Forum menu
It's awful. Like, do you even meme bro?
Any other proof that we had a far-right government
Would you consider Steve Bannon to be far right Ernie? You know, the one Johnson has met with and kept regular contact with and who claims to have helped write some of Johnson's speeches?
Or does some whataboutery concerning 1970s Rhodesia somehow negate that also.
Rumours flying round ****ter that Laura Torysberg was there and if she was she then failed to report on it like an actual journalist should have.
so maybe give up on the particular straw man?
And yet you can't stop yourself going back to it......"I never said the Tories were far-right blah blah......how about this of evidence that they are far-right?"
Make your mind up grum, and when you have decided what you are actually saying try to stick with it.
I'm saying they flirt with the far right. Is your comprehension really that poor or are you being deliberately obtuse. I think I know.
I must get off the internet. Nuance or complexity isn't welcome here it seems.
Rumours flying round ****ter that Laura Torysberg was there and if she was she then failed to report on it like an actual journalist should have.
Careful, according to some on here you're not allowed to criticise Laura Kuensberg unless you also say something equally bad about Nick Robinson - otherwise you're a sexist pig.
If she was there and just somehow 'forgot to mention it' including in recent articles about it, she needs sacking. Plainly dishonest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59500512
for the record yes I hate the ‘country’ (or rather the state) I was born into
It is an accusation made against the left by both Trump supporters in the US and Daily Mail editorials in the UK.
The claim is of course absurd but it plays well because firstly there will always be a muppet who helps them in providing evidence. And secondly because voters make the not totally unreasonable assumption that people who hate a country aren't likely to have that country's best interests at heart.
And secondly because voters make the not totally unreasonable assumption that people who hate a country aren’t likely to have that country’s best interests at heart.
There's a big difference between country and people. I really don't have the interests of the british state at heart, because it mostly represents people who don't need the support of people like me. That Michael Foot quote about the rich looking after themselves is very relevant here. This is why the likes of Starmer and his pro-establishment agenda will never achieve much as long as he isn't proposing to change the way the state works.
It gets more cringe
https://twitter.com/AnnelieseDodds/status/1466423964947951618?t=cNpUIeGiBkTrxsTavaAsww&s=19
It gets more cringe
Credible opposition. Image what binners would be saying if this was Corbyn et al.
There’s a big difference between country and people.
Well you said, quote : "I hate the ‘country’ (or rather the state) I was born into", that is fairly clear, most people, quite reasonably, would assume you mean that you hate the UK.
If you didn't mean that then it is probably best to say what you actually mean.
If you didn’t mean that then it is probably best to say what you actually mean.
I was pretty clear in saying the state. I don’t know why you’re questioning that.
I am not questioning anything.
You challenged my comment with regards to voters making the not totally unreasonable assumption that people who hate a country aren’t likely to have that country’s best interests at heart.
Credible opposition. Image what binners would be saying if this was Corbyn et al
Labours whole communications operation has been absolutely bloody awful for a very long time now. It’s completely incoherent and *dons graphic designers hat* it looks absolutely bloody awful! It looks like it’s been put together by a student. Actually… it probably has
I’d send the whole comms team out with a bottle of scotch and a revolver
Labours whole communications operation has been absolutely bloody awful for a very long time now.
To be fair there is very little to communicate so I can't see a slick professional operation having much to offer.
Labours whole communications operation has been absolutely bloody awful for a very long time now. It’s completely incoherent and *dons graphic designers hat* it looks absolutely bloody awful! It looks like it’s been put together by a student. Actually… it probably has
Agreed.
There have been some utterly terrible slogans too as well as piss-poor layouts.
The Tories might have some of the most linear design I've ever seen but they communicate their message very well.
Labour need a complete PR overhaul, nothing was as effective as their short films in 2017 by that Simon (can't remember his surname) who unfortunately died quite young.
It gets more cringe
They are wasting their time with this line of attack for something a year old. But yes, it looks like a poster for amateur dramatics latest Holiday singalong.
No one will care.
The problem for any PR appointee is the message they have to communicate:
'soli-dar-ity with the bourg-eoi-sie' or something like that.
The british state is historically, and remains to this day, a hugely malign and evil force which does far more harm to the world than good to further the interests of a tiny number of rich and powerful people. And you want me to like it?
