| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... 13:58 - May 9 with 106015 views | hubble |
..posted by a good friend of mine on Facebook, thought I'd share it on here. He's a former professional footballer (briefly for Birmingham City) and a former copper, working mainly out of Camden police station. He grew up in Kilburn/Queens Park. He's now a writer (among other things).
Worth a read I think, hope you enjoy, whether you agree with him or not, even when he veers off-topic...
"Thoughts of the Week (part 1)
Let’s start with a subheading. ‘Dear, oh dear Diane Abbot!’
In the upcoming General Election campaign and apart from the ‘Leader’ (no, not Gary Glitter) no one is more important for the Labour Party campaign than the Shadow Home Secretary. Why’s this? You ask.
The reason is obvious: Theresa May —the strong woman, Ms subtle, but steely - was the former Home Secretary. A position which she used to inflict near terminal ravages of the nation’s police forces. Under her auspices we saw numbers cut, benefits cut and police stations closed willy-nilly to cash in, short-term, on the booming (especially in London) property market.
The short-sightedness of this policy is astounding. No matter the so-called austerity budget (which only seems to apply to the working classes, while the privileged elite continue to live the life of Riley) the question must be asked as to what will happen when there’s some serious social unrest — and you can feel it stirring. Remember 2011 when the riots broke out? We had anarchy and nihilism on the streets and the police force didn’t cope with it at all. Instead we had a grand mopping up campaign. Suddenly all those poor silly students who had been demonised as hard-core criminals after they smashed the windows of the Tory HQ — and received ridiculously harsh prison sentences for what were in the main first offences - were kicked out of the pokey and replaced by the new batch of rioters. The Criminal Justice system ground to a halt, the prison’s overflowed. The courts were as ram-jam packed as a back-in-the-day David Rodigan dance. In response what did the great Theresa May do? She further decimated the police force. She did the same to the prison service. The vaunted Border Force, our first defence, is comically short of manpower and morale as they attempt to hire staff on Mickey-Mouse contracts. Labour should be slaughtering Theresa May on what she’s done. Instead we got that car crash of an interview on LBC.
To be honest I resisted calls to listen to it for a time. Some of my more right-leaning pals were raving about it, but I thought they were overreacting due to a general contempt for the Hackney MP. I was wrong. When I actually got round to listening to it I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It was stunningly incompetent, mind-blowingly nonsensical, embarrassing and shocking. Is this the Shadow Home Secretary who’s going to lead the challenge to Theresa May’s record? She should have stood down immediately and if not the great leader should have forced her hand, no matter past rendezvous in the sack. Of course it didn’t happen and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has no hope in this election. What a shame it all is because there are loads of issues that they should be taking the government to task on. Just look at that bumbling Tommy Cooper impersonator of a Foreign Secretary, a million miles removed from a serious statesman: Mr Retraction — an embarrassment to the nation.
I’m voting Labour in the coming election, but not for Jeremy, more for the thought of the millions of people who are going to suffer under the coming five years of Tory rule: the working men and women who haven’t seen their wages rise, in real terms, for the last thirty years, while the fat cats, sharks and speculators are minted; the students starting out life saddled with debt; the millions who’ll never be able to afford a home; and in honour of the National Health Service, soon to be dismantled further, but remaining the brightest light in the nation’s modern history. What a rotten, unfair and unbalanced society we’ve become.
|  |
| |  |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:41 - May 17 with 2530 views | LongsufferingR |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 17:57 - May 17 by essextaxiboy |
Honest question ... Whats a "non participating " fan ? |
Take out the word "participating" and you have your answer. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 08:16 - May 18 with 2419 views | distortR |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:10 - May 14 by SimonJames |
The precedent for taxing some goods and services, whilst favouring others has already been set. Standard Rate VAT on most goods, but zero rated for things like kid's clothes, and tariffs on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol.
By cutting direct taxes, people have more money on their pocket to choose where to spend it. I'm just advocating a higher level of VAT to generate revenue for the fiscal system. And extra tariffs on certain goods (e.g sugar) will help alleviate subsequent costs to society (e.g. the explosion in cases of Type 2 diabetes) that we all end up having to pay for.
Complete freedom of choice is a great concept, but if people choose, for example, to lead unhealthy lifestyles, why should my taxes be spent on paying for their subsequent healthcare (rather than my kids' education or my mother's MS)? Instead charge them upfront in the form of higher sales taxes and tariffs, and then they are making their own provisions to clean up their future health mess.
