Party’s popularity plummets just like its leader’s
Earlier this week, Skwawkbox reported that Keir Starmer’s personal ‘net favourability’ ratings had collapsed by twenty-four points in just a month, as the public sees more of what he really is and dislikes it. What’s not to dislike about a politician that wants to starve our kids, freeze our old folk while attacking our civil rights, supporting genocide, raising our energy bills and squandering billions on foreign wars?
Unsurprisingly, the phenomenon is not limited to Starmer and has spread to his entirely government, from Chancellor ‘Rachel Freeze’ to DWP Secretary Liz ‘Work or Starve but we’ll hide the figures‘ Kendall. The public’s net opinion of Starmer’s entire government has plummeted by nineteen points in just three weeks, as the latest poll from YouGov shows:
Those still considering Starmer and co to be ok have fallen by three points – no doubt the die-hard, right-wing ‘centrists’ will take a while to admit otherwise – but those finding them poor to awful have leapt by a massive sixteen points to 47%.
A major factor in the collapse has been a massive fall in support among over-65s:
Starmer’s red Tories are no doubt loved by their mothers, but the rest of the country is catching on fast, and no wonder.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount as it has to be entered by us). Alternatively, if you prefer to make a one-off or recurring donation by simple card payment, please use the form below:
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your support is hugely appreciated.
Your support is hugely appreciated.
Your support is hugely appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyThanks for your solidarity so Skwawkbox can keep doing its job of inconveniencing the right and helping to build the left!
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Their support was built on sand to start with.
Save the Winter Fuel Allowance:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2024/08/24/will-you-sign-this-petition-to-reinstate-the-winter-fuel-payment/
Thank you.
Why is there only shabina mahmood with a red nose on that photo?
The rest of the feckers all deserve one, along with fluorescent green wigs and spinning bow ties, the feckin clowns.
It is the historical role of centrist and right wing social Democrats to pave the way for fascism.
New New Labour are turning out to be a classic example of this dangerous phenomenon.
Who in the MSM is forcefully pointing out that it is not possible to cure the ills of our country and society by doubling down on the policies that created them in the first case?
This government will unravel rapidly when the final penny drops, and at that point many of the new intake of Labour MPs will discover that the heat in the political kitchen can be unbearable. I get the impression they actually believe the nonsensical nostrums they have been fed and spout.
10% rise in fuel charges in October is all people need to know about the other cheek of the Tory arse
What happens when they realise they are being robbed blind by the fuckers
Genius is when they get their snouts out of the trough
Time you and others looked into exercising your Cestui Que Trust. It’ll take a while to track down the how’s and whys, but you won’t regret it.
Stop paying twice.
NVLA – 🤣 – Are you really that gullible❓
Speaking of clowns ..
You, a voter for Kier Steamers vision of the future, accuse me of being gullible?
NVLA – You are more than welcome to detail precisely how you have exercised your Cestui Que Trust. 🙄
If you have a coherent evidence based argument with facts, Billy, let’s hear it.
Because right now, in the absence of anything substantive, you are just publicly making yourself look more stupid and ignorant.
Dave – If you have a coherent evidence based argument with facts, Dave, let’s hear it.
Because right now, in the absence of anything substantive, you are just publicly making yourself look more stupid and ignorant.
Is there an echo in here, or has Long John Silver’s parrot just flown in?
I’m not the one challenging NVLA’s statement, Billy. You’ve made the claim, it’s down to you and no one else to substantiate it with evidence to back up your conclusion if you can.
Go for it or at least give us some bullshit with a bit of quality rather than this puerile playground level excuse for ‘wit’.
Dave – Here you are. 🥱
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cestui_que_vie_trust_10/response/2276768/attach/html/4/FOI%20Reply%20B%20Knight.pdf.html
Billy – a link which fails to address NVLA’s point – which seems to be based on what this article sets out:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cestui-que-vie.asp
“Cestui Que Vie Is Now a Part of Modern Law
Later, however, after the Great Plague of 1665 and the Great Fire of 1666 had destroyed London, the British government enacted the Cestui Que Vie Act in 1666, which reinstated the legal concept. After those twin catastrophes, hundreds of thousands of British citizens died or fled.2 In response, the government took all private property into the trust until the proper heirs or owners could be identified—the cestui que vie. Some parts of the 1666 Act are still the law in the United Kingdom.1
The legal concepts behind cestui que vie changed a bit over the centuries in order to reduce fraud and to ensure that property owners couldn’t shift their property into trusts in order to dodge creditors. More recently, laws against property held in perpetuity required that parties named as the beneficiaries in a trust should vest, and thus have an interest in the trust rather than passively receive benefits.
