Keir Starmer

[Brownie]

People need to stop going on about the last guy all the time, it's tiresome. You can criticise the current guy without if having anything to do with the last guy.

 

As a general point, they are both shit when it comes to interviews, in my opinion.

[sir roger]

Just now, Brownie said:

People need to stop going on about the last guy all the time, it's tiresome. You can criticise the current guy without if having anything to do with the last guy.

 

They are both shit when it comes to interviews, in my opinion.

But what if its constantly the new guys supporters who keep dragging up or blaming the old guy ad nauseum.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Numero when he hears people criticising Starmer over the closure of schools:

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Brownie said:

People need to stop going on about the last guy all the time, it's tiresome. You can criticise the current guy without if having anything to do with the last guy.

 

As a general point, they are both shit when it comes to interviews, in my opinion.

I think it's okay to point out rank hypocrisy when talking about what the motivation is for criticism. I think it's also okay to talk about the last guy when it's relevant to the job the current guy needs to do. We have been talking about the current guy's car crash interview, which wasn't really a car crash and more of a curbed wheel. If those who had no problem with Corbyn doing that all the time are the ones driving the criticism over it, you can say 'I didn't care before and I don't care now, because it's not a vote winner/loser, but it's strange that it matters to some people now but not then'. The general point being that it's mainly politically motivated. I spoke out about the politically motivated shit they threw at Corbyn (and was criticised on here as a Corbyn supporter for it) and I think it's consistent to point it out now. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Numero when he hears people criticising Starmer over the closure of schools:

 

Fun fact, I was calling for schools to be closed on here before the Corbynistas had been told to think that way. 

 

Edit: Also zoos. 

[sir roger]

3 minutes ago, Numero said:

Fun fact, I was calling for schools to be closed on here before the Corbynistas had been told to think that way. 

 

Edit: Also zoos. 

 

[Brownie]

3 minutes ago, Numero said:

I think it's okay to point out rank hypocrisy when talking about what the motivation is for criticism. I think it's also okay to talk about the last guy when it's relevant to the job the current guy needs to do. We have been talking about the current guy's car crash interview, which wasn't really a car crash and more of a curbed wheel. If those who had no problem with Corbyn doing that all the time are the ones driving the criticism over it, you can say 'I didn't care before and I don't care now, because it's not a vote winner/loser, but it's strange that it matters to some people now but not then'. The general point being that it's mainly politically motivated. I spoke out about the politically motivated shit they threw at Corbyn (and was criticised on here as a Corbyn supporter for it) and I think it's consistent to point it out now. 

Mate it's tiresome, and it seems to be brought up exclusively by the same people over and over. You can criticise the current guy without it having anything to do with the last guy. Fuck the last guy, he isn't relevant any more.

 

The current guy made a bit of a show of himself yesterday in my opinion (plenty of others thought the same from what I can see). I'm not going to assume they think that for any other reason than they probably cringed their way through it like I did when I watched it.

 

I cringed at times when the last guy was tripping over his words trying to "avoid traps" as well, they need to be better than that.

 

Effective communication is an absolute must and unfortunately it's been lacking for a few years and it's still lacking now.

[Gnasher]

12 minutes ago, sir roger said:

 

How you Diddling? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Brownie said:

Mate it's tiresome, and it seems to be brought up exclusively by the same people over and over. You can criticise the current guy without it having anything to do with the last guy. Fuck the last guy, he isn't relevant any more.

 

The current guy made a bit of a show of himself yesterday in my opinion (plenty of others thought the same from what I can see). I'm not going to assume they think that for any other reason than they probably cringed their way through it like I did when I watched it.

 

I cringed at times when the last guy was tripping over his words trying to "avoid traps" as well, they need to be better than that.

 

Effective communication is an absolute must and unfortunately it's been lacking for a few years and it's still lacking now.

