They're not "politically homeless" they've hijacked the Labour Party.
Still sorry, @Arethosemyfeet, I'm not letting you get away with that.
"Hijacked the Labour Party" doesn't mean being prepared to vote for its candidates. It doesn't even mean expressing a willingness to get involved with it. It means taking it over and running away with it. You may object to the present team at the top of the Labour Party as not the ones you would like to see there, or even that the Labour Party is not the pure, true Labour Party as you'd like to see it, but the present leadership are not a clique of disgruntled ex-Conservative entryists who have sneaked in and taken it over.
That they weren't tory members before starting their takeover of the Labour Party is neither here nor there - the politics are the same, the ideology is the same, and even some of the faces on the front bench (opposition whip Christian Wakeford) are the same. A centre-right takeover of a self-proclaimed socialist party is a hijacking, whoever and however it is accomplished.
I'd say Kinnock was the turning point, though he wasn't as far to the right in the 80s as Starmer is now. Prior to that the Labour right existed but were (mostly) willing to work with the left and share space on the front bench. Since then there has been a concerted effort to exclude the left of the party from being adopted as candidates or being able to influence policy. Even when we managed to elect a left wing leader in 2015 the right went into almost immediate scorched earth sabotage mode.
It is not yet known how many thousands of the evil extremists baying for a ceasefire have been arrested. I expect the police are still busy filling in the paperwork.
Equally, back at you, in what sense are they 'politically homeless' if there's a party they are prepared to vote for and get involved with?
Voting for someone doesn't mean anybody either has or has not made that person's party their political home, and particularly not under a FPTP system. Besides, the ballot has been secret since the mid-nineteenth century. I've no idea who various homeless ex-Conservative politicians vote for, and nor do you.
As we're talking about previously active politicians, and especially a former MPs, if they've actually joined another party, I'd accept that they have found a new home. Unless they do, if they got ejected from their party, or left because they no longer identified with it, I'd class them as homeless.
No one here speaks for everyone. Sometimes we might speak on behalf of a small group. Most of the time we speak for no one except ourselves, and maybe find others agreeing with us.
I totally agree.
Then why assume that @Hugal was 'speaking for everyone'?
You know the old thing about 'assume' don't you? 'Never assume. It makes an ASS of U and ME.'
Meanwhile, on @Arethosemyfeet's thing about Labour's lurch to the right. Yes, I get that but at the moment I don't see any viable alternative to a venal and increasingly loopy Conservative Party. Heck, much as it may pain or surprise Arethosemyfeet to hear this, there are decent Conservatives out there at local and regional levels who've been pleading with the whackoes in charge for some considerable time but to no avail.
I can understand his reservations about Rory Stewart but the guy is a sharp cookie in many ways. I'd appreciate his support if it were me, with the caveat that I wouldn't expect him to stick around very long.
Ideological purity is one thing but my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I'm with Enoch on this one, whilst accepting that Labour's in danger of compromising itself - if it hasn't done so already.
The issue I have with the Greens - and I'll get jumped on for this - is that they haven't shown themselves capable of running anything yet.
But then, all the main parties have weaknesses and flaws or have compromised themselves to some extent. Saint Jeremy Corbyn as much as Sir Ed or Sir Keir.
Whatever the case, nobody is smelling of roses at the moment. But some smells are more pungent than others.
Sorry, what I meant was 'more viable alternative.'
A more viable alternative than Labour in its current incarnation, that is. Of course, it ain't going to be as the Labour left would like it to be but looking at the alternatives I don't see any other options.
But I'm not in the Labour Party so what do I know? Only the True Believers have the Gnosis.
Equally, back at you, in what sense are they 'politically homeless' if there's a party they are prepared to vote for and get involved with?
Voting for someone doesn't mean anybody either has or has not made that person's party their political home, and particularly not under a FPTP system. Besides, the ballot has been secret since the mid-nineteenth century. I've no idea who various homeless ex-Conservative politicians vote for, and nor do you.
Where they've made public statements to that effect I choose to take them at their word, you may choose to do otherwise, but that would rather undermine any determination of their politics.
That they weren't tory members before starting their takeover of the Labour Party is neither here nor there - the politics are the same, the ideology is the same, and even some of the faces on the front bench (opposition whip Christian Wakeford) are the same. A centre-right takeover of a self-proclaimed socialist party is a hijacking, whoever and however it is accomplished.
