|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 26, 2024 21:40:41 GMT
Couldn't help noticing in this evenings bun fight that Starmer was asked no fewar than nine times (That's right, 9 times) how he would deal with illegal immigrants, and not once did he give a straight answer. He prevaricated, he was evasive, he obfuscated, he sidestepped, in short, he refused to say how a future Labour government will deal with illegals. Hands up anyone who's surprised... He did he said “ When I was chief prosecutor “ and I was shouting at the screen (daft I know) I prosecuted postmasters. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 26, 2024 21:43:44 GMT
According to YouGov the result of this evenings debate was boringly, an even split. 50% for Starmer, 50% for Sunak. Which is not good news for Labour because prior to the debate YouGov predicted 75% Starmer, 25% Sunak. It's not going to change anything but hey... you gotta grab your victories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 26, 2024 21:55:31 GMT
Couldn't help noticing in this evenings bun fight that Starmer was asked no fewar than nine times (That's right, 9 times) how he would deal with illegal immigrants, and not once did he give a straight answer. He prevaricated, he was evasive, he obfuscated, he sidestepped, in short, he refused to say how a future Labour government will deal with illegals. Hands up anyone who's surprised... He did he said “ When I was chief prosecutor “ and I was shouting at the screen (daft I know) I prosecuted postmasters. Indeed, and I wonder how the hundreds of wrongly prosecuted postmasters about 700 of them I belive, feel about prime minister Starmer, who prosecuted postmasters, and possible future leader of the opposition Ed Davey who as 'Postal Affairs Minister' did nothing to stop the prosecutions, and now says he was 'mislead' by the post office. My god, Starmer and Davey, prime minister and leader of the opposition. Is this really what we've been reduced to? I fear it may be. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 26, 2024 23:01:54 GMT
Couldn't help noticing in this evenings bun fight that Starmer was asked no fewar than nine times (That's right, 9 times) how he would deal with illegal immigrants, and not once did he give a straight answer. He prevaricated, he was evasive, he obfuscated, he sidestepped, in short, he refused to say how a future Labour government will deal with illegals. Hands up anyone who's surprised... He did he said “ When I was chief prosecutor “ and I was shouting at the screen (daft I know) I prosecuted postmasters. When asked if he would protect biological women from biological men dressed up as women in women's' safe areas he couldn't answer - he spluttered ''yes'' then prattled wildly about respecting others ,meeting DV victims (when I was chief prosecutor  ) finding common ground and other similar bollax. He also prattled wildly about ''strong'' women in his team - Reeves (worked briefly for the BOE), Rayner (difficult start and a gobby union plant he can't fire)-none of which answered the asked question. At no point did he state that if he becomes PM he will give legal protection to biological women to maintain single sex female only areas (changing rooms/hospital wards/female prisons/public bathrooms/female sports etc) from which all biological men are excluded by law (irrespective of transition). He even denied saying that Rosie Duffield MP was wrong to say that only women have a cervix Only possible conclusion is that there is no labour intention to put the very vocal trans minority back in the box where they belong and women should be expecting 19 stone , 6' 6 Erica (formerly known as Eddie) to be slipping into its swimsuit alongside them in the ladies changing room at the local leisure centre finding common ground , bringing it ''together'' and other such bollax. For lefties who will claim he did maybe they will highlight exactly where he stated that biological men dressed in a frock and calling themselves Susan will be prevented by law from |
|
) finding common ground and other similar bollax. He also prattled wildly about ''strong'' women in his team - Reeves (worked briefly for the BOE), Rayner (difficult start and a gobby union plant he can't fire)-none of which answered the asked question.