The opinion of the IFS on the parties’ manifestos

Tbh people make personal remarks because they can't think of anything better to say. I think it says more about them than their victim.

In my opinion the caricature of Priti Patel depicted as a bull with a ring through her nose was disgusting

I agree GG. Regardless of political affiliation, personal attacks such as these are reprehensible (and I’m no fan of PP).

maddyone

I find it ironic that some posters are commenting that others shouldn’t be commenting on Starmer’s appearance or posters being vitriolic towards Starmer. I’m not sure that I’ve seen either to be honest, but maybe I didn’t read those threads. It’s ironic though because no posters held back in criticising Johnson’s appearance and being extremely vitriolic about him. I did neither, nor have I done either about Starmer.
I do like consistency though, so if it’s okay to criticise the appearance of MPs, it’s okay for them all, and it’s okay to be vitriolic, that’s okay for them all too.
Stick to criticism of what they did, or are going to do is my opinion.

But the difference with Johnson was that he was representing us on a world stage whilst looking totally dishevelled and unprofessional. His appearance represented his lifestyle and lack of self restraint. I felt ashamed by it.

Vintagewhine

Fwiw I don't mind posters making personal comments about politicians as long as they don't stoop to the depths of the Tory supporter, Frank Hester. His comments about Diane Abbott were disgusting.

In my opinion the caricature of Priti Patel depicted as a bull with a ring through her nose was disgusting.

Offensive to her as a female and to her religion.

I think making personal comments about MPs entirely inappropriate, whichever party they represent. Personal remarks about Diane Abbott have been particularly reprehensible over the years.
No remarks are acceptable. None! Zilch!

Fwiw I don't mind posters making personal comments about politicians as long as they don't stoop to the depths of the Tory supporter, Frank Hester. His comments about Diane Abbott were disgusting.

ronib

Yes Casdon let’s get some context -
It takes at least 18 months to master a new departmental brief, to decide what needs doing and how to do it. Several of Labour’s team will have a significant head start …..
well so First Division back in charge. Several of Labour’s team isn’t going to cut it in a government of how many departments?

Yes I am choking on my tea …..

Well that explains some of the chaos. Tory ministers were moved around like chess pieces so never had a chance to get to know the names of their staff let alone the actual job. Remind me, how long was KK chancellor of the exchequer under Truss?

Germanshepherdsmum

I think we can have a pretty good stab at what will happen Casdon.

As for the most incompetent and sleazy government the UK has ever had’, I think you might do well to read some history books.

Time will tell regarding Labour I think, but I do recognise that it’s desperate times for Tories so you feel the need to lash out at every opportunity. As it happens, I do know a lot about political history, but Hey Ho. .

Selective memories me thinks.

GrannyGravy13

Oh there have been numerous instances LizzieDrip from his stature, his choice of suits, even his trainers.

Precisely GG.

I find it ironic that some posters are commenting that others shouldn’t be commenting on Starmer’s appearance or posters being vitriolic towards Starmer. I’m not sure that I’ve seen either to be honest, but maybe I didn’t read those threads. It’s ironic though because no posters held back in criticising Johnson’s appearance and being extremely vitriolic about him. I did neither, nor have I done either about Starmer.
I do like consistency though, so if it’s okay to criticise the appearance of MPs, it’s okay for them all, and it’s okay to be vitriolic, that’s okay for them all too.
Stick to criticism of what they did, or are going to do is my opinion.

Really GG? Well, if you say so - I must have missed them. Similarly then, those comments don’t strengthen a political argument.

I remember them well GG. Some posters have selective memories I think.

Typo diminish not diminishes

Oh there have been numerous instances LizzieDrip from his stature, his choice of suits, even his trainers.

Yes Casdon let’s get some context -
It takes at least 18 months to master a new departmental brief, to decide what needs doing and how to do it. Several of Labour’s team will have a significant head start …..
well so First Division back in charge. Several of Labour’s team isn’t going to cut it in a government of how many departments?

Yes I am choking on my tea …..

I think we can have a pretty good stab at what will happen Casdon.

As for the most incompetent and sleazy government the UK has ever had’, I think you might do well to read some history books.

Personal comments about KS’s appearance are just childish - the sort of things young children say in an argument, when they can’t come up with anything else. Fine for kids … but within the context of an adult discussion about a political issue - really?

GSM we know you have a deep dislike for KS. I don’t think anyone on GN is unaware of that.

