Quantcast
Keir Starmer - Page 212 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
rb14

Keir Starmer

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Has anyone on here read the judgment against the government this week?  

 

Yeah, that's why before I said maybe it's a waiting game until more creditable charges are made.

 

They can use the 'We did this in the public good' excuse at the minute, but some of the other dodgier contracts will prove much more difficult to shake off, especially when the full extent of the 'VIP pathway' are fully exposed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moo said:

It says a lot about Starmer this. "Not what the public want to see"?  How about what's morally (and legally?) correct?  He's more concerned with public opinion than doing the right thing, some might argue that's how politics is now but if you accept that then you should accept Starmer is a really bad choice.  He is a really unappealing public speaker and a personality vacuum. He is in danger of alienating both sides, those who see politics as a personality contest and those who see it as a public service performed by someone who has clear opinions and policies and will act on them.  He is a turn off to both sets of people at the moment.

Fuck me, I wish this post wasn't so fucking true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Has anyone on here read the judgment against the government this week?  

Obviously, none of us go scouring court papers and few (if any) of us have the knowledge to fully understand them if we did. But we have read the reports of the legal breach and they are damning enough in their own right; taken together with the work the Good Law Project have been doing to expose corruption on a huge scale, it paints a picture of a gang of thieves stuffing their pockets under cover of 120,000 deaths. I would like to see a Labour leader get angry at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Obviously, none of us go scouring court papers and few (if any) of us have the knowledge to fully understand them if we did. But we have read the reports of the legal breach and they are damning enough in their own right; taken together with the work the Good Law Project have been doing to expose corruption on a huge scale, it paints a picture of a gang of thieves stuffing their pockets under cover of 120,000 deaths. I would like to see a Labour leader get angry at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

 

100% This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the labour party was a Council, Starmer would make a better chief exec than he would a council leader, if that makes sense.

 

I.e, I reckon he's capable of turning the party into an organisation more capable of doing what needs to be done to win an election, but with a pen and a whiteboard, rather than by rallying the troops.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

If the labour party was a Council, Starmer would make a better chief exec than he would a council leader, if that makes sense.

 

I.e, I reckon he's capable of turning the party into an organisation more capable of doing what needs to be done to win an election, but with a pen and a whiteboard, rather than by rallying the troops.

I think Starmer will find it almost impossible to win an election without the troops. I think the downturn in his popularity since the needless suspension of Corbyn tells it's own story, ironically its him who seems to now be under forensic examination rather than his enemies. I hope he realises his war on the left was needless and he changes tack because with Johnson about to unfairly claim the plaudits for the country being released from lockdown things could get very sticky for the labour leader this summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Obviously, none of us go scouring court papers and few (if any) of us have the knowledge to fully understand them if we did. But we have read the reports of the legal breach and they are damning enough in their own right; taken together with the work the Good Law Project have been doing to expose corruption on a huge scale, it paints a picture of a gang of thieves stuffing their pockets under cover of 120,000 deaths. I would like to see a Labour leader get angry at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

 

 

Reeves and Raynor have been flogging this for a couple of weeks, as have others, and even Starmer has used it in PMQ's and interviews, so I think that's what was so strange this morning.

 

The distinction between Illegal and not complying with the law, or acting unlawfully, is where the issue is and maybe they're just waiting until there is real proof of criminality or collusion, because all they have on Hancock at the minute is that he hasn't got the paper work through in time.

 

There's more to come, as we all know, then there's a point where you don't ask for a resignation, you demand it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

I can’t quite put my finger on why but I find Keir Starmer’s voice really irritating. It’s enough to have me reaching for the remote.

Absolutely.  It shouldn't be, of course, but his voice and speech pattern is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Obviously, none of us go scouring court papers and few (if any) of us have the knowledge to fully understand them if we did. But we have read the reports of the legal breach and they are damning enough in their own right; taken together with the work the Good Law Project have been doing to expose corruption on a huge scale, it paints a picture of a gang of thieves stuffing their pockets under cover of 120,000 deaths. I would like to see a Labour leader get angry at that.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56125462

 

So there’s no point kicking off now, over the failure to publish the contracts.  Wait till the meaty evidence of cronyism to emerge and then nail the cunts.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Has anyone on here read the judgment against the government this week?  

