[Mild Rover]

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 12:57 pm  

I know this cuts two ways, but it is funny to see the Tory-leaning part of the usually metropolitan-focused media playing down the importance of London.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 3:01 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

What a strange post. Do you pay zero attention to the rest of Super League just because Wakefield are a bit rubbish at the moment?

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the Liberal Democrats are the biggest winners from the evening.

Yes it is a strange post, asking me if I pay zero attention to the rest of super league just because we are a bit rubbish at the moment, do you pay zero attention about Leeds because they are also seriously rubbish at the moment, a strange response from you indeed

Thanks for the heads up as I hadn't noticed the lib-dems are the biggest winners, can't for the life of me understand how this has got past me or why you find it more exciting for the labour lot to be in the ascendancy when your mob has done so wonderfully well.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 3:40 pm  

wire-quin wrote:

Early indications suggest labours less than impressed in the elections.
Symbolic wins is now looking like the strap line.
Boris is so lucky to have KS opposite him

Are you sure about the first part ?
The Tory line was that if they lost fewer than 800 seats then it would be an ok night.

However, it was nigh on impossible for them to lose 800 seats, they only had around 1000 to lose
By comparison, Labour had around 1600 seats.
Never mind, they will have even fewer to lose next time around.

Also, regarding the alleged KIer Starmer "beer and curry night", it seems that there is a whole load of noise being made on this, probably to try and deflect what's coming form the Sue Gray report. You do remember her dont you There's a whole very brown mud (polite word) storm coming, I cant wait.

More pain, more fines and hopefully , goodbye Boris.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 4:31 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Are you sure about the first part ?
The Tory line was that if they lost fewer than 800 seats then it would be an ok night.

However, it was nigh on impossible for them to lose 800 seats, they only had around 1000 to lose
By comparison, Labour had around 1600 seats.
Never mind, they will have even fewer to lose next time around.

Also, regarding the alleged KIer Starmer "beer and curry night", it seems that there is a whole load of noise being made on this, probably to try and deflect what's coming form the Sue Gray report. You do remember her dont you There's a whole very brown mud (polite word) storm coming, I cant wait.

More pain, more fines and hopefully , goodbye Boris.

Personally I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing about partygate, as Im sure millions of others are too. There are far more concerning matters going on in the world right now.
I'm also not happy with the Tories and some of their policies regarding the the push for zero emissions. Especially when the UK only produces just one percent of global emissions whilst China and India between them produce between 30 and 40 percent. However, I still will not vote labour in its current form, even though I always did from the 1970s onwards. What the labour party has become is a million miles away from what it stood for and represented in the past. In my opinion it no longer represents the working class but instead now represents the London elite, it has in effect become London centric. It has totally lost touch with its working class Northern heartlands and I cant see that changing anytime soon. I would go as far as to say that this is the worst labour opposition that I can remember in 50 years of voting, the quality of some of their MPs is dire to say the least. My deceased family members would be turning in their graves if they could see what labour has become. Starmer in particular must the most boring uncharismatic person I've come across as a leader of the opposition in the past 50 years. He's also a hypocrite of the highest order. So, until Labour can re connect with its Northern heartlands, including accepting Brexit, and changes its leader to someone like the late John Smith, who was in my opinion the best leader labour ever had and would have made a great PM, they won't get a big enough of a swing to form a government.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 4:41 pm  

Wow has someone inadvertently plugged rlfans into Conservative Central Office's "desperate talking points" feed?

But to pluck just one out of that little lot, just imagine being really, really angry about policies to clean up the environment and reduce reliance on fossil fuels (have you seen the prices recently?!). If I didn't think it was a parody it would be hilarious.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 5:04 pm  

Seventies red wrote:

