Forum menu
Labour understand the importance of Social Media.
The problem is none of those links show its effectiveness or not. One shows nothing more than the tories hiring some people.
When you look at the figures though the amazing campaign doesnt actually look so amazing. May delivered a far greater increase in the tory vote then Johnson did. His massive victory was due to the drop in the Labour vote and FPTP.
May delivered a far greater increase in the tory vote then Johnson did.
And lost seats. See my comment about "targeting the right people with a message that can make a difference". Johnson's team knocked it out of the park compared to May's in this respect... while Labour... well... they did better in 2017 than 2019, that's for sure.
Johnson’s team knocked it out of the park compared to May’s in this respec
Did they?
they did better in 2017 than 2019, that’s for sure.
Well yes and thats the point really. Again in most of the seats it wasnt the growth of the tories but instead the drop in Labour. Now you could try and say that was down to the tory social media messaging but I would suggest the impact of several years of press campaigns would have been rather more important.
Now you could try and say that was down to the tory social media messaging but I would suggest the impact of several years of press campaigns would have been rather more important.
Really? Even in a world where no one reads the papers, but at the same time nearly everyone uses social media? I find it implausible, TBH. The Sun has not quite 3 million readers and a circulation of 1.2 million, and there are 53 million SM users. (77% of the population). I think the press may have had a voice a few years ago, but when Murdoch writes down the value of The Sun to £0.00, you know it's days are numbered.
Even in a world where no one reads the papers, but at the same time nearly everyone uses social media?
Aside from when you look at social media it generally is repeating news stories as opposed to spinning up new stuff from scratch.
There is a very good reason why Murdoch keeps all those outlets going and why new ones are being spun up.
Does social media count, sure it does but the claim being made was the tory central office manipulating social media. The evidence for that I would suggest is far less clear.
Labour understand the importance of Social Media
Lol!
This thread is good for comedy value, if nothing else...
Posted before, but timely:
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/uk-labour-party-hires-former-israeli-spy
"His LinkedIn profile states that he was deputy head of the Israeli Labor Party’s campaign for the April 2019 general election to the country’s parliament, the Knesset.
That election saw the once dominant Israeli Labor Party collapse to just six seats"
Labour understand the importance of Social Media
This thread is good for comedy value, if nothing else…
Labour absolutely do understand the importance of Social Media. You only have to look at how much they spend on it, and how much content they share and spread with it. That they don't get it right is the claim. Or at least that in 2019 and since that the Conservatives have used it more effectively.
Labour absolutely do understand the importance of Social Media
Ok then. 😀
That they don’t get it right is the claim. Or at least that in 2019 and since that the Conservatives have used it more effectively
The problem in 2019 wasn't that Labour failed to get its message across.
The problem was that on the most important issue of the day the message was a complete fudge designed to mean different things to different people in a desperate attempt to satisfy most people when in fact it satisfied almost no one.
"Constructive ambiguity" FFS Corbyn you dozy middle-class liberal ****.
Part of the print medias power is that the BBC just reports whatever is in the newspapers.
The Tories social media campaign was a complete trouncing of Corbyn's character, Labour SHOULD copy this. Boris has so much they could go after. His affairs, his children, his racism, homophobia etc, dodgy russian bungs etc etc
NB I'm not on Facebook so maybe they do? On Twitter it is mostly above the belt stuff. I'd be going after his affairs and children. Jennifer Arcuri stuff ffs!
Labour MPs seem to prefer attacking woolly examples of Marxism these days. Instead of pushing against the failed market with which there are countless examples.
I'm looking at you Chris Bryant. Any utter moron can see the state's value in keeping the economy alive.
(They're not actually that good at being right-wing either... )
Maybe Ian Austin was.
His affairs, his children, his racism, homophobia etc, dodgy russian bungs etc etc
But all this stuff is common knowledge anyway. It's all out there in the public domain and has been for as long as anyone can remember.
