Keir Starmer

[Kevin D]

3 hours ago, Anubis said:

Not sure what Gnasher has said about Starmer and Dick that’s so controversial. At the time he backed her she’d been involved in, or overseen, several major fuck-ups. She wasn’t fit for purpose.

What is it that leads people to discuss Keir Starmer in a discussion thread entitled “Keir Starmer”?

[Gnasher]

21 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Genuinely mental that starmer is being dragged into this bollocks, absolutely bonkers.

 

He's not being dragged into it. His moral compass and judgement are, they are being questioned, as they should be. The mans probably going to be the next prime minister after all.

 

It's bonkers that people cannot now see he made the wrong call when journalists asked him if supported Cressida Dick after the revelations regarding Sarah Everard.  Sadiq Khan made the right call, the report makes that crystal clear. Both Starmer and Priti Patel got it badly wrong. 

 

Kate Garroway and others were perfectly entitled to ask questions such as the one below, just as the journalists tonight were. It would be bizzare if they didn't. It's all entirely reasonable.

 

 

 

 

[Megadrive Man]

1 hour ago, Jose Jones said:

It's pretty obvious from afar that Starmer's entire tactic is "don't rock the boat" so he will be avoiding espousing any single view that could be seen to be controversial or challenging the status quo from now until election day.

 

 

So it's stop the boats vs don't rock the boat and the next election.

 

Sadly I know which one is more likely to cut through.

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skend04]

57 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This post and the tweets it contains has literally zero to do with Kier Starmer. This is now beyond embarrassing. 

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, skend04 said:

 

This post and the tweets it contains has literally zero to do with Kier Starmer. This is now beyond embarrassing. 

 

Starmer joined Boris Johnson and Priti Patel in backing Cressida Dick as head of the Met. Sadiq Khan had no option but to sack her. The report on the Met has just been released. This report provides another example of the Starmers cowardice and/or lack of judgment. 

[TD_LFC]

It seems ardent Corbyn supporters would rather see the Cons get another 4 years than see Starmer win at the next election.

[House of Dirk]

5 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

It seems ardent Corbyn supporters would rather see the Cons get another 4 years than see Starmer win at the next election.

 

 

Its a common enough trope to throw out

[TD_LFC]

2 minutes ago, House of Dirk said:

 

 

Its a common enough trope to throw out

'

Is it a meritless trope?

[Creator Supreme]

12 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

It seems ardent Corbyn supporters would rather see the Cons get another 4 years than see Starmer win at the next election.

May I refer you to Ian Austin, Stephen Kinnock, John Mann et al in the 2017 election?

 

4 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

'

Is it a meritless trope?

I think it is. Those Non-Conservative voters that dislike Starmer are still most likely to think that the worst Labour government is still miles better than the best Conservative government.

[Gnasher]

15 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

It seems ardent Corbyn supporters would rather see the Cons get another 4 years than see Starmer win at the next election.

 

Yeah that's it, you got it. You got it in one.

 

Nothing about doing the right thing for people such as the woman who were being assulted and raped by Met officers in London.  

 

Sadiq Khan must also be wanting another Tory government. What other possible reason for going against the advice of Keir Starmer when he sacked Cressida Dick.

[skend04]

26 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Yeah that's it, you got it. You got it in one.

 

Nothing about doing the right thing for people such as the woman who were being assulted and raped by Met officers in London.  

 

Sadiq Khan must also be wanting another Tory government. What other possible reason for going against the advice of Keir Starmer when he sacked Cressida Dick.

 

This is what is referred to as gaslighting. A typical Tory trope. It's just strange that it's only an issue when Starmer was asked something a little while back and not whilst the Met and other forces have been racist and rapey for all the time before that.

 

Hmmm. Strange.

[House of Dirk]

30 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

'

Is it a meritless trope?

 

Mostly, yes. There is an element of people who have voiced that they wont vote because of the leadership change, but thats all well and good shouting that on whichever social media you prefer, to make some sort of statement.  What they do come election day whenever it is in the next 18 months or so, is a different story.  

 

I am not behind the current leader at all, and backed the last leader. I joined the party because of the last leader and left within a year of the current one. Its like any change in any management regime. I felt included under one and isolated under the other. I am also in the South East of the country, which is Tory Central all around, with only the LD seat in Amersham (bi-election), and red seat enclaves within 30 miles being Oxford East (also Layla Moran has an Oxford seat), Slough and Luton, so I make diddly squat difference to anything at all.

 

But I dont want the Tories in government, and that means whatever it takes. I will imagine, where I am, it will be tactical voting for the best non Tory outcome, which is as much as I can do.

 

This 'Long Corbyn; thing really needs to stop, and its from all sides of the spectrum, Starmer has made his example and done what he feels he needed to do, and has had his opposition. Its almost three years since Corbyn stepped down as leader, and he is stil lthe bogeyman. I suspect he will be until he retires from front line politics. He is used to cause factions, deliberate or not in the party, which does no good at all. The Tories still have a hardon for Corbyn, despite the nuclear damage done to the country in 13 years. but Im digressing from your question.

