Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

As i said, here come the hounds. No opinion on the questions raised in the clip. Just an attack on me and Jeremy Corbyn. Dear me. Section enjoyed it though. 

 

So the moral is. Don't show  clip of anyone critical of our leader. 

Why are you playing the victim here. You’re allowed to post what you want. People are allowed to reply how they want. Claiming you can’t post something or talking about entirely fabricated ban lists make you look soft. They don’t exist. 

[Jack the Sipper]

6 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

As i said, here come the hounds. No opinion on the questions raised in the clip. Just an attack on me and Jeremy Corbyn. Dear me. Section enjoyed it though. 

 

So the moral is. Don't show  clip of anyone critical of our leader. 

 

Our leader? I've got you down as an 'anyone but Starmer' man, which right now would make you a Sunakite'.

 

 

[Jack the Sipper]

9 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Why are you playing the victim here. You’re allowed to post what you want. People are allowed to reply how they want. Claiming you can’t post something or talking about entirely fabricated ban lists make you look soft. They don’t exist. 

 

He is soft. Overly sensitive, easily riled, gives it out but can't take it back, argues incessantly yet struggles to comprehend arguments. He's out of his depth yet there's no-one here to stick him in the paddling pool and keep a close eye on him.

 

There are times when I almost feel for the guy.

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Nothing wrong with shooting the messenger if the message is their own and it's irrational and inconsistent.

 

 

That’s shooting the message though. I mean, if the messenger is known to be a fraud then I often dismiss the messenger, but each stated thing really needs to be judged on its own merits. Unless Gnasher is the messenger, then you can send him to the Epsom Rifle club for some .22 action. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Jack the Sipper said:

 

He is soft. Overly sensitive, easily riled, gives it out but can't take it back, argues incessantly yet struggles to comprehends arguments. He's put of his depth yet there's no-on here to stick him in the paddling pool and keep a close eye on him.

 

There are times when I almost feel for the guy.

Made me actually laugh. With my actual mouth. Poor Gnash. I’ll do a proper response to Crick’s actual points later, I was up late on a conference call with yanks, so I’m currently in the kitchen trying to make something with a passing resemblance to edible human food. 

[Gnasher]

^ the superstarmi's are getting upset.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Is superstarmi something you came up with yourself or is it somebody’s autocorrect mistake from Twitter. Anyway, don’t shoot us messengers, respond to the point about pretending there’s a banned list. 

[Gnasher]

Back on topic. Cricks right to start questioning what type of PM Starmer will make, especially as he now looks almost certain to win the next election. 

 

In a week where oil companies have posted massive profits and some sections of the NHS are striking for the first time in their history. It's right and reasonable to ask what solutions a Labour government are planning to make in general terms. 

 

[Section_31]

I am genuinely intrigued by the characterisation of Starmer as some kind of establishment stooge. Was he ever a commercial lawyer or an expensive defence barrister in Armani suits? Or was he in fact a public servant who rose to the highest rank he possibly could in that field and has never, ever, had his integrity questioned by anyone - even in a system that's an absolute cesspit of corruption.

 

[Arniepie]

what think which does surprise me is,despite posing a massive threat to the tories,the media,with the exception of beer gate,havent really gone after him?

whether this is to do with the fact that there is very little "dirt" (the advantages of being boring boring)on him, or they think he is someone they can do business with? 

[Jack the Sipper]

 

9 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Back on topic. Cricks right to start questioning what type of PM Starmer will make, especially as he now looks almost certain to win the next election. 

 

In a week where oil companies have posted massive profits and some sections of the NHS are striking for the first time in their history. It's right and reasonable to ask what solutions a Labour government are planning to make in general terms. 

 

 

Could be the best part of two years before an election, and a week's a long time in politics. Plenty of time for your man Rishi to turn things around. 

[Strontium]

9 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Back on topic. Cricks right to start questioning what type of PM Starmer will make, especially as he now looks almost certain to win the next election.

 

Well, just by getting elected as Prime Minister, he'd already be doing better than his immediate three predecessors.

