Forum menu
Yeah Starmer is actually putting the boot in properly rather than trying to treat Johnson like another lawyer in court.
I did like how he got in calling him a liar under the what the people think line.
This appears to be when you really need an experienced lawyer
Loved the way he worded his ‘lying through his teeth’ accusation to get around parliamentary rules
He’s playing a blinder here
Edit - wrong thread.
Boris clearly absolutely hates having to face Angela Rayner. She’s everything he can’t cope with… working class and female.
Exactly. I don't suppose he's had to deal with many people like her in his life.
Yeah Starmer is actually putting the boot in properly rather than trying to treat Johnson like another lawyer in court.
I listened to it. I thought he said all the right things, but the way he said them came across to me as another dusty legal argument.
I thought he said all the right things, but the way he said them came across to me as another dusty legal argument.
As always.
So many of the front bench would have made it resonate far better. Including Rayner.
Still, at this point those others in the top team need to be working together to make sure the public prefer them to their opposite numbers on the government benches. Time to make sure it is “Labour need to be given the reins, take them away from the Conservatives”… and not just a “Starmer is better than Johnson” feeling that needs to take hold in the hearts and minds of the public. As Johnson flails and fails, it is vital that he isn’t allowed to make it all about the people who lead the parties… as that isn’t fixed come the next general election.
So many of the front be bench would have made it resonate far better.
Nah, he was as good as he could be, and I doubt anyone could have done better. The only disappointment is that he doesn't show that anger every week.
If you say so. I think Rayner, Miliband and a number of others could have made this a more memorable exchange for voters if he’d not been able to attend today.
I thought Starmer played that well
maybe just my expectations being low ? but this was bang on
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1481238120528060417
If you say so.
I don't 'say so', it's just an opinion. There's no problem if you don't share it. I'm usually rather quick to criticise Starmer (you may have noticed), but on this occasion he hit the nail on the head. He couldn't have done much else to be fair, but he still pulled it off perfectly. I fear if Rayner had been doing it she would have lamped him, and Miliband often comes across as if he's trying to hard to be angry.
Anyway, they need to hammer home the point now. Starmer should be all over the news channels for the next 24 hours, and he should be widening it to ask what the rest of the cabinet and party were doing defending Johnson and making excuses for him.
kelvin
Full MemberIf you say so. I think Rayner, Miliband and a number of others could have made this a more memorable exchange for voters if he’d not been able to attend today.
The stories in the press would have been about Starmer not being able to do his own dirty work then.
I think SKS lacks charisma in general, but did pretty well today, and it's even generated some decent comments on the DM (spits) comments.
Fair enough. Still feel like the right words delivered with the wrong voice, in the wrong style, to me. Neutering a hard hitting line. Even he couldn't neutralise it completely, but it's hardly a moment that'll play again again in the minds of voters. "Didn't miss open goal" isn't inspirational enough stuff.
Your "widening" point is key there Dazh, and I agree. As/if Johnson blows up, Labour need to make sure the mess is spread across his successors as much as possible in the eyes of the public.
And I'll make my point again, the Labour front bench need to step up to the plate and get the public considering them as a strong replacement government... Starmer isn't going to get them into office... it's down to them.
EDIT: Bryant doing well there. My point doesn't just apply to front benchers, does it.
I am very conflicted about Raynor - as you say she is a doing a good job sticking the boot in ( a bit like Prescots role) but I find her so untrustworthy and personally unlikable. I do not see her as a vote winner.
Just me?
She is Marmite. But is often found likeable by those who find Starmer insipid. If they can get their act together, they could be a very good campaigning team.
EDIT: Your Prescott comment there says a lot actually.
Just me?
No not just you, but she's the best of a bad bunch. Unfortunately she has damaged her credibility with her Damascene conversion from Corbyn to Starmer. If she doesn't make it to leader after Starmer this will be why. Much like Burnham she worries too much about how people see her rather than sticking to her principles and maintaining her integrity.
Some of the rw media seem to agree that Rayner can definitely put the boot in at the right time.
I think she's got more reach that I've given her credit for.
Trouble is with Starmer is no one's really talking about him, even after this well time resignation call.
she’s the best of a bad bunch
perhaps trues. I am not following politics nearly as closely a I used to but she makes me uneasy whereas Cooper and Nandy I simply loathe and Burham is vile. Lammy? dunno really . seems to at least have some principles
seems a faint tang of sexism here. I shall go away and ponder
"I'm John Prescott in a skirt, me!"
