Forum menu
But as ever, you are super selective to keep ramming home the same points, over and over, ‘till all the wise people just avoid this thread.
Jesus you can't avoid getting personal can you, especially when you have a weak argument.
But surely you ramming the same points over and over again has all those wise people rushing to the thread?
The difference between this thread and the Boris Johnson thread is that on the Boris Johnson thread it's great to slag off the subject matter and it has people queuing up to do precisely that.
On this thread it is considered by many, including obviously you, to be totally unacceptable to slag off the subject matter.
Which of course leaves only one option, which is to post what a great guy Starmer is and what a wonderful job he's doing as Leader of the Opposition.
Which under the present situation in which even senior Labour politicians are starting to express their dissatisfaction with Starmer's leadership, has its obvious limitations.
Without criticism of Starmer this thread would be reduced to the tumble weed scenario.
You've got to take the positives, I think he does a good job of promoting Blue Harbour.
Loving Starmer calling Johnson Jabba the Hut, more of this please.
That means nothing to me, never saw any of those films. Ken Loach would've been a better choice but...
Why go in for name-calling when he should be attacking on policy. It's not a comedy, people's lives are being upended here.
I dont think Starmer should be making jokes, he doesnt have the delivery to make them work and it's obviously a poor attempt to make him seem cuddly. He should concentrate on presenting the facts and presenting alternatives. It might be boring, but it's honest. The press/people who care more about personality arent goiung to change their mind anyway,
I’ll take Starmer over Johnson in a heartbeat, and that is the choice right now.
The only point I'm personally concerned with - Starmer is simply not very good and hasn't made much of a dent so it doesn't look like you're going to get Starmer.
His performance hasn't yielded satisfactory gains.
So why do we always reset to Starmer is better than Johnson - a clam is better than Johnson but it's not going to get elected.
Labour supporters really do need to have better aspirations.
yeah but the insulting 15 second sound bites are what goes round soical media and the more chances he can to take the P out of jabba the better. Insults shame johnson and he's in need of a good dose of public shaming.
Insults shame johnson and he’s in need of a good dose of public shaming.
Do that - fine - but offer something better in the process.
Truth? Not something often associated with Blair.
Sure, but I think that came later, and with very good reason. It's a long time ago but I don't particularly remember him being thought of as dishonest in the earlier part of his leadership.
The difference between this thread and the Boris Johnson thread is that on the Boris Johnson thread it’s great to slag off the subject matter and it has people queuing up to do precisely that.
On this thread it is considered by many, including obviously you, to be totally unacceptable to slag off the subject matter.
Which of course leaves only one option, which is to post what a great guy Starmer is and what a wonderful job he’s doing as Leader of the Opposition
yeah the Johnson thread is never called toxic. Because it's an easy game that one.
I hold the leader of the Labour party to a higher standard than the Tories - so I'm likely more disappointed and critical with the party that could actually change things, and one that I would like to vote for.
It’s a long time ago but I don’t particularly remember him being thought of as dishonest in the earlier part of his leadership.
He wasn't but what he did offer and sold very well was something better for people. And I would say under his government it was better for people generally (don't mention the war)
I’ll take Starmer over Johnson in a heartbeat, and that is the choice right now.
Starmer will be a disastrous PM. He'll govern with a restrained technocratic managerialist approach which will do nothing to help working people and further entrench neoliberalism, and in the process will destroy labour as an electoral force in England. This will not only hand perpetual power to the tories, but will also embolden and empower future populists like Farage and Johnson. If you have any hope for a future in this country which includes publicly provided services, a functioning welfare state, and worker protections which prevent us becoming wage slaves then Starmer is a very scary prospect.
Unless of course those who say 'wait til they get in power, then they can do good stuff' are right and Starmer is keeping his powder dry waiting for his opportunity to unleash radically progressive policies which will roll back 40 years of neoliberalism. I suppose that's possible, but seriously, does anyone really think that's going to happen?
does anyone really think that’s going to happen?
What's your purpose here dazh? (I know I know, your goal in posting is personal entertainment because it's the internet and nothing you say matters, but still...) You look at what the Tories are doing right now on every front and you think in comparison Starmer would be a disaster?
So let's undermine him, or just do this anyway because that's what the evil centerists did to St Corbyn (who I voted for) because, because... er, that'll show everyone?
Really? I'd like to see Starmer be PM, very much so in fact, because he'll be decent and competent and make things fairer and better for most people.
He wasn’t but what he did offer and sold very well was something better for people. And I would say under his government it was better for people generally (don’t mention the war)
He could've been an excellent Prime Minister - there were some serious accomplishments during Labour's first term.
