much closer to his politics than mine. What you think his politics are. Whatever the highest bidder wants. I know much more about what he doesn't stand for rather than what he does stand for. What he doesn't stand for is: - Tackling inequality. - Protecting our NHS from further privatisation. - Building COUNCIL houses - Scrapping 2 child benefit cap - Taxing the ludicrously wealthy - Levision 2 inquiry - Abolshing the unelected house of lords - Protection our rights to protest and freedom of speech - Banning fire and rehire (maybe u turned back on this not sure) - Tackling the immigration crisis - Standing with trade unions striking - Protecting our pensioners - Nationalising our water which is run for profit at a deterrent to our health. - Much more To be fair though Reform/Tory don't support alot of the things on that list either. So yeah, you're politics are probably closer to Starmer than my own.
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 12, 2024 12:51:27 GMT
What you think his politics are. Whatever the highest bidder wants. I know much more about what he doesn't stand for rather than what he does stand for. What he doesn't stand for is: - Tackling inequality. - Protecting our NHS from further privatisation. - Building COUNCIL houses - Scrapping 2 child benefit cap - Taxing the ludicrously wealthy - Levision 2 inquiry - Abolshing the unelected house of lords - Protection our rights to protest and freedom of speech - Banning fire and rehire (maybe u turned back on this not sure) - Tackling the immigration crisis - Standing with trade unions striking - Protecting our pensioners - Nationalising our water which is run for profit at a deterrent to our health. - Much more To be fair though Reform/Tory don't support alot of the things on that list either. So yeah, you're politics are probably closer to Starmer than my own. Still no comment on the Hitchen video above or being a chief member of the Socialist Lawyers society. Make as many bullet lists as you want.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 12, 2024 13:07:08 GMT
Whatever the highest bidder wants. I know much more about what he doesn't stand for rather than what he does stand for. What he doesn't stand for is: - Tackling inequality. - Protecting our NHS from further privatisation. - Building COUNCIL houses - Scrapping 2 child benefit cap - Taxing the ludicrously wealthy - Levision 2 inquiry - Abolshing the unelected house of lords - Protection our rights to protest and freedom of speech - Banning fire and rehire (maybe u turned back on this not sure) - Tackling the immigration crisis - Standing with trade unions striking - Protecting our pensioners - Nationalising our water which is run for profit at a deterrent to our health. - Much more To be fair though Reform/Tory don't support alot of the things on that list either. So yeah, you're politics are probably closer to Starmer than my own. Still no comment on the Hitchen video above or being a chief member of the Socialist Lawyers society. Make as many bullet lists as you want. What do you want me to say? I didn't find the video particularly interesting (sorry Ian) or have any comment to make on it. This is like me picking a random video of Jeremy Corbyn and then quizzing you on it constantly saying he's right wing and that you support him because some random person in the media says so. Even though 1. You don't support Jeremy Corbyn 2. The person describing him as right wing is speaking shite. Here is an article from 2 months ago where Starmer himself describes himself as a socialist - www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/starmer-im-a-socialist-and-progressive-who-will-always-put-country-firstYou don't need to mention him being part of a socialist lawyers society if you want to push that narrative. You have it from the wolves mouth 2 months ago. But anyway.... you could go off today and make a group called "The Socialist Oatcakers"... doesn't make it socialist though does it? Take the SDP a party within the uk, they stand for socialist democratic party, but they're anything but socialist. Just because the word is in the name or someone describes themselves as it - doesn't make it real or true. I could say I'm far right... doesn't make it true. The SDP for instance are so far from being anything but socialist that former GB News panellist Father Calvin Robinson thinks they should have merged with Reform and Reclaim
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 12, 2024 13:11:42 GMT
Still no comment on the Hitchen video above or being a chief member of the Socialist Lawyers society. Make as many bullet lists as you want. What do you want me to say? I didn't find the video particularly interesting (sorry Ian) or have any comment to make on it. This is like me picking a random video of Jeremy Corbyn and then quizzing you on it constantly saying he's right wing and that you support him because some random person in the media says so. Even though 1. You don't support Jeremy Corbyn 2. The person describing him as right wing is speaking shite. Here is an article from 2 months ago where Starmer himself describes himself as a socialist - www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/starmer-im-a-socialist-and-progressive-who-will-always-put-country-firstYou don't need to mention him being part of a socialist lawyers society if you want to push that narrative. You have it from the wolves mouth 2 months ago. But anyway.... you could go off today and make a group called "The Socialist Oatcakers"... doesn't make it socialist though does it? Take the SDP a party within the uk, they stand for socialist democratic party, but they're anything but socialist. Just because the word is in the name or someone describes themselves as it - doesn't make it real or true. I could say I'm far right... doesn't make it true. The SDP for instance are so far from being anything but socialist that former GB News panellist Father Calvin Robinson thinks they should have merged with Reform and Reclaim I'll only join the Oatcake Socialists if you chair it. Saying you don't find a video very interesting is a bit of a cop out. A lot of people say an abundance of shit that isn't very interesting. Doesn't mean it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Aug 12, 2024 13:57:01 GMT
