Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Keir Starmer


rb14
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

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

 

Yeah, that's why before I said maybe it's a waiting game until more creditable charges are made.

 

They can use the 'We did this in the public good' excuse at the minute, but some of the other dodgier contracts will prove much more difficult to shake off, especially when the full extent of the 'VIP pathway' are fully exposed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

Fuck me, I wish this post wasn't so fucking true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

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

Obviously, none of us go scouring court papers and few (if any) of us have the knowledge to fully understand them if we did. But we have read the reports of the legal breach and they are damning enough in their own right; taken together with the work the Good Law Project have been doing to expose corruption on a huge scale, it paints a picture of a gang of thieves stuffing their pockets under cover of 120,000 deaths. I would like to see a Labour leader get angry at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Obviously, none of us go scouring court papers and few (if any) of us have the knowledge to fully understand them if we did. But we have read the reports of the legal breach and they are damning enough in their own right; taken together with the work the Good Law Project have been doing to expose corruption on a huge scale, it paints a picture of a gang of thieves stuffing their pockets under cover of 120,000 deaths. I would like to see a Labour leader get angry at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

 

100% This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the labour party was a Council, Starmer would make a better chief exec than he would a council leader, if that makes sense.

 

I.e, I reckon he's capable of turning the party into an organisation more capable of doing what needs to be done to win an election, but with a pen and a whiteboard, rather than by rallying the troops.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

If the labour party was a Council, Starmer would make a better chief exec than he would a council leader, if that makes sense.

 

I.e, I reckon he's capable of turning the party into an organisation more capable of doing what needs to be done to win an election, but with a pen and a whiteboard, rather than by rallying the troops.

I think Starmer will find it almost impossible to win an election without the troops. I think the downturn in his popularity since the needless suspension of Corbyn tells it's own story, ironically its him who seems to now be under forensic examination rather than his enemies. I hope he realises his war on the left was needless and he changes tack because with Johnson about to unfairly claim the plaudits for the country being released from lockdown things could get very sticky for the labour leader this summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Obviously, none of us go scouring court papers and few (if any) of us have the knowledge to fully understand them if we did. But we have read the reports of the legal breach and they are damning enough in their own right; taken together with the work the Good Law Project have been doing to expose corruption on a huge scale, it paints a picture of a gang of thieves stuffing their pockets under cover of 120,000 deaths. I would like to see a Labour leader get angry at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

 

 

Reeves and Raynor have been flogging this for a couple of weeks, as have others, and even Starmer has used it in PMQ's and interviews, so I think that's what was so strange this morning.

 

The distinction between Illegal and not complying with the law, or acting unlawfully, is where the issue is and maybe they're just waiting until there is real proof of criminality or collusion, because all they have on Hancock at the minute is that he hasn't got the paper work through in time.

 

There's more to come, as we all know, then there's a point where you don't ask for a resignation, you demand it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

I can’t quite put my finger on why but I find Keir Starmer’s voice really irritating. It’s enough to have me reaching for the remote.

Absolutely.  It shouldn't be, of course, but his voice and speech pattern is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Obviously, none of us go scouring court papers and few (if any) of us have the knowledge to fully understand them if we did. But we have read the reports of the legal breach and they are damning enough in their own right; taken together with the work the Good Law Project have been doing to expose corruption on a huge scale, it paints a picture of a gang of thieves stuffing their pockets under cover of 120,000 deaths. I would like to see a Labour leader get angry at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

 

So there’s no point kicking off now, over the failure to publish the contracts.  Wait till the meaty evidence of cronyism to emerge and then nail the cunts.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

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

Yes. Govt. actions are  summarised as a series of timing breaches committed at a time of national crisis, no deliberate attempt to subvert the law, all put right a couple of weeks later, nobody suffered to any great extent, no relief necessary except a declaration the govt. could have done better.

Lovely tittle tattle for the media but if anyone's looking for a smoking gun I suggest this particular judgement is not the place. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Moanero said:

I can’t quite put my finger on why but I find Keir Starmer’s voice really irritating. It’s enough to have me reaching for the remote.

 

1 hour ago, Moo said:

Absolutely.  It shouldn't be, of course, but his voice and speech pattern is a problem.

I think that's true of a lot of recent and current party leaders: for different reasons, their voices and mannerisms annoy me, regardless of whether I agree with what they're saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "don't mention the Brexit" shit is way more of an issue than not calling for Hancock's resignation. 

 

As people have mentioned, there's probably more to come re: the procurement of PPE contracts. And, there's the risk that people could twist anything Starmer said into a "what's he like, calling for the health secretary's resignation when there's a pandemic? Why's he playing politics when people are dying?" type criticism. 

 

But, the Brexit stuff is a big two fingers up to anybody who is suffering from the fall-out from Brexit. An implied, silent message to just get on with it and tough shit as the really important issue (for some) is to instead avoid doing anything that might make Starmer look bad to the "red wall" lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I think the "don't mention the Brexit" shit is way more of an issue than not calling for Hancock's resignation. 

 

As people have mentioned, there's probably more to come re: the procurement of PPE contracts. And, there's the risk that people could twist anything Starmer said into a "what's he like, calling for the health secretary's resignation when there's a pandemic? Why's he playing politics when people are dying?" type criticism. 

 

But, the Brexit stuff is a big two fingers up to anybody who is suffering from the fall-out from Brexit. An implied, silent message to just get on with it and tough shit as the really important issue (for some) is to instead avoid doing anything that might make Starmer look bad to the "red wall" lot. 

You can deal with the fallout and mis handling of brexit but Starmer knows if he so much as hints at reversing our withdrawal from Europe Labour are finished in the north, it'll be a lose like Scotland, they'd be toast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disappointed in Starmer here. Surely he can't believe what he's saying about crime involved in illegal cannabis being a reason to keep it illegal? I want the guy to succeed but I can't help but feel he's wedded to the notion of appealing to the ignorant Mail reading over 60s as a means of improving his standing, and to fuck with anything resembling logic. Even people on the right are starting to realise legalisation is the way forward. He's so far behind the curve on this it hurts.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Disappointed in Starmer here. Surely he can't believe what he's saying about crime involved in illegal cannabis being a reason to keep it illegal? I want the guy to succeed but I can't help but feel he's wedded to the notion of appealing to the ignorant Mail reading over 60s as a means of improving his standing, and to fuck with anything resembling logic. Even people on the right are starting to realise legalisation is the way forward. He's so far behind the curve on this it hurts.

 

 

I think the view is that decriminalisation is about removing the criminalisation of users, but the supply chain would mainly still be largely through illegal supply chains.  She doesn't ask about legalisation, which could offer more of a threat to organised criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...