General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Page 83 of 270 < 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 >

Kermit8 Hevon 11 May 17 1.43pm
Before Blair and after Blair a lot of people felt/still feel uncomfortable voting Labour for whatever reason. But with the media on his side and a non-threatening aura (sorry Iraq, we fell for that one) he was entirely electable. And he had people around him that commanded a smidgen of respect: Cook, Mowlam, Field, that woman with the big teeth, Cunningham and even Prescott. Corbyn and his acolytes - no matter how well meaning he is and sincere - just don't come across as a commanding group as the above did. Nor do The Tories but, unfortunately, they hold the reins and the only team in opposition is of League 1 level. Guy Fawkes - we need you. NOW! Big chest and massive boobs [Link]

Kermit8

Hevon 11 May 17 1.43pm

Before Blair and after Blair a lot of people felt/still feel uncomfortable voting Labour for whatever reason. But with the media on his side and a non-threatening aura (sorry Iraq, we fell for that one) he was entirely electable. And he had people around him that commanded a smidgen of respect: Cook, Mowlam, Field, that woman with the big teeth, Cunningham and even Prescott.

Corbyn and his acolytes - no matter how well meaning he is and sincere - just don't come across as a commanding group as the above did. Nor do The Tories but, unfortunately, they hold the reins and the only team in opposition is of League 1 level.

Guy Fawkes - we need you. NOW!

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 1.48pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 You are of course making the huge assumption that I believe in what the Tories say as well...histrionics only show you whats passed...not what's in front. You can keep looking behind if you want...but mind the obstacles ahead as you do so... I read the article...its a good read...but its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that and you become sick. As I said previously (perhaps you couldnt see/read it from your lofty perch) I think Labour have a lot of great ideas...and yes over time ANY of them could be funded and implemented; however not ALL at once. Its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that, and you become sick. You go through the sweetshop slowly and the effects wont be half as bad. Edited by Lyons550 (11 May 2017 12.51pm) Past experience often informs what is likely to happen in the future. Why don't you think their policies could all be implemented over the course of a parliament, or at least set in motion? I'm not sure their manifesto claims they will do it all on day one then sit back and see how it goes. A lot of these policies will require long terms efforts, but that doesn't mean they aren't feasible or worthwhile. The point is that Keynesian economics, over the past 70 years has resulted in less borrowing than neo-classical or neo-liberal economics. There is a clear choice between the two in this election and history is quite clear which is more effective, delivers fairer results and healthier public finances.

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 1.48pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

You are of course making the huge assumption that I believe in what the Tories say as well...histrionics only show you whats passed...not what's in front.

You can keep looking behind if you want...but mind the obstacles ahead as you do so...

I read the article...its a good read...but its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that and you become sick.

As I said previously (perhaps you couldnt see/read it from your lofty perch) I think Labour have a lot of great ideas...and yes over time ANY of them could be funded and implemented; however not ALL at once.

Its akin to a child in a sweet shop wanting to eat all the sweets at once...you do that, and you become sick. You go through the sweetshop slowly and the effects wont be half as bad.

Edited by Lyons550 (11 May 2017 12.51pm)

Past experience often informs what is likely to happen in the future.

Why don't you think their policies could all be implemented over the course of a parliament, or at least set in motion? I'm not sure their manifesto claims they will do it all on day one then sit back and see how it goes.

A lot of these policies will require long terms efforts, but that doesn't mean they aren't feasible or worthwhile.

The point is that Keynesian economics, over the past 70 years has resulted in less borrowing than neo-classical or neo-liberal economics. There is a clear choice between the two in this election and history is quite clear which is more effective, delivers fairer results and healthier public finances.

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 1.51pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Pretty much...and then that begs the question as to why they're in the manifesto...populist politics no more no less...the joke being that even when trying to be popular it seems to be backfiring on pretty much anyone other than party members... concentrate on one core issue and prove that it can be funded as well as how it will make a real difference to society. Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing. Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made. I for one am quite keen to know what each party plans on more than one issue. I'm interested in healthcare, housing, education, trade, the economy, Brexit, social rights, equality, defence. It's right that any party covers each of these (and more) in their manifesto, the document that gives a mandate for the next 5 years.

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 1.51pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Pretty much...and then that begs the question as to why they're in the manifesto...populist politics no more no less...the joke being that even when trying to be popular it seems to be backfiring on pretty much anyone other than party members... concentrate on one core issue and prove that it can be funded as well as how it will make a real difference to society.

Then when that's dealt with come up with something else that needs addressing.

