Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Keir Starmer


rb14
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

I'm not sure it is a small faction. I think the "good to have a pint with" perception gains millions of votes with the criminally thick. The Tory vote will drop like a stone in Brexit towns when Johnson is replaced.

Indeed, it’s why Farage always visited a pub for a photo opportunity with a pint on his tours of gammon Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cloggypop said:

Don't get why people want to have pints with right wing twats myself. 

I think it plays into they are one of us and thus can relate. Farage was just a bloke down the pub and Trump cares more about speaking truth than being politically correct, just more natural, Johnson is the same. The fact that Johnson is called Boris, just confirms he is one of us and has no airs or graces about, just one of the lads who loves having a laugh. 

I think, this "he is doing the best he can" narrative that people use to defend his record on Covid is linked to this, as they are imagining what they would be like in a crisis they are totally unprepared to deal with, as opposed to someone who actually knows what they are doing and is competent at their job. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

I don't think he was a particularly effective leader at all. Principled, yes (and that's what resonated with those on the left, including me), but weak when it came to the shit being thrown at him.

I more meant his delivery.  He was like a child when challenged, petulant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

Don't get why people want to have pints with right wing twats myself. 

Where i live, if I didn't then I'd have no one to drink with. In fairness, they range from moderate centre right to full on Brexit borderline EDL. Sound enough lads, but I tend to avoid talking about politics with them.

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I think it’s because we pay and aren’t freeloading cunts. 

Some of the tightest fuckers I've known have been Tories. And Labour. I've also known people who didn't have a pot to piss in give you there last couple of quid for a round. And people who were minted buy the drinks all night.  I'm not sure it makes a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

Where i live, if I didn't then I'd have no one to drink with. In fairness, they range from moderate centre right to full on Brexit borderline EDL. Sound enough lads, but I tend to avoid talking about politics with them.

Some of the tightest fuckers I've known have been Tories. And Labour. I've also known people who didn't have a pot to piss in give you there last couple of quid for a round. And people who were minted buy the drinks all night.  I'm not sure it makes a difference.

Sorry, in joke.  Cloggy has been a member for 11yrs, 22k posts and has never gone gold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

I don't think he was a particularly effective leader at all. Principled, yes (and that's what resonated with those on the left, including me), but weak when it came to the shit being thrown at him.

I think what made Corbyn popular with people outside of the system is what made him unpopular inside the system, as in he'd never really been part of it, didn't want to be part of it. Frequently bucked being told what to do and broke the whip. 

 

That's kind of perfect for building a populist following, in some ways that's how Johnson rolls, and Trump certainly did. 

 

The problem is that Corbyn stopped being a novelty because he was overtaken by an increasingly wacky planet. The sight of him alongside Burnham, Cooper and the likes on a panel interview was boss, he was something very different. He got a lot of goodwill with that early on, but when he ceased to seem as  much of a novelty, it became more about what he was actually saying and doing, and a lot of people for different reasons didn't warm to it. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I think what made Corbyn popular with people outside of the system is what made him unpopular inside the system, as in he'd never really been part of it, didn't want to be part of it. Frequently bucked being told what to do and broke the whip. 

 

That's kind of perfect for building a populist following, in some ways that's how Johnson rolls, and Trump certainly did. 

 

The problem is that Corbyn stopped being a novelty because he was overtaken by an increasingly wacky planet. The sight of him alongside Burnham, Cooper and the likes on a panel interview was boss, he was something very different. He got a lot of goodwill with that early on, but when he ceased to seem as  much of a novelty, it became more about what he was actually saying and doing, and a lot of people for different reasons didn't warm to it. 

 

 

 

 

It's precisely why he probably should have stepped aside in about 2018. He got people talking about things no-one had been speaking about (in mainstream society anyway) for decades, he enthused people who had pretty much given up on politics, but then he should have been replaced by someone clean shaven and in a better fitting suit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I think what made Corbyn popular with people outside of the system is what made him unpopular inside the system, as in he'd never really been part of it, didn't want to be part of it. Frequently bucked being told what to do and broke the whip. 