If you want to form a No True Scotsman Party, go an form one. However, even I, who am not Labour, know that the Labour Party was already an amalgam of different political and ideological strains even before it started to mop up the votes of disassociated former Liberal voters between the wars. If you need the votes of people who aren't that excited about politics in order to get elected, then you've got to appeal to them. That also means recognising that you'll have to temper your policies to give them what they are looking for, rather than what you think you know is best for them.
It's somewhat ironic that those who are most vocal about the ideological narrowing of the Conservative Party are signally unable to recognise the same thing has happened to the Labour Party.
Although in many ways that's just reflective of media coverage.
I don't see anyone here saying that the Labour Party hasn't become more homogeneous, as it were, with a focus on not 'scaring the horses.'
But then I'm No True Scotsman. I am not among The Elect.
Besides, Infidels though we may be, give us some credit for forming opinions based on discussions and observation and not just what's printed in the press.
Do you really think we live in a vacuum where we don't mingle with Labourites from various strands within the Party?
Of course, as outsiders we won't have as strong a grasp on the issues as those who are Party members and involved with their local branches. That goes without saying.
But we can think for ourselves for Pete's sake.
Not everyone who isn't on the left of the Labour Party is lobotomised by the vicious Tory media and unable to reach their own conclusions.
I don't think I've read anything so patronising for many a long day.
It's not the right-wing press that deters me from throwing in my lot with Labour but attitudes like that.
Plus the fact that I'm clearly some evil capitalist lackey ... 😉
That they weren't tory members before starting their takeover of the Labour Party is neither here nor there - the politics are the same, the ideology is the same, and even some of the faces on the front bench (opposition whip Christian Wakeford) are the same. A centre-right takeover of a self-proclaimed socialist party is a hijacking, whoever and however it is accomplished.
If you want to form a No True Scotsman Party, go an form one. However, even I, who am not Labour, know that the Labour Party was already an amalgam of different political and ideological strains even before it started to mop up the votes of disassociated former Liberal voters between the wars. If you need the votes of people who aren't that excited about politics in order to get elected, then you've got to appeal to them. That also means recognising that you'll have to temper your policies to give them what they are looking for, rather than what you think you know is best for them.
But that's not what Starmer is doing - he's rejecting policies that are overwhelmingly popular in pursuit of a narrow, centre-right agenda. The truth is that Labour's last two manifestos were pretty popular, it was just that the party had been so thoroughly monstered that support for the policies went down when people were told they were Labour policies. Corbyn's personal failings (which certainly exist on quantity, a lack of killer instinct being chief among them) have been used as an excuse to throw the policy baby out with the tactically inept bathwater.
It's not "no true Scotsman" to expect members and leaders of a socialist party to be socialists. Nye Bevan wouldn't recognise the likes of Starmer as Labour politicians, they're so far removed from the roots of either wing of the party. The old Labour Right was firmly tied to the big trade unions, which have now found themselves on the left of the party by default, as the right no longer has much interest in working people.
I don't see anyone here saying that the Labour Party hasn't become more homogeneous, as it were, with a focus on not 'scaring the horses.'
It's clear that it's not about being media friendly so much as narrowly factional, with candidate lists (occasionally containing a single candidate) being imposed on CLPs by the NEC. This was the issue with Rochdale after all, Azhar Ali being the choice of the Labour Right, and the reason for the flat footed response was that they originally stood by their candidate, before doing a 180 and insisting that people who had been present when he made his remarks should also be suspended. Even the soft-left hasn't been immune.
The only journalists to cover Labour selections have been Michael Crick and - more occasionally - Steve Richards. It's instructive that stuff that would be treated to all-caps front page headlines a few years are only of interest to a couple of old men who are beholden to very little and close to retirement.
I'd say Kinnock was the turning point, though he wasn't as far to the right in the 80s as Starmer is now. Prior to that the Labour right existed but were (mostly) willing to work with the left and share space on the front bench. Since then there has been a concerted effort to exclude the left of the party from being adopted as candidates or being able to influence policy. Even when we managed to elect a left wing leader in 2015 the right went into almost immediate scorched earth sabotage mode.
Probably because they knew he had no ability, no experience ( apart from as a rebel MP) amd he was too extreme. They knew he was the wrong choice.
With the exception of Foot and Corbyn, Labour have ususally had moderate sensible leaders
Interesting to note that a survey out today continues the negative trend for the Tories since the budget, and also shows that more people think the budget plan will raise taxes than think it will reduce them.
