Keir Starmer

[Mr Kobayashi]

Hmm. You seem to be obsessed with penises and masturbation.
With the greatest respect to you, as far as I am concerned you’re just a non entity so I never make it personal.
I just give you the courtesy of replying to your rants about me
Your greatest contribution to the site seems to be pressing thumbs up button to those who you think might be your friend if you met them out and about, plus constantly moaning about woe is me.
If someone asks me a question I will normally answer it rather than dodge the question.
For someone who claims to be a “very private person “ you have done a hell of a lot of posts.
If your claim holds true about being private, then you must have a very lonely
life outside this site.
If you have issues with my posts, rather than get yourself so wound up by trying to trade personal insults, just ignore them.
Simple you see

A perfect example of a Tory chatbot.

A very sad man, the type of person you'd cross the road to avoid.

The woe is me is a complete invention.

Unlike you I'm not selfish or self-absorbed so it's possible for me to post things complaining about things that have minimal or no direct impact on me.

Thick as pigshit too, for someone so bullish, you don't seem to have much upstairs, very rarely know what you are talking about, and you have appalling reading comprehension.

 

[bluenova]

Absolute wankers, if true. Lost by a narrow margin but not looking after your people deserves what it gets.

A few people have shared pics of snacks and drinks that were available.

It does sound like someone with an axe to grind sharing a post from someone who has never canvassed on a busy election day. I've never done a byelection, - on normal elections, it's usually been bits that various members have made, like brownies or a massive pot of soup, but can't imagine that working for the huge numbers that turn up for byelections, particularly in London. Dominoes for 1000+ people would surely blow the electoral campaign limit.

 

[Postman Pep]

A few people have shared pics of snacks and drinks that were available.

It does sound like someone with an axe to grind sharing a post from someone who has never canvassed on a busy election day. I've never done a byelection, - on normal elections, it's usually been bits that various members have made, like brownies or a massive pot of soup, but can't imagine that working for the huge numbers that turn up for byelections, particularly in London. Dominoes for 1000+ people would surely blow the electoral campaign limit.

So it seems. Didn't stop Akehurst wading in with a flimsy justification though :)

 

[halfmist]

A perfect example of a Tory chatbot.

A very sad man, the type of person you'd cross the road to avoid.

The woe is me is a complete invention.

Unlike you I'm not selfish or self-absorbed so it's possible for me to post things complaining about things that have minimal or no direct impact on me.

Thick as pigshit too, for someone so bullish, you don't seem to have much upstairs, very rarely know what you are talking about, and you have appalling reading comprehension.

Brilliant. If ever I need a reference, you’re the man.

 

[bluenova]

So it seems. Didn't stop Akehurst wading in with a flimsy justification though :)

In an ideal world Akehurst and Rachael Swindon would both be marooned on a desert island somewhere with no access to wifi :/

 

[TinFoilHat]

This Keir is not for turning!

 

[Rascal]

Families can have as many kids as they want, just don’t expect the tax payer to fund them.

The current birth rate for U.K. in 2023 is 11.267 births per 1000 people, a 0.49% decline from 2022. The birth rate for U.K. in 2022 was 11.322 births per 1000 people, a 0.48% decline from 2021. The birth rate for U.K. in 2021 was 11.377 births per 1000 people, a 0.49% decline from 2020.

The UK birthrate is 1.6 that means the population is declining, we should be paying families to have children to reverse that decline not punishing them financially for having a family above 2 children.

I have no idea how old you are but a declining birthrate will also lead to a declining tax base which means we cut services even further, tax more or increase the pension age. Do you fancy working until the day you die because there will be no money to pay pensions.

Starmer is a fucking idiot for backing the current plan, he is no doubt influenced by that anti welfare state moron Rachel fucking Reeves.

 

[hilts]

The current birth rate for U.K. in 2023 is 11.267 births per 1000 people, a 0.49% decline from 2022. The birth rate for U.K. in 2022 was 11.322 births per 1000 people, a 0.48% decline from 2021. The birth rate for U.K. in 2021 was 11.377 births per 1000 people, a 0.49% decline from 2020.

The UK birthrate is 1.6 that means the population is declining, we should be paying families to have children to reverse that decline not punishing them financially for having a family above 2 children.

I have no idea how old you are but a declining birthrate will also lead to a declining tax base which means we cut services even further, tax more or increase the pension age. Do you fancy working until the day you die because there will be no money to pay pensions.

Starmer is a fucking idiot for backing the current plan, he is no doubt influenced by that anti welfare state moron Rachel fucking Reeves.

How does that view tie in with population increases both here and globally? Everything you have said is correct but I cannot see how that model is sustainable. Its already failed us in terms of the environment we all live in.

Personally I believe there is enough for everyone if it is shared more equally. The problem we have continuing with continuing as we are is no one is required to find solutions to these problems.

 

[TinFoilHat]

The current birth rate for U.K. in 2023 is 11.267 births per 1000 people, a 0.49% decline from 2022. The birth rate for U.K. in 2022 was 11.322 births per 1000 people, a 0.48% decline from 2021. The birth rate for U.K. in 2021 was 11.377 births per 1000 people, a 0.49% decline from 2020.

The UK birthrate is 1.6 that means the population is declining, we should be paying families to have children to reverse that decline not punishing them financially for having a family above 2 children.

I have no idea how old you are but a declining birthrate will also lead to a declining tax base which means we cut services even further, tax more or increase the pension age. Do you fancy working until the day you die because there will be no money to pay pensions.

Starmer is a fucking idiot for backing the current plan, he is no doubt influenced by that anti welfare state moron Rachel fucking Reeves.

I can see her surviving the planned reshuffle.

