The Labour Party

[Weston Super Saint]

42 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

France

The [former] home of all genuine refugees.  Makes sense.

[Weston Super Saint]

Since Soggy seems to be avoiding the question, the BBC have done the heavy lifting for him :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63473022

 

 

Interesting though that they refer to them as 'migrants' and not 'refugees'.  Maybe aintclever can tell us all why that is?  Perhaps he can also explain why there don't appear to be any Ukrainian 'refugees' listed in the chart?

[Millbrook Saint]

19 hours ago, aintforever said:

How come rates jumped up after this then?

I see the American interest rates are going up .75% today to 3.75% the same as ours will most likely be this week.  Those dastardly tories, their incompetence is now rubbing off on the Americans, Truss has a lot to answer for don't you think, single handedly destroying the world.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Since Soggy seems to be avoiding the question, the BBC have done the heavy lifting for him :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63473022

 

 

Interesting though that they refer to them as 'migrants' and not 'refugees'.  Maybe aintclever can tell us all why that is?  Perhaps he can also explain why there don't appear to be any Ukrainian 'refugees' listed in the chart?

Albania is not at war so those are economic migrants so should be sent home (unless they are fleeing persecution for some other reason).

The Homes for Ukraine scheme means Ukrainians come here, through other safe countries, by other means.

I thought it was quite obvious but if you need anything else explaining I will be here later. HTH

 

Edited 3 November, 2022 by aintforever

[aintforever]

10 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I see the American interest rates are going up .75% today to 3.75% the same as ours will most likely be this week.  Those dastardly tories, their incompetence is now rubbing off on the Americans, Truss has a lot to answer for don't you think, single handedly destroying the world.

There are other factors of course, which is why we need the Conservatives fucking things up with their mini-budgets, like a whole in the head.

If the Tories decisions made no difference why is Truss out of no 10 and Sunak banging on about mistakes?

[Millbrook Saint]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

There are other factors of course, which is why we need the Conservatives fucking things up with their mini-budgets, like a whole in the head.

If the Tories decisions made no difference why is Truss out of no 10 and Sunak banging on about mistakes?

I completely agree, what Truss did was stupid, whilst I agree with tax cuts, you don't borrow to achieve it, which is why she is no longer pm.  But the way people on here have said it's all the fault of the tories is simply not true, it's global thing caused by the covid lockdowns

[badgerx16]

22 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Albania is not at war so those are economic migrants so should be sent home (unless they are fleeing persecution for some other reason).

 

 

Isn't Albania a White List country, so one where persecution has been determined to not be a factor ?

[CB Fry]

35 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I see the American interest rates are going up .75% today to 3.75% the same as ours will most likely be this week.  Those dastardly tories, their incompetence is now rubbing off on the Americans, Truss has a lot to answer for don't you think, single handedly destroying the world.

Weird they got rid of her faster than any Prime Minister in history when according to you she didn't do anything wrong whatsoever.

[The Kraken]

On 31/10/2022 at 17:00, Millbrook Saint said:

Pretty much how I see the labour party and the left in general, they're all too busy hating rich people and tories to propose anything productive which might win my vote

How are they going to stop my mortgage payments raising by £500 a month next year?

How they going to reduce my utilities bill from £350 a month.

How they going to stop enough people crossing the channel in dinghies to fill St Marys more than 3 times over in a year.

Seems to me they have better things to discuss like Islamaphobia and whether women have penises than helping real working class people like me.

You can put the vile James O'Brien up there with Owen Jones as another nasty left wing knob

I know it’s an old post but I’m always fairly surprised to read this type of thing. Then I have to remember that dyed-in-the-wool Tory voters are fairly entrenched in their positions.

This approach of ‘but Labour’ has risen further and further as the main Tory attack line of recent months:

‘The asylum system is broken, we’ve had 12 years to fix it and we’ve only made it worse, but Labour have no plan to fix it’.   And ‘‘The economy is broken, Trussonomics was a disaster, but Labour want to get everybody on strike and they supported a longer lockdown’.

It’s an approach that gains traction with the blue base. As does the “he doesn’t know what a woman is’ diversion tactics. But I think opinion polls are showing that people are seeing through all the lies and bluster. I don’t know whether Labour will be better for the UK, but I honestly find it difficult to comprehend how they might be worse for the working people.

Edited 3 November, 2022 by The Kraken

[whelk]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

Weird they got rid of her faster than any Prime Minister in history when according to you she didn't do anything wrong whatsoever.

