Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

I never mentioned her.

I know I was speaking more in general terms, Starmer and his little crew have been more preoccupied with waging war against half of the Labour Party than waging war against the Government, quite possibly the worst Government in history, this should be a turkey shoot, Labour should be ten points up.

[Arniepie]

1 hour ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Also, do people not realise he needs to get a load of non Labour supporters on side, so he needs to cover every base? 
 

Absolute farcical the way Pidcock came straight out and labelled it a nothing speech. She had clearly never listened to any of what he said as the bullshit she gave to 5Live yesterday was a clear demonstration of that. 
 

Corbyn’s followers need to either pipe down and support him (just like they wanted everyone to do for Jeremy) or fuck the fuck off. If they don’t do either then these cesspit dwellers who currently govern will be in even longer. Dickheads the lot of them. 
 

 

 

Dont you think the fact that he has spent a year trying to remove anyone even associated with Corbyn from the party,plays a part?

There is clearly fault on both sides here.

He seems to be doing everything he can to distance himself from Corbyns policies,many of which made complete sense.

I'm not corbyn cultist but I've never felt so disenfranchised from them in my life,so if he thinks he can rely on traditional labour voters,he may be in for a shock.

[Bruce Spanner]

4 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

Dont you think the fact that he has spent a year trying to remove anyone even associated with Corbyn from the party,plays a part?

There is clearly fault on both sides here.

He seems to be doing everything he can to distance himself from Corbyns policies,many of which made complete sense.

I'm not corbyn cultist but I've never felt so disenfranchised from them in my life,so if he thinks he can rely on traditional labour voters,he may be in for a shock.

 

Traditional Labour voters are not always traditional Labour members and we should always remember that as the distinction is quite significant.

[Jairzinho]

2 hours ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Corbyn’s followers need to either pipe down and support him (just like they wanted everyone to do for Jeremy) or fuck the fuck off. If they don’t do either then these cesspit dwellers who currently govern will be in even longer. Dickheads the lot of them. 
 

Well if the polls are right, Labour still around 30% and Greens up to 9%, then it appears that many of Corbyn's followers have indeed fucked off. It won't result in winning an election.

 

Starmer was going to unify the party remember? Find some common ground and build a balanced platform that would be palatable to the left and right of the party. How would you say he's getting on?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, skend04 said:

Are you deliberately stupid?

People vote for more than one issue in a GE. Why would a party dedicated to one issue get a lot of votes? 

In fairness, a major reason Labour lost so many seats was because they were (falsely) portrayed as a Remain party bent on overturning the Referendum result. Starmer was seen as a major part of that, so he's got his work cut out to gain the trust of voters.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

5 hours ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

 

Corbyn’s followers need to either pipe down and support him (just like they wanted everyone to do for Jeremy) or fuck the fuck off. If they don’t do either then these cesspit dwellers who currently govern will be in even longer. Dickheads the lot of them. 

You're rewriting history here. There was no purge of the Centrists under Corbyn, nor did his supporters call for any unswerving loyalty to the Glorious Leader. We just wanted Labour MPs and officials not to actively work against the party. Still do.

[Bruce Spanner]

19 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You're rewriting history here. There was no purge of the Centrists under Corbyn, nor did his supporters call for any unswerving loyalty to the Glorious Leader. We just wanted Labour MPs and officials not to actively work against the party. Still do.

 

Do you consider what McDonnell is doing working against the party, that's just the public domaine stuff not the legal fights he's working on in the background?

 

What about Pinnock and her dismissive comments to camera as soon as his speech was over.?

 

What about McDonald quitting at the most opportune moment on a 'ideological' belief he didn't previously hold?

 

What about Labour youth inventing probelms to cause trouble before conference?

 

This is just the last week or so and this is not me sticking up for Starmer, his side are just as bad.

 

This isn't party politics anymore it's ego driven axe grinding.

 

The whole party is fucking toxic and needs to grow the fuck up as there are bigger fights to be fought.

[Josef Svejk]

Anthony Joshua's next opponent announced:

 

 

[Strontium]

5 hours ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Also, do people not realise he needs to get a load of non Labour supporters on side, so he needs to cover every base? 

 

One of the complaints yesterday was that Starmer was "trying to appeal to Tory voters".

 

Well, yeah.