Well said. The justification for the British Empire was racial superiority. That Anglo Saxons were a superior race, which allowed all of the invading, killing and exploiting to be presented as 'civilising'.
That's what Winston Churchill believed - the person repeatedly voted as the greatest Briton. A white supremacist with a belief in eugenics that was very similar to one of his contemporaries and admirers.
A Churchill who's the role model of the current UK prime minister. The blatant racism of the past has been replaced by a Farage style, BBC friendly British patriotism that fetishizes the military, monarchy and freemarkets.
But that fundamental bigotry remains - the belief that British people and culture are in some way superior. It's an ideology that dominates British life and has never been challenged. It's pushed by the media and is supported by both Tories and Labour.
Labour and Starmer don't want to challenge it - they want to harness it.
This could be a game changer.
This calls for an agile ceremony from the money men. He's probably embarrassed by connections with the unions anyway.
Game changer?
They’ve been threatening to do that since they thought Neil Kinnock was too right wing
It’s like me threatening to boycott Greggs until they reinstate cheese and chorizo pasties
Never going to happen
copa
Free MemberA Churchill who’s the role model of the current UK prime minister.
Nah. Boris Johnson idolises his fanfic version of Winston Churchill, he doesn't know much at all about the real one. If he wants to be Churchillian, he doesn't think about what Churchill would have done, he does what he wants then declares that Churchill would have done the same. Much easier.
Johnson doesn't have a role model at all.
That’s what Winston Churchill believed – the person repeatedly voted as the greatest Briton.
Only to the historically illiterate, everyone knows it was Athelstan, the first king of England, overlord of all Britain (as of treaties signed in 927)
They’ve been threatening to do that since they thought Neil Kinnock was too right wing
Never going to happen
Eh? How can you not know that Unite has done precisely that?
Only last year Unite cut its affiliation fees to the Labour Party by 10%, back in 2016 they cut their affiliation fees by £1.5 million, according to the newspaper you claim to read :
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/05/unite-cuts-labour-funding
On top of that Unite makes regular one-off donations to Labour Party to help in campaigns, elections, etc. If it wants to, or not if it doesn't want to.
And it's not something which the Labour Party in its current dire financial crisis due to falling membership numbers and promised private donations not materialising can easily dismiss as unimportant, although I don't doubt that they will try to.
Starmer will have do even more to convince the rich and powerful of all the great things he will do for them, if they are to bless him with their generosity. Although his recent promise to fight any possible business tax rises from this current Tory government should go some way in achieving that.
The transformation away from the 'Labour' party to the Laminated Tory party is all but complete.
That will reverse the right-wing tirade of the last 40 years for sure.
But yeah they will be competent at it you know.
A functioning opposame is now here. A party for the retail park generation.
Game changer?
Absolutely. A bankrupt labour party is a very good thing. Hopefully they'll disappear and leave space for another party who might actually try to do something.
Absolutely. A bankrupt labour party is a very good thing. Hopefully they’ll disappear and leave space for another party who might actually try to do something.
Right, so what will actually happen is that the Labour party will struggle on (possibly for years) without Unites' money or the ability to effectively campaign for anything and will probably splinter into factional smaller parties that have no hope of winning anything in a 2 party system. And even if it creates a space for a different popular left wing party, it'll take decades to become effective, The UK independence party for instance, perhaps the most successful political party in recent history was founded n 1993. and to be anything like electable will still largely resemble the Labour party as it currently stands. so all you achieve is re-inventing the wheel. Meantime, without any opposition the Tories are in power for decades...
Yey...
Yes, I’m sure that the end of the Union funding for the Labour Party will definitely trigger a sequence of events that would finally deliver to the eager UK populace the socialist utopia they all crave
Any comment to make about the 10% swing to Labour from the Tory’s in yesterday’s by-election?
No?
Yay Tories retain seat. Labour got 6.7K - (In 2019 Labour got 10.8K votes.) Pmsl. Very low turnout tells you no one was lapping up Labour.
Lol at citing a lost byelection when you run your previous logic on the fact that the only thing that matters is a win in a general election.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1466705686369378305?s=20
Nice reshuffle!