[Section_31]

4 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

what think which does surprise me is,despite posing a massive threat to the tories,the media,with the exception of beer gate,havent really gone after him?

whether this is to do with the fact that there is very little "dirt" (the advantages of being boring boring)on him, or they think he is someone they can do business with? 

 

The last line I suspect.

 

The establishment is jumping ship from right to centre, both here and in the states, after realising the right now largely consists of barmpots.

 

Truss vs markets seemed to belatedly cement that belief, as did people rampaging through Congress dressed as Mr Tumnus.

[Jack the Sipper]

20 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

^ the superstarmi's are getting upset.

Fantasy vs reality:

[Arniepie]

3 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

The last line I suspect.

 

The establishment is jumping ship from right to centre, both here and in the states, after realising the right now largely consists of barmpots.

 

Truss vs markets seemed to belatedly cement that belief, as did people rampaging through Congress dressed as Mr Tumnus.

im not so sure

the telegraph only yesterday was backing up Truss's claims that the financial markets are riven with bolshevism.

It wouldnt surprise me if the likes of murdoch thinks he is someone who he can get onside though.  

 

[Poor Scouser T]

MP's should be boring technocrats who know their brief not good on the telly. This is not  Big Brother. It reflects on us more than them that so many of them are more concerned with image and presentation than doing a good fucking job.

[Arniepie]

1 minute ago, Poor Scouser T said:

MP's should be boring technocrats who know their brief not good on the telly. This is not  Big Brother. It reflects on us more than them that so many of them are more concerned with image and presentation than doing a good fucking job.

that boat has well sailed.

[Poor Scouser T]

Just now, Arniepie said:

that boat has well sailed.

Unfortunately I think you are right.

[Gnasher]

15 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I am genuinely intrigued by the characterisation of Starmer as some kind of establishment stooge. Was he ever a commercial lawyer or an expensive defence barrister in Armani suits? Or was he in fact a public servant who rose to the highest rank he possibly could in that field and has never, ever, had his integrity questioned by anyone - even in a system that's an absolute cesspit of corruption.

 

 

I think it's more of his authoritarian approach as Crick talks about in the clip rather than being some stooge. As Crick says even Blair had a varied cabinet. Short, Cook, Prescott etc.  Starmers seems to detest anyone remotely left wing. 

 

I think we all knew and accepted Starmer would take Labour more to the centre and that's fair enough. Some  though are perturbed at how far right he's gone and how little he's offering to fix the country's problems, especially as he's now almost a shoe in to be PM. 

 

We all want the Tories gone and winning was the first objective so the play it safe and cautious approach is/was fine up to a point but now he seems to be lacking any sort of vision. 

 

Hopefully he'll be more bold once in office, the country needs it. 

[House of Dirk]

He is wasting his questions today, not they would get answered anyway

[Poor Scouser T]

I don't see how you can be defense secretary, then reshuffled to health. I know the staff behind them do the work but I would have thought a reasonable understanding of the department you head is relevant.

 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

5 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Fantasy vs reality:

Guzzling paint on a regular basis will do that. 

[Section_31]

Starmer getting grief for not vocally backing unions is interesting too. 

 

I think the characterisation of unions and union members is out of date.

 

Loads of the people on picket lines at the moment will be middle class. They're paramedics and teachers among others, these aren't blue collar strikes. 

 

Gone are the days of dockers, car factories etc being the rank and file of Labour's supporters and members.

 

Most people aren't into politics, they're not going to remember or base their vote on what starmer says or does right now when it comes to placing their vote.

[Arniepie]

2 minutes ago, Poor Scouser T said:

Unfortunately I think you are right.

tbf you can be  charistmatic and be a sucessfull politician,blair and clinton spring to mind.

you can also have the personality of an empty crisp packet,and rise to the top,raab,braverman,grayling etc.  

[Gnasher]

6 minutes ago, Poor Scouser T said:

MP's should be boring technocrats who know their brief not good on the telly. This is not  Big Brother. It reflects on us more than them that so many of them are more concerned with image and presentation than doing a good fucking job.

 

Boris Johnson used being a useless slob to his advantage. Some in country swallowed it, made him more human, just like us they said.