Angela Rayner

Its about time the Tory party were called out, it doesn't happen nearly enough. We are living in a country where lying in public office is the norm, but people are expressing faux outrage about this.
Nye Bevan said worse about them.
Yep. Can’t help but think it’s just another distraction from the fuel crisis and who is really to blame for it.
 
c8wcbufw0aa7isv.jpg
 

My post wasn’t directed at you particularly - rather the pretty lazy references to “panic buyers” that are all over the place, and blaming them (along with the media and that bloke from the RHA) for the crisis.

If you look at a queue of cars waiting at a petrol station, how do you decide which are “panic buyers” and which are “legitimate”? And if a “legitimate buyer” is panicking slightly because they are in the red, does that make them a panic buyer?

The attached article is interesting. As far as I can see no one in the queue admits to being a panic buyer. No one on this board who admits they’ve filled their car in the last few days will admit to being a panic buyer. Nor, I imagine, will anyone who fills their car in the coming days.

Yet loads of people are certain the panic buyers are to blame for it all.
Most of us think that we have legitimate reasons to use our cars.
I queued for 10 minutes to get petrol yesterday so that I could be sure that my girlfriend, who is a teacher, can get to work this week as her car is in the red zone. Is this wrong? Who is to say whose need is more than someone else's.
The problem for the government is that when there is a shortage caused by a stampede, like now, the rational thing to do is actually to buy petrol when you can. The people buying are the opposite of idiots.
Hopefully a slight increase of supply and the fact that it is difficult to hoard petrol should see us back to normal this week. I hope so anyway.
I dread to think what would happen if there was a real petrol shortage, I would expect to see a shortage of food (panic buying) almost immediately and then we really are into the twilight zone.
 
Most of us think that we have legitimate reasons to use our cars.
I queued for 10 minutes to get petrol yesterday so that I could be sure that my girlfriend, who is a teacher, can get to work this week as her car is in the red zone. Is this wrong? Who is to say whose need is more than someone else's.
The problem for the government is that when there is a shortage caused by a stampede, like now, the rational thing to do is actually to buy petrol when you can. The people buying are the opposite of idiots.
Hopefully a slight increase of supply and the fact that it is difficult to hoard petrol should see us back to normal this week. I hope so anyway.
I dread to think what would happen if there was a real petrol shortage, I would expect to see a shortage of food (panic buying) almost immediately and then we really are into the twilight zone.
Yes. Everyone thinks they have a legitimate reason to buy petrol. It’s everyone else who is an “idiot”, “selfish”, a “panic buyer”.
 
On Rayner, I personally think that she is foolish to use these words.
As some have said, it goes down well with the leftists but is very likely to alienate the people Labour need to attract.
She has also handed the right (and the right-wing media) another bogey-woman - I hope that she can handle the attention. Pictures of her smoking a fag are on the front pages of all the right-wing newspapers - it looks like she might replace Diane Abbot as the root of all evil for them.
 
Saint Marcus Rashford will retire in a decade you’ll have to wait until then before turfing the tories out. Unless red nev throws his hat in the ring.
 

My post wasn’t directed at you particularly - rather the pretty lazy references to “panic buyers” that are all over the place, and blaming them (along with the media and that bloke from the RHA) for the crisis.

If you look at a queue of cars waiting at a petrol station, how do you decide which are “panic buyers” and which are “legitimate”? And if a “legitimate buyer” is panicking slightly because they are in the red, does that make them a panic buyer?

The attached article is interesting. As far as I can see no one in the queue admits to being a panic buyer. No one on this board who admits they’ve filled their car in the last few days will admit to being a panic buyer. Nor, I imagine, will anyone who fills their car in the coming days.

Yet loads of people are certain the panic buyers are to blame for it all.
As I said on another thread, I literally was behind a woman in a Micra who bought £4 of petrol. The epitome of needless fuel buying. I went over to Blackpool on Saturday and I'll be going to Hull tomorrow on the same tank. Might need to fill up on Wednesday. Is that OK?
 
Replace the government with what another corrupt incompetant Labour government?
You really need to think before you post. When was the the last time we had a proper Labour Government? If you want to include the Blair government I'll begrudgingly agree to that.

A proper Labour Party have not been in power since 1977. Since then we've had Tory rule for 77% of the time (including the Blair/Brown years).
 
Last edited:
As I said on another thread, I literally was behind a woman in a Micra who bought £4 of petrol. The epitome of needless fuel buying. I went over to Blackpool on Saturday and I'll be going to Hull tomorrow on the same tank. Might need to fill up on Wednesday. Is that OK?
Dunno. Best ask the Avftt Tribunal how they judge what’s a legitimate purchase and what isn’t.
 