All he wants is a low mortgage, pay fuck all tax and a world beating immigration system and no doubt moans about every other declining public service. Frightening how easily manipulated. 12 years of breaking shit and still the fanboys fawn. Look there’s a pigeon!

[badgerx16]

40 minutes ago, whelk said:

All he wants is a low mortgage, pay fuck all tax and a world beating immigration system.........

North Korea doesn't have taxes, mortgages, or immigration.

[revolution saint]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

I know it’s an old post but I’m always fairly surprised to read this type of thing. Then I have to remember that dyed-in-the-wool Tory voters are fairly entrenched in their positions.

This approach of ‘but Labour’ has risen further and further as the main Tory attack line of recent months:

‘The asylum system is broken, we’ve had 12 years to fix it and we’ve only made it worse, but Labour have no plan to fix it’.   And ‘‘The economy is broken, Trussonomics was a disaster, but Labour want to get everybody on strike and they supported a longer lockdown’.

It’s an approach that gains traction with the blue base. As does the “he doesn’t know what a woman is’ diversion tactics. But I think opinion polls are showing that people are seeing through all the lies and bluster. I don’t know whether Labour will be better for the UK, but I honestly find it difficult to comprehend how they might be worse for the working people.

Bit depressing but not really surprising.  The other line is "They're all the same as one another".  Generally used by people who have no intention of changing their vote and just need a convenient excuse.  Just for the record, I do appreciate that this also applies to non-tory voters as well.

I watched most of PMQs yesterday and all Sunak could do was criticise Labour.  I don't think he answered a single question.  I know it's par for the course in PMQs but he's not in a great position when he can't defend the last 12 years and can't promise it'll be any better in the short to medium term either.

[skintsaint]

3 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I see the American interest rates are going up .75% today to 3.75% the same as ours will most likely be this week. 

Blimey thought ours rose quickly to 2.85% thinking that was high!

[whelk]

I see that bastard Starmer has hiked the base rate up to 3%. Labour can’t be trusted to run the economy.

[Winnersaint]

On 01/11/2022 at 06:56, Weston Super Saint said:

We have legal routes open for legal immigration.  

You are absolutely right. However, the criteria seem to be very tightly defined and preclude anyone on a boat.

"Safe and legal routes take various forms. Successive recent UK governments have expanded UK refugee resettlement schemes. They have also created extra immigration routes in response to deteriorating security and human rights in Hong Kong, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. The Johnson government committed to providing safe and legal routes of entry as part of a broader programme of asylum reforms outlined in its New Plan for Immigration policy statement (March 2021). It wanted fewer people to come to the UK as asylum seekers and more to come through safe and legal routes. However, successive recent governments have believed it’s inappropriate and counterproductive to provide safe and legal routes for migrants who make unauthorised journeys to Europe and want to come to the UK. Advocates suggest that doing so could help to reduce small boat crossings and other forms of illegal migration."

A processing centre in France, offered by the French, but declined by HMG, would help. You have to question why this has happened. The cynic in me suggests that without the crossings there would be nothing to see here.The consequence of which would be there'd be nothing for people to be fearful of or angry about.  After all what do the Tories and their media supporters  have left other than stoking hatred towards refugees and immigrants. I suppose it helps cover up the shortfalls in their governance.

[Winnersaint]

Occasionally listen to O'Brien, but hes a bit of a windbag at times. His shtick is 'compassion for the conned, contempt for the conman.' Not showing a huge amount of compassion towards this 'conned' caller.  

[revolution saint]

14 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

Occasionally listen to O'Brien, but hes a bit of a windbag at times. His shtick is 'compassion for the conned, contempt for the conman.' Not showing a huge amount of compassion towards this 'conned' caller.  

Yeah, O'Brien annoys me as well.  Seems to live in a stark black and white world with no shades of grey and in a permanent state of outrage.  I probably agree with a lot of what he says (if I took the time to listen more often) but he's so OTT that I don't bother.  Suppose it provokes people and gets them to call in which is probably his remit.  John Oliver falls into the same category and if anything is even more annoying.  At least Jonathan Pie can fall back on the excuse that he's a parody. 

[tajjuk]

On 01/11/2022 at 12:54, Weston Super Saint said:

UNHCR definition of a refugee (here) :

Is a 'refugee' who has crossed multiple international borders still a 'refugee'?

