Forum menu
Williamson’s position has always been one of the most precarious in the cabinet, with his stock low among Tory MPs. One said Williamson should have been “put out of his misery” a year ago over the exam results algorithm saga, adding: “No one has properly taken to task shit teaching, shit schools and shit headmasters – it’s utterly boring to hear complaints from middle-class MPs who fail these kids time after ****ing time.
“There is a moral urgency to sorting out our schools. If people in the Conservative party are not interested in that, they should get out of politics.”
To be honest the anonymous Tory MP has a better line on this than the shadow education secretary who seems to be invisible
More of this please
So Starmer does his usual trick of demanding that Johnson does something which he feels confident Johnson will do anyway, do we really need more of that?
Surely the Labour Party should be mounting a more constructive and positive opposition than that?
According to the article :
Asked by the Guardian whether he thought Johnson should take matters into his own hands and sack Williamson, Starmer said on Wednesday: “Yes, yes and a long time ago. And I don’t think I’m alone.”
But that's after the Guardian's article has already remarked :
Starmer has previously stopped short of demanding that Williamson should be removed from office, saying only that he had “failed over and over again”.
So the article completely contradicts Starmer.
Furthermore the article says :
Williamson’s position has always been one of the most precarious in the cabinet, with his stock low among Tory MPs. One said Williamson should have been “put out of his misery” a year ago over the exam results algorithm saga, adding: “No one has properly taken to task shit teaching, shit schools and shit headmasters – it’s utterly boring to hear complaints from middle-class MPs who fail these kids time after ****ing time.
So I think it is safe to say that if Williamson is sacked by Johnson it will have nothing to do with Starmer, even if Starmer thinks he can take the credit.
The family successfully argued that Ralph Miliband would have....
Ah, I hadn't misunderstood, you were seriously accusing Ralph Miliband behaving unprincipled after he had died.
Well scraping the barrel comes into mind. But nevertheless interesting.
So another thread disappears down the swirling plughole of irrelevance.
Ah, I hadn’t misunderstood, you were seriously accusing Ralph Miliband behaving unprincipled after he had died.
You did misunderstand, Ralph didn't make the change. His family said he would have. Again I don't know if he spun in his grave afterwards or not.
So another thread disappears down the swirling plughole of irrelevance.
Unfortunately as it's the SKS thread it's probably appropriate.....
Yeah I get your point. The surviving Milibands claimed that Ralph would have behaved in a certain way, they presumably managed to convince a judge of this. And based on that you are suggesting that Ralph Miliband was in some way unprincipled, as in :
So much for his dad’s left wing principles
Unfortunately as it’s the SKS thread it’s probably appropriate…..
It's a political thread on stw, what possible relevance could it have to anything?
And I see no evidence that it's disappearing anywhere. 207 pages so far and undoubtedly many more to come, certainly whilst Starmer remains leader.
OK for clarity, I'll amend to "so much for respect for his dad's left wing principles by the surviving family" as I keep stating Ralph Miliband didn't make the changes to his will, the family claimed he would have.
Ed Balls even said he was going to close the loophole.....
& this is relevant how?
this is relevant how?
Tangential discussion after some vocal left wingers were highlighting that SKS had inherited property from his parents, was in politics for the money and alleged he was spending a lot of his time trying to secure cushy well paid consultancy roles for his post politics career rather than being a constituency MP and labour leader
JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader
If the Millibands tax affairs are still on your mind 10 years later wait til you hear about what the Tories have been up to recently! You'll not sleep for weeks!
JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader
I'm 100% sure he doesn't.
Tangential discussion after some vocal left wingers were highlighting that SKS had inherited property from his parents, was in politics for the money and alleged he was spending a lot of his time trying to secure cushy well paid consultancy roles for his post politics career rather than being a constituency MP and labour leader
I don't know why Starmer is in politics, and frankly it's not a question which particularly preoccupies me, but I certainly don't get the impression that he is driven by conviction or strong passionate beliefs.
He doesn't strike me as someone who wants to change the world.
