Stop voting for fucking Tories

[I like neeps]

Despite the fact that rhe Tories have been in power for 12 years
It's all Labour's fault

It's just so blatant - they're not even trying to hide how they're in cahoots with the tories.

Brexit issues, Northern Ireland problems, looming recession, failing NHS, strikes and cost of living crisis, but it is all the opposition's fault - nothing to do with the party that's been in charge for over a decade.

With most media so heavily biased, not sure how we'll ever have a respectable and healthily functioning democracy.

Come on there are plenty on anti Tory news publications
Guardian
Mirror
Independent
BBC
…

BBC

The Independent's ownership largest stakeholder is a Tory Peer!

[petej]

Had the BBC argument with an elderly relative. Pointed out the BBC can't be balanced with a lifelong rule breaker and compulsive liar and someone who is basically incredibly dull as they don't have any interesting stories on Starmer.
Edit - balanced as in equal number of reports and stories.

[Ymx]

The BBC can barely contain their hatred of the govt. sentiment matching this thread.

The independent is a very left leaning paper. In fact they describe themselves as a “proudly liberal paper” “ voice of progressive, liberal values and trusted journalism”

[Raggs]

I always think the BBC must be at least close to being somewhere in the middle ( not that the middle is necessarily the right place to be), since both left and right seem to sweat blind is against them.

[sockwithaticket]

The BBC can barely contain their hatred of the govt. sentiment matching this thread.

The independent is a very left leaning paper. In fact they describe themselves as a “proudly liberal paper” “ voice of progressive, liberal values and trusted journalism”

And there was me thinking that the BBC has gone incredibly softly on the current government and that it was hardly a surprise considering the constant existential threats made over the license fee and having a Tory donor as the director general.

[JM2K6]

The BBC can barely contain their hatred of the govt. sentiment matching this thread.

The independent is a very left leaning paper. In fact they describe themselves as a “proudly liberal paper” “ voice of progressive, liberal values and trusted journalism”

Not just left leaning but "very" left leaning. Amazing stuff.

One might tentatively suggest that 'liberal' and 'very left' aren't that close but what do I know, perhaps Lebedev is secretly a communist after all

[JM2K6]

The BBC can barely contain their hatred of the govt. sentiment matching this thread.

The independent is a very left leaning paper. In fact they describe themselves as a “proudly liberal paper” “ voice of progressive, liberal values and trusted journalism”

And there was me thinking that the BBC has gone incredibly softly on the current government and that it was hardly a surprise considering the constant existential threats made over the license fee and having a Tory donor as the director general.

You have to understand that even reporting on anything critical of the government immediately makes them anti-government. That's the logic at play.

[Torquemada 1420]

I’m not rich...I’ve got two houses

I suppose there's a comparator.

In 2010 he was reckoned to be worth around £2m, so Clarke’s net wealth is now likely to be somewhere between 5 and 10 million at the very least (and probably much more). This would place him comfortably in the top 1% wealthiest people in the UK (the threshold is £3.64m). But apparently he still thinks he is ‘not rich’.

Those numbers seems really low.

[Torquemada 1420]

The railways in the UK are a clustef**k.

Supposedly privatised and yet were being subsidised to the tune of some £5bn pa (no idea what that went up to during COVID and what the nos are if you add in the HS2 debacle) which is something like 3x more than it was BEFORE the privatisation took place. This ignores loans to the Network Rail clowns which we know will never be paid back.

The questions that should be being asked are
1) Why TF is the public subsidising private companies at all?
2) Where TF is that money going?
3) Have rail bosses and shareholders being taking bonuses and dividends during all this time and to what £ sum?

[Paddington Bear]

The question remains what's the solution for the railways? Would a nationalised operator be a success? I can see how it might, but can also see it going badly wrong.

The challenge that isn't easily resolved is the British rail network is a weird hybrid of inter-city, inter-town and suburban rail with no clear separation and no way it can realistically be done. We also remain a car addicted country, and have a tendency to assume other country's railways are amazing (Deutsche Bahn's reputation here is very different from the reality).

