Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Ormorof]

Yeah that's a bit absurd Scouse, if a bunch of people were told "this is what we are doing in Labour now get on board or fuck off" is hardly the same as mass murder

Do agree with getting gifts though, I'm not allowed to get anything either, even if I get something from work if it's more than 50 euros I have to pay tax on it 😅

 

[Scouse]

Secondly - the whole football thing is because Starmer is/was a season ticket holder and he always went with the same group of mates throughout his life, then when he became PM they obviously put a stop to that due to security reasons, so football teams started giving him tickets to 'secure' areas instead.

He can pay for his own tickets and the public can pick up the security tab.

He can pay for his own clothes.
He can pay for his own £2000 glasses.
He can pay for his own appartments in central london because his salary is 160k a year (on top of the fact that he's made for life).

He can pay to show the whole world he's A) not on the make and B) not just a Tory. Because, post his purge of the left, I can't see any economic differentiation between the two. Can you?

Edit: On the stalin/pogrom bit, lighten up eh? But he was brutal with the left of the party. To the point that there's nowt economically between them.

If they're not the left, what's the point? 🤷

And remember - this is from the so-called "comrade scouse"...

 

[Gwadien]

He can pay for his own tickets and the public can pick up the security tab.

He can pay for his own clothes.
He can pay for his own £2000 glasses.
He can pay for his own appartments in central london because his salary is 160k a year (on top of the fact that he's made for life).

He can pay to show the whole world he's A) not on the make and B) not just a Tory. Because, post his purge of the left, I can't see any economic differentiation between the two. Can you?

Edit: On the stalin/pogrom bit, lighten up eh? But he was brutal with the left of the party. To the point that there's nowt economically between them.

If they're not the left, what's the point? 🤷

And remember - this is from the so-called "comrade scouse"...

Because you're doom mongering over very little, the previous Government, ie the only alternative to our current Government splunked billions of tax payer money. I'd imagine less than a million was taken from the cabinet, and only £6m since 2010 from all MPs.

Sure, it's shit timing but I think it's a bit over the top.

 

[Scouse]

You're apologising for grift there @Gwadien.

I'm not saying they're as bad as the tories - they've not had the time to fuck up to that level yet. But the start they've had is utterly woeful - so much so they've already set the record for an MP resigning in disgust.

They really need to turn things around.

However, you seem to want to give them a free pass? The thing is - people who are doing a good job can be seen to be doing a good job. I ain't seeing it - so it's absolutely correct to bash them until they do. I've already given credit where credit is due but you're offended by people pointing out when they're looking corrupt.

 

[Tom]

While everyone is worried about free suits and glasses, little things like this, that really do make a big difference to people's lives, are happening:

Workers must keep all tips from customers under new law

Bosses must pass on all tips and service charges to staff under new employment rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Embattle]

Treasury asking ministers to draw up billions of pounds of infrastructure cuts

Exclusive: departments asked to model cuts of up to 10% despite Rachel Reeves’ vow to invest in growth

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scouse]

Treasury asking ministers to draw up billions of pounds of infrastructure cuts

Exclusive: departments asked to model cuts of up to 10% despite Rachel Reeves’ vow to invest in growth

www.theguardian.com

I mean - cuts to road building are eminently sensible. So reviews are sensible.

But in the spirit of what we can do, we can afford to do - we should be building more hospital capacity, absolutely.

Mum's in again. She's got a room but that's because it would be far too distressing for other patients to be around someone with such distressing symptoms. There are people piled up in all of the corridors - and the wait for a room is 84 hours.

That's the best part of four days in a corridor for people.

 

[Tom]

Targeted road building cuts are sensible, but there are many areas where bypasses would provide an immediate benefit. The issue is that in most cases, we don't build bypasses - we build relief roads. Meaning that we just increase capacity for more motoring. If we built true bypasses, we'd open them and simultaneously close the existing routes to through-traffic. That would leave the old, narrow, local roads for access only, with buses allowed to go through via bus gates.

But no, we do shit like this:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

The road to the north, the A536, is brand new. Bypasses the town. But it remains possible to drive straight through the town as well, on the older Clayton Bypass. Meaning that in the end, nothing will change. The town centre remains noisy and polluted, with a huge line of severance making life harder for people walking and cycling.

Also, the older Clayton Bypass - that's not a bypass. It's a relief road. The area it "bypasses" can still be used as a through route.

 

[Gwadien]

Targeted road building cuts are sensible, but there are many areas where bypasses would provide an immediate benefit. The issue is that in most cases, we don't build bypasses - we build relief roads. Meaning that we just increase capacity for more motoring. If we built true bypasses, we'd open them and simultaneously close the existing routes to through-traffic. That would leave the old, narrow, local roads for access only, with buses allowed to go through via bus gates.