Nor do I believe becoming Leader of the Opposition suggests a huge personal sacrifice or a damaging career move.
I never ceased to be amazed how even failed senior politicians go on to enjoy such lucrative careers post-Westminster.
I find myself asking what the **** do they know about that? But of course it's not what they know but who they know.
I’m curious
JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader
How did you arrive at this? Anything to back it up?
'I never ceased to be amazed how even failed senior politicians go on to enjoy such lucrative careers post-Westminster.'
quids pro quo innit
I don’t know why Starmer is in politics, and frankly it’s not a question which particularly preoccupies me, but I certainly don’t get the impression that he is driven by conviction or strong passionate beliefs.
A good example if how he reacted in the clip talking to people in Blackpool. Just acknowledged what they said (massive generalisation) and just tried to pacify them by sort of agreeing a bit or saying nothing. Someone with conviction and passionate beliefs would not have done that, they would have stood up against them, questioned them, made them rethink it etc,.
If your gauge of intelligence is having seen and remembered a comedy routine from a not that famous person….
Ah, is someone feeling a bit left out?
JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader
Perfect time to throw this one straight backatcha: Do you actually believe the tripe you write? If someone's ability to research even the simplest of topics can be a gauge of intelligence, then, well... 😀
I mean come on; even the laziest Google reveals this is utter bollocks. Ever heard of Tony Blair? 😀
I don’t know why Starmer is in politics
Power and money. Why else?
Power and money. Why else?
Don't forget the puppet masters controlling him
How did you arrive at this? Anything to back it up?
No and as Bridges points out I had forgotten about Blair. To be fair Brown may be doing alright as well. Happy to be corrected.
A good example if how he reacted in the clip talking to people in Blackpool. Just acknowledged what they said (massive generalisation) and just tried to pacify them by sort of agreeing a bit or saying nothing. Someone with conviction and passionate beliefs would not have done that, they would have stood up against them, questioned them, made them rethink it etc,.
I'd be careful what you take from the Blackpool etc sessions, they were billed as a listening exercise, you can't do that if you are the one doing the talking. But I agree that KS needs to be able to convince people that he has answers. Conference is going to be really important.
Don’t forget the puppet masters controlling him
Is that the same people that @Bliss refers to or is this a different set of all powerful people running the world?
I don’t know why Starmer is in politics, and frankly it’s not a question which particularly preoccupies me, but I certainly don’t get the impression that he is driven by conviction or strong passionate beliefs.
He doesn’t strike me as someone who wants to change the world.
His history as a lawyer suggests otherwise but his approach seems to be inline with his profession, almost a straightjacket
Nor do I believe becoming Leader of the Opposition suggests a huge personal sacrifice or a damaging career move.
I have immense sympathies it will be as mad as a box of frogs. All his time will be dominated by it, I don't see him taking TOIL
I never ceased to be amazed how even failed senior politicians go on to enjoy such lucrative careers post-Westminster.
I find myself asking what the **** do they know about that? But of course it’s not what they know but who they know.
And how things get done
It will tighten again, the Cameron fiasco will see to that. Same could be said for civil servants, military, doctors etc it's not unique to politics
Someone with conviction and passionate beliefs would not have done that, they would have stood up against them, questioned them, made them rethink it etc,.
If there's anything we've learnt over the past few years it's that we can't make people re-think.
People don't want to be told what to think (especially from 'the establishment') and will actively push against it, becoming more entrenched in their beliefs.
Political leaders can sell their vision but they cannot be pushy in doing so. Ideas need to be sold in a way where individuals are making a choice of their own free will because it's something THEY want.
Look at how brexit was sold. All the money spent on feeding very subtle messages to people on social media so they could make their 'own decisions' based on the evidence they saw in front of them. And now no amount of argument will change their minds, they've bought in. Boris just needed to come along and tell people he was going to deliver it and he's worshipped like a king.
But we see rebellion again now against the government because they tell people what to do during Covid. Rebellion against the 'experts' because they 'tell people what to do'.