The problem is that a lot of the electorate seem to just roll their eyes and say "oh that Boris... he's a one, isn't he?" like they're talking about a cute little puppy thats just pissed on the rug. Another section are perfectly ok with the racism and homophobia, as it reflects their own racism and homophobia, and they also approve of the fact that he's a serial shagger.
For the last couple of months you've had his former closest advisor all over the media giving us chapter and verse about his unsuitability for the office he presently holds, and his callous disinterest in those who have died of Covid, but it just makes those of us who were always appalled by him, even more so and doesn't seem to even register with those who voted for him
It's literally the Leader of the Opposition's job to challenge Boris. All Armrest has done so far, is mumble something about 'patriotism', and agree with the government.
The problem is...
That you really don't understand very much about politics, do you?
That you really don’t understand very much about politics, do you?
And you really don't understand what the average person is interested/not interested in so there you go.
Dont agree Binners. If people keep going on about Boris' affairs etc then it will get through- especially his kids imo. How long did they have to keep calling Corbz AS before it made a difference? Through 2 election cycles FFS.
And you really don’t understand what the average person is interested/not interested in
Far more than you do. So there you go. 😀
If people keep going on about Boris’ affairs etc then it will get through
This. Just keep plugging away with the same line; 'Boris is a liar'. At every given opportunity. Add in 'Boris/the tories will destroy the NHS', etc. Drip. Drip. Drip. Given they already know that worked to undermine Corbyn, I really cannot understand why such supposedly intelligent people can't understand a similar tactic would work against Boris. It's almost like they don't actually want to win an election to bring about societal change...
If people keep going on about Boris’ affairs etc then it will get through- especially his kids imo.
The affairs probably wouldnt hit much but the general giving contracts to make and how much of their funds are coming from groups who arent necessarily aligned with the general taxpayer could be effective. Ask why exactly the taxpayer is coughing up billions for the building industries decision to use dangerous cladding and whether it might be linked to the donors.
As you say though constant and overwhelming repetition is key though. Preferably whilst making sure that if any of the same issues occur for other parties they get rapidly covered over.
Dont agree Binners. If people keep going on about Boris’ affairs etc then it will get through- especially his kids imo. How long did they have to keep calling Corbz AS before it made a difference? Through 2 election cycles FFS.
Mixed feelings, by all means attack at every opportunity.
But people give the Tories much more slack. Remember the absolute stick Corbyn got for his apparently scruffy jacket - yeah well Boris never seems well turned out to me. Doesn't stick for Tories .
They're given an easy ride by the people that vote for them.
Corbyn faced an absolutely misguided onslaught. That's never going to happen here.
Like Richard Murphy said we need a quiet revolution. Somehow.
Remember the absolute stick Corbyn got for his apparently scruffy jacket – yeah well Boris never seems well turned out to me.
That again though is a press amplification. People knew they were supposed to be upset since they were given endless pages saying how bad it is.
With Johnson though there was just an accidental replacement of him on remembrance sunday looking completely hung over and moving at the wrong time with one of him looking slightly less of a sack of shit.
Attack the hypocrites. When there is one of them on a show ask them to explain it.
As you say though constant and overwhelming repetition is key though.
The liar line of attack is the one that will stick. But it needs to come from Starmer and the labour front bench, not unknown lefty backbenchers. As a bit of brazen theatre Starmer could call boris a liar to his face at PMQs and get himself thrown out. He’d then have a couple of days of the news cycle at his disposal to hammer the point home, and would show the voters that he has some fight in him. He won’t though will he? Because he’s too deferential and respectful of those who hold power, like a good establishment man should be.
Far more than you do.
Fair enough but just to let you know, what you post here suggests shows you don't know what the average voter is interested in, or more importantly, not interested in.
People are not generally interested in politics, they don't spend more than a few minutes reading a headline (they don't go and research the facts/truth), they don't study the policies, they don't watch anything going on in parliament and so on.
Agree with everything here - but the minute Starmer did any theatrics like this the papers would go and find something in his past that makes him look hypocritical.
