Forum menu
when he broke his FOM promise to pander to Brexit voting racists
Are seriously suggesting that not supporting a policy which restricts free & uncontrolled immigration to people from European countries is racist? Or am I misunderstanding?
Are seriously suggesting that not supporting a policy which restricts free & uncontrolled immigration to people from European countries is racist? Or am I misunderstanding?
KS promised to defend FOM (thus not appeasing Brexit voting racists).
Then he u-turned and said he wouldn't support FOM (thus appeasing Brexit voting racists).
Is that what you were asking?
Are seriously suggesting that not supporting a policy which restricts free & uncontrolled immigration to people from European countries is racist? Or am I misunderstanding?
Have you guys seen the new trade deals being signed at the moment? There is one that request s access to the employment market. So people coming over and stealing our jobs is always going to happen. Myself, my family were refugees, so my opinions on this are rather clear 😉
JeZ
I just think you should accept that it’s possible to support Starmer without being a Tory-lite neoliberal scumbag.
I accept the possibility - would you care to evidence it?
Is that what you were asking?
Not exactly but it's a whole different subject so not really appropriate for this thread.
would you care to evidence it?
The main evidence is that he isn't Boris Johnson and right now, even if Jimmy Saville were leader of Labour party, an argument could be made that Johnson is still worse.
There's definitely a case to be made that the best thing to do is to vote for whoever can beat Johnson, regardless of politics.
Saying that though, if I lived in England, I probably wouldn't vote for Starmer. FOM is one of my red lines and I simply couldn't vote for a party that was against it.
Politics in England feels more and more like Sophie's Choice.
Not exactly but it’s a whole different subject so not really appropriate for this thread.
I think the conclusion that we came to last time we discussed Starmer's u-turn on FOM was that England is simply too racist for any party that is trying to gain a majority to support it. Therefore it's good politics and a sensible decision.
At least that's what dazh and binners told me back when they were agreeing.
even if Jimmy Saville were leader of Labour party, an argument could be made that Johnson is still worse.
That's a pretty daft comment to make, you need to get some sort of perspective on things.
I know that vilification of Johnson is subject to inflationary pressures - every day on the Boris Johnson thtead I see the allegations made against him more extreme than the previous day.
The problem with languishing in an echo chamber with people egging each other on and trying to impress others with how much they despise Johnson, and barely any dissenting views to provide a reality check, you start entering the realms of absurdity.
Yesterday I saw him compared to Mussolini, today you suggest that he's worse than Jimmy Saville, what next - Hitler? Eventually you will run out monsters to compare him with and extreme adjectives to describe him. That's the problem with inflation.
England is simply too racist for any party that is trying to gain a majority to support it.
That's pretty daft too.
I think the conclusion that we came to last time we discussed Starmer’s u-turn on FOM was that England is simply too racist for any party that is trying to gain a majority to support it. Therefore it’s good politics and a sensible decision.
Lots of us that were offering a case for Lexit knew this and it would have been preferred over the shower that we knew was coming.
But the ultra-remainers thought they were going to stop everything. And landed us with this path.
That’s a pretty daft comment to make, you need to get some sort of perspective on things.
Yes, it was a deliberate exaggeration in order to make a humourous point that still has some basis in reality. Satire, I believe they call it.
But if you want to take it literally to argue that Johnson isn't as bad as we're all making out then go ahead. Strawman, I believe they call it.
That’s pretty daft too.
Yeah, I tried to make that point when Starmer did his u-turn on FOM.
Like I said, the general consensus went against me.
But if you want to argue that the u-turn wasn't done to appease the Brexit racists then feel free to make that argument. Last time I don't remember anyone trying to make the point that there was any other motivation, just that it was good politics.
But the ultra-remainers thought they were going to stop everything. And landed us with this path.
I prefer to blame Brexit racists for this entire shitshow but if you want to blame remainers then crack on.
