All things Labour Party

Piece of cake, eh? Anybody could have done it in the Tory Party, most with probably a larger majority than 80 seats.

Shock news every time there is an election someone wins it and the Tories have won something like 9 post war elections, it's hardly backs against the wall stuff. Anyway as said they are party achievements, I'm looking for stuff that is beneficial to the electorate, people are struggling to think of anything.

Shock news every time there is an election someone wins it and the Tories have won something like 9 post war elections, it's hardly backs against the wall stuff. Anyway as said they are party achievements, I'm looking for stuff that is beneficial to the electorate, people are struggling to think of anything.

You might be struggling, but that doesn't entitle you to generalise on behalf of everybody else. It obviously doesn't occur to you that simply by winning the election by such a resounding margin was beneficial to the electorate when the alternative was a Marxist Corbyn government, but carry on dismissing the election victory as of no importance in the grand scheme of things if that's what floats your particular boat. Clearly you aren't a Conservative voter, so your position of not being capable of acknowledging anything praiseworthy about Boris in recent events isn't in the least bit surprising. You're probably still feeling very sore at the way that the Brexit situation is developing and the thrashing that Boris dealt to Labour and the Lib Dumbs in the election.

Shock news every time there is an election someone wins it and the Tories have won something like 9 post war elections, it's hardly backs against the wall stuff. Anyway as said they are party achievements, I'm looking for stuff that is beneficial to the electorate, people are struggling to think of anything.

“Hardly backs against the wall stuff”. What a load of pony. He had a majority of -40 odd, Parliament had taken control of the timetable & the fixed term parliament act put the timing of any election into the hands of his opponents. Politically he probably had his back to the wall, like no other PM has ever had in peacetime . Not only did he manage to get out of that mess, he then produced a massive majority.

As for not counting winning elections as an achievement, that’s just nonsense. You’re defining political achievement by your political beliefs. This is clearly a ridiculous way to measure achievement. In my opinion Tony Blair did a lot of harm & damage to the country, that’s a political opinion. To say he didn’t achieve anything by not counting his 3 massive wins is clearly nonsense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a load of pony. He had a majority of -40 odd, Parliament had taken control of the timetable & the fixed term parliament act put the timing of any election into the hands of his opponents. Politically he probably had his back to the wall, like no other PM has ever had in peacetime . Not only did he manage to get out of that mess, he then produced a massive majority.

Haha. ********. Johnson was up against the most hopeless Labour leader since at least WW2. Labour got only 27% of the vote under Michael Foot when up against Thatcher. Despite Corbyn having lower approval ratings than even Michael Foot he got 32% against Johnson. Barely beating someone so cataclysmically hopeless is 'meh' at best.

Haha. ********. Johnson was up against the most hopeless Labour leader since at least WW2.

So was May but she didn't come out of it particularly well!

Haha. ********. Johnson was up against the most hopeless Labour leader since at least WW2. Labour got only 27% of the vote under Michael Foot when up against Thatcher. Despite Corbyn having lower approval ratings than even Michael Foot he got 32% against Johnson. Barely beating someone so cataclysmically hopeless is 'meh' at best.

Check out the General election thread. Some even predicted a Labour win!!!

Haha. ********. Johnson was up against the most hopeless Labour leader since at least WW2. Labour got only 27% of the vote under Michael Foot when up against Thatcher. Despite Corbyn having lower approval ratings than even Michael Foot he got 32% against Johnson. Barely beating someone so cataclysmically hopeless is 'meh' at best.

I suppose winning London twice was ‘meh’ as well.

Perhaps you can get back to me the next time a Tory wins that. Mind you, I doubt either of us will be alive.

Maybe you could also point us in the direction of a party leader leader that’s increased a majority after that party had served 3 terms .

Fact is, he won a labour city twice, the Brexit vote & a stonking majority from a position of extreme weakness. You may not like or respect him, but to say he hasn’t achieved anything is complete & utter nonsense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha. ********. Johnson was up against the most hopeless Labour leader since at least WW2. Labour got only 27% of the vote under Michael Foot when up against Thatcher. Despite Corbyn having lower approval ratings than even Michael Foot he got 32% against Johnson. Barely beating someone so cataclysmically hopeless is 'meh' at best.

I thought that you were brighter than that, Timmy. You appear to have not realised the difference between the differing sets of circumstances surrounding the two contests. Most pundits labelled this last election the Brexit election. Even Labour tried to excuse their poor performance by blaming having got their stance on Brexit wrong. So comparisons between the two elections are largely pointless as an exercise in comparing the performances of Thatcher v Foot compared with Boris v Corbyn.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-staff-no-longer-confident-partys-general-secretary-as-their-safety-as-her-top-priority-after-leaking-of-antisemitism-report

 

Nice to see the actual workers in the Labour Party striking out at the despicable behaviour of the abhorrent Jennie Formby.