Really? I’d like to see Starmer be PM, very much so in fact, because he’ll be decent and competent and make things fairer and better for most people.
Why do you think that?
Unless of course those who say ‘wait til they get in power, then they can do good stuff’ are right and Starmer is keeping his powder dry waiting for his opportunity to unleash radically progressive policies which will roll back 40 years of neoliberalism.
The idea that Starmer is some sort of closet social democrat committed to a mixed economy and universal welfare state, and is simply waiting to secure power to announce his real aims and radical policies, suggests that those who subscribe to such a scenario consider Starmer to be extraordinarily dishonest and that he has a desire to deliberately mislead people.
Which when considering the criticisms of Johnson is a bizarre argument for anyone who supports Starmer to make.
The reality is that should Starmer ever become PM he will almost certainly swing to the right - that's what generally happens, not to the left.
I fear that we are currently seeing Starmer the opposition leader at his most radical. And he has been swinging further and further to the right since becoming leader.
An awful lot hinges on Durham police (again)
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1537540779245436929
What’s your purpose here dazh?
Work avoidance and general procrastination. Isn't that what this place is for? 😕
Really? I’d like to see Starmer be PM, very much so in fact, because he’ll be decent and competent and make things fairer and better for most people.
The evidence of his leadership to date suggests he'll be the very opposite of decent and competent. He lied to the membership to win the leadership. He's conducted a ruthless witch hunt to silence and remove left wing voices from the party, and has completely failed to communicate to voters what he will do if in power. And on the competency front, christ, he couldn't even sack his deputy when he wanted to and has let Johnson off the hook on covid even after nearly 200k people have died and he partied through the lockdowns. He's a dud, and everyone, including his shadow cabinet knows it.
I was inspired by Corbyn, joined the Labour Party during his tenure, voted for him on every occasion, and identified with most of his policies. The guy didn't break through to enough of the electorate though, he wasn't ruthless enough to get a grip on the right of his party, and he wasn't media savvy. Realistically he didn't have a chance.
However, is the choice between Blo-jo and Starmer really that tough though?
My own politics are socialist / centre left, but give me centre right, neoliberal policies over swivel-eyed-loon-gammon-Brexiter-BNP-lite any day.
If we don't get behind what we have to work with, then there really is no hope.
He wasn’t but what he did offer and sold very well was something better for people.
Even in the early part he was PR sound bite driven which helped promote the culture we ended up with.
His doubling down on the tories policies also helped reinforce the idea that they were the only option and also gave the "well they are all the same" a boost.
If we don’t get behind what we have to work with, then there really is no hope.
There's absolutely nothing to get behind. The only real hope is that Durham police do us all a favour and force him to resign.
There’s absolutely nothing to get behind
This. He reneged on his leadership manifesto and has offered nothing in its place. I have absolutely no idea what he stands for, but do know that he lied in order to secure votes.
^^^^^^
A politician who lies. That's settled it for me then. Might as well vote for Boris, or the Lib Dems or Greens (which means a Boris win by proxy). I see the light!
has let Johnson off the hook on covid even after nearly 200k people have died
How would you rate this country's performance on COVID deaths relative to the rest of Europe?
How would you rate this country’s performance on COVID deaths relative to the rest of Europe?
Are you defending Johnson's record on covid?
The covid issue is a good bellweather of Starmer's competence though. He somehow allowed the tories to paint him as 'captain hindsight', 'captain lockdown', or 'sniping from the sidelines in a time of crisis' even though he supported almost all of their covid policies and didn't present any of his own. Then he took a high and mighty position on partygate with the knowledge that he himself was not immune to accusations of inappropriate gatherings and now finds himself at the mercy of a chief constable in Durham. It's simple rank incompetence, caused by an underlying failure to challenge the tories on anything of substance for fear of upsetting people and newspapers who will never support him anyway.
A politician who lies. That’s settled it for me then.
Do you have anything else to go on? Please feel free to share.
How would you rate this country’s performance on COVID deaths relative to the rest of Europe?
Really poor, how about you?
Even super 'centrist' Andy Burnham doesn't know what Starmer stands for in a Times piece today.
The Tories outflanked Labour (15bn v 6.6bn) on their suggested support package. And Labour are still talking about tightening fiscal belts. It's woeful.
(clue - 15bn won't be enough.)
didn’t present any of his own
Lies, lies, lies, lies.
There's a whole thread on this. Take a read there about the calls from the opposition, especially Starmer, for measures that the government dithered and delayed over (or just refused to put in place at all).
