Forum menu
A mutual truce
This isn’t a thing. Starmer pushed hard on Russian big money donations to those in government in the commons. He’s not avoided the point at all. Far from it. But support for the government will keep rising in the polls now that “Covid is behind us” (it isn’t) and the news is dominated by Ukraine and the government’s claims to be leading the response towards Russia (it isn’t).
Starmer pushed hard on Russian big money donations to those in government in the commons. He’s not avoided the point at all.
Yeah, he's just not very good.
It should be a reoccurring theme as he travels across the country speaking to audiences and gives TV/radio interviews - the Tories dodgy friends and their dirty money. Not just in the House of Commons.
Outside the Commons he seems more preoccupied with attacking members of his own party than the Tories, with his purges and expulsions.
He can speak to as many “audiences” as he wants, the polls will still swing back to the Conservatives over the next two weeks.
And he’s right to distance himself, and Labour, from those seeking to blame others for the actions of Putin. Or “attacking members”, if you want to put it that way.
What on earth are you talking about Kelvin?
The purges and expulsions I am talking about have no connection with Putin. Obviously the Kremlin backed oligarchy do have a connection with the Tories.
But you think he should focus on attacking members of the Labour Party?
But support for the government will keep rising in the polls now that “Covid is behind us” (it isn’t) and the news is dominated by Ukraine and the government’s claims to be leading the response towards Russia (it isn’t).
So you agree that Starmer has failed in pointing out that (it isn't)?
Edit : Btw I find it fascinating that you feel that role of the Leader of the Labour Party is mostly restricted to preforming in the Commons. You presumably attach a great deal of importance to an "audience" consisting of mostly Tories and members of his own party?
Yeah, he’s just not very good.
It should be a reoccurring theme as he travels across the country speaking to audiences and gives TV/radio interviews – the Tories dodgy friends and their dirty money. Not just in the House of Commons.
Exactly, he's not going crazy about and bringing it to a wider audience because he doesn't want to risk upsetting potential establishment donors. Solid chunks of that big money wherever it's from will be tainted in some way.
he’s not going crazy about and bringing it to a wider audience because he doesn’t want to risk upsetting potential establishment donors
He is challenging the government on political funding, especially where it is connected to Russian money, it just has little chance of cutting through with the public right now, mostly for the two reasons I outlined. Earnie's suggestion that it is a "failure" of Starmer's to not be able to set the political agenda right now is worth discussing (I don't think anyone else would do any better, but that's just opinion). The idea that he's deliberately keeping it quiet because he doesn't want to upset "establishment donors" is just fantasy.
you feel that role of the Leader of the Labour Party is mostly restricted to preforming in the Commons
I do not. I have never said that. Please don't start doing the making things up and projecting them as if said by other posters thing.
You presumably attach a great deal of importance to an “audience” consisting of mostly Tories and members of his own party?
Presume away. Those are your words and thoughts not mine though. I happen to think they completely ignore how our parliamentary democracy works, the transparency and visibility of what happens there, and the coverage of what is said there can receive on TV, radio, press and all other media, especially PMQs.
Where I do agree with you is that politicians must be able to work well to get their message heard outside parliament as well, and Starmer has never been good enough at that for me. He's boring and over cautious. Right now though, one of the ways he is getting an important message across to voters... that "Labour does not agree with its previous leader as regards Russia and NATO"... is to do a bit of "attacking members "... by insisting MPs withdraw their support from the Stop The War statement or face losing the whip.
The purges and expulsions I am talking about have no connection with Putin.
Of course not, comrade. I'm sure theres no connection whatsoever.
Let's dispense with the needlessly overly-dramatic language of 'purges and expulsions' shall we, as its patently ridiculous?
But would you like to bet against a venn diagram involving the following 2 groups:
1. The people that Starmer wants rid of, and
2. The labour members who have regularly, up until a couple of days ago, used the words 'NATO aggression' in any reference to Russia, Ukraine or Eastern Europe...
basically being a single circle?
