You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yeah, I bet ‘the establishment’ is absolutely shitting itself.
You're probably right. It's so unpopular, that a further loss of votes isn't going to make any difference. Regardless of support from its useful idiots.
It is surprising just how much centrists have in common with the Daily Mail when it comes to their shared hatred of the Left.
Is that so? I vote LibDem, does that mean I share a hatred of the Left, that I share with the Daily Mail? ‘Cos it’s news to me, as a member of a ‘terrorist organisation’*, Antifa.(copyright D Trump).
*And yes, I’m perfectly aware that it’s an ideology, that joins together everyone who harbours a deep rooted hatred of the Extreme Right.
I’m going to see if I can get Genmoji on my phone to create an emoji of the Antifa flag, as an additional part of trolling Republicans and their Minions.
Good to see that our resident lefties (solidarity comrades) are reinforcing their relevance by arguing over whether a phrase laughingly referring to them, which 99.999999999% of the population will never have heard of, refers to Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968
Finger on the pulse there comrades
Oh look, the useful idiot is recycling his memes, as his party slides into oblivion.
Finger on the pulse there comrades
Says the man who wants to talk about every political party in the UK except the one which is governing the country and he is apparently a member of! 😂
We all know very well your opinions on Nigel Farage, Kemi Badenoch, Jeremy Corbyn, and a multitude of minor politicians, because you love talking about them, but despite your deep interest in politics you have absolutely nothing at all to say about the UK Prime Minister!
99.9% of the population consider the Prime Minister to be the most important politician in the UK but you want to focus solely on opposition politicians......finger on the pulse mate! 🤣
Thought this thread was about Corbyns bumbling attempt at a new party so not really sure why Ernie is rambling on about the government. I think there's a thread specifically for people to lose their shit about how Starmer is managing the country.
Monty Python unleashes the wrath of the 6.
not really sure why Ernie is rambling on about the government.
I have checked just in case I had inadvertently posted anything about the government and no, I definitely haven't posted anything at all about the government, never mind "rambling on" as you claim.
If I want to discuss the government I do it on the UK government thread, in fact I regularly do.
What I have done though is ask binners a perfectly reasonable question......why does he have so much to say about "your party" but absolutely nothing at all to say about "his party"?
Don't you find it peculiar that someone so interested in politics should want to discuss every political party except the one he is actually a member of?
Don't you find it peculiar that someone so interested in politics should want to discuss every political party except the one he is actually a member of?
It will be a combination of embarrassment and denial of the party they were so supportive of turning out to be so shit. Luckily a lot of people are not in that stage and even though they supported Labour before the election now can't wait to see the back of them. I genuinely don't know what significant differences we would have seen if Sunak had continued on.
As for Corbyns party, I am sticking with Greens who have a leader who actually has a chance of getting somewhere rather than Corbyn, who is a proven useless leader and Sultana who is a bit unknown seems to lose it too quickly. The polices between the two parties will be so similar it makes no difference.
Premium whataboutery there
Pointing out that your claim that I was "rambling on" about the government is completely false is now whataboutery according to you?
You have a good day too and maybe come back when you want to discuss the subject matter instead of just defending someone who engages in "hilarious" sixth form humour and posts stills from a 45 year old film on political threads, in a childish attempt to insult people which he feels incapable of engaging with intelligently? 💡
well, whatever the true meaning of tankie, if these statements end up being reflected in the actual foreign policy of Your Party, it would be pretty grim, and very retro.
Greens seem a little more sane. Not that I think we (ie 'the west') would want to be the only team without nukes.
from the manifesto
Most of the world’s countries do not possess weapons of mass destruction and are safer as a result.
Elected Greens will:
- Push for the UK to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and following this to immediately begin the process of dismantling our nuclear weapons, cancelling the Trident programme and removing all foreign nuclear weapons from UK soil.
- Work with international partners to enlarge membership of the TPNW and ensure that all states meet their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Green Party recognises that NATO has an important role in ensuring the ability of its member states to respond to threats to their security. We would work within NATO to achieve:
- A greater focus on global peacebuilding.
- A commitment to a ‘No First Use’ of nuclear weapons.
Luckily a lot of people are not in that stage and even though they supported Labour before the election now can't wait to see the back of them.
