Ms Rayner

[WTFH]

Yet again, missing the whole point. It's not about her background, or anyone else's.

Were Rayner commenting on anyone else facing the same as yet unproven accusations, she would again be screaming that they resign.

And yet show me a Tory who has resigned over possibly £1500.

You are missing the point - you started out saying that HMRC and the police were “very interested” in her, at a time when they had already decided there was nothing to investigate. 4 days of pressure from James Idiotly and co, and the police agreed to investigate again.
Remember when they did that with Starmer and the parties, of which he was cleared of all charges after each inquiry? And yet you still go on about that as if there needs to be more inquiries until he is found guilty.

How many Tories resigned as a result of the suitcases of booze that went into number 10?

It’s not about their background or anything else, it’s about one rule for the Tories - anything they can get away with - and one rule for the rest of us.
You’re missing the point, because you’re not interested in the point, only in making sure this country lurches further to the right and becomes everything that we fought against in WWII.

[malvolio]

And yet show me a Tory who has resigned over possibly £1500.

You are missing the point - you started out saying that HMRC and the police were “very interested” in her, at a time when they had already decided there was nothing to investigate. 4 days of pressure from James Idiotly and co, and the police agreed to investigate again.
Remember when they did that with Starmer and the parties, of which he was cleared of all charges after each inquiry? And yet you still go on about that as if there needs to be more inquiries until he is found guilty.

How many Tories resigned as a result of the suitcases of booze that went into number 10?

It’s not about their background or anything else, it’s about one rule for the Tories - anything they can get away with - and one rule for the rest of us.
You’re missing the point, because you’re not interested in the point, only in making sure this country lurches further to the right and becomes everything that we fought against in WWII.

You need to widen your reading. X and TikTok are a bit limiting.

[eek]

You need to widen your reading. X and TikTok are a bit limiting.

I don't read TikTok or twitter / X but will happily call you out for being a clueless muppet.

As 1 example the issue isn't just a lack of contracts it's a lack of jobs as highlighted by the increased unemployment rate that was announced today.

[SueEllen]

I don't read TikTok or twitter / X but will happily call you out for being a clueless muppet.

As 1 example the issue isn't just a lack of contracts it's a lack of jobs as highlighted by the increased unemployment rate that was announced today.

It wasn't just an increase in unemployment rate it was also an increase in the people considered working age e.g. adults under 65 who aren't economically active so working.

The Telegraph has been publishing "news" articles claiming those under 40 are all off with mental illness e.g. swinging the lead but the issues are deeper than that.

[WTFH]

You need to widen your reading. X and TikTok are a bit limiting.

I was reading a letter to the Times from a former Tory MP.

I won't offer you any advice, because you're not interested in facts and learning.

[malvolio]

I was reading a letter to the Times from a former Tory MP.

I won't offer you any advice, because you're not interested in facts and learning.

And that letter was saying something that was entirely wrong and irrelevant to the debate in question. Regardless of who wrote it.

Still, if you can't understand the thrust of the problem with Rayner, or insist that only your perspective is the right one, then there's no point discussing it further. If you look back at what I've been saying, I haven't condemned or accused anyone, nor have I defended anyone, least of all the Tories, all I've done is try to lay out why the whole affair is actually quite serious - and is only the latest example of a whole line of political hypocrisy going back to the 90s. Sorry if that's escaped your notice.

Put it this way: nobody in the House of Commons in recent years has shown any reason why they are fit to govern the UK, regardless of party.

[woody1]

Put it this way: nobody in the House of Commons in recent years has shown any reason why they are fit to govern the UK, regardless of party.

No but your lot seem to be particularly excelling themselves. It brings back fond memories of the 90s.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="tory+mp"+suspended&sca_esv=e94c6552adb81 b09&biw=1360&bih=650&tbm=nws

[SueEllen]

No but your lot seem to be particularly excelling themselves. It brings back fond memories of the 90s.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="tory+mp"+suspended&sca_esv=e94c6552adb81 b09&biw=1360&bih=650&tbm=nws

Thanks for doing the search for me.

[malvolio]

No but your lot seem to be particularly excelling themselves. It brings back fond memories of the 90s.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="tory+mp"+suspended&sca_esv=e94c6552adb81 b09&biw=1360&bih=650&tbm=nws

"My Lot"? How many times do I have to say that I have no faith in "my lot" in its current iteration. They are a waste of time.

Equally, we are about to replace them with something infinitely worse - on past history at least - with no idea what they represent other than that they aren't Tories and ignoring the fact they have just as many factions in the party as the Tories.

It's a tulip way to govern a country, but that's what we're stuck with. The election will be interesting - what's the odds on the ex-Tory vote going to Reform and/or the Lib Dumbs leaving Labour with a small overall majority? That would actually be the best result.

[SueEllen]

Wonder how long this list is going to be before a GE is finally called?

There are now more independents suspended by their parties than Lib Dems in the House of Commons

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-independents