 

[Rascal]

How does that view tie in with population increases both here and globally? Everything you have said is correct but I cannot see how that model is sustainable. Its already failed us in terms of the environment we all live in.

Personally I believe there is enough for everyone if it is shared more equally. The problem we have continuing with continuing as we are is no one is required to find solutions to these problems.

Population is increasing because people are living longer and we are at a point where we have more old people than young people.

A demographic graph used to resemble a triangle, now it is becoming more like a lightbulb...poor analogy I know but best i can think of.

I also read somewhere the earths population will through a number of factors stabilise by the year 2050 because of a decline in western birthrates. The global south will continue to rise though, i must find where i read it.

 

[hilts]

Population is increasing because people are living longer and we are at a point where we have more old people than young people.

A demographic graph used to resemble a triangle, now it is becoming more like a lightbulb...poor analogy I know but best i can think of.

I also read somewhere the earths population will through a number of factors stabilise by the year 2050 because of a decline in western birthrates. The global south will continue to rise though, i must find where i read it.

What do we do in 2050? Seems like we have been putting off the inevitable for a long time.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

What do we do in 2050? Seems like we have been putting off the inevitable for a long time.

Couldn't we just cull Brexiteers ?

 

[hilts]

Couldn't we just cull Brexiteers ?

That wouldn't be great for me tbh:-(

I'm going for anyone over 50 gets culled in June every year. The cut off point gets increased by a year every year though.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

That wouldn't be great for me tbh:-(

I'm going for anyone over 50 gets culled in June every year. The cut off point gets increased by a year every though.

That's your own fault you silly sausage, I didn't have down as that daft, but if you repent like Blueinsa you might get a pardon.

 

[threespires]

Not quite sure why anyone would join the Cabinet to bring the Country down for their own means and how it would be possible to do it and what they would achieve but again, interesting theory.

Are you genuinely saying you can't envisage a scenario where people seek office for personal gain rather than as public service and/or whether they would have any compunction in acting in their own or their patrons interest rather than that of the electorate?

 

[hilts]

That's your own fault you silly sausage, I didn't have down as that daft, but if you repent like Blueinsa you might get a pardon.

It wasn't for economic reasons so I'm perfectly happy(apart from this lot being in charge of it obviously). You all have your opportunity at the ballot box.

 

[hilts]

Are you genuinely saying you can't envisage a scenario where people seek office for personal gain rather than as public service and/or whether they would have any compunction in acting in their own or their patrons interest rather than that of the electorate?

Power corrupts, always has and always will. Amazed people haven't cottoned on.

 

[BrianW]

Just as an individual can make a profit in a losing war that ruins his country, a politician can make money (and exercise power) while ruining his country and its governance.

Example - Boris Johnson. Rolling in it despite being, arguably, the worst PM since Lord North.
Example 2 - Liz Truss. Better off than when she came into politics for sure. Utterly useless.
Example 3 - Tony Blair - I add him out of balance and fairness. Minted and still respected in many influential quarters despite the Iraq war and the vast number of casualties therein.

You can probably think of a dozen more without wrinkling your brow.

It is perfectly possible to go into politics to aggrandise your position, make a pile of brass, and exercise power for malicious reasons that are not in the national interest. There is no real penalty for doing so.

 

[halfmist]

The current birth rate for U.K. in 2023 is 11.267 births per 1000 people, a 0.49% decline from 2022. The birth rate for U.K. in 2022 was 11.322 births per 1000 people, a 0.48% decline from 2021. The birth rate for U.K. in 2021 was 11.377 births per 1000 people, a 0.49% decline from 2020.

The UK birthrate is 1.6 that means the population is declining, we should be paying families to have children to reverse that decline not punishing them financially for having a family above 2 children.

I have no idea how old you are but a declining birthrate will also lead to a declining tax base which means we cut services even further, tax more or increase the pension age. Do you fancy working until the day you die because there will be no money to pay pensions.

Starmer is a fucking idiot for backing the current plan, he is no doubt influenced by that anti welfare state moron Rachel fucking Reeves.

If your assumption is correct that couples base the number of children on the amount of state benefits they receive then you’re probably right.
I would say there is a multitude of reasons and state benefits is way down the list

 

[Rascal]

If your assumption is correct that couples base the number of children on the amount of state benefits they receive then you’re probably right.
I would say there is a multitude of reasons and state benefits is way down the list

I never said that couples base their number of children on the amount of WELFARE they will receive.

Anecdote is not evidence, but here is an anecdote.

My mum was one of 11 children, I am one of 46 cousins, at the last count 15 of my cousins were grandparents and our immediate family from my nan and grandad is around 300 .

In my family we have people who own companies and employ many people, we have refrigration engineers, we have builders, we have joiners, we have teachers, we have pub landladies, we have nursies, we have electricians, we have mechanics, we have footballers at academies, we have truck drivers, we have postmen, we have coach drivers, we have mental health workers, we have bricklayers, we have scaffolders, we have cooks, we have soldiers (proud of them) we have RAF helicopter fixers, we have bus drivers and my family is i believe an examplar of how the welfare state can help produce people who give value back to society.

My family has always been hard working, the family allowance as it was paid to the mother enabled a lot of my family to become economic producers for the country. My family was poor, we lived on a council estate but were proud people. The days i spent at my grandparents were magical, there would be so many cousins there all having a bowl of my Nans leek and tata soup, with a piece of bread i will never forget it.

Family allowance or as it became child "benefit" was vital for my family, without it I doubt very much my family would have achieved so much and the amount of tax paid back into the treasury would have been severley diminished.

It is fucking ridiculous that big families are seen as bad,i love my family, it has given so much to society, we are not bad fuckers either and i find the attacks on big families disgusting,