What do you want me to say? I didn't find the video particularly interesting (sorry Ian) or have any comment to make on it. This is like me picking a random video of Jeremy Corbyn and then quizzing you on it constantly saying he's right wing and that you support him because some random person in the media says so. Even though 1. You don't support Jeremy Corbyn 2. The person describing him as right wing is speaking shite. Here is an article from 2 months ago where Starmer himself describes himself as a socialist - www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/starmer-im-a-socialist-and-progressive-who-will-always-put-country-firstYou don't need to mention him being part of a socialist lawyers society if you want to push that narrative. You have it from the wolves mouth 2 months ago. But anyway.... you could go off today and make a group called "The Socialist Oatcakers"... doesn't make it socialist though does it? Take the SDP a party within the uk, they stand for socialist democratic party, but they're anything but socialist. Just because the word is in the name or someone describes themselves as it - doesn't make it real or true. I could say I'm far right... doesn't make it true. The SDP for instance are so far from being anything but socialist that former GB News panellist Father Calvin Robinson thinks they should have merged with Reform and Reclaim I'll only join the Oatcake Socialists if you chair it. Saying you don't find a video very interesting is a bit of a cop out. A lot of people say an abundance of shit that isn't very interesting. Doesn't mean it's wrong. I didn't go out of my way to say it wasn't interesting or wrong. You kept hassling me for my views on it. So anyway I've obliged and written my thoughts down as I listened to the video. My conclusions are. > Peter lists a load of random things from the 60s to 80s and because of these things it means Starmer is part of the hard left. > Peter tells us many times that all the other journalists are illiterate nowadays and none of them can spot it but he can because he claims he was a marxist in the 60s to 80s. > But despite Peter being a marxist in the 60s to 80s he isn't one anymore. But when it comes to Starmer we will decide what he is based on carefully selected facts from that period and ignore anything since then. My full second by second commentary below: Peter says he has an interesting background (as Peter does himself). Peter then says Starmer is very very far left. Well I disagree with this due to the reasons I've given you multiple times. If he was far left then he wouldn't have purged most of the left wing and replaced them with centrists. Would he? Starts talking about something called Pabloism and apparently starmer was part of this in his 20s? Ok cool. Apparently Pabloism is now about some different revolution about greens and reds. And reds is about cultural and moral revolutionary and green is about fanatical net zeroness. And now red is also about sexual politics too allegedly (as peter seems to describe what red means twice giving two different descriptions). And according to Peter, Keir really believes in this stuff. And the reason he believes in this stuff is because he said he wouldn't use private healthcare which Peter believes. (lol I wouldn't believe the serial liar). Now we have moved onto the question about raising taxes for working people. Peter thinks people with savings are going to face a tax. Good they should but then Peter is forgetting how Angela Raynor and Rachel Reeves both criticised the Green party for a wealth tax. Peter is also forgetting that Starmer personally removed his leadership pledge which was to tax the wealthiest more. When questioned on why he couldn't tax these people more he said "we can't afford to". Then Peter bangs on making out that the people with savings in this country are actually the poor people Peter once again talking about something in the 70s about freedom of speech and Starmer went on some work camp. Now Peter talks about a lawyer group who allegedly sympathised with the Soviet Union in the 70s which Starmer was in. Cool. Not sure what the point is here? So Peter now thinks the answer to all of this random botch job of "this is your life" kier starmer narrated by Peter that it means he is part of the hard left because of a few random things from the 70s. Peter then goes on to tell us how all the journalists and political commentators in the country are politically illiterate besides himself. And Peter knows better than everyone because in the 60s and 70s he claims he was a Marxist And again the reason none of this is exposed is because Peter understands it and nobody else does. And then goes back to the 60s again to talk about a random antedote about some man who threw stones in Paris is something to do with the EU. And again Peter finishes by saying that he knows best and nobody else can spot this because it takes one to know one. Or something like that. So to conclude. It just reads like a whole load of waffle to me? I presume we will see more of this over the next 5 years though so get strapped in with your seatbelt on. The media will want to position this fraud labour party as socialist/left wing because more than likely they'll be as hopeless and useless as the last lot. However if they don't have the "left wing/socialist" label attached to them then it puts centrism and right wing politics at risk. Because we'd then be in a situation where successive failures would be on the centre and right of politics. So if Starmers Labour can be positioned as left wing in enough peoples minds then come next election it puts the regularly platformed Reform and Farage in prime position to attack both the tory and labour party and to imply that the left wing and centre right don't have the answers and they're the only hope, and to thus win the apathy vote. That's my view. Doesn't make it right though of course.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 12, 2024 14:47:59 GMT
What you think his politics are. Whatever the highest bidder wants. I know much more about what he doesn't stand for rather than what he does stand for. What he doesn't stand for is: - Tackling inequality. - Protecting our NHS from further privatisation. - Building COUNCIL houses - Scrapping 2 child benefit cap - Taxing the ludicrously wealthy - Levision 2 inquiry - Abolshing the unelected house of lords - Protection our rights to protest and freedom of speech - Banning fire and rehire (maybe u turned back on this not sure) - Tackling the immigration crisis - Standing with trade unions striking - Protecting our pensioners - Nationalising our water which is run for profit at a deterrent to our health. - Much more To be fair though Reform/Tory don't support alot of the things on that list either. So yeah, you're politics are probably closer to Starmer than my own. An interesting list of wants; as usual with those who have no accountability, it has a lot of spending other people's hard earned money and little about creating wealth, improving efficiency, and a lot of irrelevance like nationalisation and abolishing the HoL which probably has more intelligence in 10% of its members than the whole of the Commons. Good news though, we are starting to tackle the number 1 priority inequality. As I have repeatedly posted, to get a bigger share of the cake you need to make the cake bigger by growing the economy. Driving the rich out of the country, or their money, is not the way. Leaving the EU is the first step. We are now able to manage our own affairs and reverse the increased inequality that has happened since joining the EEC. See Figure 3: www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality#:~:text=As%20Figure%203%20shows%2C%20the,top%200.5%20percent%20of%20households. Creating more wealth means there is more money to spend on your wants list, without taxing workers more. We are a sovereign state and perfectly capable of improving employment law, legislation of utility companies, and easing planning to build more housing, which has happened even under the Tories and there is legislation in the pipeline.
