The way things work in the West nowadays, whoever takes the head leadership positions? You get Bibi Netanyahu.

3 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Time will tell how he performs. I can't see much improving either way. The boats will keep coming. People on benefits will rise.

Exactly - it will not change an damn thing.

2 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Please expand and enlightent us what you are getting at, because honestly, I have no idea.

Sorry but I'm a bit busy rn.
Read it slowly or ask an educated adult to explain for you (minimum English O Level / GCSE C grade or above).

Like Starmer, Burnham is an establishment plant.

The Yookay establishment wishes to fully and comprehensively destroy what are seen as right-wing values, such as nationalism, traditionalism, and religion. These things equip people with powerful personal and group identities, and present as competing loyalties to the state and social engineers.

Hence, said state and social engineers wish to destroy them.

What the establishment wishes to do now is conflate right-wing values with the most distorted and grotesque exaggerations of such values, as were depicted in hugely popular programming, The Handmaid’s Tale (US) and Years and Years (UK).

In effect, they want to “prove” that being right-wing means being a virulently racist, misogynist, homicidal maniac, until we get to the point where people will be so horrified and disgusted by (what will be presented as) “right-wing ideology”, that to continue to call oneself right-wing will become akin to calling oneself a Nazi.

-
-
-

Now consider the ridiculous jackanory about a white Scottish man running around Glasgow with his top off stabbing brown people.

IF this White Scottish Man did indeed go on a City Wide Stabbing Spree…..

- Where are all the clips/CCTV? - everyone has phones - people would have recorded more of what was happening if this happened in multiple locations?

- Where and who are the Victims? - not a single one has been seen or heard of?

- Why does the attacker have NO Blood on him? whatsoever?

- The audio of him is crystal clear, calm, composed - seems rehearsed & scripted -Why?

- Who is the attacker and what’s his entire history?

- Where is the Muslim Backlash/reaction from the Victims friends & family?

They want to demonise whites who don't like what is happening in England etc wrt freeloaders being put up on hotels, rape gangs, 2 tier justaice and all of the rest of the rage bait.

Seeing as we're generally decent people they are forced to make stuff up - as they did with 'WMDs', Coldvid death projections etc.

2 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Reptilian family? MSM?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I am being sarcastic and exaggerating for effect in order to highlight the ludicrousness of the claims made by some posters suggesting that Starmer and/or Burnham and/or <insert name of Labour politician here> are fascist and/or tyrants and/or evil and/or foreign agents and/or part of some left-wing network intent on worldwide dominion and/or <insert any other ridiculous conspiracy theory/ unproven insult here>.

(MSM = Mainstream media)

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

part of some left-wing network intent on worldwide [dominination]

Do you mean the Fabian society or the WEF (or both)?

Starmer, Burnham and BoE governor Bailey are all members of both (WEF & Fabian Socialist).

Cartoon lefties on here cheer for LaBouR but, despite them being in power, things are getting progressively worse and worse for the working class in the Yookay.

Thick if u cant work out whats going on

The people smugglers and all those undocumented young men waiting in Calais will be licking their lips now. Lefty Burnham will open the floodgates for them.

Yes Starmer was awful, but the real problem is having a left wing government unwilling to remove the incentives for the men coming over on boats.

Until Labour are gone, the towns and cities of the UK will continue to become more dangerous for women.

Burnham has no intention of addressing that issue.

6 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

Do you mean the Fabian society or the WEF (or both)?

Starmer, Burnham and BoE governor Bailey are all members of both (WEF & Fabian Socialist).

Cartoon lefties on here cheer for LaBouR but, despite them being in power, things are getting progressively worse and worse for the working class in the Yookay.

Thick if u cant work out whats going on

Whether things are getting worse for the working class in the UK is, like many things, open to debate. However, there is nothing to suggest that any British government in my lifetime (either Labour or Tory) has deliberately tried to make the country worse.

So according to you, membership of the non-revolutionary Fabian Society or WEF means that Bailey, Burnham, Starmer and, presumably those well-known left-wing WEF supporters/ speakers such as Cameron, Sunak, etc are all ... err ... revolutionaries.

If your musings in this forum are anything to go by you're obviously on the cusp of solving our problems, so good luck with that and you crack on.

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

Whether things are getting worse for the working class in the UK is, like many things, open to debate. However, there is nothing to suggest that any British government in my lifetime (either Labour or Tory) has deliberately tried to make the country worse.

They're traitors working for the military, financial and pharmaceutical industries - selling out UK natives at every opportunity.

They clearly don't work for the native population - only a moron would believe that any of the recent politicians you mentioned have made ANYTHING better. They're no better than thai politicians in all honesty.

But, if you'd like to list the things they've made better then go for it...
You won't though cos u cant

My spidey sensors have been tingling since Tourist2 popped up mm specially when he uses the word Yookay as opposed to the UK., and throwing a bit AI into the mix now i wonder who that could be under yet another name.

If Burnham does become the next PM, he will be the seventh in recent times. What makes you think he will do any better than the last 6 .

Again, if he gets the job, will he last the 3 years to the next general election?

Labor has just about lost the next election; he will be just doing damage limitation, trying to keep Reform out

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Then there's hope! Perhaps he'll convince you to vote Labour in 2029 🤞

Labour lasting until 2029? 😃

That's funny H.