The Tory’s were always going to retain the seat. True Blue Heartlands that it is
But if you can replicate 10% swings elsewhere, or even half that, then you can win lots of marginal seats and certainly take back those red wall seats
It certainly looks like a step in the right direction to me
I am aware that under no circumstances must Starmer, or anyone else who isn’t Jeremy Corbyn, be given any credit for anything though
Hey ho…
Tories threw everything at the seat too
Virtually all the cabinet visited & Johnson twice
Still would've been much better t0 see a 20pt swing
Any comment to make about the 10% swing to Labour from the Tory’s in yesterday’s by-election?
No?
Yeah shit wasn't it? You would expect a governing party with a huge majority midterm to do a lot worse in one of their safe seats.
Generally speaking voters like to give a good kicking to the government when they know it won't make a difference to the political balance.
Not it would appear in Old Bexley and Sidcup. Labour got about the same size share of the vote yesterday as they got under Corbyn in 2017.
And turnout was 34%..... that's how inspired to go out and vote voters felt.
If it was replicated in a general election, which of course it wouldn't be, Labour would fail to win.
Have you got any comment to make binners? Since you asked the question.
Edit : I see that you have decided to comment now. Apparently a swing to Labour which isn't enough to win a general election is great news.
So it's not like a football match after all?
What would you be saying if Corbyn was still leader?
I am aware that under no circumstances must Starmer, or anyone else who isn’t Jeremy Corbyn, be given any credit for anything though
Hey ho…
Where's the credit due? No one turned out to vote for Labour. Much less than under your mate's leadership from 2019. Are you going explaing why the voting for Labour went from 10.8 to 6.7k? How is that a success!
On what level is that good?
Here have 10% extra of my fun size mars bar.
Generally speaking voters like to give a good kicking to the government when they know it won’t make a difference to the political balance.
One voter was asked what she thought of Johnson replied that she thought him a clown, and then told the reporter that despite this she'd still vote Tory, "Better the devil you know" were her words.
Labour would never win this seat. Who'd bother to go to the polls in December in for a bye-election in such a safe seat? And then there is the effect of the previous holder of the seat dying, that tends to neuter a bye election somewhat.
But, ultimately, nothing can be read into this vote at all. Especially foolish trying to extrapolate it to a UK wide election in a few years time.
Labour should be doing better though, more generally, and Starmer is part of the reason why they are not. But his approval ratings are rising (who'd make the best PM), when those for the party (who would you vote for at a general election) are not. So the problem is deeper than who the leader currently is. Labour aren't trusted. Even in the face of a government loosing trust hand over fist.
what she thought of Johnson replied that she thought him a clown, and then told the reporter that despite this she’d still vote Tory,
Yup. Speaks volumes about Starmer.
Labour would never win this seat.
Just like the LibDems were never going to win Chesham and Amersham.
And yet they did with a 30% swing.
The LibDems had the humiliation of losing their deposit yesterday.
I don't think that despite all his cock-ups Johnson will be losing any sleep. The total ineptitude of the two main opposition parties will guarantee that.
And the 0.7% of the vote for Rejoin EU is unlikely to worry him that he is paying a political price for brexit.
Yes agreed, I don't think Starmer or the Labour party as a whole should be overly pleased by the result. But I don't know the area well, it could be that they'd vote Tory regardless.
Just like the LibDems were never going to win Chesham and Amersham.
Labour aren't the LibDems. And this seat isn't Chesham and Amersham.
You can't extrapolate either result out to UK wide election.
But despite that, I agree that Labour should be doing much better nationally at this point, and that Starmer is key to that failure.
Labour aren’t the LibDems. And this seat isn’t Chesham and Amersham.
Well spotted.
Have you also spotted the flaw in the argument "the Tories were never going to lose this seat because it is a safe Tory seat"?
The Tories were never going to lose this seat because the opposition is shite.
Otherwise I would expect front-page headlines of stunning by-election defeats for the Tories.
I was wondering what Sir Ed Davey was up to recently, that's the name of the LibDem leader btw, so I did a search. Apparently he has recently referred himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, apart from that he doesn't appear to be doing much.
“the Tories were never going to lose this seat because it is a safe Tory seat”
I never said that. I said that Labour were never going to win this seat.
Otherwise I would expect front-page headlines of stunning by-election defeats for the Tories.
If you honestly expected that could happen in this seat, I'd be surprised.
The Tories were never going to lose this seat because the opposition is shite.
You know well enough that there's seats that would never return anything but a Tory, and this seat never has since it's creation, so it could be that, couldn't it?