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Aug 12, 2024 14:50:26 GMT
I'll only join the Oatcake Socialists if you chair it. Saying you don't find a video very interesting is a bit of a cop out. A lot of people say an abundance of shit that isn't very interesting. Doesn't mean it's wrong. I didn't go out of my way to say it wasn't interesting or wrong. You kept hassling me for my views on it. So anyway I've obliged and written my thoughts down as I listened to the video. My conclusions are. > Peter lists a load of random things from the 60s to 80s and because of these things it means Starmer is part of the hard left. > Peter tells us many times that all the other journalists are illiterate nowadays and none of them can spot it but he can because he claims he was a marxist in the 60s to 80s. > But despite Peter being a marxist in the 60s to 80s he isn't one anymore. But when it comes to Starmer we will decide what he is based on carefully selected facts from that period and ignore anything since then. My full second by second commentary below: Peter says he has an interesting background (as Peter does himself). Peter then says Starmer is very very far left. Well I disagree with this due to the reasons I've given you multiple times. If he was far left then he wouldn't have purged most of the left wing and replaced them with centrists. Would he? Starts talking about something called Pabloism and apparently starmer was part of this in his 20s? Ok cool. Apparently Pabloism is now about some different revolution about greens and reds. And reds is about cultural and moral revolutionary and green is about fanatical net zeroness. And now red is also about sexual politics too allegedly (as peter seems to describe what red means twice giving two different descriptions). And according to Peter, Keir really believes in this stuff. And the reason he believes in this stuff is because he said he wouldn't use private healthcare which Peter believes. (lol I wouldn't believe the serial liar). Now we have moved onto the question about raising taxes for working people. Peter thinks people with savings are going to face a tax. Good they should but then Peter is forgetting how Angela Raynor and Rachel Reeves both criticised the Green party for a wealth tax. Peter is also forgetting that Starmer personally removed his leadership pledge which was to tax the wealthiest more. When questioned on why he couldn't tax these people more he said "we can't afford to". Then Peter bangs on making out that the people with savings in this country are actually the poor people Peter once again talking about something in the 70s about freedom of speech and Starmer went on some work camp. Now Peter talks about a lawyer group who allegedly sympathised with the Soviet Union in the 70s which Starmer was in. Cool. Not sure what the point is here? So Peter now thinks the answer to all of this random botch job of "this is your life" kier starmer narrated by Peter that it means he is part of the hard left because of a few random things from the 70s. Peter then goes on to tell us how all the journalists and political commentators in the country are politically illiterate besides himself. And Peter knows better than everyone because in the 60s and 70s he claims he was a Marxist And again the reason none of this is exposed is because Peter understands it and nobody else does. And then goes back to the 60s again to talk about a random antedote about some man who threw stones in Paris is something to do with the EU. And again Peter finishes by saying that he knows best and nobody else can spot this because it takes one to know one. Or something like that. So to conclude. It just reads like a whole load of waffle to me? I presume we will see more of this over the next 5 years though so get strapped in with your seatbelt on. The media will want to position this fraud labour party as socialist/left wing because more than likely they'll be as hopeless and useless as the last lot. However if they don't have the "left wing/socialist" label attached to them then it puts centrism and right wing politics at risk. Because we'd then be in a situation where successive failures would be on the centre and right of politics. So if Starmers Labour can be positioned as left wing in enough peoples minds then come next election it puts the regularly platformed Reform and Farage in prime position to attack both the tory and labour party and to imply that the left wing and centre right don't have the answers and they're the only hope, and to thus win the apathy vote. That's my view. Doesn't make it right though of course. Talking of absolute waffle... see above.
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Aug 12, 2024 15:18:28 GMT
Good to see Starmer up 14 % because of his dealing with the Riots so well .Looks like the racists (except on here.) have crawled back under their rocks...................
|
|
|
Post by frasier37 on Aug 12, 2024 15:38:36 GMT
Yep, as all governments do, use civil unrest to justify the removal of liberties from its public. Facial recognition for everything that moves coming soon
|
|