mokwit

So now you are saying they just went along on a fact finding mission? Rubbish and you know it. You really are scrabbling to defend these liars. They clearly went there and had their photo taken with the campaigners to show that they allied themselves with them. They were trying to drum up support for themselves, certainly what Rayner said indicates that they were SUPPORTING not fact finding.

Well, why were they campaigning alongside the WASPI campaigners and saying they would support them? I think most reasonable people would assume that was their policy or WHY WERE THEY DOING IT? Just to make false promises to get elected it seems. What you are saying is all that campaigning is not to be relied upon, they can seemingly annul their promises by not including them in the manifesto. It is YOU and ONLY YOU who is clinging to this pathetic letter of the manifesto defence.

You are the only one who thinks this, but really it is tactics isn't it? try and insert a definition favourable to you into the discussion and then try and hold the discussion to the terms you have created. I reiterate, whether of not it can be defined as a U Turn is irrelevant, it is quite simple RENEGING on campaign promises. You are not arguing convincingly here at all. In fact YOU DON"T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. You are just dishonestly trying to defend a bunch of people who told lies to get elected and then take money from the elderly to give it away to other countries.

That's YOUR definition. You are trying to control the terms of the debate with this U turn definition tactic. I'm not falling for these Bolshevik language tactics. It is about RENEGING on promises very publicly made as part of campaigning. Nothing to do with whether or not it is a U turn, just quite simply promising something and then RENEGING. This is seemingly the definition of everyone except you. What part of this don't you understand? Again if you are saying that they can promise anything and then just defend going back on that by not including it in a manifesto then that is not the conduct expected of politicians in the UK and hasn't been for centuries. Starmer and his cabinet who campaigned on this issue and then RENEGED are not fit to govern.

Salisbury convention on second and third readinsg and manifesto is completely irrelevant to Politicians promoting themselves on an issue for years and then going back on it once in power - or are you saying that they can just erase all that and the promises made by just omitting it from the mainfesto? If that was a deliberate strategy or their defence, they are utterly dishonest scum and completely unfit to govern.

Non Player Character - basically used to describe someone who can't think for themselves. Following the analogy of non-player characters, the NPC meme is used to mock individuals the maker perceives as lacking introspection, individual opinions, or critical thinking, generally political opponents. NPC (meme) - Wikipedia Wikipedia It is not me who can't think for themselves, I just use memes to save typing or to enhance/illustrate a point, or for fun. the board can judge this for themselves.

You are clearly positing that what is in the manifesto counts when it suits your cause e.g. trying defend a POLICY U TURN.

You really have some kind of problem with 'ripped memes' - a bit rich coming from the biggest NPC on this board - all you do is spout what Leftie Central puts out there. Face it you are defending LIARS.

Hardly a baseless assertion based on what has already gone down. You are saying Governments can choose to more than what's in the manifesto and then saying only what was in the letter of the manifesto counts. You can't have it both ways, you can't play both ends against the middle (jaab plaa song muua).

'Governments can choose to do more than what’s in their manifesto.' Appalling dishonesty machnations and backflips from you. It was a planned strategy that was DELIBERATELY withheld from the public as it would not be popular. The intention to rub the Tories (and the electorates) noses in diversity was only talked about in private.

As far as Labour Governments are concerned the part manifestos play in election and Government is very clear, it is just some BS you come out with to sound good to the electorate and then you just get on with what you really had planned that wouldn't have got you elected.

Lies and omissions, clearly.

There is no reason not to play this other than totalitarian political control to control the image of the Dear Leader.

GBP 22bn for Millibrand to siphon off amongst his cronies is though, along with other multibillion gifts.

Agree. They are not supposed to be deliberate deception to get elected and then get down to what they really had planned (sounds familiar).

Where was it in the Blair Government manifesto that they were going to open the floodgates to mass immigration and top down enforced multiculturalism?. A Labour manifesto means NOTHING.

Rubbish. It is disgusting dishonesty. Starmer, Rayner Reeves and Cooper were all saying they would support it as a way of projecting an image of themselves as politicians and their party. Footage of them actually with the campaigners so that their support was widely disseminated. Just more evidence of them saying anything to try and garner popularity when in opposition. Same with taking care of pensioners and then cutting the winter fuel allowance, or are you going to tell me nobody will be affected if they are only paying it via a payment to those eligible for pension credits. The problem with these people is that there are too many things that weren't in the manifesto and should have been. These people are without a moral compass, but then that is the problem with the Left.

It was worse than that, a prior CEO since removed stated that CNN's purpose was to get [democratically elected} Trump out of office.

This administration called for "unity" and then got right down to being vengeful and vindictive. Also some of the people pardoned were multi million dollar fraudsters and embezzlers. They even pardoned a Doctor who gave cancer patients reduced chemotherapy dose but billed medicare for the full dose schedule. The pardons were pure graft.

To put Biden's number of pardons in perspective:

I imagine his dad is very proud of him.

Well, why not point out where I am lacking knowledge, Doctor? 🤣

He will probably end as this century's Daniel Drew.

This is what I wrote: 'To be a Doctor you have to be pretty good at writing essays to get into Med School. ' You clip out 3 words. OK, evasive action when challenged. bye by Mr "Doctor". As you clearly don't know what you are talking about I suggest you refrain from commenting on my posts. You are about as medically qualified as the guys on the dinghy's crossing the channel. It is all to common here that people comment on posts without having read and understood them, or without the knowledge to do so.

If that was directed at me, I am not saying only the polio vaccine was tested and effective, i don't know how you are able to to assume that is what I meant from from what I wrote. The point i am making is that a vaccination is something that is given to stimulate immunity to a pathogen in advance. Polio vaccine is given as a preventative vaccine to give immunity, but is an exception in that Polio vaccine is also given post infection to hopefully halt the spread within the body and can be effective due to the way polio spreads. As someone has pointed out, Rabies vaccine is given post (assumed) innfection but there is a very narrow window and you are effectively immunising before the rabies virus has spread, again, the way Rabies spreads in the body makes this a viable treatment. With Covid we went from being told that it would prevent infection to being told symptoms would be milder.