That the government required Labour votes to implement ANY measures as regards Covid, because of some of their own ostrich like back benchers, does not mean that the opposition just nodded along without proposing and pushing on what should be done.
There’s a whole thread on this.
Don't mistake rhetoric for policy. The only thing he ever differed on was calling for an earlier lockdown in the second covid wave. On every other thing he supported Johnson. The end result two and a half years later is the tories saying 'Boris got us through the pandemic' with almost no challenge from labour or anyone else. What should have been a mark of shame for Johnson is now one of his main soundbites and will probably be a future campaign slogan. How the hell have labour allowed 200k deaths and millions with long covid to be portrayed by the tories as a success?
On every other thing he supported Johnson.
Labour “supported Johnson” otherwise we’d have had no measures at all, and far more dead. But they pushed policies the whole way. You’re just making stuff up, sorry. Anyway, I’m out, bored of the loud but blinkered. Starmer can do no right. We get that you think that now. End of thread.
Work avoidance and general procrastination. Isn’t that what this place is for?
Certainly is for me and I would bet money that most of the posting on this forum is between 09:00 - 17:00 Monday to Friday. Threads like this one are just the sort of discussion I would have had in the pub when I was 19.
Starmer can do no right.
Go on then, what has he done right?
Go on then, what has he done right?
Pledged to keep the UK out of Europe?
From what I remember, that was the point where I said, 'I'm out' and you said, 'But he has no choice, of course he had to break that promise.'
Then he broke some other promises that you were quite keen on and you decided he was the Devil incarnate.
^😂
I think you might be confusing the Labour Party with the LibDems BW. It was them who pledged that a LibDem government would be committed to rejoining the the EU.
No second referendum was needed, the LibDem leader said, just vote LibDem. She lost her seat in the following general election.
In contrast Labour always claimed that they would honour the referendum result, even when Starmer was shadow brexit minster.
Sorry, should have specified it was his Freedom of Movement U-turn rather than the EU in general.
Gotta pander to those racists.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-labour-free-movement-eu-pledge-b1785041.html
COVID deaths relative to the rest of Europe?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01526-0
(Actually look a bit worse now WHO has moved Germany below UK having redone the sums)
Pledged to keep the UK out of Europe?
Has he pledged that? Like everything else he's said almost nothing on whether we should rejoin the EU or stay out. He won't even talk about it, which is a bit odd considering he was labour shadow brexit minister and the chief architect of Corbyn's disastrous second referendum policy. Even then, if the only thing we can agree that he's done right is saying nothing about the single most seismic and disruptive policy of the last 80 years does that make him fit to be Prime Minister?
Has he pledged that?
Like I said, I was thinking about his Freedom of Movement u-turn which, if I remember correctly, was a campaign promise you supported him breaking.
Even then, if the only thing we can agree that he’s done right is saying nothing about the single most seismic and disruptive policy of the last 80 years what does that make him fit to be Prime Minister?
I haven't thought he was fit to be PM since he broke his FOM campaign promise.
You disagreed with me at the time.
You disagreed with me at the time.
Well I did vote for him to be leader if you remember. We're all allowed to change our minds when the evidence shows we were wrong.
Well I did vote for him to be leader if you remember. We’re all allowed to change our minds when the evidence shows we were wrong.
Of course.
I just find it interesting that when I said I wouldn't vote for him I was a neoliberal stooge who didn't have the best interests of working people at heart.
Now people who would still vote for him are neoliberal stooges who don't have the best interests of working people at heart.
It's funny how anyone you don't agree with at any particular moment becomes the enemy.
It’s funny how anyone you don’t agree with at any particular moment becomes the enemy.
I was wondering that too 😉
I can only assume he's plant to keep people voting anyone but conservatives and split the vote for Boris, lol. I think you have a choice here keep someone who can't keep an ethics advisor or at least someone I at least you can probably agree with on some issues.
JeZ
I just find it interesting that when I said I wouldn’t vote for him I was a neoliberal stooge who didn’t have the best interests of working people at heart.
Well at the time he was selling himself as a Corbynite radical promising to implement the 2017 manifesto and unite the two sides of the party behind it. It was a very attractive proposition, and had he stuck to that he'd be much further ahead in the polls than he is now. That's what people voted for, but not what they got.
Well at the time he was selling himself as a Corbynite radical promising to implement the 2017 manifesto and unite the two sides of the party behind it. It was a very attractive proposition
And I remember when he broke his FOM promise to pander to Brexit voting racists that just made him all the more attractive to you.
I just think you should accept that it's possible to support Starmer without being a Tory-lite neoliberal scumbag.
I wouldn't vote for him myself, but I can definitely see why people would.