Refugees seek refuge from war and persecution.  They don't have to travel half the globe to find that.  That tends to be the remit of the 'economic migrant' - or more commonly when it comes to the UK borders, the 'illegally trafficked worker' or 'modern day slave'....

This point is so spectacularly dumb.

Firstly there is no barrier to applying for asylum here having passed through other 'safe' countries.

Secondly our take in of refugees and asylum seekers is much lower than the most of Europe anyway.

Thirdly, if you had to leave your home behind, all your possessions fleeing say a war or persecution, would you chose A. A country you have no relatives in and don't speak the language of or B. the country that you do speak the language of and/or have relatives in. ?

Not really a hard concept is it why some people might want to go from France to the UK when they are refugees. 

Fourthly you provided a list, I see there were large proportions of people from Syria and Afghanistan, countries we had a pretty big role in royally fucking up, you'd think we'd have some national conscious there to help out those people, but again all humanity is driven out of this debate by the right wing, with words like 'invasion' and 'threat' and 'disaster; being used, as opposed to desperate people being offered help.

Afghanistan also being a country that has been full of English speaking troops and contractors for about 10 years or more (because again we invaded it and then abandoned it to the Taliban), again showing why a lot of those refugees might for example want to head towards a country where they speak some of the language and have interacted with British people before. 

Just to note in 2021 the UK had just short 49k asylum applications.

France had just short of 121k and Germany had the most in the EU at 190k. Spain and Italy also had more applications than us. All those countries take in and have more refugees/asylum seekers than the UK does. (not to mention as well the worlds richest countries, the ones best equipped to deal with displaced people are actually shocking in the numbers they deal with compared to many much poorer countries, Turkey has taken in something absurd like 5 million refugees)

But somehow its a massive problem here? Except it isn't, its just a right wing scaremongering tactic used to drive up racist rhetoric and distract from the real issues impacting the country. 

[Weston Super Saint]

33 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

This point is so spectacularly dumb.

Firstly there is no barrier to applying for asylum here having passed through other 'safe' countries.

 

To be fair, you talk about 'spectacularly dumb' but presumably haven't done the most basic of research regarding your first point.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

Quote

When your claim might not be considered

Your claim might not be considered if you:

• are from an EU country
• travelled to the UK through a ‘safe third country’
• have a connection to a safe third country where you could claim asylum

Generally, a safe third country is one that:

• you’re not a citizen of
• you would not be harmed in
• would not send you on to another country where you would be harmed

I didn't bother with the rest and assumed it was equally ill informed.

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, aintforever said:

Albania is not at war so those are economic migrants so should be sent home (unless they are fleeing persecution for some other reason).

The Homes for Ukraine scheme means Ukrainians come here, through other safe countries, by other means.

I thought it was quite obvious but if you need anything else explaining I will be here later. HTH

 

By jove, I think he's finally getting the point that there ARE legal routes of entry into the country for genuine refugees that don't involve small boats across the channel.  Congrats.  I think he may also have agreed that Ukrainian refugees also applied for refugee status in the first 'safe' country they entered (i.e. Poland).  

[Sheaf Saint]

37 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, you talk about 'spectacularly dumb' but presumably haven't done the most basic of research regarding your first point.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

I didn't bother with the rest and assumed it was equally ill informed.

Oh dear. Having trouble differentiating between "might not" and "will not" are you?  

The rest of Tajjuk's post was actually very well informed, using official figures from the refugee council. Maybe you should have a read of their website. It will help to dispel some of the many false impressions about refugees and people seeking asylum that you appear to have. Like this one:

Quote

• There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim

And this one:

Quote

• It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum

As for the last point in your quote from the gov website, about a safe third country being one that would not send people on to another country where they may be harmed... do they mean a country like Rwanda perhaps?

Edited 3 November, 2022 by Sheaf Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

2 hours ago, Winnersaint said:

Occasionally listen to O'Brien, but hes a bit of a windbag at times. His shtick is 'compassion for the conned, contempt for the conman.' Not showing a huge amount of compassion towards this 'conned' caller.  

Hmmm. There must be a dividing line somewhere between 'conned' and 'thick as pig-shit'.

[whelk]

3 hours ago, Winnersaint said:

Occasionally listen to O'Brien, but hes a bit of a windbag at times. His shtick is 'compassion for the conned, contempt for the conman.' Not showing a huge amount of compassion towards this 'conned' caller.  

