Keir Starmer

[Manny]

I wouldn't have answered it either - although by not answering it, it doesn't really change anything as it's just a cunt question designed to stir up division in the Labour party and elicit an answer that can be used against him further down the line. No matter what he answers there's a wing of the party that's going to disagree, and that'll just get used against him later.

[Bruce Spanner]

1 hour ago, Arniepie said:

That's literally all he had to say?

Isnt this fella supposed to be hugely intelligent?

That’s what he did say, but not explicitly about Corbyn.

 

Weird line of questioning and being so dogged with it.

 

It sounded stupid on the interviewers part, like he thought it was a gotcha moment, it wasn’t.

 

Starmer should have just said, ‘yes and I’d say that about literally any cunt on the planet would make a better PM than that lying, obese, waste of blood and organs currently in situ, as he’s a useless fucking chancer so far out of his depth you wouldn’t script it as a late 80’s fish out of water film as it’s so absurd. It’s like a shit King Ralph, without the warmth, charm, feel good nature or redemptive arc. Did I mention he’s a fat lying cunt? Next question, Bill, I’ve not got all fucking day’

[Arniepie]

58 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Yeah but then it would have been spun that he is Pro-Corbyn and all the slander that will come with that. Corbyn (because of the lies they told about him) is a key weapon for the Tories. When they're up against it, out comes a Corbyn connection. Look at the headline today in the DM where Priti Patel has labelled the political wing of Hamas as terrorists. The headline is "Corbyn would now face 10 years in jail if he meets with his friend in Hamas" 

Not really as he is saying any labour government is preferable to these shower of cunts..which it is.

It's a cunt of a question but if he isnt aware he is going to asked those type of questions ,he really is clueless.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Arniepie said:

Not really as he is saying any labour government is preferable to these shower of cunts..which it is.

It's a cunt of a question but if he isnt aware he is going to asked those type of questions ,he really is clueless.

Mate thats not how they'd spin it. Starmer is better to distance himself from Corbyn and that includes any discussions about him with journos. 

[Arniepie]

7 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

That’s what he did say, but not explicitly about Corbyn.

 

Weird line of questioning and being so dogged with it.

 

It sounded stupid on the interviewers part, like he thought it was a gotcha moment, it wasn’t.

 

Starmer should have just said, ‘yes and I’d say that about literally any cunt on the planet would make a better PM than that lying, obese, waste of blood and organs currently in situ, as he’s a useless fucking chancer so far out of his depth you wouldn’t script it as a late 80’s fish out of water film as it’s so absurd. It’s like a shit King Ralph, without the warmth, charm, feel good nature or redemptive arc. Did I mention he’s a fat lying cunt? Next question, Bill, I’ve not got all fucking day’

I think rushes rash is spot on.

Any labour government Is preferable to this shower.

A concise answerlike that should prevent any further questions  and would placate labour support plus he is turning it round and making it about labour and not corbyn.

 

[Gnasher]

31 minutes ago, Manny said:

I wouldn't have answered it either - although by not answering it, it doesn't really change anything as it's just a cunt question designed to stir up division in the Labour party and elicit an answer that can be used against him further down the line. No matter what he answers there's a wing of the party that's going to disagree, and that'll just get used against him later.

But it does change things, it changes or in his case enhances perceptions. 

 

He worked under Corbyn for years in the same party as shadow Brexit secretary, its fucking bizarre not to answer especially with a government mired in sleaze and mass Covid deaths.

 

Imagine the same question was put to Mark Drakeford, he'd have hit it out of the park, he'd have punched home the pros of a Labour government for the benefit of the people against a tory government of sleaze and the destruction of democracy, and I'd also guarantee he'd have wooed the youth vote with the emphasis on Labour’s commitment on climate change; it's what a competent politician does, its his job,

 

 

"Climate change campaigner Greta Thunberg backs Welsh Government plans to freeze new road-building projects | ITV News Wales" https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-06-23/climate-change-campaigner-greta-thunberg-backs-welsh-government-plans-to-freeze-new-road-building-projects

[Arniepie]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Mate thats not how they'd spin it. Starmer is better to distance himself from Corbyn and that includes any discussions about him with journos. 

Couse they do.

The overwhelming majority of media in thos country are pro Tory.

Thst shouldnt really come as surprise to him

 

Saw burnham on the news last night and he comes over considerably better.

He speaks with passion and is to the point.

Even.when sterner has them bang to rights, he loses you half way through

 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Arniepie said:

Couse they do.

The overwhelming majority of media in thos country are pro Tory.

Thst shouldnt really come as surprise to him

 

Saw burnham on the news last night and he comes over considerably better.

He speaks with passion and is to the point.

Even.when sterner has them bang to rights, he loses you half way through

 

 I'd prefer Burnham. 

[Gnasher]

Fuck the Daily Mail, put that.im your pipe and set fire to it. Why should anyone be apologetic for support of socialists and socialism? The torys just came out in force to defend an absolute cunt of an MP with his hands in the till for fucks sake. 

