The 2024 General Election - July 4th

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, The Kraken said:

I wonder who they’ll get to replace Esther McVey as Common Sense Minister. Some big old shoes to fill there and no mistake.

Binface is available.

[farawaysaint]

After 14 years of utter shite the other side deserve a go. Happy with that result. 

[sadoldgit]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Lammy as foreign secretary. Finally Starmer is showing us he has a sense of humour. 

Look on the bright side, it gives you a target. Who are rooting for as next Tory leader, still Kemi Badenoch?

[Challenger]

9 minutes ago, farawaysaint said:

After 14 years of utter shite the other side deserve a go. Happy with that result. 

The country just couldn't go on like that any longer, we had to have a change and the only alternative was Labour. Let someone else have a go and judge them at the end of their term.

[LGTL]

Interesting that in 2015, UKIP received 3.8m votes. Fast forward 9 years, and Reform received 4m. 

UKIP came second in 120 constituencies that year, while Reform came second in 98 constituencies yesterday. 

44.1% in Clacton voted UKIP, whilst 46.2% voted Reform, meaning Farage factor added just over 1% compared to 2015. 
 

I’m interested to see what happens to the right going forward. Are these levels their peak? The Tories really are stuck between a rock and a hard place with how to play the Reform factor now. 

 

[sadoldgit]

Indeed, do they follow them further right, or do they look to be a more centre right party. Certainly people like Braverman and Badenoch would like to go further right. Do they have any centrists left? Rory Stewart would have made a good leader but he and others are long gone.

The country is centrist by nature which is why Starmer put so much time and energy into moving away from the Corbyn agenda. If the Tory’s end up going toe to toe with Reform over appealing to harder right voters they could find themselves out of power for a very long time.

(Good to see the Chuckle Brothers laughing at something other than the destruction of Gaza)

Edited July 5 by sadoldgit
Added text

[egg]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I’m not knocking democracy. I do wonder about why some people think voting for certain people is a good idea though. The millions who vote for Trump being a prime example.

Do the people of Clacton think that Farage is going to spend any of his time dealing with their issues? Perhaps they are happy that they are being used for his own ambitions, which is fine if they are.

Probably a rhetorical question from you, but of it's a real one, I'm sure that nobody on here gives a monkeys what the good people of Clacton get from their MP. Their decision, their problem. 

In so frequently questioning people's voting choice, you are questioning people's rights in a democracy. Only a reform voter can tell you why they voted reform, if they want to, but it ain't going to change a thing as the vote is cast.

As has been said, let it go. 

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Great to see Nige finally get a seat, and he proved to be a man of his word by decimating the Tories. Pleased for Tice as well, he could have thrown his toys out of the pram when Nige returned but knuckled down & got his rewards. Glad to see that twat Elwood getting binned in Bournemouth & pleased for IDS, although that was a bit of a fluke. He could have easily settled for a place in the lords, but stood up to be counted. 
 

Although I don’t share his politics, Parliament needs people like Jon Ashworth so it’s disappointing he’s lost to some Gaza loon. As someone who wishes the sweaties would fuck off, I’m dissatisfied with the SNP efforts as well. 
 

locally, fuck me, I’ve got a labour MP. I  posted yesterday that a couple of polling station workers said something was happening locally, but never in a million years did I think  we’d get a labour MP. A combination of taking voters for granted, Reform standing a paper candidate who didn’t really campaign & didn’t even live in Poole, and the complete fucking shafting Poole has had following the Tory led BCP merger, has cost Sir Robert his cushy seat. Although I posted if Symes is worried the Tories really are in trouble, it is quite unbelievable. Still, in a strange way it’s restored more faith in our democratic process. The bloke, the local party, & the local Tory council, did fuck all the 28 years I’ve been here, thinking  they didn’t need to. I think they know differently now. Nige has been fighting against FPTP for a number of years, but on this I fundamentally disagree with him. Local people sending someone to Westminster to represent them is the purest form of democracy imo. Let’s see if this Labour bloke can do something for the Town & stick up for us. Fucking hell if he sorts out a new bridge to replace the ridiculous white elephant we’ve got at the moment, even I might vote for him in 2029. 

Ive got an LD despite Tories having over nearly 60% of the vote for most of the past 50 years. Local school teacher not the parachuted in random Tory from central list. Plus la change!    

