Keir Starmer

[Harry's Lad]

30 minutes ago, Jennings said:

 

Married at First Sight Australia. On C4 catch-up thing.

 

27 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

It's boss. Fucking love it.

 

26 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

No! Will have a look then 

Fucks sake.

[Walter Sobchak]

37 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

You draw your conclusions I'll draw mine Walter.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labours-liz-kendall-says-not-32268412?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

 

 

 

 

Still waiting for you to say where she says “we will take benefits off you”

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

 

That's a strange take mate I have to say. 90% of what impacts people's lives happens at council level. School, social care, planning among other things. 

 

Corbyn's labour fancied itself as a grassroots movement, I had to sit through speeches from delegates from CLPs in Sunderland and whatnot while shadow ministers were consigned to the back row. Can't see why they'd consider themselves above local politics.

 

I think, personally, one of the problems is this brand of "the left" as it calls itself is looking for a simple answer as to why it's not in power, and that answer is starmer.

 

If only starmer wasn't there, somehow the British public would accept our policies and we'd change the world.

 

But this ignores the fact Corbyn was rejected twice. There'll be caveats and excuses, but that's the bottom line.

 

Starmer is low hanging fruit. The alternative is canvassing,  door knocking, fundraising, and realising on the door step that their message is largely not appealing to the British public.

 

I wish it was. I'd have happily taken a Labour government that's as left as you can make it, but I'm also a pragmatist. The English public is largely disengaged from politics by design. Could that possibly be changed over time? Perhaps, but calling Starmer Keith the baby killer probably isn't going to contribute much to the effort.

 

 

Councils haven't got any money and, compared to most countries, have very little actual power.  That's why they're largely irrelevant. Councils are broke. They don't decide what happens with schools and social care if a Tory government halves the budget. 

 

I don't think a "brand" of the left exists. A few thousand people shouting on the internet doesn't represent Corbyn, or people who signed up to the Labour Party to vote for him, or Momentum, or anyone else. They represent Twitter more than anything else. 

 

Corbyn was rejected, but his policies weren't. He should have gone 18/24 months before he did and replaced by someone half his age. He hung on, was too soft, and allowed some of the biggest cunts to have ever been involved in the Labour party to stab him in the front/back. 

 

I'm not surprised in the slightest that some people, especially young people, aren't immediately happy to just get on board the Starmer train. Whether he likes it or not (he doesn't care) he represents the people who did everything they could to prevent the one chance of significant progressive economic change this country has seen in decades. It could be Streeting, or Kendall, or Reeves, or any of the other horrible cunts in the Labour Party. 

 

I'll vote Labour, because they are tactical choice to remove the Tory in my consitutency. But I think Starmer is a cunt, and I think most of the front bench are cunts as well. They are pushing centre right economics, and it's utterly depressing that I have to vote for it. 

 

 

[Gnasher]

13 minutes ago, Walter Sobchak said:

Still waiting for you to say where she says “we will take benefits off you”

 

Nevermind. I tried. 

[Walter Sobchak]

Just now, Gnasher said:

 

Nevermind. I tried. 

You lied then, nevermind.

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, Walter Sobchak said:

You lied then, nevermind.

Nope. But Nevermind Walter. 

[Gnasher]

The Labour Party and Israel. Never more than an arms length away. 

 

 

 

 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, Walter Sobchak said:

Still waiting for you to say where she says “we will take benefits off you”

 

Gnasher's been banging on about youth unemployment for donkey's years, it was a major reason for us to leave the EU apparently, but as soon as Labour announces plans to tackle it, he's got complaints. 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Strontium said:

 

Gnasher's been banging on about youth unemployment for donkey's years, it was a major reason for us to leave the EU apparently, but as soon as Labour announces plans to tackle it, he's got complaints. 

 

Tackle it? 

 

 

[Gnasher]

She's right. Not Kendall,  Frances Ryan.

 

 

 

 

It'll only lead to more of this, 

 

 

 

 

 

[Anubis]

One Nation Tories gonna One Nation Tory.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 hours ago, Strontium said:

things like Labour's support for the smoking ban show exactly why I am not and never will be a Labour supporter.

 

Fucking hell. I never had you down as pro-cancer.

 

How about Cyril Smith covering up for the asbestos industry? Was that also evidence of the need for Liberals?

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Fucking hell. I never had you down as pro-cancer.

 

This is why you are and always will be utterly ridiculous.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, Strontium said:

 

This is why you are and always will be utterly ridiculous.

