She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
Election manifestoes are usually carefully written, as would most campaign pledges and statements. They'll include enough caveats and conditional statements that provide wriggle room to make sure politicians can't be accused of downright lies - though, deception by not highlighting those conditional statements enough is a different question. "Subject to economic growth raising tax income, we will spend £xxx more on the health service" etc.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
Why would I know ?
I naïvely thought that you would do those of us you regularly respond to and who respond to you the courtesy of reading and attempting to understand our posts. Obviously that was a mistake.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
Why would I know ?
I naïvely thought that you would do those of us you regularly respond to and who respond to you the courtesy of reading and attempting to understand our posts. Obviously that was a mistake.
I read posts. I sometimes reply to posts. I rarely remember posts.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
How many do you want?
How many have you got?
I haven't done a count yet.
Nor have you actually given examples of any.
I will give you three obvious ones ....Increase in bus fares by 50%., Winter fuel allowance, taxes on working people
As this is a Conservative thread, I have been trying to think of any of the shadow cabinet who have deliberately insulted the next President of the USA... I can't think of any
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
How many do you want?
How many have you got?
I haven't done a count yet.
Nor have you actually given examples of any.
I will give you three obvious ones ....Increase in bus fares by 50%., Winter fuel allowance, taxes on working people
As this is a Conservative thread, I have been trying to think of any of the shadow cabinet who have deliberately insulted the next President of the USA... I can't think of any
Now you find where Starmer promised he wouldn't do the first two of those. And you also explain where he has done the third.
I'll for now assume that when you speak of bus fare 50% increases that's shorthand for increasing the maximum single fare.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
How many do you want?
How many have you got?
I haven't done a count yet.
Nor have you actually given examples of any.
I will give you three obvious ones ....Increase in bus fares by 50%., Winter fuel allowance, taxes on working people
As this is a Conservative thread, I have been trying to think of any of the shadow cabinet who have deliberately insulted the next President of the USA... I can't think of any
Now you find where Starmer promised he wouldn't do the first two of those. And you also explain where he has done the third.
Although he was unable to describe a working person, I can help him. It's anyone who works. Owners of small businesses will have to pay out more in national insurance. Although I am OK with rises in the national living wage, there is a cost to the small employer.
I'll for now assume that when you speak of bus fare 50% increases that's shorthand for increasing the maximum single fare.
Yes I am and that's another rise for the working person
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
How many do you want?
How many have you got?
I haven't done a count yet.
Nor have you actually given examples of any.
I will give you three obvious ones ....Increase in bus fares by 50%., Winter fuel allowance, taxes on working people
As this is a Conservative thread, I have been trying to think of any of the shadow cabinet who have deliberately insulted the next President of the USA... I can't think of any
Now you find where Starmer promised he wouldn't do the first two of those. And you also explain where he has done the third.
Although he was unable to describe a working person, I can help him. It's anyone who works. Owners of small businesses will have to pay out more in national insurance. Although I am OK with rises in the national living wage, there is a cost to the small employer.
But not paid by the working person. Paid by their employer.
The rather obvious point about not raising taxes on working people is that no higher taxes would be levied on your status as an employee. If you also happen to be a landlord or employer it does not follow that you would see no increased taxes on your activities in those spheres.
I'll for now assume that when you speak of bus fare 50% increases that's shorthand for increasing the maximum single fare.
Yes I am and that's another rise for the working person
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
It's clear to anyone but his supporters
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
How many do you want?
How many have you got?
I haven't done a count yet.
Nor have you actually given examples of any.
I will give you three obvious ones ....Increase in bus fares by 50%., Winter fuel allowance, taxes on working people
As this is a Conservative thread, I have been trying to think of any of the shadow cabinet who have deliberately insulted the next President of the USA... I can't think of any
Now you find where Starmer promised he wouldn't do the first two of those. And you also explain where he has done the third.