 

Don't even get me started on Pidcock, who exemplifies that cretinous attitude better than just about anyone. An expert in nothing, other than how to lose one of the safest Labour seats in the country to the Tories.

[Gnasher]

65% of the public are out of touch Communist Jeremy Corbyn fans,

 

 

[Section_31]

I do definitely think the labour party needs to split at some stage, there's two very distinct factions very much pulling in the wrong direction.

 

I've underwhelmed by Starmer, but the people I know who don't - and never have - liked him, only really started supporting labour when Corbyn became leader.

 

There's the feeling with a lot of those people that Corbyn's labour 'was' Labour, but that the Labour of Kinnock, Blair, Brown and Starmer (i.e all the leaders except Foot in my lifetime) had somehow hijacked it, when surely Corbyn's history as a labour outsider - spanning decades, not just recently - would suggest the opposite is true.

 

Since the credit crunch and austerity, there's been a clear, grass roots anger building that's brought a lot of people together. Climate activists, students, disgruntled former labour people who didn't like Blair, especially after the Iraq war. And they found a home with Corbyn's labour. But was 'that' the labour party? I'd suggest they were mostly greens, or in smaller socialist parties (our uni had one back in the day). This labour party isn't what they want it to be, but was it ever?

 

If there's such a thing as a traditional labour voter from the north of England, I'd wager they were none of the above, but more likely blue collar workers who were in a union but were socially conservative, not internationalist in outlook, pro monarchy (or at least indifferent) and same again for the military.

 

There's a huge need for the real activism of Corbyn supporters and as the world gets shitter, they will grow in number. It would make sense if two distinct parties emerged and gave people real choice, rather than one side trying to smother the other.

[Arniepie]

2 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

One of the complaints yesterday was that Starmer was "trying to appeal to Tory voters".

 

Well, yeah.

 

Don't even get me started on Pidcock, who exemplifies that cretinous attitude better than just about anyone. An expert in nothing, other than how to lose one of the safest Labour seats in the country to the Tories.

And how is that working out for them.?

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Arniepie said:

And how is that working out for them.?

 

Unfortunately my crystal ball is on the blink at the moment, so we'll just have to wait until the next general election.

 

[Arniepie]

52 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I do definitely think the labour party needs to split at some stage, there's two very distinct factions very much pulling in the wrong direction.

 

I've underwhelmed by Starmer, but the people I know who don't - and never have - liked him, only really started supporting labour when Corbyn became leader.

 

There's the feeling with a lot of those people that Corbyn's labour 'was' Labour, but that the Labour of Kinnock, Blair, Brown and Starmer (i.e all the leaders except Foot in my lifetime) had somehow hijacked it, when surely Corbyn's history as a labour outsider - spanning decades, not just recently - would suggest the opposite is true.

 

Since the credit crunch and austerity, there's been a clear, grass roots anger building that's brought a lot of people together. Climate activists, students, disgruntled former labour people who didn't like Blair, especially after the Iraq war. And they found a home with Corbyn's labour. But was 'that' the labour party? I'd suggest they were mostly greens, or in smaller socialist parties (our uni had one back in the day). This labour party isn't what they want it to be, but was it ever?

 

If there's such a thing as a traditional labour voter from the north of England, I'd wager they were none of the above, but more likely blue collar workers who were in a union but were socially conservative, not internationalist in outlook, pro monarchy (or at least indifferent) and same again for the military.

 

There's a huge need for the real activism of Corbyn supporters and as the world gets shitter, they will grow in number. It would make sense if two distinct parties emerged and gave people real choice, rather than one side trying to smother the other.

I think a traditional labour voter from liverpool.say,would be completely different than a traditional labour voter from say stoke. 

I'd say at some point,possibly Brexit, those 2 voters have diverged and I'd have absolutely no idea how they realign them.

I'd say in the past unions have kept their interests in the same ballpark but that influence has steadily diminished.

[Arniepie]

4 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Unfortunately my crystal ball is on the blink at the moment, so we'll just have to wait until the next general election.

 

The election was 18 months ago.But m sure it will work out in the end and akex will keep up with all his levelling up promises.

[Bruce Spanner]

9 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

The election was 18 months ago.But m sure it will work out in the end and akex will keep up with all his levelling up promises.

 

Levelling up is the ultimate con trick.

 

A voter sees something good, anything at all and they'll claim it's levelling up.

