• Welcome to PASOTI (Sponsored by GA Solictors and Lang & Potter)
  • Hello guests - don't forget that by registering and signing up for Pasoti you'll see less adverts plus receive extras like free match tickets, taking part in polls, joining in the chat room and more. Come and join us!

I think Labour has got it wrong

Apr 15, 2004
2,854
99
East Devon
Well thanks for stepping up Ave_IT. I find your opening comment quite bizarre to be honest. If Labour Party followers won’t read it, it kind of begs the question ‘what is the point?’. This is your Leader’s vision of the future, the strategic direction. The one that I guess you’ll be voting for. That’s odd isn’t it?
I don't think it's odd at all - but I'm surprised (and slightly flattered) you are surprised I haven't bothered reading a 20-page essay with a magnifying glass . I'm not a card-carrying activist about to vote on motions at the Labour conference - just another left-of-centre supporter (exactly how far left even I'm not sure). I'm well aware the election is years away and know things will change before then and Starmer may not even be leader ..... so I'm content to read the summaries and comments from trusted sources for information. I'm impressed you took the trouble to read the original but seriously doubt I've missed anything substantial or been cunningly deceived by manipulative intermediaries.

By the way I'm not alone in not reading such things - government ministers seem to pride themselves in not bothering to read reports & inquiry findings .... Liz Truss apparently scrawls 'T.L.D.N.R' in big letters across many very important documents that land on her desk meaning - Too Long Did Not Read. Maybe that explains why we have no chance of a trade deal with America any time soon and all her other 'triumphs' have been inferior cut-and-paste jobs from the EU. Her boss is so impressed with such a shameless lack of attention to detail he's just given her a big promotion.

As for Starmer. Yes - I do have a lot of time for him (not enough to read his bleedin' essay though :giggle: ) - He's undoubtedly very bright, has a firm grasp of details, is committed and decent and is trying to occupy the centre-left ground and pull Labour back away from the macho-Left head-bangers. All big ticks for me. On the downside he is a bit dull and probably has a limited electoral appeal especially in areas that Labour need to regain in the north and Scotland ..... unless people get so sick of Boris & co. that someone a bit dull becomes a real positive.

The thing that disappoints me with him though is that he should be constantly reminding people that Boris and the Tories are Mister Brexit and the Brexit party. In that essay he mentions a "botched Brexit" but only in passing instead of making it a major theme. Polls show that 68% of the public now think that our current 'supply chain' issues are at least in part due to Brexit. Even amongst leave voters most accept Brexit has caused problems. But Labour don't want to punch this large Tory bruise in case it alienates the 'red wall' voters they desperately want to get back. That's B'llox imho. For a start those people are very much a minority and even they would accept that Brexit didn't have to mean the sort of dogmatic break with the EU the Tories have insisted upon and are now having to back track on. But somehow Brexit is like Voldermort - the name that cannot be spoken by Labour politicians.

There is of course Andy Burnham waiting in the wings. He seems to have played the long game to become leader. When Corbyn took over rather than fight him he stepped sideways to make a base in Manchester for himself and always seems to be in the spotlight championing high profile popular causes. He also seems to ever-so-gently (so gently as to be barely noticeable) be critical of Starmer such that a cynic may think he is courting the left's 'anyone-but-Starmer' sentiments. I can forsee Starmer taking on the left in such a big battle that Labour end up uniting around Burnham as the compromise leader before the next election. That might just be the best outcome.
 
Feb 26, 2012
1,665
48
Ivybridge
I don't think it's odd at all - but I'm surprised (and slightly flattered) you are surprised I haven't bothered reading a 20-page essay with a magnifying glass . I'm not a card-carrying activist about to vote on motions at the Labour conference - just another left-of-centre supporter (exactly how far left even I'm not sure). I'm well aware the election is years away and know things will change before then and Starmer may not even be leader ..... so I'm content to read the summaries and comments from trusted sources for information. I'm impressed you took the trouble to read the original but seriously doubt I've missed anything substantial or been cunningly deceived by manipulative intermediaries.

