Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

On 24/06/2022 at 18:39, Moo said:

Burnham has not "won over" Manchester (whatever that means).  He's invisible and most people seem to barely give him a thought or even know what his job is.

Bar for the 470,000 people (67%) who walked to a polling boothe and voted for him.

[Numero Veinticinco]

He only got 67%? The MP for Manchester got 77 and 70% in the last elections. Getting 67% in a place where they’d vote in Ming the Merciless if you stuck a red rosette on him perhaps isn’t the vote of confidence you think it is. And considering the turn out was something like 28% and 36% in his two mayoral elections… let’s not rip our cocks off over his popularity. 

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

He only got 67%? The MP for Manchester got 77 and 70% in the last elections. Getting 67% in a place where they’d vote in Ming the Merciless if you stuck a red rosette on him perhaps isn’t the vote of confidence you think it is. And considering the turn out was something like 28% and 36% in his two mayoral elections… let’s not rip our cocks off over his popularity. 

I was replying to Moo who said Burham was 'invisible'. Bar for the 470,000 voters, which equates to approx one in four of those registered to vote maybe he is. 

 

Burham also increased his vote percentage in Manchester from the previous election. 

[Moo]

18 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Bar for the 470,000 people (67%) who walked to a polling boothe and voted for him.

I know and as I replied at the time:

"It could've been anyone, he was up against a Tory.  Manchester is not a tough crowd for Labour"

 

And as the next reply to you also confirmed, anyone representing Labour would win the mayoral election in Manchester comfortably.

You said he had "won over" Manchester, implying that Manchester needed winning over in some way?  I basically said he'd done nothing special and, as I've mentioned before, he disappears from people's consciousness for long stretches, hence "invisible".

Trust me, the Manchester crowd is not going round lauding Burnham.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Burham also increased his vote percentage in Manchester from the previous election. 

Yeah, by 3.9%. Absolute legendary ‘winning over’. 

[Gnasher]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yeah, by 3.9%. Absolute legendary ‘winning over’. 

Well damn lies and statistics and all that. He was starting from a fairly high mark and he was the incumbent so I'd say that's a firm seal of approval for the job he's doing. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Well damn lies and statistics and all that. He was starting from a fairly high mark and he was the incumbent so I'd say that's a firm seal of approval for the job he's doing. 

I’m sure you would say that, because you’re trying to present a narrative. When you consider the other figures that have be put in the previous posts, it tells a different story. It really indicated that he is Labour, and 28% of people had come out to vote. Then a few more percent came out and he had a small bump. If you want to take that as some rip roaring success, rather than what it obviously is, you’re welcome to. It doesn’t really do much. 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’m sure you would say that, because you’re trying to present a narrative. When you consider the other figures that have be put in the previous posts, it tells a different story. It really indicated that he is Labour, and 28% of people had come out to vote. Then a few more percent came out and he had a small bump. If you want to take that as some rip roaring success, rather than what it obviously is, you’re welcome to. It doesn’t really do much. 

 

I'm not presenting anything. I've explained i was replying to another poster over Burham being 'invisible'. As for Burhams increased percentage vote its definitely a positive for the incumbent to increase his vote share as he's there to be blamed, there to be shot at, there to vent frustrations and there to vote out. If your vote holds up its a stamp of approval.

[No2]

On 30/06/2022 at 17:18, Gnasher said:

Horrible woman. Horrible human being. A person with zero empathy.

He was asking would you eat her ghoul?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Fucksake. He's gone, get over it.

 

[Bjornebye]

3 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’m sure you would say that, because you’re trying to present a narrative. When you consider the other figures that have be put in the previous posts, it tells a different story. It really indicated that he is Labour, and 28% of people had come out to vote. Then a few more percent came out and he had a small bump. If you want to take that as some rip roaring success, rather than what it obviously is, you’re welcome to. It doesn’t really do much. 

What have you got against Burnham mate? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

What have you got against Burnham mate? 