Fucking hell the size of that mug

[whelk]

3 hours ago, revolution saint said:

Yeah, O'Brien annoys me as well.  Seems to live in a stark black and white world with no shades of grey and in a permanent state of outrage.  I probably agree with a lot of what he says (if I took the time to listen more often) but he's so OTT that I don't bother.  Suppose it provokes people and gets them to call in which is probably his remit.  John Oliver falls into the same category and if anything is even more annoying.  At least Jonathan Pie can fall back on the excuse that he's a parody. 

John Oliver is great. O’Brien is a bit of a prick at times although the role is to be a smug twat.  That caller has points to be acknowledged but he is a condescending idiot.

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

John Oliver is great. O’Brien is a bit of a prick at times although the role is to be a smug twat.  That caller has points to be acknowledged but he is a condescending idiot.

Actually I was thinking of Jon Stewart not Oliver. Take it back and agree he is annoying too

Edited 3 November, 2022 by whelk

[revolution saint]

35 minutes ago, whelk said:

Actually I was thinking of Jon Stewart not Oliver. Take it back and agree he is annoying too

Yes, Jon Stewart is excellent (or at least was - don't see too much of him now).

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

By jove, I think he's finally getting the point that there ARE legal routes of entry into the country for genuine refugees that don't involve small boats across the channel.  Congrats.  I think he may also have agreed that Ukrainian refugees also applied for refugee status in the first 'safe' country they entered (i.e. Poland).  

There are legal routes but it is harder for people coming from other countries like Afghanistan, that’s why they resort to taking the risks they do. Like those who come from Ukraine, they probably have good reasons why they didn’t want to stop in France (language, relatives, friends etc).

Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said: “The data show the vastly different experiences that refugees from different countries have reaching the UK. Most Afghan refugees cannot access the UK resettlement schemes, and there is no way to apply to them. That explains why a substantial number of Afghans are coming through the asylum system despite the prospect of long waiting times and recent policies designed to deter asylum seekers. By contrast, where there have been legal routes to seek protection in the UK as in the Ukraine and Hong Kong cases, people have been keen to take them up.” 

 

[badgerx16]

It was pointed out on the radio news that it is not easy for the Albanian Government to do much to stop migrants from there as their citizens have freedom of movement within the EU, so can get to the Channel coast without having to register theitr intentions or obtain much in the way of documentation.

[Weston Super Saint]

More heavy lifting from the BBC regarding where the illegal migrants are coming from and for some of them, their motives for wanting to come to the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63488070

Rather than kid ourselves that these are all genuine asylum seekers, howabout considering the possibility that the 'middlemen' referred to in the article, might, just maybe, briefing those making the crossings on what to say should the get caught?

One quote from the article :

Quote

In France, there are people who wait for you," one Albanian man told me, after reaching the UK by small boat this summer. "Everybody in the world knows where to go, if you want to get to England.

Although, to be fair, if all those who currently declare that they hate living in the UK would actually bother doing something about it, maybe we would have more room for those that do want to come and work legitimately....

[sadoldgit]

21 hours ago, Winnersaint said:

Occasionally listen to O'Brien, but hes a bit of a windbag at times. His shtick is 'compassion for the conned, contempt for the conman.' Not showing a huge amount of compassion towards this 'conned' caller.  

I am relatively new to LBC but like Shelagh Forgery’s show in the afternoon. O’Brien is a bit full on but given the paucity of media support for the left of centre and the amount of crap fed to us from the right wing media we do need a heavy hitter like him to try and redress the balance. It has been a joy to listen to him eviscerate some of the Gammons who phone in, but after several weeks of it I could do with a less confrontational approach now.

[tajjuk]

On 03/11/2022 at 15:23, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, you talk about 'spectacularly dumb' but presumably haven't done the most basic of research regarding your first point.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

I didn't bother with the rest and assumed it was equally ill informed.

Well we continue with your spectacular dumbness there not realising a difference between 'might' and 'no barrier'. Considering we grant asylum to many people WHO DO cross through France and other 'safe countries' you might have guessed your response wasn't the 'gotcha' you thought it was. 

 

[tajjuk]

5 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

More heavy lifting from the BBC regarding where the illegal migrants are coming from and for some of them, their motives for wanting to come to the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63488070

Rather than kid ourselves that these are all genuine asylum seekers, howabout considering the possibility that the 'middlemen' referred to in the article, might, just maybe, briefing those making the crossings on what to say should the get caught?

