UK General Election 2024 - July 4th

How are you likely to vote?


  • Total voters
    67
C4 had Katherine Ryan, Nish Kumar and Stanley Johnson (!) at the last election but viewing figures were pitiful - as Ryan said, they announced the exit poll and "everyone switched off".
 
This idea that political leaders will meet with Joanne disgusts me.

What is she a leader in? I understand that she’s popular and has influence but she has no official role in transgender rights or ANY rights for that matter. She signs off on how Harry Potter can be used on lunchboxes and mugs. THAT’S IT.

I think the main reason is because she used to be quite publicly associated with Labour and has donated to them. She still considers herself a progressive and paints herself as such despite her views increasingly suggesting otherwise. This also seems to be a popular view among people who haven’t been scrutinising her increasingly mad Twitter feed over the last couple of years because of her historically more progressive views. I saw trans people and allies making fun of her being named on a recent list of leftists/progressives in the UK by some magazine.
 
I think the main reason is because she used to be quite publicly associated with Labour and has donated to them. She still considers herself a progressive and paints herself as such despite her views increasingly suggesting otherwise. This also seems to be a popular view among people who haven’t been scrutinising her increasingly mad Twitter feed over the last couple of years because of her historically more progressive views. I saw trans people and allies making fun of her being named on a recent list of leftists/progressives in the UK by some magazine.

I hear you, but there are many public figures who have passions about policy and they don’t get private sittings with incumbent leaders. It almost sets a precedent that if you shout loudly and negatively enough, you’ll get a seat at the table. When the opposite should be true. Joanne brings nothing helpful to the table and she’s not interested in listening, only talking.
 
I don’t think shouting loudly and negatively is why she is being invited to the table at all - quite the contrary, they see her as a reasonable and moderate political figure due to her previous association with the party and historical ‘progressive views’ and want to get her “back onside.” This is why she gets invited to the table and Katie Hopkins doesn’t.

Those of us who HAVE been paying attention to her Twitter feed know that this is a lost cause without going full fash on trans people, of course. I don’t think Labour’s vision for polite transphobia is going to cut it with OL’ JOANNE.
 
There's no revisionism at all. I didn't say her success wasn't valid. The books were huge. But they weren't billionaire huge because no book ever is. Her extreme wealth has been from toys, merchandise and her chunk for allowing the films to happen. She would always have been beyond comfortable and into the realms of rich, but she'd have been, like, Gary Barlow rich, not a billionaire. Does Jacqueline Wilson get her opinions onto the front page of The Times? Why's that then?

I was thinking of Jacqueline Wilson halfway into your argument when you mentioned Barlow :D

FYI Jacqueline Wilson is worth roughly £40 million. Whether this is where JK would be without the films, who knows but I think it would be within this range.

I think I might be doing a Keir Starmer and actually flip flopping on whether I should be voting for Labour at all…
 
the greens are a right mess this time around.

i think it's my first time voting being aligned with both of my parents - they usually vote labour and green but this time both are going lib dem. (I don't wish to get into what this says about ME!)
 
Honey you don’t ALWAYS have to play devil’s advocate!

Y’know, fair point, but I kind of feel I do, though. The world of an echo chamber isn’t actually a healthy one, no? The division where no one can actually talk to one another about things calmly and sensibly is why we’ve seen an increasingly polarised left and right wing. It’s dangerous.
 
There's no revisionism at all. I didn't say her success wasn't valid. The books were huge. But they weren't billionaire huge because no book ever is. Her extreme wealth has been from toys, merchandise and her chunk for allowing the films to happen. She would always have been beyond comfortable and into the realms of rich, but she'd have been, like, Gary Barlow rich, not a billionaire. Does Jacqueline Wilson get her opinions onto the front page of The Times? Why's that then?

My revisionism point was actually about her just “creaming hundreds of millions off other people’s hard work”.

Equally, we then go down the route of the actors in the movies “creaming” their money and fame off her writing. Which is exactly what the TERF brigade used against them when they came out against her lunatic rantings and which we all (rightly) rallied against.
 
My revisionism point was actually about her just “creaming hundreds of millions off other people’s hard work”.

Equally, we then go down the route of the actors in the movies “creaming” their money and fame off her writing. Which is exactly what the TERF brigade used against them when they came out against her lunatic rantings and which we all (rightly) rallied against.
But that's exactly what she's done. Sweatshop toys, scarves, banners, Hallowe'en costumes, M&S chocolates etc etc. The people who make them earn fuck all.

Trying to revert it onto the actors is ludicrous - without them, the films could have flopped. The notion that they should kow-tow to Rowling is ridiculous; the reverse is true - their talent came to define her characters to mutual benefit. Radcliffe has a career because he made good choices, Watson used her celebrity as a positive and became an actual UN ambassador for women's rights - indeed, her activism makes for a fascinating contrast with Rowling and, again, we might like to ask why we hear so much less of her, given the scale and positivity of her work.
 