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

Probably a rhetorical question from you, but of it's a real one, I'm sure that nobody on here gives a monkeys what the good people of Clacton get from their MP. Their decision, their problem. 

In so frequently questioning people's voting choice, you are questioning people's rights in a democracy. Only a reform voter can tell you why they voted reform, if they want to, but it ain't going to change a thing as the vote is cast.

As has been said, let it go. 

If anything, sneering and belittling people who vote differently to you is likely to make them want to vote for parties like reform even more. It's why I've never understood some of the commentary around it. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If anything, sneering and belittling people who vote differently to you is likely to make them want to vote for parties like reform even more. It's why I've never understood some of the commentary around it. 

A combination of insecurity, ignorance and mistaken moral superiority is frequently behind it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

22 minutes ago, LGTL said:

I’m interested to see what happens to the right going forward. Are these levels their peak? The Tories really are stuck between a rock and a hard place with how to play the Reform factor now. 

They’re definitely nearing their ceiling with Nigel in charge at the moment. 100% there’s a gap for a socially conservative  party, but their economic policy is too Thatcherite for the voters they’ll need.  However, Europe has shown us that if the establishment don’t deal with immigration & things don’t  “change” everything’s in play. The Demographic analysis of their voters this time will be interesting as Nigel claims he’s resonating with 18-24 year olds, and obviously the Tories direction will make a massive difference. 
 

Long term there will be an opening because I’m pretty sure the Tories will get wetter and pinker. Interestingly, Tice was entering into some sort of pact with SDP prior to Nigel’s glorious return. They’re way further left on the economy , and are pretty small time. But, there’s not much between the parties on 80% of policy. They want controlled borders, to leave the ECHR, they share the same anti woke agenda, want an English Parliament, PR, are against net zero targets & had “family, neighbourhood and nation”, as their tag line. Long term maybe some sort of hybrid party with a less controversial leader could emerge. 

 

[sadoldgit]

26 minutes ago, egg said:

Probably a rhetorical question from you, but of it's a real one, I'm sure that nobody on here gives a monkeys what the good people of Clacton get from their MP. Their decision, their problem. 

In so frequently questioning people's voting choice, you are questioning people's rights in a democracy. Only a reform voter can tell you why they voted reform, if they want to, but it ain't going to change a thing as the vote is cast.

As has been said, let it go. 

How am I challenging people’s rights in a democracy? People are asked why they way they voted all the time. It’s a fair question and they don’t have to respond if they don’t want to do they?

Yes, only a Reform voter can tell us why they voted for Reform, which is why I asked a Reform voter why he voted for Reform. It is his choice if he answers the question or not.

If you have listened to any kind of media today questions have been asked all day long how people have voted and why.

If you aren’t interested just ignore it. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Lammy as foreign secretary. Finally Starmer is showing us he has a sense of humour. 

Was this a surprise to you? Rayner as deputy Pm must be troubling you too?

[sadoldgit]

21 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If anything, sneering and belittling people who vote differently to you is likely to make them want to vote for parties like reform even more. It's why I've never understood some of the commentary around it. 

So there has been no sneering at people who supported Corbyn? No sneering at Lefties or Pinkoes? You yourself sneer at Muslims. It happens all the time. If someone votes for a party because they are sneered at, you have to question their thought process. Don’t you think that there are serious reasons why people sneer at the likes of Trump and Putin?

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

So there has been no sneering at people who supported Corbyn? No sneering at Lefties or Pinkoes? You yourself sneer at Muslims. It happens all the time. If someone votes for a party because they are sneered at, you have to question their thought process. Don’t you think that there are serious reasons why people sneer at the likes of Trump and Putin?

Take one day off. Is that too much to ask?

[whelk]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

So there has been no sneering at people who supported Corbyn? No sneering at Lefties or Pinkoes? You yourself sneer at Muslims. It happens all the time. If someone votes for a party because they are sneered at, you have to question their thought process. Don’t you think that there are serious reasons why people sneer at the likes of Trump and Putin?

Before you came to this thread been generally a decent read and now you bring same old stuff. Others vote differently and surprised on a day when Labour sweep to power and there should be optimism, you are still obsessing about far right

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Before you came to this thread been generally a decent read and now you bring same old stuff. Others vote differently and surprised on a day when Labour sweep to power and there should be optimism, you are still obsessing about far right

He will be talking about the far right almost every moment of the next 4 years. It's an absolute obsession. 

