General Election 2024: General UK Politics Discussion here

[RollingJ]

You may have been clear - to you - but you do realise the implication I took it to mean? It suggested that as people got older, they decided to switch allegiance, which they patently don't. Also, define 'older' - 40/50/60/70?

[Tony]

17 hours ago, Mister Gee said:

 

 

21 hours ago, Mister M said:

Why wouldn't he be at the meeting? He is our Foreign Secretary after all.

 

17 hours ago, Mister M said:

What's he going to issue an injunction over?

 

17 hours ago, Mister Gee said:

It’s interesting isn’t it? Tony was awol when Boris was up to his worst.

 

It's true. I am Boris Johnson and you have won an additional £16,000 clothing allowance.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Prettytom said:

He’s quite clearly not a prize idiot.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lammy
 

But thanks for your attempt to contribute to the debate.

Maybe think harder before you next type.

The gift that keeps on giving, just like his cheerleaders. 

https://youtu.be/F2yKCuMuOEk?si=P5JCphg3076fLEf2

He's been so idiotic so many times that I've stopped keeping score. Anything useful the alleged mastermind had to say after the Tottenham riots has been usurped by his ongoing collection of chaos and clangers.  

 

14 hours ago, Mister M said:

To make the point that Isabel Oakeshott made up lies about David Cameron sticking his penis in a pig's mouth. 

She's a muck raker.

To say that "it is an open secret" that Starmer had a gay relationship with Lord Ali, as she did, is preposterous. Not because of the allegation, I've no idea if he did have a relationship with him; but the idea that the media knew about this and colluded in keeping it a secret.

I don't think it's a secret that most of the media hates Labour, and had they any evidence that he did have a gay relationship, they would've gone to town on it.

The other part of the rumour is a super injunction. The media can't collude either way, they just can't mention it without risk of sanctions. I don't know if it's come from Oakshott but a freelance writer can take their own risks and if it's true there is no sanction risk really. In balance, if it's come from a well placed but independent source like her rather than a corporate outlet I'd be more inclined to believe it. Who knows what will come next.

[Mister M]

5 hours ago, Delbow said:

Rosie Duffield, a principled Labour MP, is now no longer a Labour MP as she has resigned the whip in protest at Starmer filling his own pockets while refusing to get rid of the benefit cap and cutting the winter fuel payments. 

 

I think she's right and has done the right thing. Doubtless many forumers will agree with her on the gift grift and especially on the winter fuel payments as that affects them. They won't agree with her about the benefit cap because that doesn't affect them. Only some benefits are good (the ones given to Tories).

Not sure if this has been covered here but it's revealed on radio that she too has taken gifts, tickets when she's been an MP.

I think she's finding out that as she points the finger at others, there are 3 fingers pointing back to her.

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

Not sure if this has been covered here but it's revealed on radio that she too has taken gifts, tickets when she's been an MP.

I think she's finding out that as she points the finger at others, there are 3 fingers pointing back to her.

Strangely enough, now Labour are back in 'power' they will find they will suffer the same kind of behaviour that was directed at the previous administration.

[Mister M]

5 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

 

 

 

It's true. I am Boris Johnson and you have won an additional £16,000 clothing allowance.

 

 

 

The gift that keeps on giving, just like his cheerleaders. 

https://youtu.be/F2yKCuMuOEk?si=P5JCphg3076fLEf2

He's been so idiotic so many times that I've stopped keeping score. Anything useful the alleged mastermind had to say after the Tottenham riots has been usurped by his ongoing collection of chaos and clangers.  

 

The other part of the rumour is a super injunction. The media can't collude either way, they just can't mention it without risk of sanctions. I don't know if it's come from Oakshott but a freelance writer can take their own risks and if it's true there is no sanction risk really. In balance, if it's come from a well placed but independent source like her rather than a corporate outlet I'd be more inclined to believe it. Who knows what will come next.

MPs can use the HoC to speak openly without running the risk of being arrested. 

And I come back to the point - if they have evidence why not release that evidence before the issuing of a super injunction?

And you say "a well placed but independent source like her rather than a corporate outlet".

In what way is Mrs Richard Tice a well placed but independent source?

[Prettytom]

4 minutes ago, Mister M said:

MPs can use the HoC to speak openly without running the risk of being arrested. 

And I come back to the point - if they have evidence why not release that evidence before the issuing of a super injunction?

And you say "a well placed but independent source like her rather than a corporate outlet".

In what way is Mrs Richard Tice a well placed but independent source?

I think you are being trolled.  Anyone citing Isabel Oakeshott as a trustworthy, reliable source, is either having a laugh, or is totally uninformed.

 

Just ask Matt Hancock for details.

[Mister M]

6 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Strangely enough, now Labour are back in 'power' they will find they will suffer the same kind of behaviour that was directed at the previous administration.

At present the issue is receiving gifts and freebies, and while not against the rules and laws, is being used as a stick to beat them with.

If it goes into things like PPE contracts, VIP lanes, proroguing Parliament, breaking the law and the shenanigans for the previous administrations then Labour are in the doodoo.

Sure, the attention is on them, however I am pleased with how they handled the riots, the fact that there is a Hillsborough Law, the fact that they are at meeting with unions so strikes aren't crippling the country, and real attention is being given to housing, and banning of no fault evictions. 

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

At present the issue is receiving gifts and freebies, and while not against the rules and laws, is being used as a stick to beat them with.

If it goes into things like PPE contracts, VIP lanes, proroguing Parliament, breaking the law and the shenanigans for the previous administrations then Labour are in the doodoo.

Sure, the attention is on them, however I am pleased with how they handled the riots, the fact that there is a Hillsborough Law, the fact that they are at meeting with unions so strikes aren't crippling the country, and real attention is being given to housing, and banning of no fault evictions. 

No doubt similar things to those you refer to in paragraph 2 will occur, such is the unfortunate nature of what passes for 'politics' these days, and the way all political parties operate.

 

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the riots were rather more handled by the police and courts operating under already in place legislation, the only disturbing/crippling 'strike' they have averted so far is the proposed one by LNER - where their Sec. of State for Transport didn't even realise she was the ultimate 'employer' she was urging to 'get round the table'.

 

We shall see what happens in the housing area - that is a rather longer-term operation.

[Mister M]

5 hours ago, High Chaparral said:

Just seen Rosie Duffield interviewed by Laura Kuenssburg.  It's the clothes donations that are the last straw. Rosie Duffield believes donations should be used for expenses needed for campaigning and not for buying clothes.  Rosie Duffield also believes Sir Keir Starmer has a problem with women and likes to be surrounded by lads.  If Rosie Duffield resigned as a MP and stood again in a by-election she would easily win the Canterbury seat as an Independent. 

[RollingJ]

At least one of those certainly shouldn't be there - maybe a couple of the others are a little more competent, and two of them are 'ceremonial' roles only.

Edited Sunday at 15:48 by RollingJ