The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[sadoldgit]

13 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

You could just ignore him.

Yes, I should.

[sadoldgit]

10 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

The boy Streeting is doing well https://www.pharmacy.biz/nhs-waiting-list-for-november-lowest-in-15-years/

PM in waiting?

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

PM in waiting?

He fits the profile of a labour leader. White, male, a London constituency. Doubt they’d want to risk someone with a 500 vote majority though..

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

He fits the profile of a labour leader. White, male, a London constituency. Doubt they’d want to risk someone with a 500 vote majority though..

There were very specific reasons though for his majority, same as Phillips that won’t be there in the same volumes in 2029. They’d have both been pretty solid majorities otherwise.

You have a fairer point on gender as the Tories have had three female PMs. Although have the Labour Party since Barbara Castle objectively had a female minister of genuine PM qualities in the same way Thatcher and May were? Some very talented ministers and people like Mo Mowlam for certain but not sure PM skill set.

That said, I don’t think Truss being elected by their members is anything to reflect on with pride. She’s almost as mad as Trump.

[east-stand-nic]

23 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Yes, I should.

Bit you said you never read my posts and ignore most of the anyway. Outed again. 

[tdmickey3]

27 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Bit you said you never read my posts and ignore most of the anyway. Outed again. 

The freak is back.... 🤮

[Farmer Saint]

Again, more good news:

https://www.ft.com/content/ea7db2b6-1824-4ebb-b9ac-1d6693b34c74?utm_sf_cserv_ref=8860325749&utm_sf_post_ref=655505166&fbclid=IwdGRjcAPcOqFjbGNrA9w6nGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHp5Y0E4G-VC6ozUMX0bhoZc_5G5vJKqrdHP1_AoBMU_ulKzekPFd5KB5UCUs_aem_GV_p2vfMzibIcMm9lHRahQ

 

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Again, more good news:

https://www.ft.com/content/ea7db2b6-1824-4ebb-b9ac-1d6693b34c74?utm_sf_cserv_ref=8860325749&utm_sf_post_ref=655505166&fbclid=IwdGRjcAPcOqFjbGNrA9w6nGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHp5Y0E4G-VC6ozUMX0bhoZc_5G5vJKqrdHP1_AoBMU_ulKzekPFd5KB5UCUs_aem_GV_p2vfMzibIcMm9lHRahQ

 

Posting links to paywalled articles means that we only get to read the headline.

Edited Tuesday at 10:47 by badgerx16

[Farmer Saint]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqz1lzdxw1o

Let's see if this is the start of some proper cooperation.

[Farmer Saint]

46 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Posting links to paywalled articles means that we only get to read the headline.

Apologies:

https://archive.ph/19j8U

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

22 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

You have a fairer point on gender as the Tories have had three female PMs

It’s not just that. They’ve had leaders of Asian heritage, black & Jewish (don’t tell Soggy). What have labour had, white men. The only slightly diverse leader they had was Mad Ed, who was a Jew, even that was some 130 years after the Conservatives. Every time the membership get a vote, these “progressives” vote for the white bloke (preferably from North London) 

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s not just that. They’ve had leaders of Asian heritage, black & Jewish (don’t tell Soggy). What have labour had, white men. The only slightly diverse leader they had was Mad Ed, who was a Jew, even that was some 130 years after the Conservatives. Every time the membership get a vote, these “progressives” vote for the white bloke (preferably from North London) 

Whilst what you say is true, I'm not a big fan of giving someone praise due to their identity. A black person or an Asian woman can do a crap job or a brilliant job and the fact they are black or Asian or a woman really doesn't figure into the equation.

[Farmer Saint]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s not just that. They’ve had leaders of Asian heritage, black & Jewish (don’t tell Soggy). What have labour had, white men. The only slightly diverse leader they had was Mad Ed, who was a Jew, even that was some 130 years after the Conservatives. Every time the membership get a vote, these “progressives” vote for the white bloke (preferably from North London) 

Cunts are still cunts, no matter the heritage.

[hypochondriac]

54 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Cunts are still cunts, no matter the heritage.

TBF you worded it better than me.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Perhaps labour should abolish their all women shortlists, they’re clearly not getting talented chicks to the top. 
 

Imagine if the Tory party only picked white men to lead them, people wouldn’t be making these excuses. They’d be calling the membership dinosaurs, bigots & sexists for only choosing white men.  

