Forum menu
Does Starmer own shares in a company doing the feasibility studies for the Ben Gurion Canal?
I think those dissenting Labour MPs need to have a long hard think about what they've done. They are supposed to represent the interests of people in the UK first and foremost. Grandstanding at the current time given what the Tories are doing is unforgiveable, especially as they were splitting hairs ceasefire vs pause in hostilities. All for a vote they were going to lose and even if they won it would have had next to no impact in Gaza. Agreed though Starmer has handled this very badly, fell right into the SNP trap.
She threw her job of domestic abuse & safeguarding shadow minister to fall for an SNP trap
So a politician deeply concerned about domestic violence votes in favour of ending the killing of thousands of innocent women and children?
Who would have thought it??
The SNP did not move an amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire to 'trap the Labour Party', they did it in the hope that it would help to put pressure on Israel to stop the slaughter.
If it has divided the Labour Party that is not the fault of the SNP. Starmer has no one to blame but himself - he chose to make it a three-line whip.
And yet despite that he didn't even have the courage of his own conviction - he instructed Labour MPs to 'abstain' rather than to vote against the amendment. Morally bankrupted spineless fence-sitting.
They are supposed to represent the interests of people in the UK first and foremost.
How terribly UKIP/Tory
The SNP did not move an amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire to ‘trap the Labour Party’, they did it in the hope that it would help to put pressure on Israel to stop the slaughter.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Its a bit of political grandstanding. Its aimed in part at the scottish audience - everything to make the "two cheeks of the same arse" stick. Not perhaps the total reason but I am fairly sure its a part of it. It really does not put any pressure on Israel
Edit - you have to view everything the SNP do at westminster thru the lens of "what does this mean in Scotland"
This kind of reminds me of how Blair seemed mortally afraid of New Labour being seen as weak on defence or not fully committed to the "special relationship" so he dragged the party into backing everything the US wanted to do after the September 11th attacks. Starmer seems incredibly afraid that any whiff of him not seeming to be completely on Israel's side will be manufactured by the Tories and the media into an election-ruining antisemitism scandal that he's alienating many supporters and his own MPs trying to avoid it.
So a politician deeply concerned about domestic violence votes in favour of ending the killing of thousands of innocent women and children?
The hubris behind this statement, honestly, do you think for one second that if this vote is successful, and that's a big if with the tory majority, that a call from the UK for a ceasefire will do anything with a Netanyahu led Israeli government, the international work being carried out, outside of the guise of political posturing across western nations, will hopefully lead to an extended pause in hostilities, as long as politics stay out of it.
I also don't think folk in this country understand how little sway the UK holds over Israel, or in the region anymore.
I agree as well.
Starmer put himself in a pointless corner with this vote, but is still right to be seeking an international approach (yes, that is mostly code for dragging the USA along) towards Israel.
The debate in parliament this week on insisting that the Israeli government be legally accountable for their actions shows the real gulf between the Labour and Conservative benches on the path forward, even if most on both are still* taking the “pauses” first approach to stopping the violence against civilians going on right now, rather than trying to tell Israel they have no right at all to go after Hamas after the attacks in October.
[ * for now… more and more will move on this if Israel doesn’t change tactics in the next few days, allowing in far more aid and support for civilians, and shifting to a far more targeted approach towards Hamas, the current impact on innocent Palestinians is intolerable ]
I would say however that from what i have read the palestinians to take comfort from support shown - in demonstrations etc and I would guess in this sort of gesture as well
do you think for one second that if this vote is successful, and that’s a big if with the tory majority, that a call from the UK for a ceasefire will do anything with a Netanyahu led Israeli government
Would you put that question to Keir Starmer, whose determination to impose a three-line whip you obviously feel is very necessary to support?
I find it quite astonishing to hear people claim that how a vote goes is of no importance at all, which why everyone must vote in a certain way. I can't quite figure out if they are taking the piss.
The more western governments and political parties stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Netanyahu and his far-right government the more they will feel that they have a carte blanche to do whatever they fancy.
"The scale and virulence of the global condemnation from Arab and western governments raised questions about how much longer Israel can continue with its offensive in the face of waning international support."
"Israel relented by announcing it would allow an unlimited number of aid convoys through the Rafah crossing on the Egyptian border. Aid convoys have been limited to as few as 30 trucks a day when the UN said it needed hundreds to relieve starvation."
