Keir Starmer

[Strontium]

Starmer wants to win the next election and be the Prime Minister. That means being Prime Minister for everyone, including people who read The Sun. Three in every 10 Sun readers who voted in the 2017 general election voted for Corbyn's Labour, and that is not an insignificant number of people.

 

There's a common misconception - I'm being kind calling it that, because there's every reason to think it's actually a politically-motivated twisting of the truth - that Starmer said he'd never give an interview to The Sun. What he actually said was that he wouldn't give them an interview during his leadership campaign. Nothing whatsoever about not giving them an interview ever.

[Jairzinho]

3 hours ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

I guess we need more millionaires with the same fire in their belly as she has.

 

I'm no Starmer fan but I can absolutely see the need to use that rag to get messages across. Like it or lump it it's still a powerful outlet aimed at knuckle-draggers, and it was knuckle-draggers wot made the last election good for the Tories.

Use it to get in power, stick Murdoch in a gulag, shut down the paper, throw all their "writers" on a bonfire.

 

 

[ZonkoVille77]

1 hour ago, Jairzinho said:

Use it to get in power, stick Murdoch in a gulag, shut down the paper, throw all their "writers" on a bonfire.

 

 

 

I would be well on board with this.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, torahboy said:

'Put' of interest, yes I did.

 

It exposes what an amateur and malicious bunch of journalists attacked the woman. I suppose some would suggest that the unproven complaints of breaching some latter IPSO clauses substantiates some of the JC assertions, yet the major journalistic crime of breachinng clause 1 (Accuracy) was proven. Facts, although they may be an obstacle to destroying an individual's character, do matter. The Jewish Chronicle in its zealous campaign against Corbyn and his supporters appear to have forgotten that .... er .... fact.  

Ick. 

[torahboy]

12 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

 

12 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

Ick. 

You asked.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, torahboy said:

You asked.

I did, the interpretation is, erm, interesting. 

[torahboy]

There you go.

[Jack the Sipper]

As much as some on here (as with the wider left) like to portray Blair as a war criminal somewhere to the right of Hitler and a massive missed opportunity, do they really believe there was no difference between his government and the Tory governments that came before and after it? For all the things we can moan about him not achieving, do none of them recognise that for the first time (and the last time) in a generation the public services were properly funded, the average working man saw real terms increases in his pay packet, and society wasn't tearing itself apart, encouraged by the government. 

 

And you know what? Blair got into power and put the Tories into opposition for the whole time he was in politics partly through appeasing the likes of Murdoch and, yes, writing articles for The Sun in a bid to reach its not insubstantial readership.

 

Yet here we have Starmer, a Labour leader who is, in some respects at least, very much like Blair, getting pelters for being, well, like Blair, not left wing enough, not wedded to ideological dogma, not telling the Tories to fuck off at every opportunity, and for, yes, writing for the Sun. Did Blair do deals with Murdoch? Most likely. Was it worth it? I think so.

 

I get that Starmer might not be be everyone's ideal Labour leader (he's not mine either), but to believe or pretend that he's just another red Tory and that his government would be no different from what we've suffered for the past 12 years is fucking ridiculous. The first chance in years to rid the country of these cunts, and some on the left are consumed with #StarmerOut because he's not left wing enough, or left wing at all. And because, let's be honest, he kicked Corbyn out the party. 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Quote

 

Labour would fix 'broken' water and energy markets through regulation - Starmer

 

Keir Starmer has said a Labour government would fix “broken” water and energy markets through regulation before nationalising the railways because of ballooning post-pandemic debt.

The Labour leader distanced himself from his own pledge when he was running for the party’s leadership in 2019 to support “common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water”.

He told BBC Breakfast:

"We’ve got to recognise that after the pandemic we’re in a different situation financially to the situation that we were in before, and we want a responsible government that says if we’re going to do something we will tell you how we’re going to pay for it.

The single most important thing is how we grow the economy, re-energise the economy, and that can’t be reduced to a discussion about nationalisation"

Starmer stressed his “pragmatic” approach, saying that for most utilities “the answer is going to lie in regulating the market, changing the market, rather than simply taking things into public ownership”.

However, he said Labour would stick to plans to nationalise the railways if it won the next election.

 

Source: Guardian live blog. 

 

So nationalise rail, fix water and energy because the situation has changed. That does seem pragmatic. Obviously some will read 'heil Satan and Hitler's Tory lovechild', but it's a start. 

