Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Colemans Left Hook on June 21, 2022, 07:07:25 pm
-
Let's see if he lasts the year out - on top of that he has his "rebellious juniors" to sort out after todays "antics" he might just throw the towel in
-
Id like to think that Starmer has a bit for steel about him than allowing these issues to sway his judgment, I can't see him being fined by the police investigation into his late night work and booze bash so he won't have that small issue to allow him to resign and walk away.
The fact that he's been made to look impotent by his front benchers in the railway strike is a more serious issue for him, i understand why he's very loath to get dragged into this spat with the union because he doesn't want to detract from and have the heat taken off Johnson whilst he's still on fire, this is understandable but for a Labour leader to sit on his hands whilst working people are having to take strike action and for no push back to come from him towards the government is astonishing in its lethargy. Its almost as if he can't be seen to be looking after the interests of these working people.
Comes across as very arrogant and aloof, when coupled with his extreme lack of any suggested solution to these issues shows him up for the weak leader that he is.
If i was a Labour activist i'd be very worried that this fella is looking like he could work the oracle and allow a Johnson led government to take the play away from him and demonstrate to the nation that he's a London centric, metropolitan elitist, who has his eyes on the middle class Liberal vote and does not give two hoots for working class oiks.
This is what his Liberal focus groups have been telling him for long enough. All the red wall voters saw through the bloke straight away, i wonder how many more present and future red wall voters will he alienate?
-
He's a neo-liberalist. He'll never have the interests of working class people at heart.
-
He's a neo-liberalist. He'll never have the interests of working class people at heart.
What does that even mean?
-
He's a neo-liberalist. He'll never have the interests of working class people at heart.
What does that even mean?
I never had you down as someone who struggles with semantics.
If you can't see Keith's disconnect from the North and North-East, in pursuit of the liberalist middle class metropolitan voters of London and the South, then no wonder you're so enamoured with him.
Just what is it that makes you think he's a good Labour leader?
-
I meant, what do you mean by "neo-liberal". Only it seems to me to have become one of those terms thrown around that seems to mean "someone I don't like."
-
Scawsby seems to be equating Starmer with Reagan.
-
Here is a definition of neo-liberalism for starters;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
The dominant political and economic belief system for all my time, followed in various branded versions by Reagan to the Labour Party.
Surprised you need a primer BST, as you are the main proponent on here of this strange cult.
-
SS has a point, Starmer has found it very hard to ingratiate himself with the Labour working class vote, I get the impression he's allowed a few Labour left mps to be seen to be having some sort of say in the party(bit ironic as at this moment in time Labour dare not utter a word about anything they stand for) Only to be jettisoned if and when he gets the top gig.
I'll wait to see if i'm proved wrong but i get the distinct impression that Starmer would look very much in position alongside many centre left Tories who managed to find a way into the wrong nest.
Tell me if i'm wrong,but Labour should be setting their stall towards their historic hinterland and their best interests rather than trying to steal the fat emperor's clothes..
-
Here is a definition of neo-liberalism for starters;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
The dominant political and economic belief system for all my time, followed in various branded versions by Reagan to the Labour Party.
Surprised you need a primer BST, as you are the main proponent on here of this strange cult.
"I" don't.
And it really, really was NOT the approach followed by the last Labour Govt. Unless you're lazily chucking it around as an insult. Maybe YOU need a primer.
-
SS has a point, Starmer has found it very hard to ingratiate himself with the Labour working class vote, I get the impression he's allowed a few Labour left mps to be seen to be having some sort of say in the party(bit ironic as at this moment in time Labour dare not utter a word about anything they stand for) Only to be jettisoned if and when he gets the top gig.
I'll wait to see if i'm proved wrong but i get the distinct impression that Starmer would look very much in position alongside many centre left Tories who managed to find a way into the wrong nest.
Tell me if i'm wrong,but Labour should be setting their stall towards their historic hinterland and their best interests rather than trying to steal the fat emperor's clothes..
See what the result is in Wakefield in a couple of days time.
-
Oh dear me, BST.
The Wakefield result will tell little of value towards the next GE.
Labour will win, despite the candidate imposed by Starmer.
Neo liberal, well like this:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/labour-leadership-election-neoliberalism/
You are a great man for re-inventing the wheel when it suits.
-
SS has a point, Starmer has found it very hard to ingratiate himself with the Labour working class vote, I get the impression he's allowed a few Labour left mps to be seen to be having some sort of say in the party(bit ironic as at this moment in time Labour dare not utter a word about anything they stand for) Only to be jettisoned if and when he gets the top gig.
I'll wait to see if i'm proved wrong but i get the distinct impression that Starmer would look very much in position alongside many centre left Tories who managed to find a way into the wrong nest.
Tell me if i'm wrong,but Labour should be setting their stall towards their historic hinterland and their best interests rather than trying to steal the fat emperor's clothes..
See what the result is in Wakefield in a couple of days time.
As you know Labour are now 100 to one ON to win - a month ago i told you they were a mere 9/1 on
Apparently you can also get 100/1 AGAINST that "since-1961" makes a positive post on here.
-
Albie.
You make my point for me with that article, which has been posted in here before and reads no better now than it did then.
The article sets out clearly that neo-Liberaism is the move, driven by Hayek and Friedman in the mid 20th century, to embrace the principles of the free market and the minimisation of Govt involvement in the economy. What it skilfully avoids is any mention of what that was a reaction against - the overwhelming triumph of Keynesian economics. He doesn't mention Keynes once. Which is simply ridiculous in any critique of neo-Liberaism.
Keynes embraced the role of Government in guiding the economy through fiscal policy. Hayek and Friedman, and the Chicago School that worships them, were viscerally against that. They wanted the Government out of the picture.
Now look at the record of the last Labour Govt. Brown's approach was committedly Keynesian on fiscal policy. A world away from the Chicago School. In the biggest test of all, when the GFC hit, Brown led the world in driving Keynesian defecit spending to save us from a neo-liberal Great Depression.
It was Cameron and the Tories who embraced the neo-liberal approach with Austerity, with disastrous consequences.
Your man is doing precisely what I said. He's using the term neo-liberal as a catch-all insult to suit his ideogical argument. It's on a par with Trump calling Biden "socialist" or Rik in the Young Ones calling everyone who disagreed with him "fascist". It's a lazy debasement of language, but it sticks, unfortunately, because it tells some people what they want to hear. It's the sort of utter rubbish that confirms some people's belief that Brown was no better a choice than Cameron in 2010.
As for Wakefield, well, yeah you'll dismiss that. For precisely the same reason. Because it doesn't support the argument you want to make. For what it's worth, in two canvassing sessions I've done there, I haven't heard a single person say they are voting Labour because of the previous Tory MP's conviction. But of course that will be the Left's argument, and as usual, they'll hear nothing to the contrary.
-
SS has a point, Starmer has found it very hard to ingratiate himself with the Labour working class vote, I get the impression he's allowed a few Labour left mps to be seen to be having some sort of say in the party(bit ironic as at this moment in time Labour dare not utter a word about anything they stand for) Only to be jettisoned if and when he gets the top gig.
I'll wait to see if i'm proved wrong but i get the distinct impression that Starmer would look very much in position alongside many centre left Tories who managed to find a way into the wrong nest.
Tell me if i'm wrong,but Labour should be setting their stall towards their historic hinterland and their best interests rather than trying to steal the fat emperor's clothes..
See what the result is in Wakefield in a couple of days time.
Come on BST, if Labour stuck a red rosette on an Aardvark and it ran in Wakefield next week it would win, it's not a great example. Labour in opposition should be absolutely wiping the floor with this type of seat in a bye election at this point in the election cycle.
The real test will be when the next GE is called. Bye elections have always been fertile ground for mid term disquiet, done in the knowledge that in most cases it proves nothing, lets hope in this case it puts the required pressure on the Tories to Jettison Johnson, i would imagine that's probably the last thing this current Labour party wants for the next 24months.
-
BST,
As I have said before, Wakefield is mainly about Johnson, his record in office and his mendacity.
It tells you next to nothing about Labour under Starmer, because there is no policy framework to discuss.
You said yourself that there is no enthusiasm for the Labour offer, or an imposed candidate.
If you are saying that Brown was less neo liberal than Blair, then I would agree.
Blair is on record saying his project was a continuation of Thatcher's reforms.
That said, as Chancellor under Blair, Brown championed giving autonomy to the Bank of England, and sought to influence high finance with a "light touch regulation" approach. I would say these are not true Keynesian principles. These are trademark positions aimed at selling continuity in economic policy, by limiting government ability to act agaist city interests, and they failed lamentably.
Reluctance to challenge vested interests marked this period leading up to the 2008 crash, and bailing out the banking sector without conditionality was an epic error. Where did the public monies injected into the finance sector end up?
You know the answer as well as I do....in property, in inflated salaries and share buy-backs. The poor baled out the wealthy, Robin Hood in reverse.
The idea that Keynes, writing in the 1930's, should act as a guide to managing the modern economy is a sentimental nostalgia.
The world is a different place, political centers of gravity have shifted, economic relationships are very different.
Pre-digital and before the emergence of China as a superpower, the nature of the modern economy is rapidly changing the power relations between different interests. The next challenge of climate change is a gamechanger for the possible economic development pathways, and I don't see received wisdoms from nearly a century ago being a key player.
-
Starmer and labour got bashed for losing Hartlepool, now they are getting bashed because they will win Wakefield, go figure
-
Those that complain about Starmer that want to thread the needle with a camel need to talk to each other and get the story straight before tabling it, as your champion Steve, Andy Burnham is on the list of neo liberals as bst pointed to long ago.
-
"The idea that Keynes, writing in the 1930's, should act as a guide to managing the modern economy is a sentimental nostalgia."
And with that bit of nonsense, I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion.
-
BST,
But its not nonsense is it?
China is going to be the dominant economic force in the mid term going forwards.
The American period of leading the world economy is in decline, and the dollar will cease to be the reference currency in the rising markets.
Do you see the Chinese Communist Party following the Keynesian playbook in that transition?
Alongside the rise of China, the impact of climate change will be the driver of political and economic development as it kicks in.
What does the neo liberal market approach, or the privatisation of service provision, offer to a solution to the issues the climate crisis will bring?
All the shadow front bench team are immersed in the ideology of the market, and have a neo liberal world view to a degree.
Rachel Reeves is a classic example, announcing at the 2021 Labour conference a significant sum allocated to climate related events (without explaining how that money will be spent). She then went on to focus on the business as usual economy, without the slightest understanding that once climate kicks ass, that economy will collapse.
We are facing climate breakdown meaning crop failure and ecosystem disruption. Refugees from climate catastrophe will grow year on year.
The solutions of the past do not consider these matters.
You either see it, or you don't!
-
Yes it is absolute nonsense. You are dismissing a theory of economics that has broadly proven to be the way that economies work. God alone knows what you base that dismissal on other than that it is old. Do you dismiss Isaac Newton's theory of gravity because it is old?
The issue we were discussing before you veered off at 90 degrees is what neo-liberal means and whether it can be used as a genuinely suitable label for the last Labour Govt. I set out the fact that the whole premise of neo-Liberaism was a rejection of Keynesian economics and a wish to return to the status quo ante. Whereas the last Labour Govt based its whole macroeconomic policy on Keynesian ideas.
You've gone off in another direction altogether, showing a deep lack of understanding of economic fundamentals on the way. Fill your boots, but that's got sod all with the point we were discussing. So I'm done.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/22/labour-frontbenchers-who-joined-rail-strike-pickets-pressed-to-apologise-by-keir-starmer
It now seems that Labour frontbench MP's have to personally account why they ventured onto picket lines in support of striking rail workers.
Are we now living in a parallel universe, where the Tories are now the spendthrifts and Labour are the conserved ones?
This just gets weirder and weirder, what next, self flagellation for daring to say Keith's a boring old fart?
And they wonder why people can't bare the thought of having to vote for these shyster's.
-
Let’s not kid ourselves. The one thing that’s a certainty is he will do exactly what’s best for him and his future.
-
Unsubstantiatied rumour
https://twitter.com/d5_rss/status/1544240775311106049?s=21&t=n4D8Un8QvDxOHGgAHHcwMQ
-
quite
-
If that’s true then let’s see where his principles lie along with A Raynor if she gets one as well
-
Starmer will get away with it. He'll plead he has never arranged an illegal party, in fact, he's incapable of organising any party.
-
If that’s true then let’s see where his principles lie along with A Raynor if she gets one as well
If what's true phil?
-
First of all, lol GB News.
Secondly, you can't "appeal" an FPN can you as it's not a conviction? You can choose not to pay it and take your chances at the prosecution stage.
Maybe he will get fined. But anyone taking anything on Gbeebies at face value has worms in their brain. It's British Qanon.
-
First of all, lol GB News.
Secondly, you can't "appeal" an FPN can you as it's not a conviction? You can choose not to pay it and take your chances at the prosecution stage.
Maybe he will get fined. But anyone taking anything on Gbeebies at face value has worms in their brain. It's British Qanon.
obviously caused by a "diet of worms"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms
-
Unsubstantiatied rumour
https://twitter.com/d5_rss/status/1544240775311106049?s=21&t=n4D8Un8QvDxOHGgAHHcwMQ
A bit of Tory 'Look over there, look over there' following Johnson's latest lie exposure
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-informed-of-investigation-into-chris-pincher-in-2019-downing-street-confirms-12646002
-
Syd that KS has got a ticket
-
KS has a habit of lying though.
Didn’t he say he would restore socialist values to the LP when he became leader?
Well that hasn’t happened so he lied at the start of his tenure.
Also, after his announcement that he won’t push for a return to the EU if he were to become PM I wonder what Remainer Labour supporters will think about voting for him in 2024.
-
If he has taken out a super injunction to prevent press coverage of his fine, then that is regrettable.
The press should be free to report the situation as it stands, without prejudice to any appeal process.
This is a very bad move if true, because he will be roasted once the truth emerges.
-
If he has taken out a super injunction to prevent press coverage of his fine, then that is regrettable.
The press should be free to report the situation as it stands, without prejudice to any appeal process.
This is a very bad move if true, because he will be roasted once the truth emerges.
The keyword being "if". The only evidence of that to date being a gobshite far right shock jock on a far right propaganda outlet.
Here's a thought. Maybe he's going to be exonerated and it is in some people's interests to be able to say "Yeah, but he WAS found guilty originally, but he appealed and because there was a super-injunction, you'll never get to hear about it."
I have no idea what is happening, but I wouldn't trust Mark Steyn to tell me what colour the sky was.
-
I think albie has touched a nerve there.
-
BST,
If you think I take info from a right wing ranter, you are sadly mistaken.
Proof...no, but considerable speculation from much more reliable sources than the one you mention.
Wait and see, eh!
-
But I'd imagine labour would deny it if not true, which seems slightly odd.
-
BST,
If you think I take info from a right wing ranter, you are sadly mistaken.
Proof...no, but considerable speculation from much more reliable sources than the one you mention.
Wait and see, eh!
Guido Fawkes says there is no injunction and as he is based in Ireland, beyond UK courts jurisdiction, he's not going to fail to report it is he:
https://order-order.com/2022/07/05/about-starmers-durham-injunction/
Might be fined, might not be fined, it doesnt really bother me - but why make stuff up?
-
Tony Diver, the Whitehall editor of the Telegraph, tweeted about this earlier, then deleted the tweet.
https://skwawkbox.org/2022/07/05/exclusive-starmer-fails-to-deny-he-has-accepted-fine-but-team-planning-ill-go-if-johnson-goes-line/#comments
If it is not true, then Labour (and Raynor and Starmer personally) should just say so, on the record.
Letting it run on social media seems to me inept, and creating further doubt and confusion.
-
Skwakbox.
Heaven help us. The far Left's Poundland Fox News.
-
Divisions in the LP still very obvious then.