[iansums]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

How am I challenging people’s rights in a democracy? People are asked why they way they voted all the time. It’s a fair question and they don’t have to respond if they don’t want to do they?

Yes, only a Reform voter can tell us why they voted for Reform, which is why I asked a Reform voter why he voted for Reform. It is his choice if he answers the question or not.

If you have listened to any kind of media today questions have been asked all day long how people have voted and why.

If you aren’t interested just ignore it. 

Been busy so now I’ll answer. I think the biggest issue this country (and Europe) faces is mass unchecked immigration, I don’t think Labour has the will to do anything about it. I think the Tory party has to move further to the right, leave the ECHR and do something about this issue. I also have a lot of time for Farage, I like what he has to say, and his plain speaking. It’s good that he now has a voice in Parliament. Anyway, it’s all over now, Labour are in, I respect Starmer and hope he does a good job.

[egg]

22 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

How am I challenging people’s rights in a democracy? People are asked why they way they voted all the time. It’s a fair question and they don’t have to respond if they don’t want to do they?

Yes, only a Reform voter can tell us why they voted for Reform, which is why I asked a Reform voter why he voted for Reform. It is his choice if he answers the question or not.

If you have listened to any kind of media today questions have been asked all day long how people have voted and why.

If you aren’t interested just ignore it. 

1. "Questioning" was the question.

2. If he wanted to explain, he would have. He hasn't. Respect that.

 

[whelk]

No surprises here and looks a sensible Cabinet. Hopefully they govern boldly and as astutely as they ran the election campaign - was men against boys in terms of effectiveness. Andy Burnham was saying people will be surprised how prepared the are and Sue Gray obviously knows how the Civil Service works

https://news.sky.com/story/the-new-cabinet-who-is-in-sir-keir-starmers-top-team-13160082

[iansums]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

1. "Questioning" was the question.

2. If he wanted to explain, he would have. He hasn't. Respect that.

 

I have now, and I’m preparing to be called ‘a racist loon’ 😳

[sadoldgit]

14 minutes ago, iansums said:

Been busy so now I’ll answer. I think the biggest issue this country (and Europe) faces is mass unchecked immigration, I don’t think Labour has the will to do anything about it. I think the Tory party has to move further to the right, leave the ECHR and do something about this issue. I also have a lot of time for Farage, I like what he has to say, and his plain speaking. It’s good that he now has a voice in Parliament. Anyway, it’s all over now, Labour are in, I respect Starmer and hope he does a good job.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I think that Starmer is sincere when he says he will do more to tackle the the trafficking gangs and to deal with the massive backlog of asylum applications which successive Tory governments have allowed to mount. I agree about unchecked immigration as we clearly need migrants. It has to be managed better. As you say, it is an issue across Europe and it’s something that Europe needs to tackle as a whole, I don’t think we should be looking to do it in isolation. A big problem I have with it is the way that the right are demonising them. They are human beings after all. They have been used as a political football. As a country we should be better than that.

[The Kraken]

Well done agent Sunak. Cracking work son.

https://order-order.com/2024/07/05/sunak-posts-jubilant-scenes-after-obliterating-tory-party/

[skintsaint]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I agree about unchecked immigration as we clearly need migrants.

*skilled migrants.

[sadoldgit]

49 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

*skilled migrants.

How much skill does it take to pick fruit? The kind that was rotting on the vines when all of the EU workers went home? I’m sure you know we struggle to get people to do the more menial tasks, like wait tables too. We need both skilled and unskilled migrants.

[Weston Super Saint]

50 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

*skilled migrants.

We need unskilled ones as well - lazy Brits don't want to do the shit jobs because benefits are more attractive.

[ChrisPY]

We clearly need to get a better hold on immigration as current levels are unsustainable. It’ll need to involve both skilled and unskilled migrants coming for work as well as our fair share of those seeking refuge.

It would have perhaps been a good idea for those promoting leave to come up with a plan for how this would work before Brexit but with such a large majority meaning the far left can be told to get in line (or take a walk back to the other side of the commons benches), the new government should be able to start making progress.

[The Kraken]

This is very good.

