Jump to content

What is the point of labour ?


pawpar

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Not really.

“I know you haven’t eaten in two days so here’s half a Mars Bar”.

Ah, but just think how good that Mars Bar must taste to the starving who've spent the last couple of years getting excited at the promise of food, only to have every promise quietly withdrawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is the right thread, and maybe the blood scandal needs its own, but I saw Andy Burnham on BBC breakfast this morning trying to throw everyone else under the bus, while also constantly saying he hadn’t been able to do anything about it when he was health secretary because he “was so busy with the Hillsborough enquiry”. He was also demanding criminal charges for people in the department of health for the cover up, yet there was no challenge along the lines of “Which department were you in charge of, Andy?”

I don’t get why this guy is so highly thought of, he’s a complete fucking charlatan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mark Connolly said:

Not sure if this is the right thread, and maybe the blood scandal needs its own, but I saw Andy Burnham on BBC breakfast this morning trying to throw everyone else under the bus, while also constantly saying he hadn’t been able to do anything about it when he was health secretary because he “was so busy with the Hillsborough enquiry”. He was also demanding criminal charges for people in the department of health for the cover up, yet there was no challenge along the lines of “Which department were you in charge of, Andy?”

I don’t get why this guy is so highly thought of, he’s a complete fucking charlatan

Burnham was in the health department for a year at the end of the Gordon Brown government. The infected blood scandal covered the 70s to the 90s. Absolutely bizarre to try and link Burnham to the scandal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

Burnham was in the health department for a year at the end of the Gordon Brown government. The infected blood scandal covered the 70s to the 90s. Absolutely bizarre to try and link Burnham to the scandal. 

Funnily enough, the 90s predated his term at Health.  What did he do about this known injustice?  Or perhaps he was so useless that he wasn't even aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to Andy Burnham, he may well not have known about the cover-up/scandal, when he was Health Secretary.  He has been pretty vocal about it through the years though, and called for an independent inquiry many moons ago.

Yours

aDONis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JS_FFC said:

Burnham was in the health department for a year at the end of the Gordon Brown government. The infected blood scandal covered the 70s to the 90s. Absolutely bizarre to try and link Burnham to the scandal. 

If you watch his interview this morning on BBC Breakfast, he clearly states that the Archer Inquiry findings were passed on to him as he took over as Health Secretary. He met with some of the campaigners at that time, but, as he says in the interview, he was “so focused on Hillsborough” that he didn’t do anything about it while he was Health Secretary. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Corbyn formally expelled from the Labour Party. They're definitely better off with Natalie Elphicke ...

Edited by HTG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HTG said:

Corbyn formally expelled from the Labour Party. They're definitely better off with Natalie Elphicke ...

And still the internet is full of moon-howlers gibbering about "the far-left will take over once Labour are in power".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

And still the internet is full of moon-howlers gibbering about "the far-left will take over once Labour are in power".

Not to mention how the Stalinists were going to purge the moderates once Corbyn was appointed.

Sir Keef presumably continues to give the lefties the bullet just in case they try it again, the cads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Not to mention how the Stalinists were going to purge the moderates once Corbyn was appointed.

Sir Keef presumably continues to give the lefties the bullet just in case they try it again, the cads.

The Stalinists are in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

And still the internet is full of moon-howlers gibbering about "the far-left will take over once Labour are in power".

With Starmer I’d say the far-right are a far better bet.

I’d imagine the Labour Friends of Israel are already getting themselves organised to ensure he doesn’t deviate from Sunak’s position on Gaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The Stalinists are in charge.

You sure about that, comrade? Seems like you might be a bit confused.

We're sending a car over to straighten things out - we know you're in. Just a quick chat, nothing to concern yourself over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

With Starmer I’d say the far-right are a far better bet.

I’d imagine the Labour Friends of Israel are already getting themselves organised to ensure he doesn’t deviate from Sunak’s position on Gaza.

Looking forward to the Labour Manifesto. Not because I'm seriously entertaining voting Labour, although I probably would if I still resided in Edinburgh South West just to be rid of Cherry, but to see if my suspicions are correct and we're about to be governed by the second-furthest Right "Tory" government in UK parliamentary history.

Edited by Boo Khaki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Will Starmer support the ICC’s position on Israel?

Absolutely not. He'll do f**k all about anything except to pretend he's got an alternative to putting people on planes to Rwanda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HTG said:

Absolutely not. He'll do f**k all about anything except to pretend he's got an alternative to putting people on planes to Rwanda. 

Starmer has already committed to scrapping the Rwanda scheme.

 

Next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

Starmer has already committed to scrapping the Rwanda scheme.

Next.

They're going to Sealand instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

Starmer has already committed to scrapping the Rwanda scheme.

 

Next.

I never said he hadn't. Let's see what his alternative commitment looks like. Also, Starmer has extensive form for making pledges he then backs out of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...