Politics 2024/25 General Election Voting Intention (2022)

[Raven]

Viz

 

[Scouse]

And if you're paying cash, nobody needs to see ID.

 

[Ormorof]

Is that good though? Not paying tax means someone else needs to pay more to make up the difference

 

[Scouse]

Is that good though? Not paying tax means someone else needs to pay more to make up the difference

You don't get it do you? If you're working illegally, you're not showing ID. So how is ID going to help stop illegal working?

Employers who are paying workers in cash aren't checking for ID. The workers are off their books - and both the employers and workers want it that way.

Tell me. How does having even more ID stop that?

 

[Embattle]

So, it's already the 7th most popular petition (albeit miles behind the don't brexit one):

If everyone can just sign this petition and then say "signed" so we can really fuck @Embattle off, if nothing else.

Petition: Do not introduce Digital ID cards

We demand that the UK Government immediately commits to not introducing a digital ID cards. There are reports that this is being looked at.

petition.parliament.uk

I mean, Starmer doesn't mind starving babies, so I doubt he'll listen to the will of the people. But it's worth it for the Emb angle alone

So, less than 3% of the population have signed a petition. No doubt, a good majority of those signing have already given their data to Google, Meta, Apple and ironically the government already. Keep trying.

 

[Deebs]

You don't get it do you? If you're working illegally, you're not showing ID. So how is ID going to help stop illegal working?

Employers who are paying workers in cash aren't checking for ID. The workers are off their books - and both the employers and workers want it that way.

Tell me. How does having even more ID stop that?

The only people who will benefit from this shitshow are the people who will make bucketloads of fake IDs and sell them for a tenner down the pub. Also due to the red tape it will bring employers more will go for paying cash in hand. Cash in hand has always been a thing and always will be a thing.

 

[Deebs]

So, less than 3% of the population have signed a petition. No doubt, a good majority of those signing have already given their data to Google, Meta, Apple and ironically the government already. Keep trying.

How does Google, Meta and Apple know my ID is real and not forged? They only have a name/address,credit card data, again not proof of ID.

 

[Embattle]

View: https://youtu.be/9ByTSiVSUYc?si=Buun_GXyZb_ld8c8

 

[Scouse]

Starmer taking advantage of Brexit - drawing up a bill that will remove our legal rights to challenge damaging projects:

Starmer asks Conservative peer to write planning bill to block judicial reviews

Exclusive: One option could be to leave treaty that allows legal claims against projects such as Heathrow expansion

www.theguardian.com

Pretty much turns us into China from an environmental planning perspective.

 

[DaGaffer]

Starmer taking advantage of Brexit - drawing up a bill that will remove our legal rights to challenge damaging projects:

Starmer asks Conservative peer to write planning bill to block judicial reviews

Exclusive: One option could be to leave treaty that allows legal claims against projects such as Heathrow expansion

www.theguardian.com

Pretty much turns us into China from an environmental planning perspective.

Wasn't that the point of Brexit? Or one of them anyway. Don't see how it makes much difference which party does it, it was inevitable.

 

[Scouse]

Wasn't that the point of Brexit? Or one of them anyway. Don't see how it makes much difference which party does it, it was inevitable.

It was. But even I didn't expect Labour to be the party that fucks over our environmental legislation. Especially when they explicitly committed to strengthening our environmental protections.

What they've done since being in power is exactly the opposite of what most people thought they'd do. I expected them to start going down the ID path and to start being overly authoritarian. It was clear, even though they steadfastly avoided saying anything in their manifesto, that they were going to massively ramp up the Blairite project - a bit like aProject 2025 without a catchy name. But instead of being a Trotskyite (which apparently he identified as when he was younger) he's turned into a Authoritarian Technocratic Managerialist.

But he's not above calling us anyone who thinks mass immigration has failed the working classes racist I see:

Keir Starmer calls Reform migrant policy 'racist' and 'immoral'

The prime minister said he needed "space" to make good on the promises he made at last year's general election.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Gwadien]

But he's not above calling us anyone who thinks mass immigration has failed the working classes racist I see:

Keir Starmer calls Reform migrant policy 'racist' and 'immoral'

The prime minister said he needed "space" to make good on the promises he made at last year's general election.

www.bbc.co.uk

You mean the party that has fully taken the 'migrant crisis' as their number one policy and are doing loads of shit to 'deal' with it whilst the results will and always will be meh.

Yeah, he's calling himself racist too I guess?

 

[Scouse]

You mean the party that has fully taken the 'migrant crisis' as their number one policy and are doing loads of shit to 'deal' with it whilst the results will and always will be meh

You're talking about a completely different subject here @Gwadien. The topic at hand is legal migration. Please stay on-topic.

I've said on here several times that the "illegal migrant" crisis is a bullshit political distraction - "illegals" (I'd like to call them refugees) are almost a rounding error compared to legal migration - which is the issue that's actually affecting people. People coming in boats are people that we should potentially be helping. At least we should be processing them correctly.