By the way I'm not alone in not reading such things - government ministers seem to pride themselves in not bothering to read reports & inquiry findings .... Liz Truss apparently scrawls 'T.L.D.N.R' in big letters across many very important documents that land on her desk meaning - Too Long Did Not Read. Maybe that explains why we have no chance of a trade deal with America any time soon and all her other 'triumphs' have been inferior cut-and-paste jobs from the EU. Her boss is so impressed with such a shameless lack of attention to detail he's just given her a big promotion.

As for Starmer. Yes - I do have a lot of time for him (not enough to read his bleedin' essay though :giggle: ) - He's undoubtedly very bright, has a firm grasp of details, is committed and decent and is trying to occupy the centre-left ground and pull Labour back away from the macho-Left head-bangers. All big ticks for me. On the downside he is a bit dull and probably has a limited electoral appeal especially in areas that Labour need to regain in the north and Scotland ..... unless people get so sick of Boris & co. that someone a bit dull becomes a real positive.

The thing that disappoints me with him though is that he should be constantly reminding people that Boris and the Tories are Mister Brexit and the Brexit party. In that essay he mentions a "botched Brexit" but only in passing instead of making it a major theme. Polls show that 68% of the public now think that our current 'supply chain' issues are at least in part due to Brexit. Even amongst leave voters most accept Brexit has caused problems. But Labour don't want to punch this large Tory bruise in case it alienates the 'red wall' voters they desperately want to get back. That's B'llox imho. For a start those people are very much a minority and even they would accept that Brexit didn't have to mean the sort of dogmatic break with the EU the Tories have insisted upon and are now having to back track on. But somehow Brexit is like Voldermort - the name that cannot be spoken by Labour politicians.

There is of course Andy Burnham waiting in the wings. He seems to have played the long game to become leader. When Corbyn took over rather than fight him he stepped sideways to make a base in Manchester for himself and always seems to be in the spotlight championing high profile popular causes. He also seems to ever-so-gently (so gently as to be barely noticeable) be critical of Starmer such that a cynic may think he is courting the left's 'anyone-but-Starmer' sentiments. I can forsee Starmer taking on the left in such a big battle that Labour end up uniting around Burnham as the compromise leader before the next election. That might just be the best outcome.
Well said! Plus Starmer is from humble origins and he is an Arsenal fan! Agree with most of what you say although I do think Labour need to start looking seriously at potential coalitions if we are to rid ourselves of possibly the most inept and venal government in my lifetime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike E
Oct 9, 2003
3,559
35
Aberdeen
Andy MacDonald resigns during Conference. Seems like Left are gearing themselves up for something - McDonnell again criticising Starmer. Suspect Sir Keir may struggle to demonstrate a united party. Divided opposition, weak government. Not good.
 
Sep 6, 2006
11,375
300
Labour ceased to represent the workers a long time ago. I used to be hard core Labour.

Starmer on the Andrew Marr show this morning saying its wrong to say only women have a cervix WTF ?

Labour today are the benefits and immigrants party, waiting in the wings to spend loads of money we dont have. All based on the idea that we are one of the richest nations, a dubious idea, based on GDP.