You know well enough that there’s seats that would never return anything but a Tory
Absolutely not. History has proved that anything is possible in by-elections.
I fully expect the governing party to lose seats in by-elections which they have always won. And then win them back in the following general election.
Old Bexley and Sidcup has always voted Tory in general elections because voters there want a Tory government. A by-election isn't about choosing the government when the government already has a huge working majority.
And Labour did no better in Old Bexley and Sidcup yesterday than they did in the 2017 general election. Yesterday really was a shit result for Labour and won't in any way at all worry Johnson.
A by-election isn’t about choosing the government when the government already has a huge working majority.
So there entirely no motive in changing their vote if they still want a Tory MP is there? Perhaps you ought to go and tell the voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup that according to you they voted incorrectly?
It’s like a football match. Nobody gives a toss about which team had the most possession or the highest number of corners, all that counts is who got the three points
It certainly looks like a step in the right direction to me
So winning is not all that matters? Mr consitency strikes again! 😂
Perhaps you ought to go and tell the voters of Old Bexley and Sidcup that according to you they voted incorrectly?
Erm, I am saying that a by-election swing to Labour in a safe Tory seat during a Tory government is exactly what you would expect, where is the bit where I said that voters "voted incorrectly"??
I also said that the opposition is currently so crap that the Tories managed to hold onto the seat. Johnson will have been far more worried about losing Chesham and Amersham. He won't be losing sleep over yesterday's result.
And voters in Old Bexley and Sidcup are absolutely right imo, the Labour Party gives them no reason why they shouldn't continue voting Tory. Why vote Tory-lite when they can have the real thing?
So winning is not all that matters? Mr consitency strikes again! 😂
And a ten percent swing to Labour in a by-election is a great result but a ten percent swing to Labour in the 2017 general election was meaningless.
Binners is going to do his back in if he keeps running around like a blue arse fly with the goalposts, to use football metaphors that he understands.
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 36% (-)
LAB: 33% (-2)
GRN: 9% (+1)
LDEM: 9% (+2)
REFUK: 6%
So the latest YouGov poll puts Labour on 1% more than they got in the "disastrous" 2019 general election. I say disastrous but binners puts it more eloquently than me.
Could this 1% increase in support be due to the Parliamentary Labour Party rallying behind their leader?
You know well enough that there’s seats that would never return anything but a Tory
Have you looked at the actual votes cast rather than percentages here? If Labour had retained its vote from 2019 and got the half the libdem voters from 2019 they would have won.
Its a pretty shocking result for Labour really. The "swing" to them was down to the tories having an even bigger drop in voter turnout then Labour did.
As policies going into elections "lets hope we have turned fewer people off voting for us than our opponents have" isnt exactly inspiring.
'Starmer's Labour Party has suspended Angela Rayner’s Head of Communications in an escalation of hostilities.
Jack McKenna, who manages the deputy leader’s relations with the media & writes her speeches, learnt of the action last night.' (Times) She is a supporter of the LFoP.
So a former Tory Cabinet member lambasts the present government for risking creating a "British Guantanamo Bay".
Other Tory MPs threaten to rebel against the nationality and borders bill, and more than two dozen Conservatives have put their name to an amendment to broaden the UK’s visa programme.
The British Medical Association criticises the government claiming :
“The government must ensure that asylum seekers and refugees, many of whom already have complex health needs, are housed in humane conditions with accessible healthcare, indeed preferably in community-based accommodation in the UK.”
Others join in the criticism including Doctors of the World UK, the Faculty of Public Health, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Psychiatrists
But nowhere in the article does Keir Starmer's name appear. Why does the supposed leader of the Opposition appear not to be leading the attack on this government?
Too busy attacking members of his own party?
Or maybe he doesn't want to be seen to be soft on those seeking asylum?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/23/labour-migration-opposition-tories-new-labout
Human rights and democracy are the issues which above all this present government should be challenged on, and yet the silence from the current Labour leader is deafening.
How did the Labour Party end up with such an appalling leader? And more importantly, how can he enjoy so much support from his Parliamentary colleagues?
How did the Labour Party end up with such an appalling leader? And more importantly, how can he enjoy so much support from his Parliamentary colleagues?
It's sickening.
They think he's the golden ticket. The Labour councillors around here adore him and yet what as he offered up?