I wouldn't say I've got something against him, I think the issue I have with his name being mentioned in terms of how well he is doing in Manchester is that it's implied he should have a run at the leadership. The issue is, he isn't (according to Mancs) doing that well, and those numbers are pretty much in line with absolutely anybody else putting on the rosette, and he's actually had a run before and fucked it. Now, that's not to say he shouldn't be allowed another one, but he's not eligible. So it's all a bit irrelevant, and I feel like he's being talked up by a few with false figures. 

 

I would, of course, take him as PM right now. I'm ambivalent on him. 

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I wouldn't say I've got something against him, I think the issue I have with his name being mentioned in terms of how well he is doing in Manchester is that it's implied he should have a run at the leadership. The issue is, he isn't (according to Mancs) doing that well, and those numbers are pretty much in line with absolutely anybody else putting on the rosette, and he's actually had a run before and fucked it. Now, that's not to say he shouldn't be allowed another one, but he's not eligible. So it's all a bit irrelevant, and I feel like he's being talked up by a few with false figures. 

 

I would, of course, take him as PM right now. I'm ambivalent on him. 

Plus he's a titchy little bit to the left, can't have that can we?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Gnasher said:

Plus he's a titchy little bit to the left, can't have that can we?

Ah, yes. That’s it. Because I’m a right winger. I keep forgetting. 
 

Time for the daily ‘what right wing things do I support’ question that you won’t answer. 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I wouldn't say I've got something against him, I think the issue I have with his name being mentioned in terms of how well he is doing in Manchester is that it's implied he should have a run at the leadership. The issue is, he isn't (according to Mancs) doing that well, and those numbers are pretty much in line with absolutely anybody else putting on the rosette, and he's actually had a run before and fucked it. Now, that's not to say he shouldn't be allowed another one, but he's not eligible. So it's all a bit irrelevant, and I feel like he's being talked up by a few with false figures. 

 

I would, of course, take him as PM right now. I'm ambivalent on him. 

I wasn't digging you out I just wondered. I think he's sound. I also think Starmer needs replacing and Burnham would be high on my list. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

I wasn't digging you out I just wondered. I think he's sound. I also think Starmer needs replacing and Burnham would be high on my list. 

He's no eligible, so he wouldn't be in my list. I also question whether he can carry much support outside of the NW. With Starmer, who I'm fine with being replaced with the condition that it has to be for a clearly more electable person, is a bit like a 'anyone but Rafa' situation. I always said I'm okay with Rafa being replaced but it needs to be with somebody better (in this case, better = able to win). 

 

I listened to Blair (yes, Gnasher, I'm a big Blairite right winger because I listened to an interview. Save your breath) in an interview the other day about Starmer and the real world job he has had to do to fix the way the party works and what he now needs to do to win an election. It was actually pretty interesting, because although I hate the fucker he knows how to win elections. 

 

I honestly don't see a better - or at least significantly better - candidate for election than Starmer in the Labour Party at the moment. There's people with politics that might be closer to mine, but that's not the game we are playing here. 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

He's no eligible, so he wouldn't be in my list. I also question whether he can carry much support outside of the NW. With Starmer, who I'm fine with being replaced with the condition that it has to be for a clearly more electable person, is a bit like a 'anyone but Rafa' situation. I always said I'm okay with Rafa being replaced but it needs to be with somebody better (in this case, better = able to win). 

 

I listened to Blair (yes, Gnasher, I'm a big Blairite right winger because I listened to an interview. Save your breath) in an interview the other day about Starmer and the real world job he has had to do to fix the way the party works and what he now needs to do to win an election. It was actually pretty interesting, because although I hate the fucker he knows how to win elections. 

 

I honestly don't see a better - or at least significantly better - candidate for election than Starmer in the Labour Party at the moment. There's people with politics that might be closer to mine, but that's not the game we are playing here. 

If there was a desire for him to lead Labour ineligibility wouldn't come into it. It would happen. 