International law is only for our enemies, apparently.
If Russia were bombing Red Cross ambulances, raving about Nazis, and sending commandos into ICUs, the outcry would be deafening.
Sicking hypocrisy, as usual.
If Russia were bombing Red Cross ambulances, raving about Nazis, and sending commandos into ICUs, the outcry would be deafening
Well exactly.
Moral vantage points have gone out of the window in favour of being aligned with uncomplex views.
Everything has been reduced to "do you condemn Hamas."
Seems my prediction on labour contriving to miss an open goal is coming true.
I also don’t think folk in this country understand how little sway the UK holds over Israel
Or anything else. The carried over arrogance means the UK think they have but that went a long time ago. We are not in the empire days anymore, and just another little country with a crappy government and no idea.
They are supposed to represent the interests of people in the UK first and foremost.
How terribly UKIP/Tory
Now you are just trolling, thats exactly what MPs are supposed to do, thats why they are elected by their constituents. As repeated above this vote was relatively meaningless in what it could achieve so why back it causing a public split in the Labour party. These MPs priority should be to get the Tories out so the real work of working on behalf of their constituents, repairing the damage to everyones lives inflicted by the Tories, can start. To put it bluntly 10 years of Tory rule has killed many more people in this country than the IDF has in Gaza. That should be their priority. If the vote on ceasefires actually had a chance of making a difference to the miserable situation the Palestians are in it would have made more sense for the MPs to behave as they did.
Papers haven’t run with it, but BBC leading with the Labour revolt story rather than "PM to pass law to state white is actually black".
D'oh!
thats why they are elected by their constituents.
Exactly, their first responsibility (should be) to their constituents, not the party.
In most constituencies people support a ceasefire.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/11/15/672b8/3
All Labour MPs should have rebelled.
I also don’t think folk in this country understand how little sway the UK holds over Israel, or in the region anymore.
I think people do, which in itself argument against for standing so firmly by the hard right Israeli government, but also recognise thats not a reason not to at least protest.
Starmer has handled this badly. Should have been a free vote. I can see the arguments for and against a ceasefire, it's not black and white and should have let MPs vote with what they think and accept that there is a difference of opinion in how to stop the deaths.
But, there are lots of people revelling in trying to make out that Labour MPs (but not Tories bizarrely) are pro genocide for voting against a ceasefire. Clearly this is bollocks it's like saying pro ceasefire people are Hamas supporters, again bollocks.
It's all very sad,
this vote was relatively meaningless in what it could achieve so why back it causing a public split in the Labour party.
Because Starmer thought this "relatively meaningless" vote was so hugely important that it deserved a three-line whip, and that any frontbencher not abstaining from this meaningless vote should be sacked, instead of allowing a free vote.
It wasn't the SNP who forced Starmer to announce a three-line whip over the vote, he decided to do that himself.
To put it bluntly 10 years of Tory rule has killed many more people in this country than the IDF has in Gaza.
Of all the pathetic excuses for not condemning Israel's relentless slaughter of innocent men women and children that must surely be the most ridiculous. And you actually accused me of trolling?? ffs
I think the cease fire issue highlights the difficulties that both Starter and Sunak have because they only came to politics late. Much as we disparage career politicians who've never had a real world job, the nuances that they pick up from a lifetime of working their way through PTA committees, parish councils, town councils etc. are invaluable in knowing that it's better to say the wrong thing at the right time than to say the right thing at the wrong time.
Go Corbyn!
I think the cease fire issue highlights the difficulties that both Starter and Sunak have because they only came to politics late.
I would say the information they are getting on a daily basis from international partners and people working behind the scenes will be more to the point of why they aren't calling for a ceasefire, or why any country in the west isn't doing it, the french PM came out personally stating it, but then after a march in Paris and so on, he's backtracking now.
For me there's more going on behind the scenes, for someone like Starmer, it would be an easy one to stand up and ask for a ceasefire, because it's popular and opposes the tories, but something is keeping him from doing this, and as he's been brought in to the meetings and briefing on the subject by the likes of Cleverly, i'm going to say there's something bigger occurring out of sight.
something is keeping him from doing this
So he's not being totally honest about why he is opposed to a ceasefire?
the likes of Cleverly
Utter morons, you mean ?
So he’s not being totally honest about why he is opposed to a ceasefire?