Although he was unable to describe a working person, I can help him. It's anyone who works. Owners of small businesses will have to pay out more in national insurance. Although I am OK with rises in the national living wage, there is a cost to the small employer.
But not paid by the working person. Paid by their employer.
The rather obvious point about not raising taxes on working people is that no higher taxes would be levied on your status as an employee. If you also happen to be a landlord or employer it does not follow that you would see no increased taxes on your activities in those spheres.
I'll for now assume that when you speak of bus fare 50% increases that's shorthand for increasing the maximum single fare.
Yes I am and that's another rise for the working person
Not a tax though is it?
No it's not. Neither is the cancellation of the winter fuel payments. Just things we not told about before the election.
@Telford - you may not be able to remember posts but it's pretty clear from what @Arethosemyfeet, @Hugal and other Labour supporters here post that they aren't Starmer-ites by any stretch of the imagination.
So beating them over the head with attacks on Reeves and Starmer isn't going to get you very far.
@Telford - you may not be able to remember posts but it's pretty clear from what @Arethosemyfeet, @Hugal and other Labour supporters here post that they aren't Starmer-ites by any stretch of the imagination.
So beating them over the head with attacks on Reeves and Starmer isn't going to get you very far.
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
That was before he became Foreign Secretary, I think, and he has tried to row back on his (accurate) remarks...even so, I don't envy him having to meet Trump next year.
Lammy shouldn't have said what he did in his position. Sadly, I think Trump is going to live up to his reputation.
Meanwhile, for all the very legitimate concerns about Starmer and Co, the Tory Party does seem to lurching inexorably further to the right and that isn't good for them, for the country nor for anyone else.
That was before he became Foreign Secretary, I think, and he has tried to row back on his (accurate) remarks...even so, I don't envy him having to meet Trump next year.
I have some sympathy with the rowing back, because as a middle ranking power you have to mostly take the world as it is.
The larger issue is that politicians need to take some responsibility and keep a stronger distinction between their official positions and their personal opinions - blurring personal social media accounts and using them for both purposes tends to undermine this distinction. It's a similar issue to people using their personal phones/whatsapps for official business (and relatedly there's the issue of archiving official communications).
Lammy shouldn't have said what he did in his position. Sadly, I think Trump is going to live up to his reputation.
Meanwhile, for all the very legitimate concerns about Starmer and Co, the Tory Party does seem to lurching inexorably further to the right and that isn't good for them, for the country nor for anyone else.
Lammy probably thought that nobody would be daft enough to make him foreign secretary
Lammy shouldn't have said what he did in his position. Sadly, I think Trump is going to live up to his reputation.
Meanwhile, for all the very legitimate concerns about Starmer and Co, the Tory Party does seem to lurching inexorably further to the right and that isn't good for them, for the country nor for anyone else.
Lammy probably thought that nobody would be daft enough to make him foreign secretary
I can't recall for certain, but was he shadow foreign secretary at the time he made his remarks about Trump?
Lammy shouldn't have said what he did in his position. Sadly, I think Trump is going to live up to his reputation.
Meanwhile, for all the very legitimate concerns about Starmer and Co, the Tory Party does seem to lurching inexorably further to the right and that isn't good for them, for the country nor for anyone else.
Lammy probably thought that nobody would be daft enough to make him foreign secretary
Given Patel and Johnson have both been foreign secretary the idea that there is any sort of threshold of competence or decency for the post has surely been put to bed.
Lammy shouldn't have said what he did in his position. Sadly, I think Trump is going to live up to his reputation.
Meanwhile, for all the very legitimate concerns about Starmer and Co, the Tory Party does seem to lurching inexorably further to the right and that isn't good for them, for the country nor for anyone else.
Lammy probably thought that nobody would be daft enough to make him foreign secretary
Given Patel and Johnson have both been foreign secretary the idea that there is any sort of threshold of competence or decency for the post has surely been put to bed.
If you seriously think that Lammy was a good choice, that's fine.