Then turn up to eleven.
He's a Sir though, so this isn't going to happen.
He has spoken
Somewhat lacking in specifics which isnt great when you are attacking, albeit weakly, others for not having those specifics.
Hi Risk Anus just seems keen to return to the status quo ante.
Clive Lewis good on Any Questions at the mo.
Clive Lewis good on Any Questions at the mo.
He is good. Lots of strong qualities.
"What do you think about Afghanistan situation Clive?"
"Well when I served there I thought ..."
A bit damning of SKS, no love lost it would seem.
A bit damning of SKS, no love lost it would seem.
CL didn't get past the first round of the last leadership contest
CL didn’t get past the first round of the last leadership contest
Probs not enough secret rich Blairite/Israel lobbyist funders 😉
CL didn’t get past the first round of the last leadership contest
Clive Lewis withdraw early on, not getting enough nominations.
But then again Boris Johnson didn't fancy his chances in 2016.
Johnson/Tories plateaued at 40ish%
theres space there for Starmer to take a lead, still think itll be autumn before he does, but polls narrowing
still 2+ years until next GE so loads could happen
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1424762416064249865
Yes I'm keeping an eye on this.
Bit of Tory fatigue creeping in, and the electorate don't like the hypocrisy they can relate to.
Still none of this is thanks to Starmer which means taking a lead is not on the cards.
Bit of Tory fatigue creeping in, and the electorate don’t like the hypocrisy they can relate to.
Still none of this is thanks to Starmer which means taking a lead is not on the cards.
not too much reading into small % moves, but labour taking away from tories there!
Starmer is on a tour if the UK with 2 day trips to ex red wall seats, with ex-voters
probably a rough ride for him but its the kind of engagement he needs to be doing
keep it simple core policy announcements in the autumn will help- Corbyn aparrnently announced 300 whilst leader, almost all of which Im sure were good, but thats no way to get your message out, doesnt have to be 3 word slogans, but keeping it simple is good.
I expected the Tories to be peaking at close to 50% this month, with the end of “restrictions”… perhaps they didn’t do enough to prepare people for what the summer would actually look like in terms of measures still needed and holidays requiring much hoop jumping and last minute changes.
EDIT: just remembered the last PMQs (few will I suspect) where Johnson challenged Starmer to back his summer plans… and he refused and said something like… “Back your chaos? No way!”
I think Starmer is waiting for conference as he needs to reset his policy commitments he made in his leadership campaign, some will stay, some will go, some will change. He'll then get more stick internally than from anywhere else and the offensive on the polls will stutter under the weight of infighting
Great, so Starmer's going round the country listening to a bunch of bitter entitled gammons who think the under 25s want to sit on their backsides? Do these people not have kids and grandkids? Much as I think labour need to refocus on the working class, these people are just entitled boomers who refuse to see the world as it is today rather than how they wish it would be. If Starmer thinks he's going to win an election by focusing on this jaded, self-interested, closed minded group of idiots then he's sadly mistaken.
Unfortunately a LOT of people are just like those people Starmer was talking to so he has to appeal to them some how.
Great, so Starmer’s going round the country listening to a bunch of bitter entitled gammons who think the under 25s want to sit on their backsides?
Except a lot of the people he met don't match your description
But you carry on with your prejudices.......
He’ll then get more stick internally than from anywhere else
Because:
A) He's so desperate not to offend everyone except left wing labour members
B) No one else really cares what he says
just to let you know, what you post here suggests shows you don’t know what the average voter is interested in, or more importantly, not interested in.
Lol! Please; do explain how you came to that conclusion based on what I post on here. I'm dying to know...
If people are prejudiced it's Starmers job to show them a better way, he has to bring them with them, likewise those on the left of the party
Tbh I'm not sure how you do that, the Tories sort of managed it, but ended up purging most of their saner MPs over brexit.
FPTP doesn't encourage that kind of compromise within or between parties,
He’ll then get more stick internally than from anywhere else
Yeah well it would be quite frankly ridiculous for the right-wing press to attack him, I'm sure that as far as they are concerned he is doing a grand job.
