Keir Starmer

[Numero 6,971]

Thanks for that. I’m sure some will read the opening line about Labour stepping away from ‘hard-left’ economic policy (what? What hard left economic policy?) and feel like they’re going full Tory, but the rest of the article concentrates on how the Tories are going to be taking the piss over how soft they are. What it actually seems to be - though I guess we will have to actually wait to find out - is an attempt to make themselves look credible again, they haven’t really been that since 2008. Whoever is in charge in a few years is going to have a tricky time. Brexit and the fallout from COVID is going to make it hard to make any radical moves. 
 

What I want to see is a commitment to look after the vulnerable, the old, the sick; at this point I’m not that arsed about the utilities and rail. 

[Bruce Spanner 3,192]

6 minutes ago, Numero said:

Thanks for that. I’m sure some will read the opening line about Labour stepping away from ‘hard-left’ economic policy (what? What hard left economic policy?) and feel like they’re going full Tory, but the rest of the article concentrates on how the Tories are going to be taking the piss over how soft they are. What it actually seems to be - though I guess we will have to actually wait to find out - is an attempt to make themselves look credible again, they haven’t really been that since 2008. Whoever is in charge in a few years is going to have a tricky time. Brexit and the fallout from COVID is going to make it hard to make any radical moves. 
 

What I want to see is a commitment to look after the vulnerable, the old, the sick; at this point I’m not that arsed about the utilities and rail. 

Yeah, paint us as fiscally responsible and get rid of the irresponsible tag that’s been an albatross whilst still spending properly and improving accountability, sensible. 

 

I think there’s a genuine will for rail to be nationalised, not sure how likely it is, but it can’t be any worse than it is now and it’d be a hell of a lot cheaper. 

[Gnasher 1,855]

20 minutes ago, Numero said:

Thanks for that. I’m sure some will read the opening line about Labour stepping away from ‘hard-left’ economic policy (what? What hard left economic policy?) and feel like they’re going full Tory, but the rest of the article concentrates on how the Tories are going to be taking the piss over how soft they are. What it actually seems to be - though I guess we will have to actually wait to find out - is an attempt to make themselves look credible again, they haven’t really been that since 2008. Whoever is in charge in a few years is going to have a tricky time. Brexit and the fallout from COVID is going to make it hard to make any radical moves. 
 

What I want to see is a commitment to look after the vulnerable, the old, the sick; at this point I’m not that arsed about the utilities and rail. 

I sort of agree with you up until your last sentence. Im dont necessarily agree with the policy but agree with the front of making Labour seem economically credible to the average Joe. Back to your last paragraph why not take utilities and rail back into public ownership?  A. It's a popular policy. B. Its fairly easy to do. C. It could/should benefit millions of consumers. 

[Numero 6,971]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

I sort of agree with you up until your last sentence. Im dont necessarily agree with the policy but agree with the front of making Labour seem economically credible to the average Joe. Back to your last paragraph why not take utilities and rail back into public ownership?  A. It's a popular policy. B. Its fairly easy to do. C. It could/should benefit millions of consumers. 

I didn’t say it shouldn’t be done. It’s a matter of priorities during a financial crisis and during the fallout of Brexit. 

[Scooby Dudek 1,892]

The only thing I took from that, in relation to communist broadband, is how it has become acceptable to call anything that doesn't fit their defined acceptable narrative as hard-left, extreme left etc. 

We quite rightly laugh at Americans when they call Dems commies or socialists, but too me, that is the path we are taking in this country and it should be called out.

 

 

The argument of being seen to be economically responsible, is all fine and well and has been fought for decades. Again however, that fact the Tories waste/give millions to their cronies is conveniently ignore by the same cunts saying Labour can't be trusted. 

 

2017 only one party had their manifesto fully costed but obviously that party was economically irresponsible.

 

 

[Bruce Spanner 3,192]

7 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

The only thing I took from that, in relation to communist broadband, is how it has become acceptable to call anything that doesn't fit their defined acceptable narrative as hard-left, extreme left etc. 

We quite rightly laugh at Americans when they call Dems commies or socialists, but too me, that is the path we are taking in this country and it should be called out.