Too many promises mean spreading resources (as they currently stand) too thinly and the liklihood of no real progress being made.

I for one am quite keen to know what each party plans on more than one issue. I'm interested in healthcare, housing, education, trade, the economy, Brexit, social rights, equality, defence. It's right that any party covers each of these (and more) in their manifesto, the document that gives a mandate for the next 5 years.

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 1.52pm
Originally posted by Part Time James It must be a bit disappointing for you then that they aren't assuring the general public that that's the case. Not disputing what you're saying though, I do respect you speak with significantly more authority on the subject than myself. Extremely disappointing!

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 1.52pm

Originally posted by Part Time James

It must be a bit disappointing for you then that they aren't assuring the general public that that's the case. Not disputing what you're saying though, I do respect you speak with significantly more authority on the subject than myself.

Extremely disappointing!

Part Time James 11 May 17 1.59pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle I for one am quite keen to know what each party plans on more than one issue. I'm interested in healthcare, housing, education, trade, the economy, Brexit, social rights, equality, defence. It's right that any party covers each of these (and more) in their manifesto, the document that gives a mandate for the next 5 years. I hope the "policies not personalities" website (I think that's what it is called) is updated for 2017 at some point. Quite a good way of forming a basis for a vote without blindly following party politics or any pre-conceived bias. In particular useful for people that don't want to study the intricacies during the campaign trail (which, let's face it, often becomes a nothing but a tribal smear war).

Part Time James

11 May 17 1.59pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I hope the "policies not personalities" website (I think that's what it is called) is updated for 2017 at some point. Quite a good way of forming a basis for a vote without blindly following party politics or any pre-conceived bias. In particular useful for people that don't want to study the intricacies during the campaign trail (which, let's face it, often becomes a nothing but a tribal smear war).

elgrande bedford 11 May 17 2.08pm
if they take back all these industries,are they going to employ people with a no strike clause in the contract. What they gonna do with all the shares that the posties were given..my other half lynne is a postie and has been for 30 odd years. She has to work more now,but she knew she would,in her words "posties have been taking the piss for years". I like the idea of taking the utilities company's back. And in some ways the railways....but it wasn't all run on time spotless trains before,so let's not get all misty eyes about it. The thought of being held to ransome by the nick Gus sets of this world "again" it's not something to look forward to. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

elgrande

bedford 11 May 17 2.08pm

if they take back all these industries,are they going to employ people with a no strike clause in the contract.
What they gonna do with all the shares that the posties were given..my other half lynne is a postie and has been for 30 odd years.
She has to work more now,but she knew she would,in her words "posties have been taking the piss for years".

I like the idea of taking the utilities company's back.
And in some ways the railways....but it wasn't all run on time spotless trains before,so let's not get all misty eyes about it.
The thought of being held to ransome by the nick Gus sets of this world "again" it's not something to look forward to.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 May 17 2.23pm
Originally posted by nickgusset We can't really judge until we see the actual (not leaked) manifesto that Mcdonnell has said will be fully costed. Is it worth arguing about it until then? The age old argument, the conservatives attack Labour saying they can't afford to do everything in their manifesto, whilst promising to cut services without affecting function. I prefer the blue puppet, I prefer the red puppet - just don't as about the guy in the middle with his hand up both their arses. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 May 17 2.23pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

We can't really judge until we see the actual (not leaked) manifesto that Mcdonnell has said will be fully costed. Is it worth arguing about it until then?

The age old argument, the conservatives attack Labour saying they can't afford to do everything in their manifesto, whilst promising to cut services without affecting function.

I prefer the blue puppet, I prefer the red puppet - just don't as about the guy in the middle with his hand up both their arses.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 2.42pm
Originally posted by elgrande if they take back all these industries,are they going to employ people with a no strike clause in the contract. What they gonna do with all the shares that the posties were given..my other half lynne is a postie and has been for 30 odd years. She has to work more now,but she knew she would,in her words "posties have been taking the piss for years". I like the idea of taking the utilities company's back. And in some ways the railways....but it wasn't all run on time spotless trains before,so let's not get all misty eyes about it. The thought of being held to ransome by the nick Gus sets of this world "again" it's not something to look forward to. I like how I represent the whole union movement.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 2.42pm

Originally posted by elgrande

I like how I represent the whole union movement.