Many Tories are scum. Utterly repugnant, selfish snobs who think that the working class are scum and look down on others as a natural part of their lives

However, as a senior Labour politician it was an unbelievably stupid thing to do. Like it or not, a personality is key to being elected. This may work in her constituency but it ain't going to work in soft Tory seats, Lib Dem seats or even red wall seats where poorer people expect their leaders to have some dignity.
 
c8wcbufw0aa7isv.jpg


Another side of Nye Beven:

"On Sunday, 3 September, Britain and France declared war on Germany, in fulfilment of their guarantees to Poland. Stalin’s alliance with Hitler caused many European communists, compliant with Moscow, to distance themselves from their nations’ stand against the Nazis. Trades unionists’ denunciations of what they branded an ‘imperialist war’ influenced attitudes in many French and British factories, shipyards and coalmines. Street graffiti appeared: ‘Stop the War: The Worker Pays’, ‘No to Capitalist War’. Independent Labour MP Aneurin Bevan, a standard-bearer of the left, hedged his bets by calling for a struggle on two fronts: against Hitler and also against British capitalism." (from "All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945" by Max Hastings.
 
Two ways of looking at this.

On the one hand, she is attacking Tories, which is supposed to be part of the job (rather than going after her own team).

On the other, a lot of her Party's natural supporters voted Tory last time. Are they all scum as well?
 
At the end of the day the most crucial thing for Labour is to win back votes.

This kind of speech will appeal to the die hard Tory hating left, of whose votes the party already has secured, for now until infinity, and beyond.

It’s less likely to bring in any new votes or bring back any lost votes, and this is why she has to think beyond a vengeful rant and look towards promoting a policy winning approach.

The Labour leader and some members within the party are the ones who will be most annoyed and with more to lose after this tirade of AR’s.

The Tory party will be secretly ecstatic.
 
"On Sunday, 3 September, Britain and France declared war on Germany, in fulfilment of their guarantees to Poland. Stalin’s alliance with Hitler caused many European communists, compliant with Moscow, to distance themselves from their nations’ stand against the Nazis. Trades unionists’ denunciations of what they branded an ‘imperialist war’ influenced attitudes in many French and British factories, shipyards and coalmines. Street graffiti appeared: ‘Stop the War: The Worker Pays’, ‘No to Capitalist War’. Independent Labour MP Aneurin Bevan, a standard-bearer of the left, hedged his bets by calling for a struggle on two fronts: against Hitler and also against British capitalism." (from "All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945" by Max Hastings.
It's true. Bevan also made a costly mistake when he made a speech in the 1950s dismissing TV as a here today, gone tomorrow fad. But look, politicians aren't infallible. Judge them on the good things they do rather than the retrospective mistakes they make. History still comes out on Bevan's side, thankfully
 
I have enough fuel in my car to travel 90 miles according to the computer. So, as I usually fill up when I get to around 75-90 miles left, will I be classed as a panic buyer when I eventually top-up?
 
At the end of the day the most crucial thing for Labour is to win back votes.

This kind of speech will appeal to the die hard Tory hating left, of whose votes the party already has secured, for now until infinity, and beyond.

It’s less likely to bring in any new votes or bring back any lost votes, and this is why she has to think beyond a vengeful rant and look towards promoting a policy winning approach.

The Labour leader and some members within the party are the ones who will be most annoyed and with more to lose after this tirade of AR’s.

The Tory party will be secretly ecstatic.
Absolutely correct. I have a lot of respect for the way that Angela Rayner has achieved high office from a low start. But, Parliament still has old ways and those are of the bourgeois variety. It's a game and one that Rayner needs to win. She's made a mistake and it might cost the Party
 
"On Sunday, 3 September, Britain and France declared war on Germany, in fulfilment of their guarantees to Poland. Stalin’s alliance with Hitler caused many European communists, compliant with Moscow, to distance themselves from their nations’ stand against the Nazis. Trades unionists’ denunciations of what they branded an ‘imperialist war’ influenced attitudes in many French and British factories, shipyards and coalmines. Street graffiti appeared: ‘Stop the War: The Worker Pays’, ‘No to Capitalist War’. Independent Labour MP Aneurin Bevan, a standard-bearer of the left, hedged his bets by calling for a struggle on two fronts: against Hitler and also against British capitalism." (from "All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945" by Max Hastings.
Haha, that's bollocks, Bevan didn't support Communism at all which is what Hastings is desperately grasping at.
 