Furthermore, the rate of consumption in the 1st World continues to rise, despite the over population of the World. It's unsustainable in the long term and the government of today, or a near future generation needs to take responsibility for reigning back people's consumption.
With regards to directly taxing assets, it's difficult to find a fair justification for that.
In the first instance, an asset is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. How do you justify charging people tax for somebody else's valuation of their assets?
If you bought a house cheap and lived in it for 30 years, and in the meantime the area you live in became highly sought after, should you be taxed just because your house is now worth a small fortune? Or, for example, if I'd invested £10K in Franklin Templeton Investments back in 1992, it would be worth about £6.5M now. Does that mean I should be penalised for making a really good investment? If that's the case, then the government should pay for some of my losses if I make a bad investment. Likewise, people who win the lottery should immediately have some of their winnings taken from them in the form of an asset tax. (After all, they've done absolutely nothing to deserve their riches).
The main reason people invest is to acquire income earning assets to enable them to work less or retire. Are you saying they should be penalised for making good investments? External investors are vital for the growth of many start ups and small businesses. Should we discourage investors and thereby limit funding sources for businesses?
A big motivation for people setting up their own company is to have better control over their own financial future. Many of them work 80-100 hours a week for years, making great sacrifices in their personal lives. When they finally make their fortune should they have to pay part of the value of the assets they have created? Isn't it enough to tax them on the income that's generated rather than the asset value itself? What about if they made all that sacrifice so they could leave their kids with a better life.. should their efforts be sabotaged by taxing the assets they created?
If I have £50M stuffed into a mattress, am I benefiting from that in any way (other than having a very hard and uncomfortable mattress)? It's not earning any interest. But once it gets spent, that's when you can tax it. |
re: your point on Franklin Templeton,
NOW YOU EFFING TELL ME!!
What next, last weeks lottery results?
You're on ignore until further notice. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:33 - May 18 with 2372 views | essextaxiboy |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:10 - May 14 by SimonJames |
The precedent for taxing some goods and services, whilst favouring others has already been set. Standard Rate VAT on most goods, but zero rated for things like kid's clothes, and tariffs on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol.
By cutting direct taxes, people have more money on their pocket to choose where to spend it. I'm just advocating a higher level of VAT to generate revenue for the fiscal system. And extra tariffs on certain goods (e.g sugar) will help alleviate subsequent costs to society (e.g. the explosion in cases of Type 2 diabetes) that we all end up having to pay for.
Complete freedom of choice is a great concept, but if people choose, for example, to lead unhealthy lifestyles, why should my taxes be spent on paying for their subsequent healthcare (rather than my kids' education or my mother's MS)? Instead charge them upfront in the form of higher sales taxes and tariffs, and then they are making their own provisions to clean up their future health mess.
Furthermore, the rate of consumption in the 1st World continues to rise, despite the over population of the World. It's unsustainable in the long term and the government of today, or a near future generation needs to take responsibility for reigning back people's consumption.
With regards to directly taxing assets, it's difficult to find a fair justification for that.
In the first instance, an asset is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. How do you justify charging people tax for somebody else's valuation of their assets?
If you bought a house cheap and lived in it for 30 years, and in the meantime the area you live in became highly sought after, should you be taxed just because your house is now worth a small fortune? Or, for example, if I'd invested £10K in Franklin Templeton Investments back in 1992, it would be worth about £6.5M now. Does that mean I should be penalised for making a really good investment? If that's the case, then the government should pay for some of my losses if I make a bad investment. Likewise, people who win the lottery should immediately have some of their winnings taken from them in the form of an asset tax. (After all, they've done absolutely nothing to deserve their riches).
The main reason people invest is to acquire income earning assets to enable them to work less or retire. Are you saying they should be penalised for making good investments? External investors are vital for the growth of many start ups and small businesses. Should we discourage investors and thereby limit funding sources for businesses?
A big motivation for people setting up their own company is to have better control over their own financial future. Many of them work 80-100 hours a week for years, making great sacrifices in their personal lives. When they finally make their fortune should they have to pay part of the value of the assets they have created? Isn't it enough to tax them on the income that's generated rather than the asset value itself? What about if they made all that sacrifice so they could leave their kids with a better life.. should their efforts be sabotaged by taxing the assets they created?