Lots of us that were offering a case for Lexit
🤣
Appeasement of values we don't necessarily share, with policies we don't agree with, seems pretty easy to turn on and off.
Labour need to move towards English voters... Oh, Starmer's trying to do that... no, he should move English voters towards the values and polices we want... no compromises.
Sorry... I'll leave you to it. I'll keep out of the way. Carry on...
But the ultra-remainers thought they were going to stop everything. And landed us with this path.
Something about your post has been rattling around at the back of my mind for the past couple of hours. It's the term 'ultra-remainers'.
I decided to google it and sure enough, links to the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, GB-News, etc popped up.
I'm wondering how exactly ultra-remainers differ from just regular remainers? Is it like antifa? Anti-fascist sounded too reasonable so the right wing had to create the frightening terrorist lefty organisation Antifa?
When did ultra-remainers become a thing? Do you also think that ultra-remainers are some kind of borderline terrorist organisation?
I’m wondering how exactly ultra-remainers differ from just regular remainers
Perhaps ultra-remainers are intolerant extremists who denounce anyone opposed to the EU as racists.
And want to maintain immigration privileges for Europeans over migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Americas, despite the fact non-EU membership no longer makes it a requirement.
Perhaps ultra-remainers are intolerant extremists who denounce anyone opposed to the EU as racists.
And want to maintain immigration privileges for Europeans over migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Americas, despite the fact non-EU membership no longer makes it a requirement.
As Starmer made clear when he did his u-turn, right?
When did you start channeling jambalaya?
When did ultra-remainers become a thing? Do you also think that ultra-remainers are some kind of borderline terrorist organisation?
I'll help.
I'm a remainer but could see what was going to happen. An ultra-remainer couldn't - according to them we were never going to leave the EU.
I didn't get it from any of the newspapers and I'd rather we were in the EU.
Don't take the term too seriously. (The remainiac podcast often uses the term.)
I prefer to blame Brexit racists for this entire shitshow but if you want to blame remainers then crack on.
I agree but who's to say there wasn't another path between disaster Brexit and no Brexit?
And anyway the the point being when Starmer now says there's categorically no appetite for joining the single market again - why the **** don't the Starmer lovies get angry with HIM?
So the man that you all think is this forensic pro-EU mouth piece won't even stand on the side you all wanted.
Labour need to move towards English voters… Oh, Starmer’s trying to do that… no, he should move English voters towards the values and polices we want… no compromises.
But apparently there's a popular case for rejoining the EU?
So why doesn't he take this position.
Or are you simply just saying Starmer will just switch on a whim depending on what he thinks might make him electable.
Okay.
Sorry… I’ll leave you to it. I’ll keep out of the way. Carry on…
I'd rather you didn't there won't be any Starmer supporters left in this thread.
So, what do we reckon? Mr Blue Harbour will renege on the pledge to abolish tuition fees to show fiscal probity, get elected, then go all leftwing and abolish them?
He's really gunning for the younger vote(rs).
The coloured crayon brigade are going to be upset now Marina is speaking against the glorious leader.
So, what do we reckon? Mr Blue Harbour will renege on the pledge to abolish tuition fees to show fiscal probity, get elected, then go all leftwing and abolish them?
He’s really gunning for the younger vote(rs).
He's doing a solid job courting the young vote with this.
I don't think hes going left-wing any time soon.
More to the right. More to the right.
Even I'm taking more paths on the trails that turn right these days.
Wonder what their next digital slogan will be?
The coloured crayon brigade are going to be upset now Marina is speaking against the glorious leader
Lol wonder who's next in the Guardian?
When Freedland has a go we know Starmer is done for. Has Toynbee smelt the coffee yet? Mind you she says Johnson is not going to survive every month. And I remember her recently saying Labour had shelves of winning polices. PMSL.
And I remember her recently saying Labour had shelves of winning polices.
Guess they must be in that locked room which nobody has the key for.
