Keir Starmer

[Bruce Spanner]

11 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Sadly, working class racism is nothing new. A lot of trade unionists were fully supportive of Enoch Powell after his "rivers of blood" speech. The Alf Garnett tradition of working class Toryism - a mixture of racism and craven deference to establishment power - has got a new spin with the notion of hereditary millionaires like Johnson and Trump somehow representing an alternative to "the political elite" because neither of them has ever done a single thing that's not self-serving and neither is arsed about openly lying.

I know you’re right, I think it’s more recency bias with all this shit, I just don’t remember it being this bad politically in my adult life and I’m flummoxed how we got here.

[Red Phoenix]

17 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

Much like anybody else, I could care less what the irrelevant loser does or doesn’t do, he had his chance, he lost, we move on.

 

It's not like "anybody else" though and he wasn't irrelevant at all, he helped show people all over the country what a fucking sham our so-called democracy is and that will have an effect for a long time to come no matter how much he's called a loser. For generations to come people will remember many of the events that took place to help bring him down and simply glossing over it by calling him a loser won't erase any of that.

 

"Loser" is exactly what all of the greedy crony scum would love him to be remembered as with almost everything else erased, and many people will happily go along with it, ("look at how badly he lost the election!11" with next to zero context or history of how mp's, the media and others lied and manipulated events repeatedly for years on end) but a lot of people will clearly remember it's just a meaningless slur a lot of the time purely because of how badly he was scammed against from the moment he even became leader.

 

And because some of have pointed this out from time to time we're classed as corbynites, corbynistas, corbyn cultists, marxists, trots, hard left, extreme left, big evil leninist stalinist fascist communist boogy monster alien anarchist hive mind zombies. We just wanted to see change and for a decent guy to be someone that got to do that, it's really not so extreme. Half of the things anyone that still respects him get called were created from the off the marginalize his support anyway, which to many was also obvious from the start.

 

Look how big the Tory majority is though! Yeah, and plenty of cunt Labour mp's will be glad that it turned out like that just so that Corbyn was gone, they helped make it happen. And they won't be suffering anywhere near as much as a lot of the rest of the country will be doing.

 

And sorry Howdy, this isn't all directed at you. I suppose it's more of a closing rant on the subject as it's been stuck in the back of by head for a while looking at so much of the usual that's been said since he was replaced as leader. He was also no saint, he made many mistakes and he wasn't perfect at all, and plenty of us understand that too. There's no way he was as bad as is so often made out though.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Oh Jeremy Corbyn. 
 

Talking about him like he’s the stature JFK instead of Michael Foot is crazy. Are we going to be able to move on some time soon? We do love to shoot ourselves in the, erm, foot. 

[Captain Howdy]

1 hour ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Oh Jeremy Corbyn. 
 

Talking about him like he’s the stature JFK instead of Michael Foot is crazy. Are we going to be able to move on some time soon? We do love to shoot ourselves in the, erm, foot. 

Quite, Corbyn was never going to win a GE it was all so bleeding obvious from the start but where Labour really fucked up imo was not accepting the referendum result. That killed them stone dead.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

Quite, Corbyn was never going to win a GE it was all so bleeding obvious from the start but where Labour really fucked up imo was not accepting the referendum result. That killed them stone dead.

Yeah, I fucked up the call on that too. Thing with Corbyn’s approach was that it was actually quite fair. I supported it in principle, but the truth is that it was politically daft. 

[Jairzinho]

They weren't going to win in 2019 whatever their stance on Brexit. They simply would have lost support in different areas. Their voters were too split. It was perfect for The Tories.

 

2017 was the election they could have won, but sadly a few Labour MPs took a dive. 

 

Anyway, it's over now and a complete waste of time anyone on the left or right being arsed about Corbyn. 

 

Four years of positioning themselves as a slightly more competent version of the Tories appears to be the plan. So either get on board or, er, don't bother. 

 

 

[Captain Howdy]

19 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

They weren't going to win in 2019 whatever their stance on Brexit. They simply would have lost support in different areas. Their voters were too split. It was perfect for The Tories.

 

2017 was the election they could have won, but sadly a few Labour MPs took a dive. 

 

Anyway, it's over now and a complete waste of time anyone on the left or right being arsed about Corbyn. 

 

Four years of positioning themselves as a slightly more competent version of the Tories appears to be the plan. So either get on board or, er, don't bother. 