Agreed. He still seems to be in the Denial phase. I've accepted that they're not going to change and am voting accordingly.
immediately begin the process of dismantling our nuclear weapons, cancelling the Trident programme
Well, that's the greens crossed off my list, lol! 🤣
Elected Greens will:
- Push for the UK to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and following this to immediately begin the process of dismantling our nuclear weapons, cancelling the Trident programme and removing all foreign nuclear weapons from UK soil.
- Work with international partners to enlarge membership of the TPNW and ensure that all states meet their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
And right there the Greens make the case for leaving NATO!
No NATO member state has or can sign the TPNW because apart from anything else it prohibits the "stationing" of nuclear weapons. Ireland has been able to sign the TPNW precisely because they are not a NATO member state.
It looks like the Greens are lacking in joined up thinking and have got themselves in a muddle since their recent decision to drop their previous policy of withdrawing from NATO.
This is what happens when a socialist alternative to neoliberalisn is just a side issue for a party that lacks any deep understanding of issues beyond those connected to the environment.
Or they are making the case for changing NATO.
Well if they are making the case for NATO no longer being nuclear armed I wish them the very best of luck with that one.
Nuclear Disarmament requires all the nuclear armed countries to be involved... the UK can try and lead that. Of course it could instead pull out of NATO without a replacement being in place, and leave all the remaining NATO members to it, while Russia is putting half of everything into their war machine. It's a policy that makes some people feel warm, but it won't make the world safer for any of us.
Surely the only logical conclusion for any rational person to draw, from looking at the world at present, is that now would be a perfect time to withdraw from any defensive alliances and get rid of our nuclear weapons? 🤷♂️
Wonder where Your Party stands on NATO and nuclear disarmament, maybe it's some way down the policy list behind what shall we call ourselves and who gets the subs money.
You have a good day too and maybe come back when you want to discuss the subject matter
There we are, a question about Your Party who last time I checked weren't the government, the Greens or right wing nut jobs and are the topic for the thread. Maybe Binners doesn't want to engage as he might be told to go away? Not a particularly engaging or intelligent response from you there. Maybe just ignore Binner posts in future? Some people do find them amusing, it's OK if you don't, it's not like he's posting repeatedly, like for example you do, which makes it hard ignore.
Hope your afternoon is going well.
while Russia is putting half of everything into their war machine
And still, after several years of desperately trying, not defeating a small neighbour with which it shares a common border and in which at least some of the population is sympathetic towards them.
What does that say with regards to the threat they pose to a large island nation well over a thousand miles away and with double the population?
But that of course doesn't play well in the much-rehearsed right-wing script of foreign threats/bogeymen and patriotic flag-waving fervour
Btw if Russia were to putting half of everything into their war machine they would very quickly be totally ****ed.....even less to worry about.
Surely the only logical conclusion for any rational person to draw, from looking at the world at present, is that now would be a perfect time to withdraw from any defensive alliances and get rid of our nuclear weapons? 🤷♂️
I suspect our (UK) nuclear deterrent is one of the biggest things we bring to the table when it comes to defence partnerships/alliances too, as France is the only other European country with nukes? Our army/navy/airforce, while not trying to sound disparaging, isn't much of a bargaining chip.
What does that say with regards to the threat they pose to a large island nation well over a thousand miles away and with double the population?
Yeah, let's just leave Europe to it, cut ties with our allies, disarm without any reciprocation or cooperation, and sit back. It'll all be fine...
Yeah, let's just leave Europe to it, cut ties with our allies, disarm without any reciprocation or cooperation, and sit back. It'll all be fine...
Just like Brexit, which Corbyn was such a supporter of, worked out so well?
who last time I checked weren't the government
Well you didn't check very well, no one was "rambling on" about the government as you appeared to falsely believe.
Maybe just ignore Binner posts in future? Some people do find them amusing...
I wouldn't dream of not wanting binners to flaunt his sixth form humour on here. I think it's great that he has to rely on stills from a film made over 45 years ago because he can't properly engage in grown-up political debates.
What interests me though is that your apparent concern for the purity of this thread leads you to make false claims about rambling on about the government and yet ignores the multiple postings of stills from an old English comedy film.