But no, we do shit like this:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

The road to the north, the A536, is brand new. Bypasses the town. But it remains possible to drive straight through the town as well, on the older Clayton Bypass. Meaning that in the end, nothing will change. The town centre remains noisy and polluted, with a huge line of severance making life harder for people walking and cycling.

Also, the older Clayton Bypass - that's not a bypass. It's a relief road. The area it "bypasses" can still be used as a through route.

I don't know about this - whilst you'd understandably laugh at me for saying it's a detriment to locals, I think they'd be more bothered about having to add a significant addition to their journey if they wanted to drive to the other side of town.

Although it'll probably be less popular than your plan, I'd favour something similar to ULEZ but more complex to make it sure that people only driving through use the relief road.

But no, I don't like this, we need investment in infrastructure pretty desperately, shame we've got HS2.

 

[Tom]

Some will grumble. A lot more (many towns like this have a sizeable percentage of homes without access to a vehicle) will appreciate the quieter roads and the increased ease with which they can walk. Or perhaps the quieter roads will give them the confidence to cycle. And perhaps some people, looking at a 10 minute walk vs a 10 minute drive, will just walk. It tends to be motorists who complain the loudest. And bus users will appreciate the massive reduction in congestion, and the huge increase in reliability.

My local area has as much as 40% of homes without access to a vehicle (census figures).

 

[Raven]

Mine doesn't, it takes about 2 hours to walk into town, and most neighbours are elderly.

No buses either.

Decent cycle path though, I can get to work and town (not that it's worth the hassle) without even going on a road, once I get about a mile from home.

 

[Scouse]

Credit where credit is due...

Keir Starmer pays back £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality

Prime minister is covering cost of Taylor Swift tickets and designer clothing rental agreement after donations row

www.theguardian.com

But it's a fraction and very late. Lets see what "principles" he instills in law. (And it must be in law - not some voluntary wish wash)

 

[Embattle]

UK hands sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

In a historic move, the UK gives up sovereignty of a strategic group of islands in the Indian Ocean.

www.bbc.co.uk

I love how the Tory leadership candidates are getting all bent out of shape about this, they seem to miss the point that this process was started years ago when they were in power and we got what we wanted out of it with an initial 99 year lease on Diego Garcia.

 

[Embattle]

Well I see the Tories are down to the least electable candidates, but the membership was always going to pick one either way the same way they elected Liz.

 

[Zarjazz]

Well I see the Tories are down to the least electable candidates

They had electable candidates?

 

[DaGaffer]

They had electable candidates?

Cleverly was the last "electable" choice. Starmer must be breathing a sigh of relief as he can play the "look at those mad fuckwits" card anytime things are looking sticky.

 

[ECA]

Cleverly was the last "electable" choice. Starmer must be breathing a sigh of relief as he can play the "look at those mad fuckwits" card anytime things are looking sticky.

I dunno might've been preferable to raise his profile, let one of the loonies win and come back 1 year before the next election.

 

[Scouse]

Keir Starmer urged to sack extremism adviser over alleged conflicts of interest

Campaigners say John Woodcock has commercial interest in organisations whose clients were targeted by protesters

www.theguardian.com

One to watch.

 

[Scouse]

So then. The budget. No material reforms at all. Although from an I'm alright jack place it's meh (although I suspect now they've made hiring people more expensive I've got a redundancy target on my back - off to India for my job).

Much the most striking aspect of the spending decisions is how incredibly front loaded the additional spending is. Day-to-day public service spending, after inflation and the additional cost to public sector employers of rising NI, is set to rise by 4.3% this year and 2.6% next year, but then by just 1.3% each year thereafter …


I am willing to bet a substantial sum that day-to-day public service spending will in fact increase more quickly than supposedly planned after next year. 1.3% a year overall would almost certainly mean real terms cuts for some departments. It would be odd to increase spending rapidly only to start cutting back again in subsequent years.


I’m afraid this looks like the same silly games playing as we got used to with the last lot. Pencil in implausibly low spending increases for the future in order to make the fiscal arithmetic balance. It sounds like it was hard enough to get agreement from departmental ministers to relatively generous settlements in the short term. When it comes to settling with departments for the period after 2025-26 keeping within that 1.3% envelope will be extremely challenging. To put it mildly ….


[Reeves] is meeting her borrowing target only by repeating the same silly manoeuvres as her predecessors used to make it look as if the books will balance. Let’s pretend we’ll increase fuel duties next time, but not do it this year. Let’s pretend that we’ll really rein in spending in a couple of years after splurging this year. That’s not going to happen. The spending plans will not survive contact with her cabinet colleagues.

How very Tory, eh?