Kermit8 Hevon 11 May 17 2.45pm
Originally posted by elgrande if they take back all these industries,are they going to employ people with a no strike clause in the contract. What they gonna do with all the shares that the posties were given..my other half lynne is a postie and has been for 30 odd years. She has to work more now,but she knew she would,in her words "posties have been taking the piss for years". I like the idea of taking the utilities company's back. And in some ways the railways....but it wasn't all run on time spotless trains before,so let's not get all misty eyes about it. The thought of being held to ransome by the nick Gus sets of this world "again" it's not something to look forward to. It wasn't perfect but at least foreign companies weren't creaming off profits and fares didn't cost hundreds of pounds if you just wanted to get from London (or Exeter) to Manchester return and had to book it a few days before. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]

Kermit8

Hevon 11 May 17 2.45pm

Originally posted by elgrande

It wasn't perfect but at least foreign companies weren't creaming off profits and fares didn't cost hundreds of pounds if you just wanted to get from London (or Exeter) to Manchester return and had to book it a few days before.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 11 May 17 2.48pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle [Link] More than 10% cut for nurses predicted. [Link] Fall bellow 2004-05 levels predicted for public sector given stated government policy. You say "liberal wet dream". That view is utterly absurd and one not recognised in most other OECD countries. See post from a Norwegian journalist. As to the assertion that the plans are affordable, given the current dynamics in our economy with monetary policy maxed out and QE being only used to support asset prices, there is a lot of room for manoeuvre in fiscal policy and expansionary fiscal policy is just that - expansionary. It will create growth and boost productivity. We've already seen on this thread that Labour have a significantly better record since the war on public debt and repaying debt. The idea that the Tories are trustworthy when it comes to the economy is a myth I find incredible that anyone with two brain cells believes. Spoken like a true lefty, if people don't agree with you they must be dumb. Sanctimonious just doesn't cut it. You've cited two links to the most Lefty/Liberal news paper on the planet, and expect me to take that as proof what you're saying is correct. Tell me would you believe a load of Jackanory Bullsh1t about immigration and johnny foreigner nicking our jobs if it was published in the Daily Nazi (sorry Mail) No ? and neither would I, so don't insult my intelligence with some hackneyed old crap from the Guardian. Cheers. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 11 May 17 2.48pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

[Link]

More than 10% cut for nurses predicted.

[Link]

Fall bellow 2004-05 levels predicted for public sector given stated government policy.

You say "liberal wet dream". That view is utterly absurd and one not recognised in most other OECD countries. See post from a Norwegian journalist. As to the assertion that the plans are affordable, given the current dynamics in our economy with monetary policy maxed out and QE being only used to support asset prices, there is a lot of room for manoeuvre in fiscal policy and expansionary fiscal policy is just that - expansionary. It will create growth and boost productivity. We've already seen on this thread that Labour have a significantly better record since the war on public debt and repaying debt. The idea that the Tories are trustworthy when it comes to the economy is a myth I find incredible that anyone with two brain cells believes.

Spoken like a true lefty, if people don't agree with you they must be dumb. Sanctimonious just doesn't cut it.

You've cited two links to the most Lefty/Liberal news paper on the planet, and expect me to take that as proof what you're saying is correct.

Tell me would you believe a load of Jackanory Bullsh1t about immigration and johnny foreigner nicking our jobs if it was published in the Daily Nazi (sorry Mail) No ? and neither would I, so don't insult my intelligence with some hackneyed old crap from the Guardian.

Cheers.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Lyons550 Shirley 11 May 17 3.02pm
Originally posted by nickgusset We can't really judge until we see the actual (not leaked) manifesto that Mcdonnell has said will be fully costed. Is it worth arguing about it until then? I have to say that its a poor show to have leaked them...and for the MSM to then present the details... The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Lyons550

Shirley 11 May 17 3.02pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

We can't really judge until we see the actual (not leaked) manifesto that Mcdonnell has said will be fully costed. Is it worth arguing about it until then?

I have to say that its a poor show to have leaked them...and for the MSM to then present the details...

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 11 May 17 3.04pm
Is Corbyn angling for more money for the NHS to care for the people his car runs over? [Link] Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 11 May 17 3.04pm

Is Corbyn angling for more money for the NHS to care for the people his car runs over?

[Link]

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Lyons550 Shirley 11 May 17 3.04pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Past experience often informs what is likely to happen in the future. Why don't you think their policies could all be implemented over the course of a parliament, or at least set in motion? I'm not sure their manifesto claims they will do it all on day one then sit back and see how it goes. A lot of these policies will require long terms efforts, but that doesn't mean they aren't feasible or worthwhile. The point is that Keynesian economics, over the past 70 years has resulted in less borrowing than neo-classical or neo-liberal economics. There is a clear choice between the two in this election and history is quite clear which is more effective, delivers fairer results and healthier public finances. Exactly...its not a pre requiste for what WILL happen though as your previous retort implied. The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Lyons550

Shirley 11 May 17 3.04pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Past experience often informs what is likely to happen in the future.