[JM2K6]

I suppose there's a comparator.

In 2010 he was reckoned to be worth around £2m, so Clarke’s net wealth is now likely to be somewhere between 5 and 10 million at the very least (and probably much more). This would place him comfortably in the top 1% wealthiest people in the UK (the threshold is £3.64m). But apparently he still thinks he is ‘not rich’.

Those numbers seems really low.

I've always assumed that as a well-paid Londoner I'm in the top 1% and I'm nowhere near that threshold.

[Torquemada 1420]

In 2010 he was reckoned to be worth around £2m, so Clarke’s net wealth is now likely to be somewhere between 5 and 10 million at the very least (and probably much more). This would place him comfortably in the top 1% wealthiest people in the UK (the threshold is £3.64m). But apparently he still thinks he is ‘not rich’.

Those numbers seems really low.

I've always assumed that as a well-paid Londoner I'm in the top 1% and I'm nowhere near that threshold.

I just seem to know so many people > £1m (mostly down to property values) that £3.5m looked low for the top 1%.

[Lobby]

I suppose there's a comparator.

In 2010 he was reckoned to be worth around £2m, so Clarke’s net wealth is now likely to be somewhere between 5 and 10 million at the very least (and probably much more). This would place him comfortably in the top 1% wealthiest people in the UK (the threshold is £3.64m). But apparently he still thinks he is ‘not rich’.

Those numbers seems really low.

The figures come from the ONS and are the latest available. They date from 2020, so may have increased a bit since then, but its probably the most accurate figure you can get:

"Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.

The richest 1% of households were those whose total wealth was more than £3.6 million (Figure 2). The least wealthy 10% of households had wealth of £15,400 or less. In this group at least half only held wealth in physical assets (with a mean value of £8,000) and almost half held more financial debt than they did financial assets."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... omarch2020

The threshold for the top 10% is just over £1.4m.

[petej]

The BBC can barely contain their hatred of the govt. sentiment matching this thread.

The independent is a very left leaning paper. In fact they describe themselves as a “proudly liberal paper” “ voice of progressive, liberal values and trusted journalism”

Not just left leaning but "very" left leaning. Amazing stuff.

One might tentatively suggest that 'liberal' and 'very left' aren't that close but what do I know, perhaps Lebedev is secretly a communist after all

Pretty sure I would have regarded the Independent as liberal but centrist at least economically. It wasn't kind to new labour. Then again we are in an age where the financial times has been attacked as very left and anti-capitalist on twitter. The right left labels aren't very useful with this not conservative, not unionist, incompetent, corrupt and messy government.

[Torquemada 1420]

The figures come from the ONS and are the latest available. They date from 2020, so may have increased a bit since then, but its probably the most accurate figure you can get:

"Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.

The richest 1% of households were those whose total wealth was more than £3.6 million (Figure 2). The least wealthy 10% of households had wealth of £15,400 or less. In this group at least half only held wealth in physical assets (with a mean value of £8,000) and almost half held more financial debt than they did financial assets."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... omarch2020

The threshold for the top 10% is just over £1.4m.

Depressing enough disparity but quite a distance from the claim that the richest 60 in the world are worth more than the poorest half of the entire global population and that 1% do own 99% of the wealth.

[JM2K6]

In 2010 he was reckoned to be worth around £2m, so Clarke’s net wealth is now likely to be somewhere between 5 and 10 million at the very least (and probably much more). This would place him comfortably in the top 1% wealthiest people in the UK (the threshold is £3.64m). But apparently he still thinks he is ‘not rich’.

Those numbers seems really low.

The figures come from the ONS and are the latest available. They date from 2020, so may have increased a bit since then, but its probably the most accurate figure you can get:

"Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.

The richest 1% of households were those whose total wealth was more than £3.6 million (Figure 2). The least wealthy 10% of households had wealth of £15,400 or less. In this group at least half only held wealth in physical assets (with a mean value of £8,000) and almost half held more financial debt than they did financial assets."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... omarch2020

The threshold for the top 10% is just over £1.4m.