Nothing, not even competence. Just a slow trudge towards a nominal Labour party that extracts the NHS shouty bits and wraps them in a vanilla sound-bite.
No appeal or position.
Let hope it bites them in the arse.
Interested to see how the Angela Rayner thing pans out. Wonder if she will eventually take a fight to him?
But nowhere in the article does Keir Starmer’s name appear.
Is it because he is useless? Haven't we all agreed on that?
In what should be a Tory disaster period they are still doing about the same with Labour making no meaningful impact. The Tories will have to do a lot worse for Labour to have any chance in winning the next election which is worrying, how bad will they have to get.
Alternatively Labour could do a really good job but that is unlikely to ever happen before the election. Especially when Starmer just did a reshuffle to ensure the best performing were in the shadow cabinet but still kept himself in, add complete lack of self awareness to his list of failings.
Let hope it
bites them in the arseworks anyway.
It might not be what you want but hopefully we've learnt the lessons of railing against the Labour leader (I doubt it). There's only one game in town. The next PM will be whomever is Labour leader or its the Tories... again. The Tories are very good at backing their man, even if he's far from perfect (or even a complete idiot). There might be something in that.
It might not be what you want but hopefully we’ve learnt the lessons of railing against the Labour leader (I doubt it)
No one will really learn any lessons until we accept neolibralism is broken and on a downward trajectory.
And then offer up something new that rebuilds society.
Just getting 'a' Labour party is not enough.
Is it because he is useless? Haven’t we all agreed on that?
I wasn't asking why isn't he mounting effective opposition, the question I was asking is why do both the Parliamentary Labour Party and the press appear satisfied with Starmer's leadership, or to be more precise lack of leadership?
In the case of the Tory press the reason is obvious, but it isn't so obvious in the case of the PLP or the alleged liberal press.
Do they really hate the left so much that they would rather not rock the boat than risk having a vaguely left-wing social democrat who wants to challenge the status quo? Unbelievable as it sounds I think they probably do.
There’s only one game in town.
Well you would have thought so but did you read the article? The fact that the Labour leader appears to take very little interest, if any at all, concerning the plight of desperate people who are attempting to flee catastrophes, which often we helped to create, doesn't mean that there is no political opposition to the latest hardships being placed on those seeking asylum.
If someone for whatever reason was seriously concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers and David Davis was their MP, how would you feel urging them to vote Labour so that Davis could be kicked out of parliament?
Edit : BTW with regards to : "Is it because he is useless? Haven’t we all agreed on that?" although I wasn't asking the question it certainly isn't because he is incapable.
Starmer mounted an extremely effective leadership campaign. He quite remarkably managed to get people who had strongly supporter Corbyn to back him, despite the fact that he had done so much to undermine their man. And despite the fact that he was the chief architect of Labour's second referendum policy which is widely accepted to be greatest electoral mistake.
He is clearly quite capable. I can only assume that he doesn't care.
IMO Ernie it all comes down to Blair. He hollowed out the party and removed the membership from any influence. they became a PLP of followers not leaders and convinced themselves this was the right thing to do. they have no one who call tell them otherwise as any dissent is written off as "ten bob trots" Its become a circle jerk of yessmen
To change tack now and to try to lead means that they have to admit their entire political careers have been spent doing the wrong thing
Personally I would have no issue with a technocratic based labour party which is where I thought Starmer was taking them. However the fear of the right wing press and an ever increasing reliance on "listening to what the people want" has meant they follow the right wing press, do not challenge the status quo and thus become tory lite.
the clearest example of this can be seen in anti immigrant nonsense and in being to scared to say things like " want good public services tax must rise" they are scared to do anything radical and to try to persuade the electorate this is right ( I don't even mean radical in the sense you would )
Its a tragedy for the country
Just watch the anti immigrant nonsense and hang 'em and flog 'em approach to crime become more and more prominent now that Cooper is on the front bench. Thats a clear sign that this is going to be intensified.
I had high hopes for Starmer that he would become a good leader. Unfortunately he is beset by the same timidity that has blighted the labour party for a generation now
The fact that the Labour leader appears to take very little interest, if any at all, concerning the plight of desperate people who are attempting to flee catastrophes
compare this to the attitude of the centre right Merkel in Germany - she used a huge amount of political capital to be generous to refugees - not because it was popular but because it was the right thing to do
I think there is also a thread of this that comes from the mythmaking over Blair. "Blair won elections" Anyone even corbyn would have won in 97 and Blair simply capitalised on the work done by his predecessors. This has handicapped the modern labour party as they thing being like Blair is the only way
And despite the fact that he was the chief architect of Labour’s second referendum policy which is widely accepted to be greatest electoral mistake.
