Forum menu
“If only this guy was in charge.”
I find labour just come across as trying to score political points – Corbyn did it – and now Starmer seems to do from what I’ve seen.
You do realise they're politicians don't you? Like Boris and his mates, or any other politician for that matter, haven't tried to 'score political points'?
or saying we need to spend more when we have a deficit rapidly going the wrong way.
Economically illiterate as well as politically illiterate, you're not doing well here.
I voted Lib Dem
It all becomes clear.
^^^^
Careful, daz. You'll be sticking up for Starmer next...
The only annoying thing about it is that now he has laid out what is the correct way forward, the typical response of this government is to double down and ignore this option even longer, simply because it will look like they have caved to the opposition.
BBC article 'senior government source' says 'Starmer is shameless opportunist'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54528807
**** me Cummings accusing Starmer of opportunism... 😂
The only annoying thing about it is that now he has laid out what is the correct way forward, the typical response of this government is to double down and ignore this option even longer, simply because it will look like they have caved to the opposition.
If you rely on 'image' and 'style' over substance then this really is the logical course of action.
Johnson and his ilk have no actual substance whatsoever. Just bluff, bluster and bullshit whilst they enable their mates to make the heist of a lifetime. Then it's off into the sunset.
And 'we' voted for it.
F***'s sake.
**** me Cummings accusing Starmer of opportunism…
Post-truth = post-shame.
Nothing should be surprising about all this.
I’m not wild about Starmer but how can you say he doesn’t look a better option, by a country mile? I really don’t get it. A highly successful and principled lawyer/DPP vs a reckless/****less ‘journalist’ chancer sacked for lying on more than one occasion.
Don't forget conspiring to get a reporter assaulted, openly racist, known to have had the odd affair and can't even tell people how many kids hes got. We can also throw in appointing a homophobic misogynist as a trade negotiator if you want too. i mean he sounds like a right top bloke just who i want running this country /sarcasm
As far as I can see, Starmer is quite happy to support the things the govt do/propose that make sense, and call them out on all their crap decisions and incompetence. Hardly his fault that there’s been far more of the latter than the former.
And I don’t get why people want to know what his policies on this, that and the other are right now. It’s about as relevant as what my policies are, neither of us can implement them. In 4 years time circumstances will be very different and his policies to deal with whatever they are will be relevant at that point. If he doesn’t have any by then he can be rightly criticised for it.
**** me Cummings accusing Starmer of opportunism… 😂
And in the Guardian article Johnson is quoted as telling the 1922 Committee that Starmer is careering about like a broken shopping trolley. I thought for a moment it was a Guardian typo.
Careful, daz. You’ll be sticking up for Starmer next…
As someone who voted for him in the leadership election that shouldn't be entirely surprising. I actually think it's a political masterstroke, in one action he has put himself on the right side of the covid debate (not that he was ever on the wrong side), shown his party that he's up for a fight with Boris rather than agreeing with him, and has demonstrated that he's willing to take bold and responsible action in a crisis, even though it may make him unpopular in some quarters, showing leadership where currently there is very little. Very, very, well played I'd say.
Very, very, well played I’d say.
Some more wonderful analysis on the thread that just keeps on giving.
Politics is bascially like Top Gear, I think we're all agreed on that now.
The idea that Sir Keir Starmer, Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath, should be banging on about ways to improve people's lives is quite frankly infantile.
Policies are best left until a few weeks before an election. In the meantime, we have four more years to contribute hilarious banter and brilliant analysis to this glorious threat.
Bravo chaps!!! Let's get it to 100.
Very, very, well played I’d say.
I agree with Dazh.
I should stop calling Starmer boring now, shouldn’t I? Sorry.
He’s serious, and in the current situation, that’s clearly what is needed.
MoreCashThanDash
Full Member
Brilliant press conference by Starmer.
Pretty much what I thought.
Just wish the next general election was a few years sooner. Ah well.
Best the Tories own this (and Brexit) **** storm anyway.
Premier Icon
dazh
Full MemberI find labour just come across as trying to score political points – Corbyn did it – and now Starmer seems to do from what I’ve seen.
You do realise they’re politicians don’t you? Like Boris and his mates, or any other politician for that matter, haven’t tried to ‘score political points’?
or saying we need to spend more when we have a deficit rapidly going the wrong way.