I wonder why that could be eh?
Oh dear now you're rambling on about rambling on.
maybe come back when you want to discuss the subject matter
Maybe take your own advice? Neither my supposed thread purity fetish or Binners desire to post hilarious Monty Python pictures actually relates to the topic in hand which is Your Party (name to be decided sometime in the future by committee if they're all still able to speak to each other and aren't bogged down in legal battles over who pays for the biscuits).
Afternoon not going so well then?
As you can see I was discussing the subject matter, and then you decided to come back and have yet another personal little dig at me. But yeah, ignoring might have been a better response.
What was being discussed was the choice between Your party and the Greens. In recent years I've been a strong Green supporter but I think that the new Left party is likely to be a better option.
I suspect that you aren't attracted to either party and will continue to support the rump Labour party, no?
after several years of desperately trying, not defeating a small neighbour with which it shares a common border and in which at least some of the population is sympathetic towards them.
.......Which had 8 years of turning its borderlands into a gigantic mine field. To achieve similar protection we (Europe) would need a mine field 20 miles deep stretching from Gdansk to Athens.
What I have done though is ask binners a perfectly reasonable question......why does he have so much to say about "your party" but absolutely nothing at all to say about "his party"?
Because this is the thread to talk about Your Party . I do notice that everything has gone very quiet from Jeremy and his comrades for the last few weeks.
To achieve similar protection we (Europe) would need a mine field 20 miles deep stretching from Gdansk to Athens.
Just as well the UK is a country surrounded by ocean then.
Are we really suggesting that Putin is in the process of planning his next successful invasion?
Has Europe even started to lay this apparently necessary 20 mile deep minefield?
I wouldn't dream of not wanting binners to flaunt his sixth form humour on here. I think it's great that he has to rely on stills from a film made over 45 years ago because he can't properly engage in grown-up political debates.
When did grown up political debates start on here? I mist have missed that. I though the purpose of this thread was to get some laughs out of Jeremy's latest desire for attention. No one is seriously talking about him as a credible party
You are correct I'm not a fan of the Greens or Your Party.
If I had to make a decision between them, I'd probably go Green just for the environmental aspects of their policies, although that would be through gritted teeth as they seem, to me, to rather extreme and naive int heir policies.
Honestly I don't actually 'support' any party. At the moment Labour are closest aligned to my personal beliefs but I'm really not impressed with Starmer's leadership or the flip flopping on decisions and he seems to be making a dogs breakfast of a lot of things. Suddenly getting involved in the ban on Israeli football supporters seems inappropriate at best.
Seems banning Palestine Action is also back firing, government bid to the block the appeal has been, rightly, rejected. We need the courts to quickly rule on the matter.
Our Nato/EU allies aren't though are they? And, yes, the drone incursions over Poland were done to force NATO into having to at least consider it as a possibility.
Has Europe even started to lay this apparently necessary 20 mile deep minefield?
No, cos we've got a nuclear deterrent, like the one everyone told Ukraine they didn't need.
Honestly I don't actually 'support' any party.
But isn't that precisely the same problem for most people?
However the reality is that the outcomes of general elections make a difference** so people have to make a decision based on what is available. And tactical voting, which a great many people engage in, is not representative of support for a particular party.
** Yeah I know some people would argue that the last general election made no significant difference, but the decision whether to maintain the existing socio-economic model or not does make a difference.
No, cos we've got a nuclear deterrent, like the one everyone told Ukraine they didn't need.
Blimey, the current government claimed that slashing foreign aid and spending more on defence was necessary because of a threat from Russia and it turns that it's not a problem because our nuclear deterrent will protect us !
But isn't that precisely the same problem for most people?
Which is why people like me and others get a bit pissy when we're asked to defend every stupid thing Starmer does or doesn't do, we're not card carrying Labour supporters. We're actually pretty cheesed off with his amateur premiership. What's really depressing is it's still way better than the previous administration's level of performance.
but the decision whether to maintain the existing socio-economic model or not does make a difference.
Agreed and I made my choice that we maintain it, the arguments and proposals put forward by parties on the left don't convince me they have a credible, radical alternative that might work*. I don't even bother trying understand the policies of the parties on the right as they don't seem to have anything other than grandstanding. It's all a bit depressing really.