When a trust is created it is done for the benefit of a specific individual who is identified in the trust document. In a trust, the cestui que trust is the person who has an equitable interest in the trust. The legal title of the trust, however, is given to the trustee. Cestui qui use, or he who uses, is the person for whose benefit the trust is made. During the medieval period, cestui que use arrangements became so common that they were often assumed to be present even when they had not been arranged.”
That first paragraph, above, clearly indicates that the 1666 Act followed the 1665 plague and the Great Fire of London of 1666. Going on to explain that the State, in the form of the Government, took all private property, under the Act, into the Trust “until the proper heirs or owners could be identified.”
It would seem reasonable to surmise, unless advised otherwise, that it is this aspect to which NVLA’s post is focused upon rather than that of the link you have provided which seems to be more concerned with the issues identified in the second paragraph of the above provided link which deals with those trying to take advantage of the concept to avoid creditors of scam people.
The key question – which your claimed “evidence” does not address, is whether the 1666 Act is still extant on the Statute Book? As your link provides a link to the Act it would seem reasonable to surmise this may be the case. If so, NVLA’s implied point, that any remaining private property taken by the State under and after the 1666 Act which has not been reverted to the heirs of the original owners could in theory be open to being reclaimed, has not been adequately addressed in your post of 12:07pm today, 25/8/24.
Dave – 🤣 WTF is that supposed to prove? 🤣
I’m waiting for NVLA to detail precisely how he has exercised his Cestui Que Trust. (don’t hold your breath)
Have you exercised your Cestui Que Trust yet. 😏
I’m waiting for NVLA to detail precisely how he has exercised his Cestui Que Trust.
That’s NVLA’s business.
Y’know? Like your idyll in the Caribbean’s yours. Except you refuse to state something as general as precisely which island you’re supposedly on, or even as much as provide an approximate date when you supposedly pissed off from the UK.
Must have something to hide. 😗🎶
Toffee – 🥱
Is that really the best you could manage
Far from the best I could do, soft ollies.
So I’ll just leave this one here. If what I have said is wrong, correct it. If not, keep quiet.
Oh, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed that you’re still to address the issue at hand in this thread; namely that keef is as popular as herpes.
Pre-election you’d have been having the screaming abdabs and trying to convince us otherwise. Not so enthusiastic now, are ya?
Wonder why?
Toffee – ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“WTF is that supposed to prove?
Exactly what it says in the conclusion, Billy.
But, seeing as I like you today, because I might not like you tomorrow, I’ll rewrite it in big letters for the cognitively challenged such as yourself:
NVLA’s POINT HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN YOUR POST OF 12:07PM TODAY, 25/8/24.
Are we getting through to the single brain cell yet, or is this too advanced for you, Billy?
“Have you exercised your Cestui Que Trust yet.”
Given that my family name can be traced back to the minor Norman nobility….
https://www.houseofnames.com/hansell-family-crest
….I have no desire to risk potentially being liable for the associated hassle, such as any taxes and other related responsibilities that may arise from such a venture, thank you very much. NVLA, and perhaps others, may or may not take a different view on the matter?
Are you keeping up with this so far, Billy, or would you prefer the wax crayon picture version for the severely cognitively challenged?
Dave – Really? What exactly was NVLA’s point, did he have one?
As for the rest of your post, we both know it is a load of bollocks
So, for all your bluff n bluster, it’s undeniable that you sneering that the best I could do, still has you completely stumped.
Pitiful.
Toffee – Who are you trying to convince, yourself and your fellow gullible numpties?
“WTF is that supposed to prove?”
What it says in the conclusion, Billy.
But, seeing as I like you today, because I might not like you tomorrow, I’ll spell it out in big letters for the cognitively challenged such as yourself, Billy.
