Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

35 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I know mate, I’m really asking what that looks like. Is it being more aggressive at the dispatch box, is it rallies calling him a cunt, is it people

on morning tv calling him a cunt. What actually is it that he’s not doing at this point that should be done.

 

For me, it’s way easier to say ‘hold him to account’ than it is holding him to account with an 80 seat majority. We are in a position where somebody who was incredibly popular, trounced Labourcin the elections, has been ripped apart over partygate and shown to be a liar multiple

times, but his party wouldn’t remove him. How, other than jump over the dispatch box and repeatedly smashing him the face - and I want to be clear, I wouldn’t be against this - do you actually do to hold him to account. If it’s ‘be a bit more shouty’ then I dunno, there’s not much going to come from it. I’m basically asking what actions you want him to take. 

Your man's finished Numero, get over it.

[skend04]

15 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Your man's finished Numero, get over it.

You'd have made a perfect leave voter in 2016 with in depth musings like this.

[Gnasher]

On 15/06/2022 at 21:01, Bruce Spanner said:

Yes, and it’s ‘good’ politics.

 

But it wasn't good politics, it was the opposite of good politics. The reaction tells its own story. It didn't hurt Johnson one bit, it hurt the Labour Party.

 

The Tories hardened slightly yesterday across almost all bookmakers and Labour drifted. 

 

 

On 15/06/2022 at 21:01, Bruce Spanner said:

Its flogging dead horses all over the shop.

 

The ‘red wall’ rejected Corbyn, the Tories hate him, it’ll be all over the press tonight about how Starmer, using the words of actual Tories, compared Johnson to Corbyn legitimately.

It was ham fisted, but the point was made and seeds of doubt sown.

 

I agree it was ham fisted.

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, skend04 said:

You'd have made a perfect leave voter in 2016 with in depth musings like this.

Do you look at every aspect of life through the prism of Brexit? How sad. 

 

I think Starmer is finished, shot himself in the foot. Looks like he's lost his own front bench, lost elements of the guardian, his polling is very so so and the left despise him more than ever. Sorry.

[Numero Veinticinco]

24 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Your man's finished Numero, get over it.

You're not over your man, and he was finished long ago. All this 'he's finished' talk comes because he mentioned the bearded one. Grow up. 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You're not over your man, and he was finished long ago. 

I thought Corbyn should have stepped down in the last year, everybody could see the game was up.

[skend04]

Just now, Gnasher said:

Do you look at every aspect of life through the prism of Brexit? How sad. 

 

I think Starmer is finished, shot himself in the foot. Looks like he's lost his own front bench, lost elements of the guardian, his polling is very so so and the left despise him more than ever. Sorry.

Nope. I'm just taking the piss because you seem to have taken the Captain Corbyn quip particularly to heart. He's gone, get over it. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

I thought Corbyn should have stepped down in the last year, everybody could see the game was up.

Well, not everyone Gnasher. Not everyone. I think even Corbyn saw it, but his band of dickheads - which are way, way worse than Corbyn, who is basically a tool for other people - pushed anyway. Say what you want about Starmer, but he is leader of the remnants of that era. I don't have sympathy; he chose this and knew full well. He is also just in charge of a toothless party, with fewer MPs to chose from for his shadow cabinet, and the party was deeply divided and in financial trouble even before he took over. Has he made it worse, in some areas yes and in some no. It's where he goes from here that'll define him. If he gets into power in a coalition, then much like Cameron - who was feckless for much of his opposition - it'll be forgotten. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Where's this 'lost his own front bench' talk coming from, anyway?

[Gnasher]

7 hours ago, Harry's Lad said:

You're right about Bercow, Hoyle has been absolute dogshit as speaker, certainly the worst one I can remember. I just feel that this softly softly approach is letting Johnson off the hook.

 

If ever there was a need for a strong opposition it's now but we just don't have one.

I dropped a bollock voting for Starmer in the leadership election,

 

 

He was the only game in town Harry. He was the most gifted candidate by a country mile. Looking at the alternatives he probably still is. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Harry's Lad said:

to say he's been disappointing is an understatement.

We need someone who will fight fire with fire and perhaps then People might have a bit more confidence in Labour's ability to govern.

 

Labour might be ahead in the polls just now but I'm concerned that lead will be eroded unless there is a more aggressive style of opposition to make an electorate gullible enough to buy Johnson's bullshit sit up and take notice.

 

 

 

In my opinion his main mistake was not trying to unite the party. I think if he had at least tried most would have overlooked the shortcomings and got behind him. 

 

You only have to look at the reaction to the Corbyn quip yesterday, disastrous but so predictable. I do wonder who's advising him?  Starmer needs a Captain Wilson from dad's army to whisper in his ear "do you think that's wise, sir? every now and then. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Everything I've seen outside of twitter thought that Corbyn quip and the one about Jabba the Hutt were hilarious. Twitter have gone postal, so if that's all you look at then it probably does seem like the world is against him. Twitter is not the world, thankfully. 

[Gnasher]

15 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Where's this 'lost his own front bench' talk coming from, anyway?

 

The boring leaks to the press, Streeting blowing his own trumpet. 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Everything I've seen outside of twitter thought that Corbyn quip and the one about Jabba the Hutt were hilarious. Twitter have gone postal, so if that's all you look at then it probably does seem like the world is against him. Twitter is not the world, thankfully. 