*Defining what working looks like is also an issue, do I want full on rebalancing of all the wealth** so everyone has a similar income and living standard, hell no. Partly that's me being selfish as I have a high income (now, taken 30 years to get there) and I believe I've had to work hard to achieve that and I expect others who want that level of income to work similarly hard. On a more theoretical level I don't believe increasing the levels of support is actually healthy, we're already seeing an ever increasing welfare bill, more and more people are becoming dependant on the state which is bad for them, society and the economy. That said I do expect a decent safety net there for everyone, including people who are normally higher earners when they need it and a good level of support for people unable to support themselves.
**I would like to see rebalancing of wealth away from uber rich, the amount of wealth held by a tiny minority is obscene, what I don't want to see is further raids on people earning top end PAYE incomes, to be be blunt we've been squeezed repeatedly by every party because it's a lot easier than going after the real wealth hoarders.
Since the Torys went completely mad many of us who won't go rabid Tory / Reform are rather stuck with limp Labour.
Lets bring this debate back to a more adult direction: if Jeremy Clarkson does become an MP, as widely reported, will he bring many changes to Your Party?
Watching Clarkson and Farage fighting each other would be worth paying to watch, maybe politics isn't quite as depressing as i thought. Is Clarkson going Reform or Independant, please let it be Reform.
Watching Clarkson and Farage fighting each other would be worth paying to watch, maybe politics isn't quite as depressing as i thought. Is Clarkson going Reform or Independant, please let it be Reform.
My money was on the Greens - probably why I don't gamble.
slashing foreign aid and spending more on defence was necessary because of a threat from Russia and it turns that it's not a problem because our nuclear deterrent will protect us !
Yes. Which is why we are spending more, to replace the boats that carry it. As well as to counter the cyber/hybrid warfare threat Russia poses. So glad you agree.
No, cos we've got a nuclear deterrent, like the one everyone told Ukraine they didn't need.
Blimey, the current government claimed that slashing foreign aid and spending more on defence was necessary because of a threat from Russia and it turns that it's not a problem because our nuclear deterrent will protect us !
Well of course we need a standing army, or should I say one thats more capable than it is currently, having aircraft carriers that we can't afford to put aircraft on, is maybe an obvious example. Military has been defunded in real terms just like a lot of other things so we need to not only retain trident etc, but spend more on defence in general.
I guess they'll have to join the queue along with NHS, education, social care etc.
Which is why people like me and others get a bit pissy when we're asked to defend every stupid thing Starmer does or doesn't do, we're not card carrying Labour supporters.
It's not a case of being asked to defend every stupid thing that Starmer does or doesn't do though is it? It is the fact that even at least occasional criticism and challenging is necessary if you actually want to have a reasonable political discussion. You can't have a worthwhile discussion in an echo chamber obviously.
It seems to me that for some people criticism can only go one and for them Starmer is always above criticism, sure they are ever more few in numbers on here but at least one of them is indeed apparently a card carrying Labour supporter.
I don't have any unwavering loyalty to any politician, it would be daft to. So I am perfectly prepared to, if necessary, slag off Corbyn on this or any other thread.
Partly that's me being selfish as I have a high income (now, taken 30 years to get there) and I believe I've had to work hard to achieve that and I expect others who want that level of income to work similarly hard.
You haven't, you were just lucky enough to get to earn a high income. You are working no harder than many people doing jobs at minimum wage and without a big bit of luck they will not get to a high income even if they were to work even harder than you think you did.
Typical tory/american dream nonsense to think that you are richer because it is all down to what you have done as some sort of excuse to not support others by simply dismissing them as not working hard enough.
Partly that's me being selfish as I have a high income (now, taken 30 years to get there) and I believe I've had to work hard to achieve that and I expect others who want that level of income to work similarly hard.
You haven't, you were just lucky enough to get to earn a high income. You are working no harder than many people doing jobs at minimum wage and without a big bit of luck they will not get to a high income even if they were to work even harder than you think you did.
Typical tory/american dream nonsense to think that you are richer because it is all down to what you have done as some sort of excuse to not support others by simply dismissing them as not working hard enough.
He makes a good point though... When people talk about 'rich people' it's helpful to define rich...