NVLA’S POINT HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN YOUR POST OF 12:07PM TODAY, 25/8/24.
Are we getting through to the single brain cell yet?
“Have you exercised your Cestui Que Trust yet?”
Seeing as my family name….
https://www.houseofnames.com/hansell-family-crest
…..can be traced back to minor Norman nobility I have no desire to take on the potential risk and associated hassle of taxes and other responsibilities inherent in such a venture thank you very much.
NVLA, among others, may or may not take a different view.
Is this simple enough for you, Billy, or do you require the wax crayon picture version for Village Idiots?
Dave – https://skwawkbox.org/2024/08/24/labours-net-public-approval-collapses-like-starmers-in-just-3-weeks/comment-page-1/#comment-257966
Thanks for the explainer Dave. Much appreciated. Am busy caring for mum (dementia) and I’d have never managed to post anywhere close to yours.
If your name is old enough, you have a plausible claim. If you have a fairly modern surname, you’ll be committing fraud.
There is another way though, and this is just funny. I’m not planning on attempting this, but I know of others who have already done this “wheeze”.
Contact energy suppliers. Tell them to remove the meters as they no longer have your permission to have their property on your property. Then tell them they have 72hrs or they will be claimed under the maritime salvage act. Now, you cannot just use the energy as that would be stealing. So you buy new meters (less than £200) and have them installed professionally.
You are now metering your usage. The utilities have no right to access and you’re under no legal obligation to reveal who your supplier is.
Unethical? Maybe, but small beer in this world.
NVLA – Jeez, you really are gullible. It’s a while since I’ve read such a load of ill informed rubbish.
No worries NVLA, having been in that position I appreciate what it’s like and how time-consuming it is.
Seems a bit too FMOTL for me, NVLA, although I read something similar to that regarding car tax (or was it driving licences?) a fair few years back (think the main point was to do with the description/classification of the vehicle in question)
That said, if those who have done what you have said are having success then massive kudos to them 👍
Gonna try to correct me IF ym I’m wrong (and I’m not) , or just spout even more repetitive, tedious, brain-numbing shite?
“What exactly was NVLA’s point, did he have one?”
Once again, Billy, I’ll repeat it for you in big letters:
“THAT THE STATE, IN THE FORM OF THE GOVERNMENT, TOOK ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER THE (1666) ACT, INTO THE TRUST ‘UNTIL THE PROPER HEIRS OR OWNERS COULD BE IDENTIFIED”
From this it is not difficult to ascertain that NVLA’s point – which again was spelled out Janet and John style for you in the post of 12:56pm today, 25/8/24, is
Quote:
“T-H-A-T A-N-Y R-E-M-A-I-N-I-N-G P-R-I-V-A-T-E- P-R-O-P-E-R-T-Y T-A-K-E-N B-Y T-H-E
S-T-A-T-E U-N-D-E-R A-N-D A-F-T-E-R T-H-E 1-6-6-6 A-C-T W-H-I-C-H H-A-S N-O-T
B-E-E-N R-E-V-E-R-T-E-D T-O T-H-E H-E-I-R-S O-F T-H-E O-R-I-G-N-A-L O-W-N-E-R-S
C-O-U-L-D I-N T-H-E-O-R-Y B-E O-P-E-N T-O B-E-I-N-G R-E-C-L-A-I-M-E-D,”
End of quote
Why does this need repeating for you to penetrate, Billy? Can you not read? Have you considered enrolling in a toddler group as a precursor to going through the process of obtaining an education to catch up to the rest of the adults in this chat room?
“As for the rest of your post, we both know it is a load of bollocks.”
To which post are you referring, Billy? 12:56pm? 04:25pm?
Which part(s) is/are “bollocks” and why? Do you have a coherent, reasoned and rational argument for this evidence free conclusion? Or are you simply emoting again to make yourself feel better inside?
Since we’re talking percentages, “Liz ‘Work or Starve but we’ll hide the figures‘ Kendall” should read “Liz ‘4%’ Kendall”!
4.5%
Still would’ve seen kendall with alost deposithad it been a constituency election.
Amirite, @wee gobshite??
Toffee – I’m not a fan of Liz Kendall but she did win her constituency seat with 44.6% of the vote and with a healthy majority of 24.8%.
