Keir Starmer

[Jairzinho]

7 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Sarah Champion, with the bonus that she hates muslamic peado gangs and ‘wet lefties’. 
 

Sarah? A broad?

 

Get the fuck out of here.

[Bruce Spanner]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

Sarah? A broad?

 

Get the fuck out of here.

Yeah, I updated when I realised a womb is also a draw back in a proper leader.

[Jairzinho]

I think Keir should get a Union Jack tat on his neck.

[Duff Man]

5 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

woULd pUSh THe BUTtoN

Worked for Swinson.

[sir roger]

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

Worked for Swinson.

They are still working on a ray that only kills squirrels.

[Moo]

38 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

I think the profile, as a starting point, would need to be -

 

- Was either pro Brexit or said almost fuck all about it.

- Not from London.

- Has no strong opinion on Israel murdering kids or at least hasn't said or done anything publicly.

- White, or if not white at least keeps quiet about their background.

 

 

Lisa Nandy is probably the closest you'll get, not sure she'd want it at the moment though.

[Moo]

54 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

Just imagine if the Democrats went this easy on Trump. 

 

 

 

It says a lot about Starmer this. "Not what the public want to see"?  How about what's morally (and legally?) correct?  He's more concerned with public opinion than doing the right thing, some might argue that's how politics is now but if you accept that then you should accept Starmer is a really bad choice.  He is a really unappealing public speaker and a personality vacuum. He is in danger of alienating both sides, those who see politics as a personality contest and those who see it as a public service performed by someone who has clear opinions and policies and will act on them.  He is a turn off to both sets of people at the moment.

[Jairzinho]

10 minutes ago, Moo said:

Lisa Nandy is probably the closest you'll get, not sure she'd want it at the moment though.

A woman with an Indian mother? 

 

It might as well be a member of Hezbollah. 

[Brownie]

I really don't understand what anyone sees in Starmer. What does he stand for? What are his principles?

 

He just comes across as a posturing politician. We know that's what they all are but they're supposed to give the impression that they're not.

[Gnasher]

18 minutes ago, Moo said:

Lisa Nandy is probably the closest you'll get, not sure she'd want it at the moment though.

Lisa Nandy has only a slightly better chance of becoming the next Prime Minister than me and my chances are not looking that good.

[Moo]

10 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

A woman with an Indian mother? 

 

It might as well be a member of Hezbollah. 

Father I think? I get what you're saying but they seem generally okay with it in Wigan especially when she listened to their feelings on Brexit despite voting against it herself.  She held on in Wigan while red wall bricks fell around her.

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Brownie said:

I really don't understand what anyone sees in Starmer. What does he stand for? What are his principles?

 

He just comes across as a posturing politician. We know that's what they all are but they're supposed to give the impression that they're not.

He looks the part Comes across well. Not easily tainted. Not controversial. Not a threat to the state or the establishment.

[Moo]

6 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Lisa Nandy has only a slightly better chance of becoming the next Prime Minister than me and my chances are not looking that good.

Where does Starmer fit into that chart?

[Jairzinho]

8 minutes ago, Moo said:

Father I think? I get what you're saying but they seem generally okay with it in Wigan especially when she listened to their feelings on Brexit despite voting against it herself.  She held on in Wigan while red wall bricks fell around her.

Yes, lost an enormous amount of votes from 2017 though.

 

Probably held on due to her Brexit stance, as you said. Helped by the Brexit Party splitting the right wing vote (as they did in 2015).

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Yes, lost an enormous amount of votes from 2017 though.

 

Probably held on due to her Brexit stance, as you said. Helped by the Brexit Party splitting the right wing vote (as they did in 2015).

Does the opinion onmurder of children of anywhere else in the Middle East matter?  

[Moo]

8 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Yes, lost an enormous amount of votes from 2017 though.

 

Probably held on due to her Brexit stance, as you said. Helped by the Brexit Party splitting the right wing vote (as they did in 2015).

Exactly, it was ripe for the picking as evidenced elsewhere but she held.  I think that says a lot about her ability and appeal, whether that would translate on a national level is another matter of course.

[magicrat]

31 minutes ago, Moo said:

It says a lot about Starmer this. "Not what the public want to see"?  How about what's morally (and legally?) correct?  He's more concerned with public opinion than doing the right thing, some might argue that's how politics is now but if you accept that then you should accept Starmer is a really bad choice.  He is a really unappealing public speaker and a personality vacuum. He is in danger of alienating both sides, those who see politics as a personality contest and those who see it as a public service performed by someone who has clear opinions and policies and will act on them.  He is a turn off to both sets of people at the moment.

I think this is the lowest point so far where Starmer is concerned . Not laying into Hancock for his criminal behaviour leaves me speechless . There is no one holding these corrupt cunts to account.

[Bruce Spanner]

Just now, magicrat said:

I think this is the lowest point so far where Starmer is concerned . Not laying into Hancock for his criminal behaviour leaves me speechless . There is no one holding these corrupt cunts to account.

 

Really simple to say 'There will be a full inquiry and anybody found guilty of impropriety should face full censure, no exception, no excuses, but now is not the time, we must get rid of this fucking plague first'

 

Calls them out and put them on notice that this isn't being ignored, it's just a matter of time.

 

I was really disapointed by this as well.

 

The focus group and polling thing is crippling him, you can't just pander to them, you need a vision that the groups can react to, it can't always be passive, you need to create the stories and run the narrative at times. It works for the tories as they don't have to be the moral compass as well and can react where they need to, Labour need to be more principled, that's the real bind.

