Labour are totally toast in Thursday’s elections

[Nicewoman]

I can’t wait for Thursday. Labour are finished. Not a single moment too soon. Happy Dayz

I don't think she will.
It's most likely to be Andy Burnham. There are background conversations about a few MPs standing down to let him in. After 7th May Starmer won't be able to stop this.
Andy has some charisma which Starmer doesn't so it will help.

But - he will tank the markets, he will borrow to increase spending, won't fix welfare, interest on debt will be through the roof. The state of economy we have now will seem glorious in a few years time if Andy will get in.

Out of all Labour figures Starmer is the least malicious.

But you’ve forgotten the word of 14 years of Tories. Ok let me refresh your memory. We’ll skirt over the running down of services, Cameron, Truss,Covid enquiry, PPE scandal, Brexit etc . This is just some of Boris’s contributions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/01/scandal-timeline-tory-sleaze-boris-johnson

But the Tories are not in government - Labour are.

Are you looking at local councillors to decide or looking at MPs?

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

Are you saying that formal education is the only way for people to become informed about how our political system works, and that someone without any formal qualifications cannot possibly understand the difference between local and national government?

Or are you saying that, regardless of formal qualifications, every single voter in the UK electorate is actually extremely knowledgeable and well informed about how our country is governed?

Or are you suggesting that I'm somehow misinterpreting the situation when I hear people making statements which strongly suggest that they have no idea how our country is governed, and that actually they are just pretending that they don't know anything about our political system because [reasons]?

Or are you just a bit peeved by the extensive research which reflects the fact that voters who are less educated are more likely, on average, to vote for Reform than voters who are more educated?

I haven't forgotten anything and if you had a decent argument you wouldn't have to resort to sneery posts about "amnesia" and telling me what I have "forgotten".

I have managed to engage with your posts without stooping to personal attacks, so perhaps you could attempt to do the same.

The Conservatives made a lot of mistakes, but they managed to stay in power for 14 years.

Labour was in power less than five months before they were no longer leading the opinion polls, despite holding a large majority, and if there was a general election tomorrow, they would get a severe thumping.

The bucket-load of sleaze, corruption and incompetence we have suffered from the Labour Party over the last 21 months cannot be excused by the previous government's, admittedly disappointing mistakes, over 14 years.

Neither record is good, but Keir Starmer and his government have been much worse over a much shorter period of time and don't look likely to improve.

“The bucket-load of sleaze, corruption and incompetence we have suffered from the Labour Party over the last 21 months”

is stretching it massively.

Excellent post.

I'd say that Labour have been much more competent in destroying things fast so far.

In your opinion. Other opinions may differ.

Regurgitating Badenoch the Irrelevant's schoolyard taunts is not a good look.

How rude. You do know retirement age is 67, there is such a thing as postal voting and being busy is not unique to under-61s, don't you?

You do know retirement age is 67,

Is it? For who?

For someone who is currently 61 as it is for anyone born after April 5, 1961.

None of the above but peeved no. Not everyone in society will have a degree and that’s fine, in fact that’s necessary in terms of a range of jobs, they still get a vote. They don’t need the denigration either, although Rayner seems to not get the same with the ‘not educated enough’ or ill informed.

There isn’t a retirement age though? I know plenty of early 60 yr olds who are retired.

Do you mean state pension age? You can retire before that though…

@Katypp didn't say it was for everyone. But it is the state retirement age for someone who is 61, which is the age group pp was bitching about.

But state pension age isn’t the same as retirement age?

Interesting that you chose to edit and move your goalposts! Not sure where you are going with this, so will leave you to it.

I didn't change my goalposts, I started typing & the page kept reloading & crashing before I had formulated an answer. It keeps happening on MNs for me at the moment, frustrating

It certainly puts me off voting Labour and off Starmer personally. I want a prime minister with more class and substance than his personal shots at ZP imply. I live in a seat that could go Labour or Green. Reform are not the only threat to Labour and I don't think soundbite criticism is convincing.

Im sad because Labour should be good. But Corbyn followed by Starmer have wrecked it.

Sorry, you still haven't clarified what it is that you disagree with. Nobody has said that everyone should have a degree, or that people without a degree shouldn't get a vote?

Are you actually able to articulate what it is that you're saying you disagree with, or are you just going to keep on chuntering about Angela Rayner?

‘Chuntering’ how delightful as per. You’re inconsistent when it comes to who is not educated enough and ill informed.

Yes Starmer could have got some votes back due to ZP but probably blew it with the statement as Greens will dig their heels in. I guess it’ll be shown either way next week.

We need a normal party for normal people. Something has gone wrong as just about everyone in politics nowadays is a misanthropic weirdo.