 

 

The thing is Corbyns’ policies were not even particularly left wing, the policies could have been sold by a better candidate, I always think Clive Lewis would have been a good choice but what do I know. Corbyn never stood a chance of overturning his image problem and he came with far too much baggage, he was a sitting duck, it was never ever going to happen for him and it was blindingly obvious imo.

[The Guest]

People still living in fantasy land.  The blairites which is the vast majority of the PLP are economically right wing and as liberal as a lot of conservative MP’s are which makes our democracy a fucking sham.

 

The idea that these cunts would ever entertain left wing economic policy and therefore it’s Corbyn that was the problem is laughable.  The fact that they were happy to sabotage a left wing Labour Party at all should tell you enough about them but to do it when facing the most economically right wing Tory opposition it has ever faced is sickening.  They didn’t do it as some sort of response to Corbyn saying get in line either.  They were doing it from day one.  He was happy to have a shitload of them in his cabinet.  They wanted him out and for various reasons.  The fear that members would get more of a say and potentially democratically choose somebody else to represent them.

 

If they had backed the left wing policy as they fucking should do as a fucking Labour MP they wouldn’t have had any problem either but that was obviously a step too far for these cunts.  Our politics is now a complete mess, probably bigger than it’s ever been.  We’ve now had a Corbyn who has offered us all of these policies and it’s inspired a lot of people to vote again and it also pulled back a lot of UKIP voters as it gave them a reason to actually vote labour again.  That’s dead now and it’s for good.

 

Some people seem to think that we’ve just changed the face at the top but that’s not the reality and I think they’re going to be in for a shock when election time comes up.  The tories will go further and further right whilst labour basically just tries to occupy the same position as the tories in everything bar immigration which is going to guarantee a Tory majority for the foreseeable future.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Captain Howdy said:

The thing is Corbyns’ policies were not even particularly left wing, the policies could have been sold by a better candidate, I always think Clive Lewis would have been a good choice but what do I know. Corbyn never stood a chance of overturning his image problem and he came with far too much baggage, he was a sitting duck, it was never ever going to happen for him and it was blindingly obvious imo.

This is the worry for me; that some voices in Starmer's ears will persuade him that the 2019 Election was lost on policies (other than the Brexit one, which I supported, but not enough people in key constituencies did).  If he decides to bin policies wholesale - and shift back to the oh-so-successful Brown/Milliband formula of trying to be a less horrible version of the Tories, then whatever (very) slim chance Labour  has of winning the next election goes out of the window.

[Numero Veinticinco]

You worry that voices in the ear of renowned barrister, who got to the top of the field in not just one of the most difficult, high level professions in the world but two. Maybe drop him a letter to set him straight? 
 

I mean, there’s been some pure fantasy in here today but that one takes the biscuit. I can silently take parroting twitter bollocks about being beige but the idea that he isn’t smart enough to make his own mind up and be manipulated by ‘voices’ is just about the daftest thing on here. 
 

Sorry, but fucking hell; what the fuck are you guys smoking? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

You worry that voices in the ear of renowned barrister, who got to the top of the field in not just one of the most difficult, high level professions in the world but two. Maybe drop him a letter to set him straight? 
 

I mean, there’s been some pure fantasy in here today but that one takes the biscuit. I can silently take parroting twitter bollocks about being beige but the idea that he isn’t smart enough to make his own mind up and be manipulated by ‘voices’ is just about the daftest thing on here. 
 

Sorry, but fucking hell; what the fuck are you guys smoking? 

Being a renowned barrister doesn't make him Prime Minister material.  He's a crap orator, mainly because he always gives the impression that if he actually believes in anything.  (I mean, he couldn't even bring his "renowned barrister" instincts to bear on opposing the "spycops bill".)  

 

Do you look at him and think "There's a man who understands what it takes to lead a party to victory"?  Honestly?  I hate to say I don't.  Every party leader has to deal with different factions pulling in different directions and often using underhanded shenanigans to do so.  I don't believe that Starmer has got the political nous, the streetfighter guts or the moral compass to deal with that.

[Moo]

43 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

You worry that voices in the ear of renowned barrister, who got to the top of the field in not just one of the most difficult, high level professions in the world but two. Maybe drop him a letter to set him straight? 
 

I mean, there’s been some pure fantasy in here today but that one takes the biscuit. I can silently take parroting twitter bollocks about being beige but the idea that he isn’t smart enough to make his own mind up and be manipulated by ‘voices’ is just about the daftest thing on here. 
 