 

 

The argument of being seen to be economically responsible, is all fine and well and has been fought for decades. Again however, that fact the Tories waste/give millions to their cronies is conveniently ignore by the same cunts saying Labour can't be trusted. 

 

2017 only one party had their manifesto priced but obviously that party was economically irresponsible.

 

 

Alex, Gove and, I think, Sunnak have all used the term Communist or Marxist against the current group and not really been pulled up on it.

 

For whatever reason it’s an easy slur and one they get away with constantly.

[Scooby Dudek 1,892]

22 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Alex, Gove and, I think, Sunnak have all used the term Communist or Marxist against the current group and not really been pulled up on it.

 

For whatever reason it’s an easy slur and one they get away with constantly.

The political commentators use it as well, it is part of an agenda to delegitimise any sort of social policies. Imagine the outrage if we started calling Johnson hard right or fascist. Ironically as they happily point out, Stalin killed a lot more than Hilter, so being allowed to compare one to communist but not one to fascist is just a purposeful use of negative language. 

 

It may seem petty but it really pisses me off, now I am looking for it I see it everywhere.

[Bruce Spanner 3,192]

10 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

The political commentators use it as well, it is part of an agenda to delegitimise any sort of social policies. Imagine the outrage if we started calling Johnson hard right or fascist. Ironically as they happily point out, Stalin killed a lot more than Hilter, so being allowed to compare one to communist but not one to fascist is just a purposeful use of negative language. 

 

It may seem petty but it really pisses me off, now I am looking for it I see it everywhere.

 

Oh, were on the same page, don't worry, I know why it's loaded and why it's being used.

 

All part of the larger 'culture wars' nobody fucking asked for and the ridiculous term 'Cultural Marxism' which every shaved ape repeats without a fucking clue it's just any empty phrase deviod of any meaning and it's only used is to angry up idiots and keep them in a cycle of perpetual blinkered rage and confusion.

 

Maybe we should bring back the term 'false class consciouness' again and start that trending, maybe we'll pick up a few of the conspiracy nuts.

[Nelly-Torres 6,962]

Blue tie today. He's not even trying to hide it now! 

[1892-LFCWasBorn 2,512]

3 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Blue tie today. He's not even trying to hide it now! 

Ha.

[Jairzinho 23,315]

Well, that was fascinating.

[1892-LFCWasBorn 2,512]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Well, that was fascinating.

 

 

.......................................................................not.

[Jairzinho 23,315]

This speaker is a useless cunt, isn't he?

 

Fuck is he doing laughing to himself while Johnson basically takes a massive turd on parliamentary scrutiny.

[Scooby Dudek 1,892]

I thought Starmer handed him his arse there, pulling out the DOE food regulations, basically what was in the photos. Obviously the EU, Labour etc. 

It was just a shame the speaker let him completely ignore the question asked and talk bollocks, before stopping him and despite saying you should answer questions didn't then make him answer the question.

 

It will be interesting how many main media organisations, (I suspect none) pick up that the parcels sent meet the DOE requirements, so it is nobodies fault but the Tories. 

 

 

 

He also did the same in relation to lockdown, why on 16th December (last PMQ) did you not increase lockdown as everybody said you should but would later as usual. 

 

BJ You know we didn't know about the new variant until 18th December

 

Yes on the 18th SAGE said you should increase the restrictions, so why did you wait 12 days to increase restrictions ?

 

Both times, let him get his defence out before showing everyone it was bollocks.

[Jairzinho 23,315]

The problem is that only about 30 of us are watching this. A few hundred thousand will read the BBC's write up which will conclude it was a real 50/50 DING-DONG and Martin Spunkflute from Slough will vote Tory.

[Scooby Dudek 1,892]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

The problem is that only about 30 of us are watching this. A few hundred thousand will read the BBC's write up which will conclude it was a real 50/50 DING-DONG and Martin Spunkflute from Slough will vote Tory.

Agree, the headline should be Inadequate Food Parcels meet Government Regulations

 

The blame should be pointed 100% at the Tories, but obviously it won't, I await Laura in the post debate chat not even mentioning it. 

[1892-LFCWasBorn 2,512]

14 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

This speaker is a useless cunt, isn't he?

Yup. Bring Bercow back. He would have torn this bullshitter 100 arseholes by now.