Before you know it, you have flat earthers...
Don’t forget the puppet masters controlling him
Ah, someone else is also feeling a bit left out. You've been proven wrong and had to apologise previously, so why continue down the same path of stupidity? Strange.
Is that the same people that @Bliss refers to or is this a different set of all powerful people running the world?
You really are angry, aren't you? Got anything other than ad hominems and offensive insinuations? Keep them coming; it only serves to undermine your already pathetically weak arguments even further. You've got nothing else. How sad. 🙁
No and as Bridges points out I had forgotten about Blair. To be fair Brown may be doing alright as well. Happy to be corrected.
You've also forgotten Milliband, and Starmer... 😀
And Neil Kinnock
And how things get done
I made a point of saying that I never ceased to be amazed how "even failed" senior politicians go on to enjoy such lucrative careers post-Westminster.
Today Nick Clegg is earning about half a million quid a year working for Facebook (which is considerably more than he earned as deputy prime minister) because he failed to hold onto his Westminster seat in 2017.
Is he really an expert on getting things done (apart from looking after his own arse)?
He shafted the Liberal Democrats and destroyed the support his predecessors had spent years building up. The LibDems still haven't recovered the support he destroyed and it's anyone's guess when or if they will ever recover.
Was this a cunning plan carefully executed all along? In which case yes, he certainly knows how to get things done.
I suspect however that the answer is no and it's more who he knows that what he knows.
And I don't know why you think Starmer's profession as a lawyer handicaps his ability to express passion, do think he is so intellectually inept that he can't fake it?
Tony Blair didn't seem to have a problem, despite being both a lawyer and self-serving. Although to be fair I never understood what Blair was passionate about - lots of words but very hard if not impossible to find any substance.
Ah, someone else is also feeling a bit left out. You’ve been proven wrong and had to apologise previously, so why continue down the same path of stupidity? Strange.
I apologised for another comment which had nothing to do with your puppet masters nonsense.
You need to lighten up a bit by the way, the puppet masters continuation is just taking the piss a bit as you had got in such a mess about it.
I apologised for another comment which had nothing to do with your puppet masters nonsense.
I can't be bothered trawling thought all the shit on here, but as I remember it, it was related to certain insinuations and false accusations. And you had to apoloigise. So, you know...
You need to lighten up a bit by the way, the puppet masters continuation is just taking the piss a bit as you had got in such a mess about it.
OH I need to lighten up? That's very funny. 😀 You're one of the people who keep trying to use it as a slur against me, for lack of any intelligent argument. I've challenged anyone to actually prove what they're insinuating, so far, not a single one has managed to do so. Again; if you think you have a case, go for it. Or you can continue bringing it up, and continue to look stupid. Your choice. I see you're now trying to hide behind a pathetic defence of it's 'just taking the piss a bit'.Cowardly. You can't even back yourself up over it. The thing about debate is, if you don't have an intelligent argument, it's probably best you keep silent really. All you do by persisting with your nonsense, is make yourself look even more of a Rule 1 breaker. End of.
And Neil Kinnock
So basically, every Labour leader in recent history is actually wealthier than Corbyn? But what about 'JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader'?
😀 Comedy Gold.
Although to be fair I never understood what Blair was passionate about
Making himself and his family very, very rich?
You really are angry, aren’t you? Got anything other than ad hominems and offensive insinuations? Keep them coming; it only serves to undermine your already pathetically weak arguments even further. You’ve got nothing else. How sad
Nope, just keep asking who these people are who seem to run the world
The best bit is that it was a response to Kerley which clearly triggered you
As for all (including JC) the recent labour leaders they are all millionaires through inheritance, property, earnings and pensions. They are part of a class of winners in our society.
And I don’t know why you think Starmer’s profession as a lawyer handicaps his ability to express passion, do think he is so intellectually inept that he can’t fake it?
I don't think it's an intellectual thing. You can disagree with my thoughts on this, maybe it encapsulates the challenges he faces
Is he really an expert on getting things done (apart from looking after his own arse)?
