The government might think they are fooling the British people. They forget though, the world is watching. A world that we rely on, increasingly.
They’ve already tried Ofcom by trying to install Paul Dacre.They have 80% of the media on their side, they have infiltrated the BBC and with Voter ID have also compromised the voting system in their favour.
At this time Labour look likely to form the next election but its by no means a given. In the meantime we're fast sliding towards a non-EU version of Orban's Hungary.
They are not finished the judiciary next, then go after Ofcom...
I am sure that we can all agree on the fact that the Conservatives have had 13 years of claiming to be dealing with this situation without making any improvements for anyone.
They make a lot of noise about being the party to deal with immigration and asylum seekers but the square root of all their efforts is f*** all.
It is an issue that serves they well in terms of getting votes. One has to wonder if they really have the motivation to put in place workable solutions or would rather pander to the masses with harsh systems that work for no-one.
The similarities between this speech and plan and Pritti Patel's from years ago are so similar, surely alarm bells are ringing.
After 13 years they are either incapable of making the system work or they don't want. Why anyone is willing to give them another try is beyond me.
But I really don't think they care if the net result is self harm to the UK, their only concern is popularity and holding onto power. If joining Russia and Belarus in the cold outside the ECHR resulted in a them winning the red wall voters over they wouldn't give a toss.The government might think they are fooling the British people. They forget though, the world is watching. A world that we rely on, increasingly.
True, and making millions doing it. Power, greed and money are their motivations.But I really don't think they care if the net result is self harm to the UK, their only concern is popularity and holding onto power.
Is it permissible on this board to abuse people on the basis of their skin colour or their gender?Every sane person (who isn't a blighted by their tiny white penis) ...
Of course not, this isn't BurnleyIs it permissible on this board to abuse people on the basis of their skin colour or their gender?
Politics is banned on Burnley's forum. Too much intolerance, and in more than one direction.Of course not, this isn't Burnley
Imagine being intolerant of racism. Disgusting.Politics is banned on Burnley's forum. Too much intolerance, and in more than one direction.
Well, except the appointment of Sue Gray as his "Chief of Staff" (whatever that may be). Not only was that giving the Tories ammunition, but the gun to fire the ammunition as well, then shooting himself in the foot with it.At the moment Labour have all the power by virtue of staying quiet and not giving failing Tories any ammunition. The hustings and debates after manifesto is released don’t give Conservative strategists time to play the long PR game of slagging off Labour ideas for years before an election.
This is sensible to me.
I found Neil on the whole impartial and a good host.You do wonder how Andrew Neil got away with being a political anchor on the Beeb for all those years whilst simultaneously being Chair of the Spectator magazine. Food for thought....
As I said earlier in the thread, it’s very poor optics. If it were the other away around it’d be “Tories manipulated Gray, typical sleaze” etc. But you’ll notice I don’t do political sniping or point scoring. I hate this government but wouldn’t be averse to voting Tory one day in the future if they were the right option for the country, on a constituency level or to keep others out.Well, except the appointment of Sue Gray as his "Chief of Staff" (whatever that may be). Not only was that giving the Tories ammunition, but the gun to fire the ammunition as well, then shooting himself in the foot with it.
That shows a total lack of political judgement on Starmer's part. It was daft. Wait until the GE is done and dusted and THEN appoint her. His refusal to say when he first contacted Gray to offer her the job also stinks. If you having neither to hide Sir Starmer, why are you going to such lengths to hide it?
Manifestos mean SFA anyway. Lots of promises which are never kept. I recall the last GE Labour manifesto gave a commitment to "respect the result of the Brexit referendum". They didn't. They argued and bickered and then came up with no policy whatsoever.Only days before?
Im sure there will be many others with the same view as you on both sides of politics- voting for their party regardless of what is in the manifesto
Of course. Me too. But he really didn't need all the bad press from "Graygate", which was of his own making, which has certainly diverted media attention away from more important and pressing issues.As I said earlier in the thread, it’s very poor optics. If it were the other away around it’d be “Tories manipulated Gray, typical sleaze” etc. But you’ll notice I don’t do political sniping or point scoring. I hate this government but wouldn’t be averse to voting Tory one day in the future if they were the right option for the country, on a constituency level or to keep others out.
Starmer could frankly be in the throes of a passionate sexual affair with Sue Gray right now for all I care and I’ll still vote Labour to get the Tories out.