 

 

"First Minister Mark Drakeford backs 'radical socialist traditions'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876225/amp/First-Minister-Mark-Drakeford-backs-radical-socialist-traditions.html

[Harry's Lad]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Fuck the Daily Mail, put that.im your pipe and set fire to it. Why should anyone be apologetic for support of socialists and socialism? The torys just came out in force to defend an absolute cunt of an MP with his hands in the till for fucks sake. 

 

 

"First Minister Mark Drakeford backs 'radical socialist traditions'" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8876225/amp/First-Minister-Mark-Drakeford-backs-radical-socialist-traditions.html

I wish Drakeford was leader of the Labour Party, not Welsh Labour.

Proper leader.

[Rushies tash]

1 minute ago, Harry's Lad said:

I wish Drakeford was leader of the Labour Party, not Welsh Labour.

Proper leader.

If he's even remotely left wing, then he's got no chance.

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

If he's even remotely left wing, then he's got no chance.

Lives a mile down the road from me, just over the water from the Millennium stadium.

[Harry's Lad]

Just now, Rushies tash said:

If he's even remotely left wing, then he's got no chance.

He doesn't carry the same baggage Corbyn did and Corbyn did well in the Election against May. It was the Brexit thing that cost in the 2019 election, that and the Tory dirty campaign against him and the fact he didn't assert himself.

Drakeford I believe would do far better.

[Rushies tash]

6 minutes ago, Harry's Lad said:

He doesn't carry the same baggage Corbyn did and Corbyn did well in the Election against May. It was the Brexit thing that cost in the 2019 election, that and the Tory dirty campaign against him and the fact he didn't assert himself.

Drakeford I believe would do far better.

I wish that were the case. Corbyn may have had baggage, but I believe anyone from the left would have had the same treatment (much like Michael Foot did). A socialist Labour party isn't going to be allowed anywhere near government in this country anytime soon.

[Bjornebye]

10 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Lives a mile down the road from me, just over the water from the Millennium stadium.

Just visiting West Derby last week were you? 

[Arniepie]

Drakefird is very impressive but I think any labour leader with a centre left agenda will get savaged.

Corbyns problem wasnt his baggage but he wanted to change things..taxing the well off for example. 

If he would have got in things would have changed.

That's why starmer Is getting an easy ride as he isnt looking for huge changes. Maybe it's just a big ruse and he will turn out to be this huge socialist if he gets in,but I cant see it.

However the main problem is an electorate who think because you.went to Eton,you can govern the country.

[Gnasher]

14 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Just visiting West Derby last week were you? 

Indeed, ok with you? 

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

Drakefird is very impressive but I think any labour leader with a centre left agenda will get savaged.

Corbyns problem wasnt his baggage but he wanted to change things..taxing the well off for example. 

If he would have got in things would have changed.

That's why starmer Is getting an easy ride as he isnt looking for huge changes. Maybe it's just a big ruse and he will turn out to be this huge socialist if he gets in,but I cant see it.

However the main problem is an electorate who think because you.went to Eton,you can govern the country.

 

Erm, yes it was. Voters when surveyed repeatedly said they liked Labour's policies but they didn't like Labour's leader.

[Gnasher]

15 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Just visiting West Derby last week were you? 

Indeed, ok with you? 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Gnasher said:

Indeed, ok with you? 

I couldn't give a flying fuck

Just now, Gnasher said:

Indeed, ok with you? 

I still couldn't give a flying fuck 

[Mudface]

25 minutes ago, Harry's Lad said:

He doesn't carry the same baggage Corbyn did and Corbyn did well in the Election against May. It was the Brexit thing that cost in the 2019 election, that and the Tory dirty campaign against him and the fact he didn't assert himself.

Drakeford I believe would do far better.

Hmm, I dunno- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45600558

 

I know it's not strictly anything to do with him, but he'd be savaged on the national stage.

[Rushies tash]

16 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Erm, yes it was. Voters when surveyed repeatedly said they liked Labour's policies but they didn't like Labour's leader.

Was this before or after he was savaged by the press? Because I doubt anyone actually knew who he was before he was elected leader.

[Arniepie]

7 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

Was this before or after he was savaged by the press? Because I doubt anyone actually knew who he was before he was elected leader.

Tbf I'm not sure I'd vote for a pacifist racist terrorist sympathiser who wore poppies which were too small and didnt bow properly to the queen.

 

Scum.

Sub human scum

 

[Strontium]

5 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

Was this before or after he was savaged by the press? Because I doubt anyone actually knew who he was before he was elected leader.

 

Right up to the 2019 election, Labour policies were always much more popular than its leader. Although of course by 2019, Brexit was overriding everything else.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Manny said:

I wouldn't have answered it either - although by not answering it, it doesn't really change anything as it's just a cunt question designed to stir up division in the Labour party and elicit an answer that can be used against him further down the line. No matter what he answers there's a wing of the party that's going to disagree, and that'll just get used against him later.

In fairness to Starmer, I don't know how he reacted to the question: he may have gone down the line of "it would be hard for anyone to be worse, because..." 

 

Also in fairness to Starmer, he made this rod for his own back by his fuckwitted decision to remove the whip from Corbyn.