Keir Starmer

[Blue and true]

They really think they can convince the proles that Starmers dad was part of the bourgeoisie because he had a shed to keep his tools in.

Meanwhile whatever you do don't look into the background of any of the other leaders...

Pathetic, isn't it? Anyway, who gives a fuck what their respective parents did for their livelihoods. One candidate fronts a party that has earned a shot at changing the country's fortunes, the other candidate fronts a party that has ravaged the country for nigh on fifteen years, that has produced zero net benefit to the country's progression (actually we've regressed in all facets), with no repercussions or deign to accountability. That's the long and short of it.

At this stage, everything else is desperate diversionary tactics..

 

[west didsblue]

So you don’t want to talk about the video? Colour me shocked.

I’ve already talked about the video. Looks pretty innocuous to me as I said on the previous page. The accusation that he was laughing and sneering at a small child is ridiculous.

 

[Brewster's millions]

That's nothing to do with the post I made, which is strange.

While there are more complicated questions about the state of the economy that all the parties seem to be ignoring, this is about something different. I'm also not suggesting Labour are being picked on. Obviously they're hot favourites, so it matters what they plan to do, and I expect difficult questions.

The point is basic - this simplistic line of questioning ends up creating hostages to fortune, that limit what any Government can do.

Labour have been specifically asked if they'll increase VAT, Income Tax, National Insurance, CGT, Council Tax. Not complicated questions - just yes/no, with the implied "correct" answer apparently being no.

Now they're being asked if they'll make "any cuts to public services", which is a nonsensically simplistic question.

It's not a Labour specific thing - it's no good for any party.

The line of questioning may be overly simplistic, but the question undoubtedly relates to the cuts implied by the March Budget and Starmer is not being truthful on the matter.

You can concentrate on the use of ‘any’ if you want, but I’m not sure why you would want to.

 

[metalblue]

Again, straight out of the post-Johnson Tory playbook.

Lie, then when people say you're lying, demand they go to great lengths proving you lied, while they do nothing to justify their original claim.

He owned a company. He was not some factory worker as Starmer portrays. It’s somewhat dishonest given he likes to peddle this line about his dad being a toolmaker.

Maybe let’s flip this around, Sunak’s mum owned a pharmacy so would it convey the full story to describe her as working in a pharmacy?

 

[Brewster's millions]

There’s no facts to suggest he was anything more than a sole trader. If there are, post a link.

If it’s all obviously bollocks, like you say, then I would think it would be easy to disprove.

Given how worked up you get over the matter - and you do get really animated over the issue - I have to say I’m surprised you haven’t done your own research to be honest.

 

[metalblue]

I’ve already talked about the video. Looks pretty innocuous to me as I said on the previous page. The accusation that he was laughing and sneering at a small child is ridiculous.

Do you think he came across showing a genuine interest in her plight?

 

[BobKowalski]

For the record - things I don’t give a flying fuck about.

Starmer’s Dad.
Sunak’s Mum.
Is a shed a workshop or a tool making factory.

 

[west didsblue]

Do you think he came across showing a genuine interest in her plight?

Impossible to say without seeing the whole exchange.

 

[domalino]

He owned a company.

No he didn't. There's no record of it at companies house, which means it was not a registered company in this country post 1844.

He was not some factory worker as Starmer portrays.

He was a man who was paid to do manual work in factories. AKA a factory worker.

It’s somewhat dishonest given he likes to peddle this line about his dad being a toolmaker.

Fuck off lol. You talking about dishonesty when you're lying through your teeth pretending that Rodney Starmer giving himself an unofficial trading name and renting a shed to work in when he was uncontracted is equivalent to him owning the factories he worked in.

 

[west didsblue]

If it’s all obviously bollocks, like you say, then I would think it would be easy to disprove.

Given how worked up you get over the matter - and you do get really animated over the issue - I have to say I’m surprised you haven’t done your own research to be honest.

Already done.
No company records.
No address of premises.
No record of anything related to this fictitious company apart from a few blogs and forums.