Reform is on about legal migration. They want to put a stop to it. Starmer is calling people who want to do this racist. But the facts bear some stuff out - legal immigration has not been a net positive for the working class in this country. Legal migration has been used to undercut their wages. It's driven house prices massively up. It's worked for the economy overall, but it's come at a very real cost for the poorest in our society.

This is a subject of legitimate debate. Starmer is trying to shut down that debate by calling people racist. It's right out of the Labour playbook - and it's part of the reason why people feel jaded and not heard. The very real frustration a large swathe of this country feels manifested itself in Brexit. Starmer's doubling down. But lets look at the figures (using ONS):

Metric	Total, 1997 → end-2024 (range)	% of UK population (using population = 67–69 million)
Gross immigration (all long-term arrivals summed)	≈ 11.0 – 13.0 million	≈ 16.0% – 19.4%
Net migration (immigration − emigration summed)	≈ 5.5 – 6.5 million	≈ 8.0% – 9.7%

So, since Labour came to power in the UK the last time we've had a gross migration figure of potentially nearly 20% of the UK population. Nearly 10% net. In just 27 years. This is legal migration - not illegals crossing in boats.

Do you not think working class poverty, social frustrations, and cultural transformation - especially as we ghettoise - are legitimate. Do you not think creaking public services, housing costs etc. etc. are related to this?

It's absolutely fair to have a discussion about whether this level of immigration is sustainable. And now we've had that level of immigration - do we want to keep having that level of immigration given the unequal outcomes and massive cultural change we're experiencing.

It's not racist to discuss that. That's Starmer acting like Labour and the "left" has acted for a long time.


Regardless - calling anyone racist is a bit fucking rich from a self-confessed racist supremacist. For that is what zionism is, and what Starmer is. That may well be resulting in why we're still providing weapons and taxpayer support to genocidal maniacs. So Starmer calling anyone racist can die in a hole.

 

[Tom]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez1cn8d28_8

 

[Gwadien]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez1cn8d28_8

I watched this yesterday and was so close to posting it but I didn't.

But it's actually a good video from the 'annoying youtuber crowd'.

 

[ECA]

While we're getting rid of , sorry - sending Tony Blair to bring peace to Gaza, surely we can send some other critically important people like Piers Morgan, James Corden and Michael Mcintyre?

 

[Scouse]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8uOPrU4B9s

 

[Tom]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQCWPjCmoJ4


lol

 

[Scouse]

UK government resumes row with Apple by demanding access to British users’ data

New access order by Home Office would seek access to the tech company’s encrypted cloud backups

www.theguardian.com

 

[Deebs]

UK government resumes row with Apple by demanding access to British users’ data

New access order by Home Office would seek access to the tech company’s encrypted cloud backups

www.theguardian.com

Stand fast Apple tell them to go fuck themselves.

 

[Scouse]

They want to ID you, they want to roll out countrywide facial recognition, they want to break encryption and get access to all your data.

Last time around they introduced legislation that allowed them to define your political beliefs as terrorism, and they can lock you up unless you give them access to your private devices.

Look at what a political party does, not what is says.

 

[Embattle]

Kemi Badenoch vows to repeal Climate Change Act

Tory leader says she would replace it with ‘cheap energy’ strategy, ending decades-long consensus on climate

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scouse]

So, you get to protest, once, and then you can shut the fuck up. Repeated peaceful protest is going to be banned.

Apparently they really want to stop the very peaceful gaza protests. But lets face it - it'll be used for everything the government finds awkward.

They also want to review all anti-protest laws because apparently they're not strong enough - specifically, but not limited to, strengthening powers to ban some peaceful protest outright.

Police to get new powers to crack down on repeated protests, says Home Office

Move follows arrest of almost 500 people at latest pro-Palestinian demonstration in London on Saturday

www.theguardian.com

@Gwadien. Are you in any doubt that Starmer's government is essentially facist, or is that idea still emotionally unpaletable?

 

[DaGaffer]

So, you get to protest, once, and then you can shut the fuck up. Repeated peaceful protest is going to be banned.

Apparently they really want to stop the very peaceful gaza protests. But lets face it - it'll be used for everything the government finds awkward.

They also want to review all anti-protest laws because apparently they're not strong enough - specifically, but not limited to, strengthening powers to ban some peaceful protest outright.

Police to get new powers to crack down on repeated protests, says Home Office

Move follows arrest of almost 500 people at latest pro-Palestinian demonstration in London on Saturday

www.theguardian.com

@Gwadien. Are you in any doubt that Starmer's government is essentially facist, or is that idea still emotionally unpaletable?

Shocking. No, wait, that's not the word I'm looking for, what's the opposite of that?

But the fact that you think this is unique to Starmer's government is hilarious; this is the British state, irrespective of party, and it's been gathering steam since the 90s. It wasn't Labour locking up Just Stop Oil protestors, it wasn't Labour banning protests outside our own parliament. This is a process, and it won't stop, because lots of red faced baboons can be utilised as useful idiots to endorse what the state wants to do anyway.

 

[Gwadien]

So, you get to protest, once, and then you can shut the fuck up. Repeated peaceful protest is going to be banned.