It should be a reoccurring theme as he travels across the country speaking to audiences and gives TV/radio interviews – the Tories dodgy friends and their dirty money. Not just in the House of Commons.
Is it possible that Lindsey Hoyle is preventing him from banging the drum?
Seems such an easy and obvious win for Starmer to just keep pointing out how Putin and his mates chucked enormous sums of money into the Tory party, as well as the meetings that Cabinet members have taken with Russian donors in the last year or two.
He can't go in too hard because then people will start asking awkward questions about Peter Mandelson hanging out on Oleg Deripaska's yacht etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover some of SKS' financial backers have links to oligarch money either tbh.
Let’s dispense with the needlessly overly-dramatic language of ‘purges and expulsions’ shall we, as its patently ridiculous?
Did you type that with a straight face? For years, you've been doing exactly the same thing.
For instance, here is one of the main backers of SKS' leadership campaign and major donor to the Labour party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Taylor_(investor)
Seems to me like he made huge profits from Russian privatisation, just like, you know...
Makes more sense why he tried to keep the donations secret now.
Did you type that with a straight face? For years, you’ve been doing exactly the same thing.
I've never used either word. Mainly because under the previous leadership, people either left the party, or in the case of most Labour MP's, distanced themselves from those running the party entirely of their own accord.
Therefore using words like 'purges' or 'expulsions' is just daft.
I’ve never used either word. Mainly because under the previous leadership, people either left the party, or in the case of most Labour MP’s, distanced themselves from those running the party entirely of their own accord.
Therefore using words like ‘purges’ or ‘expulsions’ is just daft.
On this very thread you said the following:
binners
Full Member
I’ll just re-post what I posted on the Corbyn thread:I’m just hoping the rumours are true (IIRC it was in the Guardian) that the first thing Kier Starmer is going to do is have a night of the long knives to clear out every last one of the utterly useless Corbynites, both on the front bench and behind the scenes, and actually appoint some people who are capable of finding their own arses using both hands.
I’m also hoping that involves firing Richard Burgon into the sun.
There needs to be a Kinnock/Militant style purge to even think dragging the labour party back from its Corbynite political irrelevence, where its presently languishing in its own delusional ‘we won the argument’ bullshit
Posted 1 year ago
Please don't criticise others for behaviour you are guilty of.
For instance, here is one of the main backers of SKS’ leadership campaign and major donor to the Labour party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Taylor_(investor)
Seems to me like he made huge profits from Russian privatisation, just like, you know…
Makes more sense why he tried to keep the donations secret now.
Well I am shocked and stunned 🙃
Aaah... bless. Are you trawling through my old posts again?
Thats just me expressing an opinion of what I'd like to see. Not any comment on whats actually going on or has ever gone on in the labour party
Has Richard Burgon actually been fired into the sun yet?
No. More's the pity.
But I note that, entirely predictably, he did sign the 'Stop the War' love letter to Putin, before promptly withdrawing his signature when actually (rightfully) threatened with having the whip withdrawn if he didn't
So where does that sit with your accusation or 'expulsions' and purges', comrade?
If thats whats going on (it isn't) then Keir and co are doing a pretty crap job of it. Because Burgon and comrades are all still there. Sadly. Though understandably, after their recent Ukrainian victim-blaming and pro-Putin useful idiocy they've all gone rather quiet. Funny, that.
I still reckon firing Richard Burgon into the sun would be a massive vote-winner
Aaah… bless. Are you trawling through my old posts again?
You said you hadn't used the word "purges". You used the word "purge" on the first page of this thread. Is your defence that it was singular instead of plural? Please tell me you have something better than that.
Thats just me expressing an opinion, not any comment on whats actually going on or has ever gone on in the labour party
I think we're all aware of your opinion. It's really quite astonishingly hypocritical to now complain about others using "overly-dramatic" language in the same way.
So where does that sit with your accusation or ‘expulsions’ and purges’?
What accusation? Are you making things up again?
