Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, sir roger said:

Not bothered about YouGov polls, they will just send them to whichever people they know will give them the headline they want, but picking up on Numero's comment re people pushing for intervention by Starmer and would suggest that if you think Evans suspended Corbyn without discussing it with Starmer, I have some magic beans I am putting on ebay this afternoon.

Those two things aren't the same thing. People want him, now the process is underway, to politically interfere and overturn his suspension. That's patently ridiculous, not just because it's unfair and wrong, but because the report into the Corbyn administration's actions found them to have unlawfully politically interfered. It's really madness from that faction. They care less about the party, about electability, about fairness than they do about Corbyn's status. It's wank.

[Brownie]

18 minutes ago, Numero said:

Those two things aren't the same thing. People want him, now the process is underway, to politically interfere and overturn his suspension. That's patently ridiculous, not just because it's unfair and wrong, but because the report into the Corbyn administration's actions found them to have unlawfully politically interfered. It's really madness from that faction. They care less about the party, about electability, about fairness than they do about Corbyn's status. It's wank.

Wasn't his suspension in the first place an example of political interference?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Brownie said:

Wasn't his suspension in the first place an example of political interference?

By whom?

[Brownie]

2 minutes ago, Numero said:

By whom?

David Evans suspended him and it was supported by Starmer, unless i'm mistaken?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Brownie said:

David Evans suspended him and it was supported by Starmer, unless i'm mistaken?

Yeah, David Evans (General Secretary) and Nick Brown (the Brownite Chief Whip appointed by Corbyn) took the decision as a result of Corbyn's response to the report (a response which included disputing findings of the report). At least that's the official line. It's a response to actions, which they obviously feel warrant looking at. I don't really see how that could be categorised as political interference. It's their job to do it. 

 

If he's kicked out, it won't matter the legitimacy of the rationale, it will be called politically motivated. I don't think it's within some of his supporter's ability to consider he might actually deserve to be suspended or punished in any way, for anything, ever. Whether or not he gets kicked out I guess is still to be seen. If he isn't, I doubt it will be 'well done to David Evans and Nick Brown for rising above political bias and conducting a fair investigation'. That remains to be seen, I guess. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

If  57 percent see the party as divided then they are also divided. So people are divided in seeing the labour party divided. Is nobody united.

It's worth saying that similar numbers see the Tories as divided.

[sir roger]

6 hours ago, Numero said:

Yeah, David Evans (General Secretary) and Nick Brown (the Brownite Chief Whip appointed by Corbyn) took the decision as a result of Corbyn's response to the report (a response which included disputing findings of the report). At least that's the official line. It's a response to actions, which they obviously feel warrant looking at. I don't really see how that could be categorised as political interference. It's their job to do it. 

 

If he's kicked out, it won't matter the legitimacy of the rationale, it will be called politically motivated. I don't think it's within some of his supporter's ability to consider he might actually deserve to be suspended or punished in any way, for anything, ever. Whether or not he gets kicked out I guess is still to be seen. If he isn't, I doubt it will be 'well done to David Evans and Nick Brown for rising above political bias and conducting a fair investigation'. That remains to be seen, I guess. 

Brown and Evans my arse, Starmer slipped up ( or was happy to admit it ) and admitted he was involved, on Ridge I think it was.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Brown and Evans my arse, Starmer slipped up ( or was happy to admit it ) and admitted he was involved, on Ridge I think it was.

Please tell me you’re not referring to that tweet somebody linked claiming this and the link was him saying nothing of the sort. Please. 

[sir roger]

Today programme 

' We made a very difficult decision, yesterday '

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Today programme 

' We made a very difficult decision, yesterday '

Labour. He was talking about Labour. He’s one of the top lawyers in the country, he was previously talking about the processes, and talking about Labour, then went on to say who made the decision and that he supported it. Mate, there’s cognitive bias then there’s that. 

[sir roger]

Cognitive bias.

The funny thing is that you don't appear to notice it in a lot of your own posts, but never miss it in our Corbynista posts.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Cognitive bias.

The funny thing is that you don't appear to notice it in a lot of your own posts, but never miss it in our Corbynista posts.

Examples? 

[sir roger]

You appear to this observer  to come down on Starmer's side on every situation within the Labour party and that is fair enough, you are of course entitled to your own views, but to suggest you are open-minded when your whole demeanour on this thread is 'Sir Keir's champion ' seems self-delusional.

[Numero Veinticinco]

47 minutes ago, sir roger said:

You appear to this observer  to come down on Starmer's side on every situation within the Labour party and that is fair enough, you are of course entitled to your own views, but to suggest you are open-minded when your whole demeanour on this thread is 'Sir Keir's champion ' seems self-delusional.

So no examples of my cognitive bias then. Just some made up stuff about self-delusion? Fair enough, Rog. You do you.