And other than attacking him for being too right-wing on issues such as corporation tax I can't see why the Tories would feel a strong need to attack him.
What the Tories and their mates in the press will do is attack the Labour Party, claiming that it is full of dangerous lefties and racists/anti-Semites.
And Starmer will of course re-enforce those claims by attacking the left and alleging anti-Semitism.
Unsurprisingly it will, as you quite rightly point out, result in him being attacked from within the party.
It's a win-win situation for the Tories.
I think this is the right kind of thing for him to be doing 2 years out. When he shows his cards I hope they are ambitious and things that the Tories cannot just copy.
Green Infrastructure (Transport/Energy/Jobs)
Electoral reform
Reform of care sector
Hopefully it won't be his cards to show. I know that the current general secretary of the Labour Party David Evans is on record as saying, quote : "representative democracy should as far as possible be abolished in the Party", and that Tony Blair had a damn good go at purging democracy from the party, but we haven't yet reached a stage where one man alone dictates what the policies of the party are.
Let's hope that the other half a million members also get a say. And perhaps also the affiliated unions who will actually be paying for the election campaign.
I know that the current general secretary of the Labour Party David Evans is on record as saying, quote : “representative democracy should as far as possible be abolished in the Party”
In 1999. Are his views the same 22 years later?
Are his views the same 22 years later?
Why don't you go and find out for us?
In 1999. Are his views the same 22 years later?
Yeah that quote doesn't look good does it Nick, so I don't blame you for suggesting that he might have changed his mind rather than trying to defend it.
However there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. And plenty that he hasn't.
David Evans's appointment as General Secretary of the Labour Party caused some serious disquiet within the party due to both his right-wing views and his known views on structural changes.
That above quote was used extensively by those who were concerned by his appointment. If Evans has since that time changed his views on inner party democracy you can be absolutely certain that he would have publicly declared that he had done so.
As far as I am aware he hasn't, although I am happy to be corrected.
It should be remembered that Evans founded a consultancy firm which provides specialist advice to politicians. I am sure that he is very capable of managing his own public image.
Furthermore Evans's use of his powers as an unelected party official to suspend the former party leader from the party gives an insight into his attitude towards party democracy.
The irony is that despite his endless crusade against the left within the party Evans owes his whole career to Ken Livingstone's left-wing Labour policies.
Evans first came to Croydon as an employee of a local trade union support unit funded by Ken Livingstone's GLC. It was a highly left-wing policy of paying young activists to forge links between trade unions and the local community, there were several dotted across the GLC area. It was that which launched Evans's political career.
In the same way that the policies pursued by Priti Patel today would have stopped her parents from entering the UK Evans's career would never have been launched had the right-wing been in control in London.
Yeah I thought you'd be more aware of him as he was local to you.
I was never comfortable with that statement he made as were many folk. (despite that one man one vote rhetoric that accompanied it) very surprised that he'd been Starmer's "first choice"
Green Infrastructure (Transport/Energy/Jobs)
Electoral reform
Reform of care sector
Apart from the last one does anyone think the people in that video give a shit about any of this. Seems all they’re bothered about is forcing the under 25s to work on shit jobs.
I wonder if the crowd was selected to convey a certain narrative 🤔
Seems all they’re bothered about is forcing the under 25s to work on shit jobs.
Are shit jobs to be reserved for over 25s?
Electoral reform
Only people involved/ engaged with politics get excited by this, average voter wonders why they aren't talking about something I care about and votes for someone who does
Lol! Please; do explain how you came to that conclusion based on what I post on here. I’m dying to know….
The slight obsession with Rod Liddle may have something to do with it......
That and your self professed ability to clear pubs of their racists
Only people involved/ engaged with politics get excited by this, average voter wonders why they aren’t talking about something I care about and votes for someone who does
It depends on how it is sold really. There were plenty of UKIP types a few years back realising why it was crappy when it was being applied to them.