 

That's kind of perfect for building a populist following, in some ways that's how Johnson rolls, and Trump certainly did. 

 

The problem is that Corbyn stopped being a novelty because he was overtaken by an increasingly wacky planet. The sight of him alongside Burnham, Cooper and the likes on a panel interview was boss, he was something very different. He got a lot of goodwill with that early on, but when he ceased to seem as  much of a novelty, it became more about what he was actually saying and doing, and a lot of people for different reasons didn't warm to it. 

 

 

 

 

I don't disagree agree with anything you have posted there but the bit in bold is what irritates the hell out of me, write that about Johnson, yet he appears to play be the complete opposite rules. He is so  un-statesman like it is amazing, Corbyn called out for being scruffy, Johnson purposefully messes his appearance up, yet he is never judged by what he says or does, as the next week he just changes it and we all happily move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

It's precisely why he probably should have stepped aside in about 2018. He got people talking about things no-one had been speaking about (in mainstream society anyway) for decades, he enthused people who had pretty much given up on politics, but then he should have been replaced by someone clean shaven and in a better fitting suit.

 

I agree with this but I think a lot dates back to 2016, when Owen Smith ran against him. That for me was when the trenches were dug and wagons circled. After that no one trusted that the right wouldn't try to stitch up the leadership election, like they did but failed in 2016, that it was better having Corbyn than going back to a faceless suit. The only way of keeping his beliefs on the front page was to keep him there. 

 

After the successful failure at 2017 election, people doubled down on their side and from that point onwards Corbyn was going to remain leader for a long time. Let us also remember Corbyn, his team and Labour were opposed to the 2019 election, yet the wonderful Libs put their own misguided election hopes before the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I agree with this but I think a lot dates back to 2016, when Owen Smith ran against him. That for me was when the trenches were dug and wagons circled. After that no one trusted that the right wouldn't try to stitch up the leadership election, like they did but failed in 2016, that it was better having Corbyn than going back to a faceless suit. The only way of keeping his beliefs on the front page was to keep him there. 

 

After the successful failure at 2017 election, people doubled down on their side and from that point onwards Corbyn was going to remain leader for a long time. Let us also remember Corbyn, his team and Labour were opposed to the 2019 election, yet the wonderful Libs put their own misguided election hopes before the country. 

 

I think the phrase 'evolution not revolution' is something Corbyn's Labour could have done with a dose of. 

 

I've only ever been to two Labour conferences, one in the Miliband era where you had people who'd written economics papers like Ed Balls (like him or loathe him) giving speeches, a pretty slick press operation, quite corporate in fairness and pretty dull.

 

I went to one in Liverpool during the Corbyn era and the MPs were sort of relegated to the naughty corner, you had speeches from random campaigners from Bury and stuff talking about Kashmir, with people outside waving Palestinian flags. 

 

The vibe was very much t hat the MPs and the PLP - the bits that non Labour members vote for to bring about a Labour government - were a bit of a pain in the arse and were begrudgingly tolerated.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I think the phrase 'evolution not revolution' is something Corbyn's Labour could have done with a dose of. 

 

I've only ever been to two Labour conferences, one in the Miliband era where you had people who'd written economics papers like Ed Balls (like him or loathe him) giving speeches, a pretty slick press operation, quite corporate in fairness and pretty dull.

 

I went to one in Liverpool during the Corbyn era and the MPs were sort of relegated to the naughty corner, you had speeches from random campaigners from Bury and stuff talking about Kashmir, with people outside waving Palestinian flags. 

 

The vibe was very much t hat the MPs and the PLP - the bits that non Labour members vote for to bring about a Labour government - were a bit of a pain in the arse and were begrudgingly tolerated.   

Again, I don't disagree but it becomes, which came first the chicken or the egg. Corbyn was on the ballot purely to placate the loony membership, who wanted a "left" option. The PLP showed how in touch there were by putting him on, knowing he would lose easily but they could play lip service. It didn't work out as they predicted and from day one the PLP worked against the leadership/membership, hence a negative vibe towards them.  