Economically illiterate as well as politically illiterate, you’re not doing well here.
I voted Lib Dem
It all becomes clear.
Ah, an arrogant labour member (no pun intended) who thinks the pot of money is endless and we should just spend spend spend.
I’ve already changed who I’ve voted for in the last election in the hope of avoiding the 2 biggest traditional parties, both who I’m not keen to see in power right now. That said the Brexit disaster is looming and no-one could save us from that cock up now really.
Starmer backing scientists over Johnsons indecesions is common sense 😜
Careful, daz. You’ll be sticking up for Starmer next…
It's possible to support Starmer, with reservations, whilst also believing that Corbyn is not the devil incarnate.
should be banging on about ways to improve people’s lives is quite frankly infantile
He has been. You must have been asleep. Labour have been strong on calling for the necessary ongoing support for workers in closed sectors, those isolating for TTI reasons, and the vulnerable. How the government does or doesn’t step up to the plate and use government spending to save jobs, maintain incomes and keep people safe, is the biggest political question right now… but is also about a longer term question… what is government for? To improve the lives of all? Or not?
He has been. You must have been asleep.
You've just repeated it and I still haven't got a clue.
joebristol
Full MemberAh, an arrogant labour member (no pun intended) who thinks the pot of money is endless and we should just spend spend spend.
Nobody thinks it's endless. The question is just how much you use.The tories do shake the magic money tree too, they just try and hide the fact, and throw it around as an insult against Labour despite doing it themselves.
Right now, borrowing and printing money are basically the two things that can get us through the pandemic without completely and I mean completely ****ing the country. There are entire sectors dying, sectors that in every other year make money. The risk of huge unemployment grows daily, which leads to crashes in spending and large scale lending default, which is a vicious circle. Rishi Sunak knows that very well, because it's the tool he's already used to good effect to get us this far. It's also the tool that got us through the financial crisis. Unlike most chancellors, he's a genuine economist, he understands the levers.
The problem is, he can't admit it- because his party is against public spending and uses fake arguments about "balancing the books" to support that.
If he was to admit that actually, inflation is low and borrowing rates are low and that we can and should use both far more, then they know they'll never be able to stop, and never be able to do austerity again, or justify cuts and fire sales with "balancing the books". The lever he should be pressing, has an "out of service" sign on it purely because they know that when they push it, voters will be upset.
The problem here is entirely political and entirely Tory. They've painted themselves into a corner where they've spent years lying to convince the public that the best tools they have, don't work. Now they desperately need to use those tools, and literally the only reason not to is because of that lie.
Yes printing money causes inflation. CPI is 0.2%, literally 1/10th of the government's target, and has been well below that target on average for the last 5 years. Economists have spent a lot of the last few years worrying about all the mad shit that happens if you flip into deflation for any length of time- we're within inches of that again. And you think we can't print some money?
(Also, remember that inflation is only really a problem when it outstrips earnings. Tories like to keep earnings low, so they also have to keep inflation low. But in the depression that we're probably about to have, earnings fall, so no amount of keeping inflation low, will keep inflation on the same level as earnings. The only way for low inflation to still work for the country, is to keep earnings high- basically with things like bailouts, stimulus, UBI, furlough, civil works projects, etc.)
Borrowing? The bond yield rate is 0.234%. If you can't borrow money at .234% and use it to make more money than it costs, you shouldn't be running a corner shop. Any chancellor that actually believed that, equally couldn't be trusted with tax revenues, because they're admitting they just don't know where to spend money at all. Of course, Rishi Sunak doesn't believe it, nor does any tory with half a brain. He just doesn't like the reality.
Which is, he has to borrow. He has to print money. He has to increase public sector spending and probably benefits. Nothing else will work. But also, he can't, because of the self-harming and country-harming politics of the tory party.
Forgive me - I'm not a political big-hitter but I am a healthcare worker who's pretty ****ing cross:
cheddarchallenged
Full MemberIf I’ve got this right, Captain Hindsight:
<YAWN> - straight outta facebook ??