GDP is a measurement of all financial transactions including property sales, multiplied by velocity, so fill the country up with immigration ( all parties do this to be fair ) and ramp up house prices and rents, voila, GDP soars. Except everyone is worse off with wage suppression and high accommodation charges.
With a lax interest rate policy ( continued by the Cons ) Brown made sure home ownership would become unnaffordable to the average worker, hoping to increase the client state of the Labour Party by disenfranchising a generation from property ownership whilst his wealthier public sector voter boomer mates gobbled up all the first time buyer property for buy to let.
He also abolished the lowest rate tax band of 10 pence around 2008, increasing the tax take on the poorest workers I remember a mate saying he would never vote Labour again on the back of that, and thats when the penny started to drop for me. His crowning glory was deregulating banking whilst London was the centre of the Credit Derivative market, that market blew up and nearly took down the world financial systerm in 2008, and will take it down by 2030's.
Then they left Britain skint. Look at borrowing during the Osbourne era, UK had to borrow more cash in 10 years than we had borrowed in the previous 300 to pay for a scaled back version of the Labour agenda. Now people called that "Austerity" and they may have their reasons, but really the question I have is how much do you think the government should have borrowed then ? And if you think taxing the better off should have been the way forward, taxing the rich and the corporations more does not really much increase the tax take, its been well demonstrated. When A. Darling increased the tax on the richest earners to 50p in the pound ( thats higher than communist China ) it did not increase HMRC revenues on balance. look at all the skint socialist regimes like France and Spain, they try that tactic and end up with 40 -50 % youth unemployment.
Look at Ireland that was nearly a third world country in the 70's ( i am of Irish extraction ), they DECREASED corp tax, next thing you know all the biggies, eventually even microsoft, apple , disney, all want to do business in Ireland, inside 30 years people were leaving the UK to get a job in Ireland.
At least Bozo made sure the minimum wage went up above inflation and moved the tax threshold up to 12.5 k, about 25% higher than where it was under Labour. Thats the sort of action workers wanted to see.
People took note of the Labour partys slide into a racist, rich hating, communist disgrace and given the choice between a posh blond haired liar offering to restore soveriegnty and democracy and a Marxist terrorist lover, voted accordingly.
The current govt are a shambles in my opinion, the big issue facing us for some time ( about 20 years ) is energy policy and they are failing to get real. Labour also ignorant in this area. We need nuclear and we need it yesterday.
We need coal fired back up if required. We need a new grid. There is right now a possibility of print and spend on INFRASTRUCTURE not benefits, but soon that window will close, eg when America ceases printing or when the bond market says we want more intrest payments. From that point on, govts cant really borrow. The implications are grim.
I do have an interest in economics, I have to say the future for the West is dire, a lot to do with currency debasement and lack of a long term energy strategy, and the erosion of democracy. But hey, apparently now we all have cervixes so everythings fine.
.
As you have a problem with immigrants and state that is a reason you don't vote Labour (makes very little sense but I suppose if you read Express that's what you believe) can you advise us who should/would do all the NHS jobs, low paid care jobs, fruit and veg picking jobs, as well as driving jobs of course?
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,745
149
On the plus side today another Corbynite jettisoned from the shadow cabinet, the loony left are angry cos they’re becoming increasingly marginalised and will hopefully soon be extinguished.

On the negative side the PR vote was defeated which is sad and the B word still seems forbidden. Which I think is bonkers as not only did 70% of Labour voters vote no but 63% of all voters think that the current crisis is caused by brexit. It’s an open goal, not to call to rejoin but to point out the lies and the hard Brexit deal which was a tory choice and an intentional act of self harm for narrow party ideological reasons.
 
Oct 9, 2003
3,559
35
Aberdeen
An interesting way to look at Labour at the moment is to actually put yourself in Starmer’s shoes. Take the minimum wage debate today which has led to MacDonald’s resignation, threats by Corbyn to go against the leadership, and McDonnell to accuse Starmer of losing control at Conference.

On the one hand I don’t think there would be many who‘d argue against an increase in the minimum wage - more specifically an increase for key workers. This would have significant appeal to grass roots Labour supporters and of course the radical Momentum types. But the collateral effect goes beyond key workers economically speaking and £15 is a mighty leap.

On the other hand it brings economic (mis)management under Labour back into the spotlight - the principle reason for lack of trust in the party, particularly with some of the wild spending pledges of recent times which were of course emphatically voted against in the 2019 GE. Starmer wants to correct that impression and show responsibility when it comes to the economy if it is to be electable again.

So, you’re Keir Starmer for the day. What do you do?

Pretty much impossible situation in my opinion.
 
