Originally posted by jeeagles

Of the three Labour leaders that have won elections since the war. Two were barristers.

On matters of conscious he's pretty good. It just seems like Labour have no policy. Their core supporter base has shifted since Momentum took control of the party and the sole intention is to have a throwback socialist labour party who do nothing more than call all conservative voters scum.

Starmer's main battle coming up isn't to win an election, he needs to straighten out the party. Corbyn's leadership was akin to Farrage taking control of the Tories and infiltrating it with moronic UKIPpers that have chased out all the talent.

Personally, I think what traditional Labour voters want to see is a party that offers pragmatic ideas to support those less well off, policy to match changing technology and economic conditions, a hard line on crime, acceptance of the referendum decision (even reluctantly), and less of this spiteful ideology which seems to be directed at the rich but helps no one.

It seems the only solution at the moment is to set up a new party, as Labour won't be escaping the clutches of the lunatics any time soon.

Lib Dem are still failing to fill the gap as they just seem too soft on everything, always trying to be a middle man and never being decisive.

Originally posted by jeeagles

I'm not sure she is a fair representation of all Labour voters. There's probably plenty of died in the wool Tories who are just as bigoted, but I see the sterotype and get your point.

What I was getting at was the voters that allowed Tony Blair to win 3 landslide GE victories. The will to vote for a left leaning party exists amongst the British people, it's just that no one trusts them at the moment and they aren't coming up with anything anyone wants.

They are a very centrist Tory government and the left hate being told that. These aren't the Thatcherite Tories of the past, nor the sleaze of the Major years.

Listening to todays news, it makes you wonder if Labour would call for an inquiry into the procurement of Spitfires and Lee Enfield's. I've got a vision of Captian Mainwaring in the first episode of Dad's army being told that he can't have any rifles because Churchill got them from his mates rather than through following procurement rules.

It seems like all Dyson asked for assurances his staff wont fall foul of the 90 day residency test, which can be waivered in exceptional circumstances. Unless there's something I'm unaware of, he hasn't broken any tax rules at all.

Originally posted by Badger11

Exactly Dyson simply saying that if his people need to come to the UK to finish work on these ventilators will they get screwed by the tax man Boris of course said know which was perfectly reasonable.

As a comparison it's like the driver who pulls into a bus lane to let the ambulance through and then gets a ticket.

Plenty of other Tory sleaze around nothing to see here.

Edited by Badger11 (22 Apr 2021 10.31am)

Originally posted by silvertop
No. It is down to procedure. There are ways of doing things and asking your mate the chief executive of the country to sort it on the QT is not the way.

Yeah yeah, red tape, bureaucracy cut through in a crisis etc. However, believe it or not, rules are there not just to make work for civil servants, but to operate as checks and balances against abuse.

Thus, in this case the PM's protestations that he was acting in the nation's best interests is fair. However, as the top of the heap, he cannot side-step important rules designed to prevent corruption. If you want to inspire confidence in an organization, you don't just need to do right you need to be seen and perceived as doing right. On this occasion, he did not. Thus, the attacks are proportionate and justified.

Public confidence has been eroded, albeit not much; and the story will be chip wrap in a week.