THE FOURTH OF JULY

[Spectric]

Starmer won with 412 MPs

But not with a high number of voters, many seats they won are marginal and are not safe seats and we had a very low turnout because people do not have any confidence in our politicians or political system. Yes labour are going to make " Change" but the question is will it be a positive or negative change because they still have no money and are not saying how they intend to finance there ideas which causes instability in the Uk finance markets.

Have to say they are putting on a good show in this first week.

That is the worrying bit, a lot of talk and ideas but nothing on how they will actually deliver or fund. The only things that are coming out is to empty the prisons of all small time criminals, scrap the planing rules so the property developers can become even richer and just concrete over the countryside avoiding the windfarms that will also pop up everywhere and then go after people who are incapable of working through medical issues whilst ignoring those who can work but choose not to.

Rishi "delivering for the British people"

If he needed any involvment with deliveroo then he would just buy the business with petty cash and own it, he does not need to work to have a lifestyle 95% of the UK can only dream of.

 

[selectortone]

Good lord, such pessimism! Give the bloke a chance!

 

[Krome10]

any video titled "exposed" or "do not want you to see" is a load of **** if there were anything damaging in it the tories would have been shouting it from the rooftops, its propaganda for gullible idiots.

I'm not a fan of such click bait titles either. Can't really stand the whole YouTube culture. But sometimes you have to play the game.

If you run a market stall but hate towns and cities, there'd be little sense in setting up on a mountainside.

Mainstream media calls the shots. Alternative media has to compete on an uneven playing field. As such, if it wants to reach as many people as possible it has to play the game.

Furthermore, the "exposed" element may not relate to the fact that it is hidden (although I haven't had a chance to check where it is declared, as above), but more that it is exposing to the general public in a way MSM hasn't.

I think it is the content that needs to be discussed and examined, and that judging a book by its cover is perhaps the bigger idiocy.

One more thing... The Tories would have used it as a weapon against Starmer if it were true? And yet as said elsewhere:

It's not really "exposed", is it? This stuff was all declared, as far as I know.

 

[Krome10]

In the MP’s register of interests which is available for anyone to look at.

I've had a quick look. Thanks for that, learnt something today

I'm not convinced that there aren't ways around having to declare, but at least it's something.

I don't think it changes anything with regards why someone "in service to the country" - as he likes to remind us - is accepting so many freebies. And as the video states, it raises the simple question of what the donors get out of it?

I thought Keir's new glasses look was all about giving the impression that he's a serious man who you can rely on (much like the rolled up sleeves!). But turns out there's more to it...

"Name of donor: Lord Waheed Alli
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Multiple pairs of
glasses, value £2,485
Date received: 29 April 2024
Date accepted: 29 April 2024
Donor status: individual
(Registered 22 May 2024)"

Gone are his working class days when he "should've gone to Specsavers"...

 

[Krome10]

Don't know if "revealed" is more acceptable than "exposed", but here's a less click bait titled and less YouTubey discussion of the matter in hand:

 

[Terry - Somerset]

But not with a high number of voters, many seats they won are marginal and are not safe seats and we had a very low turnout because people do not have any confidence in our politicians or political system. Yes labour are going to make " Change" but the question is will it be a positive or negative change because they still have no money and are not saying how they intend to finance there ideas which causes instability in the Uk finance markets.

It called play politics - answer the question with the answer you like irrespective of balance - (a) they won a landslide with 412 seats, or (b) they polled the lowest vote share of any winning party in UK general electoral history.

That is the worrying bit, a lot of talk and ideas but nothing on how they will actually deliver or fund. The only things that are coming out is to empty the prisons of all small time criminals, scrap the planing rules so the property developers can become even richer and just concrete over the countryside avoiding the windfarms that will also pop up everywhere and then go after people who are incapable of working through medical issues whilst ignoring those who can work but choose not to.

Brexit - the argument was lost in 2016. Followed by 4 years of positive aspirational hype from Boris and Co. Then 3 years of failure to deliver material benefits.