I have enough fuel in my car to travel 90 miles according to the computer. So, as I usually fill up when I get to around 75-90 miles left, will I be classed as a panic buyer when I eventually top-up?
No, the fuel computers lie as they're based on the load on the engine at that exact moment, I wouldn't risk one under 70ish to be honest.
 
Two ways of looking at this.

On the one hand, she is attacking Tories, which is supposed to be part of the job (rather than going after her own team).

On the other, a lot of her Party's natural supporters voted Tory last time. Are they all scum as well?
No they're not. But, I can't call out your post. It's an obvious point.
 
At the end of the day the most crucial thing for Labour is to win back votes.

This kind of speech will appeal to the die hard Tory hating left, of whose votes the party already has secured, for now until infinity, and beyond.

It’s less likely to bring in any new votes or bring back any lost votes, and this is why she has to think beyond a vengeful rant and look towards promoting a policy winning approach.

The Labour leader and some members within the party are the ones who will be most annoyed and with more to lose after this tirade of AR’s.

The Tory party will be secretly ecstatic.

I think what's going on is that they're positioning themselves for a leadership election and the aftermath of that:
  • Rayner obviously going after the hard left anti-tory votes;
  • Reeves trying for the fairy godmother spend and not tax approach;
  • Burnham with a quasi-tory pitch about ambition and personal betterment;
I see that Andy McDonald has quit the shadow cabinet, presumably planning to back a challenger and looking for a bigger job under the next leader.

The game is afoot, obviously I'll be backing Rayner.
 
You really need to think before you post. When was the the last time we had a proper Labour Government? If you want to include the Blair government I'll begrudgingly agree to that.

A proper Labour Party have not been in power since 1977. Since then we've had Tory rule for 77% of the time (including the Blair/Brown years).
I’m not sure that reference helps Labour?
The Government of 77 had the country on its knees with it relationship with the unions. Winter of discontent the following year and double digit inflation.
 
What I like is someone straight talking, calls a spade a spade, speaks their mind. That sort of person... Someone who goes in blazing from the hip, not some mealy mouthed script written nonsense that says nothing... People need proper passion and everyday words. (what? Angela Rayner said what?) ... It's disgusting when someone speaks their mind! Don't these people know they're politicians? We need more mealy mouthed spin and scripted, carefully measured words not passion and everyday language. I always said that!
Yes, I agree. It's very unusual for a politician to speak from the heart these days. And moreover to tell it how it is. Interestingly, I see nobody trying to argue that Blo Jo is not what she called him, which says a lot. Sometimes the truth hurts. And if the Borisette's can't take it then should they be classed as 'snowflakes' (a word they like to use a lot)?
 
I honestly feel sorry for Sir Keith Starmer, he seems to be an honest sort of bloke with good standards, little charisma, unfortunately, and is surrounded by those who would wish him gone. As far as I'm concerned, the comments she made in her speech are more consistent with someone trying to impress Kim Il Sung when talking about the USA and South Korea, than the average Joe Bloggs who Labour desperately need to come back and vote for them. I feel she has caused innumerable damage to the top table, obviously egged on by the far left, and has shown that it is not just the Tories that have a divisive group, the far right, who can be a baying mob, but Labour still has its own problems between the far left who can be as disruptive to their own party.

It's wonderful being a floating voter, and seeing who sinks first.

Anyway, I'm off for my dinner, tea, or evening meal, take your pick.
 