 

Starmer is hiding something. Fuck knows what but something is stopping him from going for the jugular. I initially thought he was stock-piling and waiting for the right moment but he's doing absolutely fuck all. This is the worst most corrupt government in British history and he can't lay a fucking finger on them. They are eating themselves, nothing Labour are doing is hurting the Tories. I've always voted Labour but like fuck do I trust them. I trust my local Labour MP but as a party? There are a few decent ones, Drakeford, Chris Bryant (I'd like to see him lead the party) but by and large they are feigning any sort of left wing ideology because they care more about themselves. 

[Gnasher]

14 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I wouldn't say I've got something against him, I think the issue I have with his name being mentioned in terms of how well he is doing in Manchester is that it's implied he should have a run at the leadership. The issue is, he isn't (according to Mancs) doing that well, and those numbers are pretty much in line with absolutely anybody else putting on the rosette, and he's actually had a run before and fucked it. Now, that's not to say he shouldn't be allowed another one, but he's not eligible. So it's all a bit irrelevant, and I feel like he's being talked up by a few with false figures. 

 

I would, of course, take him as PM right now. I'm ambivalent on him. 

Burham increased his vote share in Manchester at a difficult time for the Labour Party in general. Those figures disprove your description of Burham 'not doing that well according to Mancs'.

 

The leadership contest you keep referring to that Burham lost was twelve years ago. Burham was a government minster and has more  experience than almost anyone on Starmers front bench including Starmer himself.  Burham is not tainted by the right wing plot to overthrow Corbyn in the infamous chicken coup and so has a chance to A. Unite the party and  B. Regain disgruntled center left voters who have drifted away from the Labour party 

 

Interesting how you constantly bleat on about the importance of winning yet when someone slightly to the left wins you're quick to dismiss and downplay it. 

 

Burham was on TV this morning and he sounded concise and confident when discussing workers rights to  take industrial action to protect jobs and wages (unlike the idiot Labour sent out last week). Imo he'd be an instant improvement on Starmer as Labour leader.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Gnasher said:

Burham increased his vote share in Manchester at a difficult time for the Labour Party in general. Those figures disprove your description of Burham 'not doing that well according to Mancs'.

No it doesn't. When you have a higher percentage of people turning out in a red area, the red share grows. This is pretty basic stuff for people who can actually count. 3.9%. Absolute monster performance by the big man. Rachel Reeves would have won there. Easily. 

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

The leadership contest you keep referring to that Burham lost was twelve years ago. Burham was a government minster and has more  experience than almost anyone on Starmers front bench including Starmer himself. 

Right. So it's not electability, or even eligibility to stand for the leadership contest, that you're concerned about but experience. Got it. What experience does he have as leader and standing in elections? None, so Ed Miliband? Corbyn back? 

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Burham is not tainted by the right wing plot to overthrow Corbyn in the infamous chicken coup and so has a chance to A. Unite the party and  B. Regain disgruntled center left voters who have drifted away from the Labour party 

The centre-left, the actual centre-left, support Starmer, who is centre-left. You're talking about left-wingers. Unfortunately you don't actually know what these terms mean. 

7 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Interesting how you constantly bleat on about the importance of winning yet when someone slightly to the left wins you're quick to dismiss and downplay it. 

Yes, because I'm right-wing right? Brilliant. Second time today, let's ask the question. What right wing policies do I support? Enjoy ignoring that. Again. And again. And again. 

 

I constantly 'bleat' on about winning the general election (you don't care about this, you care about the internal argument. Fuck real people, let kids starve as long as Corbs' honour is intact) because it's the only thing that makes a difference. You calling it 'bleating' makes it pretty fucking obvious what your priority is. I'm not downplaying anything, I'm saying that what he does in a mayoral election in Manchester, where Starmer, Reeves, Corbyn, Miliband, Hitler, Stalin, and Frank fucking Bruno would all get similar results over the Tories, isn't an indication of how well he'll do as Labour leader. 

16 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Burham was on TV this morning and he sounded concise and confident when discussing workers rights to  take industrial action to protect jobs and wages (unlike the idiot Labour sent out last week). Imo he'd be an instant improvement on Starmer as Labour leader.

