Keir Starmer

[The Great Cornholio 902]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

…but there are none. This might well have been a relevant concern 6-9 months ago, but we’re past this ever being a risk now.

Correct, for now...

2 minutes ago, TQR said:

Enter Blandman:

 

Great idea. Maybe you should ask Jimmy Savile's victims what they think about having this bloated puffin as PM. Someone who overlooks peedophilia is not a rational choice for leader. Labour logic is basically just Tories = bad so vote for us or you are bad like Tories. 

[TQR 14,451]

13 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Correct, for now...

Great idea. Maybe you should ask Jimmy Savile's victims what they think about having this bloated puffin as PM. Someone who overlooks peedophilia is not a rational choice for leader. Labour logic is basically just Tories = bad so vote for us or you are bad like Tories. 

You mean the Savile victims who have utterly condemned Johnson for weaponising their suffering with these claims against Starmer that they (and indeed most Tories; all of the slightly less fascist ones, anyway) recognise are completely false?

[The Great Cornholio 902]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

You mean the Savile victims who have utterly condemned Johnson for weaponising their suffering with these claims against Starmer that they (and indeed most Tories; all of the slightly less fascist ones, anyway) recognise are completely false?

Yes. Both Starmer and Johnson are bad. I still dont understand how that isnt a dealbreaker for you though...

[Bibliogryphon 9,639]

1 hour ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Yes. Both Starmer and Johnson are bad. I still dont understand how that isnt a dealbreaker for you though...

The "Both parties are as bad as each other" is something that the Conservative Party are happy to have peddled around. It encourages apathy in the electorate and a low turn out always tend to favour the Conservatives as they are much better at getting their core vote out.

 

I do not trust Starmer to deliver a radical set of Labour policies but I recognise that he is not corrupt as hell or happy to see a majority of the population either starved, overworked or reduced to a serf-class

[The Great Cornholio 902]

11 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

The "Both parties are as bad as each other" is something that the Conservative Party are happy to have peddled around. It encourages apathy in the electorate and a low turn out always tend to favour the Conservatives as they are much better at getting their core vote out.

 

I do not trust Starmer to deliver a radical set of Labour policies but I recognise that he is not corrupt as hell or happy to see a majority of the population either starved, overworked or reduced to a serf-class

He was corrupt enough to not investigate Savile properly. I mean do I really have to justify how child rape is wrong? Or is that something you can overlook because Boris is a knob and thats all that matters.

 

In fact, the two party system will be the downfall of Britain - just like how the US has fallen. Trump and Biden is their two choices and those are two shit choices, we have other choices other than Labour and Tory. Everyone should vote for the party that best suits them.

[TQR 14,451]

27 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

He was corrupt enough to not investigate Savile properly.

That shows how little you understand. Now shushie and do some reading, but not the far right shit your friends and family like on Facebook.

[The Great Cornholio 902]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

That shows how little you understand.

Lmao sure. Call me old fashioned but helping cover up a peedo ring is a little bit of a no-no. Although its clearly not a deal breaker for some...

[DevonDeathTrip 2,365]

5 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Lmao sure. Call me old fashioned but helping cover up a peedo ring is a little bit of a no-no. Although its clearly not a deal breaker for some...

 

Keir Starter has said Mr Johnson is 'debasing himself by going so low' by repeating 'a ridiculous slur peddled by right wing trolls'.

 

Think he's got the measure of you Kenny .  

[The Great Cornholio 902]

1 minute ago, DevonDeathTrip said:

 

Keir Starter has said Mr Johnson is 'debasing himself by going so low' by repeating 'a ridiculous slur peddled by right wing trolls'.

 

Think he's got the measure of you Kenny .  

Muh right wing trolls, amirite?

[The Great Cornholio 902]

22 minutes ago, TQR said:

That shows how little you understand. Now shushie and do some reading, but not the far right shit your friends and family like on Facebook.

Fucking shushie xD

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,223]

2 hours ago, Bibliogryphon said:

The "Both parties are as bad as each other" is something that the Conservative Party are happy to have peddled around. It encourages apathy in the electorate and a low turn out always tend to favour the Conservatives as they are much better at getting their core vote out.