-
Tony Diver, the Whitehall editor of the Telegraph, tweeted about this earlier, then deleted the tweet.
https://skwawkbox.org/2022/07/05/exclusive-starmer-fails-to-deny-he-has-accepted-fine-but-team-planning-ill-go-if-johnson-goes-line/#comments
If it is not true, then Labour (and Raynor and Starmer personally) should just say so, on the record.
Letting it run on social media seems to me inept, and creating further doubt and confusion.
Albie.
Have you actually read that Skwakbox piece?
This "Starmer refuses to deny...!!!" piece?
Have you read the core of the story? Which amounts to "I, an obscure obsessive with a determination to be a far Left Guido, but little talent for it, texted Starmer and asked him if the rumour spread by a far right gobshite shock jock was true.
"And...he...didn't...reply."
-
Of course I read it, BST.
The tweet from Telegraph lobby journalist was retweeted before deletion, by Owen Jones of the Guardian amongst others.
If Starmer has changed to "I will resign if Boris does", then that is a matter of public interest.
Why would you not close down social media discussion with a simple clarification?
-
Ah yes. The fount of balanced wisdom, Owen Jones.
-
Balanced wisdom?
That's bloody brilliant coming from thee! :lol:
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1545370332260978688
-
That's that whole ridiculous nonsense put to bed then.
-
tissues and whisky for bb
-
what did the 'not one for predicting' say about starmer and beergate?
-
Meanwhile.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1545358083127496705
Only one poll but it's broadly in line with recent averages.
And yes, there might be a bounce when the new PM takes over.
Or there might not. I'm not seeing any bright new hopes among the ranks.
And there's a very serious threat to the Tories in those numbers. The LDs are coming back quite strongly. They are now regularly at 13-15% in the polls. And if that gets concentrated in Tory-LD marginals, it could easily be enough to take 30 seats off the Tories.
-
"Reasonably necessary work". What a load of boll0cks.
Different constabulary, different outcomes.
Postcode lottery at its best.
-
I know it hurts BB.
Have you tried a cup of sugary tea?
-
"Reasonably necessary work". What a load of boll0cks.
Different constabulary, different outcomes.
Postcode lottery at its best.
Perhaps Johnson should have had his law breaking party’s in Durham lol!
-
You're confusing me with yourself Billy boy. You see, I accept outcomes whether I agree with them or not. Even outrageous ones like Starmer getting off with Beer gate. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it.
-
You're confusing me with yourself Billy boy. You see, I accept outcomes whether I agree with them or not. Even outrageous ones like Starmer getting off with Beer gate. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it.
(https://pics.me.me/thumb_95-laughing-crying-crying-meme-on-me-me-laughing-crying-50503280.png)
-
You're confusing me with yourself Billy boy. You see, I accept outcomes whether I agree with them or not. Even outrageous ones like Starmer getting off with Beer gate. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it.
Everybody can see how much you accept outcomes. It's the 'what a load of b*llocks' that's the convincing part.
-
Mr Wiggerly, I accept the decision that it is reasonable and necessary to have alcohol and take-away at work even during a pandemic.
Do you?
-
Mr Wiggerly, I accept the decision that it is reasonable and necessary to have alcohol and take-away at work even during a pandemic.
Do you?
I left it to the people who know the law to make that decision. I accepted that decision. You called it a load of b*llocks. That speaks for itself. You didn't accept it. Own your own words.
-
"Reasonably necessary work". What a load of boll0cks.
Different constabulary, different outcomes.
Postcode lottery at its best.
Perhaps Johnson should have had his law breaking party’s in Durham lol!
Durham Jail ?
I remember seeing that video and you could see the door in the room Starmer was in was open and there were 2 blokes having a conversation in the NARROW corridor one was "eating "one handed" literally "for England" ( he was so determined to eat everything on the plate he held in his other hand - the other bloke had no food. If you watch the video someone not the thinest of people HAS TO SQUEEZE PAST HIM so someone was negligent in not warning his staff to social distance to reasonable levels
Starmer if he stopped "swigging" for a minute could see they were blocking the corridor and quite possibly their action was breaking covac rules (whatever tht means)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10760967/Video-shows-Keir-Starmer-chatting-beer-indoor-socialising-banned-Covid-law.html
even Sta
-
Mr Wiggerly, I accept the decision that it is reasonable and necessary to have alcohol and take-away at work even during a pandemic.
Do you?
I left it to the people who know the law to make that decision. I accepted that decision. You called it a load of b*llocks. That speaks for itself. You didn't accept it. Own your own words.
Just because I think the decision is a load of b*llocks doesn't mean that I don't accept the decision.
I also think escaping a fine is probably his greatest triumph since he became the leader of the opposition, and it could lead to him remaining leader of the opposition for many years to come.
Now, go and celebrate your great leader's success like a true Red, and leave me to my sugary tea!
-
"Reasonably necessary work". What a load of boll0cks.
Different constabulary, different outcomes.
Postcode lottery at its best.
Perhaps Johnson should have had his law breaking party’s in Durham lol!
Durham Jail ?
I remember seeing that video and you could see the door in the room Starmer was in was open and there were 2 blokes having a conversation in the NARROW corridor one was "eating "one handed" literally "for England" ( he was so determined to eat everything on the plate he held in his other hand - the other bloke had no food. If you watch the video someone not the thinest of people HAS TO SQUEEZE PAST HIM so someone was negligent in not warning his staff to social distance to reasonable levels
Starmer if he stopped "swigging" for a minute could see they were blocking the corridor and quite possibly their action was breaking covac rules (whatever tht means)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10760967/Video-shows-Keir-Starmer-chatting-beer-indoor-socialising-banned-Covid-law.html
even Sta
But, but, they were working through the night so it was ok.
-
Disappointed with these news to be honest. Oh well thems the breaks.
-
Anyone wanting to do a bit of self refection or see how well their posts aged should maybe go and read the 'should starmer resign' thread before they make themselves look rather silly all over again.
-
''It took Keir Starmer three days to promise to resign if he was fined for breaking lockdown rules, after Durham police announced its investigation – but those who know him say it was never in doubt that he would do so.
Some may regard him as a little dull, but Starmer is a stickler for the rules. His pledge to resign was a political gamble but it also laid down a genuine dividing line between the former director of public prosecutions and the chaotic, devil-may-care Boris Johnson.
How ironic then, that the Labour leader’s exoneration came just as Johnson prepares to depart the political stage, leaving behind him a legacy of sleaze and impropriety.
The “beergate” claims were pushed hard by Durham MP Richard Holden and taken up enthusiastically – and relentlessly – by the Daily Mail and many in the off topic forum. The pro-Johnson paper ran a string of increasingly fervent front page stories highlighting discrepancies in Labour’s story – not least the fact that the party initially said Angela Rayner was not at the Durham campaign event. (And all those that put 'don't know' on their ballot paper I guess)
Adapted from an article in the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/08/keir-starmer-political-gamble-to-resign-if-fined-over-beergate-pays-off
-
Disappointed with these news to be honest. Oh well thems the breaks.
Branton, a decision was made that it is reasonable and necessary to have alcohol and take-away at work even during a pandemic in Durham. Live with it!
-
Still struggling to see the difference between this and the one thing Boris was fined for personally.
Thought the BBC segment on it tonight was fair, they didn't really get it either.
-
specsavers
-
Still struggling to see the difference between this and the one thing Boris was fined for personally.
Thought the BBC segment on it tonight was fair, they didn't really get it either.
Well forces start, I don't recall Starmer's wife or his interior designer being at the Durham meeting. That might give a tiny clue as to where the difference is.
And that's before you start on the ABBA party in the No11 flat that Sue Gray didn't investigate because of the Met investigation, while the Met didn't investigate because...reasons.
But anyway. Now the police have reached their verdict, can we put this to bed and move on? Johnson broke the law. Starmer didn't. That's what history will record. Time to accept that. Unless someone has a bizarre theory to explain why the police would target a Tory leader and go easy on a Labour leader?
-
I guess it's like brexit, one has to accept the result and deal with the consequences
-
If he has taken out a super injunction to prevent press coverage of his fine, then that is regrettable.
The press should be free to report the situation as it stands, without prejudice to any appeal process.
This is a very bad move if true, because he will be roasted once the truth emerges.
hmmm your slip is showing again Albie
-
Still struggling to see the difference between this and the one thing Boris was fined for personally.
Thought the BBC segment on it tonight was fair, they didn't really get it either.
Well forces start, I don't recall Starmer's wife or his interior designer being at the Durham meeting. That might give a tiny clue as to where the difference is.
And that's before you start on the ABBA party in the No11 flat that Sue Gray didn't investigate because of the Met investigation, while the Met didn't investigate because...reasons.
But anyway. Now the police have reached their verdict, can we put this to bed and move on? Johnson broke the law. Starmer didn't. That's what history will record. Time to accept that. Unless someone has a bizarre theory to explain why the police would target a Tory leader and go easy on a Labour leader?
Well it might not be so bizarre Billy , I wouldn't go as far as to say it's entirely credible either but .......
A lady called Joy Allen is the Durham Police and Crime Commissioner and a Labour Party member , allegedly .
Joe Farrell is the Durham Chief Constable , now the thing is she's contracted till 2024 , normally a new contract is offered possibly 3 months before that contract runs out when competence and so forth can be more reliably examined .
However she was given an extension on June 27th with a salary commanding £550k , just over two weeks ago .
Just saying like .
-
there's always someone at the ready with a bizarre story aye?
-
''Just because I think the decision is a load of b*llocks doesn't mean that I don't accept the decision''
hmmm
-
as much a miscarriage of justice as the Blatter /Platini trial
-
as much a miscarriage of justice as the Blatter /Platini trial
spot on, there are at least 3 other parties where some were fined and others not
-
Still struggling to see the difference between this and the one thing Boris was fined for personally.
Thought the BBC segment on it tonight was fair, they didn't really get it either.
Shall we start with different rules at different times?
-
Noone wore tinsel, no quiz, no karaoke, no singing or dancing, no vomitato, no fighting, noone had to leave by the backdoor and no encore appearances. The evening was scheduled and circulated to those campaigning. It wasn't hosted by an inveterate liar. Oh and it wasn't a leaving party either.
-
Still struggling to see the difference between this and the one thing Boris was fined for personally.
Thought the BBC segment on it tonight was fair, they didn't really get it either.
The meeting with a meal Starmer attended (a programmed event during a bye-election campaign) was reasonably necessary for work.
The meeting with a birthday cake Johnson attended (when they stopped work) was not reasonably necessary for work.
What was eaten or drunk at the meetings is irrelevant - were they reasonably necessary for work - which was the condition in place at the time - and that was what the police made their judgement on.
The real mystery is why Johnson was not fined for some of the other events he is known to have attended at Downing Street when other people were - and why he refuses to release his official appointment diaries to journalists? Did he attend other social gatherings not necessary for work that we don't know about?
-
Still struggling to see the difference between this and the one thing Boris was fined for personally.
Thought the BBC segment on it tonight was fair, they didn't really get it either.
From what I have seen in the media over the months since these stories blew up, Starmer had a beer and a curry at a work meeting - once.
Johnson attended several “events” that may have been associated with work, but were clearly parties. More parties were held at Downing Street and in other departments. Some on the eve of Prince Phillip’s funeral, one with an email invitation to bring booze, one where they had a mock press conference afterwards joking about a cover up…
See any difference there?
Oh, and let’s not forget Johnson lied about all of this, or at least was so pig ignorant of what was going on right under his nose. And he was the one telling us all every day on telly to stay at home etc.
Well over 100 penalty charges issued over party gate, on Johnson’s patch, under his leadership. The review highlighted a lack of leadership..
Would there have been a fuss over Starmer had he been drinking a Diet Coke?
If you can’t see what the difference is then you never will.
And yes, if Starmer had been fined then he should have gone.. no excuses if that was the case..
-
As I see ithe Tories completely thrashed Labour over this 126 - 0 too good for this league
-
Noone wore tinsel, no quiz, no karaoke, no singing or dancing, no vomitato, no fighting, noone had to leave by the backdoor and no encore appearances. The evening was scheduled and circulated to those campaigning. It wasn't hosted by an inveterate liar. Oh and it wasn't a leaving party either.
I bet Peter Noone looked a right pratt in tinsel.
-
He's an entertainer SS, there's no wonder you suck at politics and back the wrong team
-
He's an entertainer SS, there's no wonder you suck at politics and back the wrong team
Which wrong team do I back? Rovers? That's because football's tribal. So is politics, but I don't get tribal over that because they're all the f*cking same.
Who's your team anyway, Collingwood?
-
Hey don’t diss Collingwood !!
-
In that case you won't be complaining about energy prices will you Steve?
-
In that case you won't be complaining about energy prices will you Steve?
No, I won't be complaining about them, I'll be doing something about them, like refusing to pay my bills, as long as everyone else has the b*lls to do the same.
By the way, what does Keith intend to do about it if he gets into power?
-
Part A/ it's a bit hypocritical to vote for a change that has cost the country billions and then complain the countyr dons't have the money to lower power prices (hehe)
Part B/ Please direct this part of the question to bb the leader of the official fan club, the government has all the resources to of treasury and all their mates in business if anyone can sort surely they can.
-
In that case you won't be complaining about energy prices will you Steve?
No, I won't be complaining about them, I'll be doing something about them, like refusing to pay my bills, as long as everyone else has the b*lls to do the same.
By the way, what does Keith intend to do about it if he gets into power?
Starmer should be telling us all what he is going to do about it but he isn’t doing because he hasn’t got the foggiest idea.
-
Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.
-
Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.
''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''
wiki
without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought
-
Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.
''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''
wiki
without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought
It was his job to do that.
Are you saying he might have favoured the LP people and let them off.
-
Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.
''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''
wiki
without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought
and before some pettifogger (w**ker) comes along and says 'that's his job' they need to inform bb and johnson who used it for political point scoring. All those tories that continued to back johnson through thick and thick and now want to take his place ffs
-
Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.
''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''
wiki
without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought
and before some pettifogger (w**ker) comes along and says 'that's his job' they need to inform bb and johnson who used it for political point scoring. All those tories that continued to back johnson through thick and thick and now want to take his place ffs
When people start to lose an argument they often revert to abuse.
I assume you are now saying that it wasn’t Starmers job to prosecute people who had flouted the law.
That says much about you.
I was going to say that McSheffrey was quick to jump into Wellens position but that story was in the football section of the forum so I don’t suppose you would have heard about that.
-
Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.
''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''
wiki
without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought
and before some pettifogger (w**ker) comes along and says 'that's his job' they need to inform bb and johnson who used it for political point scoring. All those tories that continued to back johnson through thick and thick and now want to take his place ffs
When people start to lose an argument they often revert to abuse.
I assume you are now saying that it wasn’t Starmers job to prosecute people who had flouted the law.
That says much about you.
I was going to say that McSheffrey was quick to jump into Wellens position but that story was in the football section of the forum so I don’t suppose you would have heard about that.
see below for Sid's stats
-
And the point is of course in circumstance where given an option to take action Starmer did the correct thing and the prosecutions went ahead .............
''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''
........... does anyone want to make a fool of themselves more than normal hound (clh -hound - dd -pud - bb etc) and tell us that johnson or someone for his cabinet would have taken a similar option?
You've all watched the ethical and fiscal train wreck on your own tellies for years.
Johnson, bb and Albie of course get a special mention in forum honours for using the Savile scandal to try and smear Starmer, well done your efforts will not be forgotten ..... when the pressure is on aye?
-
Anyone using the Savile smear is talking nonsense. It's come from the far right to throw red meat to the dimmest Kitsons on earth.
There is plenty Starmer should be taken to task for, like his bone headed stance on the strikes and his habitual broken promises, outlined below.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1547639798348730368?t=ZCCbxVqd9h6q3XeyUgI5Pw&s=19
Is there a word for someone who habitually says things they don't mean, and makes promises they have no intention of keeping? Hmmm.