.......and bring in Labour ? You are deluded if you think they will do any better. In fact Starmer has lost the confidence of most of his party and even Corbyn says he has lost the plot. You couldn’t make it up. Anyway, you have school tomorrow so give us all a break and have an early night.
When the Brexit debate got highly toxic in Parliament there was a moment where all main parties realised enough was enough and the toxicity had to be replaced with respect and tolerance. The Jo Cox foundation asked for such tolerance to be Jo Cox’s legacy. Various MPs on both sides (including many Labour female MPs) made passionate speeches in Parliament saying how the language and tone and conduct had to change for good. How shameful then that Jo Cox is so quickly disrespected and seemingly forgotten by a female Labour MP, especially one in such an influential deputy leadership position. I’m all for equality, but sadly for the insecure, they think equality is taking on the worst traits of males. I’m at a loss why so many are defending the behaviour using the distraction technique of showing the various pitiful things that the PM had said. He has rightly been much maligned for his comments time and again. His former comments don’t excuse the here and now comments of Angela Raynor. Or are folk saying it’s ok for the Labour deputy leader to talk so badly cos Boris has, and has seemingly gotten away with it? It shouldn’t be two wrongs making a right. It shouldn’t be an acceptance of gutter talk. It should instead be a conference looking to launch Labour into a new positive modern electable future rather than one with a deputy leader pathetically playing up to the foam-mouthed hard left Momentum anti-semites. Shame on her. Labour will remain completely inept and unelectable - and that’s a bad thing for democracy. Their leader can’t communicate. That’s because he’s lacking a vision to communicate, and he has zero charisma. I’ll share with you a formula I was given for Communication. I picked this up during my career which included extensive training on senior level communication. It’s C=MxP Quite simply the formula in words is Communication equals Message multiplied by Personality. So you can have the best message to convey but without personality you’ll turn off your audience. Or you can have a big personality but without substance to the message it will all be hot air. Starmer is failing on both fronts. No one knows what his Message is. And his Personality is sadly lacking. He’s dull as dishwater (after a few plates have been washed I mean - not when it’s nice a clean and hot and shiny and bubbly. Hope the clarification helps. Not sure what the modern analogy is for those who only use dishwashers. Hmm. I’ll have to get back to you on that.) Oh well, there’s always the deputy leader - a coarse crass gobshite who is about appealing to the mainstream voter as a GP appointment with Harold shipman. (Although to be honest, given how difficult it is to see a GP nowadays, I’d probably settle for a Zoom appointment with Harold if he is still up to speed with skin rashes in the testicular region).
I honestly feel sorry for Sir Keith Starmer, he seems to be an honest sort of bloke with good standards, little charisma, unfortunately, and is surrounded by those who would wish him gone. As far as I'm concerned, the comments she made in her speech are more consistent with someone trying to impress Kim Il Sung when talking about the USA and South Korea, than the average Joe Bloggs who Labour desperately need to come back and vote for them. I feel she has caused innumerable damage to the top table, obviously egged on by the far left, and has shown that it is not just the Tories that have a divisive group, the far right, who can be a baying mob, but Labour still has its own problems between the far left who can be as disruptive to their own party.

It's wonderful being a floating voter, and seeing who sinks first.

Anyway, I'm off for my dinner, tea, or evening meal, take your pick.
More probs for Starmer tonight as a Shadow Cabinet member has resigned penning a letter read out at conference stating Keir “ has split the party instead of his promise to unite it.”
 
I honestly feel sorry for Sir Keith Starmer, he seems to be an honest sort of bloke with good standards, little charisma, unfortunately, and is surrounded by those who would wish him gone. As far as I'm concerned, the comments she made in her speech are more consistent with someone trying to impress Kim Il Sung when talking about the USA and South Korea, than the average Joe Bloggs who Labour desperately need to come back and vote for them. I feel she has caused innumerable damage to the top table, obviously egged on by the far left, and has shown that it is not just the Tories that have a divisive group, the far right, who can be a baying mob, but Labour still has its own problems between the far left who can be as disruptive to their own party.

It's wonderful being a floating voter, and seeing who sinks first.

Anyway, I'm off for my dinner, tea, or evening meal, take your pick.
I'd agree with most of that curryman. Starmer does seem a half decent guy. He just lacks a bit of charisma and seems a bit negative, i.e criticising others but struggling to put across his own ideas. Which is surprising given he's a barrister. I think he's got his work cut out trying to unite the Labour Party though. It's almost like they have a death wish and don't want to get elected.
All this a time when the government are a sitting duck and giving them open goals to aim at. But they keep missing them.
I've got to admit though I quite like Angela Rayner as she's one of the few politicians who speaks her mind. I disagree with plenty of her views but we could do with more straight talking politicians. In this case though, maybe she could have chosen her words a bit more carefully
 
E56C9F5B-EB9A-404C-B878-A87044084FEA.jpeg

Just to lighten the tone, The Guardian touch up team have done a cracking bit of photoshop making ‘our Ange’ look a lefty lovely here 👍
 
You both must have a long, long, long memory.
Nah. It was part of my studies at Uni when comparing Keynesian economics against Supply side doctrine.
The last truly left wing Government that this country saw led to so much social anger that the country voted in the daughter of Satan to recover
 
Nah. It was part of my studies at Uni when comparing Keynesian economics against Supply side doctrine.
The last truly left wing Government that this country saw led to so much social anger that the country voted in the daughter of Satan to recover
I think the fact it’s been 40 odd years tells it’s own story really. To his credit Sir Kier is trying to move his party to just left of centre, where it will be electable..,, my guess he’s a very frustrated leader ... the Tories leave the goal wide open, without even a keeper in sight and they still fcuk it up. AR hasn’t got to where she is by being stupid, she made a mistake (we all do) why the hell couldn’t she show more class by simply apologising... would have made BJ look even worse.
 