 

[skintsaint]

56 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We need unskilled ones as well - lazy Brits don't want to do the shit jobs because benefits are more attractive.

Kinda answered the riddle with that one.

[revolution saint]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We need unskilled ones as well - lazy Brits don't want to do the shit jobs because benefits are more attractive.

I was under the impression that unemployment was relatively low so could just be we don't have enough people (of working age/too poor to retire early/fit to work)?

[sadoldgit]

Chris Patten (google him if you are a youngster) has just dissed the current Tory leading members on the BBC. Another old Tory bemoaning the lurch to the right.

[Dr. Kucho]

14 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I think that Starmer is sincere when he says he will do more to tackle the the trafficking gangs and to deal with the massive backlog of asylum applications which successive Tory governments have allowed to mount. I agree about unchecked immigration as we clearly need migrants. It has to be managed better. As you say, it is an issue across Europe and it’s something that Europe needs to tackle as a whole, I don’t think we should be looking to do it in isolation.

If you want to stop the trafficking gangs and boats it will have to come from within the UK. Living in mainland Europe I’ve traveled endless amount of time through the ports of Dunkirk and Calais. In the past the migrants would be waiting along the road to hop on to trucks. Over the last years massive fences and security cameras have been installed and that has made the migrants use the boats now. 
The French have been tightening security along the beaches, but the migrants and gangs move further south and it’s a cat and mouse game.

The French will chase the migrants, but once they are in the water the French stop chasing them for safety reasons. And you have to question how committed the French border control is. Imagine it was the other way round and migrants were on the Kent beaches, would the border patrol risk their lives to stop people leaving the country? 

To stop people entering the UK illegally, the government should start to make it mandatory to have ID on you all the time, like in Europe. If people have to identify themselves it will make it harder to live under the radar. Also the huge black job market in the UK makes it appealing for illegal workers to come over. In Holland and Germany you have to through security checks to employ someone. 

Another part of stopping illegal migration is to make it harder for newcomers to claim certain benefits. Once people know it’s hard to receive benefits, plus the ID checks and crackdown of the black job market that should put of people risking their lives on inflatable boats crossing the Channel. 

Last the migrants know once they enter the UK it’s hard to be deported back to their country of origin. Somehow the government will have to find a way of making it easier and faster to deport illegal migrants. 

Lots of challenges ahead for the new government. Let’s hope they find a way to tackle these problems. 

[whelk]

Nearly spat my tea out when I saw this. A intern must be covering weekends?

[sadoldgit]

I agree that Labour have a mountain to climb in stopping the small boats. However media reporters seem to be able to track down gang leaders abroad so hopefully a more concerted effort to smash the gangs, to use Starmer’s words, will have an effect.

The threat of deportation to Rwanda hasn’t worked as a deterrent nor does the possibility of drowning at sea. What exactly is an illegal immigrant? It is not illegal to land in our shores and claim asylum. Part of the problem has been the lack of processing of asylum seekers claims are dealing with them appropriately. As for how they are treated when they arrive, they are human beings and need to be treated as such.

[Turkish]

15 hours ago, whelk said:

Before you came to this thread been generally a decent read and now you bring same old stuff. Others vote differently and surprised on a day when Labour sweep to power and there should be optimism, you are still obsessing about far right

Yep this thread has basically been the SOG show ranting about his usual far right, Trump, Farage nonsense. He accused me of seeking out his posts to have a go at him and If I don’t like what he posts dont read it, since he coughed up Fiver you cant get away from him spamming every thread with his shite. At least he used to only stick to here now his on the main board too 🤦

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I agree that Labour have a mountain to climb in stopping the small boats. However media reporters seem to be able to track down gang leaders abroad so hopefully a more concerted effort to smash the gangs, to use Starmer’s words, will have an effect.

The threat of deportation to Rwanda hasn’t worked as a deterrent nor does the possibility of drowning at sea. What exactly is an illegal immigrant? It is not illegal to land in our shores and claim asylum. Part of the problem has been the lack of processing of asylum seekers claims are dealing with them appropriately. As for how they are treated when they arrive, they are human beings and need to be treated as such.

The "threat" of deportation has not been tested as nobody has actually been deported.

[Lighthouse]

18 minutes ago, whelk said:

Nearly spat my tea out when I saw this. A intern must be covering weekends?