What if his reasons are based on classified information?
but something is keeping him from doing this
Fear of being labelled antisemitic as happened to Corbyn. IMO thats all it is along with poor political instincts. Hopefully he will learn from this and not pick pointless fights with the parliamentary party in future. If he hadn't whipped this vote it would have been a non story
If he hadn’t whipped this vote it would have been a non story
Yes. although TBH, it's already a non-story.
Fear of being labelled antisemitic as happened to Corbyn
This gets banded about every time, but what exactly would label him 'antisemitic' by calling for a ceasefire to stop the killing of civilians, Corybn et al were labelled via evidence of antisemitism through an intensive review spanning quite a time period, there's a hell of a difference, and in popular politics, calling for a ceasefire would gain favour with millions in the UK, and maybe quite a lot of the 250k Jewish population in the UK as well.
If Keir Starmer had called for a ceasefire, when every other party and their backers in thee press had stood against it they would have been hammered in the press.
Now we all know the press are mostly right wing, but the public do read these rags and this close to a general election he really needs to stay away from being controversial.
.
Labour knows where its voter base is. So I think this 'revolt' is an engineered situation. Those MP's calling for a ceasefire will appeal to those voters, the leadership sticking to the right of blah blah appeals to the center ground of people who could swing away from tory to vote labour. A gammon will always be a gammon on these issues, so he doesnt want to rock that boat too much.
Im reminded of that line in Braveheart.
"Support it from your lands in the north, while condemning it from your lands in the south"
I think this is a similar scenario.
What if his reasons are based on classified information?
Well based on what happened in the run up to the Iraq War he should do what a previous Labour leader did and say "trust me, I've seen a secret dossier".
It convinced a lot of people.
Ireland Belgium and Spain have all called for a ceasefire and they are EU member states
And France now. Sort of. Things are moving fast. The Israeli government needs to change tactics, even faster.
Fear of being labelled antisemitic as happened to Corbyn
I don’t think so, certainly in the case of not calling for a ceasefire.
I think it’s about being seen as a potential leader, appealing to the centre, and principles.
But work will definitely be happening in the background. The US and others with Israel and Qatar and others with Hamas. This just yesterday:
And France now. Things are moving fast.
Having PM's for countries standing in front of a camera and saying they back a ceasefire isn't the most difficult thing to do, having those countries actually do something other than make empty statements is what is required.
Ireland Belgium and Spain have all called for a ceasefire and they are EU member states
As have France.
My heart goes out to the Israelis affected by the Hamas attack, but the Isreali government is breaking international law in it's response, and our failure to call it out, compared to Russias actions in Ukraine, exposes our hypocrisy.
I understand the strategic reasons for wanting pauses rather than a ceasefire, but there will have to be a ceasefire at some point, we are arguing about timing.
It also needs a grown up somewhere in the room to explain to the hard of thinking that criticising the Israeli government is not being anti-semetic. Starmer has again missed the chance to demonstrate leadership in an attempt to pander to the bottom, instead of raising the debate and informing people.
I agree argee.
I think those dissenting Labour MPs need to have a long hard think about what they’ve done. They are supposed to represent the interests of people in the UK first and foremost
The job of an MP is to represent their constituents in Parliament. Not to kowtow to the orders of the party elite. Starmer has failed to unite the party over this issue, because he instead prefers to stand in support of a murderous far-right wing regime. That's his choice, but he cannot expect others to abandon their principles simply because he has none. He hasn't listened at all to party members or other MPs. A clear sign that he cares for little more than his own greed for power.
I think it’s about being seen as a potential leader, appealing to the centre, and principles.
What principles?
What principles?
You can read his full speech here, but it comes down to not doing anything which would aid a terrorist tyranny to continue its attacks.
”Hamas would be emboldened and start preparing for future violence immediately”
our failure to call it out, compared to Russias actions in Ukraine, exposes our hypocrisy.
Look at the civilian deaths caused by the Russians over a much longer period. Particularly the deaths of children.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293492/ukraine-war-casualties/
but there will have to be a ceasefire at some point, we are arguing about timing.
No, the Israeli's are arguing about how many hostages Hamas are willing to give up, and Hamas are arguing about how long it'll last for. Netanyahu's backed himself into a corner, and I don't think for a minute that it'll be an easy thing to get him to agree ceasefire terms, even if the US are pushing him.
This whole thing sucks.
Sucks for Labour as I believe they'll lose potential votes over this.