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/im-john-prescott-skirt-labour-25733844
When asked whether she could be a future Prime Minister, Rayner again explodes with laughter.
She said: “Do you think the United Kingdom is ready for that”, before adding: “Try before you buy. Put Keir in as PM and me as Deputy, then see how good I am. I reckon I will be good at it. If people are happy then maybe I’ll have a go after him.”
That's a politically smart answer, isn't it.
"Shower of shenanigans" is very good
That link to the record has this which I find very patronising from Raynor
I understand the frustration of Scottish voters because I’m from a red wall seat in the north of England.
“Once you’ve lost that trust, it’s really difficult to get it back and we need to do that by showing we are a government in waiting for Scotland and the UK.
Anyone else hear A Rayner on Today this morning?
I am a fan, but she kept saying ‘was you there?’ (referring to BJ).
Sir JP had some rough edges and mangled (and indeed created) words, but even his basic grammar was on point when it concerned such critical, key arguments. And he had dyslexia.
Before she becomes PM, she needs to enhance her grammar 🙂
FWIW SKS did a good job in my view. Not hysterical, and no hyperbole. But Chris Bryant was better.
Just me?
Not just you. I find her irritatingly patronising.
Why I put that quote up is anyone with half an ounce of political nous will know that labours problems in Scotland and in the north of england are two very different issues.
North of england losses were mainly down to brexit and the party not being "strong enough" on immigration - in Scotland its allying themselves with the tories and being too rightwing and having nothing positive to say
She'd make a good second in command, I think. A rotweiller you can set on the opposition at careful strategic intervals.
I really don't get all the 'anti Kier' stuff, and I've never voted labour - I want a boring, measured, non-knee jerk, balanced and considered PM.
They can have the charisma of an HP printer for all I care, that's not an important quality to me in a PM.
Not just you. I find her irritatingly patronising.
I'm sure she's reading this thread right now learning oh-so-much from a bunch of middle-aged men 😆
Yup- i quite agree and I am going to ponder my views on her.
Good win for Labour, but can't help thinking someone other than Keir could have made Boris' job untenable there and then.
eg Chris Bryant with a few more Qs could have.
She could be a Riker to Kiers Captain Picard.. it could work.
It'd be fun if there was a G.E tomorrow.
Enhance, enhance, enhance...
Thoughts?
He could always say it was a non alcoholic beverage!
Interestingly the story is pretty low down on the Mail Online (aimed at a younger audience). The print version is for the over 60's so it's just a bit of red meat for grandma.
Thoughts
Thought he was more of a Chardonnay man.
Will make people say "all politicians are the same."
It’s mojitos on the train again. Not surprised the Sun are trying it on (it’s originally their story… I presume they’ve passed it onto the Mail as part of operation Save Big Dog?) they have people who were at many of the no10 parties, and knew all about them… now the public know they’ve sat on those stories and kept quiet, they have more than just the PM to save.
Can someone explain the difference to a political Luddite ?
Why is this any different to what Boris and the Tories have done?
Honestly not being argumentative, I hate Boris and the Tories as much as the next man, but can’t see why this is ok whilst there is uproar over Boris.
Was there a BYOB invite to 100 people? Let’s start there. Did two large groups meet up and drink ‘till the early hours of the morning? A beer with your lunch in a meeting isn’t the same as planning and meeting up in large numbers to socialise.
The story was run last year by the sun
It was a zoom meeting at a constituency office, they broke for dinner with a beer, then resumed the meeting, Johnson even tried to use it in PMQs, but it didn't gain traction.
It was within the rules and its not like the 18? Parties in Downing St that went on until the early morning and involved people who weren't colleagues.
What's interesting is that the sun & mail have both run with it again today, defo smells like its part of OpereSave Big Dog!
think it operation save the party and minimise the collateral damage
There is a big push from the right to present politicians as all the same, just as bad as each other. They're all at it so its OK to vote for us who are definitely at it. Its not true but its a fairly easy sell.
Thanks for the detail guys, wasn’t aware of that.
If thats the best they can come up with, it's pretty bloody desperate.
Ultimately, I suspect it'll be counter-productive. Its hardly suitcases full of Chateauneuf Du Pape, is it? All it'll do is highlight the contrast
I thought he was just trying to show that he could get served.
The bigger question is what Kelvin points out, The Mail and The Sun editorial staff were at many of the parties in question. There's a revolving chair between the roles of Downing Street Staff and the papers in question (and revolving beds between the government and the Spectator).