-
Anyone using the Savile smear is talking nonsense. It's come from the far right to throw red meat to the dimmest Kitsons on earth.
There is plenty Starmer should be taken to task for, like his bone headed stance on the strikes and his habitual broken promises, outlined below.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1547639798348730368?t=ZCCbxVqd9h6q3XeyUgI5Pw&s=19
Is there a word for someone who habitually says things they don't mean, and makes promises they have no intention of keeping? Hmmm.
Liar?
-
Anyone using the Savile smear is talking nonsense. It's come from the far right to throw red meat to the dimmest Kitsons on earth.
There is plenty Starmer should be taken to task for, like his bone headed stance on the strikes and his habitual broken promises, outlined below.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1547639798348730368?t=ZCCbxVqd9h6q3XeyUgI5Pw&s=19
Is there a word for someone who habitually says things they don't mean, and makes promises they have no intention of keeping? Hmmm.
Liar?
And I notice you have shut your gob and don't directly accuse corbyn of being a terrorist either bb?
-
From that Twitter link:
Keir_Starmer
The most morally bankrupt argument in politics:
"Breaking promises is crucial to getting elected"
I remember a very prominent poster on here saying that the above is acceptable.
-
Syd,
What on earth are you ranting on about now;
"Johnson, bb and Albie of course get a special mention in forum honours for using the Savile scandal to try and smear Starmer, well done your efforts will not be forgotten ..... when the pressure is on aye?"
It is a matter of fact that Starmer was DPP during the Saville investigation.
The head of the department would normally sign off on a high profile case.
What else are you referring to please?
-
I think what you johnson and bb have been implying is that Starmer is responsible, yes he has apologised for the DPPs failure to act but that doesn't make him personally responsible for what the police bring to the table in order to make a prosecution nor does it make him personally responsible, therefore why would it be used as part of political debate Albie, why at all?
Why have you repeated it, to defend johnson?
-
Syd,
I have no idea WTF you are talking about.
The idea that I repeated something (what, I do not know) to defend Johnson is completely deranged.
Please link to the statement you are talking about, or withdraw your ludicrous claim, be a good lad!
If you think I would want to support Johnson, you have not read my posts about him, have you?
-
Syd,
I have no idea WTF you are talking about.
The idea that I repeated something (what, I do not know) to defend Johnson is completely deranged.
Please link to the statement you are talking about, or withdraw your ludicrous claim, be a good lad!
If you think I would want to support Johnson, you have not read my posts about him, have you?
remember this? this was just before johnson on pmqs.
''Not speaking for Tyke, but Starmer has a poor track record in his previous position as DPP.
This is not just in relation to Jimmy Saville, but across a number of issues.
Starmer has always been a supporter of Cressida Dick, and recently re-affirmed his support.
Dick should have been sacked after that Brazilian lad Jean Charles de Menezes was shot on his way to work under the operational control of Dick.
Thought to be an armed terrorist.....turned out to be neither!''
-
I guess this shows that despite the facts some will go out of their way to cast slurs over those they are opposed to politically.
I would expect those that do this would have apologised at some point, they probably just can't quite put their finger on it.
-
Syd,
I have no idea WTF you are talking about.
The idea that I repeated something (what, I do not know) to defend Johnson is completely deranged.
Please link to the statement you are talking about, or withdraw your ludicrous claim, be a good lad!
If you think I would want to support Johnson, you have not read my posts about him, have you?
I guess you must have missed this question in the other thread Albie - is this true? If it is not true - are you wrong - or are you lying?
So you cannot find a single example of Starmer deliberately lying dd, thank you for confirming that.
Sorry Syd, but there are many examples of Starmer lying.
For example, saying on Twitter that candidates should not be imposed on local parties, then doing exactly that in Wakefield and Stroud, leading to local members resigning.
I didn't know Starmer chose Labour Party candidates Albie, you sure about that?
And if you are wrong - does that mean you are lying?
https://twitter.com/BloxsomJohn/status/1542636666212548614
-
Anyone using the Savile smear is talking nonsense. It's come from the far right to throw red meat to the dimmest Kitsons on earth.
There is plenty Starmer should be taken to task for, like his bone headed stance on the strikes and his habitual broken promises, outlined below.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1547639798348730368?t=ZCCbxVqd9h6q3XeyUgI5Pw&s=19
Is there a word for someone who habitually says things they don't mean, and makes promises they have no intention of keeping? Hmmm.
Liar?
A Boris?
-
Syd,
I still don't see how the text you refer to is in any way a smear.
It is factually correct that Starmer was at the DPP as CPS head during the investigation, and signed off on it.
No-one is saying he was the casework officer, but Levitt identified weaknesses in the overall approach.
A summary here;
https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/
The section you highlight does exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
I made the point that his DPP record was not just in relation to Savile (which was in the press at the time), but covered other serious matters.
The position could equally be argued in relation to support for Cressida Dick, or the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, as I mentioned, or Julian Assange for example.
The question is his record in the DPP role, and whether it stands up to scrutiny.
You are looking for reasons to disagree, not facing the issue square on!
Now where is this looking to support Boris Johnson, as you ridiculously wrote?
-
Wilts,
"I didn't know Starmer chose Labour Party candidates Albie, you sure about that?"
Yes Wilts, candidates put forward by the local Labour Party can be debarred by Head Office. This is in full swing at the moment.
The long listing of potential candidates determines who is eligible to stand, and can lead to a local vote between choices excluding preferred local councillors. Choosing from a doctored list is not a democratic selection process.
Local Labour party selections for candidates are being ruled out for consideration by Labour Head Office, under David Evans and the team Starmer appointed.
Starmer is responsible for decisions taken under his leadership.
As in Wakefield, where a local councillor was by-passed in favour of a candidate preferred by Head Office, so too in Stroud.
In Wakefield the committee resigned.
In Stroud, the leader of the council resigned (with several colleagues), and now sits as an independent.
This is mentioned in the Bloxham twitter thread you posted.
Her resignation letter explains her reasons;
https://twitter.com/doinacornell/status/1542771544757346304/photo/1
This is part of a wider pattern, mentioned in the Guardian here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/01/starmer-allies-reject-claims-leftwingers-blocked-from-standing-for-labour
The authoritarian trend is reflected in the instruction to Labour MP's not to support RMT picket lines.
It is also shown by the expulsions of members for expressing support for causes that the leadership wish to downplay.
I am unsure what you mean by "And if you are wrong - does that mean you are lying?".
I am not wrong in this case...but even so there is a big difference between being mistaken, and deliberately lying.
Centralised control, and the suppression of dissenting views, are not characteristics of an inclusive socialist project.
-
Ablie
So you are wrong/lying. Starmer did not choose the candidate for Stroud.
What the Labour Party Selection Committee (not Starmer) did was to barr a certain contender from being a candidate on the short list.
The actual (local) candidate was then chosen from that short-list by local members at a hustings as per that link.
You might not like the criteria for that short-list, I might not like the criteria for that short-list, the people who resigned might not - but that is all it was - the candidates barred from standing did not meet the criteria.
Starmer did not choose them - the local parties did. You were wrong/lying when you said he had imposed them.
-
No Wilts,
I am neither wrong nor lying.
Starmer controls the team who apply the long list criteria, they work to his instructions.
Keith could change the terms under which they accept nominations to include local preference as a democratic consideration.
"Starmer did not choose them - the local parties did. You were wrong/lying when you said he had imposed them".......complete bollox, the list was rigged to exclude the candidate who would have probably won.
Even the other candidates disagreed with the exclusion of Cornell.
Are you really saying that the local Labour Party should not be free to nominate a local person with a track record as a local councillor?
It seems extraordinary to me, but there we are.....Starmer's Labour in 2022!
-
Albie, the list was not rigged - an applicant was excluded from it because they did not meet the criteria the leadership want from a future MP.
Yes of course the leadership should be able to exclude people they don't trust from representing them! As should any organisation. Lots have been excluded in the past for this reason - just as they were under Corbyn, Blair, Kinnoch.
The winning candidate, a local Dr, was chosen by a fair meeting of local members (quite a lot of them looking at that link).
You said Starmer had imposed a candidate. He did not. You said the photo you put up proved he was a liar. It does not - the future candidate was chosen by the local party.
Therefore you are wrong. The facts are different to what you said/wrote.
I dont think Starmer is a particuarly impressive leader. Nor am I that impressed by his policies (or lack of them). I think the public is far more open to public ownership of utilities than he is. But the way to change that is to demonstrate the facts of a better policy and push for him and the leadership to change.
Claiming Starmer to be something he isn't just because you don't like him I am afraid says much more about you than it does him.
-
OK Wilts, let's agree to disagree on this.
I do not agree that the leadership should have the power to exclude a candidate with support from the local party.
That choice should be driven by local people....not simply a shortlist of two approved by Labour head office! I am afraid I think that is a false choice, and anti-democratic in any meaningful way.
Choose Braeburn or Cox's Orange pippin, not a banana instead!
That applies to ANY leader, not just Starmer.
I think that a councillor with over 12 years service in local government has a right to put her case....if local party members then choose someone else, then so be it.
Ms Cornell had the support of a raft of Trade Unions, as well as many local members. Good luck with looking for TU financial support if their candidate is treated in this manner.
Her exclusion has led to other Labour councillors resigning and becoming "Community Independent" councillors.
There is no explanation as to why she was seen as unsuitable to long list.
Local Labour groups have lost many members, and this is likely to cause further disengagement.
-
Syd,
I still don't see how the text you refer to is in any way a smear.
It is factually correct that Starmer was at the DPP as CPS head during the investigation, and signed off on it.
No-one is saying he was the casework officer, but Levitt identified weaknesses in the overall approach.
A summary here;
https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/
The section you highlight does exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
I made the point that his DPP record was not just in relation to Savile (which was in the press at the time), but covered other serious matters.
The position could equally be argued in relation to support for Cressida Dick, or the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, as I mentioned, or Julian Assange for example.
The question is his record in the DPP role, and whether it stands up to scrutiny.
You are looking for reasons to disagree, not facing the issue square on!
Now where is this looking to support Boris Johnson, as you ridiculously wrote?
Now you have calmed down a bit ...............
As you say Starmer did not work on the savile investigation, can you explain which investigation you are referring to and what he signed off?
Those other serious matters, what are they and what do you see as failing and why those failures down to Starmer?
This is the full report
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130703160030/http:/www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/dpp_statement_about_savile_cases/
By the way in the link you provided
This in bold and highlighted are the first two paras'
''Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer''
''WHAT WAS CLAIMED
Keir Starmer stopped Jimmy Savile being charged in 2009''
''OUR VERDICT
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations''
You provide a link to a ''full fact'' report and presumably ignore their 'about us' statement
''Bad information ruins lives. We’re a team of independent fact checkers and campaigners who find, expose and counter the harm it does''
and their conclusions to write your own nonsense supported by no others except far right nutjobs
well done Albie
-
OK Wilts, let's agree to disagree on this.
I do not agree that the leadership should have the power to exclude a candidate with support from the local party.
That choice should be driven by local people....not simply a shortlist of two approved by Labour head office! I am afraid I think that is a false choice, and anti-democratic in any meaningful way.
Choose Braeburn or Cox's Orange pippin, not a banana instead!
That applies to ANY leader, not just Starmer.
I think that a councillor with over 12 years service in local government has a right to put her case....if local party members then choose someone else, then so be it.
Ms Cornell had the support of a raft of Trade Unions, as well as many local members. Good luck with looking for TU financial support if their candidate is treated in this manner.
Her exclusion has led to other Labour councillors resigning and becoming "Community Independent" councillors.
There is no explanation as to why she was seen as unsuitable to long list.
Local Labour groups have lost many members, and this is likely to cause further disengagement.
Albie .
The Labour Party of today and probably under its New Labour guise are simply the preferred alternative to the Tories if they can't get elected for the ruling classes and the establishment .
The ruling classes and the establishment will offer you democracy just as long it's their kind of democracy .
The kind of democracy that excludes people fighting for the radical change this country is crying out for .
Keith and his centre Labour Party lemons simply work for the ruling classes and the establishment in exactly the way the Tory Party does .
They may well be more gentle , less bstrds if you will in government but none the less they are part of the game we all have to live under .
Anyone who can't see a red rosette is the same as a blue one but just comes in from a different angle is quite frankly deluded .
-
Is there a interpreter in the house?
-
Albie
Whether or not you agree or disagree with a policy is irrelevant to what you wrote.
What you wrote is not true.
No one was imposed on Stroud. All the candidates at the hustings were local Stroud members and the candidate was chosen by the rest of the membership. It's in the link.
The leadership have always vetoed candidates. Under Corbyn & Blair they tried to impose them from outside the area:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/18/labour-accused-skewing-candidate-longlist-selections
-
Wilts,
No, the choice in Stroud was limited by exclusion of the most likely candidate to succeed.
Whether they were local is beside the point.
The hustings were from a limited choice of 2 approved candidates.
The link also includes comment on the exclusion of Cornell.
I agree previous leaders have put favoured candidates in seats, such as Mandelson in Hartlepool.
It is offensive to any idea of local democracy.
How does preventing a TU sponsored candidate help Labour get financial backing in future?
Do you think sponsors from private healthcare, or Israeli finance, will bridge the gap without compromise?
Syd,
I posted the full fact link to show you that the point I made in the quote you said was "supporting Johnson" actually says judge Starmer at the CPS on his full record, not one case alone.
You don't want to see it, so you don't......no-one can help you with that!
-
Albie, use a bit of logic, if any of this shit was remotely true don't you think the tory party would be using it to get rid of Starmer, he's the only threat to government barring themselves? why on earth would they have humiliated johnson and tried to make him withdraw the slur if they could have used it to political advantage. The tory party pretty much stinks atm but they couldn't cop this.
-
Syd,
The head of a service such as the CPS is always responsible for decisions made under his watch, whether or not he was personally involved.
To be clear, I was NOT saying that one one individual decision is crucial, look at the whole record.
The Tories do not want rid of Starmer...they want to keep him in place, because he is unlikely to break the consensus of the Overton window in relation to policy.
Keith is the best electoral asset for them, once they get rid of Bozo and wipe the slate clean with a new leader. He has no profile among the voting public, and his beige personality is a gift to the rebranding of the Tories under a new team.
-
So why did they call him out for saying it? just answer that bit if you can
-
That's the thing with theories Albie, no matter how many times you can prove it, it only take one bit that doesn't fit to disprove it.
-
Syd,
The head of a service such as the CPS is always responsible for decisions made under his watch, whether or not he was personally involved.
To be clear, I was NOT saying that one one individual decision is crucial, look at the whole record.
The Tories do not want rid of Starmer...they want to keep him in place, because he is unlikely to break the consensus of the Overton window in relation to policy.
Keith is the best electoral asset for them, once they get rid of Bozo and wipe the slate clean with a new leader. He has no profile among the voting public, and his beige personality is a gift to the rebranding of the Tories under a new team.
Quite correct. Putting the record straight doesn't mean you want to get rid of someone. Even if you want to keep someone as poor as Starmer in opposition you can't let him get away with such hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy as his reasoning that Boris, as the leader, should show responsibility and resign irrespective of his involvement with the parties at number 10, yet at the same time claim HIS role as leader of the DPP didn't render him responsible for the Savile case.
-
Margaret Thatcher's FIVE attempts to get a knighthood for Savile.
Just for balance:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366576/Revealed-Lady-Thatchers-FIVE-attempts-secure-knighthood-Jimmy-Savile.html
-
Is there a interpreter in the house?
What, to decipher your gobbledegook?
Even a professor of linguistics couldn't manage that.
-
That's the thing with theories Albie, no matter how many times you can prove it, it only take one bit that doesn't fit to disprove it.
And it is at this point that a scientist, in this case a political one I guess would accept that the theory is dead and go back to the drawing board, of course it brings into question all other theories constructed from the same foundations, sorry about that guys you lose. It's why all discoveries and theories are subject to peer review.
