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.
Nothing of any relevance to 99.99999999% of people lives, that’s for sure
Absolutely typical!
Well said indeed.
The thing these loosers hate about the K-dozer is that he's 110% win mentality.
Decent, normal working people couldn't give two hoots about any of this lefty stuff.
What we want is protection against the immigrants, funding for miliary and respect our monarchy.
Sir Kee Kee is smashing it.
What we want is protection against the immigrants, funding for miliary and respect our monarchy.
Were you standing to attention singing the national anthem when you typed that?
Don't read Copa's posts literally.
Copas post read tongue in cheek to me
Yes, I've not been keeping up so missed the previous ones. Sorry copa.
I read them as if you posted them Dazh... they make sense then.
= ;8^)
Nothing of any relevance to 99.99999999% of people lives, that’s for sure
So why did the glorious leader make it a three line whip? He chose to make it an issue not them.
Can you really not see why people who have been involved in the trade union movement, for example, wouldnt be extremely opposed to the police being given free reign to carry out illegal actions? You dont think there is some history there which makes people somewhat wary?
Its a dangerous piece of legislation as it allows illegal actions to be signed off with pretty much zero oversight. Anyone sensible and sane on any side of the political spectrum should be heavily opposed to it.
I strongly suspect that he sees some merit in the proposed legislation,
There is - sometimes the police need to break the law in order to do their job - from speeding to drug deal stings to covert surveillance. IIRC recent court cases have meant there is no protection for them for doing so.
the problem with the legislation is that there are insufficient checks and balances
Nothing of any relevance to 99.99999999% of people lives, that’s for sure
..... Until the day comes when it does become relevant.
And
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
Is precisely the opportunity to slide in policies like this under the radar.
It's possible to oppose things like this AND deal with the other issues above.
I'd say it was an error of judgement by Starmer. It would have gone through if they'd voted against it anyway.
If he'd made a stand and explained where the legislation was wrong people might have listened. But with everything else going on, the government are banging through shit like this while they can.
Ooof… Newsnight piece on Starmer… well, it wasn’t really, it was more just a chance for people from all wings of Labour to each have a go at sabotaging all the ongoing hard work to get the public to back Labour.
Nothing new then.
Yes I thought it was out of the blue and frankly weird
It confirmed one thing, Diane Abbot is a joke politician. (I actually think she might be unwell given her displays in recent years).
McCluskey was overtly anti-Semitic too. It's very strange timing, there is enough going on in the world so why spend so much time on a really poor hatchet job?
The vast majority of people are not watching Newsnight so pretty irrelevant what pieces they run and anyone that thinks what is discussed on Newsnight, Andrew Marr and so on are not realising how it works in 2020.
I didn’t see it but surely Dianne Abbot not liking you is a good thing?
For those who didn't see it why is Diane Abbot getting abused online yet again?
racism
Thinking back, it was very odd. Now I know the short clips used were provided by people from within the Labour movement... but the editing really was very odd indeed. Easy to imagine that most contributors gave an honest and fair assessment of who they think Starmer is, how he became leader, and the challenges in front of him... but the short clips used felt like it had a very clear aim. You could say that those interviewed were deliberately sabotaging the party... and that was partly my initial reaction... but I'm not sure that should really fall at their feet... they were edited to fit that narrative, I suspect.
Could you give us a quote from McLusky to support your allegation?