It throws into focus not only the fact that ort 'free press' is not only extremely right wing, they are colluding with the government and in this case, illegally. Cresida Dick should be paying a visit to those publications offices as well.
Those allegations are not going to make any right thinking person that all politicians are the same, they are only there for the gammons who are outraged at Bozo to be as equally outraged at Starmer (even though anyone else can see they are clutching at straws)
Cresida Dick should be paying a visit to those publications offices as well.
The problem with that is that Dick got her job after her predecessor was forced out after.... investigating MPs
That won't have passed her by, Even as every other senior copper seems to think the met should be investigating
Cressida Dick is so utterly incompetent the only conclusion to be drawn is that she got the job owing to her preparedness to bend to the administration's will like Uri Geller's spoon.
She is the modern definition of a bent copper.
Cresida Dick should be paying a visit to those publications offices as well.
When it comes to rank incompetence, subsequent non-apologies, zero accountability, total lack of contrition and brazening it out, Cressida Dick is in the same premier league as Johnson. They're two cheeks of the same arse.
Surely, given her track record, her reluctance (or total refusal, more like?) to investigate the Downing Street parties can come as a surprise to no-one
If Boris Johnson were black she would have arrested him by now.
Cressida Dick is so utterly incompetent the only conclusion to be drawn is that she got the job owing to her preparedness to bend to the administration’s will like Uri Geller’s spoon.
Not only did she get the job but after seeing how dodgy she has been for the last few years she was given another 3 years at it.
Far from supporting the Police, this government has done nothing but heap problems upon their shoulders. With the timid assistance of the Met Commisioner, all they've succeeded in doing is covering the backs of the worst amongst their ranks.
They have pitted the Police against the public. Rather than concentrating on 'getting Brexit done' all the government has done over the last two years is think about ways they can control and criminalise the population. (I think even some Brexit supporters are beginning to see this.)
It all points to the government anticipating bigger problems down the line, as we move further towards the Logan's run scenario, where the rump of society does the bidding of the elders.
There is a big push from the right to present politicians as all the same, just as bad as each other. They’re all at it so its OK to vote for us who are definitely at it. Its not true but its a fairly easy sell
Yes I despise this line of debate especially given we've mostly known bent/incompetent/ruthless Tory governments for my 50 years.
One day we might get a genuinely progressive government ... But we're good at missed opportunities.
Progressive would be nice, right now I'd settle for non-regressive.
With an ever ageing population and declining birth rate I've put my hopes for a progressive government on hold. Our pensioners would need to have an moral and political epiphany for that to happen.
It's not that progressive ideas don't have traction with the working age population, it's that the numbers are stacked against them electorally. The divisions between the young and old will continue to exacerbate whoever is in power.
We can kiss good bye to progressive and dynamic politics in the West. If you want that sort of thing you'll have to move to the developing world, where average voting age is much, much younger. (Cue a queue of exeptionalist responses.....)
With an ever ageing population and declining birth rate I’ve put my hopes for a progressive government on hold. Our pensioners would need to have an moral and political epiphany for that to happen.
Not so - Look to Scotland where a political party that leads not follows runs a more progressive administration. Its perfectly possible in England as well but requires the labour party to throw of the shadow of Blair and become leaders not wethervane politicians. Fore me the worst part of Blairs legacy is this - following the public mood not setting it
Starmer doesn't explain how the Tories replacing Johnson with Sunak, Truss, or even Patel, serves "the national interests".
I agree that Johnson's authority has taken a massive blow but Starmer's generous advice to the Tories that it is, quote, "very important that the Tory party does what it needs to do and gets rid of him” doesn't impress me.
Urging the Tories to replace Johnson with a more right-wing Thatcherite pro-austerity Prime Minister is hardly going to serve the interests of ordinary working people, not that Starmer would particularly worry about that. And I frankly couldn't give a toss whether or not Sunak, Truss, or Patel, attended social events during lockdown.
Far far more important for me than wine time on Fridays is the attack on the right to protest and demonstrate.
https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2022/jan/13/how-will-the-police-and-bill-limit-the-right-to-protest
Why the **** isn't Starmer kicking up a stink about that? It represents the sort of oppressive restrictions associated with autocratic regimes and a fundamental attack on the existing liberal democracy which already has serious limitations.
There is no evidence that replacing Johnson with another Tory Prime Minister with more authority will kill the Bill.