In this context it's not about someone who has climbed the cooperate ladder and can afford a house with a double garage.
It's a valid point that they have probably worked no harder than someone who works in a warehouse.
And relatively speaking they are not much richer when compared the people who are actually rich... Think non doms, offshore bank accounts, multiple properties around the world, maybe even a property portfolio and a yacht or two.
The kind of people who can make a huge income just doing nothing other than getting 4% on savings even after tax.
That's where the money is getting hovered up as this class of ultra rich has nothing to do with their piles of cash other than buy more assets to get an even bigger pile of cash to buy even more assets, driving the price up for everyone else in the process.
Mr audi driver who has a 5 bed house in a nice cul-de-sac is not rich, or your enemy, he still needs to work for a living to maintain his lifestyle, put the kids through uni and have a decent retirement.
Know your enemy, as RATM said.
The vast majority of UK citizens (who aren't political wonks and take varying degrees of interest) just roll their eyes when Corbyn is mentioned.
The one thing he really couldn't afford to do with this new party is to conduct it with the kind of incompetence and infighting that causes people to roll their eyes. He even messed that up. If he succeeds in anything it will only be to splinter the progressive, outward-looking vote further.
Leaving NATO (even if the US leaves) will be a hard pass from me
He makes a good point though... When people talk about 'rich people' it's helpful to define rich...
In this context it's not about someone who has climbed the cooperate ladder and can afford a house with a double garage.
It's a valid point that they have probably worked no harder than someone who works in a warehouse.
And relatively speaking they are not much richer when compared the people who are actually rich... Think non doms, offshore bank accounts, multiple properties around the world, maybe even a property portfolio and a yacht or two.
The kind of people who can make a huge income just doing nothing other than getting 4% on savings even after tax.
That's where the money is getting hovered up as this class of ultra rich has nothing to do with their piles of cash other than buy more assets to get an even bigger pile of cash to buy even more assets, driving the price up for everyone else in the process.
Mr audi driver who has a 5 bed house in a nice cul-de-sac is not rich, or your enemy, he still needs to work for a living to maintain his lifestyle, put the kids through uni and have a decent retirement.
Know your enemy, as RATM said.
Completely agree. Its the very rich who are the problem, not those who earn £50-£150k a year.
Completely agree. Its the very rich who are the problem, not those who earn £50-£150k a year.
I've been banging on about this for ages on the other thread. Sadly there are still plenty people - and some notable ones on here - who think anyone earning 50k+ is rolling in cash and can afford to pay ever increasing amounts of tax. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more tax if I had confidence that those richer than me also had to take the hit, and if it was being used to improve public services and reduce poverty. But it's not doing either of those things, and while we all instinctively know the answer, the major question that needs to be answered by politicians is 'where is the money going?'.
I suspect our (UK) nuclear deterrent is one of the biggest things we bring to the table when it comes to defence partnerships/alliances too, as France is the only other European country with nukes? Our army/navy/airforce, while not trying to sound disparaging, isn't much of a bargaining chip.
The number of countries in the world who have expeditionary armies is apparently remarkably small. Despite their issues the British armed forces are actually one of the few with actual expeditionary capacity. The logistical knowledge and capability that requires is probably considered pretty useful by our allies. Our nuclear deterrent is presumably also considered a useful contribution.
And while there are many reports of problems within our armed forces, it's not like that's unique among NATO countries. Oddly, how east a NATO country is seems to have quite a strong effect on how much they're willing to spend on their defence, but most of Europe's biggest economies are spending proportionally less than the UK is on defence.
You haven't, you were just lucky enough to get to earn a high income. You are working no harder than many people doing jobs at minimum wage and without a big bit of luck they will not get to a high income even if they were to work even harder than you think you did.
How predictable and frankly bloody ignorant and rude. You're just plain wrong, there's a world of difference between working hard in a minimum wage position and having the skills and mindset to get to the higher paid roles. It's generally not about academics, it's attitude, application, flexibility and willingness to take responsibility, luck plays a very small part in moving up through the ranks.And I've done jobs at both ends of the scale from physical dirty labour scrubbing dye tanks out by hand through to senior management roles. I'm guessing you don't have real experience of working in a higher paid role.