Ah, households.

The girlfriend's a writer, so I'm fucked

Not even top 10%. Time to go drive a cab and yell at dark people.

[JM2K6]

The BBC can barely contain their hatred of the govt. sentiment matching this thread.

The independent is a very left leaning paper. In fact they describe themselves as a “proudly liberal paper” “ voice of progressive, liberal values and trusted journalism”

Not just left leaning but "very" left leaning. Amazing stuff.

One might tentatively suggest that 'liberal' and 'very left' aren't that close but what do I know, perhaps Lebedev is secretly a communist after all

Pretty sure I would have regarded the Independent as liberal but centrist at least economically. It wasn't kind to new labour. Then again we are in an age where the financial times has been attacked as very left and anti-capitalist on twitter. The right left labels aren't very useful with this not conservative, not unionist, incompetent, corrupt and messy government.

There are strong authoritarian and right/far-right leanings to this government in many aspects, but they are all over the shop on some things economically speaking. But by merely attempting to differentiate you're already putting more thought into this than the people who think that everything that isn't the express is left wing or socialist

[Lobby]

The figures come from the ONS and are the latest available. They date from 2020, so may have increased a bit since then, but its probably the most accurate figure you can get:

"Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.

The richest 1% of households were those whose total wealth was more than £3.6 million (Figure 2). The least wealthy 10% of households had wealth of £15,400 or less. In this group at least half only held wealth in physical assets (with a mean value of £8,000) and almost half held more financial debt than they did financial assets."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... omarch2020

The threshold for the top 10% is just over £1.4m.

Depressing enough disparity but quite a distance from the claim that the richest 60 in the world are worth more than the poorest half of the entire global population and that 1% do own 99% of the wealth.

According to the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report the world’s richest 1 percent own 45.8 percent of the world’s wealth, so those claims are clearly wrong. To join the world's richest 1% you only need personal wealth of $1m (about £820,000), so JMK may still be able to count himself as being in the top 1% by at least one measure.

The same report states that 55% of the global population have less than $10,000 (£8,200), so a significant percentage of the least wealthy people in the UK are still richer than most other people in the world.

[Mahoney]

My overwhelming sense is that this government are shit at a meta level. That is, it has nothing really to do with their social or economic policies, it's unrelated to their position on any classical political quadrant.

They are actively dishonest, shameless in seeking to avoid accountability, and uninterested in actually mitigating / solving problems rather than exploiting them to try and inflame their base against their competition, to a degree unparalleled in the UK in my lifetime (ever?).

I'm fairly convinced that this is by a large margin both the least able and the least honest set of cabinet ministers I have ever known, and that this is a deliberate choice of the PM in order to have a cabinet entirely beholden to him who will both present no threat and abase themselves whenever needed in his defence.

I have voted Conservative in the past, but for the first time in my life I actually think it would be immoral to vote for this lot at the next election, because a vote for them is effectively a vote against the basic assumptions and workings of British parliamentary democracy.

[Torquemada 1420]

The figures come from the ONS and are the latest available. They date from 2020, so may have increased a bit since then, but its probably the most accurate figure you can get:

"Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.

The richest 1% of households were those whose total wealth was more than £3.6 million (Figure 2). The least wealthy 10% of households had wealth of £15,400 or less. In this group at least half only held wealth in physical assets (with a mean value of £8,000) and almost half held more financial debt than they did financial assets."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... omarch2020

The threshold for the top 10% is just over £1.4m.

Depressing enough disparity but quite a distance from the claim that the richest 60 in the world are worth more than the poorest half of the entire global population and that 1% do own 99% of the wealth.

According to the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report the world’s richest 1 percent own 45.8 percent of the world’s wealth, so those claims are clearly wrong. To join the world's richest 1% you only need personal wealth of $1m (about £820,000), so JMK may still be able to count himself as being in the top 1% by at least one measure.

The same report states that 55% of the global population have less than $10,000 (£8,200), so a significant percentage of the least wealthy people in the UK are still richer than most other people in the world.