– has criticised the government for both following and not following the science
Not sure what you mean? It's pretty clear that the govt delayed following "the science" in March. ALthough they eventually did it, lockdown was too late and things like pub closures telegraphed (pun intended) by Boris several days in advance, leading direclty to mass piss-ups/infection events just before lockdown.
That indecision (or bloody-mindedness) likely cost huge numbers of lives, billions to the economy and many extra weeks of collective misery for people across the nation
– wants a national lockdown because that’s following the science – even though the WHO have warned against this approach only this week
You really can't take this one aspect of a series of comments from WHO in isolation. For a start they were clearly talking about prolonged lockdown rather than a fire-break (personally, I don't think it's a great option but may just be good signalling to the nation's self-possessed virus-denying arses in areas outside the current plague-villages that the summer fun is over for us all). They also said that GOOD distancing, hygiene, mask-wearing and effective test/tracing systems were essential. Hands up who thinks UK's got those covered.
– has criticised the government for not consulting the regions and tailoring the plans – but is now proposing a top down national lockdown with no advance consultation with those same regions
As above, "couple of weeks" to reset things (including attitudes in particular) isn't the same thing at all
– has criticised the government for not protecting jobs but now proposes to shut down all areas of the economy even in the areas where the rate of transmission is under control.
It's that "couple of weeks" again
And also hasn’t got a clue how much this will cost.
WHo cares ? How much will NOT doing it cost ? Last time it was MASSIVE, monetarily and in human terms
Also, you don't have to know how much it costs, to know it's a good idea. I don't know how much finishing the rustproofing on my car is going to cost, but I know it's a good idea because it's cheaper than having my car dissolve and having to get a new one. It's that sort of thing- saving an economy is always going to be cheaper than going without one for a few years and then trying to build another one, which seems to be the Tory plan.
who thinks the pot of money is endless and we should just spend spend spend.
Hate to correct you but as a nation we create our own money, by definition the pot is endless. What's not endless though is our ability to spend it. As Northwind alludes to above, the main limitation on how much we can spend is the productive capacity of the economy, as indicated by the rate of inflation. Currently inflation is very low and in danger of going negative. In that scenario the govt can print and spend as much as it likes. The pertinent question is not how much, but why not?
Starmer backing scientists over Johnsons indecesions is common sense
The other masterstroke of Starmer's call for a short lockdown is that it's almost certainly going to be necessary anyway. The optics of Boris doing another u-turn and implementing what Starmer demands is going to be one of the most stunning political victories of recent times. When people ask (as I have many times) what successful opposition is, I can't think of a better example.
But it won’t “reset” things will it?
We know that because the last 3 week lockdown ran to 3 months. So we have another lockdown, the numbers don’t come down and then what, we do another 3 weeks? And another? We can easily add another 1/2m job losses to the pile and we would have another 7 months of winter to get through.
The other reason we know the lockdown would be disastrous is because Labour told us so. In fact, they told us so only 2 hours before Kier said we needed a lockdown when John Ashworth (shadow health Secretary) said the following in a House of Commons debate this afternoon:
“ But we also know that a full national lockdown stretching for weeks and weeks, like we had through April, with a rule, effectively, of one-household contact—a rule of one, indeed, for some people—would be disastrous for society. Again, I do not believe that anyone in the House is proposing that.” (See Hansard today). Quite incredibly the Labour Shadow Health Secretary and his own Party Leader said completely opposite things.
So forgive me, Labour have in the space of 2 hours told us that to not have a lockdown would be a disaster and having one would also be a disaster. There’s covering all bases and ... covering all bases.
And given the police have made it clear they are not willing to enforce the law it’s unlikely most people would comply any more than they did in April which in this part of the country was not very much.
This is like being on ****ing Facebook again.
So forgive me, Labour have in the space of 2 hours told us that to not have a lockdown would be a disaster and having one would also be a disaster.
Short ‘lock down’ ASAP… or we’ll be forced to have a long ‘lock down’ later. That’s the choice in front of us. Or perhaps, sadly, just behind us. Act now, or pay later. Johnson should have acted a week ago, if not before. By calling for him to get on with it, the lateness of action, and the cost of delay, is hung around Johnson’s neck. It is also a call for England to act as one, for us all to be in this together… in many seats in the North, that Labour have recently lost, the feeling that Johnson has abandoned them (already) is growing… and some nationwide action would be welcomed by many people there that feel unfairly singled out right now.
