Keir Starmer

[Section_31]

1 minute ago, Megadrive Man said:

 

The Tories are definitely going to lose the next election. It's now just a question of how much they lose by. 

 

This is the perfect time for Labour to be a little bit braver and a little bit more radical. If they can't do it now, then they never will.

 

 

 

I agree but I'd say do it after they win, not before. To win the next election they literally have to sit on their hands.

 

What would be quite cool is if they win a landslide and then Starmer is ousted by someone with some vision, Bane-style, who puts their hand around the back of Murdoch's neck and says "do you feel in charge?".

[Mudface]

16 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I agree but I'd say do it after they win, not before. To win the next election they literally have to sit on their hands.

 

What would be quite cool is if they win a landslide and then Starmer is ousted by someone with some vision, Bane-style, who puts their hand around the back of Murdoch's neck and says "do you feel in charge?".

 

The problem with that, is the Labour 'right' will just go, 'see, this is what we need to do to win, not that Corbyn-esque stuff', and we'll end up with a Tory-lite government until the actual Tories get their shit back together.

[Bjornebye]

40 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

I may have misread you but Starmer is in no way popular. In my veiw it's nothing to do with his personality (no one wants another song and dance man) it's the fact he's ditched all of his ten pledges. The ten pledges he was elected on  Every one of them. Wiped. 

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-poll-keir-starmer-unpopular-tories-b2425801.html

 

 

 

His bizzare habit of praising people like Margaret Thatcher is probably another reason for his unpopularity. 

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-margaret-thatcher-comments-jeremy-corbyn-united-kingdom/

 

 

His backing of Sunak and the Tories on foreign affairs is also denting his popularity with the Muslim/ethnic vote.

 

 

I mean more the voting intentions for the upcoming GE. 

[Gnasher]

38 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I agree but I'd say do it after they win, not before. To win the next election they literally have to sit on their hands.

 

What would be quite cool is if they win a landslide and then Starmer is ousted by someone with some vision, Bane-style, who puts their hand around the back of Murdoch's neck and says "do you feel in charge?".

 

They're not sitting on their hands though they've just made pledges which guarantee wealth to the country's top 5% earners. 

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

 

I mean more the voting intentions for the upcoming GE. 

 

Ah right sorry. This is most unpopular governments in history. They've gone through three Prime Ministers in as many years. The country is crying out for a change of direction. Labour are refusing to offer it. 

[Section_31]

5 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

They're not sitting on their hands though they've just made pledges which guarantee wealth to the country's top 5% earners. 

 

I'd say they're trying to placate the few forces able to derail their lead. And they could, virtually instantly. 

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I'd say they're trying to placate the few forces able to derail their lead. And they could, virtually instantly. 

 

I'd say they're showing who they really are and who they've been telling people they are and what many were warning they were turning into. I hardly think scrapping a Kwasi Kwarteng/Lizz Truss banker bonus wouod halt their pursuit of power. 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/frustration-in-labour-ranks-over-reevess-refusal-to-reinstate-bankers-bonus-cap

 

 

 

 

[polymerpunkah]

59 minutes ago, Megadrive Man said:

 

The Tories are definitely going to lose the next election. It's now just a question of how much they lose by. 

 

This is the perfect time for Labour to be a little bit braver and a little bit more radical. If they can't do it now, then they never will.

 

 

 

This.

 

And the minute they're elected, they'll be running for re-election.

 

Running scared.

[Jairzinho]

Basically we'll find out soon enough if this is who Labour really are not. 

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Basically we'll find out soon enough if this is who Labour really are not. 

 

I'm still amazed people are still in doubt. They couldn't be making it any clearer. 

[Jairzinho]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

I'm still amazed people are still in doubt. They couldn't be making it any clearer. 

 

Gnasher, they could be Maoists and still think this is the only way, at the moment, of gaining power in the UK.

[Gnasher]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

 

Gnasher, they could be Maoists and still think this is the only way, at the moment, of gaining power in the UK.

 

Reeves announcements these past two days has very little to do with gaining power. They are not only massively unpopular most economists think they're foolish. She's making the Labour Party look foolish to appease the top 5%. She and the Labour Party were saying the complete opposite only a few months ago 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

It simply doesn't matter if the policy is hateful, shit, or hugely unpopular with the majority of people.

 

If the number crunching gimps at Labour HQ have said it will go down well with the 37 people who will decide some marginal in Coventry, they will do/say it.

 

 

[Section_31]

27 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

I'd say they're showing who they really are and who they've been telling people they are and what many were warning they were turning into. I hardly think scrapping a Kwasi Kwarteng/Lizz Truss banker bonus wouod halt their pursuit of power. 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/frustration-in-labour-ranks-over-reevess-refusal-to-reinstate-bankers-bonus-cap

 

 

 

 

 

When you and anti starmer types single out the people you hate it's usually about three or four people. Starmer, Reeves, Streeting etc. 

 

That's not the Labour Party. It's not every Labour MP, Labour Councillor, Labour activist or member. 

[Bjornebye]

9 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

When you and anti starmer types single out the people you hate it's usually about three or four people. Starmer, Reeves, Streeting etc. 

 

That's not the Labour Party. It's not every Labour MP, Labour Councillor, Labour activist or member. 

 

But they will be front benchers. My local Labour councillor is absolutely superb and I won't hear a bad word said about him. 

[Section_31]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

 

But they will be front benchers. My local Labour councillor is absolutely superb and I won't hear a bad word said about him. 

 

Yeah but there's not been some sort of root and stem takeover of labour by goldman sachs is what I'm getting at, the idea that they'll be as bad as the Tories is bonkers. Starmer is nowhere near as bad as any Tory MP (a low bar I know) nor does he have the means to bend the entire labour movement to his will. He's not a president.