Not sure I'd believe the money laundering, gold teeth stealing f**kers in cuckoo clock land. But I guess it's all in the way you dress it up
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resou ... re-338125/

In the end, it doesn't really matter because whatever, the disparity is obscene.

[Torquemada 1420]

My overwhelming sense is that this government are shit at a meta level. That is, it has nothing really to do with their social or economic policies, it's unrelated to their position on any classical political quadrant.

They are actively dishonest, shameless in seeking to avoid accountability, and uninterested in actually mitigating / solving problems rather than exploiting them to try and inflame their base against their competition, to a degree unparalleled in the UK in my lifetime (ever?).

I'm fairly convinced that this is by a large margin both the least able and the least honest set of cabinet ministers I have ever known, and that this is a deliberate choice of the PM in order to have a cabinet entirely beholden to him who will both present no threat and abase themselves whenever needed in his defence.

I have voted Conservative in the past, but for the first time in my life I actually think it would be immoral to vote for this lot at the next election, because a vote for them is effectively a vote against the basic assumptions and workings of British parliamentary democracy.

In entire agreement. The reason your first sentence is correct is because they have no beliefs or morals which are not always and immediately superseded by their own, self motivated greed. Be that greed for money, power or favour for cronies.

This is the most corrupt British Government ever by all measures.

[SaintK]

My overwhelming sense is that this government are shit at a meta level. That is, it has nothing really to do with their social or economic policies, it's unrelated to their position on any classical political quadrant.

They are actively dishonest, shameless in seeking to avoid accountability, and uninterested in actually mitigating / solving problems rather than exploiting them to try and inflame their base against their competition, to a degree unparalleled in the UK in my lifetime (ever?).

I'm fairly convinced that this is by a large margin both the least able and the least honest set of cabinet ministers I have ever known, and that this is a deliberate choice of the PM in order to have a cabinet entirely beholden to him who will both present no threat and abase themselves whenever needed in his defence.

I have voted Conservative in the past, but for the first time in my life I actually think it would be immoral to vote for this lot at the next election, because a vote for them is effectively a vote against the basic assumptions and workings of British parliamentary democracy.

+1 I'm with you!
I've been voting since 1970 and have never seen such a corrupt, morally bankrupt government led by a grotesque, parody of a Prime Minister

[tabascoboy]

Well we will see what happens in the by-elections, reasonably confident Wakefield will switch but Tiverton and Honiton seems to be in the balance. 24, 239 is a huge majority to overturn but Tory strategists don't seem confident, which is quite amazing and shows the growing internal discontent with the slug@No10

[petej]

My overwhelming sense is that this government are shit at a meta level. That is, it has nothing really to do with their social or economic policies, it's unrelated to their position on any classical political quadrant.

They are actively dishonest, shameless in seeking to avoid accountability, and uninterested in actually mitigating / solving problems rather than exploiting them to try and inflame their base against their competition, to a degree unparalleled in the UK in my lifetime (ever?).

I'm fairly convinced that this is by a large margin both the least able and the least honest set of cabinet ministers I have ever known, and that this is a deliberate choice of the PM in order to have a cabinet entirely beholden to him who will both present no threat and abase themselves whenever needed in his defence.

I have voted Conservative in the past, but for the first time in my life I actually think it would be immoral to vote for this lot at the next election, because a vote for them is effectively a vote against the basic assumptions and workings of British parliamentary democracy.

Excellent post.

[ASMO]

My overwhelming sense is that this government are shit at a meta level. That is, it has nothing really to do with their social or economic policies, it's unrelated to their position on any classical political quadrant.

They are actively dishonest, shameless in seeking to avoid accountability, and uninterested in actually mitigating / solving problems rather than exploiting them to try and inflame their base against their competition, to a degree unparalleled in the UK in my lifetime (ever?).

I'm fairly convinced that this is by a large margin both the least able and the least honest set of cabinet ministers I have ever known, and that this is a deliberate choice of the PM in order to have a cabinet entirely beholden to him who will both present no threat and abase themselves whenever needed in his defence.

