Jack the Sipper

I'd be interested to know what the Green Party make of the page he's set up for donations that he says will go to, among others, selected Green Party candidates. People who donate only have a finite amount of money to give to political causes, and I'd be surprised if the GP were happy with money that might otherwise be going to them to distribute going instead to Jones to decide what Green candidates meet his criteria for donations, because not all of them will. I can see a situation where GP candidates, desperate for campaign funds, end up twerking for Jones, possibly going against the party line and pissing off colleagues along the way. I see Zack Polanski's wasting no time here. Zach, BTW, said he couldn't vote Labour when Corbyn was leader because he was an anti-semite. A view he still holds. It's a crazy old game on the left.

I think that was Bruce or SD. Someone else above pointed out today that where Corbyn went wrong was not kicking out the 'traitors' in the party when he became leader. I'd argue his leadership was doomed from the off for many reasons, but I agree that he was too weak dealing with dissent among the ranks. Which is why I can understand why Starmer's fucked off the elements in his party that, intentionally or not, through their words and actions ultimately undermine his cause of making Labour (relatively) united and electable again.

I'm not sure about Jones not liking Corbyn, but he did argue that Corbyn should stand down as leader because he wasn't up to the job and would lose the election. One of the few political judgement calls he got right, ironically so considering he's been riding the Corbyn wave ever since. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/01/corbyn-staying-not-good-enough What I find confusing, though, is that Jones has been a member for so long, throughout the Blair years of the 'third way' and centrism, budget restraint, cosying up to the right wing press and to the wealth creators, the ending of Clause 4, the bombing of Iraq, yet these are the reasons he gives for leaving Labour under Starmer - and bear in mind Labour haven't even won the election yet!

They certainly don't seem to be interested in compromise or reality. There's a lot to be said for taking the best option available, than ending up with the worst because the best isn't on offer. It's adult behaviour. I wasn't overly taken with Corbyn or his front bench, yet I got behind them and voted Labour (and had it out with other Labour voters who couldn't get behind them under Corbyn) because, well, the stone-cold reality is that the next government was going to be them or the Tories, and another five years of them cunts didn't bear thinking about. And now we've all seen the results of those five years. Yet there's people, on the left, who've convinced themselves that they're both the same (some argue Labour are worse because 'you know where you stand with the Tories'), and campaigning to vote for a hung parliament! Leaving aside the impossibility of doing that, what kind of cunt who claims to care about the poor, the disadvantaged, the downtrodden, would turn down the once in a lifetime opportunity to drive a big fucking stake through the heart of the Conservative Party? Yet, here we are.

I'm guessing you were whingeing about the Labour opposition in 97 too, when the Tories had run the country into the ground, and didn't see the point a Labour party that promised to stick to the Tories spending budget and had Mandelson saying how incredibly relaxed he wad about people getting rich. Looking back, do you think Blairs government were no different from the Tories, as so many socialists argued then?

Maybe we should stop talking about corrupt politicians behaving corruptly. Or at least not raise it on the appropriate threads.

With the London Mayoral election coming up, the Tories have decided to use London's apparently dying nightlife as a theme to attack Khan on. Thing is, apart from them highlighting streets that have never had much in the way of bars and clubs, I'm wondering who exactly they're hoping to win over, given the average Tory is over 60 and, in London, lives in the suburbs.

Have a couple of reps on me, big man.

The Tories desperately trying to 'move on' from this, fist by adopting the head in the sand approach, now, after serious pressure (and probably Badenoch breaking ranks for her own political gain) acknowledging Hester's remarks were racist but he's not racist and he's apologised so it's time to move on. You can see what paper's are still supporting the cunts by looking at the front papers to see what coverage this story is getting. They should give the donations back if they've got anything about them, which means they won't.

I've no doubt there's a legitimate reason for it and far be it for me to criticise the Tories unduly, but from an optics POV, seeing Canary Wharf, one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in Britain and about half a square mile in size, getting more money (£242m) from the government than Wales (£170m) is next level mental. And funded from the 'levelling up' fund too.

Taekwondo champion Rayna Vallandingham. Got to admire her skills and personality.

A cabinet minister, Michelle Donelan, falsely accuses a professor of being pro-Hamas, is made to retract the claim and pay compensation - which comes out of the public purse, he justification being that it prevents 'prolonged legal costs'. Erm, yeah, to Donelan who made the claim, and only if she fights it in court. Bit of an outrage here, but gone completely under the radar. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68486206 "The sum paid was covered by taxpayers to prevent prolonged legal costs, the BBC has been told."

It's in the eyes.

Perhaps Merseyside Pensioner would have been happier had the MP offered free seats for the parents of those poverty-stricken children, so they could moan about how much of a piss take it is that they're being asked to give money to an MP when they can't feed their own children. Or maybe they would have been satisfied if the MP didn't fund raise for the election at all, so they could complain about how the MP's not really serious about taking on the Tories because they're all the same and this is the proof blah blah fucking blah. I barely engage with twats like this anymore, on here, or on social media. Fortunately I rarely come across people as unreasonable and, ultimately, thick as Merseyside Pensioner in real life, but if I do, I just cross the road.

Given Galloway's beliefs, never mind his personality and behaviour towards his opponents, I don't get why any socialist would have time for him these days. In terms of policies, there's a rizla paper between him and the Reform Party - Nick Griffin was celebrating his win last week.

Man United fans find themselves in the position of cheering on City tomorrow when they play *checks notes* Man United. I swear I've seen this film before.

Fucking brilliant.

Just seen the bedwetting on Twitter over his comments, and came on here hoping to find saner heads prevailing. I shudda known better. What he said amounts to nothing more than 'It's not my place to say what the next manager's got in mind for me.'

I've gone for Xabi, but he would come in with a lot of risk attached. the thing is, so would pretty much all of the likely candidates. The safest pair of hands is Ancelotti, and he's getting on, and he's best with a big budget and a settled squad. And he's at Real. I'm not even going to entertain the idea of Pep coming here. All of the others are unproven to some extent. Perhaps Enrique stands out among them. It's not like 2015, when Klopp was so obviously the right man.

There's been countless insinuations in articles and columns, and even headlines implying they were guilty, again without evidence. If anything, it was those headlines that stoked up the hatred against them among the more feeble-minded members of the public. You think the press don't know how to engineer a good old class-based resentment when it sells papers or serves an agenda? This, from the Guardian in 2008: The Daily Express and Daily Star carried unprecedented front page apologies to Gerry and Kate McCann today for publishing more than 100 articles on the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, some of which suggested the couple were involved in her death https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/dailyexpress.dailystar And what comparable 'working class mum and dad at a holiday camp' example are we talking about?

So do I, believe me.

Bollocks. They've had endless scrutiny and accusations made against them, and still do, without any evidence from armchair detectives and conspiracy theorists. There's even discussions forums set up to 'investigate' their role in Maddie's disappearance.

? I've got no problem with dark humour, but if you think they've escaped scrutiny, from the police, the media, the public, then we're obviously living on different planets.

I've no idea as to Davey's involvement and culpability in the scandal, but two things: the dogs are going to make sure as much blame as possible is laid at his door and not theirs. And, as someone said above, if you lie down with dogs... Cable, though, should be exiled from the country for his role in privatising Royal Mail.

I was thinking more on this forum, but in the case of Corbyn, as you know, the guy was filmed calling Hamas his friends, and only recently, couldn't bring himself to call them terrorists in an interview. And while I don't think he is, he kind of leaves himself open to those accusations, which he seems to belatedly recognise when he rows back on those remarks. But back to my question, I would like to know why this complaint of a lack of nuance from Arnie seems to be directed in one direction.