[Politics] The Labour Government

[Herr Tubthumper]

Wow. Like Harry’s of Palmeira Square on Teutonic steroids.

FRÜHSTÜCK 3000 SCHÖNEBERG, Berlin - Menu, Prices & Restaurant Reviews - Tripadvisor

Frühstück 3000 Schöneberg, Berlin: See 65 unbiased reviews of Frühstück 3000 Schöneberg, rated 4.0 of 5 on Tripadvisor and ranked #1,145 of 6,725 restaurants in Berlin.

www.tripadvisor.com

As you know, I loved Harry’s. Gutted when they closed. Fruhstuck is wonderful though. Had a couple of friends over so took them there. The chicken 3000 is a superb dish…with coffee it’s perfect for a slight hang over.

 

[Weststander]

As you know, I loved Harry’s. Gutted when they closed. Fruhstuck is wonderful though. Had a couple of friends over so took them there. The chicken 3000 is a superb dish…with coffee it’s perfect for a slight hang over.

We brunched and dined at Harry’s lots, perfect for us in the 00’s. At your place now, this takes my fancy. Plus with a sweet tooth, their desserts look stunning.

 

[Since1982]

Yes but labour will be banking on many of the pensioners being dead by the time the next election round

The over 65s were the only age group at the last election where a majority voted Tory. I'm sure this is part of the political calculation plus a YouGov poll last week had only 55% disapproval rating for the WFA change, much closer than the press would have us all believe.

 

[jcdenton08]

The over 65s were the only age group at the last election where a majority voted Tory. I'm sure this is part of the political calculation plus a YouGov poll last week had only 55% disapproval rating for the WFA change, much closer than the press would have us all believe.

Yet Starmer and Reeves’ approval ratings are at rock bottom - and this is before their first budget…

 

[fly high]

The over 65s were the only age group at the last election where a majority voted Tory. I'm sure this is part of the political calculation plus a YouGov poll last week had only 55% disapproval rating for the WFA change, much closer than the press would have us all believe.

Not sure many understand the implication for 10s of thousands who only have a few pounds more than cut off. Also believe Starmer's lies they are looking after the poorest plus all the guff about how much pensions have risen except the poorest haven't had as much as he says.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

very appropriate for this out of depth imbecile.

TNBA

TTF

 

[Bozza]

Not sure many understand the implication for 10s of thousands who only have a few pounds more than cut off. Also believe Starmer's lies they are looking after the poorest plus all the guff about how much pensions have risen except the poorest haven't had as much as he says.

Agreed, and I think the conversations on NSC have highlighted how some are just not aware of the finer detail of the policy, and the implications for some very poor elderly folk.

A copy-and-paste of something I wrote on this thread a week or so ago...

I think the policy is actually sound, and I completely understand why people would agree with the headline, which is something like...​

​

"Restructuring a universally-available benefit via means testing to ensure those who need it still receive it, whilst removing it from those who don't."​

​

...because, frankly, I agree with that too.​

​

The problem is how those who need it have been defined, particularly given the known issue with pension credit non-claimants.​

 

[Zeberdi]

Well, whatever you're opinion and whether you agree or not, I find it quite telling (quite astonishing even) that one of Labours members and staunchest supporters is even suggesting Starmer is more than likely find a strong and threatening leadership challenge internally so soon. And willing to put money on it.

Many have been led to believe the sun shines out of his (Starmers) backside and have stated as much on similar threads, after all the positive things we've heard both from him and about him for several years......on how he would bring great change with integrity.

I wasn't referring to any 'paper talk' at least I've not heard any or such talk of a leadership challenge there myself.

Perhaps you should query the poster over his original comments, he could explain more his perspective or position regarding Labour, rather than myself.

Zzzzzzz. what a bad faith post.

I am not your poster boy for everything you hate about Labour so stop trying to make it so across every thread on NSC that mentions Labour - it is becoming obsessive and trolling.

For the record

1. I never said I was one of Labour “staunchest” supporters. ( I am actually a Green Party supporter traditionally). I voted for Labour last election like millions of others in this Country because I no longer wanted a Tory Government in power and have voted for them in the past but stopped for many years. Yes, I was actively involved in the last campaign because I wanted to get rid of my constituency MP, Liz Truss who was an appalling Constituency MP and even worse PM - does anyone on this forum actually have a problem with that other than you?