Its not just "twitter" though is it? Guardian columnists and ex shadow chancellors are not "twitter". They use twitter as a vehicle.

 

I think "hilarious" is over egging it but I also thought the rest was fine. Mentioning Corbyn was always going to blow all the good work out the water though, and it did.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Its not just "twitter" though is it? Guardian columnists and ex shadow chancellors are not "twitter". They use twitter as a vehicle.

 

I think "hilarious" is over egging it but I also thought the rest was fine. Mentioning Corbyn was always going to blow all the good work out the water though, and it did.

It did for a certain group of people. It didn't for 1) people who can think and understand English 2) don't like or worship Him, which is quite a few. Sure, there are some who think it shouldn't have happened, most are looking to land blows. Was the former shadow chancellor John McDonnell? I mean, he's more Corbyn than Corbyn is. I would be surprised if he whooped at it. 

[Section_31]

Unless there's a serious, concerted effort to undermine the influence of Murdock and The Mail nothing much will change. It should be priority number one. Instead of being placated they need to be confronted head on, using their own methods if necessary to target and highlight the shenanigans of their owners and top staff, there's an appetite for that now among the very feral 'msm' haters they've helped create. Led by donkeys is on the right lines as is stop funding hate, but a more concerted and professionalised effor is required.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Unless there's a serious, concerted effort to undermine the influence of Murdock and The Mail nothing much will change. It should be priority number one. Instead of being placated they need to be confronted head on, using their own methods if necessary to target and highlight the shenanigans of their owners and top staff, there's an appetite for that now among the very feral 'msm' haters they've helped create. Led by donkeys is on the right lines as is stop funding hate, but a more concerted and professionalised effor is required.

They're going to have to placate them to get in, then they need to destroy it. In fact, they should join with our allies in the US and Australia to just sink that fucking ship. The priority is getting PR. If we can't get PR, nothin' gon' change. 

[Gnasher]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

It did for a certain group of people. It didn't for 1) people who can think and understand English 2) don't like or worship Him, which is quite a few. 

 

1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

Unless there's a serious, concerted effort to undermine the influence of Murdock and The Mail nothing much will change. It should be priority number one. Instead of being placated they need to be confronted head on, using their own methods if necessary to target and highlight the shenanigans of their owners and top staff, there's an appetite for that now among the very feral 'msm' haters they've helped create. Led by donkeys is on the right lines as is stop funding hate, but a more concerted and professionalised effor is required.

Didn't the New Zealand PM ban all of Murdochs media outlets? I might be wrong on that but I thought I heard it somewhere.

[Captain Willard]

There are a lot of rumours at Westminster tthat he is going to get fined re Durham and will resign soon. As will Rayner. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

 

Didn't the New Zealand PM ban all of Murdochs media outlets? I might be wrong on that but I thought I heard it somewhere.

Was BS apparently. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-nz-pm-idUSL2N2W41Q9

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Captain Willard said:

There are a lot of rumours at Westminster tthat he is going to get fined re Durham and will resign soon. As will Rayner. 

Ah, interesting. How will they know that? I mean, the questionnaire wasn't even returned as of yesterday. Do the rumourmongers know the outcome of a police case were all the evidence hasn't been handed back, or do they know of police corruption?

[Harry's Lad]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I know mate, I’m really asking what that looks like. Is it being more aggressive at the dispatch box, is it rallies calling him a cunt, is it people

on morning tv calling him a cunt. What actually is it that he’s not doing at this point that should be done.

 

For me, it’s way easier to say ‘hold him to account’ than it is holding him to account with an 80 seat majority. We are in a position where somebody who was incredibly popular, trounced Labourcin the elections, has been ripped apart over partygate and shown to be a liar multiple

times, but his party wouldn’t remove him. How, other than jump over the dispatch box and repeatedly smashing him the face - and I want to be clear, I wouldn’t be against this - do you actually do to hold him to account. If it’s ‘be a bit more shouty’ then I dunno, there’s not much going to come from it. I’m basically asking what actions you want him to take. 

You saw Cooper destroy Patel? That's what I want Starmer to do to Johnson. It's not that he hasn't got the intelligence to do it, he obviously has and there have been  times when he's pinned Johnson down, but there have been too many times when he hasn't picked up the ammunition and hit home with it, the first PMQ's after the Sue Gray report for example. 

 

I see your point mate and maybe I'm wrong but he's just not dynamic enough for me.

There isn't enough fight.

[Gnasher]

7 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It did for a certain group of people. It didn't for 1) people who can think and understand English 2) don't like or worship Him, which is quite a few. 

I think the people i linked have a perfectly good understanding of English. 

 

You're relying on a technicality. Yes we know he was quoting a tory and wasn't directly laughing at Corbyn himself but it was still bringing up Corbyns name in a negative sense. No need, especially considering the timing regarding Grenfell. It felt a bit cheap.

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

There are a lot of rumours at Westminster tthat he is going to get fined re Durham and will resign soon. As will Rayner. 

I believe he's only just sent back the questionnaire.

[Gnasher]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Was BS apparently. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-nz-pm-idUSL2N2W41Q9

Ah OK. I stand corrected.

[Creator Supreme]

3 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

I believe he's only just sent back the questionnaire.

If they do get fined and resign they'll have my utmost respect for showing some humility for making a mistake!

 

It's a shame the cuntbastards on the other side of the floor would never follow their example!