In part yes he is, I read at the time he was notorious for not reading the briefings from civil servants and going into each meeting with the line "what's the politics of this" and then cuffing it
Facebook's problem is a regulatory one, he is part of a rearguard action to enable Facebook to manoeuvre into a space it's comfortable with. It appears to be successful so far.
Perhaps the most sickening post politics job award goes to Tom Watson - the tireless campaigner against gambling who now works for Paddy Power.
Nope, just keep asking who these people are who seem to run the world
It's already been explained. Several times. If you haven't been paying attention, that's your problem, no-one else's.
The best bit is that it was a response to Kerley which clearly triggered you
'Triggered'! Lol! 😀
So basically, every Labour leader in recent history is actually wealthier than Corbyn? But what about ‘JC probably has more personal wealth than any labour leader’?
I don't know about the comparatives, it was a statement that clearly doesn't stand up when you start to think about it and I'm happy to be corrected, I'm not getting angry about it. It was pointed out it was rubbish and I agree
Have I committed a form of secular blasphemy by getting it wrong?. The assertion that JC is in effect a millionaire still stands unless someone can point to something that changes that
It’s already been explained. Several times. If you haven’t been paying attention, that’s your problem, no-one else’s.
Nope not helping me, I need it explaining again.
Is it the same lot that @Bliss goes on about or a different lot?
Nope not helping me, I need it explaining again.
Your admission of ignorance is at least a start, I suppose. It's in this very thread. Go back and read it. Reading is wonderful; you can learn things. Might be a strange concept to you, but y'know, give it a go. You've certainly got nothing to lose.
it was a statement that clearly doesn’t stand up when you start to think about it
Like most of what you post on here then... 😉
I don’t know
No, you don't, do you? Bless.
It’s in this very thread.
Should make it easy for you to cut and paste what you posted, you will know where it is.
It would, if I could be bothered. I can't. And I don't have to. It's up to you if you want to stay ignorant or not.
Is this the enlightening bit about "them"
Are they the same lot that @Bliss goes on about?
bridges
Free Member
Who are they, I haven’t noticed any?Very funny. 😀
And no, Israel is of no importance to the voters however much you would like to dream it was.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and just singing ‘la la la’ loudly, doesn’t make it any less real. I’ll forgive your ignorance regarding just how globally important Israel actually is (several aspects of your life are influenced by Israeli innovations and technology), but it’s a good idea to inform and educate yourself. Israel is of massive inmportance to he Labour leadership; this is why Starmer pledged allegiance to Zionism, and why he will not be at all critical of the actions of the Israeli regime. Israel relies on the support and validation of the West, in order to survive. So ties with any political party that potentially could be in power in the UK, are vital.
Israel might not be important to many voters, but it sure as hell is important to Labour. Why, they’ve even gone and employed an ex-Israeli spy, to manage their social media:
Assaf Kaplan will work in the office of Labour leader Keir Starmer, a source with knowledge of the hire said.Kaplan was in Israeli military intelligence for nearly five years, an officer in Unit 8200, its cyberwarfare branch.Unit 8200 specializes in spying, hacking and encryption. It carries out blackmail, mass surveillance and systematic discrimination against Palestinians.In 2014, a group of whistleblowers detailed how the unit spies on Palestinian civilians living under Israeli military occupation.
Israel is also very important to the tories, for balance:
IE; Israel is important. Dismissing that fact just because you don’t want to ackknowledge it, just proves your own blinkered delusion.
Puppet masters eh…
Yes, puppet masters. And?
Posted 3 weeks ago
FFS this is tedious.
Is this the enlightening bit about “them”
So desperate, yet so wrong. I'll just reiterate:
You really got bubkes, don’t you?
FFS this is tedious.
Tell me about it. Poor sod is so desperate to prove something he's imagined, it's become a crusade...
No I'm talking about clicking onto the thread hoping to read something vaguely interesting and instead finding more pointless point scoring.