Also Brexit voters loved to talk of 'unelected bureaucrats' see the House of Lords.
Shining a light on all the dodgy nominations a good thing plus drain the Swamp worked to whatever extent for Trump.
......very surprised that he’d been Starmer’s “first choice”
Yeah but only because Starmer's stated aim was was to heal and unite the party. Why would anyone choose someone as devisive as David Evans to be General Secretary if their stated aim was to heal division? That is indeed surprising.
But other than that I can see the obvious appeal of David Evans as General Secretary.
You are right Nick I am very aware of Evans due to the local connections, in fact apart from working on election campaigns with him we socialised in the same social group, pubs, parties, etc. and I can tell you that he is without doubt an extraordinarily talented political tactician, in terms of targeting voters, campaign logistics, focusing on areas which require work, and the whole election strategy.
I have seen him achieve huge massive swings to Labour locally which were completely at odds with what was happening in the rest of the country.
I remember the dark days when Labour were down to just 4 council seats in Croydon, today Labour has 40 seats and control the council, David Evans played a huge role in that.
So for those reasons I can understand the appeal of Evans to Starmer - he wants to be Prime Minister and feels that a gifted tactician such as Evans can help him.
Which is great if tactics is all that matters, but of course it isn't. Policies also matter, and that is one area which Evans has no noticeable talent, unlike another local Croydon guy Andrew Fisher who wrote the 2017 Labour Party election manifesto.
Furthermore the Labour Group which today runs Croydon Council, and has David Evans fingerprints all over it, is utterly incompetent, self-serving, and right-wing. It is surrounded by scandals. Senior councillors, including the leader, have resigned in disgrace.
It has reduced Croydon Council to the role of slum landlord as highlighted on national TV by ITN special reports into Croydon Council housing stock which is unfit for human habitation.
And such is the level of incompetence by the Labour Group on Croydon Council that it is now bankrupt, it is penniless, it has to rely on central government for funding. A failed council owned property developer called "Brick by Brick", which btw was one of David Evans consultancy clients, played a very central role in that bankruptcy.
Presumably next council elections Labour with lose control of Croydon Council and the Tories will inherit the mess.
If you want Labour to do nationally what they did locally to Croydon then Starmer, Evans, and all the other self-serving right-wing cronies, is the obvious choice.
The slight obsession with Rod Liddle may have something to do with it……
That and your self professed ability to clear pubs of their racists
If you don't understand something, you could simply say 'I don't understand, can you please explain', rather than resort to snidey ad hominems. That way, you'd both learn something, and stay safely within the remit of Rule No. 1.
If you want Labour to do nationally what they did locally to Croydon then Starmer, Evans, and all the other self-serving right-wing cronies, is the obvious choice.
Problem, is, the UK already has a right-wing party. So if Starmer continues with his neoliberal project to destroy the Left, all he'll achieve is political irrelevance. There needs to be a balance in politics, and without a viable left-wing alternative, we'll be living under a right wing dictatorship pretty soon. You'd think that a brilliant lawyer might have the intelligence to understand this, and to realise that what he's actually doing is exactly what the tories want, but it seems not. It's a bit like those university professors you get; brilliant in one subject, can't tie their own shoelaces. Still; I suspect he's currently more concerned with securing a nice cushy corporate junket for his post-politics days, than he is in forming an effective opposition. Must be really shit for all those who saw him as the messiah. In reality, he's just a very naughty boy...
Yeah but only because Starmer’s stated aim was was to heal and unite the party. Why would anyone choose someone as devisive as David Evans to be General Secretary if their stated aim was to heal division? That is indeed surprising.