But that's exactly what she's done. Sweatshop toys, scarves, banners, Hallowe'en costumes, M&S chocolates etc etc. The people who make them earn fuck all.

Trying to revert it onto the actors is ludicrous - without them, the films could have flopped. The notion that they should kow-tow to Rowling is ridiculous; the reverse is true - their talent came to define her characters to mutual benefit. Radcliffe has a career because he made good choices, Watson used her celebrity as a positive and became an actual UN ambassador for women's rights - indeed, her activism makes for a fascinating contrast with Rowling and, again, we might like to ask why we hear so much less of her, given the scale and positivity of her work.

But then again, surely that is the people who buy the licence for those things who are making money off HER work rather than a JK Rowling evil money making machine? This just wouldn't have come up if she wasn't a TERF and she was (supposedly) donating to left wing causes and doing good with her money. We can't just apply the argument where we like because we don't LIKE someone, no!?

And AGAIN, I know I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but the second point response doesn't actually make any sense as an argument to my point- I said we rightly called people out for that. But it's just the other side of the same coin.
 
I think it's a good thing influencers make their voices heard when it comes to politics. Some will inevitably be on the wrong side of some issues.
 
Everyone can share their opinions when it comes to politics but if you do have a big platform it'd be nice to actually back up your claims with facts. The amount of incendiary nonsense or thinly veiled propaganda I've seen spread about on infographics on Instagram on all sorts of subjects suggests people should maybe do a little CRITICAL THINKING before they share things.
 
Anyway

1000048149.jpg
 
I received the first leaflets today: Lib Dems and Tories.

The Tory leaflet features a supporting statement from the outgoing MP (Tolkien quoting twat that he is), containing the line 'She may look sweet...'
 
But then again, surely that is the people who buy the licence for those things who are making money off HER work rather than a JK Rowling evil money making machine? This just wouldn't have come up if she wasn't a TERF and she was (supposedly) donating to left wing causes and doing good with her money. We can't just apply the argument where we like because we don't LIKE someone, no!?

And AGAIN, I know I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but the second point response doesn't actually make any sense as an argument to my point- I said we rightly called people out for that. But it's just the other side of the same coin.
When someone is acting against the best interests of society, their wealth and influence comes up for interrogation. If Elon Musk had invested his dad's money and spent his days painting stick figures, no-one would give a fuck what he thinks. There are wealthy people, often inheritors, who just go about their business - Mackenzie Bezos naffed off with a fortune and seems to be wandering around choosing philanthropy. But when you choose to use your platform to abuse, defame, harm and belittle, to lie, distort and hurt, the game changes. Rowling has chosen to be an nasty, sneering presence, using her wealth to bully and exclude. So, yes, she comes up for review from every angle. She is against basic social progress, basic human rights and against a meritocracy. Ultimately, we are now interrogating how people become billionaires because there's an increasing view that a civilised society doesn't allow people to hoard wealth when others are starving, regardless of how it is earned.

Claiming that the licensers are the evil ones ignores that the fact that she has to agree to these things - it's up to her to find out who she's working with and what their practices are.
 



I mean this is kind of tragic, but unless he's actively trying to sabotage his own campaign is this really a sackable offence? I often bet on outcomes I don't want to happen. (Thank you Salvador Sobral for making me a pretty penny back in 2017)
 
It’s 100% a sackable offence. We’ve had 14 years of this shit.
 
Leaflet from a mad sounding independent in the constituency next door today. We are now 2-1 for leaflets from people I can’t vote for against people I can vote for. The SDP are the only ones who have got it right.
 
The Labour news is already bumped off the top spot. Why did Sunak never learn to deal with things quickly?

 
In LITERATURE NEWS despite being turfed out and amalgamated with something called EDDISBURY we're getting another chance to vote for BYELECTION LOVELY ROB although he's starting to look a bit WORN :(

I've got TWO from him and two from MANCUNIAN UNION JACK FAN ANGE. Also one from APHRA BRANDRETH but THAT went straight in the recycling as apart from anything else we don't FARM in the SUBURBS