[Harry's Lad]

25 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

As much as some on here (as with the wider left) like to portray Blair as a war criminal somewhere to the right of Hitler and a massive missed opportunity, do they really believe there was no difference between his government and the Tory governments that came before and after it? For all the things we can moan about him not achieving, do none of them recognise that for the first time (and the last time) in a generation the public services were properly funded, the average working man saw real terms increases in his pay packet, and society wasn't tearing itself apart, encouraged by the government. 

 

And you know what? Blair got into power and put the Tories into opposition for the whole time he was in politics partly through appeasing the likes of Murdoch and, yes, writing articles for The Sun in a bid to reach its not insubstantial readership.

 

Yet here we have Starmer, a Labour leader who is, in some respects at least, very much like Blair, getting pelters for being, well, like Blair, not left wing enough, not wedded to ideological dogma, not telling the Tories to fuck off at every opportunity, and for, yes, writing for the Sun. Did Blair do deals with Murdoch? Most likely. Was it worth it? I think so.

 

I get that Starmer might not be be everyone's ideal Labour leader (he's not mine either), but to believe or pretend that he's just another red Tory and that his government would be no different from what we've suffered for the past 12 years is fucking ridiculous. The first chance in years to rid the country of these cunts, and some on the left are consumed with #StarmerOut because he's not left wing enough, or left wing at all. And because, let's be honest, he kicked Corbyn out the party. 

 

 

 

I don't agree with some of the things he's done, dropping the 10 pledges for example and I hate the fact he's writing for the rag for the reasons I've stated.

I won't change my opinion on that.

But I do believe he's more Prime Ministerial and the best chance we have of booting the Tories out we have at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Creator Supreme]

1 hour ago, Jack the Sipper said:

As much as some on here (as with the wider left) like to portray Blair as a war criminal somewhere to the right of Hitler and a massive missed opportunity, do they really believe there was no difference between his government and the Tory governments that came before and after it? For all the things we can moan about him not achieving, do none of them recognise that for the first time (and the last time) in a generation the public services were properly funded, the average working man saw real terms increases in his pay packet, and society wasn't tearing itself apart, encouraged by the government. 

 

And you know what? Blair got into power and put the Tories into opposition for the whole time he was in politics partly through appeasing the likes of Murdoch and, yes, writing articles for The Sun in a bid to reach its not insubstantial readership.

 

Yet here we have Starmer, a Labour leader who is, in some respects at least, very much like Blair, getting pelters for being, well, like Blair, not left wing enough, not wedded to ideological dogma, not telling the Tories to fuck off at every opportunity, and for, yes, writing for the Sun. Did Blair do deals with Murdoch? Most likely. Was it worth it? I think so.

 

I get that Starmer might not be be everyone's ideal Labour leader (he's not mine either), but to believe or pretend that he's just another red Tory and that his government would be no different from what we've suffered for the past 12 years is fucking ridiculous. The first chance in years to rid the country of these cunts, and some on the left are consumed with #StarmerOut because he's not left wing enough, or left wing at all. And because, let's be honest, he kicked Corbyn out the party. 

 

 

I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. Yes I won't deny that things were better under Blair Labour than under the Tories, that's a given.

 

But he swung further and further right as time went on, and he made good on Thatcher's comment that her greatest achievement was New Labour.

 

He basically tried to remove Social Democracy from the Labour movement and he pretty much succeeded.

 

Labour, as has been stated many times by those beloved of Blair, especially in the Corbyn years, is meant to be a broad church, but there was no place for the left under his charge. Just as I'm sure those on the centre and right will say the same thing (incorrectly IMHO) about the Centre and Right under Corbyn.

 

To me, Blair remains a disappointing missed opportunity for this country, and one of the main reasons why I'm a member of the Green Party and not the Labour Party today!

[Jairzinho]

1 hour ago, Jack the Sipper said:

As much as some on here (as with the wider left) like to portray Blair as a war criminal somewhere to the right of Hitler and a massive missed opportunity, do they really believe there was no difference between his government and the Tory governments that came before and after it?

How many people on here have portrayed Blair as to the left of Hitler?

 

Or even said their was no difference between his government and Tory governments?

[sir roger]

Nobody, basically.

[Numero Veinticinco]

To be fair, I say he’s left of Hitler all the time. 

 

[cloggypop]

4 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

Use it to get in power, stick Murdoch in a gulag, shut down the paper, throw all their "writers" on a bonfire.