If I have £50M stuffed into a mattress, am I benefiting from that in any way (other than having a very hard and uncomfortable mattress)? It's not earning any interest. But once it gets spent, that's when you can tax it. |
I thought Franklin Templeton were fund managers . Do you mean one of their Funds ? If so which one ?
I would like to have a look at the chart .
Thats around 26% compounded PA even through the 2008 crisis , pretty impressive .
I lost 17% and though I did ok  |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 11:58 - May 18 with 2308 views | SimonJames |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:33 - May 18 by essextaxiboy |
I thought Franklin Templeton were fund managers . Do you mean one of their Funds ? If so which one ?
I would like to have a look at the chart .
Thats around 26% compounded PA even through the 2008 crisis , pretty impressive .
I lost 17% and though I did ok |
My bad...I grabbed it as an example to make my point.
I didn't notice it was their stock (BEN) price gains on the NYSE, but from 1982-2007.
(I think you could have got another 25% return on that if you got out in 2014, otherwise you would still be at the same now as you were 10 years ago.) |  |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:30 - May 18 with 2218 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:54 - May 9 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Fecking hell it's not about voting for JC or TM you're not voting for a president FFS
That's why this country is fecked voters are as shallow as muddy puddles and less bright.
The Con's are going to shaft you all in the gob and arse relentlessly for the next 5 years if they win. [Post edited 9 May 2017 19:59]
|
Well at least she is admitting in the manifesto that she is going to shaft everyone.
Don't get sick in your old age or hand over your homes to your kids now.
Can't say you have not been warned. |  |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:39 - May 18 with 2202 views | Brightonhoop |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:30 - May 18 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Well at least she is admitting in the manifesto that she is going to shaft everyone.
Don't get sick in your old age or hand over your homes to your kids now.
Can't say you have not been warned. |
Indeed. Despite those aged folks who have already re-paid via NI and Tax all there working lives.
She's removed the commitment to not raise taxes too so they will be going north, but not for her corporate mates. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:55 - May 18 with 2185 views | distortR |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:39 - May 18 by Brightonhoop |
Indeed. Despite those aged folks who have already re-paid via NI and Tax all there working lives.
She's removed the commitment to not raise taxes too so they will be going north, but not for her corporate mates. |
on the other hand, she/they have promised to do some things that they promised to do previously but didn't.
On a general note, what is the point in a manifesto that isn't a binding contract? A real bugbear of mine. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 00:18 - May 19 with 2142 views | FDC |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:39 - May 18 by Brightonhoop |
Indeed. Despite those aged folks who have already re-paid via NI and Tax all there working lives.
She's removed the commitment to not raise taxes too so they will be going north, but not for her corporate mates. |
It's possible that oldie little-England UKIP types in key marginals where UKIP aren't standing might get the hump over this and defy expectations by voting Labour rather than Tory. Anecdotally people that I've spoken to who have been working the phones reckon several such old-timers they spoke to reckon it's a game changer and they're now voting Labour.
A tiny glimmer of hope anyway... I've not even been drinking. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:38 - May 19 with 2047 views | paulparker |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 00:18 - May 19 by FDC |
It's possible that oldie little-England UKIP types in key marginals where UKIP aren't standing might get the hump over this and defy expectations by voting Labour rather than Tory. Anecdotally people that I've spoken to who have been working the phones reckon several such old-timers they spoke to reckon it's a game changer and they're now voting Labour.
A tiny glimmer of hope anyway... I've not even been drinking. |
It's possible that oldie little-England UKIP types,
how wonderfully condescending of you,
I wouldn't worry, hardly any of us oldie , horrible, nasty UKIP voters will ever vote for Labour , never in a million years would anyone get behind the likes of Corbyn , Abbott , Thornberry , the 3 amigos who love to look down on the average man on the street who have nothing but contempt for the likes of me , they will never get my vote |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 11:32 - May 19 with 2018 views | FDC |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:38 - May 19 by paulparker |
It's possible that oldie little-England UKIP types,
how wonderfully condescending of you,
I wouldn't worry, hardly any of us oldie , horrible, nasty UKIP voters will ever vote for Labour , never in a million years would anyone get behind the likes of Corbyn , Abbott , Thornberry , the 3 amigos who love to look down on the average man on the street who have nothing but contempt for the likes of me , they will never get my vote |
I'll put you down as a maybe. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 11:41 - May 19 with 1993 views | Gloucs_R |
I want to vote Lib Demo for the first time ever............IF THEY WASNT THE BLOODY ANTI BREXIT PARTY!!  |  |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:28 - May 19 with 1963 views | SimonJames |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 11:41 - May 19 by Gloucs_R |
I want to vote Lib Demo for the first time ever............IF THEY WASNT THE BLOODY ANTI BREXIT PARTY!! |
But if they legalise cannabis, maybe I could just chill and ignore all their policies that I don't like. | |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:09 - May 19 with 1926 views | Dorse |
+++ DISCLAIMER: This is not a point about policies or political allegiance +++
But...