A lot of these policies will require long terms efforts, but that doesn't mean they aren't feasible or worthwhile.

Exactly...its not a pre requiste for what WILL happen though as your previous retort implied.

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

elgrande bedford 11 May 17 3.08pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 It wasn't perfect but at least foreign companies weren't creaming off profits and fares didn't cost hundreds of pounds if you just wanted to get from London (or Exeter) to Manchester return and had to book it a few days before. To be fair you are not wrong,but we don't know how much the fares would be now if it was still British Rail. And the trains were nearly always filthy..? if they ran. But I take your point,about foreign companies...one thing I hated about that government..selling the utilities. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

elgrande

bedford 11 May 17 3.08pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

To be fair you are not wrong,but we don't know how much the fares would be now if it was still British Rail.
And the trains were nearly always filthy..? if they ran.
But I take your point,about foreign companies...one thing I hated about that government..selling the utilities.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 3.10pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 I have to say that its a poor show to have leaked them...and for the MSM to then present the details... It is, it'll give the Tories time to adjust theirs so they don't look like the heartless b******s they are.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 3.10pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

I have to say that its a poor show to have leaked them...and for the MSM to then present the details...

It is, it'll give the Tories time to adjust theirs so they don't look like the heartless b******s they are.

serial thriller The Promised Land 11 May 17 3.13pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 It may well be 'fully costed', but will the people he inteeds to take the money from hang around for it to be taken. Remember Healey's 83% top rate income tax and 98% tax on unearned income. People and businesses buggered off (including the Rolling Stones) - those who stayed pulled every trick in the book to avoid paying. As is often the case, when you raise taxes to punitive levels, the actual revenue income falls. But Corbyn aint suggesting 95% tax rates. The increase in corporation tax he's proposing will still leave ours far lower than Japan, whose economy is booming, as well as California and Germany. Every time an increase in tax for the rich is proposed, they all threaten to f'ck off. But usually they don't, and tbh, if they are so averse to paying slightly more tax to fund spending on the NHS or for disabled people, i'll gladly show them the door. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

serial thriller

The Promised Land 11 May 17 3.13pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

It may well be 'fully costed', but will the people he inteeds to take the money from hang around for it to be taken. Remember Healey's 83% top rate income tax and 98% tax on unearned income. People and businesses buggered off (including the Rolling Stones) - those who stayed pulled every trick in the book to avoid paying. As is often the case, when you raise taxes to punitive levels, the actual revenue income falls.

But Corbyn aint suggesting 95% tax rates. The increase in corporation tax he's proposing will still leave ours far lower than Japan, whose economy is booming, as well as California and Germany. Every time an increase in tax for the rich is proposed, they all threaten to f'ck off. But usually they don't, and tbh, if they are so averse to paying slightly more tax to fund spending on the NHS or for disabled people, i'll gladly show them the door.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 3.21pm
As Labour leader, Gordon Brown was incessantly vilified. His way of speaking was mocked. His efforts to offset the banking crisis created by casino style speculators in the city suddenly turned into blaming Labour for overspending on public services to create the deficit. Similarly, Ed Miliband was reviled as not being a 'patriot', for being unable to eat a bacon sandwich gracefully, for being too left wing and lacking the qualities a 'leader' needs. The media had no interest in Labour's policies. Now, in 2017, it is the same as it ever was. Unless Labour offers a right wing, Tory agenda it will be constantly attacked as not fit to run the country. The ruling elite - the establishment - wants their Tory party in charge.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 11 May 17 3.21pm

As Labour leader, Gordon Brown was incessantly vilified. His way of speaking was mocked. His efforts to offset the banking crisis created by casino style speculators in the city suddenly turned into blaming Labour for overspending on public services to create the deficit. Similarly, Ed Miliband was reviled as not being a 'patriot', for being unable to eat a bacon sandwich gracefully, for being too left wing and lacking the qualities a 'leader' needs. The media had no interest in Labour's policies. Now, in 2017, it is the same as it ever was. Unless Labour offers a right wing, Tory agenda it will be constantly attacked as not fit to run the country. The ruling elite - the establishment - wants their Tory party in charge.

