They just want chaos and sensational headlines. The Beeb doesn’t need viewing figures but it’s no different anyway. Mason is a complete drip. Probably on half a million quid a year.
Election 2024
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
They just want chaos and sensational headlines. The Beeb doesn’t need viewing figures but it’s no different anyway. Mason is a complete drip. Probably on half a million quid a year.
The **** party strikes again
www.bbc.co.uk
Councillor sent sexual messages to person he thought was a girl
Labour councillor Liron Velleman sent sexual texts and videos to a police decoy posing as a child.
www.bbc.co.uk
There beginning to be a precedent for PMs winning majorities and not finishing their term. It's not happened for like 20 years.
Blair won 3 majorities, his last in 2005, he resigned in 2007.
Brown was an unelected PM, lost in 2010.
Cameron lead a coalition from 2010, won a majority in 2015 and resigned in 2016. May didn't win a majority only lasted 3 years.
Johnson won a majority, was removed from power.
Truss and Sunak were never elected. Truss resigned, Sunak gets the worst election result in Tory history.
Keir Starmer wins one of the biggest majorities in our history - the media attempts to remove him after 2 years.
There is also clear examples that removing the winning PM and replacing them just doesn't work. Cameron quits, May takes over and has no strategy for taking the country foward through Brexit, she's generally considered a poor PM.
Johnson wins a majority, is sacked and Liz Truss is the worst PM Britain has ever had.
We are talking about removing Starmer and the only person gearing himself up for a run at it is ****ing Wes Streeting.
For the sake of some stability, Starmer needs to keep the job the full term. Only in the UK does "likely to lose an election" mean that the PM HAS to be sacked. Most countries persevere with the PM and just wait for, you know, a ****ing election.
Blair won 3 majorities, his last in 2005, he resigned in 2007.
Brown was an unelected PM, lost in 2010.
Cameron lead a coalition from 2010, won a majority in 2015 and resigned in 2016. May didn't win a majority only lasted 3 years.
Johnson won a majority, was removed from power.
Truss and Sunak were never elected. Truss resigned, Sunak gets the worst election result in Tory history.
Keir Starmer wins one of the biggest majorities in our history - the media attempts to remove him after 2 years.
There is also clear examples that removing the winning PM and replacing them just doesn't work. Cameron quits, May takes over and has no strategy for taking the country foward through Brexit, she's generally considered a poor PM.
Johnson wins a majority, is sacked and Liz Truss is the worst PM Britain has ever had.
We are talking about removing Starmer and the only person gearing himself up for a run at it is ****ing Wes Streeting.
For the sake of some stability, Starmer needs to keep the job the full term. Only in the UK does "likely to lose an election" mean that the PM HAS to be sacked. Most countries persevere with the PM and just wait for, you know, a ****ing election.
I feel like this is the wrong attitude bro
We shouldn’t keep someone in a job for the sake of stability if they’re morally corrupt especially a pm
You're overstating Starmers moral corruption
but you replace PMs when someone with a vision has something to say
you don't replace PMs cos it feels good and you have someone worse desperate to take the job
Turning into Italy without food, women, weather or everyone looking cool as **** with a cigarette and espresso.
Am I tho
He knowing employed a close associate of a convicted child rapist even after being advised not to
That’s about as morally corrupt as you can get in my book bruv
It’s unforgivable from a pm imo
Not replacing him because there’s nothing better from his party to come after is no fuking reason to keep someone in the most important job in the country
A better attitude for me is we keep sacking these corrupt grifters until politicians get the fuking message and we get a better standard of them in the future
This is brilliant
Jmail, logged in as [email protected]
You are logged into [email protected], Jeffrey Epstein's email. Sourced from the November 2025 House Oversight Committee data release.
But is Keir morally corrupt or is it the system that is morally corrupt, I'd say it's the latter mate, then in that case no matter who you replaced Starmer with, the system would still remain morally corrupt.
The Times were running with Mandelson's association with Epstein some years back, we all knew about Andrews association with Epstein it couldn't have been more public...
Yet no one shouted Epstein when Keir Starmer took Mandelson on, because we'd all forgotten past news headlines, which is very normal behaviour by voters. It wasn't until lots of digging and poking around did it all unfold.
I've not seen any evidence that the Prime Minister knew about Mandelson's financial tipping off. Then let's look before Labour, the Tories were as corrupt as they come, see Michelle Mone for more detail.
Farage is a dodgy ****er a modern day spiv, so whoever you replace Keir with will be no better, and all you will succeed in doing is nose diving the markets, and I'm not sure pensions could take another hit, and poorer people can't afford anymore food inflation.
So unless we all put you in charge, but I want a proper Londoner in charge, and Archers is retiring soon. We certainly don't need some guy from up north that already has a job being Manchester Mayor.