If employers could go out and employ people who are currently in minimum wage jobs to do the more highly paid jobs they'd be recruiting like mad and salaries would come down.
@dazh yes you have, you made some very rounded and coherent arguments in the other thread, if no one else noticed them I definitely did.
Completely agree. Its the very rich who are the problem, not those who earn £50-£150k a year.
I've been banging on about this for ages on the other thread. Sadly there are still plenty people - and some notable ones on here - who think anyone earning 50k+ is rolling in cash and can afford to pay ever increasing amounts of tax. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more tax if I had confidence that those richer than me also had to take the hit, and if it was being used to improve public services and reduce poverty. But it's not doing either of those things, and while we all instinctively know the answer, the major question that needs to be answered by politicians is 'where is the money going?'.
Nail striking head. Absolutley. Before any more taxes are imposed on us there should be a huge exercise in shutting down all the loopholes that are within the current tax legislation. For example why do dividends attract a lower tax rate than income? They are both income? Why is it possible to completely avoid paying any UK income tax if your are rich enough?
I suspect our (UK) nuclear deterrent is one of the biggest things we bring to the table when it comes to defence partnerships/alliances too, as France is the only other European country with nukes? Our army/navy/airforce, while not trying to sound disparaging, isn't much of a bargaining chip.
The number of countries in the world who have expeditionary armies is apparently remarkably small. Despite their issues the British armed forces are actually one of the few with actual expeditionary capacity. The logistical knowledge and capability that requires is probably considered pretty useful by our allies. Our nuclear deterrent is presumably also considered a useful contribution.
And while there are many reports of problems within our armed forces, it's not like that's unique among NATO countries. Oddly, how east a NATO country is seems to have quite a strong effect on how much they're willing to spend on their defence, but most of Europe's biggest economies are spending proportionally less than the UK is on defence.
Yeah it's very complex and political, and I don't profess to have the answers as I don't know enough of the details... I guess what I'm trying to say is we should be spending more on defence, not less, and mostly for our own sakes - we especially shouldn't be cutting the trident programme to save what is essentially pocket change in terms of overall government spending.
Back on topic though, If a dip-sht like corbyn had a sniff of power he'd liquidate the lot and go: "ta-daa - look at this shiney new hospital"
I'm guessing you don't have real experience of working in a higher paid role.
I do, and am under no illusion that luck played a very significant role in my present circumstances.
I do, and am under no illusion that luck played a very significant role in my present circumstances.
I do, and am under no illusion that luck played a very significant role in my present circumstances.
Good for you but I'm guessing theres more to your current circumstances than right place, right time . Could any other random person in the same position could do your job equally as well. If so you're probably being over paid.
I suppose then you are talking about general intelligence and aptitude, for example I could turn my hand to pretty much anything with a bit of targeted training and support... some people are lost causes though, but they can still put in a 40hr week and deserve to earn enough to have a house and buy food etc. without fear of being destitute.
I see it as a social contract, we're all in it together, one way or another, and we should be making allowances for, and elevating the less able, rather than pulling the ladders up.
God knows there's copious amounts of money to accomodate that, but it's all locked up with the top 1% of the super rich.
Good for you but I'm guessing theres more to your current circumstances than right place, right time . Could any other random person in the same position could do your job equally as well. If so you're probably being over paid.
The vast majority of UK citizens (who aren't political wonks and take varying degrees of interest) just roll their eyes when Corbyn is mentioned.
Well if you want to go down that road Corbyn is seen by voters more positively than Keir Starmer is. According to a recent YouGov poll this month :
Jeremy Corbyn: 25% favourable, 63% unfavourable, giving him a net favourability score of -38.
Keir Starmer: 21% favourable, 72% unfavourable, for a net favourability score of -51.
A quarter of voters having a favourable opinion of Corbyn is surprisingly high, voters these days tend to have really quite negative opinions of politicians in general.
Which politicians do you believe are currently significantly more popular with voters than Corbyn?
Which politicians do you believe are currently significantly more popular with voters than Corbyn?
Nigel Farage. Which is the problem with splitting the non-Reform vote.