Did anyone catch ITV's Leadership Debate last night? Paul Nuttal's performance was simply atrocious. Just the worst.
Forget policies or politics for a moment: his delivery, his off-the-cuff responses to other leaders, his inability to connect just made him come over as hugely unlikable and, on several occasions, unprofessional. Don't get me wrong, I find her incredibly irritating but even Nicola Sturgeon came over better than he did! It just goes to show how good Nigel Farage was at things like this over the years.
I noticed at the end that not one of the other leaders shook his hand. In fact, several went out of their way to avoid him. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:37 - May 19 with 1893 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:38 - May 19 by paulparker |
It's possible that oldie little-England UKIP types,
how wonderfully condescending of you,
I wouldn't worry, hardly any of us oldie , horrible, nasty UKIP voters will ever vote for Labour , never in a million years would anyone get behind the likes of Corbyn , Abbott , Thornberry , the 3 amigos who love to look down on the average man on the street who have nothing but contempt for the likes of me , they will never get my vote |
who love to look down on the average man on the street who have nothing but contempt for the likes of me , they will never get my vote
Yeah I agree that's the job of the tories. | |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 17:00 - May 19 with 1828 views | BillericayR |
I am a remainer and voted for PR. My vote is meaningless in my area.
But no choice this time.
In 5 years time I want food on the shelves, the Government running the country not the IMF, Unions not having tea and sandwiches in 10 Downing Street. not having endless strikes, my waste to be taken on a regular basis.
In fact I want to be able to vote in 5 years time - not sure we will be allowed that if the commies get in.
If you want the above then just transfer Hugo Chavez or Fidel and we can be living the high life like Venezuela and Cuba. Sorry they are not around - what about the North Korean nut case. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 18:43 - May 19 with 1778 views | essextaxiboy |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 00:18 - May 19 by FDC |
It's possible that oldie little-England UKIP types in key marginals where UKIP aren't standing might get the hump over this and defy expectations by voting Labour rather than Tory. Anecdotally people that I've spoken to who have been working the phones reckon several such old-timers they spoke to reckon it's a game changer and they're now voting Labour.
A tiny glimmer of hope anyway... I've not even been drinking. |
They voted UKIP to get us out , they will vote Tory because she is taking us out .
They will then get shouty when her stonking majority means she can soften it up .IMO | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 18:47 - May 19 with 1768 views | nadera78 |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 17:00 - May 19 by BillericayR |
I am a remainer and voted for PR. My vote is meaningless in my area.
But no choice this time.
In 5 years time I want food on the shelves, the Government running the country not the IMF, Unions not having tea and sandwiches in 10 Downing Street. not having endless strikes, my waste to be taken on a regular basis.
In fact I want to be able to vote in 5 years time - not sure we will be allowed that if the commies get in.
If you want the above then just transfer Hugo Chavez or Fidel and we can be living the high life like Venezuela and Cuba. Sorry they are not around - what about the North Korean nut case. |
It takes some doing but....that was the biggest pile of sh*t ever written on this forum. Disagree with Corbyn all you like but that little rant was off the scale batshit crazy, even the Mail Online comments section would be looking at you and wondering where you've escaped from. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:06 - May 19 with 1743 views | TacticalR |
The guiding principle of the North Korean Communist Party is nationalism, and North Korean society is organised in a strong and stable manner to prevent any foreign influences contaminating the country, so I would have thought this would have been a wonderful model for Kim Jong-May's post-Brexit isle? They've even got nationally produced nukes (admittedly not working very well). |  |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 20:45 - May 19 with 1678 views | distortR |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:06 - May 19 by TacticalR |
The guiding principle of the North Korean Communist Party is nationalism, and North Korean society is organised in a strong and stable manner to prevent any foreign influences contaminating the country, so I would have thought this would have been a wonderful model for Kim Jong-May's post-Brexit isle? They've even got nationally produced nukes (admittedly not working very well). |
going off on a tangent, we import our nukes, which in trials are quite likely to go off on a tangent.............. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 21:06 - May 19 with 1660 views | paulparker |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:37 - May 19 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
who love to look down on the average man on the street who have nothing but contempt for the likes of me , they will never get my vote
Yeah I agree that's the job of the tories. |
Agreed which is why I would never vote Tory either | |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 07:24 - May 20 with 1577 views | DWQPR |
So Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser. FACT. Thornberry is a sneering aloof snob who looks down at the working class and Abbott is a racist and hypocrit. As for McDonnell, a self-admitting Marxist. And common people think that they won't pay more and their standards of living won't fall if this rabid bunch get in then they better shut their eyes to what would be coming. Their manifesto commitments will increase taxes for the common man, a good number of the 5% are mobile enough to clear off, as they did under the Wilson/Callaghan government of the 70's. we end up borrowing more at higher rates as inflation increases due to sudden higher minimum wages are imposed on companies and people suddenly spend more. Unions having the power of the 70's which crippled the U.K. Companies start making redundancies because of the higher costs, strikes costs companies even more in costs, interest rates start increasing and mortgage costs become eye-watering for the many not the few.