I don’t think he’s a bad bloke. Uninteresting, perhaps even not very good at what is an obviously exceptionally tough job but I’m not sure there’ll ever be a widely popular PM again nor one who both wants to and can do the gig for multiple terms (just one whole term would be a start). Doubt John Major would last long now. Thatcher would be Reform’s Shadow Foreign Secretary before resigning because Lee Anderson groped her at the Christmas Party. Churchill would be hounded out for declaring war on France while 3/4 of the way through a bottle of Single Malt. Enoch Powell would probably win now but his coalition with the Lib Dems would collapse after mocking Ed Davey for ordering a Pret A Manger salad.
There's definitely food and women in the UK, although the coffee is rank and most people dress like tramps.
Anyway I should have put this on this thread. @Sucky about to become a Man Utd supporter...
news.sky.com
Britain has been "colonised" by immigrants, who are draining resources from the state, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, one of the country's richest and most influential men, has told Sky News.
Sir Jim, the founder of the INEOS chemicals group and part-owner of Manchester United, warned that Britain faces profound political, social and economic challenges, among them an unprecedented rise in immigration in recent years.
"You can't have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in," he said. "I mean, the UK has been colonised. It's costing too much money.
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) estimates that the population of the UK was 67 million in mid-2020 and 70 million in mid-2024.
'UK has been colonised by immigrants', says INEOS boss and Man Utd co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe
In an interview with Sky News's Ed Conway, Sir Jim says Britain faces profound political, social and economic challenges, among them an unprecedented rise in immigration in recent years.
Britain has been "colonised" by immigrants, who are draining resources from the state, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, one of the country's richest and most influential men, has told Sky News.
Sir Jim, the founder of the INEOS chemicals group and part-owner of Manchester United, warned that Britain faces profound political, social and economic challenges, among them an unprecedented rise in immigration in recent years.
"You can't have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in," he said. "I mean, the UK has been colonised. It's costing too much money.
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) estimates that the population of the UK was 67 million in mid-2020 and 70 million in mid-2024.
Anyway I should have put this on this thread. @Sucky about to become a Man Utd supporter...
'UK has been colonised by immigrants', says INEOS boss and Man Utd co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe
In an interview with Sky News's Ed Conway, Sir Jim says Britain faces profound political, social and economic challenges, among them an unprecedented rise in immigration in recent years.
Britain has been "colonised" by immigrants, who are draining resources from the state, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, one of the country's richest and most influential men, has told Sky News.
Sir Jim, the founder of the INEOS chemicals group and part-owner of Manchester United, warned that Britain faces profound political, social and economic challenges, among them an unprecedented rise in immigration in recent years.
"You can't have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in," he said. "I mean, the UK has been colonised. It's costing too much money.
"The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people."
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) estimates that the population of the UK was 67 million in mid-2020 and 70 million in mid-2024.
I though the population was about 65-68m.
When people start giving figures in interviews, it should be allowed to stop them, ask them where the numbers are taken from and checked.
I know his stats were wrong. I'll just leave others to look up the correct figures.
They did correct the figures, just not in the interview which is understandable unless you know them off the top of your head. I knew they were wrong as well, and like the reporter I wouldn't have been able to correct them in that moment- although Peej is right, they could have asked where he got his numbers from.
This is just the escalation of businessmen involving themselves in politics, which in turn is due to the escalation of rampant uncontrolled capitalism.
It's mind boggling that Ratcliffe, who is a glorified chemist, can go on the radio and chat **** with incorrect figures (I am sure he just made them up) and the reporter just sits there like a dumbfounded ****wit accepting it all because well, Ratcliffe is rich. The rich are allowed to chat ****.
If that was an MP or heaven ****ing forbid, a cabinet minister, who just wandered on the radio and chatted utter bollocks, that reporter would have reams and reams of questions and follow ups based on every single fact and figure.
But a billionaire? Bro, have at it, chat ****, its sound.
It's mind boggling that Ratcliffe, who is a glorified chemist, can go on the radio and chat **** with incorrect figures (I am sure he just made them up) and the reporter just sits there like a dumbfounded ****wit accepting it all because well, Ratcliffe is rich. The rich are allowed to chat ****.
If that was an MP or heaven ****ing forbid, a cabinet minister, who just wandered on the radio and chatted utter bollocks, that reporter would have reams and reams of questions and follow ups based on every single fact and figure.
But a billionaire? Bro, have at it, chat ****, its sound.
Problem is he diverted £3B investment away from the UK, so it does involve our politics whether we like it or not mate. The financial money men control the economy. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/brexiteer-jim-ratcliffe-abandons-3bn-uk-investment-397703/
And he's also been a top donor allegedly of the Labour Party but I can't find any financial figures supporting that.
Which in itself is weird because he was a supporter of Keir Starmer but now he's coming out with this stuff.... https://www.tatler.com/article/sir-jim-ratcliffe-backs-labour-in-general-election
Maybe he feels now that KS didn't deliver on his promises (migration / energy?).
He also donated £500k to the Tories one time, to stop Corbyn getting in...
Quote:
'The Phones4U tycoon, who gave £500,000 to Boris Johnson's 2019 election campaign to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of No 10' (Daily Malice).
So he's been meddling for a long time.
Last edited: