Page 37 of 98

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:16 pm
by The Weeping Angel
But didn't making them sign confidentiallity agreements occur under Keir.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:37 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Only if you think a man who would later become party leader would be involved in a process he isn't involved in even when leader...

And it's not as though Laura Murray would want to smear Starmer, is it?

The whole thing looks dodgy to me.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 4:43 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 4:44 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 4:45 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Yeah, I know.

The attempts to settle are a big part of the problem, if they're as they both say.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:48 pm
by Nigredo
https://archive.ph/ewvwT

"Owen Jones, Paul Mason, Jeremy Corbyn and the war over Russia raging within the British left"

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:54 pm
by Andy McDandy
Thanks, but I've a box set of Mrs Brown's Boys to watch which will be marginally more entertaining, enlightening, and professionally made.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:19 pm
by Youngian
Nigredo wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 3:48 pm https://archive.ph/ewvwT

"Owen Jones, Paul Mason, Jeremy Corbyn and the war over Russia raging within the British left"
A threadbare line up in which Russell Brand makes up the numbers for the photomontage. May as well be Clare Fox.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:11 pm
by davidjay
It's interesting to note that Jess Phillips is trending on Twitter and the abuse split is about 95/5 Cult members/Tories.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:01 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
I regret to tell you straight talking populist Andy is at it again. Plenty of people call out how stupid this comparison is (hardly anybody will , buy this ticket, it's any train, return, refundable if my business meeting is cancelled at the last minute). To use the example of somebody having to attend a funeral at very short notice. it's very easy to get quite a bit less than this. Try booking air fares on the same basis.

Cue people below the line saying that "you like getting ripped off, you shill".


Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:45 pm
by Boiler
Two can play at that game.

Screenshot 2022-04-22 at 22-44-09 ✈ Trip from London to Rio de Janeiro.png
Screenshot 2022-04-22 at 22-44-09 ✈ Trip from London to Rio de Janeiro.png (79.6 KiB) Viewed 2185 times

Knobhead.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:07 am
by Tubby Isaacs
Yeah, there are much better ways of making the point (that train fares are too expensive) than what he does here.

The example I used of the funeral at short notice, for example, is still seriously expensive. And more broadly speaking, this is no way to get passengers back who have got out of the habit of taking trains during Covid.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:02 am
by Boiler
The matter of train fares is probably better discussed elsewhere on this forum but where things fall down badly for public transport is when a family travels. In some cases at short notice you could hire a chauffeured car for less (and by that I mean a proper vehicle like a Merc S-class or BMW 7er with a uniformed driver, not some ghastly partymobile).

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2022 11:42 pm
by The Weeping Angel

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sun May 29, 2022 9:25 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Good policy here. But the Forde Report, apparently.


Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon May 30, 2022 8:39 am
by Youngian
An independent body to drain the swamp of the elites who are at it, should go down well with populist voters. But it won’t even register.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon May 30, 2022 10:08 am
by Boiler
Youngian wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 8:39 am An independent body to drain the swamp of the elites who are at it, should go down well with populist voters. But it won’t even register.
Why do I get the feeling it'd be about as independent as IPSO is?

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon May 30, 2022 11:04 am
by davidjay
Youngian wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 8:39 am An independent body to drain the swamp of the elites who are at it, should go down well with populist voters. But it won’t even register.
Because the Swamp isn't them, it's that lot over there.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Mon May 30, 2022 6:07 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Youngian wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 8:39 am An independent body to drain the swamp of the elites who are at it, should go down well with populist voters. But it won’t even register.
Dunno, parties have certainly cut through with lots of those voters. Expenses certainly did too.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Tue May 31, 2022 3:43 pm
by Crabcakes
Well something is clearly cutting through. 11 points clear!