-
Syd,
The head of a service such as the CPS is always responsible for decisions made under his watch, whether or not he was personally involved.
To be clear, I was NOT saying that one one individual decision is crucial, look at the whole record.
The Tories do not want rid of Starmer...they want to keep him in place, because he is unlikely to break the consensus of the Overton window in relation to policy.
Keith is the best electoral asset for them, once they get rid of Bozo and wipe the slate clean with a new leader. He has no profile among the voting public, and his beige personality is a gift to the rebranding of the Tories under a new team.
Quite correct. Putting the record straight doesn't mean you want to get rid of someone. Even if you want to keep someone as poor as Starmer in opposition you can't let him get away with such hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy as his reasoning that Boris, as the leader, should show responsibility and resign irrespective of his involvement with the parties at number 10, yet at the same time claim HIS role as leader of the DPP didn't render him responsible for the Savile case.
From the bloke that's been trying to prove a negative most of his forum life, and that's the thing about backing far right wing conspiracy theories in, they are rubbery, can grow and change to suit the argument .............. and if you don't like that one there'll be others it's like a lucky dip I guess.
-
It seems Keith has ruled out a deal with the LibDems, as well as the SNP;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-lib-dem-supply-confidence-b2125698.html
Somewhat premature, I would say.
Following on from his interview where he said electoral reform was not a priority, one or two are going to feel let down.
Not surprised myself, mind!
-
It seems Keith has ruled out a deal with the LibDems, as well as the SNP;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-lib-dem-supply-confidence-b2125698.html
Somewhat premature, I would say.
Following on from his interview where he said electoral reform was not a priority, one or two are going to feel let down.
Not surprised myself, mind!
I think, Albie, that the present sh*tshow from the Tories probably convinces him that he can win on his own, without help from others, and he might be right.
He needs to be careful though. Sooner or later he's going to have to tell us all exactly what he's going to do about this terrible cost of living crisis. If he doesn't convince us enough, and it's a hung parliament, he may have to renege on his promises of not coalescing with another party.
If that happened, he'd look completely bereft of truth or morals.
-
It seems Keith has ruled out a deal with the LibDems, as well as the SNP;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-lib-dem-supply-confidence-b2125698.html
Somewhat premature, I would say.
Following on from his interview where he said electoral reform was not a priority, one or two are going to feel let down.
Not surprised myself, mind!
I think, Albie, that the present sh*tshow from the Tories probably convinces him that he can win on his own, without help from others, and he might be right.
He needs to be careful though. Sooner or later he's going to have to tell us all exactly what he's going to do about this terrible cost of living crisis. If he doesn't convince us enough, and it's a hung parliament, he may have to renege on his promises of not coalescing with another party.
If that happened, he'd look completely bereft of truth or morals.
TBH mate it would just be another broken promise by him.
-
In some alternative universe, Starmer has just announced that he'll enter into a coalition with the LDs after the next Election.
Albie is posting: "See! I told you Keith couldn't win a majority!"
-
Neither of the two main parties declares ahead of an election that they are willing to go into coalition, if asked the question and forced into answering they always say they won't.
Then when neither party wins an outright majority and enters into a coalition nobody bats an eyelid or calls them liars but of course if that situation were to arise with Keir Starmer then of course the usual suspects would be screaming LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!!
-
Did Cameron go into the 2010 election saying he'd go into coalition?
-
Did Cameron go into the 2010 election saying he'd go into coalition?
Did Cameron go into the 2010 election saying he Wouldn’t go into a coalition?
-
Was Cameron asked in the run up to 2010 if he would go into coalition?
-
Am not going to comment on the Forde enquiry itself but this comment made me chuckle. Reminds me so much of a poster on here
"The report also criticises a "culture of intellectual smugness which exists at the extremes of the political spectrum" of Labour opinion."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62226042
-
Am not going to comment on the Forde enquiry itself but this comment made me chuckle. Reminds me so much of a poster on here
"The report also criticises a "culture of intellectual smugness which exists at the extremes of the political spectrum" of Labour opinion."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62226042
You are so right ldr.
-
Am not going to comment on the Forde enquiry itself but this comment made me chuckle. Reminds me so much of a poster on here
"The report also criticises a "culture of intellectual smugness which exists at the extremes of the political spectrum" of Labour opinion."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62226042
Why not? it's an open forum, if it was the tory party there either wouldn't be one or you wouldn't be allowed to read it unless it was leaked.
-
Am not going to comment on the Forde enquiry itself but this comment made me chuckle. Reminds me so much of a poster on here
"The report also criticises a "culture of intellectual smugness which exists at the extremes of the political spectrum" of Labour opinion."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62226042
Take your pick, i can think of a couple on here who would take great offence if you didn't mean them!!
-
Neither of the two main parties declares ahead of an election that they are willing to go into coalition, if asked the question and forced into answering they always say they won't.
Then when neither party wins an outright majority and enters into a coalition nobody bats an eyelid or calls them liars but of course if that situation were to arise with Keir Starmer then of course the usual suspects would be screaming LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!!
how did you get hold of the immunity idol pies?
-
Irony aye, a report that seeks to find the causes and root out disunity within the labour party and finds the problem, instead of being sorted was weaponised and used by both sides. Which differs from the normal run of the mill issues in politics general where the cover-up becomes bigger than the problem.
And the first couple of commenters use side issues from within the report to attack others on the forum, which sort of mirrors what the report was getting at.
Please note the first was by someone that couldn't bring himself to vote for the past leader that refused to take part in the report, and now hates the current leader that commissioned the report, the second can't make his mind up where to put the X.
There is a third commenter yet to join the fun and I dare say will of course remain true and name/shame the leader at the time because he/she is solely responsible and therefore pin the tail right on the donkey.
-
There were many posts on this forumsaying the problem wasn't there but a means to use as a weapon. The report makes it clear that nobody in labour took the issue seriously but tried to use at an advantage.
But not all politicians are the same eh?
-
There were many posts on this forumsaying the problem wasn't there but a means to use as a weapon. The report makes it clear that nobody in labour took the issue seriously but tried to use at an advantage.
But not all politicians are the same eh?
I guess you're correct pud, as one didn't do anything but his successor did.
-
There were many posts on this forumsaying the problem wasn't there but a means to use as a weapon. The report makes it clear that nobody in labour took the issue seriously but tried to use at an advantage.
But not all politicians are the same eh?
It's referring to the office staff
-
wilts i checked the best odds for a labour victory at the next general election and the very best was 11/10 - I have money on "Burnham Beeches" at very big odds to succeed Stamen as leader so need to keep him in power til Burnham gets a seat
-
Does that mean almost 'evens' CLH?
-
Does that mean almost 'evens' CLH?
yes with the ripoff bookmakers
-
wilts i checked the best odds for a labour victory at the next general election and the very best was 11/10 - I have money on "Burnham Beeches" at very big odds to succeed Stamen as leader so need to keep him in power til Burnham gets a seat
That's miles out. 11/10 is the price you can get against Lab having the most seats next time round.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats
The question is, what price is a Labour-led Govt?
You can get 11/4 against a Lab Minority Govt and 10/3 against a Lab Majority, 7/1 against a Lab/LD coalition, and 9/1 against each of a Lab/SNP and a Lab/LD/SNP coalition. If you covered all those options of a Lab-headed Govt, the odds come out to be ~ 1/4 - 1/5 on.
The equivalent odds for a Tory-led Govt, assuming no-one would go into coalition with them, are roughly Evens.
-
Starmer will win the next GE and lead the country to greatness.
-
wilts i checked the best odds for a labour victory at the next general election and the very best was 11/10 - I have money on "Burnham Beeches" at very big odds to succeed Stamen as leader so need to keep him in power til Burnham gets a seat
I would go for Streeting or Nandy if I were you.
-
Starmer will win the next GE and lead the country to greatness.
I’ll settle for somebody who can stop the rot for a start.
-
Pointless Plastic Bollard .
I'll give Johnson that one , summed Keith up .
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:
-
One or two here missing an important point about Keith ruling out an electoral pact.
It surely means standing candidates in no hope seats, costing money that could go to winnable seats, as well as drawing numbers away from a possible non Tory with a better chance.
Given Labour are strapped for cash, it doesn't seem too wise.
Better to read the Forde Report before commenting on it, all 850 or so pages.
It has been around for a while, but the official release was delayed time after time.
As an intro to the back story, Tory commentator Peter Oborne wrote a useful summary in Jan 2021;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/labour-antisemitism-forde-inquiry-leaked-report-what-happening
-
Well what any of the doubters say about Starmer, he's completed his first job with flying colours and has seen johnson off.
-
Electoral pacts, anyone? maybe show where a party has announced that they would form any sort of a coalition in the pre-election period.
-
Well what any of the doubters say about Starmer, he's completed his first job with flying colours and has seen johnson off.
He's done absolutely nothing of the sort .
Johnson took himself down by his behaviour and the Tory Party eventually got rid .
-
Well what any of the doubters say about Starmer, he's completed his first job with flying colours and has seen johnson off.
He's done absolutely nothing of the sort .
Johnson took himself down by his behaviour and the Tory Party eventually got rid .
Of course that is correct tyke but the Labour spin doctors will tell if differently.
On the other hand, if that is all Starmer has done (and it took three years apparently) then he has under achieved big time.
It was evidently the completion of his first job FFS.
-
Well what any of the doubters say about Starmer, he's completed his first job with flying colours and has seen johnson off.
He's done absolutely nothing of the sort .
Johnson took himself down by his behaviour and the Tory Party eventually got rid .
You appear to know much less that I ever thought possible tykey, do you think that johnson would have been ousted without the good polls labour have been having. Think back how many times you've announced to your surprise that Starmer's tactics have been doing the job.
-
Electoral pacts, anyone? maybe show where a party has announced that they would form any sort of a coalition in the pre-election period.
Syd, you are missing the point....whatever happened in the past is not relevant.
Labour has a rule that they will stand in every seat.
But they do not have the money to do so this time, and they need the Tories to lose seats in close call constituencies.
It is at least as important for Tories to lose to LD wherever they are second, as it is for Labour to regain red wall seats.
All this is before Labour face paying fines for the class actions brought against unlawful membership exclusions, and the illegal data breach of personal data of ex members.
Now unless a sugar daddy from the private health sector, or a foreign government, arrives with an open wallet, these issues have to be faced.
-
Well what any of the doubters say about Starmer, he's completed his first job with flying colours and has seen johnson off.
He's done absolutely nothing of the sort .
Johnson took himself down by his behaviour and the Tory Party eventually got rid .
You appear to know much less that I ever thought possible tykey, do you think that johnson would have been ousted without the good polls labour have been having. Think back how many times you've announced to your surprise that Starmer's tactics have been doing the job.
Your not looking at it the right way Syd .
Your trying to claim credit for something that doesn't exist .
Johnson fell foul of the Tory Party and so they got rid .
The biggest charlatan that's ever become this country's PM .
He was probably taking the Tories towards an election defeat had he remained in the job but that's not because of anything Keith's done .
If Keith had a 20 point lead they may well be something in what you are claiming but he hasn't .
You might want to ask yourself why that is .
-
Tyke steadying the party, winning some important byelections and being ahead in the polls for 6 or more months ......... then getting under johnson's skin at PMQs. On top of that he has shown integrity where johnson and the tories clearly haven't. If the polls were good for the tories do you really think the so called red wall would have got rid of him, they saw him as their meal ticket up the point where they didn't.
-
Electoral pacts, anyone? maybe show where a party has announced that they would form any sort of a coalition in the pre-election period.
Syd, you are missing the point....whatever happened in the past is not relevant.
Labour has a rule that they will stand in every seat.
But they do not have the money to do so this time, and they need the Tories to lose seats in close call constituencies.
It is at least as important for Tories to lose to LD wherever they are second, as it is for Labour to regain red wall seats.
All this is before Labour face paying fines for the class actions brought against unlawful membership exclusions, and the illegal data breach of personal data of ex members.
Now unless a sugar daddy from the private health sector, or a foreign government, arrives with an open wallet, these issues have to be faced.
red herring Albie, just answer the question please.
-
Tyke steadying the party, winning some important byelections and being ahead in the polls for 6 or more months ......... then getting under johnson's skin at PMQs. On top of that he has shown integrity where johnson and the tories clearly haven't. If the polls were good for the tories do you really think the so called red wall would have got rid of him, they saw him as their meal ticket up the point where they didn't.
Labour in my opinion are where they were between 2010 - 2015 under Ed Miliband .
They most certainly aren't where they were in the mid 90's under Blair .
The country needs to be convinced that Labour will improve people's lives and that they can pay for it .
At this moment in time that's far from clear .
They've won a couple of by elections in seats they were expected to hold or win back .
It's the Dems who have had the biggest impact by winning seats convincingly in the Tory strongholds .
I'm sick and tired of hearing what we already know , the Tories are terrible , everyone knows they are , even their most tribal voter knows they are and they spent two live tv debates telling the country how terrible each and everyone of them was who wanted to be PM .
The biggest criticism I have of Keith is that he's no minerals and this at a time in history when the country is crying out for strong leadership and vision .
The play to let Johnson fall on his sword and sit tight was in my opinion no plan at all its just that inadvertently the chips have fallen Keith's way by doing so .
Quite conceivably Covid 19 wouldn't have happened .
The cost of living crisis may not have happened because of the above and the war in Ukraine may not have happened either .
So his tactic of standing back and watching Johnson implode wouldn't have worked out .
Johnson to be fair and even factoring the charlatan he is has been extremely unlucky to govern this country with the events that have unfolded .
-
tykey tykey tykey the things that you conveniently forget are that labour will be able to do absolutely nothing from opposition and that British voters have told you and quite a few others exactly where to shove a far left government. That may of course change but as of this moment I can't hear the drums.
I'm not surprised you are sick of hearing 'what we already know' maybe because you keep posting the same old same old.
-
Tyke makes a good point on Johnson, he may well have been hugely successful without Covid and Ukraine. But being PM means you have to deal with whatever is thrown your way and he messed it up in the end through his own actions not necessarily what he did in terms of policy etc.
Where the conservatives have a massive issue is they don't know what they stand for now and that's a real problem. If you're clear and have a consistent message/purpose you'll win. I'm not sure either party yet has that. We don't know what labours policies are to be we just know so far they aren't the Tories. That's how they'll be judged at the election not on Boris having some cake.
So what is Starmer and what does he stand for? We still don't really know. He might be a decent guy but what's his policies. Milliband and Hague were decent guys they got trounced. Even Theresa may was a good person she just couldn't do the job.
-
tykey tykey tykey the things that you conveniently forget are that labour will be able to do absolutely nothing from opposition and that British voters have told you and quite a few others exactly where to shove a far left government. That may of course change but as of this moment I can't hear the drums.
I'm not surprised you are sick of hearing 'what we already know' maybe because you keep posting the same old same old.
If the only Labour position is that they are not the Tories then what on earth are you expecting me to comment on Sydney ? .
-
Pud the tories haven't known firm ground for a long time, way before johnson, do you think the average traditional tory would have voted for a lying wastrel at any other time in their history. Voting johnson into the PMs position was an act of desperation, admittedly aided and abetted by corbyn but I would have still voted for labour. The tory brand is trashed, just look at what you are being offered up now, how can you possibly have two such different views on where they are going and both be correct?
Conservatism is you, your party, you regularly vote for them and support conservative values. Maybe you should be saying 'we'
-
tykey tykey tykey the things that you conveniently forget are that labour will be able to do absolutely nothing from opposition and that British voters have told you and quite a few others exactly where to shove a far left government. That may of course change but as of this moment I can't hear the drums.
I'm not surprised you are sick of hearing 'what we already know' maybe because you keep posting the same old same old.
If the only Labour position is that they are not the Tories then what on earth are you expecting me to comment on Sydney ? .