One quote from the article :

Although, to be fair, if all those who currently declare that they hate living in the UK would actually bother doing something about it, maybe we would have more room for those that do want to come and work legitimately....

Did anyone say they were ALL genuine Asylum seekers? Or are you projecting again because your point has been destroyed multiple times, so you are now arguing a point no one actually made.

I mean you literally put up the list of the countries they are coming from, was it 100% Albanians? Oh no it wasn't it had Afghanistan, Iran, Iran, Iraq, Syria, actually your own list showed that just 16% of them were from Albania. 

So why all this focus on just Albanians when even in your own evidence they are just a small proportion of the people crossing. The vast majority of the people who are crossing are from countries that have serious issues right now, issues which in many case we had a large role in causing. That would logically indicate that most of them are likely people seeking genuine asylum.

16% is a bit more than the Lib Dems got in the last election, they way you are focused on Albanians so much is the equivalent of deriving all UK government policy on what the Lib Dems are doing. 

Should we treat all football fans like hooligans? 

Also the Population of the UK is 67.4 million, why would we ever need to 'make room' for what 40k thousand people? Also don't worry the incoming Tory austerity policy will kill plenty of people to 'make room' as you so eloquently put it, between austerity and Boris' bungling of Covid we have hundreds of thousands of 'room'. 

But hey let's make a giant fuss about a few thousand desperate people crossing the channel on boats, rather the horrific 12 years of Conservative government that is the real problem. 

 

 

[Weston Super Saint]

52 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

Well we continue with your spectacular dumbness there not realising a difference between 'might' and 'no barrier'. Considering we grant asylum to many people WHO DO cross through France and other 'safe countries' you might have guessed your response wasn't the 'gotcha' you thought it was. 

 

If a claim "might not be considered", that is a barrier isn't it?

Not even complicated semantics.

We do grant asylum to many thousands of people who do cross France.  I don't think anyone is arguing against that.  We also reject the claims of many thousands more people. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

38 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

 

But hey let's make a giant fuss about a few thousand desperate people crossing the channel on boats, 

 

 

Why are they so “desperate “ to get away from France? 

[Weston Super Saint]

38 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

Did anyone say they were ALL genuine Asylum seekers? Or are you projecting again because your point has been destroyed multiple times, so you are now arguing a point no one actually made.

I mean you literally put up the list of the countries they are coming from, was it 100% Albanians? Oh no it wasn't it had Afghanistan, Iran, Iran, Iraq, Syria, actually your own list showed that just 16% of them were from Albania. 

So why all this focus on just Albanians when even in your own evidence they are just a small proportion of the people crossing. The vast majority of the people who are crossing are from countries that have serious issues right now, issues which in many case we had a large role in causing. That would logically indicate that most of them are likely people seeking genuine asylum.

16% is a bit more than the Lib Dems got in the last election, they way you are focused on Albanians so much is the equivalent of deriving all UK government policy on what the Lib Dems are doing. 

Should we treat all football fans like hooligans? 

Also the Population of the UK is 67.4 million, why would we ever need to 'make room' for what 40k thousand people? Also don't worry the incoming Tory austerity policy will kill plenty of people to 'make room' as you so eloquently put it, between austerity and Boris' bungling of Covid we have hundreds of thousands of 'room'. 

But hey let's make a giant fuss about a few thousand desperate people crossing the channel on boats, rather the horrific 12 years of Conservative government that is the real problem. 

 

 

Not a clue what point you are trying to make.  No-one has ever claimed that all illegal immigrants are Albanian.

[farawaysaint]

On 03/11/2022 at 07:07, Weston Super Saint said:

Since Soggy seems to be avoiding the question, the BBC have done the heavy lifting for him :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-63473022

 

 

Interesting though that they refer to them as 'migrants' and not 'refugees'.  Maybe aintclever can tell us all why that is?  Perhaps he can also explain why there don't appear to be any Ukrainian 'refugees' listed in the chart?

Why on earth are migrants coming from Albania? I did not expect that.

[AlexLaw76]

37 minutes ago, farawaysaint said:

Why on earth are migrants coming from Albania? I did not expect that.

because we will welcome them in to conduct their criminality. Probably give them free money, housing to get start them off.