Really ? Really?
Accepted by who? It was right and the only possible policy to hold the party together. The reason it failed was becausse he couldn't hold the other parties together on it mainly due to granstanding by the Lib dems
A second referendum would have stopped the huge mistake of brexit. I am afraid your LEXIT view blinds you on this one
What other policy could they have had? Accept the disaster that is brexit?
I had high hopes for Starmer that he would become a good leader.
Why? The man had been part of a carefully coordinated Front Bench walkout designed to inflict the maximum damage to the then Labour leader by guaranteeing maximum coverage in the Tory press.
It was always obvious that opposition to Corbyn by people like Starmer was never because they saw Corbyn as useless, it was because they intensely disliked Corbyn's lefty policies such as treating asylum seekers with humanity and dignity.
Now they have a Labour Party which offers no effective opposition and doesn't seem to give a toss about the plight of desperate people.
They appear to be quite satisfied. No suggestion of a leadership challenge.
A second referendum would have stopped the huge mistake of brexit
Well obviously that was the plan. And it's obvious that you supported the plan.
But you are in complete denial if you believe that that policy didn't electorally cost Labour dearly.
But you are in complete denial if you believe that that policy didn’t electorally cost Labour dearly.
I disagree strongly on that. I am sorry but your biases blind you on this
It did need better selling for sure and the huge splits in the labour party over brexit made it difficult
On brexit its you that is in denial IMO - what other policy could they have had? What would you have preferred?
I disagree strongly on that.
Facing political reality isn't your strongest point TJ.
Labour's 2019 Brexit policy managed to piss off both Remainers and Leavers, quite an achievement :
'A confused Brexit policy
In a poll of Labour members carried out for the report, 57% named the Brexit policy of promising a second referendum on any departure deal as the single most unpopular and challenging idea to sell to voters, citing views such as “dithering”, “dire”, and “reflecting division”.
This, the report finds, repelled both leave and remain voters. Of those who voted Labour in 2017, the party lost 1.9 million remain voters and 1.8 million leave voters in 2019. Given the generally pro-remain views of Labour voters, this represented a much higher proportion of leavers.'
What would you have preferred?
The 2017 general election brexit policy.
Let's leave it there now, if I wanted to waste my time talking about brexit I would post on the brexit thread.
The problem is any policy would have cost them votes in different areas. any "do brexit better" cost them hugely in remain areas, any " remain" policy cost them hugely in other areas
There just was no policy that was not a vote loser in some areas and gain inothers
the problem with second ref was once again the split party did not get behind it.
Jesus f****** Christ. It’s not enough that she never misses an opportunity to tell voters how shit she thinks labour is, now she’s cheerleading for the tories.
Yes - is this the best labour can offer? Nandy is a confirmed dimwit. foot in mouth disease. You know what she means there but the way of saying it is politically stupuid
No one of the corbynistas were any better. The lack of talent on the labour benches is astonishing ( not that other parties are much better bar the odd individual here and there but the quality of the labour front bench? Couldn't run a bath.
“The first thing I said to him is, ‘I want you to succeed, because I have skin in the game’. I said to him, ‘When you get it right you will have my full support but when you get it wrong there will be hell to play’.”
Is that what you’re moaning about?
Why is that not what you want from an opposition shadow?
I think it is polite to tell people before you come for them on a national stage!”
That doesn’t sound like she’s expecting to be “cheerleading for the Tories”.
Its politically poor because it allows a quote to be pulled from it "Nandy backs Gove" and gives Gove easy ammunition by partial quoting her. She then will have to be on the defensive over that quote losing the battle of public opinion
Its not the first time she has done this. Its just terminally politically dim
They think he’s the golden ticket.
Do they? Or do they think he was the best choice available when they were picking a leader, and no one better is offering themselves up?
Getting behind your party leader shouldn’t be interpreted as thinking that sun shines out of their…
Anyway, who should replace him? Or should MPs openly moan about their party leader without having a plan in place for a replacement?