 

 

And their head of strategy. 

[Jack the Sipper]

1 hour ago, Harry's Lad said:

 

I don't agree with some of the things he's done, dropping the 10 pledges for example and I hate the fact he's writing for the rag for the reasons I've stated.

I won't change my opinion on that.

But I do believe he's more Prime Ministerial and the best chance we have of booting the Tories out we have at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's fair enough, I can't argue against any of that.

1 hour ago, Creator Supreme said:

I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. Yes I won't deny that things were better under Blair Labour than under the Tories, that's a given.

 

But he swung further and further right as time went on, and he made good on Thatcher's comment that her greatest achievement was New Labour.

 

He basically tried to remove Social Democracy from the Labour movement and he pretty much succeeded.

 

Labour, as has been stated many times by those beloved of Blair, especially in the Corbyn years, is meant to be a broad church, but there was no place for the left under his charge. Just as I'm sure those on the centre and right will say the same thing (incorrectly IMHO) about the Centre and Right under Corbyn.

 

To me, Blair remains a disappointing missed opportunity for this country, and one of the main reasons why I'm a member of the Green Party and not the Labour Party today!

I don't think anyone, least of all Blair, would ever call him a leftist, so he was bound to disappoint those who wanted a leftist government, who would obviously see his reign as a missed opportunity to do the sort of things they wanted. The question that these people should ask themselves, both then and now, is would a leftist government (as the country at large would have it) ever get elected in the first place. They would say yes, I would say unlikely, hence the constant tug-of-war among the opposition over how to defeat the Tories and to what ends.

 

And I'm not sure if I would agree that his government became more right wing as he went on though. After his first win him and Brown kept a tight hold on the finances ('the prudent chancellor', anyone?), which annoyed a lot of the left. it was only after the second win and a strong economy that they really loosened the purse strings and poured money into the public sector, although by then the left had Iraq as a stick to beat him with.

1 hour ago, Jairzinho said:

How many people on here have portrayed Blair as to the left of Hitler?

 

Or even said their was no difference between his government and Tory governments?

 

Hands up, I was being slightly hyperbolic when I said that people on here portray Blair as to the right of Hitler (or the left for that matter...), to make a broader point about how he is seen, along with his less charismatic heir apparent, Starmer, as Tory lite, a product of Thatcher, right wing and so on. 

 

Now, without me pointing fingers, you really don't need to look to far to see comments along those lines on here. And you'll find much more brutal analysis of both of them on the Twattersphere right now.

[Anubis]

This is quite funny. 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

 

Full appearance of Eddie Dempsey (I know others have shown clips). 

 

I don't know if the presenter was just genuinely thick as shit or was under instruction to constantly push the Daily Mail view. 

[Creator Supreme]

32 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

Full appearance of Eddie Dempsey (I know others have shown clips). 

 

I don't know if the presenter was just genuinely thick as shit or was under instruction to constantly push the Daily Mail view. 

She works for ITN / Channel 5 news, and has also worked for Talktv apparently. Just another sensationalist sack of shit trying to make a name for herself!

[Captain Turdseye]

1 hour ago, Jairzinho said:

 

Full appearance of Eddie Dempsey (I know others have shown clips). 

 

I don't know if the presenter was just genuinely thick as shit or was under instruction to constantly push the Daily Mail view. 

I’ve been putting off posting this because Gnasher will end up sharing it 25 times, but it’s interesting to hear him here. 
 

 

I watched that and wished I could go back and change my vote to Leave. 

[Kevin D]

[sir roger]

Starmer is a complete shithouse.

 

He is in his element hiding behind the ' Tories are shit, if I don't do or say anything maybe people won't realise how shit I am ' bollocks, as he has nothing to offer.

 

[Gnasher]

20 hours ago, Captain Turdseye said:

I’ve been putting off posting this because Gnasher will end up sharing it 25 times, but it’s interesting to hear him here. 
 

 

I watched that and wished I could go back and change my vote to Leave. 

That's excellent from Dempsey there. 

[Chip Butty]

6 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Starmer is a complete shithouse.

 

He is in his element hiding behind the ' Tories are shit, if I don't do or say anything maybe people won't realise how shit I am ' bollocks, as he has nothing to offer.

 

If he can’t stomach the views and opinions of its members, then don’t fucking represent them! 

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

No pulling punches with that statement.