I have voted Conservative in the past, but for the first time in my life I actually think it would be immoral to vote for this lot at the next election, because a vote for them is effectively a vote against the basic assumptions and workings of British parliamentary democracy.

+1 I'm with you!
I've been voting since 1970 and have never seen such a corrupt, morally bankrupt government led by a grotesque, parody of a Prime Minister

You will need to actively vote for Labour of Lib Dem though (depending on who is stronger in your area) a non vote is a vote for these cunts.

[SaintK]

My overwhelming sense is that this government are shit at a meta level. That is, it has nothing really to do with their social or economic policies, it's unrelated to their position on any classical political quadrant.

They are actively dishonest, shameless in seeking to avoid accountability, and uninterested in actually mitigating / solving problems rather than exploiting them to try and inflame their base against their competition, to a degree unparalleled in the UK in my lifetime (ever?).

I'm fairly convinced that this is by a large margin both the least able and the least honest set of cabinet ministers I have ever known, and that this is a deliberate choice of the PM in order to have a cabinet entirely beholden to him who will both present no threat and abase themselves whenever needed in his defence.

I have voted Conservative in the past, but for the first time in my life I actually think it would be immoral to vote for this lot at the next election, because a vote for them is effectively a vote against the basic assumptions and workings of British parliamentary democracy.

+1 I'm with you!
I've been voting since 1970 and have never seen such a corrupt, morally bankrupt government led by a grotesque, parody of a Prime Minister

You will need to actively vote for Labour of Lib Dem though (depending on who is stronger in your area) a non vote is a vote for these cunts.

Never voted Labour in my life!!!
May have to bite the bullet as they are stronger in my constituency than the Lib Dems

[C69]

+1 I'm with you!
I've been voting since 1970 and have never seen such a corrupt, morally bankrupt government led by a grotesque, parody of a Prime Minister

You will need to actively vote for Labour of Lib Dem though (depending on who is stronger in your area) a non vote is a vote for these cunts.

Never voted Labour in my life!!!
May have to bite the bullet as they are stronger in my constituency than the Lib Dems

Sometimes you have to do things for the greater good.
I voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out once.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

In my constituency I doubt it matters if I vote Labour or Lib Dem, but it's possible if things go very ,very, very badly for the Tories that Labour could contest Sutton Coldfield, the Lib Dems are better than losing their deposit but they're not a challenger. Actually voting Labour in the locals just gone wasn't an altogether pleasant experience, but at least one knows it can be replicated, not that I really knew anything about the Labour candidate and I was happy to support Starmer, just I do know the Lib Dem candidate and I did feel bad not voting Lib Dem. Mostly the FPP system says even voting is a waste of time

[Insane_Homer]

[JM2K6]

Well we will see what happens in the by-elections, reasonably confident Wakefield will switch but Tiverton and Honiton seems to be in the balance. 24, 239 is a huge majority to overturn but Tory strategists don't seem confident, which is quite amazing and shows the growing internal discontent with the slug@No10

The Tory candidate is a real charmer.

[Brazil]

Well we will see what happens in the by-elections, reasonably confident Wakefield will switch but Tiverton and Honiton seems to be in the balance. 24, 239 is a huge majority to overturn but Tory strategists don't seem confident, which is quite amazing and shows the growing internal discontent with the slug@No10

The Tory candidate is a real charmer.

Jesus, what an utter cabbage.

[SaintK]

Well we will see what happens in the by-elections, reasonably confident Wakefield will switch but Tiverton and Honiton seems to be in the balance. 24, 239 is a huge majority to overturn but Tory strategists don't seem confident, which is quite amazing and shows the growing internal discontent with the slug@No10

The Tory candidate is a real charmer.

Jesus, what an utter cabbage.

Holy shit!!!
Though to be fair to her she's already Cabinet material!

[C69]

Well we will see what happens in the by-elections, reasonably confident Wakefield will switch but Tiverton and Honiton seems to be in the balance. 24, 239 is a huge majority to overturn but Tory strategists don't seem confident, which is quite amazing and shows the growing internal discontent with the slug@No10

The Tory candidate is a real charmer.