Binners, here's a small collection of your overly-dramatic language from pages one and two. I've gathered them here so you can copy and paste rather than having to re-type them.
worrying overtones of Stalinist totalitarianism
imbeciles
messianic cult
paranoid, bunker mentality of the tinfoil-hat conspiracy-theorists
doddering old imbecile
Overly-dramatic? I'd say 'entirely accurate', but whatevs...
Semantics...
Anyways... you are aware that all that time you spend trawling through my posts from years ago, you'll never ever get back, right?
You seem to enjoy it though, which is quite sweet
Overly-dramatic? I’d say ‘entirely accurate’, but whatevs…
Semantics…
Anyways… you are aware that all that time you spend trawling through my posts from years ago, you’ll never ever get back, right?
You seem to enjoy it though, which is quite sweet
It's a pity you won't adhere to the standards you expect of others. I'll remind you of that the next time you have a flounce.
For instance, here is one of the main backers of SKS’ leadership campaign and major donor to the Labour party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Taylor_(investor)
Seems to me like he made huge profits from Russian privatisation, just like, you know…
Makes more sense why he tried to keep the donations secret now.
They filed accounts late and were fined which smacks of incompetence, frankly. (My explanation for most things fwiw from vast, lengthy, and above all personal experience.)
A hedge fund making massive profits from the soviet sell off isn't frankly that surprising. That's the kind of thing they do. A hedge fund owner donating to the labour party is more man bites dog for sure. But waddyagonna do? Turn it down as illegal when presumably it's legit seems a bit of an ask. How clean does money have to be before labour can take it?
I was going to edit that line out as I'd like the answer to be "incredibly clean" - tobacco, alcohol, gambling, fast food, coke and hookers, should probably get the answer "no thanks", on work time anyway. But spreading freedom post communism, as privatisation would be repredented in some quarters (I knew folks who went off to do just this. Twits mind - stw doesn't like me spelling that with an "a".)? Less clear cut.
Or is there some insinuation intended - that this will make Starmer advance a pro-Putin case? Is that it? Taylor will be wanting his money back in that case, and could've saved it anyway as Burgon et al will happily do this for free.
A hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands that profited massively from Russian privatisation and the chairman of a pro Israeli lobby group (with close connections to arms dealers) - his two main backers in the leadership election.
Why on earth would he want to keep that secret?
You can't see how that compromises his ability to go in hard on dodgy financing of political parties?
Why on earth would he want to keep that secret?
You can’t see how that compromises his ability to go in hard on dodgy financing of political parties?
Yes I can see, but how was it ever going to be kept secret?
Are you trawling through my old posts again?
Oh bless, binners is yet again getting touchy about being reminded of what he's previously said!
Dontcha hate it geezer when people point out your hypocrisy?!?!
Afternoon comrade! Is that all of you here now?
Oh bless, binners is yet again getting touchy about being reminded of what he’s previously said!
Touchy? I think its absolutely hilarious! 😀
I think its absolutely hilarious!
At last, something we can agree on!
I too think it's hilarious, just how much you can contradict yourself is frankly staggering 🙂
Dunt getting Starmered.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1498629862361382919?t=FPicgRGmLUrEIg9QaXUuDA&s=19
Even with my low opinion of Starmer I really struggled to believe that ^^ could be true.
Tragically it turns out that there are Tory MPs who apparently feel more compassion towards war refugees than the current Labour leadership.
This link isn't behind a paywall :
I guess it's another case of "what would the Daily Mail say?" that is dictating the position taken by the Labour Party.
Yes I can see, but how was it ever going to be kept secret?
It was kept secret for long enough for him to win a leadership election claiming to be a kind of unity/continuity candidate, because this kind of corporate/Blairite funding would have blown that position out of the water.
Ukrainian refugees? Focus group says no
What does Monty F Python have to say about this?
It would appear Starmer wants to copy Corbyn's clever strategy of "constructive ambiguity", which won so many people over.