Cocaine does not sell itself, you know

[kyle04]

What a mess :

Channel crossings: Albanian migrants recruited to the UK by gangs - BBC News

[whelk]

Surprise headline from Sunday Telegraph 

[whelk]

Lisa Nandy inspires no confidence whatsoever. Think her speaking damages Labour’s credibility. And I am routing for her

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Lisa Nandy inspires no confidence whatsoever. Think her speaking damages Labour’s credibility. And I am routing for her

Not nit-picking over the typo, but an Australian IT support person told me how he knew the phonetic difference between "rowters" and "rooters"; you 'rowt' data and 'root' women.

[whelk]

5 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Not nit-picking over the typo, but an Australian IT support person told me how he knew the phonetic difference between "rowters" and "rooters"; you 'rowt' data and 'root' women.

Karma for me correcting someone last week for writing ‘on route’ not  ‘en route’

[Jeremy Corbyn]

21 hours ago, whelk said:

Lisa Nandy inspires no confidence whatsoever. Think her speaking damages Labour’s credibility. And I am routing for her

I'm inclined to agree. I think she was effective when Labour were fighting back as she's sincere and regionally optimal, but Labour are now the leadership in waiting so need their front bench to all be heavyweights - which she's not.

[SotonianWill]

19 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I'm inclined to agree. I think she was effective when Labour were fighting back as she's sincere and regionally optimal, but Labour are now the leadership in waiting so need their front bench to all be heavyweights - which she's not.

can keir get rid of angela rayner from the front bench whilst he’s at it as well. She’s another one that without doubt is holding back voters. 

[badgerx16]

47 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I'm inclined to agree. I think she was effective when Labour were fighting back as she's sincere and regionally optimal, but Labour are now the leadership in waiting so need their front bench to all be heavyweights - which she's not.

 

26 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

can keir get rid of angela rayner from the front bench whilst he’s at it as well. She’s another one that without doubt is holding back voters. 

Should he get rid of all the Northern women in the shadow cabinet ?

[SotonianWill]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

Should he get rid of all the Northern women in the shadow cabinet ?

why make it a northern thing? I just think she’s thick

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, SotonianWill said:

why make it a northern thing? I just think she’s thick

Lisa Nandy is MP for Wigan and Angela Raynor is my son's MP in Ashton-under-Lyne, so both are Northern, and Raynor Is most certainly not 'thick'.

Edited 26 June, 2023 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

Should he get rid of all the Northern women in the shadow cabinet ?

I think it makes a pleasant change to see a front bench that reflects normal people who can relate to the country on a normal level. These are real people who have lived real lives and have a far greater understanding of what is actually going on than the strange bunch opposite who seem to inhabit a parallel universe and can’t answer basic questions without trotting out meaningless sound bites. If you want “thick” you don’t need to look much further than the Tory front bench (plus the likes of Dorries). I’d choose Rayner over any of those.

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

I'm inclined to agree. I think she was effective when Labour were fighting back as she's sincere and regionally optimal, but Labour are now the leadership in waiting so need their front bench to all be heavyweights - which she's not.

1 hour ago, SotonianWill said:

can keir get rid of angela rayner from the front bench whilst he’s at it as well. She’s another one that without doubt is holding back voters. 

People often attribute characteristic to regional accents - which is why call centres choose their locations carefully. I'd far rather hear a range of accents in a national political party than overwhelmingly public school and Oxbridge.   

[SotonianWill]

20 minutes ago, buctootim said:

People often attribute characteristic to regional accents - which is why call centres choose their locations carefully. I'd far rather hear a range of accents in a national political party than overwhelmingly public school and Oxbridge.   

once again as i’ve already explained it has nothing to do with regional accents. It’s more to do with the fact she has no qualifications. Fair enough she was a care worker but she still was elected as an MP in her early 30s. This in my view is too quick to be able to claim educational pros (as she dosent have them) or enough time to claim a “normal life” benefit to electorate. There are many more people who have lived a normal life, are they fit to be in cabinet? 

Here i’m not advocating for a bunch of poshos leading us, likewise a bunch of people with no qualification just because they’re “normal”. Id want a mix of education and experience of normality. 

 

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

If you want “thick” you don’t need to look much further than the Tory front bench (plus the likes of Dorries). I’d choose Rayner over any of those.

That’s not really a good argument though is it? I’m not looking to vote one as “they’re less thick than the other”. I don’t think either party should be thick on the front bench and it shows the lack of quality that this is the case. Sadly from Rayner v Dowden a couple weeks ago it’s solidified it for me - clearly they’re both out of their depth. I can’t stand petty politics which is why i’ll probably vote neither into power. Sadly, others will. 

Edited 26 June, 2023 by SotonianWill