Personally I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing about partygate, as Im sure millions of others are too. There are far more concerning matters going on in the world right now.
I'm also not happy with the Tories and some of their policies regarding the the push for zero emissions. Especially when the UK only produces just one percent of global emissions whilst China and India between them produce between 30 and 40 percent. However, I still will not vote labour in its current form, even though I always did from the 1970s onwards. What the labour party has become is a million miles away from what it stood for and represented in the past. In my opinion it no longer represents the working class but instead now represents the London elite, it has in effect become London centric. It has totally lost touch with its working class Northern heartlands and I cant see that changing anytime soon. I would go as far as to say that this is the worst labour opposition that I can remember in 50 years of voting, the quality of some of their MPs is dire to say the least. My deceased family members would be turning in their graves if they could see what labour has become. Starmer in particular must the most boring uncharismatic person I've come across as a leader of the opposition in the past 50 years. He's also a hypocrite of the highest order. So, until Labour can re connect with its Northern heartlands, including accepting Brexit, and changes its leader to someone like the late John Smith, who was in my opinion the best leader labour ever had and would have made a great PM, they won't get a big enough of a swing to form a government.

I haven’t checked those emissions numbers but the combined population of India and China is more than 40 times that of the UK. So I don’t think the use of ‘only’ is particularly justified, even if they’re correct.

Partygate has dragged on way too long… because Johnson won’t resign. I’m bored of seeing his fizzog, as I’m sure millions of others are too.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 5:58 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

I haven’t checked those emissions numbers but the combined population of India and China is more than 40 times that of the UK. So I don’t think the use of ‘only’ is particularly justified, even if they’re correct.

Partygate has dragged on way too long… because Johnson won’t resign. I’m bored of seeing his fizzog, as I’m sure millions of others are too.

The global emissions 2021 were

1 China 29%
2 USA 14%
3 India 7%
4 Russia 4.65%

17 UK 1.03%

These are as a total of the world's co2 emissions and clearly, there is massive disparity in population numbers.
He's right though, in the sense that even if the UK were zero, it would have little to no effect on world emissions and that China and India, both of which are "fast developing" nations, are likely to increase their emissions overall in the coming years.

Certainly in China, where the vast majority of the population dont own a car etc, they will do well to keep their emissions at current levels, never mind actually cutting them.

As for Labour, I agree with him on this also but, they still remain a better option than the self serving Tories.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 7:41 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

The global emissions 2021 were

1 China 29%
2 USA 14%
3 India 7%
4 Russia 4.65%

17 UK 1.03%

These are as a total of the world's co2 emissions and clearly, there is massive disparity in population numbers.
He's right though, in the sense that even if the UK were zero, it would have little to no effect on world emissions and that China and India, both of which are "fast developing" nations, are likely to increase their emissions overall in the coming years.

Certainly in China, where the vast majority of the population dont own a car etc, they will do well to keep their emissions at current levels, never mind actually cutting them.

As for Labour, I agree with him on this also but, they still remain a better option than the self serving Tories.

Aye - one of the failures of the concept of the nation state in the 21st century.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri May 06, 2022 9:11 pm  

The UK, of course, has been spewing out terrible stuff for much longer, decades longer, than any other country. It's lazy and selfish to suggest that we shouldn't also be at the vanguard of cleaning up our act.

But even if for some reason taking responsibility for the sort of environmental impact we created isn't enough, if fixing the planet before it tips over the edge isn't enough, then surely the idea of not being beholden to the whims of oil producing countries is? If we were not reliant on overseas oil and gas then countries like Russia and the OPEC nations would have no leverage on us - and people living in this country wouldn't suddenly be stuck with fuel bills doubling in the space of a couple of months.

Re: Kier Starmer : Sat May 07, 2022 8:49 am  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

The UK, of course, has been spewing out terrible stuff for much longer, decades longer, than any other country. It's lazy and selfish to suggest that we shouldn't also be at the vanguard of cleaning up our act.

But even if for some reason taking responsibility for the sort of environmental impact we created isn't enough, if fixing the planet before it tips over the edge isn't enough, then surely the idea of not being beholden to the whims of oil producing countries is? If we were not reliant on overseas oil and gas then countries like Russia and the OPEC nations would have no leverage on us - and people living in this country wouldn't suddenly be stuck with fuel bills doubling in the space of a couple of months.

It's as though you are suggesting that we should have a coherent strategy on energy, rather than letting "the markets" pull us in a certain direction.