Should Johnson resign? Well yes and no apparently.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-labour-insist-boris-johnson-26397996
That's the confused position that voters love to support.
Starmer is backing the government on sanctions on those connected to the Russian government, and even encouraging them to go further and act faster... while also still saying that Johnson should resign, but not pushing it right now as the focus is on Ukraine... and you think this is the wrong approach because...?
while also still saying that Johnson should resign
Not according to the link ;
"Keir Starmer twice declined to repeat his call for Boris Johnson to quit over Partygate in a BBC interview. "
He kept the focus on Ukraine and Russia in that interview. Putting forward the "united" position as regards Russia (which is as much about pressuring the government to act as it about supporting their actions) starts to get very wobbly if it's mixed with fresh calls for the PM to resign. Focus on Ukraine now. Any repeating of calls for the PM to resign in interviews right now, when talking about the response to the war, isn't going to achieve anything or help anyone. Johnson should go. Shouting about that now in interviews about Ukraine is pointless. Pushing the government on Russian money, and distancing Labour from those focusing on Nato not Russia who used to lead the party, is absolutely everything politically right now if the aim is to be considered a government in waiting.
Johnson will give Labour plenty more chances to call for him to go. The police might even help with that (although few people are really holding their breath there).
Johnson should go. Shouting about that now in interviews about Ukraine is pointless.
No one asked Starmer to shout, he was asked a direct to which he could have given a direct answer. And it wasn't an interview about Ukraine, he was being interviewed as leader of the Labour Party. Or do you think the BBC asked an inappropriate question?
But if you think Starmer is doing a fine job as Labour Party leader then that's great Kelvin. However recent polls don't seem to be backing your confidence, the last two have only given Labour a 3% lead over the Tories.
It's almost as the Tories haven't had crises and negative headlines to deal with.
* Edited as I inadvertently exaggerated the Labour lead over the Tories, it's not as much as 5%
the last two have only given Labour a 5% lead over the Tories
They still have a lead? I’m surprised and pleased.
If his poll ratings slide any more he can always propose nukeing Moscow. Should piss off the lefty peacenik fith columnists some more which seems to be his main priority. He probably sees nuclear destruction as a price worth paying to finally rid the party of any remaining handwringing lefties.
Don’t wars always favour the incumbent government in the polls?
If Starmer keeps pressing on the Boris has to go line right now, it’ll be pounced on by the media as political point scoring during a crisis
If Starmer keeps pressing on the Boris has to go line right now, it’ll be pounced on by the media as political point scoring during a crisis
So why doesn't he make his position clear when asked?
He is asked a direct question so he should give a direct answer, or do voters prefer politicians to fudge issues?
How long can the Leader of the Opposition avoid issues so as not to incriminate himself?
His position seems to be "yes I am calling for the Prime Minister to resign but I won't say it publicly".
Perhaps he can provide clues as to where he stands by winking and tapping his nose?
They still have a lead? I’m surprised and pleased.
The Tories stagger from one crises of their own making to the next crises of their own making, Starmer is doing everything correctly, apparently, this results in Labour having a 3% lead, and you are surprised and pleased?
Remind me, you're not a Tory, right?
Starmer is doing everything correctly, apparently
If you're just going to keep making up your own points to argue about, you don't need anyone else to get involved. Carry on...
Fairy nuff, you weren't defending Starmer's leadership. I am apparently mistaken. You ought to perhaps make your criticism of him more obvious though.
make your criticism of him more obvious
[ and breath ] ... I have done, many times. And I didn't expect Labour to be ahead in the polls at this point because... end of Covid measures means voters want to move on from everything pandemic related, including Johnson's slow/late/absent decision making throughout it and his "one rule for you, another for us" approach to social distancing rules... plus Russia's actions give him a chance to look like a present rather than absent PM for a while... even when he has to be pushed into action (again), he can claim he's leading, the situation will enable him to get the benefit of the doubt over it, for a few months anyway. I would expect with any leader Labour would be falling behind at this point, never mind one I think fails to connect to voters. But I was replying to your original point about Starmer not using a recent TV interview to reiterate that Johnson should go. How Starmer handles this moment, and tries to present the UK as united in the face of Russia's actions, and push the government into acting deeper and quicker as regards people connected to the Russian government (currently or recently), I do happen to think he's getting that right. Acting "together" with the government in a way that also highlight's Johnson's slow and reluctant actions as regards Russia, and questions the closeness of Johnson and his party to people that should be caught up in sanctions, has been pretty smartly done.