I agree that Starmer’s position seems pretty untenable. However if I were him I’d draw comfort from the knowledge that historically the party shows itself to be in regular turmoil, with the underlying question ‘what’s it there for?’ Never more prescient than now, with most working class voters being more aspirational than at any point in my lifetime. The old saying that half the country is middle class, and the other half is striving to be, has really come to pass, and is the reason for the red wall move to the right in those areas, leaving Starmer with far less room to manoeuvre in terms of election winning policy.

So accepting that Labour is no longer a broad church, but two parties which will never fit is, in my mind, the starting point. Treating the far left as if it never existed never did Blair any harm, and Starmer’s only course must be similar, proving economic competence to a doubting electorate, whilst promising better management of everything else than this current shambles.
 
Oct 9, 2003
3,559
35
Aberdeen
I agree that Starmer’s position seems pretty untenable. However if I were him I’d draw comfort from the knowledge that historically the party shows itself to be in regular turmoil, with the underlying question ‘what’s it there for?’ Never more prescient than now, with most working class voters being more aspirational than at any point in my lifetime. The old saying that half the country is middle class, and the other half is striving to be, has really come to pass, and is the reason for the red wall move to the right in those areas, leaving Starmer with far less room to manoeuvre in terms of election winning policy.

So accepting that Labour is no longer a broad church, but two parties which will never fit is, in my mind, the starting point. Treating the far left as if it never existed never did Blair any harm, and Starmer’s only course must be similar, proving economic competence to a doubting electorate, whilst promising better management of everything else than this current shambles.

Agree mervyn. I don’t think Labour is sustainable in its current confines as demonstrated by the prior example. A moderate, centre left alliance with the Greens and LibDems is their only hope IMO - and would give the voter a choice. I’d cast them off and let Momentum types create their own political party and let’s see how they get on then.
 

Pogleswoody

Kate Sponsor
Lowey Sponsor
Pun Master
50/50 Sponsor
NHS Volunteer Supporter
NHS Cake Donor
T.O Support
Jul 3, 2006
16,793
366
70
Location Location
Agree mervyn. I don’t think Labour is sustainable in its current confines as demonstrated by the prior example. A moderate, centre left alliance with the Greens and LibDems is their only hope IMO - and would give the voter a choice. I’d cast them off and let Momentum types create their own political party and let’s see how they get on then.
Remember Kinnock vs Derek Hatton et al (whoever Al was) at Party Conference. Not holding my breath that Keir can do that but it's a similar tipping point.
Interesting that Macdonald says that he has been in the Party since 1979 (Newbie!!) but can't remember a sense of such deep division.
Can't remember his pop idol JC then? And he doesn't remember the 1985 Party Conference??
As to the Leadership rules, he wants to elect a Leader that one fifth of the sitting MPs would not nominate??
Dianne Abbott was her normal impressive self on Today this morning! : 'Jeremy is always right'. (Said tongue in cheek but no smoke without ...)
 
Aug 12, 2010
574
17
South Wales
As you have a problem with immigrants and state that is a reason you don't vote Labour (makes very little sense but I suppose if you read Express that's what you believe) can you advise us who should/would do all the NHS jobs, low paid care jobs, fruit and veg picking jobs, as well as driving jobs of course?
BG my final post on this for now...i gave many reasons why I dont vote labour. Since you only want to highlight one reason this is my response.

In terms of who would do the NHS jobs, the people currently doing them could do the jobs ! But going forward British born people are going to have to re- learn to do stuff like care work Nhs Lorry driving, which should have been happening all along,... you know..going to work for a living ? Like we used to be able to do ?
I see in the North east where there are many alleged job seekers Amazon and Tesco are having to offer cash bribes up front of £1000 or more to even get people to take a job and I know anecdotally from a mate in Bishop Auckland Durham that recruitment is a major problem for factories in that area, whilst they are surrounded by doleys, probably all labour voters, they know where there bread is buttered.