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 11 May 17 3.26pm
Originally posted by dannyh Spoken like a true lefty, if people don't agree with you they must be dumb. Sanctimonious just doesn't cut it. You've cited two links to the most Lefty/Liberal news paper on the planet, and expect me to take that as proof what you're saying is correct. Tell me would you believe a load of Jackanory Bullsh1t about immigration and johnny foreigner nicking our jobs if it was published in the Daily Nazi (sorry Mail) No ? and neither would I, so don't insult my intelligence with some hackneyed old crap from the Guardian. Cheers. [Link] Not in the Guardian. Shows clearly Tory vs Labour record on public sector borrowing. Source is House of Commons Library for the data. Fairly uncontroversial. Also the Guardian stories were both clearly sourced so you should consider the credibility of the sources. Sources are Health Foundation, Royal College of Nursing, Resolution Foundation and TUC. Two of those are independent think tanks and their analysis is based on public data and stated government policy plus Bank of England inflation projections. Hardly Hackneyed old crap. More like serious issues which sorely need addressing.

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 11 May 17 3.26pm

Originally posted by dannyh

Spoken like a true lefty, if people don't agree with you they must be dumb. Sanctimonious just doesn't cut it.

You've cited two links to the most Lefty/Liberal news paper on the planet, and expect me to take that as proof what you're saying is correct.

Cheers.

[Link]

Not in the Guardian. Shows clearly Tory vs Labour record on public sector borrowing. Source is House of Commons Library for the data. Fairly uncontroversial.

Also the Guardian stories were both clearly sourced so you should consider the credibility of the sources. Sources are Health Foundation, Royal College of Nursing, Resolution Foundation and TUC. Two of those are independent think tanks and their analysis is based on public data and stated government policy plus Bank of England inflation projections. Hardly Hackneyed old crap. More like serious issues which sorely need addressing.

serial thriller The Promised Land 11 May 17 3.32pm
Originally posted by dannyh First, i'll hold me hands up and admit i was wrong... [Link] ... the richest thousand people have increased their wealth by 80 BILLION, not 40. So what about the poor? Well i've provided you with information from the Resolution Foundation and the IFS who have both meticulously detailed how badly average wages have falled in real terms this decade. The Rowntree Foundation, another non-governmental, bipartisan group, have similar findings. You are welcome to question all three, but unless you have your own findings, or a more credible source to counter, you shouldn't just blindly claim they have vested interests. That's just superstition, as opposed to proper thorough criticism. Blair was undeniably a war criminal, but then this government has supported and aided numerous regimes who are also responsible for war crimes, mainly the Saudis in Yemen. What they are also doing which Blair didnt do however, is conducting what is the biggest political heist in modern UK history. Let me say it one more time: in the worst decade for wages in post war Britain, the top 1000 in this country have increased their wealth by 80 billion pounds. That's why so many are funding the Tory's campaign, that's why the Toroes WILL use Brexit as a means of tipping the balance even further towards them, while those in work use food banks and ex servicemen can't find a roof over their heads. They must be absolutely laughing. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

serial thriller

The Promised Land 11 May 17 3.32pm

Originally posted by dannyh

First, i'll hold me hands up and admit i was wrong... [Link] ... the richest thousand people have increased their wealth by 80 BILLION, not 40.

So what about the poor? Well i've provided you with information from the Resolution Foundation and the IFS who have both meticulously detailed how badly average wages have falled in real terms this decade. The Rowntree Foundation, another non-governmental, bipartisan group, have similar findings. You are welcome to question all three, but unless you have your own findings, or a more credible source to counter, you shouldn't just blindly claim they have vested interests. That's just superstition, as opposed to proper thorough criticism.

Blair was undeniably a war criminal, but then this government has supported and aided numerous regimes who are also responsible for war crimes, mainly the Saudis in Yemen. What they are also doing which Blair didnt do however, is conducting what is the biggest political heist in modern UK history. Let me say it one more time: in the worst decade for wages in post war Britain, the top 1000 in this country have increased their wealth by 80 billion pounds. That's why so many are funding the Tory's campaign, that's why the Toroes WILL use Brexit as a means of tipping the balance even further towards them, while those in work use food banks and ex servicemen can't find a roof over their heads.

They must be absolutely laughing.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Lyons550 Shirley 11 May 17 3.56pm
Originally posted by nickgusset It is, it'll give the Tories time to adjust theirs so they don't look like the heartless b******s they are. Surely it can only have been someone from with Labour that's done it? The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Lyons550

Shirley 11 May 17 3.56pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

It is, it'll give the Tories time to adjust theirs so they don't look like the heartless b******s they are.

Surely it can only have been someone from with Labour that's done it?

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Page 83 of 270 < 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map