 

I do not trust Starmer to deliver a radical set of Labour policies but I recognise that he is not corrupt as hell or happy to see a majority of the population either starved, overworked or reduced to a serf-class

Oh, they have peddled it but, as shit as they are, they are correct.

Labour are fucking woeful, the Lib Dems are a joke and everybody else is just fringe shite.

THAT is why there is voter apathy, you cannot make the electorate vote for you if you have fuck all to offer.

I cannot, in my lifetime, remember the major political parties of this country being so utterly bad that none offer any kind of  hope, ambition, honesty and integrity.

 

 

 

[Toast 16,231]

2 hours ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Everyone should vote for the party that best suits them.

 

No.  That is the reason we're stuck with this rotten mob.

The priority should be to vote for whoever else is most likely to win the seat.

For instance, my constituency has been held by the Lib Dems in the past, they had quite a run at one time.  There is next to no support for Labour.  So last time I voted Lib Dem, as it was the best chance of dislodging the Tories.  Sadly it wasn't enough, but if a few more people do that instead of wasting their votes on Labour or the Greens, it might work next time.

[Banana 859]

 

[TQR 14,451]

49 minutes ago, Banana said:

 

Fuck to one side the point you were trying to make, all I see is Theresa May laughing.

 

Which, I’ll wager, she is right now.

[The Great Cornholio 902]

19 hours ago, Toast said:

 

No.  That is the reason we're stuck with this rotten mob.

The priority should be to vote for whoever else is most likely to win the seat.

For instance, my constituency has been held by the Lib Dems in the past, they had quite a run at one time.  There is next to no support for Labour.  So last time I voted Lib Dem, as it was the best chance of dislodging the Tories.  Sadly it wasn't enough, but if a few more people do that instead of wasting their votes on Labour or the Greens, it might work next time.

Well in that case you will be forever voting for lesser evil...

[Toast 16,231]

2 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Well in that case you will be forever voting for lesser evil...

 

Obviously. 

[Bibliogryphon 9,639]

48 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Well in that case you will be forever voting for lesser evil...

 

Whenever you vote at an election you are making a political compromise.

 

No single party is ever going to align with you on every issue so individuals make a judgement an prioritize for example health, the economy, education, the environment, Law and order or any other thing might be most important. They also take into account the rules of the game. First past the post limits the impacts of the votes for smaller parties.

 

Unfortunately what seems to have happened in recent years is that voters are becoming more dogmatic and less capable (or willing) to weigh those decisions on their own and it comes down to tribal name calling. Referendums do not help this because they are stark contrasts between two diametrically opposing views.

 

At the moment the biggest priority for a lot of people is to get rid of a corrupt, self-serving Government who are willing to set fire to the country to cling on to power

[The Great Cornholio 902]

42 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

Whenever you vote at an election you are making a political compromise.

 

No single party is ever going to align with you on every issue so individuals make a judgement an prioritize for example health, the economy, education, the environment, Law and order or any other thing might be most important. They also take into account the rules of the game. First past the post limits the impacts of the votes for smaller parties.

 

Unfortunately what seems to have happened in recent years is that voters are becoming more dogmatic and less capable (or willing) to weigh those decisions on their own and it comes down to tribal name calling. Referendums do not help this because they are stark contrasts between two diametrically opposing views.

 

At the moment the biggest priority for a lot of people is to get rid of a corrupt, self-serving Government who are willing to set fire to the country to cling on to power

Man I seriously give up...

 

When you vote against the party you dislike by voting for the main opposition then that party is corrupted too. Look at the two party system across the pond. They are stuck with two extremes, which is exactly what Labour and the Tories are turning into. 

 

I've honestly elaborated far enough, if you trust a large political party that just wants votes to do your bidding then you're a massive idiot - rather than just voting for sensible policies that represent both the left and right (be it reducing damage to the environment and the NHS to economically viable immigration control). 

[TQR 14,451]

26 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

When you vote against the party you dislike by voting for the main opposition then that party is corrupted too.

…nope, I’ve got nothing, this is just undiluted stupidity in all its glory  Do go on…

 

 

29 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Look at the two party system across the pond.

Yeah…when was the last time neither the Tories or Labour were in power here?

 

 

30 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

They are stuck with two extremes, which is exactly what Labour and the Tories are turning into. 