So desperate, yet so wrong. I’ll just reiterate:
I wish you'd reiterate the bit about "them" so we know who you are talking about. You seem remarkably shy on reproducing it for those you keep refering to it.
pointless point scoring
Uh?
Conference could be lively
The crux is he has to have a transformation, Ernie is right in that he isn't able to communicate passion and therefore doesn't inspire, we can disagree as to why.
Trying to do this when someone has book sales based on taking him down is going to be a massive distraction.
And where is the successor? It's easy to name potential replacements for Boris, the labour MPs seem invisible,
Where is Reeves on the economy? Sunak should be under pressure
Where is Nandy and Healey on Afghanistan, China,
Where is Lammy on justice other than opposing his own parties policy on deportation of serious criminals
What is Kate Greene's plan for post Covid education and grade inflation
Anyone seen Jo Stevens talk about Facebook?
What is Pollard's plan for farming subsidies?
Has Haigh said anything in public on NI since May?
What does McMahon think of HS3?
Has Thomas-Symonds said anything on GMP being in special measures?
Has Thornberry read a trade agreement yet?
Rayner has a complex private life, others were burnt in the last leadership campaign, who can step up and put Keir out of his misery?
Perhaps the most sickening post politics job award goes to Tom Watson – the tireless campaigner against gambling who now works for Paddy Power.
There's quite a few of these type. Chris Leslie, Flip Flop Chukka - all enjoying post centrist MP ker-ching.
Rayner has a complex private life
And? Even if true can you explain what that has to do with her ability to lead the labour party?
who can step up and put Keir out of his misery?
Sometimes the simple and obvious answer is the correct answer. There isn't anyone.
And? Even if true can you explain what that has to do with her ability to lead the labour party?
Just Google it, arguably it doesn't stop her becoming leader but for some people it won't play well. The attention it will garner will be a distraction and upsetting for the family.
If I'm wrong about the issue and it's not true then she probably is the opposite of Starmer in terms of communicating her passion and becomes the leading pick subject to what Ken come out with in his book
Sometimes the simple and obvious answer is the correct answer. There isn’t anyone.
There must be someone, John Ashworth is OK, passionate, on his brief, gets on TV
There must be others..
Rayner shagging a married MP shouldn't matter, but it would, not least because she's a woman & mysoginy is a thing
Hancocks demise was a combo of his position of health secretary being untenable after being caught breaking the rules & the salacious press & public loving some moralising
Ironically Johnson having been far worse is all part of his personality!
John Ashworth is OK
Jesus wept!
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1425834782630440963?s=19
Was that small blip in Starmer's trajectory before he continues downwards?
Yougov also saying similar to ipsosmori today too.
Don't see that changing until autumn either
Starmer still a passenger until covid played out.
I'm still waiting for Survation tho! 😁
😀
Lots of noise about Johnson jumping in on the Alpaca.
(Johnson riding it bareback into Chequers wouldn't surprise me these days.)
There must be someone, John Ashworth is OK, passionate, on his brief, gets on TV
There must be others..
The thing is none of them are able to speak with any passion or conviction about anything, due to the fact that they don't fundamentally differ from the government on anything substantial. They just have a default mode of moderately criticising the government and offering no real alternative, which sounds petty and unconvincing even to someone who detests the Tories.
Difficult to see anyone standing out within that.
Jesus wept!
The floor is open for other suggestions......
Richard Burgon isn't allowed
The thing is none of them are able to speak with any passion or conviction about anything, due to the fact that they don’t fundamentally differ from the government on anything substantial.
I'm not sure why, I can find lots to differ about
The floor is open for other suggestions……
I’ve said many times Rayner or Burnham are the only candidates with the public profile and personality to put across a viable alternative that people can support. I don’t much like either as they’re a bit too careerist to challenge the status quo, but I do think they are sincere, and most importantly have strong opinions on the problems that exist and the potential solutions.
I can find lots to differ about
Grum used the words 'fundamentally' and 'substantial'.
