Earl Aelfheah

I love the completely unnecessary 'black jag' detail. Someone is very proud 😂 Like others have said, you should be ready to stop at a zebra crossing and looking out for pedestrians about to cross.

Dianne Abbott has type 2 diabetes: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/diane-abbott-reveals-illness-and-hits-out-at-vicious-tory-campaign

They're still parroting sound bites. It's pathetic.

This thread is really distasteful

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is going to be raining all day tomorrow. Oh dear. That could be enough to undo any slim chance Labour might have.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Come on, May saying she'll 'rip up the human > > rights act' is just ridiculous politicking and > has > > no bearing on what's happened. How about > properly > > funding the security services as a start > > Good of you to raise the issue of security > services. Here's a little press cutting from > November 2016. Is this what we can expect if JC > and Mcdonnell get in? > > John McDonnell, Labour's shadow chancellor, called > for MI5 and the UK's armed police force to be > scrapped in a controversial campaign letter. > > It demands that special police squads - like those > that hunt terror suspects - be disbanded, as well > as the Monarchy and the House of Lords. > > The letter, organised by The Socialist Network as > part of their ?Socialist Campaign For a Labour > Victory? was also signed by a group of > Labour-supporting unions. > > In a tweet accompanying a picture of him holding > the list of demands Labour's shadow chancellor > said the campaign: "Is important for ensuring a > clear program of socialist demands on a Labour > government". > > http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t643/savedelhi > /Public%20Album/odonnel_zpsjwmttowk.jpg From the Mail?

Come on, May saying she'll 'rip up the human rights act' is just ridiculous politicking and has no bearing on what's happened. How about properly funding the security services as a start

There are some suggestions on Twitter (from reported conversations with a Labour MP), that she may have been diagnosed with a serious, long-term condition. I guess more info will come out, but perhaps we should hold back on the judgement for now.

That's the daily mail you've linked to.

It's easy gone cynical and I'm suspicious myself I must admit (it looks like she's been sidelined following some poor performances). But it is also possible that she is actually unwell. It might even explain why she's been so far off her game of late.

Apparently the problem is the human rights act.?!?! I mean reLly, wtf?

Winder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Kier Starmer and Emily Thornberry are very > > competent and I'd trust them to lead > constructive > > Brexit negotiations above May, Boris and > Hammond > > frankly. > > Listened to him also but he failed to defend the > soft line he has taken in the past with with > terror suspects. He was against deportation for > example. When he was at DPP he was a disaster. > > He is out of touch with today's realities eg 3 > major attacks in 3 months in the UK. > > I appreciate you are keen to favour us all with > your views with all in your eagerness but maybe > you should have put your post in another thread > 'cos this is about political posters in windows I was talking about Brexit negotiations. But on the terrorist threat - May watered down many of the anti terror measures brought in by the last Labour government (for example control orders, 48 day detention, huge cuts to the security services), so not sure her record is great in that respect.

Kier Starmer and Emily Thornberry are very competent and I'd trust them to lead constructive Brexit negotiations above May, Boris and Hammond frankly.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > and some of them are right up top of your party > = > > policy, advisors, McDonnells secret army > > > Who didn't read that as MacDonalds? ^^^ Watch out for Hamburglar.

Woman's hour debate really good. Emily Thornberry is very good.

Just heard that abbot has been pulled from Women's hour as she's 'sick'.

Johnsson also pretty awful on R4 this morning. The presenter actually pleaded with him to stop talking at one point.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seen this? > > https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/871812244014862 > 336 Jeez. Why on earth do they let her on TV?

.

Your just as bad as the ranting 'Canary' lot quids. Just as hysterical. The Labour Party aren't Maoists any more than the Conservatives are Fascists. It's childish hyperbole and your guilty of it as much as those you're criticising.

Ha! I did think it was a pretty bad advert for the Conservatives - coaching kids in the art of negative campaigning. Perhaps it's reverse psychology from a Labour voter.

Uncleglen - you should definitely take some MDMA, it would do you no end of good.

Winder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One sees the odd house with a poster in the window > or a bill board in the front yard saying " VOTE > for ****". > > Is this naff or should we all be doing it? One of the houses on my street has stuck up handwritten anti-Labour messages that they've had their young children write / draw. Things about 'no magic money tree' and 'McDonnell is a Marxist' etc.

This thread is so revealing of the mindset of many Conservative supporters. It speaks volumes.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Alan Medic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Should wealth be redistributed is an > interesting > > question. Those > > > who say it should are probably not wealthy. > > > > This is simply not the case. If it were then > the > > Labour Party would not have any wealthy > > supporters. > > Quite a few, if not most, donors to political > parties do not do so for altusitic motives. No, > they do so because they want to secure some > influence on policy (like a certain mr > Ecclestone) or they want to get a knighthood or > peerage. Plus of course it is tax deductable. > > Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the prime > motivation. Believe me. I didnt say 'donors', I said 'supporters'. There are plenty of Labour supporters (including myself) who are not poor. Believe it or not, not everyone is just out for what they can get. That said, there are plenty of people who do donate to Labour (as well as other parties), who aren't just looking for 'influence'. Honestly, you really are proving my points for me.