2. I have always said that Starmer doesn’t impress me much but FYI, I didn’t get a vote in who became leader of the Party.

3. I was responding to a post that said “Labour would be out in 5 years” - my political intelligence (of which you are apparently sorely lacking based on your belief that Starmer is directly responsible for genocide) lead me to say that before risking losing a GE with an unpopular leader, the Party will more than likely have a vote of no confidence and vote a new leader. That is what political parties do. The Tories changed their leader 4 times in the last Government and only Teresa May (and subsequently Sunak) faced the electorate as Prime Minister.

4. Ps “willing to bet” is a figure of speech - I never bet my money on anything - not even lottery tickets.

Just give the constant trolling a rest will you.

 

[Weststander]

Zzzzzzz. what a bad faith post.

I am not your poster boy for everything you hate about Labour so stop trying to make it so across every thread on NSC that mentions Labour - it is becoming obsessive and trolling.

For the record

1. I never said I was one of Labour “staunchest” supporters. ( I am actually a Green Party supporter traditionally). I voted for Labour last election like millions of others in this Country because I no longer wanted a Tory Government in power and have voted for them in the past but stopped for many years. Yes, I was actively involved in the last campaign because I wanted to get rid of my constituency MP, Liz Truss who was an appalling Constituency MP and even worse PM - does anyone on this forum actually have a problem with that other than you?

2. I have always said that Starmer doesn’t impress me much but FYI, I didn’t get a vote in who became leader of the Party.

3. I was responding to a post that said “Labour would be out in 5 years” - my political intelligence (of which you are apparently sorely lacking based on your belief that Starmer is directly responsible for genocide) lead me to say that before risking losing a GE with an unpopular leader, the Party will more than likely have a vote of no confidence and vote a new leader. That is what political parties do. The Tories changed their leader 4 times in the last Government and only Teresa May (and subsequently Sunak) faced the electorate as Prime Minister.

4. Ps “willing to bet” is a figure of speech - I never bet my money on anything - not even lottery tickets.

Just give the constant trolling a rest will you.

Use the ignore function.

 

[armchairclubber]

Zzzzzzz. what a bad faith post.

I am not your poster boy for everything you hate about Labour so stop trying to make it so across every thread on NSC that mentions Labour - it is becoming obsessive and trolling.

For the record

1. I never said I was one of Labour “staunchest” supporters. ( I am actually a Green Party supporter traditionally). I voted for Labour last election like millions of others in this Country because I no longer wanted a Tory Government in power and have voted for them in the past but stopped for many years. Yes, I was actively involved in the last campaign because I wanted to get rid of my constituency MP, Liz Truss who was an appalling Constituency MP and even worse PM - does anyone on this forum actually have a problem with that other than you?

2. I have always said that Starmer doesn’t impress me much but FYI, I didn’t get a vote in who became leader of the Party.

3. I was responding to a post that said “Labour would be out in 5 years” - my political intelligence (of which you are apparently sorely lacking based on your belief that Starmer is directly responsible for genocide) lead me to say that before risking losing a GE with an unpopular leader, the Party will more than likely have a vote of no confidence and vote a new leader. That is what political parties do. The Tories changed their leader 4 times in the last Government and only Teresa May (and subsequently Sunak) faced the electorate as Prime Minister.

4. Ps “willing to bet” is a figure of speech - I never bet my money on anything - not even lottery tickets.

Just give the constant trolling a rest will you.

How enlightening, thank you.

I was confident that you would provide some 'lawyer style' escape route that would set the record straight.
Even, if you'll forgive me for saying, it doesn't sound the most consistent.

Starmer could learn a thing or two

 

[Zeberdi]

Use the ignore function.

I was asked to “explain my comment” that Starmer could be subject to a leadership election - so I did.

Ignoring posters is all well and good if it stops them engaging with you personally but when they continue to spread lies and make disparaging remarks about you across multiple threads for months on end to other posters because of your voting behaviour , even when you have them ignore that needs addressing.