Who seriously supports what Isreal are doing? I'm sure the majority of people don't, yet are afraid, like Kier, to call the Israelis out for what they're doing.
This gets banded about every time, but what exactly would label him ‘antisemitic’ by calling for a ceasefire to stop the killing of civilians, Corybn et al were labelled via evidence of antisemitism through an intensive review spanning quite a time period, there’s a hell of a difference, and in popular politics, calling for a ceasefire would gain favour with millions in the UK, and maybe quite a lot of the 250k Jewish population in the UK as well.
Corbyn 'et al' were labelled because of baseless smears, not actual 'evidence'. The failures under Corbyn's leadership to deal effectively with antisemitism were present under previous leaders, yet ignored and not weaponised. Starmer has failed to address antisemitism within the party effectively; nothing has actually changed. What he has done is expel a number of Jewish Labour party members for speaking out against the weaponisation of antisemitism to prevent criticism of the Labour elite's support for the far-right wing Israeli regime. Starmer has also failed to effectively address issues of sexism, racism and Islamophobia within the party. So let's not pretend he's too concerned with stamping out xenophobia. The only thing he really is concerned about, is appealing to the corporate power-brokers of Western Capitalism, which relies on the perpetuation of Western Imperialism through coercion, the undermining of democracy and of course, war. He simply wants to be part of that vision of Western imperialism, a shining white knight of ideological righteousness. Like Blair, he wants his place in history, and is determined to get it, no matter what the political cost.
You can read his full speech here, but it comes down to not doing anything which would aid a terrorist tyranny to continue its attacks.
”Hamas would be emboldened and start preparing for future violence immediately”
This is a line parroted mostly by pro-Israel factions, although some more 'neutral' commentators have voiced concern. Whilst there is of course a huge risk of Hamas not conforming to any Western mandated ceasefire, that would then put Hamas in a difficult position, and lose them support in Palestine. If they become a barrier to the cessation of Palestinian suffering, then they will become pariahs, and not 'freedom fighters' as they want to be seen. Israel would then have a much stronger moral argument for 'defending' itself. And the truth is that the Israeli regime doesn't want a ceasefire; its aims are to destroy Palestine and annex yet more land. So the line about Hamas gaining strength from a ceasefire is very convenient for those who want to continue with war and genocide.
can only assume he's using a focus group of daily fail bots, he's gonna look awfully ****ing stupid when Sunak beats him to the punch! :/
The Israeli government needs to change tactics, even faster.
They'll do nothing of the sort and it doesnt matter if of the 195 countries in the world 193 condemned them. As long as America doesn't, they'll ignore all the rest.
Without moving the USA, nothing will change. Anything UK politicians do and say must keep that in mind.
And the USA have moved... and more will come... hence all the language around "pause" and importantly "humanitarian". The language is chosen carefully to mean, "save the innocent" not "don't go after Hamas".
Personally, I don't think there is anyway to separate the suffering of the innocent and going after Hamas, and so the Israeli government shouldn't go after Hamas... but... after the events in October... that is simply not going to be supported in Israel or the USA.
@brownperson So you disagree with his principles and position, as is your right. I disagree with your assessment and agree with Starmer on this.
I think he shouldn’t have been led by the SNP and called a 3 line whip. Then again, as nickc says, it seems near to forgotten already. The Tories are winning the self-harm war.
@brownperson So you disagree with his principles and position, as is your right. I disagree with your assessment and agree with Starmer on this.
I think you undermine your own position on such matters, when you make statements such as this:
The valid comparison with Russia is Hamas – both kleptocratic dictatorships with a track record of oppression and political assassinations.
You cannot draw comparison with Russia and Hamas, yet ignore the screamingly obvious fact that it is in fact the Israeli regime that has far more in common with the Russian one than Hamas, in this regard. Because by ignoring this, you just appear partisan, and lacking in objectivity. You have to recognise this is you are going to engage in any meaningful debate.
To put it bluntly 10 years of Tory rule has killed many more people in this country than the IDF has in Gaza.
This is an incredibly thoughtless and offensive statement. It may not have been intended as such, but that's how it will be interpreted. To draw equivalence between the neglect and inaction of the UK government, and the active genocide now being carried out at the behest of the Israeli regime, is naive at best, and at worst, downright disgusting. And it definitely doesn't further any meaningful discussion.