It’s what Diana would have wanted.

[Fan The Flames]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Kucho said:

If you want to stop the trafficking gangs and boats it will have to come from within the UK. Living in mainland Europe I’ve traveled endless amount of time through the ports of Dunkirk and Calais. In the past the migrants would be waiting along the road to hop on to trucks. Over the last years massive fences and security cameras have been installed and that has made the migrants use the boats now. 
The French have been tightening security along the beaches, but the migrants and gangs move further south and it’s a cat and mouse game.

The French will chase the migrants, but once they are in the water the French stop chasing them for safety reasons. And you have to question how committed the French border control is. Imagine it was the other way round and migrants were on the Kent beaches, would the border patrol risk their lives to stop people leaving the country? 

To stop people entering the UK illegally, the government should start to make it mandatory to have ID on you all the time, like in Europe. If people have to identify themselves it will make it harder to live under the radar. Also the huge black job market in the UK makes it appealing for illegal workers to come over. In Holland and Germany you have to through security checks to employ someone. 

Another part of stopping illegal migration is to make it harder for newcomers to claim certain benefits. Once people know it’s hard to receive benefits, plus the ID checks and crackdown of the black job market that should put of people risking their lives on inflatable boats crossing the Channel. 

Last the migrants know once they enter the UK it’s hard to be deported back to their country of origin. Somehow the government will have to find a way of making it easier and faster to deport illegal migrants. 

Lots of challenges ahead for the new government. Let’s hope they find a way to tackle these problems. 

A couple of points, good luck getting Brits to have an ID card. I know I would be reluctant to have to carry ID, also the rise in conspiracies around lockdowns, LTN, the great reset etc will make the task even harder.

Migrants know when they enter Europe it's harder to deport them back to their CoO, not just the UK.

[sadoldgit]

1 minute ago, Fan The Flames said:

A couple of points, good luck getting Brits to have an ID card. I know I would be reluctant to have to carry ID, also the rise in conspiracies around lockdowns, LTN, the great reset etc will make the task even harder.

Migrants know when they enter Europe it's harder to deport them back to their CoO, not just the UK.

Isn’t it illegal under international law to deport people back to their CoO if it puts them in danger?

[Fan The Flames]

56 minutes ago, whelk said:

Nearly spat my tea out when I saw this. A intern must be covering weekends?

FFS they don't even bother to pretend that they are just biased reporters anymore, they now acknowledge that they are actual combative actors in the political process.

[sadoldgit]

43 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The "threat" of deportation has not been tested as nobody has actually been deported.

They didn’t know at the time what would happen to them but were willing to chance it anyway. Now of course they know the scheme will be scrapped so it is moot. There is still the very real risk of drowning though.

[Fan The Flames]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Isn’t it illegal under international law to deport people back to their CoO if it puts them in danger?

Yes and most of Europe abides by that, hence why it's not just the UK that is an "easy touch".

However, collectively we do need to find a new way of dealing with the migrants situation because the current system is causing too many issues.

Edited July 6 by Fan The Flames

[sadoldgit]

Just seen that Therese Coffey lost her seat 🥳🥂🍾

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Chris Patten (google him if you are a youngster) has just dissed the current Tory leading members on the BBC. Another old Tory bemoaning the lurch to the right.

Dear God. You’d have thought a GE where a party on the right of the present Tory one polled 4 million votes (600k more than your beloved Lib Dems) might finally stop you parroting this pony. But no, whatever you, Fat Pang or some other dripping wet “centralist” believes (or want to believe) the Tories lost seat after seat because Reform stood against them from the Right. When your type of Tory stood against them previously (change UK) & Nigel stood the troops down, the Tories ended up with an 80+ majority. 
 

There was no fucking “lurch to the right” , had there been Reform wouldn’t have polled anywhere near 4 million votes. I’m not saying the Tories would have won, they wouldn’t have. But they wouldn’t have suffered such a hammering. Personally, I hope they do “lurch to the left”, because if they do Nigel will finally finish them off , and we’ll end up with a proper right of centre party. 