Should Johnson resign? Well yes and no apparently.
I think it just recognises facts on the ground. Labour still want him to resign over what happened about the flat and breaking lock-down, but given that we are now, Tory MPs won't vote to get shot of him.. Events move and suddenly no one really cares about lock down drinks a year ago.
That’s the confused position that voters love to support.
Politics is messy and confusing sometimes
Acting “together” with the government in a way that also highlight’s Johnson’s slow and reluctant actions as regards Russia.
You think 'letting' the Government make a mess is good opposition?
He tried this approach with Covid. Result - Government still made a mess to the detriment of everyone.
I think Johnson will walk this current crisis in terms of polling.
Natural territory.
Starmer doesn't realise he's isolating himself more and more as he hides behind the Tories.
Given how lagging the polls are and where Labour were a couple of months ago and how the Tories have closed the gap; Tories will be ahead very soon.
(although the cost of living is boxing them in too.)
You think ‘letting’ the Government make a mess is good opposition?
Who said that? I said… oh, what’s the point, it’s all there to read. You can just make up your own stuff and argue with yourself about it as well.
Tories will be ahead very soon.
I expect so as well. And maintain a lead for a few months.
Looking at this I reckon Starmer is well on his way to doing a John Smith. It’s a hard life agreeing with the tories all the time.
https://twitter.com/women4wes/status/1500835264834506753?s=21
Show us your mug shots over the same period Dazh, for comparison.
😘
I look just as good at 54 as I did at 49 but you are not seeing my portrait in the loft.
I think the photo from 5 years ago was a flattering photo and the current photo is about as bad as he could look so a slightly skewed comparison from "Women for Wes". Who is Wes I wonder?
To be fair you can see it in all leaders.
Who said that? I said… oh, what’s the point, it’s all there to read. You can just make up your own stuff and argue with yourself about it as well.
Yeah often feel the same.
Thought you said acting together with the Government. Apologies for the misinterpretation.
Blimey, he must be a very thirsty boy to look as porculent as that.
He could have been good, such a shame.
Is Labours position on Ukranian refugees exactly the same as the Tories? Or is it being misrepresented on Twitter? (Owen Jones)
& prefer the second pic tbh. 1st is a bit too Zoolander for me.
Is Labours position on Ukranian refugees exactly the same as the Tories? Or is it being misrepresented on Twitter? (Owen Jones)
Not seen Jones' posts, but it's not the same... but it also not good enough. They haven't called for open visa free access, like the rest of Europe, which comes from a position of cowardice in my opinion. All the calls to open/widen/accelerate our system amounts to very little... do what everyone from Ireland to Iceland is doing... open door to any Ukrainian and put in place whatever is required for them. Put a three year limit on right to stay if you feel you need to do so to appease those scared of foreigners, and increase vetting once people are here. But don't keep them out. Let them in at speed, process them once they have a roof over their heads.
I prefer the second pic tbh.
I prefer the Thunderbird puppet look.
Liberals lining up to be disappointed at Labour's focus group love-in decisions - that they thought were the path to victory.
Brains made from philadelphia. Light philadelphia.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1501823020784046083?t=7NoSkRnxPF1FXhPOaoqi_w&s=19
I think one of my first comments on this thread was that you never out Tory the Tories.
Brains made from philadelphia. Light philadelphia.
That's no way to talk about a brilliant forensic mind!
The irony is that it is pretty damn obvious that showing compassion and humanity towards Ukraine war refugees under current situation is likely to have huge voter appeal. Even the Daily Mail appear outraged by Priti Patel's position on the issue.
