Keir Starmer

[Curly]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

 

What type of questions that? Because they were good pledges and by taking them down it showed a level of dishonesty. 

 

If people choose not to draw the line and not vote for his party that's their perogative. For instance just as you're passionate over Ukraine others be equally passionate about the events in Gaza and thus vote accordingly. That's just one issue. 

I don’t know if you’re for real or not

[Arniepie]

1 hour ago, Curly said:

 

I don’t get this thought process. You’re basically saying you’d rather give “the most unpopular government in history” an opportunity to get back in because the alternative option isn’t the form of that party you specifically want. Sounds almost childlike that. Proper nose off to spite face stuff.

 

You’ve decided labour and starmer are showing people what they are about, but I think you’re wrong. Starmer has pulled back on public iterations of anything that linked him to the original left with policies - like the stuff he took off his website. It’s tactical - if he loses the same percentage from a losing vote last time against gaining that percentage of a winning vote, then he’s laughing. If and when, as I think will happen, he starts pushing a more left minded government and policies once in power, will you then agree that you landed on the incorrect assumption.

 

I honestly don’t understand anyone not prepared to roll the dice either way though. We’ve got the worst case currently, so “Tory lite” is an improvement, but there’s all the brats crying that is isn’t the labour government they wanted, so will tactical vote or abstain. I remember the conversations on here about whether it was harsh to call working class people who voted Tory thick - well I will 100% call left minded people thick if they don’t vote labour at the GE.

Exactly where I am

Another 5 years of these cunts and will be living in the hunger games. 

[Gnasher]

 

Now..

 

Not very long ago..

 

 

 

 

[Anubis]

6 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Yorkshire building society isn't goldman Sachs to be fair.

With £40b assets they’re not yer ma’s piggy bank either.

[Gnasher]

23 minutes ago, Anubis said:

With £40b assets they’re not yer ma’s piggy bank either.

 

It's heartening the first major announcement from Reeves is keeping the bankers bonuses which will only benefit the likes of those advisers on her list. 

[Section_31]

The society currently provides financial services both directly and through a 132-strong branch network and 99 associated agencies across the UK. Despite changes in the industry in recent years, Yorkshire Building Society remains one of the major mutual building societies in Britain – a review in 1995 confirmed that their mutual status was important to them, so that they remain answerable to their members, rather than outside shareholders.

[Gnasher]

They've made a Stirling start. 

[Section_31]

Reminds me of Kate Green getting grief when Starmer promoted her (even though she'd also been promoted by Corbyn) for being "a banker". Yet she'd simply just worked at Barclays bank.

 

This is where some of this stuff jumps the shark. I agree, Godman Sachs bad, but also Yorkshire building society cos...banks?

 

Like people moaning about the arms industry even though it's unioned up to the hilt and employs shit tonnes of people.

 

Reminds me of when my mate briefly flirted with being in the socialist party, I'd ask him what the previous night's meeting was like and it'd be like "we talked about the need to forcibly nationalise the top 500 ftse companies, voted to send a message of solidarity to Venezuela, and were given a talk by Fidel Castro's great granddaughter's former college roommate."

 

Great, but what's the policy on GP appointments.

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

Reminds me of Kate Green getting grief when Starmer promoted her (even though she'd also been promoted by Corbyn) for being "a banker". Yet she'd simply just worked at Barclays bank.

 

This is where some of this stuff jumps the shark. I agree, Godman Sachs bad, but also Yorkshire building society cos...banks?

 

Like people moaning about the arms industry even though it's unioned up to the hilt and employs shit tonnes of people.

 

Reminds me of when my mate briefly flirted with being in the socialist party, I'd ask him what the previous night's meeting was like and it'd be like "we talked about the need to forcibly nationalise the top 500 ftse companies, voted to sens a message of solidarity to Venezuela, and were given a talk by Fidel Castro's great granddaughter's former college roommate."

 

Great, but what's the policy on GP appointments.