 

Here's where I really stand: I have long-held (and shared!) political beliefs and a set of standards to which I believe people - especially leaders - should adhere. If Starmer is in line with those views and standards, then I'll praise him. Not because he's my best mate, but because it lines up with what I think it right or factually correct. If he does well in making the Labour Party more electable, then I'll praise him. If somebody says something factually incorrect and uses it to criticise him, I'll pull them up on it if I know different. That said, If there are some facts that show he is done something against my views, I'll criticise him. If somebody praises him for something he hasn't done or isn't responsible for, then I will object. That's not a bias, it's just sensible and rational behaviour. He hasn't done a lot I disagree with yet, so I've not had a lot to criticise him on. There have been some, but it's been rare. That'll almost certainly change over the longer term, especially if he becomes PM.

 

I was accused of the the same with Corbyn, by the way. Stronts once called me out for being a defender of Corbyn, when I was just defending what I saw as objective reality. If somebody goes out of their way, with poor rationale, selective use of facts, or just uses bad logic to attack something, I'll point out my issue with it. I was doing that with Corbyn. You might see me as a champion of Starmer, but when you look at what this thread has become, it's really just me pushing back against some of the nonsense criticisms. You've got some calling him a right-wing Tory, some saying he is purging the left, some saying he has failed to unite a party in a few months, and you've got people slagging him off for everything he does. I don't care if somebody slags him off, he's not my mate - I just want it to be done with some sort of intellectual rigour. At least some sort of attachment of reality. When I pushed back against what I saw as poorly thought out, dishonest criticism of Corbyn I wasn't doing it because I loved Corbyn, I was doing it because I think it's the right thing to do. When I push back against the poor logic and dishonest criticism of Starmer, I'm not doing it because I love him, I do it because I think it's the right thing to do. 

 

The basis of these criticisms on here isn't fact, it's fiction; it's not logic or reasoning, it's because some people are pissed off their guy got suspended. You literally, near verbatim, parroted a tweet about Starmer's role in the suspension. Why? You didn't do it because you were trying to be fair or objective, you did it because you wanted to land a glove. That's fine, but don't accuse me of cognitive bias without evidence just because I pushed back against that bollocks. If bollocks is the standard, then honesty and consistency probably look a bit weird. Politicians aren't sports teams to be cheered on regardless of logic or fact or reason. I don't support anyone, they work for us and they need to do what I think is acceptable in order to get my vote. For many Corbynites, it has become about 'support'. That's where the cognitive bias comes in. It's why I mentioned it about your post. The fact you said 'Starmer's side' shows how you're seeing it as something very different to me. I'm not on his fuckin' side. I'm on my own side. 

 

You see, calling somebody self-delusional and actually showing it are two different things. You said that it was in 'a lot' of my posts. All you had to do was link four or five examples of my cognitive bias. I do have biases towards my own subjective political beliefs, of course. I want to win an election and Starmer has made a decent start at clawing back the deficit he inherited. If he does stuff that I have an issue with then I'll say so. For example, if it comes out that he interfered with the process in order to get Corbyn kicked from the party for political reasons then I'd actually want him removed from the leadership position and from the Labour party. I'm sure you would too. The problem I have is that when Corbyn and the Leader of the Opposition's office did it, his 'fans' don't feel the same. I feel the same way about it though - it's called consistency. I've not seen a single Corbynite on here give any real criticism over this report, and it shows a disgusting lack of judgement and a serious bias on their part. They're creating a reality of their own creation. It's very Trump-esque. Not in policy, but in behaviour. 

 

Anyway, whatever. Go Starmer go. 

 

 

 

[Brownie]

Starmer is eviscerating BJ right now.

[YorkshireRed]

3 minutes ago, Brownie said:

eviscerating

I had to look that up. He certainly did. 

[Bjornebye]

These weak Tory MP's they wheel out every week to ask the PM soft as fuck questions while they lick his balls is sickening. You just know he has instructed the to do it nd anyone who asks him a difficult question is banished from asking him anything again. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Starmer is eviscerating BJ right now.

I just saw it. By far his best performance at PMQs. I’ve criticised a few of his performances, but this was a mauling. 

[Captain Howdy]

Yeah I’ll echo that, the bit where Johnson was scrambling around like a felled boxer searching for his gumshield after the mask question and Starmer stood up and said “the answers none” was outstanding.

[Anubis]

Listened on the radio. All Johnson could respond with was ‘vaccine!’

 

Particularly liked the PPV provision.

[Jairzinho]

I'd give Eddie Hearn 20 quid to watch Starmer beat the shit out of Johnson.

[Brownie]

37 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Yeah I’ll echo that, the bit where Johnson was scrambling around like a felled boxer searching for his gumshield after the mask question and Starmer stood up and said “the answers none” was outstanding.

That was fucking funny to be fair.

[Sugar Ape]

Absolutely destroyed him. 
 

Starts at two minutes in. 
 

 

[Harry's Lad]

I missed PMQ's but I've just watched the review of it on Sky News.

 

They said that the PM was "bullish" and basically Starmer's approach could be seen as anti business.

 

There was no mention of anything else really, only Starmer criticising Johnson and Sunak about the lack of help for small businesses.

 

I hate the way these 'news' outlets cherry pick what they want so they can push their views at the expense of the truth.

 

 

 

[Brownie]

Sky News reported it as a "spar" between the two. A brutal KO would have been more accurate.