What do Starmer fans think?
What do Starmer fans think?
Are there any Starmer fans here?
I’m not a Starmer fan. But cowardice about being labelled as being in favour of “open doors” or “open borders” has come about because promising to keep people out (yes including refugees) has resulted in us leaving the EU and the Conservatives being led by the people that now lead it… and the UK. Yes, most people are in favour of visa free access for Ukraine refugees right now. But there is a section of the population for whom keeping people out is a strong motivation to vote, and a big factor in how they vote.
In my opinion, Starmer should ignore this political reality, and stand up for refugees, and call for the UK to do what the rest of Europe are doing. But come the election, it would be used in the inevitable “Labour are pro-EU and pro-immigration” campaigning. He should take the political fight head on. That he is reluctant to do so is down to the success of recent campaigns by others.
The irony is that it is pretty damn obvious that showing compassion and humanity towards Ukraine war refugees under current situation is likely to have huge voter appeal.
It seems really obvious, so why are both the Tories and Labour not doing it? Is it because they're both corrupt and out of touch or is it that they have information to hand that tells them that it isn't as popular as perhaps you and I think it is?
or is it that they have information to hand that tells them that it isn’t as popular as perhaps you and I think it is?
If they do they should ignore it. Labour is meant to be a party of principles, populists abuse hatred let it grow and use it for their own political gains. Labour should be confronting it head on, fighting it and showing leadership, not kowtowing to ignorance in case the media say mean things about them. There is a time to read the room, and there are times to lead the room.
is it that they have information to hand that tells them that it isn’t as popular as perhaps you and I think it is?
If they have they ought share it with YouGov, according to them providing sanctuary to Ukraine war refugees is massively popular :
"Support for taking in Ukraine refugees rises to 76%"
If YouGov are that much outside their margin of error it could have devastating consequences for their business.
Labour should be shaming the government, not providing tacit approval.
Why is the government not showing greater generosity toward Ukraine war refugees? I don't know. Probably a combination of factors including incompetence and the need to placate the oligarch-loving far right of the Tory Party, Johnson isn't out of the woods yet.
Why is the government not showing greater generosity toward Ukraine war refugees?
To placate people who got behind this campaign...
Starmer, and the whole of the Labour front bench, are also running scared of them, and the power of their votes. Including Lammy (who I am a "fan" of), which is disappointing, to put it mildly. Carefully calling for "greater generosity" and assistance but stopping short (shamefully in my opinion) of calling for temporarily waiving visa requirements and letting in refugees without immediate family or a sponsor, and without bureaucratic delays.
In my opinion, Starmer should ignore this political reality, and stand up for refugees, and call for the UK to do what the rest of Europe are doing.
mine too fwiw
I think short term - like all big news sentiment - welcoming refugees does seem to be in synch with the public - long term? not a chance. Otherwise the general consensus towards refugees wouldn't be so wilfully ignorant.
Starmer is playing the long game remember.
So the folk on here that think you've got to win Tory voters over - are you happy with this path? When do you get off? At which point is your line crossed?
This is exactly what lack of social ideology gets you.
I can guarantee Corbyn would have not had been part of this cyncial charade and he's on the record as historically being deeply critical of Putin when others were enjoying his company.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs
And that is coming from a Tory until 2019. Peter Oborne
To placate people who got behind this campaign…
I know blaming everything on brexit is the default setting on stw but presumably you didn't read this:
Three quarters of Conservative voters (73%) now support resettling Ukrainian refugees in the UK, up from 56% last week, as do 87% of Labour voters (up from 79%).
There is no political gain for the Tories among the wider public.
Otherwise the general consensus towards refugees wouldn’t be so wilfully ignorant.
People's attitudes concerning those fleeing persecution or war are not necessarily the same as their attitude towards free movement, although the two are often deliberately and misleadingly lumped together.