 

 

[Gnasher]

31 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Does the opinion onmurder of children of anywhere else in the Middle East matter?  

 

43 minutes ago, Moo said:

Where does Starmer fit into that chart?

I think he's got a slightly better chance of being pm than Nandy to be honest. It's a very poor pool to choose from.

[Neil G]

56 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I really don't understand what anyone sees in Starmer. What does he stand for? What are his principles?

 

He just comes across as a posturing politician. We know that's what they all are but they're supposed to give the impression that they're not.

I said shortly after he won the leadership that, aside from Brexit, I couldn’t think of a single area of policy that he’d expressed a view on prior to the leadership contest. He hadn’t shown evidence of any clear convictions whatsoever, and that remains the case.

 

Even with Brexit, it’s clear now that his pro-second referendum stance was purely tactical and not borne out of genuine pro-European convictions. If it had been, he would by now at the very least have committed Labour to rejoining the customs union to boost trade and save jobs, and had the courage to sell this to voters. It doesn’t involve free movement, EU regulations or budget contributions, so it shouldn’t be politically controversial. Instead he’s said he won’t change anything about Johnson’s deal, because he’s scared of the reaction from the red wall if he even mentions Brexit.

 

His much publicised policy announcement in the week contained just two concrete proposals: British recovery bonds and start-up loans for businesses. Both perfectly good policies, but won’t even scratch the surface of the problems the country faces.

 

Whatever manifesto Labour come up with in 2024, it’s hard to imagine Starmer promoting it to the voters with any kind of passion or conviction, and that’s going to be a real drawback. His supporters seem to think that a safe hands approach will be enough, but Labour has never won power that way.

[Neil G]

38 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

Really simple to say 'There will be a full inquiry and anybody found guilty of impropriety should face full censure, no exception, no excuses, but now is not the time, we must get rid of this fucking plague first'

 

Calls them out and put them on notice that this isn't being ignored, it's just a matter of time.

 

I was really disapointed by this as well.

 

The focus group and polling thing is crippling him, you can't just pander to them, you need a vision that the groups can react to, it can't always be passive, you need to create the stories and run the narrative at times. It works for the tories as they don't have to be the moral compass as well and can react where they need to, Labour need to be more principled, that's the real bind.

 

 

Not going to change though, is it? This is who Starmer is, he’s purely reactive.

He has no idea how to articulate and sell a vision with conviction and authenticity. His “I hated selling myself to the members” comment about the leadership race was the giveaway.

[Harry's Lad]

Not what the public want to see. Really? Infuckingcredible.

Another open goal for him that he's failed to bear down on.

Show some fucking bollocks man for fucks sake.

 

[Bruce Spanner]

25 minutes ago, Neil G said:

Not going to change though, is it? This is who Starmer is, he’s purely reactive.

He has no idea how to articulate and sell a vision with conviction and authenticity. His “I hated selling myself to the members” comment about the leadership race was the giveaway.

 

I went to the leadership talks of Starmer, Nandy and Long Bailey and he was head and shoulders above the others, he talked convincingly, he hit the high notes in terms of policy and moving forward and he took the heckles from some with good grace and attempted to engage with them properly.

 

This doesn't seem like the same person, this version is being led by optics and numbers and he's losing what was, potentially, good about him, his clear thinking and his commitment to change.

 

His ten pledges are solid, though he's rolling them back which is a red flag, his ability to take Johnson apart is there for all to see every Wednesday, but no one gives a fuck about that. His former career show he's very capable, but where is this being demonstrated? 

 

I have no idea what the fucks wrong with this country anymore, it's an island of vidictive sadists who would rather see their neighbour suffer than themselves prosper and they'll vote for Johnson and his ilk even though they know they're lying fucking crooks with no moral fortitude, so I have no idea what we have to do to win an election.

 

I've said since the start that a coalition would be a good outcome and I still think that's possible, but I don't know if it will be with the ideas I was promised.

[Harry's Lad]

9 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

I went to the leadership talks of Starmer, Nandy and Long Bailey and he was head and shoulders above the others, he talked convincingly, he hit the high notes in terms of policy and moving forward and he took the heckles from some with good grace and attempted to engage with them properly.

 

This doesn't seem like the same person, this version is being led by optics and numbers and he's losing what was, potentially, good about him, his clear thinking and his commitment to change.

 

His ten pledges are solid, though he's rolling them back which is a red flag, his ability to take Johnson apart is there for all to see every Wednesday, but no one gives a fuck about that. His former career show his very capable, but where is this being demonstrated? 

 

I have no idea what the fucks wrong with this country anymore, it's an island of vidictive sadists who would rather see their neighbour suffer than themselves prosper and they'll vote for Johnson and his ilk even though they know they're lying fucking crooks with no moral fortitude, so I have no idea what we have to do to win an election.

 

I've said since the start that a coalition would be a good outcome and I still think that's possible, but I don't know if it will be with the ideas I was promised.

I watched it on the telly and you're right, he was above the other two although Nandy came across quite well I thought. In fact I was thinking it was a pity that she couldn't be deputy.

 

I voted for Starmer but I have to admit to being underwhelmed by his leadership up to this morning, but after that this morning, I think that's a dereliction of duty by an opposition leader.

 

It could be the beginning of the end for him as leader.

 

Shameful.

[Rico1304]

Has anyone on here read the judgment against the government this week?