Ms Rayner

[vetran]

Bunter wouldn't recognise truth if it was stuffed up his arse by an elephant.

And Bozo is not alone sadly.

[jamesbrown]

I don't remember where I read it, but it wasn't made up.

That is, however, not the whole point of the discussion. Do we want a potential deputy PM who thinks they don't have to tell the truth. That is the question...

It's only the question because you can't substantiate your other claim. I said from the beginning she probably lied and the question of honesty is the only material one left, but she's hardly at the bottom of the barrel of lying MPs, or even gov't MPs, were she to get there

[BlueSharp]

If this is the best the Tory rags can pin on her they must be desperate.

[SueEllen]

If this is the best the Tory rags can pin on her they must be desperate.

Well they couldn't find tulip on Starmer so they had to go for the next nearest thing with a personality.

The joke is Starmer can't sack his deputy. Only Labour members can.

[malvolio]

Well they couldn't find tulip on Starmer so they had to go for the next nearest thing with a personality.

The joke is Starmer can't sack his deputy. Only Labour members can.

There's lots on Starmer from never-ending U-turns, constant inaccurate claims like "crashed the economy" in the face of evidence to the contrary (even the IMF is offering some now) no clarity on his overall objectives and even his very own lockdown party. Nobody seems to be very interested in any of them, so that's all right then.

He will be PM, that is not in doubt. It's the six months after that point that will prove interesting...

[jamesbrown]

The joke is Starmer can't sack his deputy. Only Labour members can.

If she does resign, it'll be a massive headache for Starmer because the membership is still some way to the left of the leadership, so you can imagine who the next deputy might be...

[WTFH]

his very own lockdown party. Nobody seems to be very interested in any of them, so that's all right then.
...

You mean apart from the Tory Faithful going on about it for 6 months and insisting on 3 police investigations, all of which said he did nothing wrong?

Speaking of crashing the economy, do you mean Liz (Killer Queen) Truss?

[SueEllen]

There's lots on Starmer from never-ending U-turns, constant inaccurate claims like "crashed the economy" in the face of evidence to the contrary (even the IMF is offering some now) no clarity on his overall objectives and even his very own lockdown party. Nobody seems to be very interested in any of them, so that's all right then.

He will be PM, that is not in doubt. It's the six months after that point that will prove interesting...

U-turning because the last 3 Tory PMs and their governments were/are blatantly incompetent and have/are destroying the country is expected.

Not having a personality isn't. Though unlike Rishi when Starmer just speaks his poll ratings don't nose dive.

Maybe that's the difference being fined by the police for partying during lockdown, and being so incredibly boring that even when you are investigated a couple of times because some Tory complainer was extremely upset nothing could be pinned on you.

[malvolio]

You mean apart from the Tory Faithful going on about it for 6 months and insisting on 3 police investigations, all of which said he did nothing wrong?

Speaking of crashing the economy, do you mean Liz (Killer Queen) Truss?

If you look at the actual numbers, the British economy is actually in fairly good shape compared to, let's say, Germany and France. Truss's "crashing" has been more than corrected.

Of course, the carryover from that "crash" are still with us in terms of the cost of living issues that we are all facing, and the tax burden remains stupidly high. But nothing any new government can do will have any kind of short term impact on that. That is down to Hunt proving the Peter Principle works, but Reeves hasn't come up[ with any better ideas so far (and if she does, Hunt nicks them, so not surprising really!). The only hard proposals at that level that we have seen are all about workers rights, any one of which will do way more harm than good.

[WTFH]

The only hard proposals at that level that we have seen are all about workers rights, any one of which will do way more harm than good.

Yes, because the only people who should have rights are the wealthy. The right to call yourself a non-dom for tax purposes, the right to make sure anyone who actually works for a living needs multiple jobs to be able to afford to rent or buy a house. Lower classes should not have any rights at all, because they are all lazy, unlike tax-dodging millionaires who dream of a Victorian age when the poor had no access to health, no access to clean water, and no opportunity to be rewarded for their hard work.