Yes. Govt. actions are  summarised as a series of timing breaches committed at a time of national crisis, no deliberate attempt to subvert the law, all put right a couple of weeks later, nobody suffered to any great extent, no relief necessary except a declaration the govt. could have done better.

Lovely tittle tattle for the media but if anyone's looking for a smoking gun I suggest this particular judgement is not the place. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony Moanero said:

I can’t quite put my finger on why but I find Keir Starmer’s voice really irritating. It’s enough to have me reaching for the remote.

 

1 hour ago, Moo said:

Absolutely.  It shouldn't be, of course, but his voice and speech pattern is a problem.

I think that's true of a lot of recent and current party leaders: for different reasons, their voices and mannerisms annoy me, regardless of whether I agree with what they're saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "don't mention the Brexit" shit is way more of an issue than not calling for Hancock's resignation. 

 

As people have mentioned, there's probably more to come re: the procurement of PPE contracts. And, there's the risk that people could twist anything Starmer said into a "what's he like, calling for the health secretary's resignation when there's a pandemic? Why's he playing politics when people are dying?" type criticism. 

 

But, the Brexit stuff is a big two fingers up to anybody who is suffering from the fall-out from Brexit. An implied, silent message to just get on with it and tough shit as the really important issue (for some) is to instead avoid doing anything that might make Starmer look bad to the "red wall" lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I think the "don't mention the Brexit" shit is way more of an issue than not calling for Hancock's resignation. 

 

As people have mentioned, there's probably more to come re: the procurement of PPE contracts. And, there's the risk that people could twist anything Starmer said into a "what's he like, calling for the health secretary's resignation when there's a pandemic? Why's he playing politics when people are dying?" type criticism. 

 

But, the Brexit stuff is a big two fingers up to anybody who is suffering from the fall-out from Brexit. An implied, silent message to just get on with it and tough shit as the really important issue (for some) is to instead avoid doing anything that might make Starmer look bad to the "red wall" lot. 

You can deal with the fallout and mis handling of brexit but Starmer knows if he so much as hints at reversing our withdrawal from Europe Labour are finished in the north, it'll be a lose like Scotland, they'd be toast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they are warming up the "wokey London QC". Obviously this is coming from some of the most deliberately divisive people. I'm guessing this type of stuff it's a win win  -  they force him right on societal issues and in the best case some of it sticks. 

 

Eu1f-VBk-Xc-AU7-J1-W-1.jpg

 

 

Screenshot-20210222-144013-Chrome.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointed in Starmer here. Surely he can't believe what he's saying about crime involved in illegal cannabis being a reason to keep it illegal? I want the guy to succeed but I can't help but feel he's wedded to the notion of appealing to the ignorant Mail reading over 60s as a means of improving his standing, and to fuck with anything resembling logic. Even people on the right are starting to realise legalisation is the way forward. He's so far behind the curve on this it hurts.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/02/2021 at 14:19, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

Why in the name of flying fuck goddess of the sea and air has he got a blue tick

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Christ, he'd have been better off saying "I haven't got the first fucking clue".

The demographic he seems to be chasing will end up boiling down to a 60 year old woman running an estate agents just outside Guildford. Who'll end up deciding to vote Lib Dem anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Disappointed in Starmer here. Surely he can't believe what he's saying about crime involved in illegal cannabis being a reason to keep it illegal? I want the guy to succeed but I can't help but feel he's wedded to the notion of appealing to the ignorant Mail reading over 60s as a means of improving his standing, and to fuck with anything resembling logic. Even people on the right are starting to realise legalisation is the way forward. He's so far behind the curve on this it hurts.

 

 

I think the view is that decriminalisation is about removing the criminalisation of users, but the supply chain would mainly still be largely through illegal supply chains.  She doesn't ask about legalisation, which could offer more of a threat to organised criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×