That depressing poster I put on the precision page was part of a campaign about excluding refugees and asylum seekers. Look at the poster… is that about EU workers, or is it showing people fleeing war torn countries further afield? Since then the government has made it harder and harder for refugees from any war zone to get here, to please the voters who don’t want them here. They are putting a bill through parliament right now to make it even harder for them, and those trying to help them. Ignore it all you want, but the answer as to why the government is not more open to refugees coming here, and why the opposition are too tentative in pushing for the UK to be more open to refugees, is blindingly obvious to everyone. The Brexit referendum and the “get Brexit Done” election. Stopping people coming to the UK is the one “Brexit benefit” that the government will be able to point to at the next election, and the opposition are scared of being labelled as the party who would let more people come here, and deny “us” the “benefits” of Brexit.
Yes, much of the population does, and always has, favoured a far better approach to asylum seekers and refugees. But there is a large minority who are heavily motivated to vote based on keeping people out, including refugees.
think short term – like all big news sentiment – welcoming refugees does seem to be in synch with the public – long term? not a chance
I agree, and I think this is where Lab and the Tories are.
I've noticed every time the government comes up against something large - Starmer goes into hiding and performs some insignificant campaign that no one really notices.
The thread here then dies too.
What a way to tackle the government.
Covid - no time for party politics.
Russia - no time for party politics. Double flags.
Cost of living crisis - in hiding, vat rumbles.
Refugees - similar to Tories but less bad.
Green bonds?
The long game really is a cowards way out.
Cost of living crisis – in hiding, vat rumbles.
This is not so. Big set piece speeches on it, hammer johnson at PMQs on it, series of media interviews on it
I’ve noticed every time the government comes up against something large – Starmer goes into hiding
Alternative - Every time the govt cocks something up, the media focus is on that rather than what the leader of the Opposition is doing. Starmer could frankly make as much noise as he likes about anything and everything, without the media (both print and telly) paying attention to that, he's literally shouting at the sky.
Refugees – similar to Tories but less bad.
In what way would is it less bad, what is Starmer proposing?
Genuine question as I can't find anything to suggest that Starmer has provided a less bad alternative to what is undoubtedly an extremely important current issue.
Will Armrest be replaced by Sewer Testing? Asking for a friend.
The thread here then dies too.
Everyone sane avoids this thread, or posts one comment then goes away to avoid being drawn in.
kelvin - post above yours from bill says much about where this thread has gone; puerile (failed) and pointless attempt at humour.
Having read some of bill's posts on a few threads, he/she should ease off whatever it is they're on.
Having read some of bill’s posts on a few threads, he/she should ease off whatever it is they’re on.
Well even you can't think of something constructive or interesting to say with regards to the subject matter of this thread.
In the meantime Tory MPs, according to the Guardian, appear to be challenging the government on some particularly pointless and obnoxious legislation :
Interesting that nowhere in the entire article is there any reference to comments made by Labour, and not least their leader. All the more interesting as the Guardian could be expected to prioritize the views and comments of Labour MPs over those of Tories.
Sorry, are you claiming that Labour haven’t been opposing this, or just that the Guardian think that it isn’t newsworthy that they are opposing it because they have been for a while now? How do you think the “Tory Rebels” think they might get their way, unless it is by adding their votes to the Labour votes (and that of other opposition party MPs)?
Actually, I honestly don’t care what you meant, I don’t know why I’m asking.
Of course you don't care.
My comment was with regards to the apparent lack of input.from Labour. At least it appears that the Guardian felt that Labour had nothing interesting enough to say on the subject that it warranted reporting.
Perhaps the Guardian were unfair on Labour and the Labour leader had in fact made a valuable contribution to the debate which they refused to report. I consider that possible but unlikely.
You obviously believe that Labour and Starmer don't have to say anything on the subject because everyone already knows what they probably think.
Based on that logic I don't know why Labour MPs need bother making the journey to Parliament, they could just stay at home as everyone can probably guess what they are likely to say. Just leave any important opposition to Tory rebels.