 

Her and Uncle Len (with Seamus and Communist Andrew Murray) thought they had the party sewn up in their image but thankfully the membership had other ideas, and it's fantastic that the workers are now fighting back too.

Laughable stuff, senior staffers exposed as corrupt and incompetent and now they are lashing out at a whistleblowers and cancer survivors.

Anyway, despite being history now it still needs to be studied to prevent more innocents having their lives ruined by the Israeli machine.

A very interesting article examining the history of weaponisation of false anti-semitism claims:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/corbyn-gone-israel-lobby-targeting-palestinians-directly

Laughable stuff, senior staffers exposed as corrupt and incompetent and now they are lashing out at a whistleblowers and cancer survivors.

 

Anyway, despite being history now it still needs to be studied to prevent more innocents having their lives ruined by the Israeli machine.

A very interesting article examining the history of weaponisation of false anti-semitism claims:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/corbyn-gone-israel-lobby-targeting-palestinians-directly

Another crank website. Bless you x x x.

Be honest, if you can't understand the big words I can explain them to you.

By the way, not that I read it, but I know it's one of your obsessions:

Be honest, if you can't understand the big words I can explain them to you.

 

By the way, not that I read it, but I know it's one of your obsessions:

Have fun in your lickle bubble.

I love things being explained to me by a disciple of, er, The Canary, Sqwarkbox and Angry Voice Guy.

 

Have fun in your lickle bubble.

People probably were aware Blair was a QC not a failed reporter and well....William Hague (really? you're comparing the former solicitor general and one of our country's top barrister's to William "Tory boy" Hague....Lord Carrington's view of him was quite similar to a lot of people's opinion of Boris). That's clearly why Moggy wants the commons to return asap though.

Regardless of the backgrounds of the individuals, the fact remains that Hague regularly made a fool of Blair in the House. I don't see how your whataboutery changes the facts one jot. Whether Sir K Smarmy will consistently better Johnson in the House doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. Only a minute percentage of the electorate watch PM's Questions and if they read reports about the exchanges in the media, they will only believe those that reflect their own political leaning, much as you have done yourself when it came to JB's post.

 

So encouraging to have Starmer now. Measured and trustworthy. Don’t know how good a leader he is but clearly massive massive improvement

How quickly people forget what a horlicks he made of Labour's position regarding Brexit, when he was the shadow Brexit Minister. He played a massive part in bringing about Labour's humiliating defeat at the last GE. But maybe that was all part of the plan to rid the party of Corbyn and to take over as leader himself. Surely he wouldn't have deliberately have brought that about unintentionally?

My boss at the time, Roger Coe-Salazar, a CCP, carried out the case review for Starmer who as Shurlock rightly says, was not involved in making the decision. You need to check your facts (a bit like Boris).

So he bears no responsibility at all as the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions for any failures occurring when he was in charge. Right. I'll remember that argument the next time that you call for the resignation of a minister/party leader because of the impropriety of minions/associates under them.

So encouraging to have Starmer now. Measured and trustworthy. Don’t know how good a leader he is but clearly massive massive improvement

This. Only seen a few snippets of Parliament but what I’ve seen is a breath of fresh air.

Starmer's 'playing a blinder' (or Keir Smarmy PMSL) and the usual suspects and fanatics are getting flustered. I see Nadine Dorries tripped herself up with a botched smear or may be it was the threat of libel action

Thank god we have the semblance of an opposition.

So he bears no responsibility at all as the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions for any failures occurring when he was in charge. Right. I'll remember that argument the next time that you call for the resignation of a minister/party leader because of the impropriety of minions/associates under them.

To be fair, that's Shurlock's view as well, which is weird really isn't it? Maybe he's suggesting Sir Kier isn't honourabe

"I've been brought up to believe that you cannot choose your own referee and that the referee's decision is final," he said in a brief statement tonight.

 

"There is an honourable tradition in British public life that those charged with authority at the top of an organisation should accept responsibility for what happens in that organisation.

 

"I am therefore writing to the prime minister today to tender my resignation as chairman of the BBC, with immediate effect," he added.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jan/28/davidkelly.hutton9

Yes he apologised on behalf of the CPS as it’s head. So what?

 

Was he personally involved in the case? No.