We know that because the last 3 week lockdown ran to 3 months. So we have another lockdown, the numbers don’t come down and then what, we do another 3 weeks? And another?
Actually cheddar your wrong on that
The last lockdown took as long as it did because the R number was so high (about 3) and we got it down to 0.5 (at that point a functioning test & trace system should be able to step in & help keep it surpressed)
R is about 1-1.5 now which should take about 3 weeks (it wouldve taken less than 2 when SAGE suggested it
Which is why both ainsworths comments on a long lockdown & starmers on a short one are right
The longer Johnson dithers & delays the longer the next lockdown will have to be
And
Starmer asked to see evidence that backs up rule of 6 & 10pm Curfew, we now know that there was none for that
It's about time the opposition leader woke up and offered some leadership and opposition to this absolute disaster of a government.
He's doing the right thing now.
But it is not like the government have only just started to make their errors.
They've been wrong, morally and scientifically, from the start.
He is tarred with eight months of support for this Johnson government, to keep his head down, play the long game.
Wonder how many lives could have been saved with effective opposition earlier?
None. Johnson has a 80 seat majority and has no inclination to listen to anyone outside his cabal.
Marcus Rashford stood up and made a difference.
Forced a change of direction, a U-turn.
Part of that cabal?
Rashford did a great job. And was backed by the Labour front bench. More moments like that would be very welcome. They need wider support than just Labour politicians though… or otherwise people will just moan about Starmer “playing politics”.
What I find interesting, is that the “mainstream media” reported Starmer praising and supporting Rashford as a positive thing, but all the increasingly whinny left wing campaigning media (I’m left wing, but these outlets are increasingly becoming an embarrassment) used it to hammer Starmer as a failure.
The problem here is entirely political and entirely Tory. They’ve painted themselves into a corner where they’ve spent years lying to convince the public that the best tools they have, don’t work. Now they desperately need to use those tools, and literally the only reason not to is because of that lie.
I've not seen the situation expressed so succinctly and accurately as that. Brilliant work.
Quite incredibly the Labour Shadow Health Secretary and his own Party Leader said completely opposite things.
Quite credibly you're talking utter mince. If this is the level of argument you can come up with (making stuff up) no wonder we have this government - we get the politicians we deserve.
The problem here is entirely political and entirely Tory. They’ve painted themselves into a corner where they’ve spent years lying to convince the public that the best tools they have, don’t work. Now they desperately need to use those tools, and literally the only reason not to is because of that lie.
Indeed. The Tory's are prisoners of the ideology and dogma they've been parroting for years. The mantra of private = good, public = bad. Centralised control = good, devolved decisions = bad
Take test and trace is the prime example. When every single countries experience, all evidence, and every experts advice told us that to be effective T&T should be localised and in the hands of public sector regional health authorities.
Could they do that? NEVER!!!
Because that would go against everything they believe in. It must instead be handed to the private sector who will set up a centralised system and the decision making process devolved to management consultants from the golden city on the hill.
And look where its got us?
At some point, if we're ever to get out of this situation, the present system will have to be abandoned in favour of a regional public sector approach
But they just can't bring themselves to do it. No matter how many die as the economy collapses with a system that has utterly failed, they still desperately cling on to their utterly discredited neoliberal dogma.
I expect that PMQ's will be a bit lively today.
I'm predicting Johnson completely losing it by Starmers second question and starting shouting about being an IRA sympathiser and other such irrelevant nonsense in a desperate attempt at deflection
Starmers presser yesterday gets him overwhelmingly good press coverage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-54533339
He has also backed Johnson into a corner. Note the Express saying " short sharp lockdown on the cards" So now Johnson is damned if he does and damned if he does not
I expect that PMQ’s will be a bit lively today.
Oh yes. Lovin it, lovin it, lovin it.
Sir Keir Starmer KCB has been literally smashing it out the park recently.
Guys, lets get a play-by-play going for this one.
Perhaps a fat boy response bingo card:
Remainer
Lefty lawyer
Sniping from the sidelines
Lurching around like a Shopping trolley with busted wheels
Does he support the government or not which is it Mr speaker?
The right honourable gentleman is showing all the indecision his predecessor showed on BREXIT
Does this London based lawyer even know where the North is?
In this world class country we prize FREEDOM above the timid vicissitudes of blah blah blah Brittania rules the waves
Non est factum
Caveat emptor, wibble wobble, mange tout mange tout
I can't be the only one in thinking that a short-sharp-lockdown over half-term will just lead to hoards of people with ****-all to do bolting to the tourist hot-spots in their area!!?
I can’t be the only one in thinking that a short-sharp-lockdown over half-term will just lead to hoards of people with ****-all to do bolting to the tourist hot-spots in their area!!?
Depends if the government thought it through and restricted movement to prevent that, as they did in Wales
Depends if the government thought it through and restricted movement to prevent that, as they did in Wales
The devolved government in Wales are trying to impose travel restrictions because they know that the entire population of Liverpool will be heading their way at the weekend for one almighty piss up
I'm waiting for the next natural progression which shifts the whole of West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, and Lancs into Tier 3, making my town in North Yorkshire the only one in easy reach which still has the pubs open...
Joined up thinking is not a feature of this government.
I’m waiting for the next natural progression which shifts the whole of West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, and Lancs into Tier 3
I doubt you'll need to wait long. The Mexican stand off between central government and 'The North' can't hold for much longer. I'll be amazed if it lasts past today. We're expecting to be Tier 3 at any moment
A short sharp lockdown will do bugger all unless the uni students are sent home and schools close. & I'm not sure its the right thing to do politically either. "The people of this country don't want another lockdown! The Labour Party want one but I know the people of the country can get us through this without a lockdown blah blah" Its a bit like the brexit debate...
Finally the PPE procurement scandal has crept into MSM! Both FT and Daily Telegraph had something iirc.
actually polls seem to show that the public are behind greater restrictions ( we never had lockdown) so long as proper compensation is paid
Will he spare a question for the "lefty do-gooder lawyers" nonsense today? I hope so...
tjagain
Full Member
actually polls seem to show that the public are behind greater restrictions ( we never had lockdown) so long as proper compensation is paid
& this (compensation) is a massive hole in Tory policy. There are loads of gaps really! Hopefully this is the start of Starmer puling them apart.
A short sharp lockdown will do bugger all unless the uni students are sent home and schools close.
A ‘lockdown’ (no one is actually proposing an actual lockdown, but hey) would more likely to mean Uni students students staying put, no? A longer/shifted half term for schools would have to be part of it though, for sure.
Edit: we’re crossing the threads/streams now, aren’t we
The Welsh Assembly have basically stated today that if Westminster don't carry out a short lockdown then Wales will have one all of it's own regardless.
"someone who has been an opportunist all his life" - BOOM
I noticed BJ has just let something slip. He said that the regional approach will work ‘if implemented properly’. In other words, it’s up to the labour councils to sort this s**t out, we’re just giving them the cash to do it. He can’t lose in that scenario – at least until next election time. Very deliberate to drop that in, and horribly cynical.
All the news bulletins leading with the Starmer demanding a national approach, and Boris wanting to keep it regional. In other words, Boris wants to protect the south east from lockdown caused by those unruly northerners, whilst Starmer thinks the whole country should act together in the collective national interest. I'd say that's job done.
Good to see Starmer taking the gloves off with pointed - but factually correct -comments/insults about johnson.
By contrast, johnson's comments about Starmer are nothing more than playground insults with no basis in fact.
Smiled at the first question after Starmer's block of six when johnson was described as '...an experienced father...' by a tory MP.
Yet again, johnson scores nul points.
Each PMQs is more embarrassing for johnson than the previous one.
Did you hear the Radio4 news? It was replays of Johnson’s comments, without Starmer’s. Luckily I’d listened to the whole thing… and your assessment is spot on Frank… most won’t hear that though. Let’s hope their editing has improved by the time of the evening TV news…
Don't you just love to see it.
Absolutely wonderful scenes today. Well done Sir Kee Kee.
I'm still on a high tbh.
Another total blinder and BoJo was literally KO'd by the brilliance of the K dog's bodyslams.
Didn't seem that way to me. Boris gave as good as he got.
Zero bodyslams! Should have pulled him up on comparing Cornwall to Liverpool ffs. & Boris can forever more say Labour want a damaging lockdown. Boris will be happy
I don't think copa was being entirely serious. And it's not about "bodyslams", it's about making people reconsider, over the next four or so years, which party should be running the country.
cheddarchallenged
Full MemberBut it won’t “reset” things will it?
We know that because the last 3 week lockdown ran to 3 months.
Nah, that's a bit of a false assumption. For one thing, the first lockdown was weak as piss and we didn't exactly know what was important and what wasn't. If you want a real short term suppression effect, you do it properly- forewarn so that people can lay in food, shut everything down that you can possibly shut down.
I don't think we could have done that first time- I think the floppiness of our lockdown was a massive mistake, but that doesn't mean we could have gone full beans. But with a good plan (HAH) and good communications (HAH) and good leadership (you guessed it, HAH), a proper full smash is possible. Not even possible, but not that hard a sell. "Hey kids, do you want to carry on like this forever? Well, if not there are two options. Just go back to normal tomorrow, and loads of people die. Or, we all buy loads of beans and stay in the house for all of November, and then we can return to the world and be much closer to normal, albeit fat and with massive right arms"
Because "let's just keep doing this" absolutely sucks. And "let's just crack on" is even worse.
If Labour want to win the next election they have to convince the country that they are the safe hands with the economy.
They need to a) make people trust them (so far so good Starmer) and b) make people not trust the Tories - SO much ammo at the moment, all being completely ignored by SKS.
Re Northwinds post. SKS last question was nearly there. He said something like "These regional measures don't go far enough"
And it’s not about “bodyslams”, it’s about making people reconsider, over the next four or so years, which party should be running the country.
A lot of people like 'bodyslams' and assume that is all politics is about. See also: Brexit.
Oh give over - Keir needs to cut through. He needs bodyslams. So much material at the mo!
Not even including the easy below the belt shots. eg "Experienced Father"
ctk - Starmer is doing exactly that and the "experienced father" was not Starmer!
I know- it was an onside Tory! That's how easy it is.
Little sly jokes are my preference over bodyslams, Milliband was good "I know he's got a lot on his plate".
Experienced father is hilarious I hope it sticks.
Nah... petty jokes about his serial infidelity are ineffective... making it clear that he isn't up to the job of being PM is where the "jokes" should land.
They are linked Kelvin
Someone else brought up Rashford, so I’m using that as an excuse to drop this here…
https://twitter.com/marcusrashford/status/1316618607703535618?s=21
Eight resignations - no comments?
Still going on about PMQs?
Yeah will be good to see the back of them I bet. By the end of year the PLP will be nothing more than a Lib dem alternative.
I'll bite, Starmer has really jumped the shark here. It's really not the kind of legislation the Labour Party should be supporting and I think he's just trying not to look too 'difficult' and obviously 'lefty' during a time of crisis, but actually it's a bit pathetic. Not impressed.
I see it thru the lens of the politics game. He has seen how " being soft on terrorists" was a label that stuck to Corbyn and wants to avoid the same trap.
I am not convinced he is right but I think thats his reasoning. Every action has to be considered thru the lens of the right wing press and he must avoid giving them any ammo. By abstaining he is neither opposing it thus takes the RW press attack line away but neither is he supporting it.
Resignations over it are utterly stupid and self defeating tho. It matters not how labour votes in terms of the bill passing
It's a bad law. Not automatically a bad concept- officers and other operatives do sometimes need to commit an offence, like supplying drugs as a classic example. But this law lacks meaningful oversight and approvals, and has a near total lack of limits. One of the occasions where the bill allows officers to break the law is, I'm not making this up, when it's "in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom". Another is to "prevent disorder", with no clear definition of what disorder is- a political protest? Someone chaining themselves to a tree?
And while they want to claim it's about protecting undercover police officers, it includes the Food Standards Agency, the Environmental Agency, and the Competition and Markets Authority, with no greater restraint or oversight than say an antiterrorism officer. We get why a police intelligence source might have to commit a really serious crime, when they're dealing with the most serious of crimes- but why does the CMA need the same?
And then there's the authorisations- it doesn't go to a judge, or even to a senior officer outside of the operation, offences can be authorised by the person in charge of the case, who if I understand it right is themself also in the process grants themselves immunity from prosecution. Apart from everything else, that means that it'd be easier to get authorisation to commit a crime than it would be to get a wire tap order or a search warrant.