Let's face it, many in political leadership positions believe the public regard the Palestinians as being less than entirely human.
And judging by some of the comments on this thread, they may not be that far wrong.
You can't see 5000 children killed in a month and not have a very strong and deep reaction. Unless you don't view these children as being 'real' children.
I'm sure I've acknowledged somewhere on this thread that Starmer can come across as a little stiff, boring and underwhelming personality wise. In fact, yeah, I vaguely recall saying that being boring is a good thing in a politician. And it becomes a positive strength when you see lines like:
he cares for little more than his own greed for power
Er, okay. It's his insatiable greed for moar power is it that drives him is it??: 🙂 . Sorry, most people are just going to smile when they see that. As with, I dunno, Gordon Brown, these folks are not ego-free but the actual motivation is more likely to be some dull notion of public service (which requires at times being an effective politician)
I’m not interested, @brownperson. You get too angry too quickly.
I’m sure I’ve acknowledged somewhere on this thread that Starmer can come across as a little stiff, boring and underwhelming personality wise. In fact, yeah, I vaguely recall saying that being boring is a good thing in a politician.
So he's managed to successfully convey that image to you. Clearly in that respect, he's successful.
Er, okay. It’s his insatiable greed for moar power is it that drives him is it??: 🙂 . Sorry, most people are just going to smile when they see that. As with, I dunno, Gordon Brown, these folks are not ego-free but the actual motivation is more likely to be some dull notion of public service (which requires at times being an effective politician)
I suppose those in denial might 'smile', but increasing numbers of people are starting to see Starmer for what he really is; an elitist wealthy establishment figure who is concerned with little more than gaining power. He may once have had some principles, but he sold those out long ago for the possibility of a place at the big table. I don't see many people 'smiling' about Starmer. As for 'some dull notion of public service'; possibly towards those who will offer him the rewards he seeks. In my experience he only really appeals to affluent middle class liberals, not working class people, disadvantaged minorities or people of colour etc. He's not offering anyone outside of his own socioeconomic demographic anything of substance.
I’m not interested, @brownperson. You get too angry too quickly.
The only thing I'm angry about (in this context) is the genocide we are now witnessing in Gaza, and the blinkered nihilism of Hamas. Instead of trying to ascribe your own connotations of the emotions of others, please try to engage with the (justifiable) criticism of your own words, within this debate. Discourse is possible if we listen to one another, and not just try to score points.
he only really appeals to affluent middle class liberals,
You may be projecting rather a lot? He doesn't need to "appeal", he needs to be an effective leader and politician.
You may be projecting rather a lot? He doesn’t need to “appeal”, he needs to be an effective leader and politician.
I'm 'projecting' nothing. Merely talking about my own experience. As for being an effective leader; doesn't that mean he needs to get all members of his own party on the same page? When a significant number actively rebel against his direct orders, that doesn't strike me as great leadership.
Doctor; heal thyself.
Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Now; did you actually have anything to say?
I'm more than happy to discuss things. What do you want to talk about?
Bike products that you first thought were crap but turned out to be great?
As for being an effective leader; doesn’t that mean he needs to get all members of his own party on the same page?
How many bosses are universally liked or agreed with by their employees?
His job is to deliver an election win, not keep everyone in his party happy. Which is an impossible task.
I’m more than happy to discuss things. What do you want to talk about?
I know a guy who can source under half price assagai 29x2.5WT 3c maxxgrip exo+ TR; minion DHF 29x2.5 3c maxxgrip Exo TR and 29x2.4WT 3c EXO TR. I'm wondering quickly which to get for my occam, for mainly moorland trails and slippy muddy peaty downhill tails off the moor. I'm rubbish with slippy. What would you recommend? I don't have to buy in pairs,
(genuine question, though I have asked for a pair of the minions to be put on one side.) What do you reckon?
Bike products that you first thought were crap but turned out to be great?