[Farmer Saint]

37 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

TBF you worded it better than me.

I believe it was originally Descartes who said it.

[Farmer Saint]

Inflation up again, due to Tobacco taxes and airfares.

Not sure there is much to see there.

[Sir Ralph]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn408vmxrg8o
 

This is very worrying it was crap before, if this guy gets in backed by the mad lefties we are in for a terrible time. The Labour Party is roundly hated in the country. Bring a more of an unelected lefty in who will bow to back benchers will be crap. Upside is another nail in the coffin of the communist party. 🤣

Edited Saturday at 20:13 by Sir Ralph

[sadoldgit]

51 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn408vmxrg8o
 

This is very worrying it was crap before, if this guy gets in backed by the mad lefties we are in for a terrible time. The Labour Party is roundly hated in the country. Bring a more of an unelected lefty in who will bow to back benchers will be crap. Upside is another nail in the coffin of the communist party. 🤣

You are as clueless as nic. To win the seat he will have to win the by election. “Mad Lefties?” You don’t seem to have a problem with the mad people on the right. Communists? 😂

[Lord Duckhunter]

I’m sure Soggy has plenty to say about “the king of the north” promising his voters he’d serve a full term as mayor  and wouldn’t be heading to Westminster .

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn408vmxrg8o
 

This is very worrying it was crap before, if this guy gets in backed by the mad lefties we are in for a terrible time. The Labour Party is roundly hated in the country. Bring a more of an unelected lefty in who will bow to back benchers will be crap. Upside is another nail in the coffin of the communist party. 🤣

All parties are coalitions and all have their moderate and less so branches.  I suppose you have forgotten Truss and Kwarteng, let alone the ERG and other nutters in the Tory ranks.

If Burnham gets selected, and then reaches Westminster he WILL have been elected, juat as he was as Mayor. You do understand how elections work, don't you ?

[rooney]

He is taking a chance here. They could end up with a non labour Mayor and MP in that Manchester constituency.

[Sir Ralph]

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

All parties are coalitions and all have their moderate and less so branches.  I suppose you have forgotten Truss and Kwarteng, let alone the ERG and other nutters in the Tory ranks.

If Burnham gets selected, and then reaches Westminster he WILL have been elected, juat as he was as Mayor. You do understand how elections work, don't you ?

So you are now using Truss as a justification for Burnham? Are you sure about that?

The country did not vote to be run by the left wing nut jobs on the Labour back benches and Trade Unions. This will see the self styled “King of the North” working with “Big Ange” give me (and all of us) strength

Edited 19 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[AlexLaw76]

8 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’m sure Soggy has plenty to say about “the king of the north” promising his voters he’d serve a full term as mayor  and wouldn’t be heading to Westminster .

He’ll fit in perfectly in Westminster

 

Edited 20 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

So you are now using Truss as a justification for Burnham? Are you sure about that?

The country did not vote to be run by the left wing nut jobs on the Labour back benches and Trade Unions. This will see the self styled “King of the North” working with “Big Ange” give me (and all of us) strength

Genuinely, no one gives a fuck what you think apart from Nutty Nic. Give us a rest and sling your hook will you?

We had multiple unelected PMs from the Conservatives over the past 15 years. It happens, get over it. You vote for a party, not a PM.

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Genuinely, no one gives a fuck what you think apart from Nutty Nic. Give us a rest and sling your hook will you?

Of course you don’t. It’s a left wing echo chamber. Why would you care about anyone who has a different view but actually is more reflective of the views of the nation in relation to the Labour Party.

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Of course you don’t. It’s a left wing echo chamber. Why would you care about anyone who has a different view but actually is more reflective of the views of the nation.

There are posts above from both LD and Alex, who both sit on the right. Not sure how that makes this a left wing echo chamber. Or do they not count?

Our issues are not debating different viewpoints. Our issues are you, and you don't seem to understand that.

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

So you are now using Truss as a justification for Burnham? Are you sure about that?

The country did not vote to be run by the left wing nut jobs on the Labour back benches and Trade Unions. This will see the self styled “King of the North” working with “Big Ange” give me (and all of us) strength

You went on a rant about him being "unelected", which he isn't and wouldn't be. The country did not vote for Truss as PM or the disaster that was Trussanomics, and the Parliamentary party preferred Sunak in the leadership election.

You seem to hold 'The North' in low regard. 

Edited 17 hours ago by badgerx16

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

So you are now using Truss as a justification for Burnham? Are you sure about that?