AP1GczN8WN6Gem3086P03Joc11Eqh0b2kfl9Epjvr8wgRD89amHfIKYq3PTtqMtH07isxOeg05GVr9bZ-7jX34TZi1tpeXE37RAs4BTZtZFoHh0lYAsPoXanZDFfb2NCXrwGfv1O6KluL5UjFMayawSuvQseVz3-7kKrlWbRmPv3Rdvy9Y3m8ayJkqWlTaBs3vwSk8yJw5KOKUqzCaBypJ-vrzhMiweu_IJH-h2juZXsOHMk0CY_M185Yq0dSImEQTiNbX3-lm6Z4mxsilrKT4zmoX5Unq86pjCFW4l7KUKqdQzRUyKuoIwWJmT4aK2RYQRjLBD6UJ2lwAnObhX9QKkHV7IQOZPHSGHoM6V783refQ3ZAsK-6ISgBGTO53kHgvjyEFbYbkhPUWDCdBhQIwIwfUlcIAUoFGK34KtO_YBSRqsDkdnRFUb1hIxA-2VfJpcqd5QbpZGSCBmvzp7Za7doahphBgV7wEZGEY-rRAArSly-jj-KfK-H0qpm_zS1g1kl0GA4ZlTXzG827BZDbLZVzge4khCanxesMpoaXeGbCMY0ivAfb_d-GmttaZbyLOR3ry6KYeOl3M08uZE3aNHgUt8ImF6Gbcsv42ZwpSRaSqkDa5E7cYAgeJQ8tgc11GiPP5lLXutCU-nTvOHBgwE0zaa742t9jU-bbsJDWCXWlw2IY4JOGaOukz-T8XCCraqGfaqZR6suE68zSztPESKhW1izZUdLr6L8-M53-6TK1gDMuHAbxb83LR2UX0jnKsOEJOC_19Xs0qoXNoC49Fpza9lFnUYmFGhTJIcwAFEqEHnpke4v2ALqZW-2P-bnMxVUfO-gnxeTA2NpkKoTPnqr0BL0YNkp0ya51OmzJQ3fG1iyHuUqWJbz0DEts45k7ds46DQtGQQxRBbkeVEr4DJHmRts=w727-h899-s-no
 
In LITERATURE NEWS despite being turfed out and amalgamated with something called EDDISBURY we're getting another chance to vote for BYELECTION LOVELY ROB although he's starting to look a bit WORN :(

I've got TWO from him and two from MANCUNIAN UNION JACK FAN ANGE. Also one from APHRA BRANDRETH but THAT went straight in the recycling as apart from anything else we don't FARM in the SUBURBS

AP1GczN8WN6Gem3086P03Joc11Eqh0b2kfl9Epjvr8wgRD89amHfIKYq3PTtqMtH07isxOeg05GVr9bZ-7jX34TZi1tpeXE37RAs4BTZtZFoHh0lYAsPoXanZDFfb2NCXrwGfv1O6KluL5UjFMayawSuvQseVz3-7kKrlWbRmPv3Rdvy9Y3m8ayJkqWlTaBs3vwSk8yJw5KOKUqzCaBypJ-vrzhMiweu_IJH-h2juZXsOHMk0CY_M185Yq0dSImEQTiNbX3-lm6Z4mxsilrKT4zmoX5Unq86pjCFW4l7KUKqdQzRUyKuoIwWJmT4aK2RYQRjLBD6UJ2lwAnObhX9QKkHV7IQOZPHSGHoM6V783refQ3ZAsK-6ISgBGTO53kHgvjyEFbYbkhPUWDCdBhQIwIwfUlcIAUoFGK34KtO_YBSRqsDkdnRFUb1hIxA-2VfJpcqd5QbpZGSCBmvzp7Za7doahphBgV7wEZGEY-rRAArSly-jj-KfK-H0qpm_zS1g1kl0GA4ZlTXzG827BZDbLZVzge4khCanxesMpoaXeGbCMY0ivAfb_d-GmttaZbyLOR3ry6KYeOl3M08uZE3aNHgUt8ImF6Gbcsv42ZwpSRaSqkDa5E7cYAgeJQ8tgc11GiPP5lLXutCU-nTvOHBgwE0zaa742t9jU-bbsJDWCXWlw2IY4JOGaOukz-T8XCCraqGfaqZR6suE68zSztPESKhW1izZUdLr6L8-M53-6TK1gDMuHAbxb83LR2UX0jnKsOEJOC_19Xs0qoXNoC49Fpza9lFnUYmFGhTJIcwAFEqEHnpke4v2ALqZW-2P-bnMxVUfO-gnxeTA2NpkKoTPnqr0BL0YNkp0ya51OmzJQ3fG1iyHuUqWJbz0DEts45k7ds46DQtGQQxRBbkeVEr4DJHmRts=w727-h899-s-no
Well HELLO Robert!
 
I'm worried that tonight's debate is where Gender properly rears it's ugly head.



Following:



And the full speech, where if anything he was TOO POLITE about Badenoch

 
Maybe Kemi should take a hint about how discrimination feels and apply that to her politics. Stupid fucking cunt.
 
I’ve actually woken up today feeling quite angry about Labour essentially pacifying JK Rowling. I’m trying to shake it off but I can’t. Feel like we’re going from one joke to the next.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom