The UK: The Andy Burnham years (4 Viewers)

OT: I kept seeing loads of these but "top or bottom" about footballers during the World Cup and it made me feel really uneasy. I'm not entirely sure it's ok to speculate sexually about someone quite like that- we'd never do it with a woman.

And then I realised that made me TERRIBLY FUCKING OLD to be even remotely worried about it and I clutched my pearls and moved on. :D
 
One of my friends (who very much fits the profile herself) made the same comment about the number of women online lusting over Jude Bellingham who are easily old enough to be his mother.
 
are really going to be tell MIDDLE AGED WOMEN (or gays for that matter) they can't lust over a HOT YOUNGER PIECE OF ASS?

the NANNY STATE has gone too FAR!
 
Sheena said:
OT: I kept seeing loads of these but "top or bottom" about footballers during the World Cup and it made me feel really uneasy. I'm not entirely sure it's ok to speculate sexually about someone quite like that- we'd never do it with a woman.
Click to expand...
I mean it's fine because they're (almost all) straight and it's just projecting a little fantasy onto them. if they don't want it why'd they always take their SHIRTS OFF and TUG at their JUNK?

for what it's worth I think Declan Rice is vers and I'd love to see him BOTTOMING. :)
 
Jark said:
I mean it's fine because they're (almost all) straight and it's just projecting a little fantasy onto them. if they don't want it why'd they always take their SHIRTS OFF and TUG at their JUNK?

for what it's worth I think Declan Rice is vers and I'd love to see him BOTTOMING. :)
Click to expand...

For a start we THINK they're straight but I bet you're they're not all.

And I think there's just a massive issue with the over sexualisation of someone doing their job. The example we're talking about isn't someone declaring their lust...it's actively and publicly talking about their (supposed/imagined) sex life. It's an entirely different context.
 
I mean you can tell human beings not to be inappropriate but it's 85% of what they are, so, it seems performative at best to be all waggy finger about it. Although the PM top / bottom video seems random as fuck and actually, if one was to suppose that the maker considered being submissive to be a weaker position - which anyone with a brain realises the bottom actually has most of the real power, then it's also a bit phobic and clearly made by a Tory. But otherwise, yeah.
 
1785150627223.png


Burnham Bounce

First Labour poll lead since April 2025
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNL
Amazing what can be achieved by actually announcing a few decent policies.

Now watch it all go to shit when they cave on North Sea Oil.
 
Tories flying a bit under the radar at the minute. a few more fuckups by Reform could see them doing very well in the months ahead.
 
We'd probably get a Lib-Lab coalition out of those numbers.

Neither Reform or Tories topping the poll is pretty doomful news for the right wing.
 
it will be really interesting to see if Zack has a plan to combat the loss of lefty voters back to Labour. the same attack lines that worked against Starmer won't work against Andy.

if they don't take a good 30+ seats at the next GE I'd say it's a failure for the Greens. really they should be potential coalition partners for Labour over the Lib Dems.
 
Badenoch seems to be - whisper it - getting a bit less shit in terms of how she generally comes across, I suspect she also smells death on Reform and so now she's feeling like the game is on and there is something real to play for. Right-wingers always, in the end, swing behind a winner where they can, so I think Nigel's chips are pretty much pissed on at this point.
 
Jark said:
Tories flying a bit under the radar at the minute. a few more fuckups by Reform could see them doing very well in the months ahead.
Click to expand...

Kemi has really been SHELTERED by the fact nobody gives a shit about the Tories at the moment, but I do think in a general election, her people are going to have to work really hard to steer her away from culture war topics because where Farage does it in such a LAISSEZ-FAIRE way, she has a tendency to start frothing at the mouth about the Education Minister being like the "GESTAPO" coming for private school children and her "ETHNIC ENEMIES" in Nigeria. The challenge for her is that she's much more invested in the stuff that makes her sound like a lunatic than the economy stuff which people respond to well from her.
 
Badenoch was quite impressive against Starmer in the Commons. She has a much stronger opposition in Burnham, but she has adapted to being opposition leader well.

She obviously has a far right loon tendency, but when she controls herself, she comes across as a confident sensible politician.

So yeah split that vote girl.
 
Jark said:
it will be really interesting to see if Zack has a plan to combat the loss of lefty voters back to Labour. the same attack lines that worked against Starmer won't work against Andy.

if they don't take a good 30+ seats at the next GE I'd say it's a failure for the Greens. really they should be potential coalition partners for Labour over the Lib Dems.
Click to expand...
Polanski became damaged goods really quickly, that with Burnham, he's gonna need to get some good angles.

North Sea oil drilling is an obvious and easy target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNL
I don't think Badenoch comes across as sensible if you listen to a lot of the stuff she says. As @GNL mentioned, she comes out with some proper insane stuff, and she's a serious hardliner on a few things - she's barring people from being Tory candidates if they aren't committed to being anti-net zero and leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. She will probably start seeing the Tories perform better in the polls if Reform continue to fall apart, but I don't think she'll stand up well to the focus of a general election campaign.
 
Penelope said:
I don't think Badenoch comes across as sensible if you listen to a lot of the stuff she says. As @GNL mentioned, she comes out with some proper insane stuff, and she's a serious hardliner on a few things - she's barring people from being Tory candidates if they aren't committed to being anti-net zero and leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. She will probably start seeing the Tories perform better in the polls if Reform continue to fall apart, but I don't think she'll stand up well to the focus of a general election campaign.
Click to expand...
I don't really watch much Parliamentary action or find out much about her. And I suspect I'm considerably more informed than most. The little I've seen of her in main news broadcasts she comes across as restrained. I have no doubt there's still a full on loon at play behind the scenes.

And yes under proper scrutiny she will absolutely falter.
 
Jark said:
it will be really interesting to see if Zack has a plan to combat the loss of lefty voters back to Labour. the same attack lines that worked against Starmer won't work against Andy.

if they don't take a good 30+ seats at the next GE I'd say it's a failure for the Greens. really they should be potential coalition partners for Labour over the Lib Dems.
Click to expand...
(I bet Labour’s team will be delighted that, like with Zack and unlike Starmer, you are calling Burnham by his first name.)
 
Penelope said:
I don't think Badenoch comes across as sensible if you listen to a lot of the stuff she says. As @GNL mentioned, she comes out with some proper insane stuff, and she's a serious hardliner on a few things - she's barring people from being Tory candidates if they aren't committed to being anti-net zero and leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. She will probably start seeing the Tories perform better in the polls if Reform continue to fall apart, but I don't think she'll stand up well to the focus of a general election campaign.
Click to expand...
I liked Badenoch’s comments this morning that she was willing to work together on social care, as long as it doesn’t involve more tax or people spending more of their savings, and instead is funded from benefit savings. Thanks Kemi - very helpful contribution.
 
Jark said:
it will be really interesting to see if Zack has a plan to combat the loss of lefty voters back to Labour. the same attack lines that worked against Starmer won't work against Andy.

if they don't take a good 30+ seats at the next GE I'd say it's a failure for the Greens. really they should be potential coalition partners for Labour over the Lib Dems.
Click to expand...

Their line might soften as an election approaches, but you have to question whether being part of a coalition would be desirable for the Greens. No other party is going to take their line on defence or immigration, and they've had such punchy messaging, it feels like it'd just piss off their voters to see them working with the Labour party.
 
GNL said:
Their line might soften as an election approaches, but you have to question whether being part of a coalition would be desirable for the Greens. No other party is going to take their line on defence or immigration, and they've had such punchy messaging, it feels like it'd just piss off their voters to see them working with the Labour party.
Click to expand...

The trouble with a lot of the core green party members is they are idealistic over practical, a coalition would temper some of that I feel.
 
perhaps. on the other hand, if the Greens don't seize this moment when the country is crying out for the politics of the left to get into government and directly influence policy... when will they? it won't last forever. they finally have good PR and a message that cuts through. they must have bigger ambitions than being a minor opposition party with no influence.
 
GNL said:
Their line might soften as an election approaches, but you have to question whether being part of a coalition would be desirable for the Greens. No other party is going to take their line on defence or immigration, and they've had such punchy messaging, it feels like it'd just piss off their voters to see them working with the Labour party.
Click to expand...
The Scottish Greens are an example of how to toe that line, where they agreed upfront on where they wouldn't support the government. A minority of members were unhappy but if Yousaf hadn't shat the bed it would have passed the conference vote easily
 
To be honest I think 30+ seats would be very much at the upper end of expectations for what the Greens would hope to get at the next election - IIRC they were on 30 seats in the most recent MRP poll, which was with Starmer at the depth of his unpopularity.

But also I'm not sure they're in the right place as a party to be a coalition partner as early as after the next election anyway, at least without big efforts to change their party culture over the next 2-3 years. They still don't believe in whipping! Which is an absolute minimum requirement to be a coalition partner - if you can't guarantee that most of the MPs of a party will in fact be agreeing to abide by the terms of any deal signed up to, then they aren't really at a place where they can be relied on as a partner. I'd imagine if it were a hung parliament next time Labour would look to the Liberal Democrats first for any coalition/confidence and supply deals, unless the maths made that inadequate.
 
Penelope said:
To be honest I think 30+ seats would be very much at the upper end of expectations for what the Greens would hope to get at the next election - IIRC they were on 30 seats in the most recent MRP poll, which was with Starmer at the depth of his unpopularity.

But also I'm not sure they're in the right place as a party to be a coalition partner as early as after the next election anyway, at least without big efforts to change their party culture over the next 2-3 years. They still don't believe in whipping! Which is an absolute minimum requirement to be a coalition partner - if you can't guarantee that most of the MPs of a party will in fact be agreeing to abide by the terms of any deal signed up to, then they aren't really at a place where they can be relied on as a partner. I'd imagine if it were a hung parliament next time Labour would look to the Liberal Democrats first for any coalition/confidence and supply deals, unless the maths made that inadequate.
Click to expand...