There is an honourable tradition in British public life that those charged with authority at the top of an organisation should accept responsibility for what happens in that organisation, Pal

So he bears no responsibility at all as the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions for any failures occurring when he was in charge. Right. I'll remember that argument the next time that you call for the resignation of a minister/party leader because of the impropriety of minions/associates under them.

The review supported the decision note to prosecute the four charges on the basis that there wasn’t enough evidence (the complainants refused to go to court I believe). It was up to the police to come back with something that would stand up in court. They didn’t. Explain how Starmer failed, or the CPS for that matter. They do not gather evidence. That is entirely down to the police. Stories in the newspaper do not constitute evidence. He has accepted that the reviewing lawyer should have pressed the police for more evidence, but if the police believed Savile had a case to answer why did they need pressing? The stories about Savile had been around for some time. Should all of the DPP’s and police chiefs offered their resignations too?

There is an honourable tradition in British public life that those charged with authority at the top of an organisation should accept responsibility for what happens in that organisation, Pal

Perhaps you should direct that statement to Boris Johnson.

Regardless of the backgrounds of the individuals, the fact remains that Hague regularly made a fool of Blair in the House. I don't see how your whataboutery changes the facts one jot. Whether Sir K Smarmy will consistently better Johnson in the House doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. Only a minute percentage of the electorate watch PM's Questions and if they read reports about the exchanges in the media, they will only believe those that reflect their own political leaning, much as you have done yourself when it came to JB's post.

It’s not just PMQs. He is clearly more appealing to those of us who have no time for the nutters on the far left. Tories large win was more about how sh1t Labour were. Will be a lot closer next time with charismatic Boris and a cabinet made up of largely low talented weasels - the sort most of us on both sides loathe in politicians, having had a few years to mess it all up. Genuinely hope they don’t btw.

It's obvious to anyone that starmer presents a much sterner challenge than Corbyn ever did. I could easily see starmer winning the next election, it's just a shame he has decided to appoint a load of loons to the shadow cabinet. Hopefully some of them can be quietly moved on after a while once he's done appeasing the far left nutters and those who can't tell you what the definition of a woman is.

Perhaps you should direct that statement to Boris Johnson.

I'm sure the statement's owner will be along presently to do just that

It's obvious to anyone that starmer presents a much sterner challenge than Corbyn ever did. I could easily see starmer winning the next election, it's just a shame he has decided to appoint a load of loons to the shadow cabinet. Hopefully some of them can be quietly moved on after a while once he's done appeasing the far left nutters and those who can't tell you what the definition of a woman is.

Probably wouldn't call his deputy, Angela Rayner a loon. It was widely reported that she was the MP most conservative worry about....what with her northern, working class background.

Regardless of the backgrounds of the individuals, the fact remains that Hague regularly made a fool of Blair in the House. I don't see how your whataboutery changes the facts one jot. Whether Sir K Smarmy will consistently better Johnson in the House doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. Only a minute percentage of the electorate watch PM's Questions and if they read reports about the exchanges in the media, they will only believe those that reflect their own political leaning, much as you have done yourself when it came to JB's post.

You can call it whataboutery all you like and he may have been very good at structuring an argument in the commons....but did he succeed in returning the Tories back to government? Nup. He was a snide little tory boy who half the Conservative party couldn't stand also. Only marginally better than Michael Howard.

Tories large win was more about how sh1t Labour were. Will be a lot closer next time with charismatic Boris and a cabinet made up of largely low talented weasels - the sort most of us on both sides loathe in politicians, having had a few years to mess it all up. Genuinely hope they don’t btw.

I agree that it will be a lot closer next time, provided that Starmer rids his shadow cabinet of the residue of hopeless non-entities that survived from Corbyn's cabinet. But by the time of the next election, we will be well clear of the EU, whether with a FTA or via WTO, and the Conservatives will be judged on how they have handled the aftermath of that and the Chinese virus.

Probably wouldn't call his deputy, Angela Rayner a loon. It was widely reported that she was the MP most conservative worry about....what with her northern, working class background.

Why should they be worried? She’s not a white middle class male, so they’ll never elect her leader.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Probably wouldn't call his deputy, Angela Rayner a loon. It was widely reported that she was the MP most conservative worry about....what with her northern, working class background.

I wasn't particularly referring to her even if I disagreed with her politically.

Didn't think you were, since she's his deputy I just assumed you were including her. And Lord Duckie, that rules out Johnson then doesn't it?

You can call it whataboutery all you like and he may have been very good at structuring an argument in the commons....but did he succeed in returning the Tories back to government? Nup. He was a snide little tory boy who half the Conservative party couldn't stand also. Only marginally better than Michael Howard.