They lost their mandate. Need to call a GE immediately. Burnham was a mayor when Labour were elected.

1 hour ago, Tourist2 said:

They're traitors working for the military, financial and pharmaceutical industries - selling out UK natives at every opportunity.

They clearly don't work for the native population - only a moron would believe that any of the recent politicians you mentioned have made ANYTHING better. They're no better than thai politicians in all honesty.

But, if you'd like to list the things they've made better then go for it...
You won't though cos u cant

Only a moron - or someone with a very limited knowledge of English - could fail to understand that the following statements,

1) No UK government would deliberately attempt to make the country worse and 2) It is open to debate whether the UK has got worse,

are not contradictory or mutually exclusive statements.

Away with your ridiculous conspiracy theories.

All you can here on the news here in the UK is the threat of Reform, and Burnham is the only main runner capable of halting Reform being the next government. Which tells me Farage and reform are a seriouse threat to Labour.

I did like Kier Starmer's, farewell speech. enjoy

7 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

All you can here on the news here in the UK is the threat of Reform, and Burnham is the only main runner capable of halting Reform being the next government. Which tells me Farage and reform are a seriouse threat to Labour.

They certainly are, unless Kemi can do something astonishing with the Tories.

14 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Burnham is an extreme leftist muppet but I do not believe he has the streak of pure evil that Starmer has.

Burnham is, often and aptly, described as a chameleon. He will take the colours of the loudest shouters within the party.

Another metaphor is of a square rigged sailing ship - only travels in the direction in which the wind is blowing.

I don't think he is a strong man, I don't think he is a strong leader. There is a distinct whiff of "these are my principles, and if you don't like them I have some others!" He is certainly an opportunist.

My greatest concern is that he is a party man down to his toes, and that is what drives him.

What's wrong with the British?

6 PMs in the last 10 years.

They can't do better?

Even Thailand can👍

16 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Yes, the overall reduction in immigration to the UK is something Labour have achieved, although personally I think he made a mistake by pandering to Reform. Not sure whose 'free speech' has been attacked!

So you don' think over 30 people a day getting arrested in the UK for Social Media posts is a bit over the top?

Very few other countries come close to the UK's per-year numbers for this type of policing.

4 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

What's wrong with the British?

6 PMs in the last 10 years.

They can't do better?

Even Thailand can👍

It is depressing and was previously a, mainly, Tory thing. Disappointingly, Labour MPs now seem to be copying their Tory counterparts.

2 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

So you don' think over 30 people a day getting arrested in the UK for Social Media posts is a bit over the top?

Very few other countries come close to the UK's per-year numbers for this type of policing.

Why not, if they have broken the law? The law hasn't changed.

1. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Makes it an offense to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character.

2. Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988: Prohibits sending letters or electronic communications with the intent to cause distress or anxiety.

BREAKING!! Andy Burnham demands a General Election Now following the resignation of the party leader.

3 minutes ago, James105 said:

BREAKING!! Andy Burnham demands a General Election Now following the resignation of the party leader.

He did then, and he just might now if the polls suggest Labour can win. Like Johnson did in 2019.

35 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

He did then, and he just might now if the polls suggest Labour can win. Like Johnson did in 2019.

After that tweet, he has to if he wants any credibility whatsoever.

https://x.com/algorecrave/status/2069026389685137461/video/1

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

After that tweet, he has to if he wants any credibility whatsoever.

I doubt he wants, or needs, credibility from the far Right!

This is even better..

Burnham is less than inspiring. A dodgy dullard driven only by self interest.

2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

https://x.com/algorecrave/status/2069026389685137461/video/1

I doubt he wants, or needs, credibility from the far right!

He will lack credibility from everyone if he shows himself to be a massive hypocrite before he even gets started.

Except maybe the extreme leftists. You guys consider hypocrisy a necessary qualification.

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He will lack credibility from everyone if he shows himself to be a massive hypocrite before he even gets started.

Except maybe the extreme leftists. You guys consider hypocrisy a necessary qualification.

Not a "necessary qualification" but most, if not all, politicians are hypocritical.

8 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Why not, if they have broken the law? The law hasn't changed.

1. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Makes it an offense to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character. [1,

   ]

2. Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988: Prohibits sending letters or electronic communications with the intent to cause distress or anxiety. [1,

   ]

The problem is the laws are dangerously vague and subjective.

"Grossly offensive" has no clear legal definition. It's whatever senior police, prosecutors, or (often) complainants decide it is on a given day. A rude joke, strong political opinion, meme, or criticism of immigration/religion/gender can qualify.

"Causing distress or anxiety" is even lower-bar. Persistent annoyance or "needless anxiety" covers a huge range of normal online disagreement.

These were written in 1988/2003 for phone calls and early internet — not for mass social media where billions post daily. Courts and the Law Commission have repeatedly flagged them as problematic for over-criminalising speech.

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Why not, if they have broken the law? The law hasn't changed.

1. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Makes it an offense to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character.

2. Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988: Prohibits sending letters or electronic communications with the intent to cause distress or anxiety.

It's the interpretation of the laws that is the problem.

What is grossly offensive to me might not be grossly offensive to you and vice versa.

That's how you end up with Graham Linehan getting arrested at the airport by armed police for a joke about a trans woman.

Although you probably think that's fantastic.