You are letting the perfect spoil the good tyke, you fell for the tory bullshit that the EU were spoiling your fun, lie back and savour it.
-
tykey tykey tykey the things that you conveniently forget are that labour will be able to do absolutely nothing from opposition and that British voters have told you and quite a few others exactly where to shove a far left government. That may of course change but as of this moment I can't hear the drums.
I'm not surprised you are sick of hearing 'what we already know' maybe because you keep posting the same old same old.
If the only Labour position is that they are not the Tories then what on earth are you expecting me to comment on Sydney ? .
You are letting the perfect spoil the good tyke, you fell for the tory bullshit that the EU were spoiling your fun, lie back and savour it.
Except I was against the EU since around the time of Thatcher and Major and before Johnson and Mogg had a single pubic hair between them .
You need to stop bleating about leaving the EU and accept the democratic decision and that goes for many others on here .
You've lost the argument the same as I did in 84/85 but I didn't spend the next 6 years throwing myself on the supermarket floor like a spoiled child denied some sweets .
Keith's accepted it so why can't you lot ?
The more you lot keep bleating on about this thing sowing even more division the less likely you are to be rid of the Tories .
Now whose the " Thickos" and culture war warriors ?
-
tykey tykey tykey the things that you conveniently forget are that labour will be able to do absolutely nothing from opposition and that British voters have told you and quite a few others exactly where to shove a far left government. That may of course change but as of this moment I can't hear the drums.
I'm not surprised you are sick of hearing 'what we already know' maybe because you keep posting the same old same old.
If the only Labour position is that they are not the Tories then what on earth are you expecting me to comment on Sydney ? .
You are letting the perfect spoil the good tyke, you fell for the tory bullshit that the EU were spoiling your fun, lie back and savour it.
Except I was against the EU since around the time of Thatcher and Major and before Johnson and Mogg had a single pubic hair between them .
You need to stop bleating about leaving the EU and accept the democratic decision and that goes for many others on here .
You've lost the argument the same as I did in 84/85 but I didn't spend the next 6 years throwing myself on the supermarket floor like a spoiled child denied some sweets .
Keith's accepted it so why can't you lot ?
The more you lot keep bleating on about this thing sowing even more division the less likely you are to be rid of the Tories .
Now whose the " Thickos" and culture war warriors ?
Lost in the fantasy tyke, I bleat about the consequences and those that are delivering poverty to the masses. Accept that johnson was in power because people either voted directly for him or failed to vote against him.
I'm still waiting you to name your champion which you studiously ignore.
And, what were you raging against in 1979 tyke?
-
Sydney spoken like a die hard Labour man with blinkers on.. As a neutral i hold the Labour party nearly as much to blame as the conservatives.A strong opposition leads to a strong goverment and Starmer and Labour are as weak as kittens.
If you for one minute think Starmer has the public support you are mistaken. Nobody has a scooby doo what they actually stand for these days. They have no policy's none that i'm aware of anyway.
Dont get to confident because if the new Tory leader gets off to a good start they will rinse Starmer inside out..
-
It may help if you explain what you are blaming them for, I agree that a strong opposition is required no matter who is in power. I point to the polls for the previous 6 months, why would you stick your neck out if you are leading?
-
It may help if you explain what you are blaming them for, I agree that a strong opposition is required no matter who is in power. I point to the polls for the previous 6 months, why would you stick your neck out if you are leading?
Polls, yes Polls
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/y2hnts6bxg/Main_FavourabilityTracker_W.pdf
Interesting to see favourablility in Labour isn't particularly high, more the drop for the Tories, if the Tories improve (big if) that will clearly harm Labour. Labour need to focus on improving their image as they're ahead despite of themselves and their leader not because of it.
-
It may help if you explain what you are blaming them for, I agree that a strong opposition is required no matter who is in power. I point to the polls for the previous 6 months, why would you stick your neck out if you are leading?
Polls, yes Polls
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/y2hnts6bxg/Main_FavourabilityTracker_W.pdf
Interesting to see favourablility in Labour isn't particularly high, more the drop for the Tories, if the Tories improve (big if) that will clearly harm Labour. Labour need to focus on improving their image as they're ahead despite of themselves and their leader not because of it.
Are you saying it's better to behind in the polls pud?
-
Sydney spoken like a die hard Labour man with blinkers on.. As a neutral i hold the Labour party nearly as much to blame as the conservatives.A strong opposition leads to a strong goverment and Starmer and Labour are as weak as kittens.
If you for one minute think Starmer has the public support you are mistaken. Nobody has a scooby doo what they actually stand for these days. They have no policy's none that i'm aware of anyway.
Dont get to confident because if the new Tory leader gets off to a good start they will rinse Starmer inside out..
Let me get this right.
The Tories chose someone who we all knew was a lifelong pathological liar, who thought morality was an Estee Lauder perfume. And it's Labour's fault?!?
-
Billy bullshitter strikes again, Wing Commander says nothing of the sort, you seem to like misrepresenting things
-
Syd,
Far from being a red herring, it is the central question facing Labour.
Polls are nothing to the point at this stage in the electoral cycle.
Labour are down to 382k paid-up members.
Membership was reported to be 570,000 in July 2020. That's a huge loss of members and revenue.
Labour had £13.5m in reserves built up under Corbyn, now frittered away by the Starmeroids to the edge of bankruptcy.
Keith chose to settle out of court with the BBC Panorama complainants, despite legal advice that their claims were invalid. We now have it confirmed by Forde that these allegations were unsubstantiated, as Keith was advised.
You cannot just ignore financial peril when it stares you in the face.
How do you think Labour should build up capacity to contest a GE, in the next 2 years?
.....private donations, commercial sponsorship, what?
-
tykey tykey tykey the things that you conveniently forget are that labour will be able to do absolutely nothing from opposition and that British voters have told you and quite a few others exactly where to shove a far left government. That may of course change but as of this moment I can't hear the drums.
I'm not surprised you are sick of hearing 'what we already know' maybe because you keep posting the same old same old.
If the only Labour position is that they are not the Tories then what on earth are you expecting me to comment on Sydney ? .
You are letting the perfect spoil the good tyke, you fell for the tory bullshit that the EU were spoiling your fun, lie back and savour it.
Except I was against the EU since around the time of Thatcher and Major and before Johnson and Mogg had a single pubic hair between them .
You need to stop bleating about leaving the EU and accept the democratic decision and that goes for many others on here .
You've lost the argument the same as I did in 84/85 but I didn't spend the next 6 years throwing myself on the supermarket floor like a spoiled child denied some sweets .
Keith's accepted it so why can't you lot ?
The more you lot keep bleating on about this thing sowing even more division the less likely you are to be rid of the Tories .
Now whose the " Thickos" and culture war warriors ?
You will upset a few with that post tyke, especially the one who it doesn’t even affect.
-
I heard a very small part of a sky reporter Beth's (Mrs Coleman heard her speaking the other day and thought she was a man til she saw her) interview last night
He said we didn't have children for politics ( having a right go at that conservative who was the leader of the labour party - and was also a failed rock star )
then he mentioned about supporting Arsenal and mentioned he is always home for friday night and prayers ( that could be why Arsenal have improved )..... when questioned on this he "moved around" on this point
November 16, 2020 14:05 Starmer: Our kids are being brought up to know their Jewish backgrounds
Labour leader tells Desert Island Discs of 'long tradition of family and faith'
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/starmer-our-kids-are-being-brought-up-to-know-their-jewish-backgrounds-1.508720
We do all know the children follow the religion of their Mother in such a case.
from wikipedia
Personal life
Starmer married Victoria Alexander in 2007.[221] She was previously a solicitor but now works in NHS occupational health.[5][222] The couple's son and daughter are being brought up in the Jewish faith of their mother and the family attend shabbat dinners.[9] Starmer himself stated he does not believe in God but does "believe in faith" and its power to bring people together.[223] Starmer is a keen footballer, having played for Homerton Academicals, a north London amateur team,[224] and supports Premier League side Arsenal.[5]
Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[225]
listening to the whole interview goes onto my bucket list at least I learned somrething I didn't know about him
-
Did it mention him being a Quisling and back stabber? he can't be trusted to go to a shop with a list of goods.
He has more faces than a diamond.
-
Did it mention him being a Quisling and back stabber? he can't be trusted to go to a shop with a list of goods.
He has more faces than a diamond.
Back stabber?
You mean Sunak?
-
Glass of water for Selby. He's having one of his funny turns where he sicks back up all the bile that Mike Graham pours into him.
-
Did it mention him being a Quisling and back stabber? he can't be trusted to go to a shop with a list of goods.
He has more faces than a diamond.
Back stabber?
You mean Sunak?
They’re all the same.
-
It may help if you explain what you are blaming them for, I agree that a strong opposition is required no matter who is in power. I point to the polls for the previous 6 months, why would you stick your neck out if you are leading?
Polls, yes Polls
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/y2hnts6bxg/Main_FavourabilityTracker_W.pdf
Interesting to see favourablility in Labour isn't particularly high, more the drop for the Tories, if the Tories improve (big if) that will clearly harm Labour. Labour need to focus on improving their image as they're ahead despite of themselves and their leader not because of it.
Are you saying it's better to behind in the polls pud?
Absolutley not, but it's important they keep their eye on the end goal not where they are now, which doesn't matter. Better winning 1-0 late on than throwing away a 3-0 lead and losing 4-3. I'm sure they have it in hand, but Starmer's ratings should be a slight cause for concern, I think they know that hence his media rounds this week.
-
Did it mention him being a Quisling and back stabber? he can't be trusted to go to a shop with a list of goods.
He has more faces than a diamond.
And talks a load of faeces
-
It may help if you explain what you are blaming them for, I agree that a strong opposition is required no matter who is in power. I point to the polls for the previous 6 months, why would you stick your neck out if you are leading?
Polls, yes Polls
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/y2hnts6bxg/Main_FavourabilityTracker_W.pdf
Interesting to see favourablility in Labour isn't particularly high, more the drop for the Tories, if the Tories improve (big if) that will clearly harm Labour. Labour need to focus on improving their image as they're ahead despite of themselves and their leader not because of it.
Are you saying it's better to behind in the polls pud?
Absolutley not, but it's important they keep their eye on the end goal not where they are now, which doesn't matter. Better winning 1-0 late on than throwing away a 3-0 lead and losing 4-3. I'm sure they have it in hand, but Starmer's ratings should be a slight cause for concern, I think they know that hence his media rounds this week.
Good football like analogy mate but he won’t understand that.
-
I heard a very small part of a sky reporter Beth's (Mrs Coleman heard her speaking the other day and thought she was a man til she saw her) interview last night
He said we didn't have children for politics ( having a right go at that conservative who was the leader of the labour party - and was also a failed rock star )
then he mentioned about supporting Arsenal and mentioned he is always home for friday night and prayers ( that could be why Arsenal have improved )..... when questioned on this he "moved around" on this point
November 16, 2020 14:05 Starmer: Our kids are being brought up to know their Jewish backgrounds
Labour leader tells Desert Island Discs of 'long tradition of family and faith'
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/starmer-our-kids-are-being-brought-up-to-know-their-jewish-backgrounds-1.508720
We do all know the children follow the religion of their Mother in such a case.
from wikipedia
Personal life
Starmer married Victoria Alexander in 2007.[221] She was previously a solicitor but now works in NHS occupational health.[5][222] The couple's son and daughter are being brought up in the Jewish faith of their mother and the family attend shabbat dinners.[9] Starmer himself stated he does not believe in God but does "believe in faith" and its power to bring people together.[223] Starmer is a keen footballer, having played for Homerton Academicals, a north London amateur team,[224] and supports Premier League side Arsenal.[5]
Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[225]
listening to the whole interview goes onto my bucket list at least I learned somrething I didn't know about him
I didn't know that about his wife, not that I am particualy bothered.
I do know he used to be a keen supporter of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - so he presumably has good knowledge of middle east and middle east politics from all sides.
I think he dropped out of PSC when some activists went a bit too far and the a/s problem kicked off under Corbyn
https://twitter.com/tristandross/status/1460629248381788164
-
I heard a very small part of a sky reporter Beth's (Mrs Coleman heard her speaking the other day and thought she was a man til she saw her) interview last night
He said we didn't have children for politics ( having a right go at that conservative who was the leader of the labour party - and was also a failed rock star )
then he mentioned about supporting Arsenal and mentioned he is always home for friday night and prayers ( that could be why Arsenal have improved )..... when questioned on this he "moved around" on this point
November 16, 2020 14:05 Starmer: Our kids are being brought up to know their Jewish backgrounds
Labour leader tells Desert Island Discs of 'long tradition of family and faith'
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/starmer-our-kids-are-being-brought-up-to-know-their-jewish-backgrounds-1.508720
We do all know the children follow the religion of their Mother in such a case.
from wikipedia
Personal life
Starmer married Victoria Alexander in 2007.[221] She was previously a solicitor but now works in NHS occupational health.[5][222] The couple's son and daughter are being brought up in the Jewish faith of their mother and the family attend shabbat dinners.[9] Starmer himself stated he does not believe in God but does "believe in faith" and its power to bring people together.[223] Starmer is a keen footballer, having played for Homerton Academicals, a north London amateur team,[224] and supports Premier League side Arsenal.[5]
Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[225]
listening to the whole interview goes onto my bucket list at least I learned somrething I didn't know about him
The more I hear about this bloke, the more I think what an absolute prat he is.
Just think, we're probably going to have Liz Truss as PM for 2 years, then Keith.
What the f*ck have we done to deserve all this?
-
Did it mention him being a Quisling and back stabber? he can't be trusted to go to a shop with a list of goods.
He has more faces than a diamond.
Back stabber?
You mean Sunak?
Don't worry about him, Filo, he won't be PM.
-
I heard a very small part of a sky reporter Beth's (Mrs Coleman heard her speaking the other day and thought she was a man til she saw her) interview last night
He said we didn't have children for politics ( having a right go at that conservative who was the leader of the labour party - and was also a failed rock star )
then he mentioned about supporting Arsenal and mentioned he is always home for friday night and prayers ( that could be why Arsenal have improved )..... when questioned on this he "moved around" on this point
November 16, 2020 14:05 Starmer: Our kids are being brought up to know their Jewish backgrounds
Labour leader tells Desert Island Discs of 'long tradition of family and faith'
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/starmer-our-kids-are-being-brought-up-to-know-their-jewish-backgrounds-1.508720
We do all know the children follow the religion of their Mother in such a case.
from wikipedia
Personal life
Starmer married Victoria Alexander in 2007.[221] She was previously a solicitor but now works in NHS occupational health.[5][222] The couple's son and daughter are being brought up in the Jewish faith of their mother and the family attend shabbat dinners.[9] Starmer himself stated he does not believe in God but does "believe in faith" and its power to bring people together.[223] Starmer is a keen footballer, having played for Homerton Academicals, a north London amateur team,[224] and supports Premier League side Arsenal.[5]
Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[225]
listening to the whole interview goes onto my bucket list at least I learned somrething I didn't know about him
The more I hear about this bloke, the more I think what an absolute prat he is.
Just think, we're probably going to have Liz Truss as PM for 2 years, then Keith.
What the f*ck have we done to deserve all this?
Go on. I'm genuinely fascinated. Which bit of CLH's post provoked that spasm?
-
Syd,
Far from being a red herring, it is the central question facing Labour.
Polls are nothing to the point at this stage in the electoral cycle.
Labour are down to 382k paid-up members.
Membership was reported to be 570,000 in July 2020. That's a huge loss of members and revenue.
Labour had £13.5m in reserves built up under Corbyn, now frittered away by the Starmeroids to the edge of bankruptcy.
Keith chose to settle out of court with the BBC Panorama complainants, despite legal advice that their claims were invalid. We now have it confirmed by Forde that these allegations were unsubstantiated, as Keith was advised.
You cannot just ignore financial peril when it stares you in the face.
How do you think Labour should build up capacity to contest a GE, in the next 2 years?