Did she win the leadership contest with 4 or 4.5%?
No. So do be quiet.
Toffee – But she did win her seat this year with a larger majority than Jeremy.
– I’m not a fan of Liz Kendall
Perhaps not.
But you ARE a devotee of keef, who’s as popular as a hot dog vendor in a synagogue.
Not gonna shout the odds about that, or tell us he hasn’t continued with toerag policy, hmmm? 🤔
Toffee – I suppose that would depend on whether the vendor was selling kosher hot dogs
Ooooooh, kosher hot dogs??
Nah. Just yer regular ones, with more brains, but less arsehole than you.
Now, about keef. It’s evident that people DON’T really quite like him, isn’t it?
Also, it’s evident his policies ARE torier than the rags.
And as for the cronyism… Got owt to say about these disgraces?
Toffee – No, I don’t accept the premise of your questions.😔
Code for; “I’m fooked, I’ve been collared bang to rights”.
Typical shithouse trick, totally expected.
That’s what child sex offenders do.
Toffee – Not at all.
Time will tell, we’ll see then who has been proved right. 😏
Except you haven’t been right once.
Brexit – wrong. Even when keef said he’ll ‘make brexit work’ not five minutes after YOU voted for “the best of the bad bunch”.
Smarmer and his ten pledges – you refused to believe he ditched a single them until it had to be shown to you that he admitted he’d binned the lot.
That was five minutes into his tenure, as well.
The continuation of toerag policies- you’re still denying that. 2 child benefit cap, refusal to cap banker’s bonus, no sort of taxing the wealthiest, return to work for your dole etc etc etc.
They aren’t questions, they’re FACTS.
.
And you don’t accept the premise of any of them. Just like paedophiles don’t accept the premise of statutory rape when they commit their abominable crimes.
But then again, you make excuses for those who enable and commit paedophilia.
As long as they’re smarmerite, anything goes.
Toffee – Oh dear 😔
“I don’t accept the premise of your questions.”
What is the premise of Toffee’s questions?
The first one seems straightforward enough:
“It’s evident that people DON’T really quite like him[ie Starmer], isn’t it?
Not that no one whatsoever likes him, but that there are people who don’t like him and, more to the point, what he represents.
Non-acceptance of this premise is actually implying that there exists absolutely no one who does not like Starmer and what he represents. In which case, two questions arise:
1. why has Starmer’s popularity gone down in the polls less than six weeks after the election?
2. why did only around 20% of the eligible voters vote for the Starmer led LP?
Logically, for your counter premise to hold any credibility, Billy, – that there is no one who does not like Starmer and what he stands for – his popularity would be at 100% and 80% of the eligible electorate who did not vote for him would have.
Consequently, it is your premise which logically does not hold water, Billy.
Toffee’s second premise was:
“Also, it’s evident his policies ARE torier than the rags.”
Rejecting this premise requires that proof in the form of subtantive objective sourced evidence of more differences in policies than similarities between this government and the previous one is provided.
The absence of such proof, in the context of your previous disdain for factual reality, Billy, is sufficent to further reject your own threadbare premise.
Come back to us if you ever become capable of offering anything substantive to back up your empty rhetoric
…from a 48% Turnout.
That compares with her best year. 60.8% share of the vote, with a healthy majority of 29.4%, on a -massive – 57.9% Turnout.
I wonder which year that was.
George – This year she won her seat with a larger majority than Corbyn won his.🤔
Corbyn won his as an independent. No doubt a shedload of moolah was ploughed into kendall retaining it’s seat. (As was the case in 19, when plenty of marginals could’ve done with that support )
Something you persistently reckoned he wasn’t capable of, as well as something you didn’t want to happen, seeing as you kept mentioning his *retirement* , the outcome you were hankering after…
And now I’m coming back to tell you all about it, as I – along with everybody else – was invited to do.
UNLUCKY, PLUMS🖕😁🖕
Toffee – Oh Whoopee, 😏
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Billy – Oh dear!
“Is that really the best you could manage?”
He’s off to take it out on those poor goats again.
Meanwhile, the front page of today’s Scottish Paper The National:
https://www.frontpages.com/the-national-scotland/