Apparently they really want to stop the very peaceful gaza protests. But lets face it - it'll be used for everything the government finds awkward.

They also want to review all anti-protest laws because apparently they're not strong enough - specifically, but not limited to, strengthening powers to ban some peaceful protest outright.

Police to get new powers to crack down on repeated protests, says Home Office

Move follows arrest of almost 500 people at latest pro-Palestinian demonstration in London on Saturday

www.theguardian.com

@Gwadien. Are you in any doubt that Starmer's government is essentially facist, or is that idea still emotionally unpaletable?

Keep equating Starmer to Hitler and Mussolini, which isn't emotional in the slightest, I'd love to see your response to a Reform government that you seem eager to feed.

Which I'll point out again, is literally the narrative that the actual fascists have used in the past to get into power.

I suppose you could build a moat around your castle.

 

[ECA]

Keep equating Starmer to Hitler and Mussolini, which isn't emotional in the slightest, I'd love to see your response to a Reform government that you seem eager to feed.

Which I'll point out again, is literally the narrative that the actual fascists have used in the past to get into power.

I suppose you could build a moat around your castle.

Could he expense it though?

 

[Gwadien]

Could he expense it though?

Wouldn't even need to, the Trooping for Farage Stormers will be voluntary and will replace the police.

 

[Scouse]

Shocking. No, wait, that's not the word I'm looking for, what's the opposite of that?

But the fact that you think this is unique to Starmer's government is hilarious; this is the British state, irrespective of party, and it's been gathering steam since the 90s. It wasn't Labour locking up Just Stop Oil protestors, it wasn't Labour banning protests outside our own parliament. This is a process, and it won't stop, because lots of red faced baboons can be utilised as useful idiots to endorse what the state wants to do anyway.

The lions share of the laws that are used to crack down on free speech and protest have come under Labour governments. So, whilst not shocked in general (and again, agree with most of what you're saying) Starmer is doubling down at a rate I am shocked at.

There is a difference, and it's not just splitting hairs.

Keep equating Starmer to Hitler and Mussolini, which isn't emotional in the slightest, I'd love to see your response to a Reform government that you seem eager to feed.

Which I'll point out again, is literally the narrative that the actual fascists have used in the past to get into power.

Why wait for reform when Labour are doing their job for them very nicely already thankyouverymuch?

I am getting a bit weary of you saying I'm a supporter of reform though. What's actually going on is that you are sticking your fingers in your ears to valid arguments that reform is utilising to gain ground. You're so scared of reform that you're willing to suck the dick of a government that is already behaving abhorrently.

You see a story about the (further) banning of certain types of protest - or repeat protest for things people feel strongly about (like, I dunno, genocide) - and rather than go "oooh, poor form there Labour" you think "reform are going to be worse" and give Starmer a pass.

How much worse do Labour have to get before you start being terrified of them?

Anyway - don't worry. You'll see my response to the incoming reform government - Starmer's pretty much making sure they're going to get in.

I suppose you could build a moat around your castle.

You also seem to be inordinately jealous of a man with a 3 bed detached house, because you can barely post without mentioning it.

Anyway - I don't need to build a moat. It flooded all around it yesterday.

Could he expense it though?

You forget, I'm an employee like all you plebs.

I think what's more pertinent is that I don't have a party donor who'll pay for my moat like Starmer does, and I haven't sued the NHS on "behalf of my disabled son" and then used his payout to buy a house in Brighton.

 

[Gwadien]

The lions share of the laws that are used to crack down on free speech and protest have come under Labour governments. So, whilst not shocked in general (and again, agree with most of what you're saying) Starmer is doubling down at a rate I am shocked at.

There is a difference, and it's not just splitting hairs.


Why wait for reform when Labour are doing their job for them very nicely already thankyouverymuch?

I am getting a bit weary of you saying I'm a supporter of reform though. What's actually going on is that you are sticking your fingers in your ears to valid arguments that reform is utilising to gain ground. You're so scared of reform that you're willing to suck the dick of a government that is already behaving abhorrently.


You also seem to be inordinately jealous of a man with a 3 bed detached house, because you can barely post without mentioning it.



You forget, I'm an employee like all you plebs.

I think what's more pertinent is that I don't have a party donor who'll pay for my moat like Starmer does, and I haven't sued the NHS on "behalf of my disabled son" and then used his payout to buy a house in Brighton.

I'm getting weary of you telling me I'm a supporter of Labour and I support everything they are doing.

The fact is, I don't support Labour, I didn't vote for them at the last election and ended up with a Tory MP, but I am also intelligent and 'emotion removed' enough to know that exaggerating what Labour is doing to pretend they're somehow on a par with Nazi Germany is fucking stupid when the alternative doesn't have a clue, they'll fuck the country up further and blame all the minorities & political enemies for it.

Doing what you're doing feeds into further support for Reform, that's a fact.

 

[Deebs]

<snip>

Anyway - I don't need to build a moat. It flooded all around it yesterday.

<snip>

Bet the ducks are fucking loving it