Jesus, what an utter cabbage.

She certian shows a brass(ica) neck with such haughty indignation and disdain.

[PCPhil]

In my constituency I doubt it matters if I vote Labour or Lib Dem, but it's possible if things go very ,very, very badly for the Tories that Labour could contest Sutton Coldfield, the Lib Dems are better than losing their deposit but they're not a challenger. Actually voting Labour in the locals just gone wasn't an altogether pleasant experience, but at least one knows it can be replicated, not that I really knew anything about the Labour candidate and I was happy to support Starmer, just I do know the Lib Dem candidate and I did feel bad not voting Lib Dem. Mostly the FPP system says even voting is a waste of time

I think it was Jasper Carrot who said about Solihull or Sutton Coldfield that they had a Labour councillor once, but they hung im!

[tabascoboy]

The Tory candidate is a real charmer.

Jesus, what an utter cabbage.

Holy shit!!!
Though to be fair to her she's already Cabinet material!

Quite so, we live in a world where Dorries is an SoS after all, where the only qualification required is how far you're prepared to stick your tongue up BoJo's arse.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The Tory candidate is a real charmer.

Jesus, what an utter cabbage.

She certian shows a brass(ica) neck with such haughty indignation and disdain.

She had previously been answering the question of whether Boris was honest by refusing to answer said question and instead informing you she was a mum of 3. One suspects it was made abundantly clear to her this was not satisfactory so she's tried to accommodate CCHQ/Boris and of course looks a complete fool because it's defending the indefensible

[Hugo]

I was tickled by how she tried to deflect away from questions about Johnson's character flaws by name dropping the leader of one of the most corrupt countries in all of Europe.

[fishfoodie]

I think the Tories will lose both by-elections; but what matters are the margins.

If the swing, (back), to Labour is as big as expected, then all the Red Wall Tories will be shitting themselves, because they'll be in no doubt that they'll lose their seats unless policies like, "Leveling Up", are more than just recycled policies, with no actions.

If the Lib Dems win, then again the margin will have a lot of Tory MPs will be re-evaluating just how safe their seats are, if the Lib Dems & Labour continue with tactical voting.

I put myself in these MPs position, & it comes down to how much they believe that the current Leadership, & Cabinet can turn things around; because the Bumblecunt is clearly a busted flush as an Electoral Asset, he didn't dare show his face, because I'm sure the local party knew he'd only make things worse, & the media would delight in showing him being booed again

[C69]

I think the Tories will lose both by-elections; but what matters are the margins.

If the swing, (back), to Labour is as big as expected, then all the Red Wall Tories will be shitting themselves, because they'll be in no doubt that they'll lose their seats unless policies like, "Leveling Up", are more than just recycled policies, with no actions.

If the Lib Dems win, then again the margin will have a lot of Tory MPs will be re-evaluating just how safe their seats are, if the Lib Dems & Labour continue with tactical voting.

I put myself in these MPs position, & it comes down to how much they believe that the current Leadership, & Cabinet can turn things around; because the Bumblecunt is clearly a busted flush as an Electoral Asset, he didn't dare show his face, because I'm sure the local party knew he'd only make things worse, & the media would delight in showing him being booed again

Wakefield lent their votes for Brexit and Boris and Corbyn was toxic so its going red again.
If the Tories lose to the Lb Dems in a South West seat then they will shit themselves.
Can't see the LDs winning but if they do then Boris is toast, yes he will try and hang on but he is facing a Summer of discontent.
I for one hope the English voters are mature enough to vote tactically to jetisson this fetid corrupt cult.

[Torquemada 1420]

Well we will see what happens in the by-elections, reasonably confident Wakefield will switch but Tiverton and Honiton seems to be in the balance. 24, 239 is a huge majority to overturn but Tory strategists don't seem confident, which is quite amazing and shows the growing internal discontent with the slug@No10

The Tory candidate is a real charmer.

FFS. This is the level politics has descended to in the UK when amoebae like this are candidates.