"Guv, we need a search warrant" "Nah, I need to fill in forms and stuff for that and they expect us to make a good case for it; under the Cops Do What They Want Act 2020 I authorise you to break and enter and to steal documents from that house"
It doesn't seem a hard call, this- especially with Starmer's background. "We can't support this, not because of the concept but because it's just really terrible work. It's a job that needs doing, and that you've known needs doing for years, and that means it needs doing properly and that there's no excuse for trying to ram it through. The police need protecting but so do the public, ask Baroness Lawrence OBE. If you don't take it away and fix it, make it at least not terrible, then we can't stop you from passing it but everyone will know it's entirely on you. And that if you'd worked with us, we'd have a better law, officers would be in a better position, and so would the public but you just couldn't be bothered" That sort of thing.
Right now he's said "we can support this as long as there's amendments", and it looks like it's going to be smashed through without those amendments and he'll support it regardless, which is Milibandishly weak. And some of those amendments are such leftist madness as "probably policemen shouldn't be raping people, amiright?" and "maybe the person who authorises the crime shouldn't simultaneously be granting themselves immunity against any legal response, maybe at least their boss ought to have to rubber stamp it"
Am I missing something?
By abstaining he is neither opposing it thus takes the RW press attack line away but neither is he supporting it.
Which just makes him look spineless and lacking in principles.
grum
Free MemberWhich just makes him look spineless and lacking in principles.
True, but then what does "we'll support it with amendments" then supporting it with no amendments do?
We could be proved wrong but for me, this is his first really big, headline mistake. I'm unhappy about the coronavirus line he's taken but I do understand it, and it's a long and nuanced thing. This one isn't.
Equally, i could be wrong and it might look like a big mistake in the short term, but turn out to have good political benefits- both being Tough On Crime and also shaking off a bunch of the lefties that he only really took on to show "healing". And if that's what happens, then that's probably doubly good since if he's engineered that then he's a bit more cynical and a bit nastier than I thought he was, and that's necessary.
By abstaining he is not supporting it!
By abstaining he is neither opposing it thus takes the RW press attack line away but neither is he supporting it.
Ah yes when in doubt dont challenge the rabid right press.
FFS the bowing down to the rabid right press is how we ended up in the current mess.
Resignations over it are utterly stupid and self defeating tho. It matters not how labour votes in terms of the bill passing
Yes heaven forbid that politicians actually do their jobs and vote against bad laws. Best they just phone up Murdoch and ask for permissions to abstain instead.
its that voting against will do nothing at all
Fortunately for Starmer with everything else dominating the news cycle this will gain little traction. He is already under attack from Patel for " being soft on terror" just for abstaining
I do think this one was a no win situation but I'd rather those who voted agaist had held their noses and abstained. voting against is mere virtue signalling. It has no effect other than damaging Starmer
I strongly suspect that he sees some merit in the proposed legislation, or at least in the requirements that have been the instigation for them. I don’t… but then he has more experience in this particular area than every person who’s ever posted on this forum… ever. It would be interesting to hear an honest and straight forward (non-political) assessment of this stuff from him… but he’s not a backbencher… we’re not going to get that from him.
This sums up the left of the labour party perfectly.
Getting themselves worked up into a frenzy, having hissy fits, resignations etc over a piece of legislation that pretty much nobody outside the Corbynite Twitter groups has heard of
I don't know if you noticed or not but we're in the middle of a global pandemic, today is the cut-off date for a no-deal Brexit, the countries economy is heading for collapse, with the people that labour are meant to represent being clobbered the hardest, the government is in conflict with northern councils in open revolt and what are 'the left' wanging on about?
Nothing of any relevance to 99.99999999% of people lives, that's for sure
Absolutely typical!
This sums up the left of the labour party perfectly.
The only thing it demonstrates is that some members of parliament have principles and morals which they're not prepared to compromise in order to further their career. That's something to celebrate in my book, because pretty much every problem that exists in our society is the result of policy created by people who would sell their own grannies in order to get a step up the greasy pole. We need more politicians who are prepared to stand up for their principles, not less.