The remainiac podcast often uses the term
😂
It hasn’t even been called Remainiacs for around two years. And as a regular listener, I can confirm that they don’t use the term “often.” And mostly, they’ve left the leave/remain argument behind. Do keep up.
And I remember her recently saying Labour had shelves of winning polices.
I think she meant that they’d shelved their winning policies.
It hasn’t even been called Remainiacs for around two years. And as a regular listener, I can confirm that they don’t use the term “often.” And mostly, they’ve left the leave/remain argument behind. Do keep up
Oh all right - "formerly remainiacs" as it says currently on the podcast. And Ian Dunt has never left that argument behind.
Oh God What now doesn't have the same ring to it.
They talk about it every podcast. I enjoy it - it's a deluded centrist love-in with some good humour.
The main evidence is that he isn’t Boris Johnson and right now, even if Jimmy Saville were leader of Labour party, an argument could be made that Johnson is still worse.
That's a thoroughly unpleasant thing to say.
That’s a thoroughly unpleasant thing to say.
I'm sorry if you feel I'm being unfair towards Boris Piccaninny Watermelon Letterbox Cake Bumboys Vampires Haircut Wall-Spaffer Spunk-Burster ****-Business ****-the-Families Get-Off-My-****ing-Laptop Girly-Swot Big-Girl’s-Blouse Chicken-frit Hulk-Smash Noseringed-Crusties Death-Humbug Technology-Lessons Surrender-Bullshit French-Turds Dog-Whistle Get-Stuffed FactcheckUK@CCHQ 88%-lies Get-Brexit-Done Bung-a-Bob-for-Big-Ben’s-Bongs Cocaine-Event Spiritual-Worth Three-Men-and-a-Dog Whatever-It-Takes I-Shook-Hands-With-Everyone Herd-Immunity I-Want-to-Thank-Po-Ling Squash-the-Sombrero Johnson
Quick question. What's more offensive, my crap joke or Johnson accusing Starmer of covering for Jimmy Savile in Parliament?
It wasn't a joke - it wasn't designed to make people laugh. You were clearly making the point that even if the Labour leader was as reprehensible as Britian's most notorious paedophile you would still prefer him to be prime minister.
In other words that is how extremely unimportant you believe the Labour leader's character to be.
You could have made your point without comparing him with a nonce.
The fact that Boris Johnson has said some unpleasant things is irrelevant, despite your attempt to make a connection.
It wasn’t a joke – it wasn’t designed to make people laugh. You were clearly making the point that even if the Labour leader was as reprehensible as Britian’s most notorious paedophile you would still prefer him to be prime minister.
In other words that is how extremely unimportant you believe the Labour leader’s character to be.
You could have made your point without comparing him with a nonce.
The fact that Boris Johnson has said some unpleasant things is irrelevant, despite your attempt to make a connection.
I don't understand, are you trying to make a joke now? Because I'm not sure if I get it.
I'm glad I found this thread again after I gave up on it a year or two ago. It's nice to see where all the closet Johnson fans have come to hide.
Ah, I think I see what the problem is.
I thought my exaggeration was big enough that people would think, 'Ah, that's so far beyond reality it's obviously parody. Not very funny but OK, fine.'
I didn't take into account just how much of a scumbag Johnson is so you think that when I said Jimmy Savile would be a better and less corrupt PM (both morally and financially) than Johnson you thought I was being serious.
Johnson really is like fundamentalist Christians. Impossible to parody without being indistinguishable from the real thing.
I see the Guardian and Observer are ramping up their Starmer out campaign today. A pincer movement from binners’ favourite establishment mouthpiece sticking the knife in and one of the most prominent backbenchers on his brexit silence. Come on Durham cops, put us all out of our misery.
I haven't seen today's Observer but other stuff I have seen recently is starting to suggest to me that you might be right Daz, it looks like the Blairites in the party might be deliberately manoeuvring against Starmer.
To be fair I am surprised it has taken so long. Perhaps they needed him to expel or drive out socialists from the party first so the new Blairite leader would be untainted by highly divisive baggage?