Says the twerp who takes it as a given that life-saving public health measures are a political red line.

[Bjornebye]

36 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Says the twerp who takes it as a given that life-saving public health measures are a political red line.

To be fair at the time I thought it was ridiculous even as a non smoker back then. I thought pubs should have been given the option to be smoking or non smoking. A lot of businesses went bust and I remember seeing old fellas having to stand outside in the rain for a smoke who had probably spent their whole lives not having to do that. 
 

Obviously now I can see why and agree with it. At the time though it seemed very draconian. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

24 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

To be fair at the time I thought it was ridiculous even as a non smoker back then. I thought pubs should have been given the option to be smoking or non smoking. A lot of businesses went bust and I remember seeing old fellas having to stand outside in the rain for a smoke who had probably spent their whole lives not having to do that. 
 

Obviously now I can see why and agree with it. At the time though it seemed very draconian. 

Pubs always did have that option: it didn't work and people were dying as a result.

What snuck in around the time of the smoking ban was the rise of the chain pubs: the "free market" - economic liberalism, as exemplified by Punch Taverns and Witherspoon's - was what really did for loads of independent pubs.

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Says the twerp who takes it as a given that life-saving public health measures are a political red line.

 

Prohibition is a political red line for me.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

14 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Prohibition is a political red line for me.

Then you'll be happy to know that smoking has never been prohibited in the UK.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Quite fancy living in a coked-up, scag-addled, gun-toting Lib Dem Republic. Could be fun.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Quite fancy living in a coked-up, scag-addled, gun-toting Lib Dem Republic. Could be fun.

Sounds like Liverpool in the 00s.

[Strontium]

15 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Then you'll be happy to know that smoking has never been prohibited in the UK.

 

And I'd like to keep it that way, hence my opposition to the Tories' proposed smoking ban that is being supported by Labour.

 

Are you malfunctioning or something?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

 

And I'd like to keep it that way, hence my opposition to the Tories' proposed smoking ban that is being supported by Labour.

 

Are you malfunctioning or something?

The Tories aren't proposing "a smoking ban", as you probably know, but you prefer argumentative lies to basic facts.

 

They're proposing a progressive increase in the age at which it's legal to buy smokes, so that fewer people take up the habit.  Unsurprisingly, health charities have welcomed this and the tobacco industry are opposed to it.  In your obsession with being the TLW resident controversialist, you really are coming down on the "pro-cancer" side on this one.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/sunak-proposes-raising-smoking-age-every-year-to-create-smoke-free-generation-12976625

 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The Tories aren't proposing "a smoking ban", as you probably know, but you prefer argumentative lies to basic facts.

 

They're proposing a progressive increase in the age at which it's legal to buy smokes, so that fewer people take up the habit.  Unsurprisingly, health charities have welcomed this and the tobacco industry are opposed to it.  In your obsession with being the TLW resident controversialist, you really are coming down on the "pro-cancer" side on this one.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/sunak-proposes-raising-smoking-age-every-year-to-create-smoke-free-generation-12976625

 

Aren’t they jibbing the idea anyway? I’m sure I read that New Zealand are as well. 

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The Tories aren't proposing "a smoking ban", as you probably know, but you prefer argumentative lies to basic facts.

 

They're proposing a progressive increase in the age at which it's legal to buy smokes, so that fewer people take up the habit.  Unsurprisingly, health charities have welcomed this and the tobacco industry are opposed to it.  In your obsession with being the TLW resident controversialist, you really are coming down on the "pro-cancer" side on this one.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/sunak-proposes-raising-smoking-age-every-year-to-create-smoke-free-generation-12976625

 

Fucking hell.

 

However long it takes to implement, it's a ban on smoking. Unarguably. Trust you to argue against it.

 

I'm pro-choice, as liberals are. The radical idea that people should have sovereignty over their own bodies.

 

Calling me "pro-cancer" makes about as much sense as calling people who believe in safe, legal abortion "pro-killing babies".

[Rushies tash]

5 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Fucking hell.

 

However long it takes to implement, it's a ban on smoking. Unarguably. Trust you to argue against it.

 

I'm pro-choice, as liberals are. The radical idea that people should have sovereignty over their own bodies.

 

Calling me "pro-cancer" makes about as much sense as calling people who believe in safe, legal abortion "pro-killing babies".

 

Where do you stand on drugs that are currently illegal?