 

Look across to the next town a see something happening, it'll be you soon, we're levelling up everybody.

 

See nothing happening in your town, look over there it's worse, we've already started levelling you up and it will continue.

 

Empty gesture sleight of hand nonsense that hasn't even got a rough draft of any policy or ideas yet, let alone a white paper, but can be brought up at all times as justification for ineptness and callousness.

 

The conference next week will focus on what he plans to do not what he's doing as always.

 

Charlatan is as charlatan does.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

One of the complaints yesterday was that Starmer was "trying to appeal to Tory voters".

 

Well, yeah.

 

Don't even get me started on Pidcock, who exemplifies that cretinous attitude better than just about anyone. An expert in nothing, other than how to lose one of the safest Labour seats in the country to the Tories.

I read some statistics a while ago (actually, a couple of GEs ago, so they could be hopelessly out of date) which suggested that about 5% of the electorate are Tory voters who could be swayed to vote for someone else; meanwhile, about 30-35% of the electorate don't vote.

 

If Labour go all out to chase that 5%, they're unlikely to get all of them and they're likely to lose some of the voters they already have. Giving the disillusioned, disengaged and disenfranchised people something they actually want to vote for is surely a much better strategy.

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

 

If Labour go all out to chase that 5%, they're unlikely to get all of them and they're likely to lose some of the voters they already have. Giving the disillusioned, disengaged and disenfranchised people something they actually want to vote for is surely a much better strategy.

I suppose those 5% are possibly proportionally more important politically due to the voting system.

 

Also, you have to first accept that the most important thing to the people in control of the party is winning an election. Which I don't really.

[sir roger]

3 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

Do you consider what McDonnell is doing working against the party, that's just the public domaine stuff not the legal fights he's working on in the background?

 

What about Pinnock and her dismissive comments to camera as soon as his speech was over.?

 

What about McDonald quitting at the most opportune moment on a 'ideological' belief he didn't previously hold?

 

What about Labour youth inventing probelms to cause trouble before conference?

 

This is just the last week or so and this is not me sticking up for Starmer, his side are just as bad.

 

This isn't party politics anymore it's ego driven axe grinding.

 

The whole party is fucking toxic and needs to grow the fuck up as there are bigger fights to be fought.

You say you aren't sticking up for Starmer , but the ' both sides are as bad as each other ' tone doesn't bear inspection when you look at what has gone on over the last two leaderships.

 

Just for starters , one leader had the other one in his shadow cabinet for 4 years , the other one tried to throw the original out of the party as soon as he ascended.

[Gnasher]

 

[Bruce Spanner]

24 minutes ago, sir roger said:

You say you aren't sticking up for Starmer , but the ' both sides are as bad as each other ' tone doesn't bear inspection when you look at what has gone on over the last two leaderships.

 

Just for starters , one leader had the other one in his shadow cabinet for 4 years , the other one tried to throw the original out of the party as soon as he ascended.

 

Rog, I don't know how many times I need to say this but I worked on the Corbyn 17/19 campaigns, and Milliband before it, and was posting on here about what those bellends were doing at HQ, and through skullduggery in the unions also, at the time.

 

All of it is still fucking happening, it's just you like one more than the other.

 

Do some research in to what McDonnell is lending his hands to, that's part of the 2m+ legal bills, he's not forthcoming about this shit though unlike the constant prime time media digs he's so intent on getting in, which are manna from heaven for the Tories and the media.

 

Evans, prick.

 

They all fucking are, including St Corbs and Starmer.

 

It's fucking pathetic and there is no ownership of the party, just vested interests trying their hand to remold it in their image.

 

Mark is right though, the most vocal tend to be those who's membership started on, or around, 15/08/2015. 

[Jairzinho]

Restarted, in the case of many. 

[Bruce Spanner]

18 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Restarted, in the case of many. 

 

Be that as it may, there is no universal ownership and that is our curse.

 

Labour, the working man/woman/family all else after.

 

Membership also cancelled the moment 'their guy' wasn't incharge?

 

Sums it up.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

42 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Also, you have to first accept that the most important thing to the people in control of the party is winning an election. Which I don't really.

That's my point, though; if you want to win an election, it should be easier to persuade non-votes to vote for you than to persuade people who actively vote against you.

[mattyq]

19 hours ago, Creator Supreme said:

Foot was a great man!

He was but he was a shit leader of the Labour Party