And Labour is one extreme, how exactly? Starmer has dragged Labour much closer to the centre.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

If you trust a large political party that just wants votes to do your bidding then you're a massive idiot

Very rich indeed, but surprisingly not wrong. I don’t think anyone here, however, has given a glowing review of the opposition so you’re arguing with an imaginary person again.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

rather than just voting for sensible policies that represent both the left and right

Any examples? Actually, don’t…

 

 

35 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

I've honestly elaborated far enough

You have, and…

 

36 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Man I seriously give up

That’s a grand idea.

[The Great Cornholio 902]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

…nope, I’ve got nothing, this is just undiluted stupidity in all its glory  Do go on…

 

3 minutes ago, TQR said:

Yeah…when was the last time neither the Tories or Labour were in power here?

Ever heard of the Liberal Party? Besides, its all to do with how many seats a party has - while your preferred political party may not appoint a PM, they may still get seats in the HoC (that is if everyone actually voted for their preferred party rather than just the opposition of the party you want to take out of power).

11 minutes ago, TQR said:

And Labour is one extreme, how exactly? Starmer has dragged Labour much closer to the centre.

How exactly? Has he taken on more right wing views? Has he shown any consideration for those who hold a strong distain for lockdowns? He wants more restrictions. Govt control over personal accountability is pretty far left IMO. Starmer is just as centrist as Trump is Christian, his main argument is just 'Fat blonde man bad, vote for me to remove him'' which is basically the same strategy Hillary Clinton took against Trump.

16 minutes ago, TQR said:

Very rich indeed, but surprisingly not wrong. I don’t think anyone here, however, has given a glowing review of the opposition so you’re arguing with an imaginary person again.

You literally endorsed him prior to this you fucking retard... Look back on previous convo.

18 minutes ago, TQR said:

Any examples? Actually, don’t…

I gave examples above, again maybe read the entirety of past convo before you look stupid.

19 minutes ago, TQR said:

That’s a grand idea.

Lmao 'grand' xDDDD - See you later, 19th Century femboy xDDD

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,361]

2 hours ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

Whenever you vote at an election you are making a political compromise.

 

No single party is ever going to align with you on every issue so individuals make a judgement an prioritize for example health, the economy, education, the environment, Law and order or any other thing might be most important. They also take into account the rules of the game. First past the post limits the impacts of the votes for smaller parties.

 

Unfortunately what seems to have happened in recent years is that voters are becoming more dogmatic and less capable (or willing) to weigh those decisions on their own and it comes down to tribal name calling. Referendums do not help this because they are stark contrasts between two diametrically opposing views.

 

At the moment the biggest priority for a lot of people is to get rid of a corrupt, self-serving Government who are willing to set fire to the country to cling on to power

Real politique explained perfectly in a nutshell  in the first two paragraphs. 

[Toast 16,231]

1 hour ago, Kenny McCormick said:

When you vote against the party you dislike by voting for the main opposition then that party is corrupted too

 

That's not what I said though.  I assume by "the main opposition" you mean Labour. 

I voted for the party most likely to dislodge the Tories which in our case (since Labour has less than a snowball in hell's chance of winning our seat) is the Lib Dems.

Voting Labour in our constituency would guarantee a Tory victory.

The priority at this time, as Biblio has said,  is to get rid of this corrupt Government - and that will require tactical voting.

[The Great Cornholio 902]

1 minute ago, Toast said:

 

That's not what I said though.  I assume by "the main opposition" you mean Labour. 

I voted for the party most likely to dislodge the Tories which in our case (since Labour has less than a snowball in hell's chance of winning our seat) is the Lib Dems.

The priority at this time, as Biblio has said,  is to get rid of this corrupt Government - and that will require tactical voting.

And my point that when you vote for the lesser evil then you are still voting for something you dont agree with. If you're going to vote for someone then you've got to vote for them because of their policies, otherwise thats basically how sheeple work.

[TQR 14,451]

28 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

before you look stupid.

I mean, this is just class 

 

Get back to parroting hysterical fascism on Facebook with your skinhead family, you might not be laughed at so much there. 

[Toast 16,231]

21 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

And my point that when you vote for the lesser evil then you are still voting for something you dont agree with.

 

How would you know what I do and don't agree with?