And onto the Tories proposals for the elderly. The loss of the triple lock isn't too much of an issue for retired people, inflation or national average earnings increases seem fair enough. The issue over using the cost of your home to pay for care has always been there. But a big difference now and something that hasn't been highlighted. A good proportion of elderly people tend to be asset rich and cash poor. Therefore if care is needed they have little choice, a care home, whereby their house is sold and the proceeds are used to cover the cost of care until the funds hit a minimum of £23,500, at which point the state takes over. But these pensioners who are asset rich and cash poor have little choice if they need that care, they end up having to sell their property. Under the proposals whereby they can receive home care and the cost is deferred until the estate is settled then allows those who would prefer to continue to and live and more importantly for many of them, to die in their own homes the chance to do so and not be forced to sell up, which is their wonky real choice currently. They can have the home care paid for, which would be at a lower cost than if in a care home knowing that the bill can be settled after their death. And for both scenarios the guaranteed lowest amount that can be passed on after their death would be £100,000, a four-fold increase. Now if the families of those who end up going into a home are switched on enough to use som of the funds from the sale of a property to purchase a lifetime annuity to cover the care costs then although there is some risk in terms of longevity of the person in care, the annuity should mean that the cost of care is capped. Therefore in my eyes the proposed system is actually better, more flexible and if more people can stay in their own homes till their passing then this also frees up more spaces in care homes. | |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 08:10 - May 20 with 1556 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
It's opens the door for care agents to whack up the prices and so that equity is gone like a rat down a drain pipe, it will fix nothing.
Dementia care is around 100k a year.
Their is a guy of 86 near me with no assets at all that has care in his home twice a day for a hour wash and feed him, but he has to buy the food and they take most of his pension to pay towards it, 23k or 100k makes not difference to him and won't to those with no asset as care is not free if you live as home. they also take the pension if you go in to a home. [Post edited 20 May 2017 8:27]
| |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 08:35 - May 20 with 1538 views | ElHoop |
For what it's worth I think that I'm going to vote Labour this time. Last time it was UKIP for me because I felt that freedom of movement was the big issue and Farage was the only one who wanted to talk about it. He did us a favour, although I had hoped that we could have avoided leaving the EU - but that wasn't Farage's fault.
But there's no reason to suppose that I would vote for anyone in particular this time. As in every election, it comes down to what you think is the big issue or issues. For me, something needs to be done about a few issues- the super-rich, the ever increasing gap between top and bottom in terms of incomes, and big business. As with Farage last time, Corbyn is the only show in town on these issues. I never thought that Farage could run the country and I don't think that Corbyn can, but both were extremely unlikely to happen. However, if I vote Labour then I'm putting down a marker that these issues need to be looked at, and I want them to be looked at. If I vote for anyone else then I've only got myself to blame if the key issues are not tackled. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 08:39 - May 20 with 1528 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
I've seen the words 'fact' and 'proven' used a lot in this thread.
I don't think those using them know what it means. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 08:44 - May 20 with 1525 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
I'm not sure why anyone thanks May is better at running the country than JC
She has been a wallflower for years and made a mess of the home office, a complete failure.
She is not strong or stable. she changes like the wind.
I heard someone say, I agree with everything he says but why can't he wear a tie and sadly that's about the level many vote on. [Post edited 20 May 2017 8:48]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