 

People have a right to be disappointed, whether justified or not. Corbyn galvanised people in a way Starmer doesnt, in my opinion. I get the impression Starmer doesnt want people 'like me' around the party, so I made it easy for him and went. But whatever my feelings are, my feelings for the Tories, as evidenced in multiple posts here, cannot override my will to get them out at the next election, and I would say most in my position would be of the same countenance.

[Jack the Sipper]

23 hours ago, Section_31 said:

 

You seem to just google 'stories of the day' and try and dig up any comment from Starmer or Rachel Reeves on the subject, then post a link to it if it suits your agenda. 

 

Some of what you say on both of them is spot on, but it's lost amidst all the flotsam. Most of it is totally irrelevant. 

 

He doesn't even get that far. He just fires up Twitter, checks out what his favourite Starmer-hating accounts (from Corbyn's Cultists to Dan Hodges, they're all good) are saying, then lifts their comments (sometimes the whole tweet) and sticks it on here.

14 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

The Met do not operate in Wales, so it's obviously not in Drakefords remit. I don't know regarding Corbyn, however he wasn't opposition leader around the time of the Everard murder.

 

The defence of Starmer on these issues is every bit as ridiculous as those on social media who diligently defend Boris Johnson.

 

Corbyn was, and still is, an MP in a London constituency, a consituency that the Met operates in. To absolve any duty on him to call for her sacking while going after Starmer is just cowardly.

13 hours ago, Anubis said:

Not sure what Gnasher has said about Starmer and Dick that’s so controversial. At the time he backed her she’d been involved in, or overseen, several major fuck-ups. She wasn’t fit for purpose.

 

She has, and Corbyn was a Labour MP throughout all of them, and the leader of the Labour party throughout some of them. When did he call for her to go?

 

I'm not even criticising Corbyn for not calling for her to be sacked. It's a significant thing for a leading politician to do, which is why responsible ones only do it rarely and when it might work. The same with calling for votes of no confidence in the government. It's all about  timing because it's all about politics.

 

 

[TD_LFC]

[House of Dirk]

I mean, we all want the best for us an our living standards dont we ? Its not an unreasonable shout

 

If I could make a comparison to a certain sporting institution that appointed an Owl like figure just before the election and the disaster that was. I am sure we all wanted the best for that sporting institution despite who was at the helm.

[Gnasher]

On 21/03/2023 at 09:10, Section_31 said:

 

You seem to just google 'stories of the day' and try and dig up any comment from Starmer or Rachel Reeves on the subject, then post a link to it if it suits your agenda. 

 

Some of what you say on both of them is spot on, but it's lost amidst all the flotsam. Most of it is totally irrelevant. 

 

Come on now Section.

 

This is hardly "some story of the day" off social media is it? It's probably the most damning report in Police history.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jack the Sipper]

10 hours ago, Kevin D said:

What is it that leads people to discuss Keir Starmer in a discussion thread entitled “Keir Starmer”?

 

Is that how it works? So I can get on the Corbyn thread and make whatever baseless claims I want about him, and tenuously link him to whatever stories I want because I'm talking about Corbyn in a Corbyn thread?

 

Great, I'll keep that in mind.

[TD_LFC]

8 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Is that how it works? So I can get on the Corbyn thread and make whatever baseless claims I want about him, and tenuously link him to whatever stories I want because I'm talking about Corbyn in a Corbyn thread?

 

Not without adequate protection

 

[Gnasher]

^ baseless. 

 

Keir Starmer himself called a press conference last night to answer questions on the Met report.

[Gnasher]

11 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Genuinely mental that starmer is being dragged into this bollocks, absolutely bonkers.

 

Yeah so utterly bonkers both Starmer and his shadow home secretary called a press conference last night to address the report.

 

You're an intelligent fella and you're obviously politically astute but on this issue you've been well wide of the mark Section. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jack the Sipper]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

^ baseless. 

 

Keir Starmer himself called a press conference last night to answer questions on the Met report.

 

So? How does that show he was wrong not call for her sacking? Or, why Corbyn was right not to call for her sacking? 

[Jack the Sipper]

1 hour ago, TD_LFC said:

 

Not without adequate protection

 

 

So long as I've got the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play to hand I'll be fine.

[Gnasher]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62409268.amp

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/03/daniel-morgan-murder-no-officers-will-face-punishment-says-police-watchdog-cressida-dick

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/18/investigations-into-daniel-morgan-murder-fail-media-report-news-of-the-world-metropolitan-police?s=09

 

 

The murdered man's brother speaks, this report probably shows his assessment below to be correct.

 

 

 

[Kevin D]

3 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Is that how it works? So I can get on the Corbyn thread and make whatever baseless claims I want about him, and tenuously link him to whatever stories I want because I'm talking about Corbyn in a Corbyn thread?

 

Great, I'll keep that in mind.

What’s baseless about it? 
 

It’s the leading news story of the day and he’s about to become Prime Minister. His judgement on criminal justice matters is clearly relevant.