There is no money for any other measures, so I guess we will now have the spectacle of the “Government” hanging on like grim death until the late autumn, somewhat pointlessly.
There is no money for any other measures, so I guess we will now have the spectacle of the “Government” hanging on like grim death until the late autumn, somewhat pointlessly.
If he's determined to hang on, it could go on till early January (that way he gets written up as 'Sunak, PM, 2022-2025' ). Though I suspect the party might get restive after the local elections.
They would be better off getting restive before the Local Elections.
If the poll predictions are right, then they'll lose 50% of their Counsellors. This would be a serious blow to morale. Those Councillors who have lost their seats will be shattered. The sense of rejection losing candidates feel is immense - it can take months for them to recover and start battling for their party again. It doesn't matter how much intellectually they know that it was the Westminster party that let them down there will be a sense of personal failure. It will be a struggle to get some of these experienced and active campaigners out on the streets - especially when they won't be feeling the love for their leadership.
The Tories have plenty of money to spend on advertising for the General Election campaign. They are going to need a good air war, because they are going to have a very bad ground war IF they don't call a May Election.
Some of those commenting on the possibility of a tory disaster in the May local elections are suggesting that such a debacle would lead to an attempt to defenestrate Sun*k, and choose yet another person to carry on re-arranging the deckchairs...
It's a shame that local councillors get tarnished by the antics of the national party.
We have excellent local councillors here. They listen and they get stuff done. But because they are Tory I would never vote for them. Ever.
But, as @Alan29 says, they're tainted by the tory toxins, however good they may be as local councillors. No doubt they are fearful of the possible outcome of the May elections.
I could never vote Conservative either. But if it was a 'personality vote' contest then some of my regional Conservative councillors would be there alongside individual Labour and Independent councillors.
I can see the need for party politics at a regional level but at town and parish level I'd prefer it to all be non-aligned.
I could never vote Conservative either. But if it was a 'personality vote' contest then some of my regional Conservative councillors would be there alongside individual Labour and Independent councillors.
I can see the need for party politics at a regional level but at town and parish level I'd prefer it to all be non-aligned.
For sure.
But even at the national level big parties corrupt the system by their sheer size.
Some of those commenting on the possibility of a tory disaster in the May local elections are suggesting that such a debacle would lead to an attempt to defenestrate Sun*k, and choose yet another person to carry on re-arranging the deckchairs...
I noted Mr Johnson has inserted himself into the news by making an unofficial visit to Venezuela to talk to them about democracy. Perhaps he is trying to remain a public figure and intends to join his chum Dave, as PM in the Lords…
Mr Johnson declined to say who paid for his flight.
Corbyn was moderate and sensible (as evidenced by the manifestos produced on his watch). He was just not politically astute.
I disagree. He was elcted by Labour members but quickly rejected by Labour MPs who knew him far better than Labour members
And held ideological positions that were at odds with his views, as evidenced by the current lurch to the right. You've not provided any evidence of Corbyn being other than moderate or sensible.
In a time when politicians are expected to say what they expect their audience believe and want to hear, Corbyn was a radical by actually saying what he believed and trying to convince others that these ideas are good for the country even if those ideas were not popular. Ironically, he succeeded in selling the policies he stood for (as all those polls which show support for those policies indicate) but by not following the path of changing views to match the perceptions of his audience was seen as unelectable.
Some of those commenting on the possibility of a tory disaster in the May local elections are suggesting that such a debacle would lead to an attempt to defenestrate Sun*k, and choose yet another person to carry on re-arranging the deckchairs...
I noted Mr Johnson has inserted himself into the news by making an unofficial visit to Venezuela to talk to them about democracy. Perhaps he is trying to remain a public figure and intends to join his chum Dave, as PM in the Lords…
There are rumours that he plans to return as MP for his old constituency of Henley.
Under Corbyn the Labour right complained like hell that his leftist views were taking over the Labour Party. He believed that the Labour Party should be a wide church, and didn’t get rid of them. As soon as he became leader Starmer got rid of several left leaning MPs and replaced them with yes men. He has made the party pretty much poisonous to the left. Doing what the right accused Corbyn of. That is not mentioning the broken promises he made during his bid for leadership. No wonder the centrist Tory’s are attracted to what he is doing. His ideals closely match theirs.