 

The vibe at previous conferences was the membership - the people who go out and work to get non Labour members vote to bring about a Labour government - were a bit of a pain in the arse and were begrudgingly tolerated. 

 

I am not saying either side is totally right and like most things, somewhere in the middle would be helpful, but as I said in my previous post, for right or wrong IMO battle lines were drawn in 2016, the conference reflected them battle lines. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Again, I don't disagree but it becomes, which came first the chicken or the egg. Corbyn was on the ballot purely to placate the loony membership, who wanted a "left" option. The PLP showed how in touch there were by putting him on, knowing he would lose easily but they could play lip service. It didn't work out as they predicted and from day one the PLP worked against the leadership/membership, hence a negative vibe towards them.  

 

The vibe at previous conferences was the membership - the people who go out and work to get non Labour members vote to bring about a Labour government - were a bit of a pain in the arse and were begrudgingly tolerated. 

 

I am not saying either side is totally right and like most things, somewhere in the middle would be helpful, but as I said in my previous post, for right or wrong IMO battle lines were drawn in 2016, the conference reflected them battle lines. 

I think you're spot on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rushies tash said:

I don't think he was a particularly effective leader at all. Principled, yes (and that's what resonated with those on the left, including me), but weak when it came to the shit being thrown at him.

This always gets me with Corbyn, hes forever described as principled. I just dont get it. 

 

He was top man at CND wasnt he? I guess to be that you must have a firm principle against nuclear weapons. A man such as that wouldnt or couldnt stand for PM without the policy of getting rid of them. I'm afraid JC, in my opinion, is no more principled than any other politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, A Red said:

This always gets me with Corbyn, hes forever described as principled. I just dont get it. 

 

He was top man at CND wasnt he? I guess to be that you must have a firm principle against nuclear weapons. A man such as that wouldnt or couldnt stand for PM without the policy of getting rid of them. I'm afraid JC, in my opinion, is no more principled than any other politician.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/104380/what-is-jeremy-corbyn-s-nuclear-weapons-policy

 

He went as far as he could without falling into the trap of "He'll leave us defenceless" headlines from the usual right wing suspects (which is probably why Thornberry had to step in). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, A Red said:

This always gets me with Corbyn, hes forever described as principled. I just dont get it. 

 

He was top man at CND wasnt he? I guess to be that you must have a firm principle against nuclear weapons. A man such as that wouldnt or couldnt stand for PM without the policy of getting rid of them. I'm afraid JC, in my opinion, is no more principled than any other politician.

Didnt Jezza tell Michael Eavis (spelling) that he'd fuck off nuclear missiles before Jeremy stole the  show at the Glastonbury festival. 

 

Apparently after Jezza's barnstorming set which was a few new numbers mixed with a couple of his back category barnstormers, the pop icon Rihanna tweeted ' I juz seen de future of pop an it a allotment wid de hood in nth LND' 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

https://www.theweek.co.uk/104380/what-is-jeremy-corbyn-s-nuclear-weapons-policy

 

He went as far as he could without falling into the trap of "He'll leave us defenceless" headlines from the usual right wing suspects (which is probably why Thornberry had to step in). 

A man of principle, particularly over something as important as nuclear weapons, could not stand as PM without having the policy of getting rid of such weapons. He didnt just speak out against them he was vice leader of the organisation that called for getting rid of them unilaterally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, A Red said:

A man of principle, particularly over something as important as nuclear weapons, could not stand as PM without having the policy of getting rid of such weapons. He didnt just speak out against them he was vice leader of the organisation that called for getting rid of them unilaterally. 

Apart from the fact that in a democratic party the leader of the party does not dictate policy you are bang on. 

 

Also the argument that the "left" need to stop being so pure and realise it is pointless to have ideals if you are not in power, obviously doesn't apply in this case. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...