His deputy is positioning herself ready, I feel, and doing so successfully. Lammy is still my first choice, although I suspect a London MP as next leader is very unlikely.
Or should MPs openly moan about their party leader without having a plan in place for a replacement?
That was the situation when Corbyn was party leader, they came up with some scatterbrain idea of replacing him with Owen Smith.
Which Labour MPs are openly moaning now? They seem quite content.
Do they? Or do they think he was the best choice available when they were picking a leader, and no one better is offering themselves up?
The councillors I've spoken to think he's a on a victory march and righting all the wrongs of the Labour party.
We're past the leadership election.
And so it continues..... opposition to the government comes from everywhere, including the Tory back benches, but hardly ever from the leader of the Opposition :
The Independent: Boris Johnson faces revolt over military rape trials.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/court-martial-rape-trial-wallace-b1969193.html
Prominent Tory MPs Johnny Mercer – a former army officer who was in charge of legislation on the issue before resigning as a defence minister earlier this year – and Commons defence committee chair Tobias Ellwood are among those expected to break party ranks in a crunch vote on Monday.
“It was clear to me at the time that all of the officials and myself – as the original bill minister – were of the view that the evidence clearly indicated we should remove serious and sexual offences from the military justice system in order to reassure victims and try to get better outcomes for them,” said Mr Mercer.
Lots more quotes from people including Victims’ Commissioner Dame Vera Baird and Emma Norton, the director of the Centre for Military Justice, but not one single quote from the leader of the Opposition.
You would have thought that a famed "forensic lawyer" and former Director of Public Prosecution Starmer would be both keen and comfortable about tackling the government on legal issues.
Apparently not. Starmer is happy to publicly announce that the next James Bond should be a woman but issues concerning rape in the military don't warrant his intervention, Tory back benchers can deal with that.
Of course it could be that the Independent has some sort of bizarre agenda which aims to undermine Starmer by not reporting his interventions but if that's the case Google appear to be in on the conspiracy.
For me the most shocking aspect of this tragic situation isn't Starmer ineptitude but the willingness of Labour MPs to accept it and stand behind him.
Starmer is just one man, replacing him however difficult it might be is not impossible. There are however a couple of hundred Labour MPs, replacing the majority of them seems an insurmountable task. I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel.
It's good that Mercer, now free from the government, has changed his mind public position.
Labour supported this change in the first place. Tory Rebels coming onboard at this stage is welcome (and understandably the news story here).
Yes it's interesting that LabourList, unsurprisingly, managed to find a photo of Starmer wearing a poppy and talking to a soldier, but they were unable to find any quotes from him to include in the article.
Edit : Which presumably is why the Independent couldn't either. Although they could have included a photo of Starmer talking to a soldier and wearing his poppy with pride.
Of course it could be that the Independent has some sort of bizarre agenda which aims to undermine Starmer by not reporting his interventions but if that’s the case Google appear to be in on the conspiracy.
Its a bit from column A and a bit from Column B
I have seen Starmer give some really nice quotes ripping tory conduct to pieces which do not get the media attention those quotes should have
If Starmer is so inept who would you rather have? Its not like the talent pool is very deep. He is about the only one on the labour front bench I would think able to run a bath
I have seen Starmer give some really nice quotes ripping tory conduct to pieces which do not get the media attention those quotes should have
You were there?
I'm afraid that the British voting public will need more than that to back Labour.
If the media is the enemy then you might as well pack up and go home.
If Starmer is so inept who would you rather have?
Starmer is just one man, replacing him however difficult it might be is not impossible. There are however a couple of hundred Labour MPs, replacing the majority of them seems an insurmountable task. I don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel.
The problem isn't Starmer. The problem is the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Many of us think Starmer should be replaced before we get to the next general election. If you do to, you must have at least one name to put forward to replace him? Or do you want him gone and for there to be no Leader of the Opposition at all? What do you want the Party to do? Who do you want to lead them? Who do you think should be Leader of the Opposition, and who should lead Labour into the next General Election?
The problem is the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Indeed. The solution is primaries. Allow the membership a vote preceding every election to decide on candidates who can put themselves forward openly rather than being shortlisted by a central committee. Labour MPs would then be accountable to their constituency membership, rather than shady corporate interests, lobbyists and stalinist party apparatchiks. If they did that I'd probably join again.