Improvement in what regards, winning support or doing the 'right thing' as per your view of the world? 

 

I hope you get what you want, and Starmer is booted and replaced by this mythical 'unity' candidate from the left that's going to be passionate and 'hold the government to account'. Then, when the next Tory government are responsible for some truly sick shit, I'm going to bring it up every fucking day. It'll be your fault. Just as this government is the fault of Corbyn and his acolytes. This is the result of what you wanted. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

36 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

If there was a desire for him to lead Labour ineligibility wouldn't come into it. It would happen. 

How? I mean, in the future when he's eligible again, sure. But he can't just be eligible because that's what some people want. 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

How? I mean, in the future when he's eligible again, sure. But he can't just be eligible because that's what some people want. 

Like I said, if there was a desire for him to be leader he'd be leader. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Like I said, if there was a desire for him to be leader he'd be leader. 

Fair enough, I'm just wondering how they go about that.

[Moo]

6 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

I'm not presenting anything. I've explained i was replying to another poster over Burham being 'invisible'.

Which was in response to you saying Burnham had "won over" a tough Manchester crowd, that's what you were presenting.  Doesn't that suggest you think he's done more than win the mayorship in a notoriously Labour stronghold? 

Saying he comfortably won the mayorship in Manchester as the Labour candidate (on a low turnout, because everyone knew he would win because he's the Labour candidate) doesn't evoke the same image of course.

[Gnasher]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

No it doesn't. When you have a higher percentage of people turning out in a red area, the red share grows. This is pretty basic stuff for people who can actually count. 3.9%. Absolute monster performance by the big man. Rachel Reeves would have won there. Easily. 

Right. So it's not electability, or even eligibility to stand for the leadership contest, that you're concerned about but experience. Got it. What experience does he have as leader and standing in elections? None, so Ed Miliband? Corbyn back? 

The centre-left, the actual centre-left, support Starmer, who is centre-left. You're talking about left-wingers. Unfortunately you don't actually know what these terms mean. 

Yes, because I'm right-wing right? Brilliant. Second time today, let's ask the question. What right wing policies do I support? Enjoy ignoring that. Again. And again. And again. 

 

I constantly 'bleat' on about winning the general election (you don't care about this, you care about the internal argument. Fuck real people, let kids starve as long as Corbs' honour is intact) because it's the only thing that makes a difference. You calling it 'bleating' makes it pretty fucking obvious what your priority is. I'm not downplaying anything, I'm saying that what he does in a mayoral election in Manchester, where Starmer, Reeves, Corbyn, Miliband, Hitler, Stalin, and Frank fucking Bruno would all get similar results over the Tories, isn't an indication of how well he'll do as Labour leader. 

Improvement in what regards, winning support or doing the 'right thing' as per your view of the world? 

 

I hope you get what you want, and Starmer is booted and replaced by this mythical 'unity' candidate from the left that's going to be passionate and 'hold the government to account'. Then, when the next Tory government are responsible for some truly sick shit, I'm going to bring it up every fucking day. It'll be your fault. Just as this government is the fault of Corbyn and his acolytes. This is the result of what you wanted. 

Numero, Starmer is no longer 'centre left' he's veering more to right as his leadership goes on. I don't know who you're still. trying to kid? People are no longer buying it, the boss of Britain's biggest union certainly isn't. 

 

 

 

 

As for this 'mythical figure' Burnham is not a mythical figure, he's a former health secretary and is Labour Mayor for Manchester and if Labour can't beat this tory mob of incompetents they are doing something seriously wrong.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Numero, Starmer is no longer 'centre left' he's veering more to right as his leadership goes on. I don't know who you're still. trying to kid? People are no longer buying it, the boss of Britain's biggest union certainly isn't. 

 

 

 

 

As for this 'mythical figure' Burnham is not a mythical figure, he's a former health secretary and is Labour Mayor for Manchester and if Labour can't beat this tory mob of incompetents they are doing something seriously wrong.

 

 

Yes, hard left wing union leader aside… 

 

What right wing policies has Starmer moved towards. Another one to avoid.