NSC is supposed to be an open and politically diverse community - since when did we start condoning the bullying of people for voting Labour (and enabling it by our silence) - that is repeated personal attacks on someones freedom to vote as they choose ?!

I am not the one doing something wrong here.

My comment was perfectly reasonable!

 

[Weststander]

I was asked to “explain my comment” that Starmer could be subject to a leadership election - so I did.

Ignoring posters is all well and good if it stops them engaging with you personally but when they continue to spread lies and make disparaging remarks about you across multiple threads for months on end to other posters because of your voting behaviour , even when you have them ignore that needs addressing.

NSC is supposed to be an open and politically diverse community - since when did we start condoning the bullying of people for voting Labour (by our silence) - that is repeated personal attacks on someones freedom to vote as they choose ?!

I am not the one doing something wrong here.

My comment was perfectly reasonable!

When you mentioned “trolling” I felt empathy for you.

It really isn’t worth engaging online in a tennis match of opposing views that go and on. Not good for one‘s health. Let them have the last say, don’t reply and no one ’wins’. Life’s too short. Imho.

 

[abc]

Zzzzzzz. what a bad faith post.

I am not your poster boy for everything you hate about Labour so stop trying to make it so across every thread on NSC that mentions Labour - it is becoming obsessive and trolling.

You won me over with “ I was actively involved in the last campaign because I wanted to get rid of my constituency MP, Liz Truss”

 

[Chicken Run]

- since when did we start condoning the bullying of people for voting Labour (and enabling it by our silence) -
!

Probably from around 2016 onwards when we allowed the bullying of people for voting Tory!

For the record ( before you say it) i don’t think you were party to the ‘bullying’ I hadn’t even heard of you until i ( some what foolishly) had a look at the multiple ME threads

 

[A1X]

very appropriate for this out of depth imbecile.

TNBA

TTF

Yes, a former chief of the DPP is out of his depth in a big job.

Jesus wept. The Dingo bangs on about “Trump derangement syndrome” in the US election thread, I’m starting to think some on here have Starmer derangement syndrome. By all means debate the facts and the policies but the idea one of the top lawyers in the country is somehow “out of his depth” or an “imbecile” is truly laughable, I’m afraid.

 

[Chicken Run]

Yes, a former chief of the DPP is out of his depth in a big job.

Jesus wept. The Dingo bangs on about “Trump derangement syndrome” in the US election thread, I’m starting to think some on here have Starmer derangement syndrome. By all means debate the facts and the policies but the idea one of the top lawyers in the country is somehow “out of his depth” or an “imbecile” is truly laughable, I’m afraid.

Is that the same “top lawyer “ who wanted to free the sausages or suggested HMS Antelope was torpedoed in 1982

 

[Since1982]

Yet Starmer and Reeves’ approval ratings are at rock bottom - and this is before their first budget…

True - but approval ratings for their policies aren't rock bottom. Make of that what you will.

 

[Ike and Tina Burner]

Yes, a former chief of the DPP is out of his depth in a big job.

Jesus wept. The Dingo bangs on about “Trump derangement syndrome” in the US election thread, I’m starting to think some on here have Starmer derangement syndrome. By all means debate the facts and the policies but the idea one of the top lawyers in the country is somehow “out of his depth” or an “imbecile” is truly laughable, I’m afraid.

Bizarre logic and indicative of some of the delusion shown on here recently. Boris, Truss, Sunak and May all had esteemed, high level careers prior to being prime minister. Would you have used the same argument in defence of them?
"How can you call Boris an imbecile, he was chief editor of the spectator for 6 years and Mayor of London for 8?!"
"How can you call Theresa May out of her depth, she served as APAC's Head of the European Affairs for 7 years?!"

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Is that the same “top lawyer “ who wanted to free the sausages or suggested HMS Antelope was torpedoed in 1982

How many people outside of the military can explain the difference between a torpedo, missile or bomb?
Two of them landed on Antelope, unexploded, but then detonated, causing her to break up & sink.

 

[Chicken Run]

How many people outside of the military can explain the difference between a torpedo, missile or bomb?
Two of them landed on Antelope, unexploded, but then detonated, causing her to break up & sink.