Your voting intentions

[119]

As title so get voting!

[119]

Done.

Any others ive missed let me know!

[119]

valiant said:

Ta for the poll. Thought you’d be the one to launch it

Labour all the way for me!

#comeatmebro

[119]

princeperch said:

Ive recently broken my arm and leg.

One of the appointments i was sent by the hospital i attended and was told theyd made an error and id have to come back next week. No apology just a load of attitude. The hospital was in a state of chaos, not enough chairs for everyone, waiting around for hours, all a mess, filthy etc.

Ive since been sent another appointment at very short notice which i couldn't make, and as soon as i got the letter i tried to get a new appointment. Ive been told the next appointment for an outpatients appointment with x ray is in 3 months time, by which time my arm and leg will probably be ok.

The nhs is fked. The police service is fked. The schools are fked.

Anyone who votes for the current shower of shyte gets everything they deserve if they get in. If that means i have to pay more tax then that is a price worth paying for a functional state not run by psychotic loons.

And on the other hand, friend of mine has just had a hip replacement, diagnosed and done in 8 weeks via the NHS.

And the government don’t run the NHS.

[119]

Kermit power said:

trails said:

Timothy Bucktu said:

Caddyshack said:

Timothy Bucktu said:

Please can you add 'spoiled paper' as a lot of people have said they'll do that. And 'stay at home'.

What is the purpose of a spoiled paper? What does it aim to achieve….I can’t work that out?

Answered perfectly just a couple of posts up...

They are counted. It sends a message.

But who listens to that message, and what will they do about it?

Not defending any of the current options, just curious.

If nothing else, the Returning Officer will give it all due consideration!

"Amazingly, because it was neatly drawn within the confines of the box the returning officer deemed it a valid vote."

[119]

S600BSB said:

PlywoodPascal said:

Kermit power said:

Interesting that 40 people have said they'll vote Reform in the poll, but none have publicly declared it in the comments. Is it viewed as something to be a bit ashamed of?

In the sense that It’s the intellectual and 21st century equivalent of being a leper in the Middle Ages, then yeah.

It will be the spanners like Turbo and 119.

It seems you are clueless as usual sweetheart.

[119]

Evanivitch said:

Voldemort said:

That's because they are insignificant.

Perhaps you should learn to count Bigger then several of the options listed

Just added.

[119]

chrispmartha said:

jshell said:

Starmer says he'd choose Davos and WEF over Westminster. Seems a bit strange to me...


https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1793544149821...

The absolute state of that guys twitter feed.

What is your view on what Kier said?

[119]

There is certainly a lot of opportunity for the LDs to gain some ground but they have been very quiet.

[119]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

James6112 said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

I'm guessing Starmer will do his best to keep Lammy and Rayner away from the press. They could lose far more votes than gain quite easily.

Page 1 of BBC news right now
You’re wrong on both counts.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the post I made earlier.

She's not speaking. She's just the eye candy for the hard or thinking. She's incapable of debate. You only have to see that famous piece where Andrew Neil took her apart.

To be fair, Labour party members do make for good entertainment.

[119]

SWoll said:

S600BSB said:

Hopefully the public will be reminded of that fact during the campaign. A truly awful moment in our history.

Interesting that Simon Case in his evidence to the Covid Inquiry yesterday described Boris Johnson’s regime as “the worst governing ever seen”.

We need change.

Did Starmer immediately stand up and say "hold my pint"?

Modern politicians are almost entirely just different shades of st. Not defending the Tories in any way as have nothing but disgust for them and have never voted blue in my 30 years as a member of the electorate, but does anyone really thiink things would have been better had Labour been in charge during that period?

I wouldn't trust most of them to run a village hall, let alone a country.

Indeed.

I seem to remember Starmer heavily condemning opening up when we were in lockdown and that it should have been harder and longer.

But Tories and economy.

[119]

chrispmartha said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

She is probably one of the least professional among the Labour Party. She called Tory voters scum. She is being investigated for potential tax fraud and is incapable of debate and rational argument because of her IQ.

None of that is misogyny. I haven't commented on her appearance at all. It is irrelevant.

She didn’t call tory voters scum.

"Her comments came after a man was sentenced for sending a threatening email telling her to "watch your back and kids".

How does her comment even translate to Tory ministers then?

[119]

chrispmartha said:

119 said:

chrispmartha said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

She is probably one of the least professional among the Labour Party. She called Tory voters scum. She is being investigated for potential tax fraud and is incapable of debate and rational argument because of her IQ.

None of that is misogyny. I haven't commented on her appearance at all. It is irrelevant.

She didn’t call tory voters scum.

"Her comments came after a man was sentenced for sending a threatening email telling her to "watch your back and kids".

How does her comment even translate to Tory ministers then?

Because no where in that article does it say the two things are linked.

Yeah ok.

[119]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

chrispmartha said:

“ Last month Ms Rayner was reported to have called Conservative ministers "a bunch of scum”

Maybe read your easy to find links.

So that's OK then?

Very professional. Because if you remember, you were defending her being professional. But in typical left wing whatabouttery, you are trying to change the subject and go off on a tangent.

I was doing a quick ~Google to try and find other MPs who have used questionable language and guess what..?

[119]

Pitre said:

Agree with much of this, but I'd add that I believe companies making huge profits should contribute more, the likes of the oil companies and Amazon spring to mind.

All i see is pushing for more 'tax', will see them move their investments elsewhere.

[119]

chrispmartha said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

chrispmartha said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Evanivitch said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Perhaps you could explain what is misogynistic in my posts? I've called her thick, because she is. I've also said that she's there because stupid people find her physically attractive. I don't see either of those things as being misogyny.

Other posters have made comments that could be seen as misogynistic. I don't see mine that way.

There you go. You clearly can't accept your own actions. Nor read your own links.

Not true. I'm asking for you (or anyone else) to explain why my comments are misogynistic.

I'll own it if you can explain it.

You’ve insinuated she has only got where she has because some people find her attractive.

Would you say that about a male politician?

I don't think I have. I've said she's with Starmer on his launch tour to provide eye candy for the unintelligent.

And yes, I would say that about a male MP. Can't think of one off the top of my head though. As I said before, MPs should be in Parliament not because of their background or what they look like, but on their ability to back up their beliefs and support their constituents. She fulfils neither in my book.

Do you live in Ashton under Lyme?

Her constituents have voted her as their MP for the last nine years. Maybe they disagree with you.

Ok cool.

Let's all move on.

[119]

bhstewie said:

jshell said:

I can't quite figure who the good and who the bad guys are any more.

But, I suppose that Trudeau inviting a literal Waffen SS member into the Canadian parliament didn't do him any damage, so this might not ruffle too many feathers.

How TF did we get here?

It's the old thing that more than one thing can be true at once isn't it.

You can absolutely support Ukraine fighting Russia's invasion and accept that means some pretty stty people will be involved in that fighting.

Accepting it doesn't mean that you have to welcome literal neo-nazi's into Parliament and be photographed with them holding their flag and call them “heroes”.

What on earth was Johnson thinking.

God knows what Johnson has to do with the current election.

[119]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Hasn't Sunak said he hasn't ruled out bringing him back?

I haven’t seen anything about that, especially as they fell out a few years ago I think?

[119]

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Here you go...



https://news.sky.com/video/share-13142436

Ta. Didnt realise that was today.



That'll make things interesting.

[119]

bhstewie said:

Jordie Barretts sock said:

Gove leaving the sinking ship. That is 76 sitting Tory MPs standing down. More than in 1997.

Not looking good for Rishi is it?

And three working days to find replacements for many of them if I understand correctly.

Not a hope in hell.