.....private donations, commercial sponsorship, what?
All I asked was for you to name a single party that had announced before the election that they would go into partnership, can you do that Albie?
-
It may help if you explain what you are blaming them for, I agree that a strong opposition is required no matter who is in power. I point to the polls for the previous 6 months, why would you stick your neck out if you are leading?
Polls, yes Polls
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/y2hnts6bxg/Main_FavourabilityTracker_W.pdf
Interesting to see favourablility in Labour isn't particularly high, more the drop for the Tories, if the Tories improve (big if) that will clearly harm Labour. Labour need to focus on improving their image as they're ahead despite of themselves and their leader not because of it.
Are you saying it's better to behind in the polls pud?
Absolutley not, but it's important they keep their eye on the end goal not where they are now, which doesn't matter. Better winning 1-0 late on than throwing away a 3-0 lead and losing 4-3. I'm sure they have it in hand, but Starmer's ratings should be a slight cause for concern, I think they know that hence his media rounds this week.
I expect I will keep a watchful eye on proceedings and I fully expect to see the new PM to get a bounce in the polls, but there is plenty of time to see how the winner deals with a huge slice of reality they have coming towards them as an express train in a tunnel.
-
Syd,
Far from being a red herring, it is the central question facing Labour.
Polls are nothing to the point at this stage in the electoral cycle.
Labour are down to 382k paid-up members.
Membership was reported to be 570,000 in July 2020. That's a huge loss of members and revenue.
Labour had £13.5m in reserves built up under Corbyn, now frittered away by the Starmeroids to the edge of bankruptcy.
Keith chose to settle out of court with the BBC Panorama complainants, despite legal advice that their claims were invalid. We now have it confirmed by Forde that these allegations were unsubstantiated, as Keith was advised.
You cannot just ignore financial peril when it stares you in the face.
How do you think Labour should build up capacity to contest a GE, in the next 2 years?
.....private donations, commercial sponsorship, what?
All I asked was for you to name a single party that had announced before the election that they would go into partnership, can you do that Albie?
Absolutely nobody Sydney .
The centre right of the Labour Party who now control it couldn't even form partnerships with the left when they sat at the top table and instead plotted against them .
At the least the Tories have a history of forming coalition's , the Dems in 2010 and the DUP in 2017 recently when they have to .
The truth is your incapable of forming coalition's history is the judge and jury .
-
Does your story tally with Albie's, tyke?
-
Does your story tally with Albie's, tyke?
How's that even relevant ?
-
I trying to connect you with someone that could possibly understand your political theories tyke and I have narrowed it down to selby, bullet, hound and Albie but they may have to work as a team.
-
I trying to connect you with someone that could possibly understand your political theories tyke and I have narrowed it down to selby, bullet, hound and Albie but they may have to work as a team.
The only political theories you should concern yourself with is on planet reality Sydney .
You might want to believe the country is crying out for a Labour government but that's not necessarily the case .
I'm not particularly crying out for one either to be honest .
If Labour win so fecking what .
-
I trying to connect you with someone that could possibly understand your political theories tyke and I have narrowed it down to selby, bullet, hound and Albie but they may have to work as a team.
The only political theories you should concern yourself with is on planet reality Sydney .
You might want to believe the country is crying out for a Labour government but that's not necessarily the case .
I'm not particularly crying out for one either to be honest .
If Labour win so fecking what .
don't you mean ..............
''Almost everything today is a tentacle of the financial crash under New Labour''
The only political theories you should concern yourself with is on planet reality Sydney .
You might want to believe the country is crying out for a Labour government but that's not necessarily the case .
I'm not particularly crying out for one either to be honest .
If Labour win so fecking what .
Try to stick to what you yourself believe is going on and quote from my comments if you need to tyke at any time.
(I'm still waiting for you to explain what you found to object about the EU in 1979 tyke)
-
I heard a very small part of a sky reporter Beth's (Mrs Coleman heard her speaking the other day and thought she was a man til she saw her) interview last night
He said we didn't have children for politics ( having a right go at that conservative who was the leader of the labour party - and was also a failed rock star )
then he mentioned about supporting Arsenal and mentioned he is always home for friday night and prayers ( that could be why Arsenal have improved )..... when questioned on this he "moved around" on this point
November 16, 2020 14:05 Starmer: Our kids are being brought up to know their Jewish backgrounds
Labour leader tells Desert Island Discs of 'long tradition of family and faith'
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/starmer-our-kids-are-being-brought-up-to-know-their-jewish-backgrounds-1.508720
We do all know the children follow the religion of their Mother in such a case.
from wikipedia
Personal life
Starmer married Victoria Alexander in 2007.[221] She was previously a solicitor but now works in NHS occupational health.[5][222] The couple's son and daughter are being brought up in the Jewish faith of their mother and the family attend shabbat dinners.[9] Starmer himself stated he does not believe in God but does "believe in faith" and its power to bring people together.[223] Starmer is a keen footballer, having played for Homerton Academicals, a north London amateur team,[224] and supports Premier League side Arsenal.[5]
Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[225]
listening to the whole interview goes onto my bucket list at least I learned somrething I didn't know about him
I didn't know that about his wife, not that I am particualy bothered.
I do know he used to be a keen supporter of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - so he presumably has good knowledge of middle east and middle east politics from all sides.
I think he dropped out of PSC when some activists went a bit too far and the a/s problem kicked off under Corbyn
https://twitter.com/tristandross/status/1460629248381788164
I am very surprised you didn't know that
thanks for that bit of info
i just googled.......... starmer palestine solidarity campaign there is lots of stuff ..... he married in 2007 so he should at that time known that " the women always get their way ... children wise in the end " but obviously his stance became untenable
at least he didn't become a Tottenham supporter (think about that one)
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-party-starmer-silence-palestinian-solidarity-day
Starmer's change of heart
Before he became party leader, he was not known for his Zionist sympathies. As a former barrister specialising in international human rights, Starmer would have honoured the UN Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian people without hesitation.
Since becoming party leader, Starmer has changed. He has embarked on a courtship of the Israel lobby, the antithesis to his earlier positions on Palestinian rights
His past record against the illegal Iraq war, his membership of Labour Friends of Palestine, and his condemnation of the Trump Middle East peace plan as "a farce, inconsistent with international law and human rights protections" all point him in that direction.
In 2015 he spoke at an election hustings on Palestine organised by Camden Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and later declared: “We can promote peace and justice around the world” against the backdrop of Stop the War campaigners holding Palestinian flags.
But since becoming party leader, Starmer has changed. He has embarked on a courtship of the Israel lobby, the antithesis to his earlier positions on Palestinian rights. In January 2020, he adopted the Board of Deputies' "Ten Pledges" without caveat.
These included the International Holocaust Remembrance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. This conflation has been at the heart of the antisemitism allegations against the Labour Party. Its aim to link criticism of Israel, and by extension support for Palestine, with "antisemitism" has so far been highly successful in hounding out these supporters.
Starmer now describes himself as a "Zionist without qualification" who believes in the state of Israel.
--------------------------------------
While Starmer is fiercely schtum about his private life – hence his reticence to publicly name his daughter – we do know that his wife, originally from Poland, is Jewish, and that the couple's children are being raised in the Jewish faith. Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle in March, the Labour leader opened up about his wife's faith, saying: 'As you probably know my wife’s family is Jewish. On her father’s side there are bar mitzvahs, synagogues — there’s all the traditions.'
https://www.tatler.com/article/who-is-keir-starmers-wife-victoria
-
I trying to connect you with someone that could possibly understand your political theories tyke and I have narrowed it down to selby, bullet, hound and Albie but they may have to work as a team.
OI! Don't leave me out. I understand Tyke's political theories well. Quite simple really. The Labour Party was formed to represent working class people and Trade Unions.
That's something that you and Keith seem to be ignoring.
-
SS,
Syd will be on in a minute to explain why a loss said to be of £10.5 million per year in membership fees - £52.5 million per parliament, is a cracking move by Keith.
Just after he finishes reading the Forde Report, which must be causing a bit of anguish down under.
-
I trying to connect you with someone that could possibly understand your political theories tyke and I have narrowed it down to selby, bullet, hound and Albie but they may have to work as a team.
OI! Don't leave me out. I understand Tyke's political theories well. Quite simple really. The Labour Party was formed to represent working class people and Trade Unions.
That's something that you and Keith seem to be ignoring.
My apologies Steve, I guess it will all come out in the wash. How's your private health, hope you are have the top cover. I think that the tag should be changed to haves and have nots to better represent who this government will 'serve' Maybe as tyke's campaign manager you could put him up for office, he would fit in on the Truss team I think.
Oh, by the way can you ask tyke which union he's in atm moment if you get a chance.
-
SS,
Syd will be on in a minute to explain why a loss said to be of £10.5 million per year in membership fees - £52.5 million per parliament, is a cracking move by Keith.
Just after he finishes reading the Forde Report, which must be causing a bit of anguish down under.
Albie, I'm just trying to show how silly your argument is demanding that labour do something no other party has ever done, not about red herrings.
-
I trying to connect you with someone that could possibly understand your political theories tyke and I have narrowed it down to selby, bullet, hound and Albie but they may have to work as a team.
OI! Don't leave me out. I understand Tyke's political theories well. Quite simple really. The Labour Party was formed to represent working class people and Trade Unions.
That's something that you and Keith seem to be ignoring.
My apologies Steve, I guess it will all come out in the wash. How's your private health, hope you are have the top cover. I think that the tag should be changed to haves and have nots to better represent who this government will 'serve' Maybe as tyke's campaign manager you could put him up for office, he would fit in on the Truss team I think.
Oh, by the way can you ask tyke which union he's in atm moment if you get a chance.
As usual, you've gone off on a tangent about something that's got f*ck all to do with my post. I never mentioned private health, this government, or Liz Truss.
Now, do you think Keith is the man, as Labour leader, to represent working class people and Trade Unions?
Yes or no?
-
While Starmer is fiercely schtum about his private life – hence his reticence to publicly name his daughter – we do know that his wife, originally from Poland, is Jewish, and that the couple's children are being raised in the Jewish faith. Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle in March, the Labour leader opened up about his wife's faith, saying: 'As you probably know my wife’s family is Jewish. On her father’s side there are bar mitzvahs, synagogues — there’s all the traditions.'
https://www.tatler.com/article/who-is-keir-starmers-wife-victoria
Interesting I was sure I'd read his wife was from Donny.
Here we go www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/the-doncaster-family-connections-of-labour-leader-sir-keir-starmer-3006047
"Sir Keir’s wife Victoria comes from Doncaster and his late mother in law Barbara lived in the town before her death earlier this year." From the man himself "I’m delighted that we’re here in Doncaster. My wife’s mum was born and grew up here – just next to the racecourse."
I guess the Polish link is on her Father's side
-
I trying to connect you with someone that could possibly understand your political theories tyke and I have narrowed it down to selby, bullet, hound and Albie but they may have to work as a team.
OI! Don't leave me out. I understand Tyke's political theories well. Quite simple really. The Labour Party was formed to represent working class people and Trade Unions.
That's something that you and Keith seem to be ignoring.
My apologies Steve, I guess it will all come out in the wash. How's your private health, hope you are have the top cover. I think that the tag should be changed to haves and have nots to better represent who this government will 'serve' Maybe as tyke's campaign manager you could put him up for office, he would fit in on the Truss team I think.
Oh, by the way can you ask tyke which union he's in atm moment if you get a chance.
As usual, you've gone off on a tangent about something that's got f*ck all to do with my post. I never mentioned private health, this government, or Liz Truss.
Now, do you think Keith is the man, as Labour leader, to represent working class people and Trade Unions?
Yes or no?
Yes of course it was, has allowing continual government by the tories helped the working man Steve, yes or no? and by not voting for them have you and others allowed these government to prosper, yes or no and have you and others given rise to johnson yes or no?
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
-
How can anyone trust a man who changes his mind on major issues the way he does?
The bloke's a ditherer.
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
And your point is?
What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.
I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
And your point is?
What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.
I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.
My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!
I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
Maybe bst will know mate, he seems to know everything.
-
If Boris Johnson had shown the same contempt and dishonesty as Keith Starmer has when he campaigned for the Tory leadership we'd now be currently rejoining the EU .
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
And your point is?
What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.
I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.
My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!
I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?
So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,
Is Keith what a Labour leader looks like or thinks like?
From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.
2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.
2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,
Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.
At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.
For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
And your point is?
What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.
I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.
My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!
I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?
So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,
Is Keith what a Labour leader looks like or thinks like?
From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.
2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.
2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,
Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.
At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.
For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.
I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .
That's simply not true .
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
And your point is?
What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.
I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.
My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!
I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?
So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,
Is Keith what a Labour leader looks like or thinks like?
From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.
2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.
2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,
Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.
At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.
For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.
I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .
That's simply not true .
I didn't suggest that at all, what i'm thinking is even worse, he was incompetent in the post and it all simply passed him by.
-
How can anyone trust a man who changes his mind on major issues the way he does?
The bloke's a ditherer.
Steve, there's no reason to attack tyke in this way, he's trying his best with the limited resources he has, but I will admit that Andy Capp had more political nous, hehe
-
I wonder if a fuss will be made out of Starmer's oversights....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62431183
-
But yeah, they’re not all the same aye
-
Well done, and on holiday, just a coincidence I suppose, what a toss pot, a forgetful judge for gods sake, and that waste of time has given judgement on others.
Take the poster down in the bedroom Syd it's an embarrassment.
-
I wonder if a fuss will be made out of Starmer's oversights....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62431183
This does beg the question from someone who said the Tories were a disorganised rabble.
Could we expect a Labour administration with this bloke in charge to be any more organised and competent than the last lot if this is an example of how he runs his back office?
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
And your point is?
What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.
I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.
My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!
I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?
So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,
Is Keith what a Labour leader looks like or thinks like?
From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.
2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.
2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,
Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.
At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.
For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.
I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .
That's simply not true .
I didn't suggest that at all, what i'm thinking is even worse, he was incompetent in the post and it all simply passed him by.
Starmer receives an honour awarded by the cabinet office of the government of the day (ooh I wonder which government did that then) and then a member of the royal household presents the award namely the queen.
This 'smear' must cover those that gave the award and the woman that presented it I guess.
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
And your point is?
What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.
I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.
My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!
I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?
So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,
Is Keith what a Labour leader looks like or thinks like?
From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.
2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.
2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,
Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.
At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.
For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.
I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .
That's simply not true .
I didn't suggest that at all, what i'm thinking is even worse, he was incompetent in the post and it all simply passed him by.
Starmer receives an honour awarded by the cabinet office of the government of the day (ooh I wonder which government did that then) and then a member of the royal household presents the award namely the queen.
This 'smear' must cover those that gave the award and the woman that presented it I guess.
So basically an award for being "in the job" gets your juices flowing does it.
I wonder what you will have to say when Johnson gets his "award for being in the job"
And yes he doesn't deserve it either.
-
But yeah, they’re not all the same aye
Well he has only made eight offences, that have so far come to light by the way, but he has apologised so I suppose it is ok.
-
If you can't see the difference between Starmer and johnson you really are a dick danum
-
Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.
Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.
That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.
It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.
The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.
That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html
I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?
How you getting on with the Forde Report?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row
Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.
It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.
So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.
So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?
I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.
I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833
And your point is?
What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.
I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.
My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!
I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?
So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,
Is Keith what a Labour leader looks like or thinks like?
From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.
2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.
2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,
Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.
At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.
For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.
I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .
That's simply not true .
I didn't suggest that at all, what i'm thinking is even worse, he was incompetent in the post and it all simply passed him by.
Starmer receives an honour awarded by the cabinet office of the government of the day (ooh I wonder which government did that then) and then a member of the royal household presents the award namely the queen.
This 'smear' must cover those that gave the award and the woman that presented it I guess.
So did Jimmy Saville .