 

 

Section, Reeves has just backed a Kwarteng/Truss nonsense idea on bankers bonuses. Even many in her own party have admitted its wrong.

 

It's going to do nothing for anyone in this country but Bankers. The ridicule she's encountered from all sections is more than justified  

 

I just watched her being torn apart on Channel 4. This is how it's playing out. 

 

 

 

 

 

Labour, Scotland..

 

 

 

The Daily Mirror.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bjornebye]

David Lammy is a bit of a cunt and all 

[sir roger]

' Bit '

[Gnasher]

[Strontium]

56 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Reminds me of Kate Green getting grief when Starmer promoted her (even though she'd also been promoted by Corbyn) for being "a banker". Yet she'd simply just worked at Barclays bank.

 

This is where some of this stuff jumps the shark. I agree, Godman Sachs bad, but also Yorkshire building society cos...banks?

 

Like people moaning about the arms industry even though it's unioned up to the hilt and employs shit tonnes of people.

 

Yes, Labour is supposed to be the party of the workers, and last time I checked, people who worked in banks (and defence) were still workers. Most of them don't earn megabucks either.

 

2.5 million people work in the financial industry in this country, which is about 50 times more than the steel industry, no prizes for guessing which excites the loonies more though.

 

If Labour are now concentrating on the sectors that actually employ significant numbers of people, and moving away from prioritising dying industries, the feckless, and those who are diametrically opposed to this country's values and freedoms, then they're doing the job they should be doing. Labour means Labour.

[Gnasher]

How many of the 2.5 million  employed in the financial sector qualify for a bankers bonus? 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

How many of the 2.5 million  employed in the financial sector qualify for a bankers bonus? 

 

Good luck getting a valid response. 

[Gnasher]

As for Steel it brings in 2.4 billion per year to the British economy and Its a material that's going to be needed for decades to come because you'll not be building a lot without it .

[Mudface]

Oh thank God, I thought they were going to keep a policy I could vote for- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/labour-to-ditch-annual-green-investment-pledge-party-sources-say

[Gnasher]

As Mud says above here goes another one...

 

 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

Going down a storm. What a day indeed. They make three big pledges (if this last one on dropping the clean energy plan is true) and all three are totally wrong. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arniepie]

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

 

Yes, Labour is supposed to be the party of the workers, and last time I checked, people who worked in banks (and defence) were still workers. Most of them don't earn megabucks either.

 

2.5 million people work in the financial industry in this country, which is about 50 times more than the steel industry, no prizes for guessing which excites the loonies more though.

 

If Labour are now concentrating on the sectors that actually employ significant numbers of people, and moving away from prioritising dying industries, the feckless, and those who are diametrically opposed to this country's values and freedoms, then they're doing the job they should be doing. Labour means Labour.

So if its such a small number..why are they making it a priority?

[Gnasher]

Labour/Reeves are putting this out this morning as something to champion. In context taxes on most people are high. Corperation tax is the one tax that is historically low. It wax 50% in the Thatcher years and is the lowest throughout the G7.  Corperation tax is lower what it was then, as is the top rate of income tax. 

 

 

Reeves could easily have focused on other taxes such as VAT or raising the threshold for those who pay the top rate and really help those on more modest incomes but has chosen to give safeguards to tax paid on profits by limited companies. This is something the Tufton Street mob would welcome. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

Labour appear to be positioning themselves as a sort of 1950s Conservative party.

[Dicko]

There is very little policy wise, that a Labour supporter can point to as a reason for for them.

[Dicko]

2 hours ago, Dicko said:

There is very little policy wise, that a Labour supporter can point to as a reason for for them.

Well that made no sense.

 

There is very little policy wise, that a Labour supporter can point to as a reason to vote for them.

That's better.

[Gnasher]

Another pledge looking likely to bite the dust. Vote Labour get Tufton Street. 

 

 

 

 

This pair advising Labour now?  They need to ban Reeves from Davos, for the sake of the country.