There's a huge range of different opinions within the Tory Party, it doesn't mean that those with different opinions fundamentally disagree on anything substantial.
For me most Labour politicians lack passion because they aren't angry. And the reason they aren't angry is because they have nothing to be angry about.
Wtf has Keir Starmer got to be angry about? He's got a cushty job and he doesn't fundamentally disagree with anything the Tories are doing. If he's feeling particularly contrary he'll order Labour MPs to abstain from a vote.
Wtf has Keir Starmer got to be angry about?
And that’s exactly why I think Rayner is the only realistic alternative as anger is her MO. She’d fire up the party in a way few others could with a tsunami of insults, swearing and aggression. I’ve said for a long time labour - even under Corbyn - show the tories far too much respect.
I wouldn’t have have said the same about Burnham until the pandemic showed he still has some reserves of passion and has huge support in the north.The main problem with him is he lost (massively) to Corbyn and isn’t in parliament.
Rayner shagging a married MP shouldn’t matter, but it would, not least because she’s a woman & mysoginy is a thing
It wouldn't matter if they were a tory MP/leader as the press and Tories would ignore it. It matters if they are Labour as it is something to attack them on (by the press and the tories).
It is not a level playing field and never will be so Labour need to be cleaner. That is why Starmer was a good choice after Corbyn but unfortunately didn't work and tend to agree with comments above that he has nothing to be angry about. A bit annoyed maybe as country not run exactly as he would like but not different enough to get angry about it. Could be the same underlying issue that always holds Liberals back?
Obviously Starmer comes across as passionless and boring… but beware the idea that “angry” would play well with the voters beyond the already converted. An angry socialist isn’t going to win over those wary of Labour at the last few lost elections. It could play well with new young voters… but we know that appealing to them isn’t yet enough to win (it might be after another 20 years of demographic change, but I hope Labour don’t wait for that).
Wtf has Keir Starmer got to be angry about? He’s got a cushty job
Being the leader of the labour party at the moment is probably far from cushy
Burnham flip flops under pressure so isn't going to be an alternative
Rayner is the obvious choice but isn't without flaws regardless of the private life
Being the leader of the labour party at the moment is probably far from cushy
Starmer will always have a cushty job, even after politics, he can't fail. And btw I meant cushty not cushy.
beware the idea that “angry” would play well
You do realise that by angry I don't mean losing your rag don't you? I'm talking about an anger which feeds a passion, and that passion used in a constructive way to provide a vision which people can believe in.
Change occurs when people passionately believe in something.
An angry socialist isn’t going to win over those wary of Labour at the last few lost elections.
Given that the comatose centrist doesn't seem to be doing too well, perhaps it's time to try something different?
I wish you’d reiterate the bit about “them” so we know who you are talking about. You seem remarkably shy on reproducing it for those you keep refering to it.
If I thought you were genuinely interested in learning something, I'd make the effort. But it's pretty clear that you're not, so I won't waste my time. You went and pulled one quote to try to make your argument, yet failed to provide full context. It's clear you're trying to only push one prejudiced agenda. And it's clear that you're only doing this, in order to try to undermine anything I might have to say. Because it doesn't fit in with your own narrow world view. In sporting parlance, it's called 'playing the man, not the ball'. Just accept; you got it wrong, and move on. I'm bored with it, as I'm sure everyone else is too. Ask yourself what you have to gain by continuing this same stupid nonsense, that you know is nonsense anyway. To boost your own 'credentials'? That ship sailed some time ago. Park your ego. And try to refrain from being a shmeckel, eh?
For me most Labour politicians lack passion because they aren’t angry. And the reason they aren’t angry is because they have nothing to be angry about.
Wtf has Keir Starmer got to be angry about? He’s got a cushty job and he doesn’t fundamentally disagree with anything the Tories are doing.
Pretty much hits the nail on the head. Starmer's only really interested in continuing the neoliberal project which favours people like himself; he really cannot connect with other groups and views. He has no ability to channel the anger of other people, and use that as a weapon against the tories. Corbyn was far more effective at that, even though he abhors confrontation. For a renowned lawyer to shirk from an opportunity for a good battle, well, that's indicative of someone who's given up and has settled in for a comfortable life.