-
tyke you don't don't know the difference between a newspaper set up to oppose the institution and the mail
-
tyke you don't don't know the difference between a newspaper set up to oppose the institution and the mail
Clearly neither do you if you believe the Guardian is the voice of the anti establishment .
-
As Ldr is fond of saying you read what you want to read tyke
-
As Ldr is fond of saying you read what you want to read tyke
You do indeed , so presumably you'll be ignorant of the leading Guardian writer reported by a female member of staff for sexual harassment and the Guardian doing nowt about it .
Then again some of us have wider reading capabilities Sydney .
Everyday is a school day bro .
-
As Ldr is fond of saying you read what you want to read tyke
You do indeed , so presumably you'll be ignorant of the leading Guardian writer reported by a female member of staff for sexual harassment and the Guardian doing nowt about it .
Then again some of us have wider reading capabilities Sydney .
Everyday is a school day bro .
try and keep your mind on the topic tyke, I know it's difficult but do the best you can
-
Poor from Starmer this, he's either completely disorganised or deliberately avoided it, neither are good traits when his USP is supposed to be competency.
-
Poor from Starmer this, he's either completely disorganised or deliberately avoided it, neither are good traits when his USP is supposed to be competency.
Given his current stance on supporting/not supporting official trade union strikes, I'm not sure which one of those it is either BFYP.
-
If you can't see the difference between Starmer and johnson you really are a dick danum
"Dick", how old are we, my youngest lad used to use that phrase when he was 7, what's your excuse.
-
Danum, I'm sorry if it brings up sad memories of you son calling you a dick, they do grow out of things fairly quickly
-
Poor from Starmer this, he's either completely disorganised or deliberately avoided it, neither are good traits when his USP is supposed to be competency.
Agreed. It's very, very cack handed.
-
I’d have Angela Rayner as Leader in a blink.
She’d eat Truss or Sunak alive.
-
Syd,
Astonished by this;
"Starmer receives an honour awarded by the cabinet office of the government of the day (ooh I wonder which government did that then) and then a member of the royal household presents the award namely the queen."
Honours in the UK are given for services rendered to the establishment.
I know that the occasional school dinner lady gets an award, but that is just cover for the real purpose of the system.
It is the interests of the elite that really matters.
As you say, Keith was rewarded by the government, whose interests he served....the Queen has nowt to do with it.
So the question is why he was rewarded by them, and why he accepted, because the present honours system and the House of Lords is against any socialist idea of reformation.
What do you reckon?
-
Just going on what you said previously Albie, the head of any organisation etc blah blah ............ the queen or her representative makes the award, therefore by dint of that she is besmirched by it.
-
There is a massive difference Syd, between Starmer as the DPP, head of the CPS, holding responsibility for the actions of the service under his watch......and the ceremonial duties of the Royal household.
No comparison whatsoever, only you can see one.
In other news, Labour have selected the wife of John Mann to stand for Bassetlaw.
That is the John Mann who was promoted to the House of Turds by the Tories, as a czar for something or other.
-
There is a massive difference Syd, between Starmer as the DPP, head of the CPS, holding responsibility for the actions of the service under his watch......and the ceremonial duties of the Royal household.
No comparison whatsoever, only you can see one.
In other news, Labour have selected the wife of John Mann to stand for Bassetlaw.
That is the John Mann who was promoted to the House of Turds by the Tories, as a czar for something or other.
Let's go back to where you started spouting this rubbish Albie, you posted a slur and when I called you out you, you then said it wasn't a slur because of x y z, but as you didn't didn't put x y or z in your original is was therefore a slur.
Now if it wasn't a slur then there is no damage to the queen's reputation and you need to take it up with Danum cos he says it's real, how he would know is another matter.
If you want to post a direct accusation about what Starmer has done without using weasel words I am quite happy to forward it to Starmer's office for you so the matter can be settled.
-
There is a massive difference Syd, between Starmer as the DPP, head of the CPS, holding responsibility for the actions of the service under his watch......and the ceremonial duties of the Royal household.
No comparison whatsoever, only you can see one.
In other news, Labour have selected the wife of John Mann to stand for Bassetlaw.
That is the John Mann who was promoted to the House of Turds by the Tories, as a czar for something or other.
Let's go back to where you started spouting this rubbish Albie, you posted a slur and when I called you out you, you then said it wasn't a slur because of x y z, but as you didn't didn't put x y or z in your original is was therefore a slur.
Now if it wasn't a slur then there is no damage to the queen's reputation and you need to take it up with Danum cos he says it's real, how he would know is another matter.
If you want to post a direct accusation about what Starmer has done without using weasel words I am quite happy to forward it to Starmer's office for you so the matter can be settled.
Don't forget to add the free Arsenal tickets Syd to your envelope and at least you'll get a reply in 6 months time .
-
Sydney,
Judging by some posts on here by Wilts and BST, I reckon you'll soon be alone in your adulation of Keith.
I don't think the penny's dropped with you yet.
-
Syd, forward this for me please, you treacherous Quisling tosser. Thanks a lot.
-
Sydney,
Judging by some posts on here by Wilts and BST, I reckon you'll soon be alone in your adulation of Keith.
I don't think the penny's dropped with you yet.
quite happy to accept he's a bit clumsy but not character assassinations from the alt right Steve and he's a million miles from johnson the non-show that's allowing business and his cronies to run the country. now let me get this right Steve you voted and support this brexit shit show that's causing the country so much angst and is now the reason their a contest between muppets to run the country to the next election.
-
Syd, forward this for me please, you treacherous Quisling tosser. Thanks a lot.
bit of a white flag from you selby, not game to slander him aye?
-
Syd, no white flag mate, I hold the man in such esteem I wouldn't give him freely the smell off my backside buddy.
Nothing but a Quisling, a back stabber, and a traitor to the UK electorate, and now conveniently forgetful.
Your boy is just a SH******E mate as simple as that,
-
Syd, no white flag mate, I hold the man in such esteem I wouldn't give him freely the smell off my backside buddy.
Nothing but a Quisling, a back stabber, and a traitor to the UK electorate, and now conveniently forgetful.
Your boy is just a SH******E mate as simple as that,
He sends his love selby and suggests you are just white noise.
-
And what's so ironic about the vote for either of these economic pygmies .......... forget the stupidity of voting for a liar and the shambles of the government he led, it's what drove brexit, remember the poster and all the shit about Turkey joining the Eu well any of those those on the poster maybe voting in for the leader, in fact anyone from the EU or anywhere for that matter could have joined the tory party to vote for the next PM, boom tish
-
Your showing your ratial side Syd naughty naughty.
-
Syd, no white flag mate, I hold the man in such esteem I wouldn't give him freely the smell off my backside buddy.
Nothing but a Quisling, a back stabber, and a traitor to the UK electorate, and now conveniently forgetful.
Your boy is just a SH******E mate as simple as that,
He sends his love selby and suggests you are just white noise.
Adds racism and culture warrior to Syd's growing list of Tory traits .
-
Syd, no white flag mate, I hold the man in such esteem I wouldn't give him freely the smell off my backside buddy.
Nothing but a Quisling, a back stabber, and a traitor to the UK electorate, and now conveniently forgetful.
Your boy is just a SH******E mate as simple as that,
you need to read this tyke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_vote_in_favour_of_Brexit
He sends his love selby and suggests you are just white noise.
Adds racism and culture warrior to Syd's growing list of Tory traits .
-
Just realised you don't know what white noise is tyke, bless
-
Talking about white noise, can we see the signal from the noise in the Labour membership decline;
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/labour-membership-down-91000-under-starmer-332448/
Many more not renewing when their subs are up.
Not looking too clever, is it?
-
Talking about white noise, can we see the signal from the noise in the Labour membership decline;
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/labour-membership-down-91000-under-starmer-332448/
Many more not renewing when their subs are up.
Not looking too clever, is it?
They are looking a damn sight better than the economy Albie, thanks to all the non-labour voters aye
And I'll add to that, with all those previous members and financial resources labour lost the worst election in how many decades Albie?
Here's the conundrum the you cannot or won't answer, pull the party together and take it more towards the centre and win an election or keep crying in your cornflakes over the failures of the past.
The people have told you that they don't want a far left government at this point in time, you don't have a plan nor a new leader ready to take the reigns, you don't even vote labour as far as I can tell.
All you have is a lot of tears over what could have been, Starmer has reduced the debt that you were moaning about to around 1/20th of what it was. The party is in front in the polls and they may even get to oust the tories without your help Albie.
-
Talking about white noise, can we see the signal from the noise in the Labour membership decline;
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/labour-membership-down-91000-under-starmer-332448/
Many more not renewing when their subs are up.
Not looking too clever, is it?
They are looking a damn sight better than the economy Albie, thanks to all the non-labour voters aye
You don’t seem to understand that Labour have to earn the votes from most people.
Not everyone would vote for them come what may.
-
Strange how the Wheres Johnson thread has been locked but this one is allowed to run
-
Government influence?
-
Strange how the Wheres Johnson thread has been locked but this one is allowed to run
I cant see anything strange about it, Johnson is yesterdays chip paper and the sooner his disappearance into obscurity we can start to think about moving the country on.
Keith on the other hand is still alive and kicking and with every additional issue he proves he's out of touch and part of the issue rather than the solution.
Striking railway workers will be welcoming real Labour party MP's and members to their cause today, where will this looser be?
Totally out of touch with the mood of the country.
-
why do you care at all dd aren't they ''all the same'' you can't vote for all of them aye? but I suppose you could not vote ................ hmmm
-
why do you care at all dd aren't they ''all the same'' you can't vote for all of them aye? but I suppose you could not vote ................ hmmm
Instead of talking in riddles and spouting absolute crap why don't you try to answer my point? So where do you think your idol will be today?
Yea i thought so, not a chance. carry on with the mindless drivel.
-
why do you care at all dd aren't they ''all the same'' you can't vote for all of them aye? but I suppose you could not vote ................ hmmm
Instead of talking in riddles and spouting absolute crap why don't you try to answer my point? So where do you think your idol will be today?
Yea i thought so, not a chance. carry on with the mindless drivel.
I just wonder what you do at the polling station, if you ever go there that is?
''All politicians are the same'' 'hmmm whom do I vote for then, hmmm can't make my mind up, damn another wasted trip.'
-
why do you care at all dd aren't they ''all the same'' you can't vote for all of them aye? but I suppose you could not vote ................ hmmm
Instead of talking in riddles and spouting absolute crap why don't you try to answer my point? So where do you think your idol will be today?
Yea i thought so, not a chance. carry on with the mindless drivel.
I just wonder what you do at the polling station, if you ever go there that is?
''All politicians are the same'' 'hmmm whom do I vote for then, hmmm can't make my mind up, damn another wasted trip.'
Pointless drivel as usual, go talk with the koala's, their just about on your level, some of us have real work to perform.
-
DD, please walk me through how someone that can't make their mind up about whom they would chose as a leader or an MP selects where to put the X, you don't have to say whom you have voted for in the past just tell me what happens.
-
why do you care at all dd aren't they ''all the same'' you can't vote for all of them aye? but I suppose you could not vote ................ hmmm
Instead of talking in riddles and spouting absolute crap why don't you try to answer my point? So where do you think your idol will be today?
Yea i thought so, not a chance. carry on with the mindless drivel.
I just wonder what you do at the polling station, if you ever go there that is?
''All politicians are the same'' 'hmmm whom do I vote for then, hmmm can't make my mind up, damn another wasted trip.'
Pointless drivel as usual, go talk with the koala's, their just about on your level, some of us have real work to perform.
Danumdon, that's a rather unfair comment. Please show a bit more respect for the poor Koalas.
-
Strange how the Wheres Johnson thread has been locked but this one is allowed to run
I cant see anything strange about it, Johnson is yesterdays chip paper and the sooner his disappearance into obscurity we can start to think about moving the country on.
Keith on the other hand is still alive and kicking and with every additional issue he proves he's out of touch and part of the issue rather than the solution.
Striking railway workers will be welcoming real Labour party MP's and members to their cause today, where will this looser be?
Totally out of touch with the mood of the country.
Yesterdays chip paper is still the PM
-
Well Syd, you have educated us all again on this thread, we all know now what an irrelevant noise is now, it's you.
-
Well Syd, you have educated us all again on this thread, we all know now what an irrelevant noise is now, it's you.
Com' on selby an old fart like you can do much better than that surely
-
Well Syd, you have educated us all again on this thread, we all know now what an irrelevant noise is now, it's you.
Brian, he is the biggest WUM on this forum.
-
Syd,
Your posts are getting more and more bizarre.
You seem to think losing members and finance hand over fist is somehow OK.
"with all those previous members and financial resources labour lost"
Right, so you reckon fewer members and less resource is not a problem?
"Starmer has reduced the debt that you were moaning about to around 1/20th of what it was"....what?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-membership-loss-accounts-deficit-b2146691.html
Once more trade union money is withdrawn, the situation becomes even more critical.
Do you think Labour should be funded by commercial interests, looking for a payback from their investment?
Or perhaps money from a foreign government, Israel maybe, in return for support on the international stage?
-
Syd,
Your posts are getting more and more bizarre.
You seem to think losing members and finance hand over fist is somehow OK.
"with all those previous members and financial resources labour lost"
Right, so you reckon fewer members and less resource is not a problem?
"Starmer has reduced the debt that you were moaning about to around 1/20th of what it was"....what?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-membership-loss-accounts-deficit-b2146691.html
Once more trade union money is withdrawn, the situation becomes even more critical.
Do you think Labour should be funded by commercial interests, looking for a payback from their investment?
Or perhaps money from a foreign government, Israel maybe, in return for support on the international stage?
Maybe you should take some comprehension lessons Albie, my previous comment you completely misunderstood and now you wish to put your own interpretation to what I write. You will not see anywhere that I have said the highlighted section above. If you can recall your gloating regarding what Starmer had lost for the party, what you appear to miss is that with those far left members in control Labour could not win and with due respect what is the point of being a wealthy party in opposition?
You don't vote labour so why should this be of bother to you Albie? your vote maintains a tory government.
A lot of the troubles are due to the previous far left unable to unite the party and get enough of the vote, as shown at the last election, never forget the last election Albie when you are bashing out your comments.
I think you are extremely naive Albie as you seem unable to grasp the political reality of how to win power, If I am incorrect please put your ideas together in a comment, I have been asking you for some time.
-
Syd,
Could you answer my questions please?
"Do you think Labour should be funded by commercial interests, looking for a payback from their investment?
Or perhaps money from a foreign government, Israel maybe, in return for support on the international stage?"
Thanks.
-
Oh it’s all gone quiet over there……
-
Syd,
Could you answer my questions please?
"Do you think Labour should be funded by commercial interests, looking for a payback from their investment?
Or perhaps money from a foreign government, Israel maybe, in return for support on the international stage?"
Thanks.
It's illegal for a foreign government, company or individual to donate to a UK political party. So that will narrow it down for you:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/political-party-funding
-
Syd,
Could you answer my questions please?
"Do you think Labour should be funded by commercial interests, looking for a payback from their investment?
Or perhaps money from a foreign government, Israel maybe, in return for support on the international stage?"
Thanks.
Unless you grow a bit Albie the answer is no, I've put plenty of questions to you and they have gone unanswered, quid pro quo old chap.
-
Sydney can I ask, has your neighbour become a good friend?
-
Col, yes you can ask.
-
Wilts,
Yes, I am aware of the rules.
The problem is that they are easy to sidestep, and as a result are widely disregarded.
Open Democracy has run a series of "Dark Money" investigations, mainly focussed upon Russian influence in the Tory party, and cash for access scams;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/urgent-changes-needed-tackle-dirty-money-british-politics-says-new-report/
The Russians are not the only players in this.
Israel has been very active in courting influence within the UK political landscape.
Often this takes the form of financial support to sympathetic MP's, with donations channelled via UK residents to particular MP's.