All major political parties are pertorce coalitions and I do not believe the Labour party can ever have been accurately described as 'socialist', If you want a socialist party, try the SPGB.
All major political parties are pertorce coalitions and I do not believe the Labour party can ever have been accurately described as 'socialist', If you want a socialist party, try the SPGB.
I'll settle for the one that says in its constitution that it is a "democratic socialist party" and fight the bastards like Starmer who want it to be neither of those things. Labour is and should be a socialist party. If folk want warmed over capitalism with a pretence of humanity the lib dems are right there.
It'll be interesting to see how the good people of Ashfield do vote, come the General Election.
Some of Thirty-Pee's constituents are on record as having views somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, so he may be re-elected (by TheWill Of The People™).
I notice that Lee said, "all I want is my country back".
So do I. A country welcoming to those in need, where compassion and charity define us, where we hold politicians to high standards of honesty and integrity. The country that the Tories and UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform have stolen from us.
I notice that Lee said, "all I want is my country back".
So do I. A country welcoming to those in need, where compassion and charity define us, where we hold politicians to high standards of honesty and integrity. The country that the Tories and UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform have stolen from us.
This.
Other utterances of the vile Six-Bobber are indeed far more specifically racist.
All major political parties are pertorce coalitions and I do not believe the Labour party can ever have been accurately described as 'socialist', If you want a socialist party, try the SPGB.
I'll settle for the one that says in its constitution that it is a "democratic socialist party" and fight the bastards like Starmer who want it to be neither of those things. Labour is and should be a socialist party. If folk want warmed over capitalism with a pretence of humanity the lib dems are right there.
Oi! The Lib Dems have their faults, of course, but I wouldn't say 'a pretence of humanity' was one of them.
You are at it again, de-humanising and demonising anyone who isn't your particular brand of Labourite.
All major political parties are pertorce coalitions and I do not believe the Labour party can ever have been accurately described as 'socialist', If you want a socialist party, try the SPGB.
I'll settle for the one that says in its constitution that it is a "democratic socialist party" and fight the bastards like Starmer who want it to be neither of those things. Labour is and should be a socialist party. If folk want warmed over capitalism with a pretence of humanity the lib dems are right there.
Oi! The Lib Dems have their faults, of course, but I wouldn't say 'a pretence of humanity' was one of them.
'Pretence of humanity' is pretty much liberalism in actual practice. Besides I've read the Orange Book.
All major political parties are pertorce coalitions and I do not believe the Labour party can ever have been accurately described as 'socialist', If you want a socialist party, try the SPGB.
I'll settle for the one that says in its constitution that it is a "democratic socialist party" and fight the bastards like Starmer who want it to be neither of those things. Labour is and should be a socialist party. If folk want warmed over capitalism with a pretence of humanity the lib dems are right there.
Oi! The Lib Dems have their faults, of course, but I wouldn't say 'a pretence of humanity' was one of them.
You are at it again, de-humanising and demonising anyone who isn't your particular brand of Labourite.
Oh bog off! I was talking about the ideology having a pretence of humanity, as in it pays lip service to being humane and having regard for human rights, as was clear to anyone capable of basic reading comprehension.
No need for Trump ... racist and sexist in one package. And, clueless as well.
Saying or doing something nasty and then resort to "it was only a joke" has been characteristic of bullies forever, to be sexist and racist at the same time makes it worse.
Besides, with the government now looking at cracking down on what they consider extremism it's clear that calling for an MP to be shot would fall well into that category. The decent thing for the Conservative Party to do would be to turn down the recent offer of a large donation and repay all previous donations, and for the government to consider whether his company meets the standards expected of companies in receipt of public money.
For the record, in my job I have to support TPP's flagship NHS product, SystmOne.
In my professional opinion, based on my experience of it, and of the adverts that ran for years at Leeds Station for developers ("no programming experience needed!"), it is an utter pile of shite.
This is an opinion that I reached long before learning about the turd behind the turd, as it were. They could be run by the Archangel Gabriel and donating all the prophets to charity and it would still be a steaming pile of crap.
Comments
That they weren't tory members before starting their takeover of the Labour Party is neither here nor there - the politics are the same, the ideology is the same, and even some of the faces on the front bench (opposition whip Christian Wakeford) are the same. A centre-right takeover of a self-proclaimed socialist party is a hijacking, whoever and however it is accomplished.