I have a deep dislike for RS but I don’t sink to criticising his appearance. I’ve read lots of considered criticism of Tory policies on GN, but I personally can’t remember reading any disparaging remarks about RS’s appearance - correct me if I’m wrong.

Apart from anything else, personal attacks about physical appearance don’t strengthen your argument; they diminishes it.

Now my own MP is Flick Drummond. I don’t like her and wouldn’t have been voting for her, but the boundaries have changed and so she’s no longer up for election in my constituency. I think she’s moved to Winchester where she will almost certainly lose to the LibDem candidate. Good!

NotSpaghetti I understand that everyone has their own personal preferences and likes/dislikes. The two reasons I like Penny Mordaunt are that’s she’s a local MP, not my MP but nonetheless local, and she’s very supportive of the area, which is a naval area and she’s particularly supportive of that, and secondly because of the carrying of the sword during the coronation. Probably a trivial reason, but I admired her strength and dignity whilst doing that. It’s got nothing to do with me because it’s not my constituency, but Penny Mordaunt’s Labour opponent in her constituency is someone I don’t like. I came across her years ago when she was the NUT (as it was then) area representative and I had some dealings with her when I was teaching, and I found her to be useless unfortunately, and so I have little faith in her if she gets to be an MP. It won’t affect me as it’s not my constituency, but that’s how I feel.

Germanshepherdsmum

I deeply dislike his party and a number of his shadow ministers. I don’t see him as a strong leader. I am no more vitriolic about him and Labour in general than other posters are about Sunak and the Conservatives. Perhaps tell some of the Tory bashers and those who despise independent schools to be more open minded.

You’ll have earned the right to be vitriolic once you’ve had five years of the most incompetent and sleazy government the UK has ever had Germanshepherdsmum. At the moment your vitriol is based purely on ‘might be’ not on fact, because none of us know what’s going to happen. That’s the difference.

Germanshepherdsmum

I deeply dislike his party and a number of his shadow ministers. I don’t see him as a strong leader. I am no more vitriolic about him and Labour in general than other posters are about Sunak and the Conservatives. Perhaps tell some of the Tory bashers and those who despise independent schools to be more open minded.

Having a dislike of a two-tier system of education that disadvantages the majority (which I do) is not remotely the same as being vitriolic towards individuals (something I don't do), particularly when the individuals in question have not been in charge of a party with a string of corruption incidents and double standards for the past decade and a half. It's perfectly possible to do one without the other.

Of course I can understand self-interest meaning that those who stand to lose some of the advantages they've had under the Tories meaning they won't vote for Starmer, but attacking him personally is unnecessary.

Germanshepherdsmum

I deeply dislike his party and a number of his shadow ministers. I don’t see him as a strong leader. I am no more vitriolic about him and Labour in general than other posters are about Sunak and the Conservatives. Perhaps tell some of the Tory bashers and those who despise independent schools to be more open minded.

The tories have spent the last 14 years giving us ample reasons for our criticisms. They have been incompetent, mendacious and demonstrably corrupt. They have brought our public services to their knees and failed to curb the profiteering and incompetence of privatised utilities.

What has Labour done to deserve what you think is equal vitriol?

The problem with this Tory government is that it’s split. They started off in 2019 with a huge mandate but chucked it away dithering and arguing amongst themselves. I have little if any confidence in them regarding them only marginally better than Starmer who has his own divisions and factions to deal with. Interestingly Europe is moving more to the right so we are likely to be out of kilter again.

I despair for this country.

MayBee70

Think I’d rather have Reeves as chancellor who at least has a background in the subject ( and Mark Carney think highly of her) than someone that wasn’t a particularly good health Secretary whose austerity cuts made us ill prepared for a pandemic. But the main problem with this Conservative government is that most of the good, decent experienced MP’s have gone and we’re left with the Bravermans, Patels etc. Plus a new intake ( if they get elected) of MP’s with no experience in government at all. The party is tired and fragmented. So it isn’t a case of better the devil we know because we won’t know many of them and those we do know of don’t exactly inspire confidence.

Voting Labour in our new constituency, you'll voting for a bloke who has not made himself known, and is therefore unknown to the local population. His hoppo, our new local councillor, has been canvassing for him, slagging off our elected MPs, really professional, not. Both Lawyers, apparently. So even in sainted Labour you can be voting for the unknown, cant you? Not me of course.