Yeah, that came as something as a surprise to me as well. I know that he's got the "right" history of activism behind him, arrested giving food parcels to miners, petitions for his release signed by Corbyn and Skinner and all that, and stuff that one can read about him online (there isn't much) emphasises his organizational abilities above nearly everything else. There's no doubt his personal politics are to the right of the party. Seems an odd choice to dig out of (relative) obscurity to the centre of the Labour organisation for someone who once said Labour need to be more "small c conservative" (admittedly even further back than your quote)
I suspect he’s currently more concerned with securing a nice cushy corporate junket for his post-politics
Don't underestimate just how self-serving the right-wing within the Labour Party is. Tony Blair immediately resigned his parliamentary seat when he ceased to be PM because Westminster had served his purpose and was no longer important to his career and he was more interested in making mega-bucks than sitting on the backbenches.
Although to be fair his overinflated ego probably wouldn't have allowed it anyway.
In the case of the local self-serving right-wing Labour Group which controls Croydon they might be responsible for a scandal which hit the national headlines, as low income tenants were forced to live in housing unfit for human habitation, and of course bankrupt the council, but they richly rewarded themselves for all the hard work that they didn't do with their innocently sounding "allowances" :
https://www.mylondon.news/news/staggering-amount-croydon-councillors-were-19497661
I heard that when Labour lost control of Croydon Council in 2006, and many right-wing Labour councillors lost their seats, some were devastated because they didn't know how they would be able to pay their mortgages.
We understandably assume that these people enter politics because they want to serve the community but for many it is simply a career move.
There is however a tiny handful of Labour councillors who are very hardworking and undoubtedly motivated by serving the needs of the community, but needless to say they are on the left of the party and don't have any role of authority within the Labour Group.
If you don’t understand something, you could simply say ‘I don’t understand, can you please explain’, rather than resort to snidey ad hominems.
I have asked what the Rod Liddle thing is all about several times you just choose not to lower yourself to explain
I thought your self professed ability to clear public houses of their racists was self explanatory, however if there is nuances to it feel free to explain to the hoi polloi
Still; I suspect he’s currently more concerned with securing a nice cushy corporate junket for his post-politics days, than he is in forming an effective opposition.
Do you actually believe the tripe you write?
We understandably assume that these people enter politics because they want to serve the community but for many it is simply a career move.
I think this is one of the main things that differentiates labour from the tories. Labour politicians do it for the career and ultimately the money, whilst most tories do it for the prestige as they're already rich. Whilst the tories are answerable to the upper class establishment, labour are constrained by their inherent job insecurity. The result from both sides is inaction and failure to represent those who elected them.
Labour politicians do it for the career and ultimately the money, whilst most tories do it for the prestige as they’re already rich
Lazy stereotypes, my local council is stuffed full of working class conservatives, including the charity fund raising postie. It won't be the only one.
Labour politicians do it for the career and ultimately the money
Which Labour politicians? Plenty are financially worse of, and have paused or ended successful careers, to serve as MPs. The leader of the party for one.
Plaid councillors near me are all brilliant, Tories and Labour are in general bad with some shockingly bad thrown in (paedophile and a gang rape)
Definitely some working class Tory councillors aswell as the snivelling Tory boys who follow the Tory MP round. They are definitely in it for the career/ money.
I have asked what the Rod Liddle thing is all about several times you just choose not to lower yourself to explain
It's a Stewart Lee routine, which Bridges for some reason has chosen to not credit to the author.
I have asked what the Rod Liddle thing is all about several times you just choose not to lower yourself to explain
I thought your self professed ability to clear public houses of their racists was self explanatory, however if there is nuances to it feel free to explain to the hoi polloi
Do you actually believe the tripe you write?
If I felt you possessed the intelligence to actually understand, then I'd make the effort to explain it. But it's pretty clear you're not actually interested in anything but petty insults and point scoring. So I won't waste my time. You can remain ignorant and angry.
It’s a Stewart Lee routine, which Bridges for some reason has chosen to not credit to the author.
😀 See; intelligent people get it...
Which Labour politicians? Plenty are financially worse of, and have paused or ended successful careers, to serve as MPs. The leader of the party for one.