Hmm. Difficult to say, but certainly after the Attlee years, I should think.
I'd say Kinnock was the turning point, though he wasn't as far to the right in the 80s as Starmer is now. Prior to that the Labour right existed but were (mostly) willing to work with the left and share space on the front bench. Since then there has been a concerted effort to exclude the left of the party from being adopted as candidates or being able to influence policy. Even when we managed to elect a left wing leader in 2015 the right went into almost immediate scorched earth sabotage mode.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/09/tens-of-thousands-of-pro-palestine-protesters-march-through-london
It is not yet known how many thousands of the evil extremists baying for a ceasefire have been arrested. I expect the police are still busy filling in the paperwork.
As we're talking about previously active politicians, and especially a former MPs, if they've actually joined another party, I'd accept that they have found a new home. Unless they do, if they got ejected from their party, or left because they no longer identified with it, I'd class them as homeless.
Then why assume that @Hugal was 'speaking for everyone'?
You know the old thing about 'assume' don't you? 'Never assume. It makes an ASS of U and ME.'
Meanwhile, on @Arethosemyfeet's thing about Labour's lurch to the right. Yes, I get that but at the moment I don't see any viable alternative to a venal and increasingly loopy Conservative Party. Heck, much as it may pain or surprise Arethosemyfeet to hear this, there are decent Conservatives out there at local and regional levels who've been pleading with the whackoes in charge for some considerable time but to no avail.
I can understand his reservations about Rory Stewart but the guy is a sharp cookie in many ways. I'd appreciate his support if it were me, with the caveat that I wouldn't expect him to stick around very long.
Ideological purity is one thing but my enemy's enemy is my friend.
I'm with Enoch on this one, whilst accepting that Labour's in danger of compromising itself - if it hasn't done so already.
The issue I have with the Greens - and I'll get jumped on for this - is that they haven't shown themselves capable of running anything yet.
But then, all the main parties have weaknesses and flaws or have compromised themselves to some extent. Saint Jeremy Corbyn as much as Sir Ed or Sir Keir.
Whatever the case, nobody is smelling of roses at the moment. But some smells are more pungent than others.
A more viable alternative than Labour in its current incarnation, that is. Of course, it ain't going to be as the Labour left would like it to be but looking at the alternatives I don't see any other options.
But I'm not in the Labour Party so what do I know? Only the True Believers have the Gnosis.
Where they've made public statements to that effect I choose to take them at their word, you may choose to do otherwise, but that would rather undermine any determination of their politics.
Although in many ways that's just reflective of media coverage.
But then I'm No True Scotsman. I am not among The Elect.
Besides, Infidels though we may be, give us some credit for forming opinions based on discussions and observation and not just what's printed in the press.
Do you really think we live in a vacuum where we don't mingle with Labourites from various strands within the Party?
Of course, as outsiders we won't have as strong a grasp on the issues as those who are Party members and involved with their local branches. That goes without saying.
But we can think for ourselves for Pete's sake.
Not everyone who isn't on the left of the Labour Party is lobotomised by the vicious Tory media and unable to reach their own conclusions.
I don't think I've read anything so patronising for many a long day.
It's not the right-wing press that deters me from throwing in my lot with Labour but attitudes like that.
Plus the fact that I'm clearly some evil capitalist lackey ... 😉
But that's not what Starmer is doing - he's rejecting policies that are overwhelmingly popular in pursuit of a narrow, centre-right agenda. The truth is that Labour's last two manifestos were pretty popular, it was just that the party had been so thoroughly monstered that support for the policies went down when people were told they were Labour policies. Corbyn's personal failings (which certainly exist on quantity, a lack of killer instinct being chief among them) have been used as an excuse to throw the policy baby out with the tactically inept bathwater.
It's not "no true Scotsman" to expect members and leaders of a socialist party to be socialists. Nye Bevan wouldn't recognise the likes of Starmer as Labour politicians, they're so far removed from the roots of either wing of the party. The old Labour Right was firmly tied to the big trade unions, which have now found themselves on the left of the party by default, as the right no longer has much interest in working people.
It's clear that it's not about being media friendly so much as narrowly factional, with candidate lists (occasionally containing a single candidate) being imposed on CLPs by the NEC. This was the issue with Rochdale after all, Azhar Ali being the choice of the Labour Right, and the reason for the flat footed response was that they originally stood by their candidate, before doing a 180 and insisting that people who had been present when he made his remarks should also be suspended. Even the soft-left hasn't been immune.
