RayC

None of which has any bearing on whether Starmer will be PM this time next year. You are letting your personal dislike towards Starmer affect your reasoning.

It is nonsense to suggest that Johnson was ousted for less. Johnson was removed because his own MPs (eventually) grew tired of his continual lies to parliament: Starmer has not lied to parliament. To repeat for the umpteenth time: 'Never say never', but in the absence of a bombshell revelation Starmer isn't going anywhere soon. It is currently simply wishing thinking on the part of Labour's opponents to believe that he will be removed from office. Your condescending parody of Rayner is probably indicative of how those in Conservative Central Office view their former 'Red Wall' supporters. Therefore, it was hardly a surprise that this group of voters turned their collective back on the Tories at the last election. The next couple of years may well be problematic for those of us in the UK. It is naive and unrealistic to think that the legacy of 14 years of Tory (largely) mismanagement can be undone overnight.

I have brought into nothing. The facts speak for themselves: Russia invaded Ukraine. QED. The implication that Russia was goaded into this war by 'The West'/the US/ the EU/ NATO - add/delete as necessary to fit the circumstances - is nothing but a conspiratorial fallacy concocted by those who seek to excuse Putin's actions. I have no idea whether this is true and I suspect that you don't either. Whatever the reason, it is a fact. Your comment is superfluous and irrelevant. What was that you were saying about propaganda?

That'll be the EU's fault🤷

Muslim asylum seekers: They are responsible for all other crimes known to man, so why not this one?

There are +/-120 Ministers who owe their position to Starmer plus, no doubt, numerous ambitious back-benchers attempting to court favour with him. Do you really think that any of them are going to risk their political careers three months into a new parliament on the almost imperceptible chance that Starmer can be overthrown now? Notwithstanding that, any member of the Commons or Lords is covered by parliamentary privilege, so MPs and Lords can stand up in the Houses of Parliament and accuse Starmer of being the Anti-Christ without fear of prosecution. None have done so, because you believe that they are holding information back until the "most ruinous time" (whenever that may be). I'll play devil's advocate and give that theory the credit it doesn't deserve. However, if these rumours are true and the contents of this super injunction are so widely known, why haven't the overseas media released the details, and why aren't there numerous articles on the web about it? My theory: It's all a lot of nonsense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

But the inappropriately named 'Freedom Party' didn't get a majority. They got 29.2% of the vote, so they have no democratic mandate.

How has the "full force of NATO ... been thrown at Russia ..", when Ukraine is not allowed to use NATO manufactured weapons to strike at targets inside Russia? If only NATO's full force has been deployed at the outset, then this war might be over and the despot in the Kremlin deposed.

Yes it is wishful thinking on an epic scale. You can 'never say never' but unless there is a "Starmer eats babies' story, the chances that Starmer will be not be PM this time next year, let alone next week as someone suggested, are virtually nil.

Why, oh why do you have to bring your confrontational politics into every situation? Fox News involvement in this matter is purely incidental. The story is about Mr. Van Dillon. In this instance, it wouldn't matter if he were a fully paid-up member of the KKK. He acted like a hero and deserves to be recognised as one. Oh btw Mr. Van Dillon has had a long career in reporting on metrology including - guess what? - a stint at CNN. https://web.archive.org/web/20060417211643/http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/vandillen.bob.html

The problem is not political parties per sec, it is the FPTP system which does not get close to reflecting the actual votes cast in a general election. The UK electorate must shoulder some of the blame as they voted overwhelmingly to keep this ridiculous system a decade or so ago.

Starmer gone in 6 months. Starmer gone inside in a week!! The wishful thinking of some people seems to have reached epic proportions. As for the allegations of corruption. Nothing but innuendo, not a fact in sight.

Perhaps it might be best to wait until the exact scope and contents of this proposed new bill are known before criticising it and/or deciding that it isn't fit for purpose.

"Regardless of the actual intent behind Tyson’s actions, the clip serves as a curious reminder of the chemistry and interactions between celebrities in the public eye" If this was the purpose of the clip then it failed miserably

I read and understood the article. I have just replied to JonnyF wrt gifts from the PL. Replace "PL" with "Google/ Facebook' in my reply to him and exactly the same applies here. You may want to see corruption but it doesn't exist (or if it does it has not yet been proven).

No, Jonny it is not corruption, it is a case(s) of lobbying (by the PL) and these are the facts. Lobbying is described by Wikipedia as, " .... a form of advocacy, which lawfully attempts to directly influence legislators or government officials, such as regulatory agencies or judiciary". The gifts in question have been declared by the MPs in accordance with Parliamentary regulations; therefore nothing untoward has occurred, unless you can either prove that the PL are employing illegal 'lobbying' practices and/or, that the presence (or absence) of these gifts and donations have directly caused these MPs to have changed their minds.

😂 I like it but I fear that we may have lost our American audience.

You're welcome, Jonny. I'm happy to help you uncover facts at any time.

Probably not as I'd imagine that it will be quite uncomfortable. Whether a "straight" jacket is the best look outside of bed depends on your body shape. A good tailor should be able to offer advice😉

From your linked Telegraph article: “This is a civil service role and will be part of the department’s communications team.” and "A government spokesman insisted Mr Walker was part of the department’s wider communications team rather than a “personal” hire for Ms Rayner." Hardly as you describe it.

Incorrect. These MPs declared accepting hospitality. Where have they admitted accepting a bribe?

Where is there any hard evidence to support the accusations of corruption (or potential corruption) in any of these cases? It's a rhetorical question: The answer is there isn't any. However, I do admire your determination to uncover MPs - no doubt regardless of their political allegiance - who may be corrupt. You are doing us all a service (thank you) and I look forward to you reporting back with your revelations in due course.

Ahhh ....👍

You'll have to explain that one to me🤔