Sorry, but fucking hell; what the fuck are you guys smoking? 

You don't think the rest of the Labour Party, it's members and it's MPs, get to have a say in their direction and that only Starmer's "own mind" will dictate policy?  And even if that was the case do you think he has the charisma to pull it off? To take his party on the journey with him?

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Being a renowned barrister doesn't make him Prime Minister material. 

This is the third or fourth time you’ve tried this in the last four or five posts. It’s getting annoying. It doesn’t make him PM material any more than years of failure as a back bencher made Corbyn PM material. What it does and what you glossed over is mean your point about voices in his ear is ridiculous. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Oh God. What the fuck is wrong with you lot? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Being a renowned barrister doesn't make him Prime Minister material.  He's a crap orator, mainly because he always gives the impression that if he actually believes in anything.  (I mean, he couldn't even bring his "renowned barrister" instincts to bear on opposing the "spycops bill".)  

 

Do you look at him and think "There's a man who understands what it takes to lead a party to victory"?  Honestly?  I hate to say I don't.  Every party leader has to deal with different factions pulling in different directions and often using underhanded shenanigans to do so.  I don't believe that Starmer has got the political nous, the streetfighter guts or the moral compass to deal with that.

Based on what? Lack of beard? 

[skend04]

9 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Being a renowned barrister doesn't make him Prime Minister material.  He's a crap orator, mainly because he always gives the impression that if he actually believes in anything.  (I mean, he couldn't even bring his "renowned barrister" instincts to bear on opposing the "spycops bill".)  

 

Do you look at him and think "There's a man who understands what it takes to lead a party to victory"?  Honestly?  I hate to say I don't.  Every party leader has to deal with different factions pulling in different directions and often using underhanded shenanigans to do so.  I don't believe that Starmer has got the political nous, the streetfighter guts or the moral compass to deal with that.

I suppose 4 years of Corbyn does give one a certain experience of what it takes not to be able to lead a party or win an election.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

50 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

This is the third or fourth time you’ve tried this in the last four or five posts. It’s getting annoying. It doesn’t make him PM material any more than years of failure as a back bencher made Corbyn PM material. What it does and what you glossed over is mean your point about voices in his ear is ridiculous. 

You think that Superkeir is somehow immune to intra-party shenanigans? You're getting deep into cultish hero-worship here.

 

Personally, I think it’s more likely that he faces the same challenges of every party leader and the fact that he's very good at something that isn't politics doesn't mean that he will also be very good at politics.  I think he's human.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

47 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Based on what? Lack of beard? 

Yeah. You could try to answer the post or you could howl your stupid little misguided howl again.

 

Your call.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Oh my God. Fuck this nonsense. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Yeah. You could try to answer the post or you could howl your stupid little misguided howl again.

 

Your call.

I know it’s my call. I don’t need your permission for anything. If you say something remotely sensible I might be fucked to give a sensible answer. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

48 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Based on what? Lack of beard? 

I'll try to spell it out for you. 

 

I think an effective party leader needs the political nous to play (and win) political shenanigans, both within the party and in respect of the Government; they also need the stomach for the fight, when it all gets dirty; they need a moral compass, to guide them through the difficult decisions; and they also need a keen sense of what the mood of the electorate actually is.

 

So what's your point?

 

Do you think that a party leader doesn't need these things? (That being good at a different, non-political job is somehow enough?) Or do you think that Starmer has these qualities  (because I've not seen much sign of them.)

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

I'll try to spell it out for you. 

Hahaha. Prick. Think I’m reading your bollocks after that? Grow up. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

5 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

I know it’s my call. I don’t need your permission for anything. If you say something remotely sensible I might be fucked to give a sensible answer. 

Yeah, this whole exchange started with you posting someone's name, on its own, with no context around it.

 

I'll take lectures in posting "something remotely sensible" from some people, but not you.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Hahaha. Prick. Think I’m reading your bollocks after that? Grow up. 

Shithouse. 

 

You've made a fool of yourself and you're looking for a way to back out.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Yeah, this whole exchange started with you posting someone's name, on its own, with no context around it.

 

I'll take lectures in posting "something remotely sensible" from some people, but not you.

I don’t give a fuck what you’ll take, you gobby cunt. Talk to me as if I’m an idiot again and I’ll quote everything you’ve said and point out how you’re about an eighth as smart as you think you are.