In answer to my own previous question, I see that David Lammy made his uncomplimentary remarks about Trump when he (Lammy) was a back-bencher, in 2018 and 2019 - long before he was in the shadow cabinet.
Lammy shouldn't have said what he did in his position. Sadly, I think Trump is going to live up to his reputation.
Meanwhile, for all the very legitimate concerns about Starmer and Co, the Tory Party does seem to lurching inexorably further to the right and that isn't good for them, for the country nor for anyone else.
Lammy probably thought that nobody would be daft enough to make him foreign secretary
Given Patel and Johnson have both been foreign secretary the idea that there is any sort of threshold of competence or decency for the post has surely been put to bed.
If you seriously think that Lammy was a good choice, that's fine.
"Good" is relative in this context. There's plenty to criticise Lammy for, but he's not close to being the worst FS of the last couple of decades. He's not a war criminal like one of his Labour predecessors, for example.
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
Lammy still shouldn't have made those comments even as a back-bencher.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but if @Telford wants a list of gaffs, mistakes and misdemeanours by recent Tory Foreign Secretaries then I'm sure we could all oblige.
That's not to let previous Labour ones off the hook either, as that noted Conservative supporter @Arethosemyfeet reminds us 😉.
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
What lie are you on about ?
Not telling lies. Tory front benchers have been known to.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.
Boris was sacked as FS even though he was pretty much a figurehead in the roll .
Also you seem not give Starmer and Co the same benefit
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
What lie are you on about ?
Not telling lies. Tory front benchers have been known to.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.
Boris was sacked as FS even though he was pretty much a figurehead in the roll .
Also you seem not give Starmer and Co the same benefit
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
What lie are you on about ?
Not telling lies. Tory front benchers have been known to.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.
Boris was sacked as FS even though he was pretty much a figurehead in the roll .
Also you seem not give Starmer and Co the same benefit
Sorry. This is not an answer to my question
I did say let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. That indicates both that she has not said anything yet and that I am willing to wait before I make a comment. So yes it does answer your question. Previous Tory front benchers and Kemi herself have known to tell a lie or two
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
What lie are you on about ?
Not telling lies. Tory front benchers have been known to.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.
Boris was sacked as FS even though he was pretty much a figurehead in the roll .
Also you seem not give Starmer and Co the same benefit
Sorry. This is not an answer to my question
I did say let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. That indicates both that she has not said anything yet and that I am willing to wait before I make a comment. So yes it does answer your question. Previous Tory front benchers and Kemi herself have known to tell a lie or two
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
What lie are you on about ?
Not telling lies. Tory front benchers have been known to.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.
Boris was sacked as FS even though he was pretty much a figurehead in the roll .
Also you seem not give Starmer and Co the same benefit
Sorry. This is not an answer to my question
I did say let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. That indicates both that she has not said anything yet and that I am willing to wait before I make a comment. So yes it does answer your question. Previous Tory front benchers and Kemi herself have known to tell a lie or two
Just one example about Kemi would help.
Her political career should have ended following a conviction under the Computer Misuse Act.
Being in opposition Kemi and Co can promise the earth. A thing that was levied at Labour in opposition. Way too early to comment on her and her policies. If I were to predict anything I would predict moving even more to the right. They should really move more to centre right. That would give the One Nation Cons more space. That says the One Nation Cons seem to have been sidelined, despite being a big component of the party.
All she has promised so far is to be honest and tell the truth. That will do for me for the next couple of years
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
What lie are you on about ?
Not telling lies. Tory front benchers have been known to.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.
Boris was sacked as FS even though he was pretty much a figurehead in the roll .
Also you seem not give Starmer and Co the same benefit
Sorry. This is not an answer to my question
I did say let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. That indicates both that she has not said anything yet and that I am willing to wait before I make a comment. So yes it does answer your question. Previous Tory front benchers and Kemi herself have known to tell a lie or two
Just one example about Kemi would help.
Her political career should have ended following a conviction under the Computer Misuse Act.