 

Edited July 6 by Lord Duckhunter

[sadoldgit]

24 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Dear God. You’d have thought a GE where a party on the right of the present Tory one polled 4 million votes (600k more than your beloved Lib Dems) might finally stop you parroting this pony. But no, whatever you, Fat Pang or some other dripping wet “centralist” believes (or want to believe) the Tories lost seat after seat because Reform stood against them from the Right. When your type of Tory stood against them previously (change UK) & Nigel stood the troops down, the Tories ended up with an 80+ majority. 
 

There was no fucking “lurch to the right” , had there been Reform wouldn’t have polled anywhere near 4 million votes. I’m not saying the Tories would have won, they wouldn’t have. But they wouldn’t have suffered such a hammering. Personally, I hope they do “lurch to the left”, because if they do Nigel will finally finish them off , and we’ll end up with a proper right of centre party. 

 

If they don’t, “Nigel” and the Tory Party will leave Labour in power for decades. “Nigel” will never, ever be PM with Reform as the country don’t elect extremist parties. The only way the Tories will be in a position to win again is by getting rid of the headbangers and showing your party up for what they are. They got plenty of votes this time round through protest at the crap job the Tories had done. Let’s see how many they get in 5 years time shall we?

Immigrant bashing will only get you so far.

Edited July 6 by sadoldgit

[Lord Duckhunter]

14 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If they don’t, “Nigel” and the Tory Party will leave Labour in power for decades

There’s a cigarette paper between Hunt & Reeves. Lord Call me Daves foreign policy will be mirrored by Lammy. Taxes will be roughly the same. Legal immigration will be similar, the NHS model won’t change. They are 2 checks of the same arse, with a bit of difference around social policy. They could all be in the same Blair led party. The only difference will be competence, if this lot are as incompetent, they’ll get binned regardless of whether The Tories “lurch to the left”. Judge Government by what it does, not what it says it’ll do. When you look at their “lurch to the right” on migrants, it was only the language that lurched that way, the policy was exactly the same as Starmers will be. They’ll pick the boats up, house them here and not send them anywhere. In other words exactly the same. The Tories pretended they would send them to Rwanda & Labour will pretend they’ll send them to their country of origin. They won’t “smash the gangs” anymore than the Tories. It’s all propaganda pony. 
 

I’ve been hearing this “lurch to the right” pony for years,when’s it going to happen, because I’m looking forward to it. 

Edited July 6 by Lord Duckhunter

[Dr. Kucho]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

A couple of points, good luck getting Brits to have an ID card. I know I would be reluctant to have to carry ID, also the rise in conspiracies around lockdowns, LTN, the great reset etc will make the task even harder.

Migrants know when they enter Europe it's harder to deport them back to their CoO, not just the UK.

Can I ask what you have against carrying a form of ID? Here in Holland they introduced it some 20 odd years ago that we always have to be able to identify ourselves, through passport, driving license or identity card. It makes the work of the police a lot easier instead of having to spend valuable time finding out who’s who. 

Regarding the conspiracy theorist and other nutcases I would say fuck em. These peoples lives simply exist of making up stories why governments, institutions and wealthy people would want to harm us. Here you have a bunch who claim it would be better to live in Russia than under the tyranny that the EU is according to them. But for some funny reason they decide to remain here and don’t leave for Russia. 

Edited July 6 by Dr. Kucho
Forgot a word.

[egg]

59 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Dear God. You’d have thought a GE where a party on the right of the present Tory one polled 4 million votes (600k more than your beloved Lib Dems) might finally stop you parroting this pony. But no, whatever you, Fat Pang or some other dripping wet “centralist” believes (or want to believe) the Tories lost seat after seat because Reform stood against them from the Right. When your type of Tory stood against them previously (change UK) & Nigel stood the troops down, the Tories ended up with an 80+ majority. 
 

There was no fucking “lurch to the right” , had there been Reform wouldn’t have polled anywhere near 4 million votes. I’m not saying the Tories would have won, they wouldn’t have. But they wouldn’t have suffered such a hammering. Personally, I hope they do “lurch to the left”, because if they do Nigel will finally finish them off , and we’ll end up with a proper right of centre party. 

 

That's confused. The Tories votes mostly went to Reform. If that's not a lurch to the right, what is it? 

[sadoldgit]

Wow, Starmer is on it from the start. What a refreshing start to a premiership.

[The Cat]

On the face of there have been some very good appointments to the cabinet. Some of the people are even experts in their field which is night and day to the Tory jobs for mates scenario we had before.