Consumer GPS units. I saw colleagues using such, and though they were very much a lifestyle gimmick. But when my wife and I hired bikes in France last year, it was thanks to the GPS units supplied with the bikes, that we were able to follow a route and not get completely lost. It was an area where biking trails weren't marked on any maps, so the GPs units were essential. Interestingly, Israel is a country at the forefront of GPS technology, and Israeli developed tech is incorporated into most mobile devices these days; it it has GPs technology built in, chances are that some of that will have been developed in Israel. Indeed, Israel's position as one of the leading technological nations on Earth, in terms of innovation, development and implementation, makes it globally very important. There are growing fears in Israel currently, that the country's lurch towards the far-right will discourage foreign investment, and see a possible exodus of young people who will seeks such careers elsewhere, in more stable regions. Which is why it is important for Israel to be supported as a nation, as there are many aspects to its endeavours that are of huge benefit to humanity. If the technological industries of Israel can benefit from a greater pool of minds that can be offered by peace, then that is something we have to work towards. So I fully understand political support for Israel as a nation, I just cannot support any legitimisation of the actions of its regime.
I know a guy who can source under half price assagai 29×2.5WT 3c maxxgrip exo+ TR; minion DHF 29×2.5 3c maxxgrip Exo TR and 29×2.4WT 3c EXO TR. I’m wondering quickly which to get for my occam, for mainly moorland trails and slippy muddy peaty downhill tails off the moor. I’m rubbish with slippy. What would you recommend? I don’t have to buy in pairs,
(genuine question, though I have asked for a pair of the minions to be put on one side.) What do you reckon?
I'm afraid I can't really answer that, as I'm not someone who would ride a bicycle in such conditions. I do sometimes ride my bike in London in good weather; it has Schwalbe 'Marathon' tyres for excellent puncture resistance. I suspect Kier Starmer wouldn't know much about the respective merits of different bicycle tyres either, as it doesn't appear he's much of a cyclist, unlike his predecessor.
Consumer GPS units. I saw colleagues using such, and though they were very much a lifestyle gimmick
uh?
I am not a robot [ ]
How many bosses are universally liked or agreed with by their employees?
He is not a 'boss' in that sense, as he is the elected leader of a political party. He was elected on the basis of a series of promises, most of which he has broken.
His job is to deliver an election win, not keep everyone in his party happy. Which is an impossible task.
His job is to represent his constituents, and to lead a party according to the mandate given him by the party members. The humiliating defiance he suffered from many of his own MPs yesterday, revealed his lack of greatness as a leader. He seems to be alienating more and more of the party's members, and the Labour party membership is now significantly smaller than it was under the previous leader. And if he does win the next election, which still seems fairly likely, it will be because of the public dissatisfaction with the tories, not because Kier Starmer is a great leader. I think this is a fact upon which we can all agree.
Speaking of Kier Starmer and cycling; what do people here make of this?<br /><br /> https://road.cc/content/news/witness-starmer-was-making-u-turn-when-he-hit-cyclist-278313
Kier Starmer and cycling; what do people here make of this
What do I think?
1. That's the Daily Mail vote sorted right there.
2. From the links, visiting his tailors and hit a deliveroo? That was when they were trying to pin posh on him, it was apparently a a dry cleaners/alterations shop called "stich and clean"
3. So yeah, people are going to continue to smear Starmer from whatever angle they can to stop Labour winning, including you on this thread.
3. So yeah, people are going to continue to smear Starmer from whatever angle they can to stop Labour winning, including you on this thread.
Actually, most people here (including me) were very positive towards Starmer at first.
He is the one who has been alienating people since he became leader. No one smeared him. They just listened to him.
School children in Tower Hamlets today demonstrating against their Labour MP's refusal to support a ceasefire in Gaza
https://twitter.com/shabbirlakha/status/1725140770661806214?s=48
Oh dear, she's a former student and tutee. Obviously didn't quite hit the mark.
3. So yeah, people are going to continue to smear Starmer from whatever angle they can to stop Labour winning, including you on this thread.
Smear?
Or maybe just reasonable reaction to a leader that can't stay on the correct side of anything remotely progressive or even pragmatic.
You might forget but we are entitled to vote however we want. And personally, I'm not voting for Conservatism whichever brand Centrists make excuses for.
BTW Starmer has had an easy ride and not suffered 1% of smear comparatively speaking
Right now I’d say his main job is to stop his party capturing defeat from the jaws of victory ,
He needs to improve his leadership, then. Why on earth he chose to pick this fight with his own party is utterly beyond me.
I speak as a member who voted for him.
Why on earth he chose to pick this fight with his own party is utterly beyond me.
Have you been on a desert island for the last 3 years? All he has ever done is pick fights with his party. He's got rid of all the socialists, now he's gunning for the muslims. Pretty soon all that will be left will be a bunch of white middle class lawyers and PR people and their afro-caribbean apologists like Lammy.