Outsider question: has Tr*mp's reëlection reinvigorated the Tories in any appreciable way, or validated their perceived moves further to the right since losing their own election?
Outsider question: has Tr*mp's reëlection reinvigorated the Tories in any appreciable way, or validated their perceived moves further to the right since losing their own election?
No, I doubt it, because while they might lean into the identity politics of immigration they blew their shot at economic populism with Brexit.
Comments
No, but promising you will do something that you do not in fact have the power or ability to promise isn't "optimism", it's "lying". And liars are bad people.
That's covers Starmer and his team then.
Starmer, yes, but so far only as regards his leadership pledges. It's not clear (yet) that they lied in the GE.
Weird, 'cause I'm not a Starmer supporter (as I thought you'd know by now).
Since it's so clear to you, perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us with examples.
How many have you got?
I haven't done a count yet.
Nor have you actually given examples of any.
I naïvely thought that you would do those of us you regularly respond to and who respond to you the courtesy of reading and attempting to understand our posts. Obviously that was a mistake.
I read posts. I sometimes reply to posts. I rarely remember posts.
@Telford, this is a discussion board. Comments such as How many do you want? and I haven't done a count yet. are pointless.
Please respond properly to a reasonable request for examples.
Hostly hat off
North East Quine, Purgatory host
I will give you three obvious ones ....Increase in bus fares by 50%., Winter fuel allowance, taxes on working people
As this is a Conservative thread, I have been trying to think of any of the shadow cabinet who have deliberately insulted the next President of the USA... I can't think of any
Now you find where Starmer promised he wouldn't do the first two of those. And you also explain where he has done the third.
I'll for now assume that when you speak of bus fare 50% increases that's shorthand for increasing the maximum single fare.
But not paid by the working person. Paid by their employer.
The rather obvious point about not raising taxes on working people is that no higher taxes would be levied on your status as an employee. If you also happen to be a landlord or employer it does not follow that you would see no increased taxes on your activities in those spheres.
Not a tax though is it?
So beating them over the head with attacks on Reeves and Starmer isn't going to get you very far.
How do you know she isn't lying like she did before?
Meanwhile, for all the very legitimate concerns about Starmer and Co, the Tory Party does seem to lurching inexorably further to the right and that isn't good for them, for the country nor for anyone else.
I have some sympathy with the rowing back, because as a middle ranking power you have to mostly take the world as it is.
The larger issue is that politicians need to take some responsibility and keep a stronger distinction between their official positions and their personal opinions - blurring personal social media accounts and using them for both purposes tends to undermine this distinction. It's a similar issue to people using their personal phones/whatsapps for official business (and relatedly there's the issue of archiving official communications).
Lammy probably thought that nobody would be daft enough to make him foreign secretary
I can't recall for certain, but was he shadow foreign secretary at the time he made his remarks about Trump?
Given Patel and Johnson have both been foreign secretary the idea that there is any sort of threshold of competence or decency for the post has surely been put to bed.
If you seriously think that Lammy was a good choice, that's fine.
"Good" is relative in this context. There's plenty to criticise Lammy for, but he's not close to being the worst FS of the last couple of decades. He's not a war criminal like one of his Labour predecessors, for example.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but if @Telford wants a list of gaffs, mistakes and misdemeanours by recent Tory Foreign Secretaries then I'm sure we could all oblige.
That's not to let previous Labour ones off the hook either, as that noted Conservative supporter @Arethosemyfeet reminds us 😉.
Not telling lies. Tory front benchers have been known to.
Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.
Boris was sacked as FS even though he was pretty much a figurehead in the roll .
Also you seem not give Starmer and Co the same benefit
Her political career should have ended following a conviction under the Computer Misuse Act.
So it would be a lie to talk of her being prosecuted.
Alternatively you could just learn to read what other people post rather than responding with constant one-liners.
No, I doubt it, because while they might lean into the identity politics of immigration they blew their shot at economic populism with Brexit.
I read the posts and I try not to bore people with inaccurate comments when I reply ( two lines)