Labour - they won the argument comprehensively in 2024, and get to choose the tunes for the next 5 years. Whilst the wisdom of many policies and assertions may justify debate, they need a few years to demonstrate whether, on balance they have delivered or failed (as did the Brexiteers).

If he needed any involvment with deliveroo then he would just buy the business with petty cash and own it, he does not need to work to have a lifestyle 95% of the UK can only dream of.

Rishi did not go into politics to line his pockets. It may be about self-image, or a belief his involvement could benefit the community. He could enjoy the sort of lifestyle that only 1 in 0.5m could enjoy (not 1 in 20). The money is incidental, intrusion into his private life a major sacrifice.

That Labour MPs may often be more financially motivated would be more easily justified. A salary of £90k + generous pension + expenses could be a major attraction to those with more averagely lined pockets - albeit an assertion I would not personally support either.

 

[Chris152]

Labour - they won the argument comprehensively in 2024, and get to choose the tunes for the next 5 years. Whilst the wisdom of many policies and assertions may justify debate, they need a few years to demonstrate whether, on balance they have delivered or failed (as did the Brexiteers).

One of their biggest tasks will be overcoming the damage done by those brexiters - I see they've already started trying to build bridges with the EU, but it'll be a hard task given the position the UK is now in in relation to the EU - tho no harder than overcoming the negative impact of years of austerity on public services.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

have any examples of Tories appointing anybody that wasnt a mate or a supporter of the brexit con, or vested self interest

I can think of many examples of tories appointing people completely lacking suitable expertise:

David Frost as brexit secretary -a person with zero experience in trade negotiations
Suella Braverman as attorney general -a person with zero experience for that position

there are dozens I could find

i can think of a single person the Tories appointed that was actually an expert -certainly not since 2019, as every MP was chosen for their allegience to pushing brexit lies

David Frost - Oxford graduate in French and History. Joined the FCO in 1987 (age 22). A number of different postings including ambassador to Denmark and culminating in in Director for Europe Trade and International Affairs - the most senior UK government trade policy official.

Suella Braverman - read law at Kings College Cambridge. Called to the bar (barrister not booze) in 2005 (age 25). Worked on litigation including immigration and planning law. Elected as MP in 2015.

They are both highly intelligent individuals with successful relevant experience and careers behind them. That they either failed in their endeavours (Frost) or have opinions which I would not endorse (Braverman) is not evidence of "non-expertness".

It is difficult to take your remarks seriously when they are so obviously a function of preconceived bias rather than supported by even a very cursory search for actual facts. It's probably best I ignore your future posts!

 

[Rhossydd]

it'll be a hard task given the position the UK is now in in relation to the EU

Despite what some brexiters have been told to believe there's always been a lot of goodwill to the UK from the EU. They didn't want all this trouble and improving trading relations will help both parties. With a new government that are prepared to make an effort to repair the obvious damages, we'll hopefully see some progress.
Starmer's correct when he says he doesn't want to rejoin the EU, we've lost all the privileges we had and returning wouldn't be easy. Just improving trading relations and border issues will be a step forward.

 

[selectortone]

give it a rest Jacob, Corbyn lost twice, Starmer won with 412 MPs

move on, theres a good chap

Yeah... Good luck with that...

 

[Blister]

Well well here we go,
1.5 Million new homes in the next 5 years .
Solution to overcrowding in prisons , Let them out after serving 40% of their sentence , Really

 

[sploo]

David Frost - Oxford graduate in French and History. Joined the FCO in 1987 (age 22). A number of different postings including ambassador to Denmark and culminating in in Director for Europe Trade and International Affairs - the most senior UK government trade policy official.

Suella Braverman - read law at Kings College Cambridge. Called to the bar (barrister not booze) in 2005 (age 25). Worked on litigation including immigration and planning law. Elected as MP in 2015.

They are both highly intelligent individuals with successful relevant experience and careers behind them. That they either failed in their endeavours (Frost) or have opinions which I would not endorse (Braverman) is not evidence of "non-expertness".