The only journalists to cover Labour selections have been Michael Crick and - more occasionally - Steve Richards. It's instructive that stuff that would be treated to all-caps front page headlines a few years are only of interest to a couple of old men who are beholden to very little and close to retirement.
With the exception of Foot and Corbyn, Labour have ususally had moderate sensible leaders
There is no money for any other measures, so I guess we will now have the spectacle of the “Government” hanging on like grim death until the late autumn, somewhat pointlessly.
If he's determined to hang on, it could go on till early January (that way he gets written up as 'Sunak, PM, 2022-2025' ). Though I suspect the party might get restive after the local elections.
If the poll predictions are right, then they'll lose 50% of their Counsellors. This would be a serious blow to morale. Those Councillors who have lost their seats will be shattered. The sense of rejection losing candidates feel is immense - it can take months for them to recover and start battling for their party again. It doesn't matter how much intellectually they know that it was the Westminster party that let them down there will be a sense of personal failure. It will be a struggle to get some of these experienced and active campaigners out on the streets - especially when they won't be feeling the love for their leadership.
The Tories have plenty of money to spend on advertising for the General Election campaign. They are going to need a good air war, because they are going to have a very bad ground war IF they don't call a May Election.
We have excellent local councillors here. They listen and they get stuff done. But because they are Tory I would never vote for them. Ever.
Hear, hear.
But, as @Alan29 says, they're tainted by the tory toxins, however good they may be as local councillors. No doubt they are fearful of the possible outcome of the May elections.
I can see the need for party politics at a regional level but at town and parish level I'd prefer it to all be non-aligned.
For sure.
But even at the national level big parties corrupt the system by their sheer size.
I disagree. He was elcted by Labour members but quickly rejected by Labour MPs who knew him far better than Labour members
I noted Mr Johnson has inserted himself into the news by making an unofficial visit to Venezuela to talk to them about democracy. Perhaps he is trying to remain a public figure and intends to join his chum Dave, as PM in the Lords…
Mr Johnson declined to say who paid for his flight.
And held ideological positions that were at odds with his views, as evidenced by the current lurch to the right. You've not provided any evidence of Corbyn being other than moderate or sensible.
There are rumours that he plans to return as MP for his old constituency of Henley.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68532602
* with all due apologies to all rats, and other rodents, who will be horrified to being likened to 30p Lee or the other Reform scum.
I'll settle for the one that says in its constitution that it is a "democratic socialist party" and fight the bastards like Starmer who want it to be neither of those things. Labour is and should be a socialist party. If folk want warmed over capitalism with a pretence of humanity the lib dems are right there.
Some of Thirty-Pee's constituents are on record as having views somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, so he may be re-elected (by The Will Of The People™).
This.
Other utterances of the vile Six-Bobber are indeed far more specifically racist.
Well I want it back from knuckle dragging idiots.
Hard to decide.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/11/biggest-tory-donor-looking-diane-abbott-hate-all-black-women?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Oi! The Lib Dems have their faults, of course, but I wouldn't say 'a pretence of humanity' was one of them.
You are at it again, de-humanising and demonising anyone who isn't your particular brand of Labourite.
'Pretence of humanity' is pretty much liberalism in actual practice. Besides I've read the Orange Book.
Oh bog off! I was talking about the ideology having a pretence of humanity, as in it pays lip service to being humane and having regard for human rights, as was clear to anyone capable of basic reading comprehension.
Saying or doing something nasty and then resort to "it was only a joke" has been characteristic of bullies forever, to be sexist and racist at the same time makes it worse.
Besides, with the government now looking at cracking down on what they consider extremism it's clear that calling for an MP to be shot would fall well into that category. The decent thing for the Conservative Party to do would be to turn down the recent offer of a large donation and repay all previous donations, and for the government to consider whether his company meets the standards expected of companies in receipt of public money.
In my professional opinion, based on my experience of it, and of the adverts that ran for years at Leeds Station for developers ("no programming experience needed!"), it is an utter pile of shite.
This is an opinion that I reached long before learning about the turd behind the turd, as it were. They could be run by the Archangel Gabriel and donating all the prophets to charity and it would still be a steaming pile of crap.
My sympathies - I invite yours, I have to use it.
Sympathies reciprocated. I can only imagine it's the one thing worse than supporting it.