The country did not vote to be run by the left wing nut jobs on the Labour back benches and Trade Unions. This will see the self styled “King of the North” working with “Big Ange” give me (and all of us) strength

So its you conveying its justification whereas I see it as an example. Why make a habit of trying to distort what the other person says? 

You really do try hard to make left vs right on here. Not sure why and now your new line is that its a left echo chamber.....

I'm happy to say that Starmer has ballsed it on a number of things including the NI increase, poor handling of the fuel allowance and even the benefits backtracking (as others). 

Lest we forget that the country is in this state due to austerity, covid and Ukraine also Brexit (losing upto £100 billion in trade).

People have no patience and fed up on a number of things now.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, rooney said:

He is taking a chance here. They could end up with a non labour Mayor and MP in that Manchester constituency.

He’ll win, no bother. Normally people vote against the Governing party in a By election to signal their unpopularity , this time they’ll vote for the Governing party to signal that unpopularity. 13k majority, over 50% of the vote last time, and it being framed as a chance to trigger binning that dud Starmer, they’ll hang on pretty easily…..

Edited 17 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

He’ll win, no bother. Normally people vote against the Governing party in a By election to signal their unpopularity , this time they’ll vote for the Governing party to signal that unpopularity. 13k majority, over 50% of the vote last time, and it being framed as a chance to trigger binning that dud Starmer, and they’ll hang on pretty easily…..

Burnham is popular in the party, and in Manchester.

[Farmer Saint]

And Burnham's been blocked anyway.

The usual suspects can stop panicking about it now.

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

And Burnham's been blocked anyway.

The usual suspects can stop panicking about it now.

That’s a ‘fuck you’ from their NEC to Rayner and co. Streeting won’t be having a bad Sunday by comparison.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

That’s a ‘fuck you’ from their NEC to Rayner and co. Streeting won’t be having a bad Sunday by comparison.

Beeb were reporting the last time Burnham's name was mentioned as a challenge to Starmer, that his allies would do everything in their power to block it.

I think it was Morgan McSweeney who reportedly said he'd rather burn down Downing Street than let Burnham become leader.

Starmer and friends have worked hard to purge their idealogical rivals from the party (as their rivals would do to them). He didn't shift anywhere near as many as he'd have liked, but made sure to pack the key NEC decision making body with pals.

Yesterday, the Beeb put up the following NEC excuses:-

Any prior agreement of candidates (All female or All BAME lists)

Going with a BAME candidate, due to size of Muslim population, to help counter other parties.

That having to do an election would be costly.

They reported that all reasons, of course, were all to do with Starmer blocking someone who has said he wants the top job. But that allies were going full out to get the block.

So, they've gone with the cost of the mayor's election. The beeb also saying sources worried about Reform outspending them. That one's a red herring. The by election would happen regardless, and Burnham would be out the picture if he lost. The loss wouldn't stop Labour still having a clear majority.

Starmer apparently remains deeply unpopular in his own party. Not least from the side of it he's not on. But from MP's feeling cut out of decisions, frustrated with the endless u-turns and of course looking at the polls, and their own chances.

A core of Starmer's allies, if not Starmer himself (since he got to vote on the block) will pat themselves on the back for stopping a rival.

But it's going to have incensed everyone not in that camp. It will only increase the tensions in the party.

Important, as you want to have some comfort in the position of the core group running the country. Beyond that, another look into the messy affairs within all broad church parties. And beyond that, and the Westminster bubble, really life goes on.

[Lord Duckhunter]

[Gloucester Saint]

Two sensible Conservatives putting Badenoch on watch. Understandably so. If you want hard right, white nationalist populism, you’ll pick the full fat option https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93v7nnk3vlo

I’m quite happy with the Lib Dems personally but I’m probably in these two’s target demographic.

[sadoldgit]

6 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

And Burnham's been blocked anyway.

The usual suspects can stop panicking about it now.

Burnham is a big hitter and would add some presence and experience to Labour’s front bench. His presence in Parliament though would cause constant noise about usurping Starmer and neither Labour nor the country need more party psychodramas.

As I have said before, I want to see more from the LibDems. They really should be positioning themselves as the party for disaffected Tory’s and Labour voters. It shouldn’t be hard for them to attract the votes that have been going to Reform from people who just want change and not necessarily the unpleasant baggage that comes with that party.

[Lord Duckhunter]