On a party level, I would expect Labour to still be ahead of whatever Corbyn's group becomes known as. There is no way on this earth that the rump of people Corbyn would need to convince (boring, 25-50s, run of the mill, professionals) will vote for someone with no credibility. He was made to look a tit when he was Labour leader. His dithering over Brexit, second referendum etc shredded whatever mainstream credibility he might have had. The RW press did the rest. He lost a general election to Boris Partygate Johnson by a good margin.
I'm sure he still has appeal in some niches. Wet behind the ears student types and the odd ideologue here and there. As a politician of clear principles, on a personal level at least, he appeals to me. But mention his name in conversation with most normal folk out there and you're 90% certain to get one of two reactions - a snort of derision or the question "who?"
His mainstream appeal is so low that if he has any success (however that might be defined) it will only be at a level which will harm the anti-Reform vote. Maybe it is time that the people got what they seem to want in Farage and Reform. Maybe they need a Reform government to see with their own eyes how nothing will change for them. But I don't want anything to hasten it. And I worry that the ground of bigotry and prejudice is so fertile that Farage could do the double - win in 2029, make people poorer, and still convince them to blame another enemy and win again.
What we really need is a Labour leader who will stand up and say how things really are and provide a positive way forward - especially when it comes to our only option politically and economically - Europe.
But Starmer won an election and lost his bottle.
Yeah, Starmer, WTF....
I voted for him, and technically I got what I wanted, he's not as bad as the tories, so I'm 'happy' in that respect.
But it's not a great plus, being slightly less shit than utterly diabolical.
The bar is not high.
But we are where we are...
Which politicians do you believe are currently significantly more popular with voters than Corbyn?
Nigel Farage.
Well Nigel Farage is not significantly more popular with voters than Corbyn.
In fact in this YouGov poll Nigel Farage net favourability rating is identical to Jeremy Corbyn's.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52973-political-favourability-ratings-september-2025
Six in ten Britons (59%) have an unfavourable opinion of the former Labour leader, down three points since June, giving Corbyn a net favourability rating of -31, identical to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage’s score.
Don't confuse how popular politicians are with voters and how well their respective parties do.
On a personal level Farage is as unpopular as Corbyn and Starmer is more unpopular than either of them.
If you want to criticise Corbyn I would suggest that going down the popularity road is probably not the best tactic 💡
That's the crazy thing... Starmers government seem to be be fighting shadows rather than actually governing.
Don't confuse how popular politicians are with voters and how well their respective parties do.
Even amongst people I see online who id expect to view him favourably, I see a fair amount of "he is the only one saying the right things" (in their view). So there's plenty of room (in that anecdotal sample) for people holding their noses and voting for someone they don't think much of on a personal level
Well, we will see in 2029, won't we...
🤞
Sadly there are still plenty people - and some notable ones on here - who think anyone earning 50k+ is rolling in cash and can afford to pay ever increasing amounts of tax.
They are amongst the richest 15 % in our society. You are so detached from reality its no longer funny
More like top 25% and salary doesn't equate to rich.
A two income household earning 35k each would have significantly more income and pay less tax than one individual on 50k. Someone earning 72k gross is just in the top 10% but has way more in common with people on an average salary than the top 1%.
of course it does. and its not 25% unless I read the stats wrong. Jeepers you folk are so detached from reality
https://www.statista.com/statistics/416102/average-annual-gross-pay-percentiles-united-kingdom/
Care to share your sources? Anyway can't be bothered to argue with you, we will just go around in circles and you've shown from your posts over the years that your own experiences are somewhat limited resulting in some rather odd ideas of what's normal.
you can't figure out why someone could be in the top 25% of earning and still not be rich?
you can't figure out why someone could be in the top 25% of earning and still not be rich?
Summed up best by Edmund Blackadder, butler to the Prince Regent:
The whole world cries out, “Peace, Freedom, and a few less fat bastards eating all the pie.”
They are amongst the richest 15 % in our society.
Woohoo! Honestly this means f-all. The main thing you can take from that stat (if it's even correct) is that the vast majority of people are hugely underpaid for what they do. Never mind going after those who really are rich, lets just squeeze the people who are one or two rungs from being dirt poor. Sometimes TJ I think people who hold views as you do won't be happy until everyone is limping from bil to bill, drinking white cider and eating beans on toast every night. As long as we're all equally poor eh?