The argument appears to have gone over your head. You make the point that although Hague might have consistently bested Blair in the House during PMQs without affecting Blair's premiership, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that Sir K Smarmy besting Boris equally won't matter much in the scheme of things.

And as a Conservative, I certainly was never worried that Angela Rayner might have led the Party. She's a complete political lightweight.

Why should they be worried? She’s not a white middle class male, so they’ll never elect her leader.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nor rich and posh either.

The argument appears to have gone over your head. You make the point that although Hague might have consistently bested Blair in the House during PMQs without affecting Blair's premiership, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that Sir K Smarmy besting Boris equally won't matter much in the scheme of things.

 

And as a Conservative, I certainly was never worried that Angela Rayner might have led the Party. She's a complete political lightweight.

Is attempting to belittle other people all you have as far as an argument goes? As for being a political lightweight....had a bit of a look at the current PM and his cabinet? All clearly selected as lightweights compared to him...no doubt all picked by Cummings. * Also, the Rayner comment was paraphrasing the head of the 1922 committee, clearly Tory HQ fear her more than you do.

 

Tories seek return of all MPs to Westminster for PM’s sake

 

Concerns Boris Johnson is struggling in a deserted ‘virtual’ Commons against new Labour leader

 

Senior Conservatives have called for all MPs to be allowed to return to the House of Commons as they become concerned Boris Johnson is struggling in the deserted chamber in his encounters with new Labour leader Keir Starmer.

 

The opposition party leader has been praised for his forensic performances in his first four weekly exchanges at prime minister’s questions. The former director of public prosecutions has focused on scrutinising the detail of the government’s response to coronavirus. Referring to Mr Johnson, a parliamentary sketch writer in the usually Tory-supporting Daily Telegraph said Sir Keir had used this week’s PMQs to “take him apart like a Duplo train set”.

 

The House of Commons is currently sitting in a hybrid arrangement because of coronavirus, with up to 50 MPs present in the chamber — the maximum allowed to maintain a two-metre separation — and 120 dialling in through Zoom. However, on most days barely a dozen MPs have turned up in person.

 

“A lively environment probably does suit Boris more than Keir,” admitted a senior Tory MP. One Cabinet minister acknowledged Sir Keir was “very good” at PMQs and far more effective than his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. “He is forensic and deadly. I think the PM is worried.”

 

“Starmer has the political wind behind him. He is a highly intelligent, detail-oriented person who was one of the best human rights advocates and prosecutors in the country,” another senior Tory MP said.

 

“Boris is in a political difficulty that isn’t going away for a while. He’s not a details person, who is struggling to articulate what the point of his government is because no one knows beyond Brexit. Put those two together and he’s going to struggle for a while.”

 

But another senior Number 10 insider denied Mr Johnson was perturbed by his most recent Commons encounter with the Labour leader. “Keir Starmer is the one who was rattled,” the person said.

 

One Downing Street official said the government was eager for parliament to return in full to facilitate the passage of legislation. “We have a lot of big bills that we really need to get going on,” the individual said, pointing to that fact that chancellor Rishi Sunak had accidentally voted against the government. “You can see the current system isn’t ideal.”

 

Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the Commons, on Wednesday called on all 650 MPs to return to Westminster to “set an example” to the rest of the country, to the consternation of the Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle.

 

Sir Lindsay said he would suspend parliament if physical distancing rules were breached.

 

Mr Rees-Mogg told the Commons the hybrid arrangements would continue until May 20, when parliament is due to go into recess. When the Commons returns on June 2, it is unclear whether more MPs will be allowed to return.

 

A final decision is likely to be made jointly by the government and Commons authorities.

 

The government’s eagerness to return to Westminster was criticised by opposition MPs. Jess Philips, a shadow Labour minister, said: “I cannot see how parliament can return to normal, safely and democratically fairly, when some will clearly be excluded. How on earth will it work, safely?”

 

Alistair Carmichael, a Liberal Democrat MP, criticised Mr Rees-Mogg for calling for all MPs to return. “I’m not going to put my family or my community at risk just because Jacob Rees-Mogg has an aversion to modernity.

 

“He’s like a Victorian mill owner having a bit of a spat because his gentleman’s club has run out of his favourite claret,” he added. “That is no way to run a modern parliament.”

 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/9ed7a217-1462-4fba-9329-880dc76a3793?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a#myft:notification:instant-email:content

Taken apart like a Duplo train set - Bojo needs his little fwends

Probably would have been better off with Hunt....might have to soon if they continue to hurt the blonde Billy Bunter's feelings.