Why the **** isn’t Starmer kicking up a stink about that?
Because he knows that if he does that Labour will be out in the wild longer.
The sinners cast the first stone comes to mind.
Then there is the party (both sides) infiltrated by CCP.
To me CCP infiltration is a much bigger threat than the current circus. CCP will create such havoc in the country without even needing to use threat like what they have done to many developing and 3rd world countries. UK have been warned. Wake up! Britannia you are sleepwalking into CCP's bed and CCP will hump you (Britannia) at will like the tennis star.
Get rid of CCP first and then you lot in Labour vs Tories Vs etc can argue or throw handbags at each others until the cows come home. Then install Angela Rayner as a PM (will she invite me to a party?)
Shoud starmer not call for his resignation then?
Shoud starmer not call for his resignation then?
He is the opposition and that's his job to do that but the public may not see it that way.
p/s: notice CCP wind up both sides?
Shoud starmer not call for his resignation then?
Not unless he thinks another Tory politician would be a better PM for Britian. And remember the only realistic choices are Sunak, Truss, or Patel.
If Starmer wants to exploit the Tories self-inflicted mess he should be declaring that the Tories are unfit to govern and calling for a general election to let the people decide.
Obviously the Tories aren't going to agree to that but it's not the job of Starmer to offer solutions that the Tories like.
He should be driving home the point that replacing Johnson is completely pointless as his behaviour is exactly what you can expect from the Tories, besides the alternatives are probably even worse, instead of offering them a solution to their self-inflicted mess.
Increasingly the right- wing of the Tory Party are calling for Johnson's resignation, Starmer should be focusing on the futility of that instead of trying to help them.
Edit : If Starmer was to launch an effective and sustained attack on the police and crime bill, along with similar attacks by the LibDems, an already weaken Tory Party with a leader lacking authority might struggle to get it quietly passed through parliament.
Obviously it will be much easier for a strong united Tory Party under a new leader enjoying widespread authority.
The truth however is that Starmer probably doesn't give a toss about the police and crime bill.
I'm with Ernie, of course Johnson shouldn't be PM but the whole Tory party is at fault for facilitating him despite knowing him to be a lazy, drunken, amoral narcissist.
Starmer et al will like the idea of a more right wing conservative leader as it will allow them more space to move the Labour party further to the right. Truss or Patel would be ideal.
Stop being silly
Starmer wants Johnson gone because he knows that Johnson out charismas Starmer
Truss or Sunak or whatever wet fish the Tories slip in will be easier for Starmer to handle
With an 80 seat majority whoever comes in has a lot of opportunity to do what they like but, they have to contend with some pretty swivel eyed backbenchers
Meanwhile in Scotland Labour overtaken Tories... https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1475460375810301955?t=cOCWvEQn7eMbdWTsZhp6Kw&s=19
Labour are opposing the police and crimes bill in the lords - and as you know the right wing press will label him" the criminals friend" if he states his opposition as "No to the bill" He has to be nuanced
Of course he should be calling for Johnson to resign. By doing so he will increase tory supoport for Johnson as they do not want to be seen doing Starmers bidding thus Starmers call for resignation just increases the infighting in tory ranks
Pointless posturing to call for a GE at this point
Pointless posturing to call for a GE at this point
Yup that'd be a ridiculous position right now as it will never happen
Johnsons exit, however.....
as you know the right wing press will label him” the criminals friend” if he states his opposition as “No to the bill".
Oh no that's terrible......he really mustn't upset the Tory press! 🙄
The forensic lawyer can't risk making the case against Priti Patel's oppressive new laws.
Of course he should be calling for Johnson to resign. By doing so he will increase tory supoport for Johnson as they do not want to be seen doing Starmers bidding
That is such a bizarre stance - to claim that Starmer is calling for Johnson's resignation to stop the Tories getting rid of him.
The bottom line is that there is no credible opposition parties as all are in the same melting pot i.e. with ideology driven nonsense. The only outcome is more struggles for ordinary mortals.
If Starmer wants to exploit the Tories self-inflicted mess he should be declaring that the Tories are unfit to govern and calling for a general election to let the people decide.
If you never ask for what you want, and what the country needs, you'll never get it.
Pointing out what the country needs repeatedly, might just start some of the electorate that he's on to something.
