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 yesterday at 04:30 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 Friday at 23:08 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.

[badgerx16]

50 minutes ago, iansums said:

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 

On a scale of 1-10 how do you rate Katie Hopkins and Gary Glitter ?

Are the "far right" more prevalent than "Leftie libtards" ?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 10:29 by badgerx16

[east-stand-nic]

On 06/02/2026 at 17:13, whelk said:

Obsessed with paedos. No one else seems to mention as much as you

Delicious irony seeing as it was you who started all this by calling me this name. Let's see if you can stop now huh. 

Edited yesterday at 10:37 by east-stand-nic

[iansums]

21 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

On a scale of 1-10 how do you rate Katie Hopkins and Gary Glitter ?

Are the "far right" more prevalent than "Leftie libtards" ?

 

 

I wouldn’t have a clue

[iansums]

11 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

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

Interesting, you do wonder how things would have worked out if he’d won the leadership contest against Johnson.

[badgerx16]

11 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

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

The former Hulture Secretary ?

[Farmer Saint]

25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The former Hulture Secretary ?

That's the one. I've met him a couple of times and he's actually a genuinely good bloke.

[tdmickey3]

4 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

Delicious irony seeing as it was you who started all this by calling me this name. Let's see if you can stop now huh. 

Shut up

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

Shut up

Best to put him on ignore and not quote him. 

[east-stand-nic]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

Shut up

Truth hurts 

12 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Best to put him on ignore and not quote him. 

Truth hurts. 

[Gloucester Saint]

I can’t see whatever you’ve typed Nic, but couldn’t give a shit. And stay away from the UK in the future, we don’t want the likes of you in our country.

Edited 20 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Truth hurts 

Truth hurts. 

I'm sure you believe that what you say is the truth. It is my sincere public duty to politely inform you that you are mistaken.

[sadoldgit]

37 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Truth hurts 

Truth hurts. 

Truth Social.

Spot the similarity.

[Gloucester Saint]

5 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Truth Social.

Spot the similarity.

Seriously, please cease requoting him everyone and Soggy you are one of the worst offenders for it, although not the only one by any means.
It’s encouraging further blatant trolling, spamming, and just a constant stream of abuse from what is clearly a very angry, disturbed and unpleasant individual, wherever ‘Nic’ actually does reside.

Stick him on ignore and keep him there. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Lammy joining Rayner in making sure people know he advised Starmer against Mandelson. 

No reason to doubt this, meaning Starmer went with his chief of staff rather than those he gave senior positions to.

Streeting has his own links with Mandelson; Rayner is sorting out her tax issues; they blocked Burnham; Phillipson had Bungs for Birthdays; Miliband and isn't the best labour leader in his own family, and failed before.

Streeting and Rayner could need some time. Otherwise, we're getting a leadership battle between Lammy who liked Thatcher, and soft-left Lucy Powell.

If Rachel Reeves wants to run, we'll know by the leaks well in advance, like her budgets.

 

[trousers]

8 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Lammy joining Rayner in making sure people know he advised Starmer against Mandelson. 

No reason to doubt this, meaning Starmer went with his chief of staff rather than those he gave senior positions to.

You sure about that...?

 

 

[east-stand-nic]

On 06/02/2026 at 17:33, Gloucester Saint said:

Niccy is only there for the beaches and spicy food remember.

So, if I am not here for the food and beaches are you perhaps insinuating I am here for bad reasons? Just like a lefty tard, you can insinuate but If i do it i should be banned. 

On 06/02/2026 at 23:15, Farmer Saint said:

Right, can we have a ban on the word "pedo" or any variation? I know we've all said it but it's gone too far, and it's really fucking boring.

So, call out those who started it and carry it on and on. Nope, you cannot coz you have NDS as well as TDS. When they do it, it's OK as they are your clam, when I do it, Bad as I opposed you. Childlike. 

On 07/02/2026 at 15:15, Weston Super Saint said:

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.

Yep, showing no worldly experience there. Oppression LOL. Yeah, the UK is free. 