Lol! Have you any idea what Starmer is actually worth? For starters, his London home is worth more than most voters will ever be able to afford. He's a landowner, and no doubt has income from other sources besides the paltry £81,942 per year (plus expenses) he earns as an MP. I very much doubt he's ever going to be 'financially worse off' as a result of his time in politics...
Have you any idea what Starmer is actually worth?
Yes. That was my point. The cliche that Labour politicians are in politics because they need the money, and that Conservatives are just after prestige, doesn't hold, does it.
If I felt you possessed the intelligence to actually understand, then I’d make the effort to explain it. But it’s pretty clear you’re not actually interested in anything but petty insults and point scoring. So I won’t waste my time. You can remain ignorant and angry.
Petty insults. Point scoring. Hmm....
Plus they get fabulous pensions on the grounds that no-one wants to employ an ex-MP. Messrs Watson, Cameron and Osborne might like to challenge this view however.
Yes. That was my point. The cliche that Labour politicians are in politics because they need the money, and that Conservatives are just after prestige, doesn’t hold, does it.
Your point wasn't missed, it just isn't very good. Most politicians are in the game for personal gain (be that power, fame, money or whatever), even if they may once have been driven by ideological principals. Starmer has done very well out of politics so far; being the leader of a collapsing failure of a party is pretty inconsequential in terms of his career. He's still got a lot of eggs in his basket. And he's got a house worth a fair few quid, if he ever needs to 'downsize' to free up a bit of cash...
Petty insults. Point scoring. Hmm….
No I know. It's fun though. 😀
😀 See; intelligent people get it…
I've watched the show where the routine was performed, that's all.
Repeatedly plagiarising a comedian doesn't strike me as particularly intelligent.
Tough crowd. 😀
Maybe you didn't get it after all...
Plenty are financially worse of, and have paused or ended successful careers, to serve as MPs. The leader of the party for one.
Until they get cushy 'consultancy' jobs where they shamelessly milk their political contacts for huge fees (see David Cameron).
My comment you've quoted there was about Labour MPs, and the idea that they are all dependent on being an MP for money and a career. Many are not. The leader included. Of course you can have plenty of money and still be on the take... no matter what party you are in. Cameron being just so blatant about it (getting Lex into no10 while he was PM, and shaping legislation to give him his own personal loophole) is still an eye opener though.
See; intelligent people get it…
If your gauge of intelligence is having seen and remembered a comedy routine from a not that famous person....
Your point wasn’t missed, it just isn’t very good. Most politicians are in the game for personal gain (be that power, fame, money or whatever), even if they may once have been driven by ideological principals. Starmer has done very well out of politics so far; being the leader of a collapsing failure of a party is pretty inconsequential in terms of his career. He’s still got a lot of eggs in his basket. And he’s got a house worth a fair few quid, if he ever needs to ‘downsize’ to free up a bit of cash…
I imagine he did better out of law and would have continued to do so. Anyone with parents who bought property in London has done well in terms of inheritance. Ed Miliband had to get his dad's will posthumously rewritten to dodge inheritance tax, so much for his dad's left wing principles
JC is probably wealthier, but obviously he's a secular Saint for the left.
Tough crowd. 😀
Maybe you didn’t get it after all…
Yes, that must be it.
Ed Miliband had to get his dad’s will posthumously rewritten to dodge inheritance tax, so much for his dad’s left wing principles
I can't get my head round that.
What do you mean "so much for his dad’s left wing principles", are you seriously suggesting that Ralph Miliband is guilty of doing something unprincipled after he had died?
More of this please
Williamson is an obvious disaster and education is key,
Also puts Johnson in a bind, he hates being forced to do something by Starmer (in the case of lockdown 2 (at the cost of 1000s of lives)
I can’t get my head round that.
What do you mean “so much for his dad’s left wing principles”, are you seriously suggesting that Ralph Miliband is guilty of doing something unprincipled after he had died?
The family successfully argued that Ralph Miliband would have managed his affairs differently to be tax efficient in respect of inheritance tax and the value of the property owned. Whether Ralph span in his grave or not I cannot tell you.