[Jairzinho]

12 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

When you and anti starmer types single out the people you hate it's usually about three or four people. Starmer, Reeves, Streeting etc. 

 

That's not the Labour Party. It's not every Labour MP, Labour Councillor, Labour activist or member. 

 

That'll be the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Sec of State for Health in about a year. I think it's fair to say they'll be dictating policy. Quite early in the piece Starmer made it quite clear he doesn't give a fuck about the members, and certainly doesn't want them having any influence on the direction of the party.

[Gnasher]

13 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

When you and anti starmer types single out the people you hate it's usually about three or four people. Starmer, Reeves, Streeting etc. 

 

That's not the Labour Party. It's not every Labour MP, Labour Councillor, Labour activist or member. 

 

But they are making the policies and are pushing the direction the party goes. 

[Section_31]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

 

That'll be the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Sec of State for Health in about a year. I think it's fair to say they'll be dictating policy. Quite early in the piece Starmer made it quite clear he doesn't give a fuck about the members, and certainly doesn't want them having any influence on the direction of the party.

 

If it's that simple how come the Tories have had about 15 leaders this year and are constantly knifing each other in the back?  

 

It's proper baby bathwater stuff. I don't like Reeves therefore the whole of the Labour Party are like the Tories. 

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Section_31 said:

 

If it's that simple how come the Tories have had about 15 leaders this year and are constantly knifing each other in the back?  

 

It's proper baby bathwater stuff. I don't like Reeves therefore the whole of the Labour Party are like the Tories. 

 

What does the first part have to do with the Labour party? The first year or so of Starmer was basically a clearing of the deck, the shifting of power. He made sure it was top down again as it was with Blair. 

 

I don't think the whole of the Labour Party is like the Tories but I think it's largely irrelevant what most of the Labour Party is like. Back benchers, councillors and members aren't going to wield any power. Do as you're told or you'll get booted out. 

 

 

[Gnasher]

15 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

If it's that simple how come the Tories have had about 15 leaders this year and are constantly knifing each other in the back?  

 

It's proper baby bathwater stuff. I don't like Reeves therefore the whole of the Labour Party are like the Tories. 

 

Well she is going to be chancellor. Her decisions and direction of travel will have a direct effect on every person in the country. She's just made an unnecessary and surprising monetary commitment for those who are the richest in society yet refuses to commit to anything for the bottom 80% or so. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Curly]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

 

Ah right sorry. This is most unpopular governments in history. They've gone through three Prime Ministers in as many years. The country is crying out for a change of direction. Labour are refusing to offer it. 

 

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

 

I'm still amazed people are still in doubt. They couldn't be making it any clearer. 

I don’t get this thought process. You’re basically saying you’d rather give “the most unpopular government in history” an opportunity to get back in because the alternative option isn’t the form of that party you specifically want. Sounds almost childlike that. Proper nose off to spite face stuff.

 

You’ve decided labour and starmer are showing people what they are about, but I think you’re wrong. Starmer has pulled back on public iterations of anything that linked him to the original left with policies - like the stuff he took off his website. It’s tactical - if he loses the same percentage from a losing vote last time against gaining that percentage of a winning vote, then he’s laughing. If and when, as I think will happen, he starts pushing a more left minded government and policies once in power, will you then agree that you landed on the incorrect assumption.

 

I honestly don’t understand anyone not prepared to roll the dice either way though. We’ve got the worst case currently, so “Tory lite” is an improvement, but there’s all the brats crying that is isn’t the labour government they wanted, so will tactical vote or abstain. I remember the conversations on here about whether it was harsh to call working class people who voted Tory thick - well I will 100% call left minded people thick if they don’t vote labour at the GE.

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Curly said:

 

I don’t get this thought process. You’re basically saying you’d rather give “the most unpopular government in history” an opportunity to get back in because the alternative option isn’t the form of that party you specifically want. Sounds almost childlike that. Proper nose off to spite face stuff.

 

You’ve decided labour and starmer are showing people what they are about, but I think you’re wrong. Starmer has pulled back on public iterations of anything that linked him to the original left with policies - like the stuff he took off his website. It’s tactical - if he loses the same percentage from a losing vote last time against gaining that percentage of a winning vote, then he’s laughing. If and when, as I think will happen, he starts pushing a more left minded government and policies once in power, will you then agree that you landed on the incorrect assumption.

 

I honestly don’t understand anyone not prepared to roll the dice either way though. We’ve got the worst case currently, so “Tory lite” is an improvement, but there’s all the brats crying that is isn’t the labour government they wanted, so will tactical vote or abstain. I remember the conversations on here about whether it was harsh to call working class people who voted Tory thick - well I will 100% call left minded people thick if they don’t vote labour at the GE.

 

The "left wing stuff" Starmer took down was really not left wing. They were basic common sense centre ground policies. 

 

As for which way people vote their is a thread for that. As this is the Starmer thread criticism is possible, he's not my Guru  . Although you go call people whatever flouts your boat. 

[Curly]

15 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

The "left wing stuff" Starmer took down was really not left wing. They were basic common sense centre ground policies. 

 

As for which way people vote their is a thread for that. As this is the Starmer thread criticism is possible, he's not my Guru  . Although you go call people whatever flouts your boat. 

Why did you make noise about it being removed then?

[Gnasher]

6 minutes ago, Curly said:

Why did you make noise about it being removed then?

 

What type of questions that? Because they were good pledges and by taking them down it showed a level of dishonesty. 

 

If people choose hes crossed the line and so not vote for his party that's their perogative. For instance just as you're passionate over Ukraine others be equally passionate about the events in Gaza and thus vote accordingly. That's just one issue. These politicians do not deserve a blank cheque but its up to you.