I agree that historically all parties have had a liberal immigration policy..I dont have a problem with immigrants per se, but I do have a problem with the policy of importation of people from abroad being used to suppress workers wages significantly, inflating housing costs to the benefit of landlords and the property owning class, and being given residence for reasons of cultural engineering, eg Jack Straws utterances around maxing immigration because they wanted to rub the rights faces in diversity, Diane Abbot complaining about too many blue eyed NHS workers ect.

This wage suppression was a core objective for both lab and con. Cons are backing away from it now because they see the need to create inflation, including in wages, in order to increase the tax take, otherwise we may go insolvent in 4 years.

Labour I describe as the party for immigration because they see migrants, particularly unskilled migrants and therefor lower income members of our society as more likely to vote labour, and so they 100 % will continue to import people with no marketable skills, and lower skilled workers seeking to better themselves, whilst calling anyone who objects a "racist". Surprised I even have to spell that out for you.
( I notice at conference yesterday someone chairing a meeting complained of "too many white male hands going up " indicative of the sort of cultural changes within lab, You may think this is good, I dont, I think its devisive social folly which can only feed the far right. )
And I would expect a lab govt to adopt pretty much an open doors policy. I do recall Corbyn at the camp at Calais saying " if it was up to me I would let you all in " ....Really?
Virtue signalling their "compassion" whilst not giving a fig about the impact on wider society. Remember Gordo's "bigot" moment ?Thats the level of contempt Lab have for their own communities.
As part of that open doors mentality I believe Lab would negotiate us back into the EU, for Lab still have a globalist mind set, when economically and politically that road is now a dusty dead end.
Seperately you keep referring to me as an Express reader, and on that basis try to marginalise the content of what I am saying, perhaps I should clarify I tend not to read it because it is tish but I thought the headline on the linked article which I came across on a Google search was pretty funny given your erroneous beliefs around St. Gordon. I did link also to 2 other credible sources which you seem to ignore, probably due to the paucity of your arguement.
There is nothing you can say that will convince me to vote again for Labour as it is now. It seems a party very devided, full of marxists, ( note the way all marxist countries are oppressive impoverished tish holes ) and the front bench come across as perhaps a bit low IQ.
Only person I have a bit of time for is Burnham, but I expect if I knew more about him, he'd prove to be more of the same and would sell out his people for a bit of virtue signalling and a pat on the back from the Marxists.

They are all unable to comprehend what the inevitable end of cheap oil and gas will do to the world and how no amount of windmills is going to fix it.....cons the same ....that is the big issue in politics coming over the horizon.
Well enjoy having a cervix, now that Sir Kier has explained that you have one... I dont expect any thing I write will change your mind, and you wont change mine so I dont see further point in this.
 

IJN

Site Owner
Nov 29, 2012
1,369
1,310
Where do they dig their "leaders" from though?

Brown, (the wrong brother) Milliband, Corbyn (🤣) and now Mr Personality himself.

Don't even start on the deputy leaders.

Labour have been truly unelectable for many many years.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,745
149
BG my final post on this for now...i gave many reasons why I dont vote labour. Since you only want to highlight one reason this is my response.

In terms of who would do the NHS jobs, the people currently doing them could do the jobs ! But going forward British born people are going to have to re- learn to do stuff like care work Nhs Lorry driving, which should have been happening all along,... you know..going to work for a living ? Like we used to be able to do ?
I see in the North east where there are many alleged job seekers Amazon and Tesco are having to offer cash bribes up front of £1000 or more to even get people to take a job and I know anecdotally from a mate in Bishop Auckland Durham that recruitment is a major problem for factories in that area, whilst they are surrounded by doleys, probably all labour voters, they know where there bread is buttered.

I agree that historically all parties have had a liberal immigration policy..I dont have a problem with immigrants per se, but I do have a problem with the policy of importation of people from abroad being used to suppress workers wages significantly, inflating housing costs to the benefit of landlords and the property owning class, and being given residence for reasons of cultural engineering, eg Jack Straws utterances around maxing immigration because they wanted to rub the rights faces in diversity, Diane Abbot complaining about too many blue eyed NHS workers ect.