I think any watering down of the Green's principle of member-led democracy - as unwieldy and impractical as it often is - would be a very difficult pill for its members to swallow.

The more radical eco-socialist wing that's jumped up in the past couple of years would absolutely not accept it - the vast majority are also firmly opposed to any kind of election pacts, deals or confidence and supply agreements with Labour.

The more moderate wing would also struggle with whipping in the current atmosphere, as in old school Green/Tory swing seats, many councillors and candidates are having to actively distance themselves from the Polanski wing to avoid haemorrhaging voters.
 
Yeah. I think the Greens primarily work better as a testimonial party that voters opt for when they think the main parties aren't taking the environment seriously enough (obviously at this point they're diverging from that premise a bit...with some success, admittedly, but which makes it less straightforward), which influences the main parties to look at their own platforms and ways they can defuse that threat to them through policy.
 
you're dyed in the wool Labour so the Greens really aren't for you - so how you think they "work better" is not that relevant! it's actually in your interests if they remain an entity that exists only for the main parties to gauge their popularity on the environment. anyway I think you're talking about a two/three party model of politics which is on the way out, if not already gone.
 
Right now Labour are in a real honeymoon period with Burnham. We'll have to see how things look a year or two from now to have an idea of how much he's neutralised the threat from the left that the Greens represent. My instinct is that there's no fully putting the genie back in the bottle, particularly for younger voters and voters who were horrified by Labour's complicity with the Genocide in Gaza.

If the Greens go from 5 MPs to 30 at the next election, that's still a huge breakthrough. Though I'd certainly hope to see it go higher.
 
Jark said:
you're dyed in the wool Labour so the Greens really aren't for you - so how you think they "work better" is not that relevant! it's actually in your interests if they remain an entity that exists only for the main parties to gauge their popularity on the environment. anyway I think you're talking about a two/three party model of politics which is on the way out, if not already gone.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking from a Labour perspective here, I'm talking from the perspective that the Greens aren't remotely in a place culturally at the moment to be a realistic coalition partner as a party! :D I'd say it's in literally *all* of our interests - Green voters and all other voters too - if the Greens exist to push the idea on the main parties that they can't take their foot off the break on the environment. They can still be a testimonial party as things stand with an economic dimension to their platform too that works in the interest of Green voters, if it influences Labour policy on that front (as indeed we're seeing at the moment with Green votes cautiously coming back to Labour after their recent surge and with some voters liking what they're hearing from Burnham).

They're just not in a place where any formal deal with them on running a government would at all work, because there's too much of a fiercely held culture of independence within the Green Party and its representatives and members at the moment. You can't make a deal with a party if most of its representatives reserve the right not to abide by it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a coalition would be on the cards unless it was literally the only way to block Reform from power. Too much wariness over what became of the Lib Dems. The junior partner in a coalition virtually always gets a kicking by the electorate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNL
VoR said:
I don't think a coalition would be on the cards unless it was literally the only way to block Reform from power. Too much wariness over what became of the Lib Dems. The junior partner in a coalition virtually always gets a kicking by the electorate.
Click to expand...
I do also think it's a bit what you said before about a lot of the surge in Green membership being quite hostile to Labour and the idea of doing deals with them. I find myself thinking of the slightly deranged monologue by Stats for Lefties recently about how the Labour Party needs to be "completely crushed underfoot into the dust and replaced by the Greens". There's a lot of hatred there (not unreasonably!) from former Corbyn true believers.
 
And again, the Scottish Greens made the move from opposition to government and kept the membership largely on board, and didn't suffer much cost in the polls during their stint in government and did a little better at the following election (though of course were out of government for a year before said election).

It will be harder in England because you don't have the ready made goal of Independence to anchor an arrangement around, but if Labour need the Greens to get over the line, then making the environment a central unifying goal (and having opt-outs for where Greens could never follow Labour) would be workable, and indeed, necessary if (hopefully when) Westminster stops being FPTP.
 
I do think the Scottish Greens are culturally quite different to the England and Wales Green party (not least by being a formally different party). Having been in Scottish Parliament as a proper party with multiple MSPs for over 20 years at this point has I think been a big factor in them culturally adjusting to how they can best use their votes and their heft compared to the E+W Greens, given they only reached the point of having more than one MP in 2024.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
Sorry, I fail to see why this is DERANGED and not ENTIRELY REASONABLE :disco:
Click to expand...
I'd say it's slightly deranged from the position of half of what she believes in / that the Greens should advocate :D Plenty of people (indeed, the majority of the public) out there who are opposed to the Iran War, but I'm not quite sure there are many who are at the point of thinking "glory to the Iranian regime" isn't just a bit weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 5 (members: 4, guests: 1)
    Back
    Top Bottom