An ideology is a system of ideas, they develop to represent different class positions, those who control and own capital and those who sell their labour. Yes, Starmer's ideology aligns with Tory ideology but there's not a non-ideological, 'grown up' or technocratic alternative way of understanding a society where one class exploits another, you have to take sides. So, yes ordinary mortals have to fight their own corner. So, yes you're right in your conclusion but I'm not sure if you understand why.
So you prefer pointless posturing - calling for an election that will never happen rather than calling for the resignation / defenestration of Johnson which will happen and sewing more confusion in tory ranks?
And yes - Labour does run scared of the tory press. It been this way for decades. another legacy of Blair who pandered to them and refused to reign in their power when he had the chance
Pointing out what the country needs repeatedly, might just start some of the electorate that he’s on to something.
Exactly. Labour's theme for the next two years should be that the Tories are unfit to govern and that only solution is to kick them out, not, to find a better Tory leader.
In fact Labour should be focusing precisely on the claim that changing leaders is completely pointless as it doesn't solve the root problem at all.
Labour needs to encourage the British people to be hungry and inpatient for a general election. It needs to make the Tory government feel insecure and living on borrowed time.
Apart from the obvious benefit of a demoralised Tory government and groundswell of support for change it is far more likely to result in serious concessions from a defensive government.
Blimey, all those hungry inpatients and the NHS will crash.
So you prefer pointless posturing
Lol! So what sort of posturing is this?!?
Of course he should be calling for Johnson to resign. By doing so he will increase tory supoport for Johnson as they do not want to be seen doing Starmers bidding
To focus on the fact that the only actual solution is to kick out the Tories, not leadership changes, is not posturing. It makes the point that the Tories are not the solution, whoever the leader might happen to be.
Publicly making the case that Britain needs a change of government not simply a change of prime minister is a perfectly reasonable case to make, however unlikely it is for the government to call an early election.
People need to hear that.
It is pointless posturing when a GE will not happen! I agree clobbering them on competence is the right way but calling for a GE is just pointless it achieves nothing bar making Starmer look stupid calling for something that will not happen.
all those hungry inpatients
Thank you Bill 😊
I won't edit!
It is pointless posturing when a GE will not happen!
Of course it will happen. There is a legal requirement.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing out that only a change of government is what is needed not a change of Tory leader. Obviously it's a bit radical, probably too radical for Starmer, but that's the message that Labour should be driving home. Not telling the Tories to change their leader.
Edit : Labour should be campaigning for the next general election right now. It should be telling the British people right now what to expect from the next Labour government. It should be talking as if it believed in itself. It should be making the British people "impatient" for change.
I see the merit in most of the arguments about, regarding good bet you did is of the Tory party, in truth we just don't know which one is best at the moment.
I think (really hope) that '22 shots see its coming out of the pandemic to endemic levels of Covid. There's likely to take some pursue of the Tories and let them take credit for it.
However, the country is in an utter mess even if the worst effects of that are still hidden mostly.
In all honestly, if I were Truss, Sunak or whoever, no way would I want to be the next PM after Boris! Didn't they see what happened to May on the Brexit alter?
The next couple of years are going to be horrendous for many in the country, effecting even some of those that escaped even the '07 crisis. About the only flip side to that is I do now believe there it's a strong possibility we might not have to endure the Tories for another decade.
If Labour do get in, in '24, they have an almost impossible task but at least they won't be pulling is further down the plug hole intentionally.
Brexit is likely to be the undoing of at least another 2 Prime Minister's though.
Calling for a general election is the kind of thing Jeremy Cotbyn would do.
Of course it will happen. There is a legal requirement.
In 2 and a half years time
What do you think calling for a GE now will achieve?
You do realise that the leader of the Opposition can't call a general election don't you?
Perhaps I should have been more aware that every word I write might be taken literally but what I am suggesting is that Starmer should be making the point that what Britian needs is a change of government, not a change of Tory leader.
It is clear that many Tories want to change their leader so that the public perception of them changes, I have no idea why Starmer feels he needs to get involved in that.
Starmer claims that Johnson is guilty of "deceit and deception" and unable to lead. Surely he should be making the point that the Tories are guilty of "deceit and deception" and unable to lead?
Edit : Ref : "many Tories want to change their leader so that the public perception of them changes". It's worth remembering that many Tories also want him gone so that the party can embrace a more right-wing Thatcherite agenda, they would much prefer Liz Truss as leader, or even Sunak. Which is why they are exploiting the situation. Right-wing columnists in the Telegraph, Mail, and Express, have been gunning for Johnson long before partygate.