This wage suppression was a core objective for both lab and con. Cons are backing away from it now because they see the need to create inflation, including in wages, in order to increase the tax take, otherwise we may go insolvent in 4 years.

Labour I describe as the party for immigration because they see migrants, particularly unskilled migrants and therefor lower income members of our society as more likely to vote labour, and so they 100 % will continue to import people with no marketable skills, and lower skilled workers seeking to better themselves, whilst calling anyone who objects a "racist". Surprised I even have to spell that out for you.
( I notice at conference yesterday someone chairing a meeting complained of "too many white male hands going up " indicative of the sort of cultural changes within lab, You may think this is good, I dont, I think its devisive social folly which can only feed the far right. )
And I would expect a lab govt to adopt pretty much an open doors policy. I do recall Corbyn at the camp at Calais saying " if it was up to me I would let you all in " ....Really?
Virtue signalling their "compassion" whilst not giving a fig about the impact on wider society. Remember Gordo's "bigot" moment ?Thats the level of contempt Lab have for their own communities.
As part of that open doors mentality I believe Lab would negotiate us back into the EU, for Lab still have a globalist mind set, when economically and politically that road is now a dusty dead end.
Seperately you keep referring to me as an Express reader, and on that basis try to marginalise the content of what I am saying, perhaps I should clarify I tend not to read it because it is tish but I thought the headline on the linked article which I came across on a Google search was pretty funny given your erroneous beliefs around St. Gordon. I did link also to 2 other credible sources which you seem to ignore, probably due to the paucity of your arguement.
There is nothing you can say that will convince me to vote again for Labour as it is now. It seems a party very devided, full of marxists, ( note the way all marxist countries are oppressive impoverished tish holes ) and the front bench come across as perhaps a bit low IQ.
Only person I have a bit of time for is Burnham, but I expect if I knew more about him, he'd prove to be more of the same and would sell out his people for a bit of virtue signalling and a pat on the back from the Marxists.

They are all unable to comprehend what the inevitable end of cheap oil and gas will do to the world and how no amount of windmills is going to fix it.....cons the same ....that is the big issue in politics coming over the horizon.
Well enjoy having a cervix, now that Sir Kier has explained that you have one... I dont expect any thing I write will change your mind, and you wont change mine so I dont see further point in this.
A long well thought out post, if only any of it were true.

The Tories are the party of immigration which I demonstrated with Home Office figures. Non EU unskilled immigration at record ever levels last year, over 300,000 net. That's your open door policy.

Going on about Gordon Brown who is long long gone. Harold Wilson anyone?

Referring to another "credible source", an article from 2011.

The obsession with Marxism which is utterly laughable, when there aren't any Marxists in the shadow cabinet, or anyone with any influence in the Labour Party, and I wonder what Hughie means by Marxism, does he know what it is or just throws it out as a term of abuse in accordance with Government client journalists lingo in the Express.

Anti green energy when every single party knows its the only possible future if we want our grandchildren to have a planet to live on.

And chuck in a few Express style insults on issues of sexuality and the working class "doleys" for not taking the only work going which is low paid unskilled and often zero hours contracts when they were promised the sunlit uplands of high skilled high wage jobs post Brexit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old Gunner
Sep 6, 2006
11,375
300
Where do they dig their "leaders" from though?

Brown, (the wrong brother) Milliband, Corbyn (🤣) and now Mr Personality himself.

Don't even start on the deputy leaders.

Labour have been truly unelectable for many many years.
As have the Tories but they still get elected. Could ask the same question of them. Johnson, May, Cameron really?
BG my final post on this for now...i gave many reasons why I dont vote labour. Since you only want to highlight one reason this is my response.