And yet it's staggering how incredibly thick they are. Basic lack of understanding of international law and trade. Amazing how they can be both smart enough to make it into a top university, yet be so completely inept at everything

 

[RobinBHM]

Solution to overcrowding in prisons , Let them out after serving 40% of their sentence , Really

What is wrong with that?

Like most things in life, nuance and detail are important.

 

[RobinBHM]

David Frost - Oxford graduate in French and History. Joined the FCO in 1987 (age 22). A number of different postings including ambassador to Denmark and culminating in in Director for Europe Trade and International Affairs - the most senior UK government trade policy official.

Suella Braverman - read law at Kings College Cambridge. Called to the bar (barrister not booze) in 2005 (age 25). Worked on litigation including immigration and planning law. Elected as MP in 2015.

They are both highly intelligent individuals with successful relevant experience and careers behind them. That they either failed in their endeavours (Frost) or have opinions which I would not endorse (Braverman) is not evidence of "non-expertness".

It is difficult to take your remarks seriously when they are so obviously a function of preconceived bias rather than supported by even a very cursory search for actual facts. It's probably best I ignore your future posts!

Take you serious?

David Frost has no experience as a trade negotiator

And as you’ve shown Suella Braverman has FA experience for attorney general

It is difficult to take your remarks seriously when they are so obviously a function of preconceived bias rather than supported by even a very cursory search for actual facts

Frost and Braverman: actual facts show them to be totally unsuitable.

You keep claiming how the private sector can work…..preconceived bias.

Let’s talk about moral hazard.
Let’s talk about the failures of:


Water privatisation
Energy providers…..75% have gone bust
Rail operators….walking away and handing keys back
Carillon….went bust
HS2…..constant budget over runs
Housing associations…..appalling quality of properties.
Councils are now bringing services back in house use for better service quality at lower cost

And yes I can provide evidence to support everything I have stated.

 

[Delaney]

What is wrong with that?

Like most things in life, nuance and detail are important.

So you and labour are now undermining the judiciary? I would have though that type of thing was the only reserved for ‘far right fanatics’?
Funny how quickly the tables turn.

 

[Jacob]

So you and labour are now undermining the judiciary? I would have though that type of thing was the only reserved for ‘far right fanatics’?
Funny how quickly the tables turn.

Far right fanatics offer fantasy solutions which don't work. Brexit? Rwanda? The blame game; immigrants, single mothers on benefits, etc........
Somebody has to make sensible decisions.
And to look after the poor far-right nutters too - they only tend to make things worse, for other people and for themselves.
Stumbling around like sleepwalkers, no wonder they think of themselves as "the unwoke".

 

[Jacob]

.....

Rishi did not go into politics to line his pockets. It may be about self-image, or a belief his involvement could benefit the community. He could enjoy the sort of lifestyle that only 1 in 0.5m could enjoy (not 1 in 20). The money is incidental, intrusion into his private life a major sacrifice.
.....

Interesting thoughts on Sunak here. Nesrine Malik is always worth reading.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rishi-sunak-prime-minister-britain-race-class

 

[Chris152]

So you and labour are now undermining the judiciary? I would have though that type of thing was the only reserved for ‘far right fanatics’?

The conservative government did that over the past 14 years. Labour are now stuck with the fallout.

 

[MikeJhn]

Of course it wouldn't, that's the whole point and it has been proven in many ways.

Of course it would and has been proved in many ways, easy to say, but difficult to prove, also I see you added to your original post with "sensible controlled way" from "Drugs should be legalised" had second thoughts did we from a carte blanche Legalise.

 

[Jacob]

Of course it would and has been proved in many ways, easy to say, but difficult to prove,

It's easy to find out. Don't be lazy!
Google "does drug legalisation work" and similar
Here's just one: https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...licy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

also I see you added to your original post with "sensible controlled way" from "Drugs should be legalised" had second thoughts did we from a carte blanche Legalise.

er, so what? Well spotted BTW!