They have sub-groups within the parties, such as Labour Friends of Israel, which act as a focus for activities supporting Israel on the international stage.
Now the issue is whether this is legitimate political engagement, or a corrosive corruption of UK party politics?
If it is deplorable when Russian interests have leverage, then surely it is equally deplorable for other countries to act in similar fashion!
-
That's a serious allegation you are making there Albie.
What evidence do you have that Labour Friends of Israel is connected in anyway, and receives funding from, the government of Israel?
It is a group for Labour MP's and Labour members who are interested in Israel.
Barry Gardiner used to be chair of it. Are you saying Barry Gardner is receiving this funding?
-
Sydney can I ask, has your neighbour become a good friend?
That's the trouble, CC. We're finally rid of "Neighbours", but can we f*ck get rid of Syd.
He hangs about like a bad smell.
-
Sydney can I ask, has your neighbour become a good friend?
That's the trouble, CC. We're finally rid of "Neighbours", but can we f*ck get rid of Syd.
He hangs about like a bad smell.
With all things considered you don't smell too good yourself after your dalliances with the tories aye Steve
-
Sydney can I ask, has your neighbour become a good friend?
That's the trouble, CC. We're finally rid of "Neighbours", but can we f*ck get rid of Syd.
He hangs about like a bad smell.
With all things considered you don't smell too good yourself after your dalliances with the tories aye Steve
Never voted Tory in my life, Cobber. True socialists don't.
Liberals can often be persuaded to though. Are you sure you've always voted Labour?
-
I've never supported for a party that would risk having conservative government in power. In the UK I've always voted labour.
-
Sydney can I ask, has your neighbour become a good friend?
That's the trouble, CC. We're finally rid of "Neighbours", but can we f*ck get rid of Syd.
He hangs about like a bad smell.
With all things considered you don't smell too good yourself after your dalliances with the tories aye Steve
Never voted Tory in my life, Cobber. True socialists don't.
Liberals can often be persuaded to though. Are you sure you've always voted Labour?
True socialists may not but why would they support yet another balmy venture from the house of dumb ideas, Come on lads let's cut ourselves off from the wealthiest market in the world and show them how to really run a country.
-
Sydney can I ask, has your neighbour become a good friend?
That's the trouble, CC. We're finally rid of "Neighbours", but can we f*ck get rid of Syd.
He hangs about like a bad smell.
With all things considered you don't smell too good yourself after your dalliances with the tories aye Steve
Never voted Tory in my life, Cobber. True socialists don't.
Liberals can often be persuaded to though. Are you sure you've always voted Labour?
True socialists may not but why would they support yet another balmy venture from the house of dumb ideas, Come on lads let's cut ourselves off from the wealthiest market in the world and show them how to really run a country.
Do you mean the market that wouldn't have allowed us to re-nationalise public services?
-
No I mean the government that has grown stronger and been in power longer and is intent on stripping out protections for workers, the same one that has allowed polluting of the rivers, the same one that has allowed pollution in the cities, the same one that lied to the head of state and wanted to break international law, the one that wants to rip up the NI protocol, tell me when you've had enough Steve.
-
Sydney can I ask, has your neighbour become a good friend?
That's the trouble, CC. We're finally rid of "Neighbours", but can we f*ck get rid of Syd.
He hangs about like a bad smell.
With all things considered you don't smell too good yourself after your dalliances with the tories aye Steve
Never voted Tory in my life, Cobber. True socialists don't.
Liberals can often be persuaded to though. Are you sure you've always voted Labour?
True socialists may not but why would they support yet another balmy venture from the house of dumb ideas, Come on lads let's cut ourselves off from the wealthiest market in the world and show them how to really run a country.
Do you mean the market that wouldn't have allowed us to re-nationalise public services?
France have just re-nationalised their electricty industry. Or was there some other market you meant?
-
Wilts,
Not my accusations, the reportage of others.
These matters were covered by media outlets at the time;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-plotted-against-mps-set-up-political-groups-labour
I am not saying that Labour FOI receive direct funding from Israel... not sure where you get that idea from!
The issue was covered by the Aljazeera documentary "The Lobby", which exposed the actions of the Israeli embassy in covert UK operations.
You can catch the original in this Jonathan Cook article;
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-01-08/how-many-british-mps-are-working-for-israel/
The episodes are at the foot of the article.
A further aspect is discussed here:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/03/28/reminder-israel-put-up-a-1000000-bounty-for-labour-insiders-to-undermine-corbyn/
They have also been very active within the Conservative Party, as Alan Duncan's revelations show.
-
I see Keith is not allowing even a discussion of public ownership at Labour conference;
https://labourlist.org/2022/09/anger-from-labour-activists-as-public-ownership-conference-motion-blocked/
Here is what he said to Andrew Neil previously;
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1571138352774279169?cxt=HHwWgsDTob6A580rAAAA
He is just a brylcremed Boris, a habitual liar!
-
I see Keith is not allowing even a discussion of public ownership at Labour conference;
https://labourlist.org/2022/09/anger-from-labour-activists-as-public-ownership-conference-motion-blocked/
Here is what he said to Andrew Neil previously;
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1571138352774279169?cxt=HHwWgsDTob6A580rAAAA
He is just a brylcremed Boris, a habitual liar!
The bloke's a f*cking disgrace. I can't see the Unions putting up with him for much longer.
-
I see that he’s now having the national anthem sung at the Labour Party conference. He’s obviously seen the support for the queen and royals and is hoping to capitalise on it.
-
It is now clear that the public energy company promised by Keith at Labour Conference will not be a supplier to the general public;
https://labourlist.org/2022/09/great-british-energy-falls-far-short-of-what-the-public-and-the-planet-need/
The aim appears to be to leave the utility market entirely untouched after the present crisis is over.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the problems that the energy sector will continue to experience.
-
Well he did get his round of applause for his suggestion.
-
I see that he’s now having the national anthem sung at the Labour Party conference. He’s obviously seen the support for the queen and royals and is hoping to capitalise on it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
He, like many of us on the not-very-far-Left, held his head in his hands while Corbyn indulged himself in student politics that gave free punches to those on the Right who claim lefties are unpatriotic.
Starmer's first speech when he took over from Corbyn included a pledge to never under his leadership engage in that sort of stupid navel gazing, where proving you are ideologically sound to your mates is more important than convincing the public that you can be trusted to stand up for the country. He's been moving the Labour party in that direction for two and a half years. This wasn't a knee jerk reaction to the Queen's death.
-
Genuinely, did they have the National Anthem played at the previous LP conference.
-
Maybe the tv producers cut out the footage of the national anthem previously
Or maybe it just wasn’t sung or thought about previously as a vote winner
-
Genuinely, did they have the National Anthem played at the previous LP conference.
I wouldn't read too much in to it Hound .
They also sang The Red Flag to close down the conference which is a socialist anthem also sung in communist North Korea .
That's after proclaiming the whole week they are the party of the centre .
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
-
Genuinely, did they have the National Anthem played at the previous LP conference.
I wouldn't read too much in to it Hound .
They also sang The Red Flag to close down the conference which is a socialist anthem also sung in communist North Korea .
That's after proclaiming the whole week they are the party of the centre .
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
So I guess we still have no idea where they stand. :lol:
-
Genuinely, did they have the National Anthem played at the previous LP conference.
I wouldn't read too much in to it Hound .
They also sang The Red Flag to close down the conference which is a socialist anthem also sung in communist North Korea .
That's after proclaiming the whole week they are the party of the centre .
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
I do understand that you're both hurting and looking for solace in each other.
-
No bst, I asked a genuine question.
Are you aware of whether the did do the NA last time out but won’t say as it discredits your earlier post about it.
Just let us know please.
-
Genuinely, did they have the National Anthem played at the previous LP conference.
I wouldn't read too much in to it Hound .
They also sang The Red Flag to close down the conference which is a socialist anthem also sung in communist North Korea .
That's after proclaiming the whole week they are the party of the centre .
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
I do understand that you're both hurting and looking for solace in each other.
I merely comment on the events the Labour Party they themselves serve up Billy .
If that hits a nerve it's unfortunate .
Make Brexit Work
Vote Labour
-
On it goes in Labour under Keith;
https://labourlist.org/2022/10/sedgefield-clp-officers-resign-after-announcement-of-selection-longlist/
Good job Truss has everyone looking the other way!
-
No doubt a member of the Britain Surrendering Together Party will comment on this shortly.
-
No doubt a member of the Britain Surrendering Together Party will comment on this shortly.
Unless it is to denounce it BB, I’m not sure they will.
-
On it goes in Labour under Keith;
https://labourlist.org/2022/10/sedgefield-clp-officers-resign-after-announcement-of-selection-longlist/
Good job Truss has everyone looking the other way!
I don't follow this. On WHAT goes?
-
Starmer must be absolutely gutted:
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 53% (+1)
CON: 19% (-1)
Via @PeoplePolling 12 Oct.
Changes w/ 6 Oct.
-
Nothing surprising there wilts.
If Starmer isn’t way ahead now he never will be.
The government have scored lots of own goals this last few weeks.
-
Hound I look at those polling numbers and think - what are 19% of the public seeing that I'm not?
And I am afraid with numbers like that albie is going to be disappointed, Stamer will be able to shape the party however he wants. I did notice he had sacked his chief-of-staff tho, so maybe there has been kickback about this 'purge of the left'.
-
To me it is quite simple wilts.
The 19% must be die hard Tory supporters who would never vote any other way.
The same could have been said if you looked at the polls around the Corbyn disaster at the GE.
Tory people must have thought the same as you are doing now and wondering how anyone could have backed him.
-
You certainly didn't need to be Tory to wonder how anyone could back Corbyn.
-
On it goes in Labour under Keith;
https://labourlist.org/2022/10/sedgefield-clp-officers-resign-after-announcement-of-selection-longlist/
Good job Truss has everyone looking the other way!
I don't follow this. On WHAT goes?
Well BST, the rigging of selection of parliamentary candidates, alongside the disruption of local agreements between parties at the Council level.
The shameful imposition of a Head Office candidate over a local preference marred the by-election in Wakefield.
Resignations from the Committee, followed by needing to bring in ringers from outside to doorstep canvass....Sedgefield looks like a similar scenario.
This are not one off aberrations, but a pattern of undermining local democracy.
Maurice Macleod has just been sidestepped in Camberwell;
https://twitter.com/mowords/status/1581265838253830145
Likewise, Hastings Council have been blocked from a viable local agreement by Labour HQ;
https://twitter.com/juliahilton10/status/1581031642541731840
The agreement was supported by the local party.
Anti-democratic measures do not sit within a socialist tradition of empowerment, do they?
-
Albie.
You know of course that many local CLPs were taken over by new entrants from the far left over the last decade? People, like yourself, with no history of being Labour supporters, but who saw an opening.
Let's call this current processing a bit of balancing. And the entryists can toddle off and find another party to take over.
Close the door behind you.
-
Over 50 years a member, BST, so that little theory is bollox.
New entrants to the party have every right to be heard, and to have their votes counted, whether you or I agree with them or not.
If you call this "a bit of balancing", you are not a socialist.
You are a supporter of central control and discrimination, which has no place in Labour IMO.
-
But you didn't vote Labour in 2010?
-
I heard a very small part of a sky reporter Beth's (Mrs Coleman heard her speaking the other day and thought she was a man til she saw her) interview last night
He said we didn't have children for politics ( having a right go at that conservative who was the leader of the labour party - and was also a failed rock star )
then he mentioned about supporting Arsenal and mentioned he is always home for friday night and prayers ( that could be why Arsenal have improved )..... when questioned on this he "moved around" on this point
November 16, 2020 14:05 Starmer: Our kids are being brought up to know their Jewish backgrounds
Labour leader tells Desert Island Discs of 'long tradition of family and faith'
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/starmer-our-kids-are-being-brought-up-to-know-their-jewish-backgrounds-1.508720
We do all know the children follow the religion of their Mother in such a case.
from wikipedia
Personal life
Starmer married Victoria Alexander in 2007.[221] She was previously a solicitor but now works in NHS occupational health.[5][222] The couple's son and daughter are being brought up in the Jewish faith of their mother and the family attend shabbat dinners.[9] Starmer himself stated he does not believe in God but does "believe in faith" and its power to bring people together.[223] Starmer is a keen footballer, having played for Homerton Academicals, a north London amateur team,[224] and supports Premier League side Arsenal.[5]
Starmer is a vegetarian, believing that "it's better for yourself and for the environment".[225]
listening to the whole interview goes onto my bucket list at least I learned somrething I didn't know about him
I didn't know that about his wife, not that I am particualy bothered.
I do know he used to be a keen supporter of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - so he presumably has good knowledge of middle east and middle east politics from all sides.
I think he dropped out of PSC when some activists went a bit too far and the a/s problem kicked off under Corbyn
https://twitter.com/tristandross/status/1460629248381788164
I am very surprised you didn't know that
thanks for that bit of info
i just googled.......... starmer palestine solidarity campaign there is lots of stuff ..... he married in 2007 so he should at that time known that " the women always get their way ... children wise in the end " but obviously his stance became untenable
at least he didn't become a Tottenham supporter (think about that one)
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-party-starmer-silence-palestinian-solidarity-day
Starmer's change of heart
Before he became party leader, he was not known for his Zionist sympathies. As a former barrister specialising in international human rights, Starmer would have honoured the UN Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian people without hesitation.
Since becoming party leader, Starmer has changed. He has embarked on a courtship of the Israel lobby, the antithesis to his earlier positions on Palestinian rights
His past record against the illegal Iraq war, his membership of Labour Friends of Palestine, and his condemnation of the Trump Middle East peace plan as "a farce, inconsistent with international law and human rights protections" all point him in that direction.
In 2015 he spoke at an election hustings on Palestine organised by Camden Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and later declared: “We can promote peace and justice around the world” against the backdrop of Stop the War campaigners holding Palestinian flags.
But since becoming party leader, Starmer has changed. He has embarked on a courtship of the Israel lobby, the antithesis to his earlier positions on Palestinian rights. In January 2020, he adopted the Board of Deputies' "Ten Pledges" without caveat.
These included the International Holocaust Remembrance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. This conflation has been at the heart of the antisemitism allegations against the Labour Party. Its aim to link criticism of Israel, and by extension support for Palestine, with "antisemitism" has so far been highly successful in hounding out these supporters.
Starmer now describes himself as a "Zionist without qualification" who believes in the state of Israel.
--------------------------------------
While Starmer is fiercely schtum about his private life – hence his reticence to publicly name his daughter – we do know that his wife, originally from Poland, is Jewish, and that the couple's children are being raised in the Jewish faith. Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle in March, the Labour leader opened up about his wife's faith, saying: 'As you probably know my wife’s family is Jewish. On her father’s side there are bar mitzvahs, synagogues — there’s all the traditions.'
https://www.tatler.com/article/who-is-keir-starmers-wife-victoria
Time to repost this -- lest ye forget
in an earlier post after this we suddenly develop a previious hidden Doncastrian link to his wife.
perhaps he can spin it both ways !!! but politicians have to be pragmatists
While Starmer is fiercely schtum about his private life – hence his reticence to publicly name his daughter – we do know that his wife, originally from Poland, is Jewish, and that the couple's children are being raised in the Jewish faith. Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle in March, the Labour leader opened up about his wife's faith, saying: 'As you probably know my wife’s family is Jewish. On her father’s side there are bar mitzvahs, synagogues — there’s all the traditions.'
https://www.tatler.com/article/who-is-keir-starmers-wife-victoria
Interesting I was sure I'd read his wife was from Donny.
Here we go www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/the-doncaster-family-connections-of-labour-leader-sir-keir-starmer-3006047
"Sir Keir’s wife Victoria comes from Doncaster and his late mother in law Barbara lived in the town before her death earlier this year." From the man himself "I’m delighted that we’re here in Doncaster. My wife’s mum was born and grew up here – just next to the racecourse."
I guess the Polish link is on her Father's side