Thread 37 Starmer: pinko commie slimeball

[DuncinToffee]

To Blossomtoes

Political discussion and friendly chit chat.

Taxes most welcome

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5435616-thread-36-starmer-triggered-by-ads-and-da-iawn-caerffili?page=40

That’s brilliant. DM me if you decide you want to waive anonymity!
The MD is one of the best musicians I have ever worked with. Your DC was very fortunate! Bishopston? Or Llandovery? Or Olchfa? Don’t answer if you think it’s too outing!

And Kirk agreed with her. Now where's JD Vance when you need him.

I'm off to the Cotswolds for a few days break soon to meet up with family. I have my binoculars and notebook at the ready - we love sighting birds.

Enjoy @placemats

Have a great time!

Or get us wallpaper 🤣

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 t

thats brilliant

Stating the obvious but we the people fund the BBC, so he's taking about suing us.

The conservatives think it's ok to throw the people of this country to pay this, otherwise why would one of their ex leaders saying this.

Badenoch needs to get a grip.

I am sorry, but again, this is not correct.

You would not be liable for damages should the BBC lose any claim brought by Donald Trump. The extent of your ‘exposure’ to the BBC is your licence fee - no more than that. And, of course, you can elect to cancel that at any time.

These new asylum reforms can get straight into the bin, disgraceful from Labour as well as the Tories calling for even more extreme measures.

Truss was featured on Fox News no less.

Thats the media standard Truss wants.

Exactly. I don’t want to see a single penny of my license fee go anywhere near Trump. I’d cancel my direct debit immediately.

I thought people were being quiet about this. I agree dunc.

I was going to say the same after reading the Guardian this morning.

Firstly, they make little sense. Asylum seekers must work, except they are not allowed to work? They won't get help if they have "assets"? What does that mean, exactly? Assets in their home country?

Changing the law so that supporting asylum seeks is not mandatory is a terrible idea.

Labour is chasing the Reform vote again and it is disgusting.

The way Labour is going, it will have no voters left at all. The Reform inclined aren't going to switch, however hard Labour try to woo them. Ordinary Labour voters are going to look elsewhere (PC in my case).

The conspiracy theory that Starmer is an establishment plant, installed to destroy the Labour party, is looking more convincing by the day!🤪

I am assuming they think it appeases liberal minds , too, to look towards Scandinavia, so established as more socially liberal countries ( I am not sure this is awfully true of Denmark) but Denmark is nothing like us in terms of its past and relationships with and responsibilities to other countries. Plus , its own treatment of Greenlanders is pretty controversial. (disclaimer : I get most of my knowledge about Denmark from watching Borgen and reading The Year of Living Danishly).

Chasing Reform voters is never going to work - they’ll stick with Reform if it’s the racism they like. I’m not sure what the answer is though because there are a lot of voters who wouldn’t go as far as Reform but would switch from Labour unless they see change in asylum numbers. It’s mad because it’s such a small issue, but Farage has put it no1 and that has to be dealt with.
Personally, of course, I agree that these changes are unpleasant.

Our mate Phil did quite a deep dive on some numbers that isn't good watching for Reform. (Although it has numbers and facts in it, so unlikely to appeal to them)

Note that the spectre of an election producing no possible government twice in short succession is already something calmer minds have encompassed. It's why electoral reform is the single biggest all party working group at the moment. The only party that can't seem to find the time are Reform. Although as I type I remember it will deal in numbers and facts, so it's not really a surprise.

Thank you for confirming that the BBC is funded by the licence fee payers- aka the British people.

How was i wrong? What money will this publicly funded organisation be handing over to Trump if not public funds?

For the tories to be cheering it on is disgusting and shows contempt for the British people (again).

Asylum seekers must work, except they are not allowed to work?

My understanding is that the legislation will be changed so they will be able to work, it’s something some of us have been advocating for a long time.

Yes, no problem with asylum seekers having the right to work and contribute towards their housing

Proposal from the refugee council here

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/press-office/media-centre/asylum-hotels-could-be-closed-by-2026-refugee-council-analysis/

Yes, we have said that many times on this thread, haven't we? No problem with that at all.

Have posters from Nuthatch's thread abandoned the "agreement"?

I’ve just come back from a lovely walk in the Autumn sunshine. At one point a persistent fly buzzed round my face and it took a couple of hand waves to dissuade it. Moving on was the best thing to do, reasoning with it or trying to speak its unintelligible Fly language was pointless. Apropos of nothing……

Better fly than a mosquito. 🦟

Lucky you with sunshine, only grey skies here