[Bruce Spanner 3,192]

16 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Agree, the headline should be Inadequate Food Parcels meet Government Regulations

 

The blame should be pointed 100% at the Tories, but obviously it won't, I await Laura in the post debate chat not even mentioning it. 

 

From the BBC live feed.

 

'Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says that it "shouldn't have taken social media to shame" the PM into action on free school meals.

 

Sir Keir says that the list outlined by the Department for Education (DfE) of what should be included in these boxes is not too different from what the images on social media showed. He asks for the PM to take down the current meal guidance from the DfE before the end of today.

 

Mr Johnson says it was a Conservative government which started free school meals, and of the £280bn spent on helping people during Covid, the overwhelming majority of that spend is "in favour of the poorest and neediest in our society".

 

He accuses Sir Keir of having a "lamentable" approach to the pandemic.'

 

It just appears as a series of non sequiturs as that's what happens every fucking week becuase he won't answer questions and falls back on his preplanned 'attacks' as he's not bright enough to think on his feet, or at all.

[Scooby Dudek 1,892]

BBC host, "Why was Starmer so misleading about free school meals regulations ?", because there was a few additional items (valued approx 50p) on DfE list (tin of corn, tin of ham and a little bit of extra fruit). Obviously the lying scumbag Starmer is the one who should be attacked over being disingenuous over this.

 

 

 

Makes you proud.

 

 

 

 

[sir roger 6,297]

12 hours ago, Brownie said:

50% odd blame the public, 20% odd the government.

When the poll was broken down to just Tory voters it was 80% blaming the public.

From memory I think Labour voters was 34% public 56% government

[skend04 2,222]

37 minutes ago, sir roger said:

When the poll was broken down to just Tory voters it was 80% blaming the public.

From memory I think Labour voters was 34% public 56% government

Proper Stockholm Syndrome there for you. It's same as 75/80% Republicans thinking there was tomfoolery in the election with no evidence available at all. They're batshit crazy.

[Gnasher 1,855]

6 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

The problem is that only about 30 of us are watching this. A few hundred thousand will read the BBC's write up which will conclude it was a real 50/50 DING-DONG and Martin Spunkflute from Slough will vote Tory.

You're right its irrelevant, I watched it and later on the bbc radio news bulletins gave  Boris Johnson saying the food parcels were disgraceful followed by a little segment of him speaking in the commons, followed by a bit of how Starmer challenged the pm to heed the advice given by Marcus Rashford. Although I noted they played the pm speaking and didn't play Starmer speaking and I cant remember Starmer actually saying what they said he said but just hinted towards that direction.  That was about it. To the average punter listening to bulletin I listened to Johnson was in command, acknowledged the problem and was sorting it out.

 

This is where media coverage is so important, if you dont get a fair platform you are up against because the public will not give politicians their time and I dont blame them.

 

The most conclusive inquiry into mainstream tv media coverage was done by Cardiff university when Milliband was running (cant remember the date 15?) I know I've mentioned this report a few times on here but the results are imo fucking shocking. The main concern running into that election given by the public was the nhs but it came in about 8th in media coverage  The report also showed how tv coverage followed the newspapers, so for example the letter warning about a labour government by business leaders dominated tv coverage for approx three days whereas a letter from senior doctors worried about nhs funding was largely ignored.

 

I'm ranting and I've ranted about this before but with people now dying of covid and our nhs in such need it gets my fucking goat.

 

Edit. A glimpse of how papers control the narrative. 

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ourbeeb/newspapers-not-bbc-led-way-in-biased-election-coverage/

[MegadriveMan 862]

For all the talk about Starmer providing forensic analysis and 'proper opposition' its completely irrelevant if the speaker allows Johnson to get away with it time and time again and the media don't bother to report it properly. 

[skend04 2,222]

1 minute ago, MegadriveMan said:

For all the talk about Starmer providing forensic analysis and 'proper opposition' its completely irrelevant if the speaker allows Johnson to get away with it time and time again and the media don't bother to report it properly. 

Hoyle has to be one of the worst speakers I've seen. When someone is needed to bring the government to account he's done fuck all. As much substance as a wet tissue.

[Brownie 3,497]