I'd agree with most of that curryman. Starmer does seem a half decent guy. He just lacks a bit of charisma and seems a bit negative, i.e criticising others but struggling to put across his own ideas. Which is surprising given he's a barrister. I think he's got his work cut out trying to unite the Labour Party though. It's almost like they have a death wish and don't want to get elected.

He'd probably make a decent enough minister, but he seems to lack basic political skill or nous, and has no obvious idea what he stands for or why people should vote for him beyond not being Corbyn, or Boris, or..............

The pandemic obviously doesn't help, with this being the only story for the better part of 18 months and no obvious alternative policies available, even then he doesn't seem to have handled it that well and whenever he has taken a firm position that seems to have turned out to be wrong.

The pandemic also raises a philosophical question, what exactly is the Labour party for when there is no money to spend?
 
Last edited:

My post wasn’t directed at you particularly - rather the pretty lazy references to “panic buyers” that are all over the place, and blaming them (along with the media and that bloke from the RHA) for the crisis.

If you look at a queue of cars waiting at a petrol station, how do you decide which are “panic buyers” and which are “legitimate”? And if a “legitimate buyer” is panicking slightly because they are in the red, does that make them a panic buyer?

The attached article is interesting. As far as I can see no one in the queue admits to being a panic buyer. No one on this board who admits they’ve filled their car in the last few days will admit to being a panic buyer. Nor, I imagine, will anyone who fills their car in the coming days.

Yet loads of people are certain the panic buyers are to blame for it all.
If they aren’t “ panic buyers” it’s a hell of a coincidence that they have all run out of fuel at the same time.
 
The most depresing thing is the actions of the Labour council in Blackpool wasting money
on bringing the tramway back up Talbot Road when that money could be better spent
improving the housing stock.
Or maybe, taking a long view in that the tram will provide transport so the housing will follow.
 
There is no route to power back for Labour at all, the SNP dominance in Scotland has pretty much put an end to any chance of that. And the incoming boundary changes will make it even harder for them. Labour needed to move to the centre ground after Corbyn, and Starmer was a good candidate to do that, but he simply hasn’t connected in the types of places that Labour need to win to even begin to think about gaining power again. I think any momentum he would have had will be lost now, and he will be replaced within the year. Rayner would drag Labour back, and the only other centrist candidate who would possibly offer some joy for labour would be an Andy Burnham kind of figure or Lisa Nandy etc. Interesting to see Burnham praising Michael Goves appointment today, because he ‘gets things done.’ That’s the kind of politics that will appeal to the people labour need to appeal to, not that of Rayner and her scum comments
 
I’ve not bothered reading the thread because I can predict who is saying what.

The only thing that matters is are the Labour Party becoming more electable and are they able to provide strong opposition to the existing Government.

The answer will be given at the next GE.

We all have one vote
 
If they aren’t “ panic buyers” it’s a hell of a coincidence that they have all run out of fuel at the same time.
Or maybe they are just people who have jobs to get to; kids to take to school; parents to take to hospital? Who think it’d be a bit dumb, given the shortage of petrol actually available in the stations, to wait until they have no petrol at all before trying to buy some?

Just when is it acceptable to buy petrol? And at
what point does a legitimate buyer become a panic buyer?
 
I’ve not bothered reading the thread because I can predict who is saying what.

The only thing that matters is are the Labour Party becoming more electable and are they able to provide strong opposition to the existing Government.

The answer will be given at the next GE.

We all have one vote
The answer to your question No.
The only way Labour can ever get back in power is become more electable which they ain't doing at the mo and to get the floaters back like me Lala and others to vote for them who cares about those who have a red or blue flag draped on their shoulders.
 
Or maybe they are just people who have jobs to get to; kids to take to school; parents to take to hospital? Who think it’d be a bit dumb, given the shortage of petrol actually available in the stations, to wait until they have no petrol at all before trying to buy some?

Just when is it acceptable to buy petrol? And at
what point does a legitimate buyer become a panic buyer?
I will accept your points and questions if you will answer just one for me. Have the people you use as examples never done those things before? And if the answer is yes, how come we don’t have the same queues permanently? Presumably those people need roughly the same amount of fuel week in week out? Sorry I got carried away, that is three questions and I only asked for one.
 
I’ve not bothered reading the thread because I can predict who is saying what.
It's funny, because actually, Cat said he's coming round to Bojo and then 20s popped up and said, on reflection, he wish he'd voted for Michael Foot all those years ago.

Now they're chunnering away like the best of friends.

It's mad what you miss sometimes!
 
Back
Top