It’s clear you’re trying to only push one prejudiced agenda.
The ironing.....
Given that the comatose centrist doesn’t seem to be doing too well, perhaps it’s time to try something different?
Lmfao.
I always thought it odd that this wasn't close to obvious from the start.
Sometimes the simple and obvious answer is the correct answer. There isn’t anyone.
Yup - the lack of talent at Westminster is so obvious. There is no one I know of in the labour party i would rather have - and no one who would do better I times of crisis incumbent governments always get a political boost no matter how well they are doing.
As for Corbyns wealth - he is only a millionaire if you count in the value of the house he lives in - the one house - not the multiple ones other mps have bought using expenses
Raynor would be a huge turn off to many folk - me included.
Raynor would be a huge turn off to many folk – me included.
You vote SNP/ Green
Admittedly a vote they should want to gain but Labour isn't going to change its unionist principles, it is the party of Keir Hardie after all. So a vote they couldn't gain no matter who is in the hot seat.
I like Keir Starmer. He is intelligent, he is articulate, he is decent, he hasn't painted a swastika on a synagogogue as far as I know? There are what, 2-3 more years until the next UK Gov election? What more do you want from a labour leader? The party is clearly a failed organisation (see any of Binners posts), there is not any gain from him opposing the Tories vehemently on anything - if labout says no, they do ergo his fault (in simple Daily Mail reader terms). Give the guy a chance and support him until the next election. Or stay in the unelectable wilderland while the Tories just Tory (is that a verb?)
he hasn’t painted a swastika on a synagogogue as far as I know?
What’s that got to do with being leader of the Labour Party?
Big and daft - never voted SNP in my life.
I voted labour for 30+ years only stopping after the nonsense that labour got up to in Scotland once they lost power
labour are now dead in Scotland after their antics over the last decade but I am exactly the sort of vote that labour lost and need back
I would have voted for labour under Corbyn, I would for starmer ( depending on the tactical situation / type of election) Raynor or nandy - definite nope. Burnham - certain nope
What’s that got to do with being leader of the Labour Party?
I think the point being made is that he seems like a nice young man. And polite too.
What more do you want from a labour leader?
To challenge the shit the tories are up to
To provide a basic vision of what he wants for the country
To be memorable. If people don't even know who he is that is not a good start after over a year in the position.
What more do you want from a labour leader? The party is clearly a failed organisation (see any of Binners posts),
To pull in the bloody opposite direction when necessary. To offer up fresh ideas and passion. Should it need spelling out?
Binners 'logic' has sunk in Keir Starmer's bath. The remain crew were used and abused by the likes of Starmer so they could navigate towards his leadership, only to be rewarded with moving on from Brexit. To me that always looked like the outcome.
Centrism is not an ideology that makes sense. It's not even an idealogy. It's a 'rigged' free-market with please and thank-you attached. It has all the political constrains placed on it to suit the rich. It would barely correct the current shit-show economically, and more to the point despite all the rants on here you that need someone who represents the middle - it's not gained traction with the electorate because 'the middle' is a vague place to be these days.
The Tories are not vague they are pushing in a direction. (On the upside that direction is fraught with decimation.)
You won't pull voters to the middle in any useful way. We need the politics of Corbyn with someone who can stand up for themselves and sell it to the electorate. Go head-on with massive spending plans (assuming resources) - we should realise by now we can afford things to change society. Let's figure out what's important to a progressive society that wants to get through the next fifty years and push upwards.
I just can't see this happening though.
We are doomed in the nebulous bath of Starmer and the likes of Wes Streeting, who are confused about the benefits of Neolibralism. And frankly should be ashamed of their understanding of what it means to be in the Labour party.
Beyond contempt chucking Loach out. A man who has devoted his entire life to high-lighting the pitfalls of inequality.
Shameful.
But it seems to go with the territory these days.