I thought it was just another interview. I get that you thought it was car-crash, but I honestly don't get the wider outcry outside of people looking to put the boot in. That's why I thought it was relevant. I get that the whole Corbyn thing is tiresome, I agree with you and I feel it too. The issue is, there's a loud, annoying pocket of people that have been sucked into a vacuum of Corbyn support that actually has little to do with Corbyn himself. I could happily say 'Corbyn seemed a decent enough guy, shit leader and left Labour in an absolute state' and never talk of him again if there wasn't a pocket of dickheads who were intent on exacting revenge for the treatment of Corbyn and pretending he's the paragon of virtue. It's all self defeating. I am a cultist but not a Starmer cultist. I want the Tories out. I hate them and, as you know, I've been saying it on here for a decade. I've no idea if Stamer will be a failure or not. He means nothing to me. I respect his previous achievements and he might well be competent in a way Corbyn just isn't, but I've no idea if he's going to be victorious. If not, and it's looking less and less likely that there's going to be any unification under him, then get rid of the cunt and get somebody who can win. I'm left with just one question... who. Who can do those things? Unless it's somebody allied with Corbyn, they won't stand a chance with the entranced factions in the party. If it's somebody who has baggage and comes from the Corbyn faction, then the centrists will try to rip him down. It's ridiculous. Corbyn is irrelevant in his position, but his legacy is incredibly relevant. 

 

In short, burn it down. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

13 minutes ago, sir roger said:

 

It would be nice if, just once in a while, you say something with some substance. 

[sir roger]

Just the 9 Corbyns in that one, much better.

[Gnasher]

18 minutes ago, sir roger said:

 

 

You cant do that one about Corbyn 

 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Just the 9 Corbyns in that one, much better.

You counted how many times I said Corbyn. Wow. #notacult 

 

I'm going to say Corbyn as much as I like. Nothing you can say will stop me from criticising the leader of the Cult if and when I see fit. That includes  baseless lies and ridicule in vacuous posts with no substance. 

[sir roger]

Do you have any MLGA hats spare ?

 

I apologise that I tend not to lean towards novel-length political posts of such tedium that one can feel bone marrow being sucked from the body.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, sir roger said:

Do you have any MLGA hats spare ?

I'd trade you one for one of your WWJD T-Shirts, but as somebody who doesn't like Labour very much, I don't have any. How's your Corbyn tattoo healing? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I apologise that I tend not to lean towards novel-length political posts of such tedium that one can feel bone marrow being sucked from the body.

I’d settle for something of substance. It doesn’t even need to show intellect or have any actual merit. You know, something with an actual opinion or something with thought. It doesn’t need to be a novel, but more than a sentence that could have been copied directly from Rachel Swindon. 

[Gnasher]

5 hours ago, Numero said:

It's too early to do too much of that. It'll wash away. What I think needs to be done right now is build a new set of policies and strategies whilst dealing with the pandemic stuff. He needs to build a base of credibility as a cabinet that can take over in a few years. It's in the final year when the pom-poms come out. He can't really stick up for people; they just have absolutely no power. They're completely impotent as far as numbers go. It's just saying stuff and tweeting stuff after that, which they do to a certain extent but it needs to be measured. The more they do that, the more chance is they turn people away. They need to keep their noses clean, not come out with guns blazing. 

 

I think people are crying out for somebody to fight for them. What they really need is somebody to win for them. 

Why cant he call for free broadband or/free laptops for disadvantaged kids as the schools are closed for the foreseeable future.  Why can't he start setting out his stall in general terms and flout ideas?

 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

Like this, 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Because he’s not stupid?

[Bruce Spanner]

14 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Why cant he call for free broadband or/free laptops for disadvantaged kids as the schools are closed for the foreseeable future.  Why can't he start setting out his stall in general terms and flout ideas?

 

 

 

 

 

She's quoting somebody from BT and Alex, hence the quotation marks, what is the problem?