On 07/02/2026 at 15:35, 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. 

Should the mods bin off those who started it by calling me a nonce sympathiser etc? No? Why only me, care to explain?

On 07/02/2026 at 17:04, Gloucester Saint said:

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

LOL, you are the one mentioning me. 

18 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Best to put him on ignore and not quote him. 

And again.

17 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I can’t see whatever you’ve typed Nic, but couldn’t give a shit. And stay away from the UK in the future, we don’t want the likes of you in our country.

And again. 

11 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Seriously, please cease requoting him everyone and Soggy you are one of the worst offenders for it, although not the only one by any means.
It’s encouraging further blatant trolling, spamming, and just a constant stream of abuse from what is clearly a very angry, disturbed and unpleasant individual, wherever ‘Nic’ actually does reside.

Stick him on ignore and keep him there. 

Andf again, Typical lefty libtard double standards idiot LOL. Telles everyone to put me on ignore and not mention me than brings me up in almost every post. Comedy gold. What a dope. I now await all the childlike minds to tell me to give it a rest without engaging brain and realising I am only REPLYING to others. 

Edited 3 hours ago by east-stand-nic

[badgerx16]

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Lammy joining Rayner in making sure people know he advised Starmer against Mandelson. 

No reason to doubt this, meaning Starmer went with his chief of staff rather than those he gave senior positions to.

Streeting has his own links with Mandelson; Rayner is sorting out her tax issues; they blocked Burnham; Phillipson had Bungs for Birthdays; Miliband and isn't the best labour leader in his own family, and failed before.

Streeting and Rayner could need some time. Otherwise, we're getting a leadership battle between Lammy who liked Thatcher, and soft-left Lucy Powell.

If Rachel Reeves wants to run, we'll know by the leaks well in advance, like her budgets.

 

Mate, the adults are in the room and sweeping clean with their new broom.

What’s Lord Alli up to these days?!

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

You sure about that...?

 

 

Ah. I was perhaps foolishly thinking they had some proof of this, for exactly the reasons of closeness they had either to Starmer or Mandelson. Something to remove themselves from the closeness say Streeting had. Public ally, ministers would back an appointment. So, as embarrassing as the clip is, it's not unexpected.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

43 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Mate, the adults are in the room and sweeping clean with their new broom.

What’s Lord Alli up to these days?!

Busy transfering "donations" to his favourite front runners. Selflessly. Not in return for access or policy decisions, or anything like that.

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Lammy joining Rayner in making sure people know he advised Starmer against Mandelson. 

No reason to doubt this, meaning Starmer went with his chief of staff rather than those he gave senior positions to.

Streeting has his own links with Mandelson; Rayner is sorting out her tax issues; they blocked Burnham; Phillipson had Bungs for Birthdays; Miliband and isn't the best labour leader in his own family, and failed before.

Streeting and Rayner could need some time. Otherwise, we're getting a leadership battle between Lammy who liked Thatcher, and soft-left Lucy Powell.

If Rachel Reeves wants to run, we'll know by the leaks well in advance, like her budgets.

 

Streeting would be the most feared option in the other parties as his quick wit would put 5% on Labour’s rating straight away despite their poor record so far and he’d shrug off any links to Mandelson. There are cross-party links to Mandelson - a snake who slivered all over the place for personal gain. It won’t be Lammy v Powell realistically, Streeting v Powell more likely.

[iansums]

1 minute ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Streeting would be the most feared option in the other parties as his quick wit would put 5% on Labour’s rating straight away despite their poor record so far and he’d shrug off any links to Mandelson. There are cross-party links to Mandelson - a snake who slivered all over the place for personal gain. It won’t be Lammy v Powell realistically, Streeting v Powell more likely.

Streeting for me, I think he could make a good PM.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, iansums said:

Streeting for me, I think he could make a good PM.

Have a look at what Whitey Grandad just posted on the Other Games thread on the main board from his trip to Argentina - puts the hot dogs at SMS in the shade…