In terms of who would do the NHS jobs, the people currently doing them could do the jobs ! But going forward British born people are going to have to re- learn to do stuff like care work Nhs Lorry driving, which should have been happening all along,... you know..going to work for a living ? Like we used to be able to do ?
I see in the North east where there are many alleged job seekers Amazon and Tesco are having to offer cash bribes up front of £1000 or more to even get people to take a job and I know anecdotally from a mate in Bishop Auckland Durham that recruitment is a major problem for factories in that area, whilst they are surrounded by doleys, probably all labour voters, they know where there bread is buttered.

I agree that historically all parties have had a liberal immigration policy..I dont have a problem with immigrants per se, but I do have a problem with the policy of importation of people from abroad being used to suppress workers wages significantly, inflating housing costs to the benefit of landlords and the property owning class, and being given residence for reasons of cultural engineering, eg Jack Straws utterances around maxing immigration because they wanted to rub the rights faces in diversity, Diane Abbot complaining about too many blue eyed NHS workers ect.

This wage suppression was a core objective for both lab and con. Cons are backing away from it now because they see the need to create inflation, including in wages, in order to increase the tax take, otherwise we may go insolvent in 4 years.

Labour I describe as the party for immigration because they see migrants, particularly unskilled migrants and therefor lower income members of our society as more likely to vote labour, and so they 100 % will continue to import people with no marketable skills, and lower skilled workers seeking to better themselves, whilst calling anyone who objects a "racist". Surprised I even have to spell that out for you.
( I notice at conference yesterday someone chairing a meeting complained of "too many white male hands going up " indicative of the sort of cultural changes within lab, You may think this is good, I dont, I think its devisive social folly which can only feed the far right. )
And I would expect a lab govt to adopt pretty much an open doors policy. I do recall Corbyn at the camp at Calais saying " if it was up to me I would let you all in " ....Really?
Virtue signalling their "compassion" whilst not giving a fig about the impact on wider society. Remember Gordo's "bigot" moment ?Thats the level of contempt Lab have for their own communities.
As part of that open doors mentality I believe Lab would negotiate us back into the EU, for Lab still have a globalist mind set, when economically and politically that road is now a dusty dead end.
Seperately you keep referring to me as an Express reader, and on that basis try to marginalise the content of what I am saying, perhaps I should clarify I tend not to read it because it is tish but I thought the headline on the linked article which I came across on a Google search was pretty funny given your erroneous beliefs around St. Gordon. I did link also to 2 other credible sources which you seem to ignore, probably due to the paucity of your arguement.
There is nothing you can say that will convince me to vote again for Labour as it is now. It seems a party very devided, full of marxists, ( note the way all marxist countries are oppressive impoverished tish holes ) and the front bench come across as perhaps a bit low IQ.
Only person I have a bit of time for is Burnham, but I expect if I knew more about him, he'd prove to be more of the same and would sell out his people for a bit of virtue signalling and a pat on the back from the Marxists.

They are all unable to comprehend what the inevitable end of cheap oil and gas will do to the world and how no amount of windmills is going to fix it.....cons the same ....that is the big issue in politics coming over the horizon.
Well enjoy having a cervix, now that Sir Kier has explained that you have one... I dont expect any thing I write will change your mind, and you wont change mine so I dont see further point in this.
So you write a long essay(didn't bother reading it all life is too short) then say what's the point!. I.e. don't reply!
 
Feb 26, 2012
1,665
48
Ivybridge
Where do they dig their "leaders" from though?

Brown, (the wrong brother) Milliband, Corbyn (🤣) and now Mr Personality himself.

Don't even start on the deputy leaders.

Labour have been truly unelectable for many many years.
Unfortunately we know exactly where most of the Tories leaders and cabinet ministers come from (Eton, Oxford/Cambridge, minor aristocracy) but we still elect them...maybe people aspire to be like them, maybe the feudal system is alive and well...I dunno. I do know that there is a lack of credible opposition and on that we agree. The 63% who didn't vote Tory or vote at all need a choice...at the moment there doesn't appear to be one.
 

IJN

Site Owner
Nov 29, 2012
1,369
1,310
I would have thought Andy Burnham would be a shoe in wouldn't he?