I'm don't know why you are so impatient to see him go though, he will simply be replaced by another right-winger offering nothing more than repackaged Tory policies.
PLP criticism of Starmer appears based on his tactics and strategies, not that he is too right-wing.
Too early for a Wes Streeting thread?
Ooh Andrew Rawnsley is starting to swivel. Must be bad.
Just Freedland (Johnson enabler) now from the big hitters.
I’m don’t know why you are so impatient to see him go though, he will simply be replaced by another right-winger
True. I’m under no illusions that if he goes he’ll be replaced with someone more left wing. Starmer has to go though for no other reason than he’s going to hand the tories another term.
It’ll almost certainly be Reeves or Streeting. Reeves would be a disaster, she’s more conservative and right wing than most tories. Streeting is an interesting one. He’s undoubtedly on the right, but he’s also an attack dog and passionate. I don’t get the impression from Streeting that he’s only there for the power and prestige, and he actually seems to want to do stuff.
Streeting at least opens his mouth which is one notch better.
He's had good media training I reckon, but his pedigree ain't exactly extensive.
Quick question. What’s more offensive, my crap joke or Johnson accusing Starmer of covering for Jimmy Savile in Parliament?
Try using emojis if you're going for humour, it helps the rest of us to tell.
Thats called reality, you honestly think that we would get FOM past our rabidly xenophobic populist outriders? the Rwanda policy is the only think keeping Johnson in his job atm
Thats called reality, you honestly think that we would get FOM past our rabidly xenophobic populist outriders? the Rwanda policy is the only think keeping Johnson in his job atm
Pledge No.6? "Defend free movement as we leave the EU"
So it's okay to keep moving rightwards providing the right set the agenda?
the Rwanda policy is the only think keeping Johnson in his job atm
Starmer is keeping Boris in his job.
So it’s okay to keep moving rightwards providing the right set the agenda?
Its amazing how often "realism" means pandering to Farage and co for the last couple of decades.
Then they wonder why we are in the mess we are.
Its amazing how often “realism” means pandering to Farage and co for the last couple of decades.
Then they wonder why we are in the mess we are.
Originally there was this idea that Starmer wouldn't move to the right - he's just trying to hide Corbyn first and then get on with the real issues - okay we said. (shaking my head.)
Now - as he does move towards the pub brawl - apparently it's a good idea! The same pro-EU voices appear to be no longer fighting this cause any longer.
So do you think Starmer should follow a "FoM isn't coming back" line... or not? And if not, how does he prevent Johnson or his successor successfully making hay with a "Labour want to overturn the referendum" line? I have my own views and ideas here... but I'm interested in what those who have been pushing against Starmer on, well, everything, think.
So do you think Starmer should follow a “FoM isn’t coming back” line… or not? And if not, how does he prevent Johnson or his successor successfully making hay with a “Labour want to overturn the referendum” line? I have my own views and ideas here… but I’m interested in what those who have been pushing against Starmer on, well, everything, think.
Simply leave it alone for the time being! - and push really hard on the cost of living, what Labour could do - big push against the government's shambles in this regard. Strong attitude towards fixing this countries mess that is not the mess of migrants but xx years of Tory governments. There's absolutely no end of things to go at.
To present it now - make absolutely no sense.
When the Tories don't want to discuss something they just change the subject.
It isn't hard.
We are just seeing time and time again Starmer trying to ape the Tories. It's pathetic, and not fruitful - go strong on what is good for the country and stop being so bloody weak.
And if not, how does he prevent Johnson or his successor successfully making hay with a “Labour want to overturn the referendum” line? I
Well Labour will never stop the Tories saying ANYTHING.
There's always going to be the question of what the Tories might say no matter what Labour do. Tories will just say - don't trust Labour on immigration. So it's largely irrelevant.
Change the narrative to your own agenda.
It's simply because Starmer and Labour don't have big ideas that they are taking this weak path.