".....who is struggling to articulate what the point of his government is because no one knows beyond Brexit"

Sounds about right.

".....who is struggling to articulate what the point of his government is because no one knows beyond Brexit"

 

Sounds about right.

His government has no other point. He ran it on the lie about "getting Brexit done", okay, so he proved that Goebbels was right that if you continually repeat a lie so many times the populous will believe it but it was always going to come to the point when people ask "right....what now?"...He's got no answers for that as he's a one-trick pony.

Why should they be worried? She’s not a white middle class male, so they’ll never elect her leader.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Keir Starmer, named after the first leader of the Labour party, came from a working class background. In the old days the Conservative party supported the idea of a meritocracy. Are you now so dazzled by Johnson's poshness that you sneer at people who progress through their own abilities?

Keir Starmer, named after the first leader of the Labour party, came from a working class background. In the old days the Conservative party supported the idea of a meritocracy. Are you now so dazzled by Johnson's poshness that you sneer at people who progress through their own abilities?

Don’t you mean Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC. Nearly 50 years after the great lady & Labour are still sticking with white middle aged males.

Anyway, this is a Covid thread, there’s other threads to discuss Labour’s shortcomings.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don’t you mean Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC. Nearly 50 years after the great lady & Labour are still sticking with white middle aged males.

 

Anyway, this is a Covid thread, there’s other threads to discuss Labour’s shortcomings.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pretty sure it's not Labour's shortcoming's we're discussing. But yep, it's COVID-19 we should be talking about, Britain during it; a country where you can have your nanny or cleaner visit your house but not your mum or dad.....Sounds incredibly Tory.

Don’t you mean Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC. Nearly 50 years after the great lady & Labour are still sticking with white middle aged males.

 

Anyway, this is a Covid thread, there’s other threads to discuss Labour’s shortcomings.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Knighted for his public service.

If we are not meant to discuss it here, why did you raise the issue in the first place?

 

If we are not meant to discuss it here, why did you raise the issue in the first place?

I didn’t

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But yep, it's COVID-19 we should be talking about, Britain during it; a country where you can have your nanny or cleaner visit your house but not your mum or dad.....Sounds incredibly Tory.

Rubbish.

It’s incredibly pinko leftie. Could you see the great lady taking this disproportionate approach.

You’re doing the typical leftie thing and trying to pretend you don’t understand why different groups of people require different measures. But just to clarify, do you think your mum & dad should be allowed to visit your house or that your cleaner shouldn’t.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why should they be worried? She’s not a white middle class male, so they’ll never elect her leader.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know that bluster and waffle are your style but are you now also following Johnson's example and being "economical with the truth" ??

Rubbish.

 

It’s incredibly pinko leftie. Could you see the great lady taking this disproportionate approach.

 

You’re doing the typical leftie thing and trying to pretend you don’t understand why different groups of people require different measures. But just to clarify, do you think your mum & dad should be allowed to visit your house or that your cleaner shouldn’t.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ah, the old "put upon rich" line. I wouldn't know; I've never had a nanny or a cleaner.

Ah, the old "put upon rich" line. I wouldn't know; I've never had a nanny or a cleaner.

It’s a simple question.

You were moaning that people can’t have their parents round, but can have their cleaner. Surely your not just whinging for the sake of it. What is the issue, should cleaners not be allowed, or parents be allowed.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don’t you mean Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC. Nearly 50 years after the great lady & Labour are still sticking with white middle aged males.

 

Anyway, this is a Covid thread, there’s other threads to discuss Labour’s shortcomings.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Are you suggesting that parties should not appoint the best candidate but positively discriminate based on sex and race?

It’s a simple question.

 

You were moaning that people can’t have their parents round, but can have their cleaner. Surely your not just whinging for the sake of it. What is the issue, should cleaners not be allowed, or parents be allowed.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The point is: it seems the argument for a nanny or a cleaner to come around as opposed to parents come from another world; certainly not one that most of those northern working class voters would be familiar with and would say "if Mr Rich man can have a stranger come around and do the jobs he can't be bothered to do, why can't I see my parents?" it's an emotive issue and I understand how that may come as alien to some in government and they probably think nothing of having a nanny or a cleaner but it just doesn't chime with most people in this country.....it's kinda like one of the first industries allowed to open up being estate agents...who's main job is going into people's houses. It just seems very 80's.

Don’t you mean Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC. Nearly 50 years after the great lady & Labour are still sticking with white middle aged males.

 

Anyway, this is a Covid thread, there’s other threads to discuss Labour’s shortcomings. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rodney

I’m sure there are loads of Rodneys knocking about the toffs and upper middle classes. Pure blue blood that is.