blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 29,436
Source for this figure then ? How many hundreds was it 2 , 3 10 ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter urban genie
- Start date
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I don't know where did your hundreds of thousands come from , not very accurate is it you either have a number or you don't. I don't but I'm not trying to give a number. You seem to be so give a number and it's source then.
Here You Go, Love...
Lots of different estimates banging around.
I understand your point, but foodbanks are a symptom. Labour wouldn't have foodbank policies: "More Foodbanks!", "Better Foodbanks now!" or even "No More Foodbanks!".If you bypass serious issues in society, like foodbanks, you are ignoring a section of the very society you wish to get support from.
One should recognise struggle, so the ones that are suffering feel heard/ seen.
Why would one feel 'positivity' when they're not recognised?
People who use them know why they exist- it's because they have no money left after paying their their heating, or their rent, or they're underpaid - and they want to hear how their wages will go up, or their heating bills will go down etc.
The leader of a party has to be the one giving out the inspiring, positive message, and that's telling people what they're going to do to make a society which won't need foodbanks.
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 10,839
- Team supported
- City
Aren’t politics supposed to be boring. I like politics when I don’t have to think about it, which hasn’t happened in so many years.He came across very well yesterday , he is ready, all this he is boring is stupidity , you need a thinker not a buffon
As Starmer, the ‘Thinker’, has already stated, his major concern was if/when the media start to bring his family into it and how to prepare them for the onslaught. That alone should tell you who Starmer is, and how the media will use any tactic to discredit the opposition.
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 29,436
The researchers warn that their estimates are associated with "substantial uncertainties".
So there we are nobody really knows.
Anyway as said it's off topic. This is about Starmer. So do you support a Starmer led Labour government or would you prefer another Tory government but a Labour opposition led by a Labour leader you think isn't tainted by Blairism. I know what most of those that need a Labour government would prefer. For me that's all that matters, the rest is just academic idealogical fluff.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I understand your point, but foodbanks are a symptom. Labour wouldn't have foodbank policies: "More Foodbanks!", "Better Foodbanks now!" or even "No More Foodbanks!".
People who use them know why they exist- it's because they have no money left after paying their their heating, or their rent, or they're underpaid - and they want to hear how their wages will go up, or their heating bills will go down etc.
The leader of a party has to be the one giving out the inspiring, positive message, and that's telling people what they're going to do to make a society which won't need foodbanks.
See that last section of line you wrote?
That makes the whole difference in reaching people; acknowledgment of the situation in society, the shame of using food banks and the hope moving forward. That would be inclusive and hope, not ignored.
You could do it as you say and foodbanks could still, conceivably, continue to exist.
Mentioning them is a cause to do something about it.
You could attribute that example to any of the issues at hand, Britain has.
It's all in the delivery to be inclusive and understanding of all plights.
anything mentioned by Starmer et al about the possibility of energy company windfall tax? or adjusting the price cap policy that the Conservative's have put in place? (which the public will pay for for decades while energy companies rake it in)
Bigga
Well-Known Member
The researchers warn that their estimates are associated with "substantial uncertainties".
So there we are nobody really knows.
Anyway as said it's off topic. This is about Starmer. So do you support a Starmer led Labour government or would you prefer another Tory government but a Labour opposition led by a Labour leader you think isn't tainted by Blairism. I know what most of those that need a Labour government would prefer. For me that's all that matters, the rest is just academic idealogical fluff.
My only issue is getting to point of leadership based upon lies. If a party leader got there based upon policies that work for a people over companies, that's a vote winner for me.
I don't happen to like either of the major parties and I'm in a relative safe seat.
Neither will be getting my vote.
P
P
PPT
Guest
Exactly this.It's the constant hoop jumping for Blair that always blows my mind, just because he did a few good things.
He has the death of hundreds of THOUSANDS on his hands, over a lie purported as reason to go to war.
P
P
PPT
Guest
There's no one on here who values his own opinion more than you. By some considerable distance.Ironically, you sound like you value your opinion as much as Burnham values his own.