The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[hypochondriac]

Reporting in the Times and this stood out:

"Meanwhile YouGov polling for The Times today shows that voters think that Labour under Starmer is more sleazy and disreputable than the last Conservative government"

Regardless of those who think all these events are no big deal, ultimately that perception is what's going to do for Starmer.

[ChrisPY]

…

Edited 5 hours ago by ChrisPY

[ChrisPY]

19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Reporting in the Times and this stood out:

"Meanwhile YouGov polling for The Times today shows that voters think that Labour under Starmer is more sleazy and disreputable than the last Conservative government"

Regardless of those who think all these events are no big deal, ultimately that perception is what's going to do for Starmer.

It’s not so much the perception of the events. It’s those events with the back drop of sanctimony when they were coming into power.

 

[The Kraken]

52 minutes ago, ChrisPY said:

It’s not so much the perception of the events. It’s those events with the back drop of sanctimony when they were coming into power.

 

It also depends on which “last Conservative government” we’re talking about. Johnson oversaw enormous corruption and sleaze, Starmer’s lot don’t come close to that. Dim Lizzy was just thick and terrible for a couple of months. Sunak was perhaps less corrupt and dealt a shit hand but ultimately a wet flannel who bended to the bigger boys who really ran the party by then, and not far from contempt.

People have got short memories if they think this current lot are worse than Johnson. They’re proving to be a bit useless but have got a long way to go catch up Boris, who should be in jail, the cunt.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

It also depends on which “last Conservative government” we’re talking about. Johnson oversaw enormous corruption and sleaze, Starmer’s lot don’t come close to that. Dim Lizzy was just thick and terrible for a couple of months. Sunak was perhaps less corrupt and dealt a shit hand but ultimately a wet flannel who bended to the bigger boys who really ran the party by then, and not far from contempt.

People have got short memories if they think this current lot are worse than Johnson. They’re proving to be a bit useless but have got a long way to go catch up Boris, who should be in jail, the cunt.

In fairness the Tories had a fair bit longer. Pretty impressive where Starmer has got to in just a year and a half.

[The Kraken]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

In fairness the Tories had a fair bit longer. Pretty impressive where Starmer has got to in just a year and a half.

Johnson didn’t take very long at all to live up to expectations. Both him and Keith very far from impressive but I struggle to come around to the notion that there is a more useless and corrupt person than Johnson, no matter what The Times suggest.

[hypochondriac]

32 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Johnson didn’t take very long at all to live up to expectations. Both him and Keith very far from impressive but I struggle to come around to the notion that there is a more useless and corrupt person than Johnson, no matter what The Times suggest.

I'm not sure the Times made any comparison between Johnson and Starmer? 

[The Kraken]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure the Times made any comparison between Johnson and Starmer? 

Sorry, what?

Johnson was part of the last Conservative government wasn’t he? Or at least the last elected one. So that’s entirely what they were saying. 

Edited 11 hours ago by The Kraken

[Farmer Saint]

Do you know what I may vote for, a Conservative party led by Jeremey Hunt.

[hypochondriac]

38 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Sorry, what?

Johnson was part of the last Conservative government wasn’t he? Or at least the last elected one. So that’s entirely what they were saying. 

They are reporting yougov polling not editorialising.

[The Kraken]

Your initial post said that the times commissioned the polls. If you don’t think that is having a part of story then fair enough.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Your initial post said that the times commissioned the polls. If you don’t think that is having a part of story then fair enough.

So the yougov polling was biased?

[The Kraken]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

So the yougov polling was biased?

What?

The Times commissioned a poll, and reported on the results of it. What on earth else are you reading in to it? Carry on, I’m off to bed. Ridiculous conversation.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Last time, I was a diagonal closer to the centre.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

32 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

What?

The Times commissioned a poll, and reported on the results of it. What on earth else are you reading in to it? Carry on, I’m off to bed. Ridiculous conversation.

OK so the Times weren't suggesting that Boris was less corrupt than Starmer then were they. They were simply reporting on a poll that they commissioned.

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Last time, I was a diagonal closer to the centre.

 

 

I'm not sure it works. It seems thst every ends up not too far away despite clearly having wildly different views.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

44 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure it works. It seems thst every ends up not too far away despite clearly having wildly different views.

It was the same last time. However, one of us managed to get into the top right quarter. Lord Duckhunter, I think.

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

It was the same last time. However, one of us managed to get into the top right quarter. Lord Duckhunter, I think.

I just think some of the questions are things you really wouldn't answer strongly agree or disagree to unless you're a total twat. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I just think some of the questions are things you really wouldn't answer strongly agree or disagree to unless you're a total twat. 

Presumably somewhere there should be groups based in the other quarters who think that of the people who ended up in the quarter we did.

A peek at wiki had a criticism that the questions were biased towards you ending up more libertarian. But I've not checked out the sources.

What is clear, is that when SOG and I answered "strongly agree" to "Do you think Diane Abbott is incredibly attractive?", it was always going to be a struggle to move from the far left. Oh, you had different questions? Ah, awkward...

[Sir Ralph]

Not sure what happened. Must be a glitch

[east-stand-nic]

16 hours ago, egg said:

Where have you got the stupid idea from that a) immigrants go around raping kids, b) that people who understand that we need immigration support the idea of children being raped?

Your mind is as seedy as the country you apparently live in. 

To answer your question, no. 

Where have you got the idea that people who move to Thailand are all nonces? Think! 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, east-stand-nic said:

Where have you got the idea that people who move to Thailand are all nonces? Think! 

It's a fair point.

Most people go to Thailand for the superior living standards and authoritarian oppression. Definitely not lady boys and underage sex, no sir.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Where have you got the idea that people who move to Thailand are all nonces? Think! 

Where have you got the ideas that (a) all immigrants rape children, snd (b) all "lefties" condone child abuse ?

[egg]

21 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Where have you got the idea that people who move to Thailand are all nonces? Think! 

I haven't. 

It's you who has labelled Starmer supporters (I'm not sure there's one on here btw) as paedophile supporters, and suggested that they like the idea of children being raped. 

You're a disgraceful human. I'm surprised that the mods haven't binned you off yet. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I just think some of the questions are things you really wouldn't answer strongly agree or disagree to unless you're a total twat. 

It was a load of old pony. Some of the questions were way too simplistic, it’s the nuances which define people’s political beliefs. Everybody pretty much wants the same thing, the disagreement is how to get there. If you look at the example of helping the poorest and whether the Government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off. Nobody would disagree that they should, but the definition of rich, of poor, of how you redistribute this money is your political compass, not whether you should or not. Everybody wants world peace, do you get it by sitting around holding hands and singing Kumbaya, or do you get it by mutually assured destruction. 

 

[iansums]

33 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It was a load of old pony. Some of the questions were way too simplistic, it’s the nuances which define people’s political beliefs. Everybody pretty much wants the same thing, the disagreement is how to get there. If you look at the example of helping the poorest and whether the Government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off. Nobody would disagree that they should, but the definition of rich, of poor, of how you redistribute this money is your political compass, not whether you should or not. Everybody wants world peace, do you get it by sitting around holding hands and singing Kumbaya, or do you get it by mutually assured destruction. 

 

Spot on, it really was a load of bollocks, I’m sure SOG and nic could join forces and come up with a much better set of questions 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I haven't. 

It's you who has labelled Starmer supporters (I'm not sure there's one on here btw) as paedophile supporters, and suggested that they like the idea of children being raped. 

You're a disgraceful human. I'm surprised that the mods haven't binned you off yet. 

Agreed, but if people stop quoting him in responses, the ignore function will work better.