 

She's asking Long-Bailey for a reply to their concerns with the scheme, a scheme I fully agree with.

 

LB should then have stated the oppositions position and laid out how it would be costed and why it was important, that's the nature of an interview. The BBC have a policy of presenting ideas as questions to allow answers to be given, they don't always get it right and the tone is important as is the clarification that it is a position.

[Gnasher]

10 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

She's quoting somebody frrom BT and Alex, hence the quatation marks, what is the problem?

 

She's asking Long-Bailey for a reply to their concerns with the scheme, a scheme I fully agree with.

 

LB should then have stated the oppositions position and laid out how it would be costed and why it was important, that's the nature of an interview. The BBC have a policy of presenting ideas as questions to allow anwsers to be given, they don't always get it right and the tone is important as is the clarification that it is a position.

Do you think the word "Communism" emblazoned across the bottom of the screen whilst Bailey is putting forward a policy that is already used in many western countries and has little to do with Communism is fair journalism?

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/broadband-communism-outside-the-uk-public-broadband-is-a-raving-success/

 

 Would the BBC put the banner 'Fascism' under a potential tory policy? 

[Bruce Spanner]

13 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Do you think the word "Communism" emblazoned across the bottom of the screen whilst Bailey is putting forward a policy that is already used in many western countries and has little to do with Communism is fair journalism?

 

 Would the BBC put the banner 'Fascism' under a potential tory policy? 

 

I think the idea of fair journalism should be upheld and a BT mouthpiece and Alex called a policy 'Communism' so it's fair to offer a right of reply, which they got. It's then up to Labour/LB to state the position and manage the message on a very unbalanced playing field. Is it fair, no, is it how it works, yes, and those people using the loaded term know full well that that's what will be reported, as do Labour, so they should have prepared a response which disproves it.

 

If a member of Labour/SNP/LD's said Alex was a facist I'd expect it, yes, but in quotation marks and I'd allow them the right of reply.

 

Here is the annual complain and response report, have a look.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint-service-reports

 

How many people complained?

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

I think the idea of fair journalism should be upheld and a BT mouthpiece and Alex called a policy 'Communism' so it's fair to offer a right of reply, which they got. It's then up to Labour/LB to state the position and manage the message on a very unbalanced playing field. Is it fair, no, is it how it works, yes, and those people using the loaded term know full well that that's what will be reported, as do Labour, so they should have prepared a response which disproves it.

 

If a member of Labour/SNP/LD's said Alex was a facist I'd expect it, yes, but in quotation marks and I'd allow them the right of reply.

The slur was ridiculous and so was the bbc coverage where they decided to implement the idiotic strapline on show throughout the interview. The broadband issue was important and deserved to be debated in an adult fashion without silly infantile false slogans taking away attention from the ideas on Britsins education policy.

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/corbyns-broadband-communism-plans-resurface-as-govt-grapples-with-stay-at-home-learning-dilemma/05/01/

[Bruce Spanner]

Just now, Gnasher said:

The slur was ridiculous and so was the bbc coverage where they decided to implement the idiotic strapline on show throughout the interview. The broadband issue was important and deserved to be debated in an adult fashion without silly infantile false slogans taking away attention from the ideas on Britsins education policy.

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/corbyns-broadband-communism-plans-resurface-as-govt-grapples-with-stay-at-home-learning-dilemma/05/01/

 

You'll find no argument that it's hugely important, but the screaming in to the void and deflection away from the central arguments helps nobody.

 

It's standard policy from the cunts to say somthing pathetic to detract away from their failings, we know this, they know this, but we make the same mistakes over again by going after the hare and not the dogs.

[Scooby Dudek]

If a member of the LP said Alex was a fascist they would get called out and condemned by the very same media as the Tories got on their moral high horse about a disgusting attack on them.

 

Probably get called out by morally outraged members of their own party as well. 

 

The same media would ask the LOTO if he condemned such divisive language, just like they didn't ask the Tories.