The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

23 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

100% agree with your assessment of Starmer. Weak and inspiring. Not a real leader that our forces want to get behind. Some people might suggest that’s the profile of a British liberal man.

Pretty certain that CB Fry was referencing GM.

[Gloucester Saint]

31 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

100% agree with your assessment of Starmer. Weak and inspiring. Not a real leader that our forces want to get behind. Some people might suggest that’s the profile of a British liberal man.

Not a Starmer or Labour man but that’s as bad as any of Soggy’s posts labelling everyone far right. You’re a cunt for generalising tens of millions of people with crackpot views. You’ve also joined John and your Thailand pervert alter ego on ignore so don’t bother responding.

Edited yesterday at 07:34 by Gloucester Saint

[Sir Ralph]

20 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Pretty certain that CB Fry was referencing GM.

Thanks, yes I was aware. CB Fry’s post was unnecessary, hence my twist on it.

[Sir Ralph]

57 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not a Starmer or Labour man but that’s as bad as any of Soggy’s posts labelling everyone far right. You’re a cunt for generalising tens of millions of people with crackpot views. You’ve also joined John and your Thailand pervert alter ego on ignore so don’t bother responding.

I profusely apologise - I meant “progressive” liberal British man 😂

Edited yesterday at 08:25 by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

22 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thanks, yes I was aware. CB Fry’s post was unnecessary, hence my twist on it.

Of course you were... 🤡

[Gloucester Saint]

17 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Of course you were... 🤡

Nic/Ralph’s mates aren’t faring too well in Dubai.

Of course they’ll turn down the evacuation plane because it’s organised by a centre left government, paid for by us mugs.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

100% agree with your assessment of Starmer. Weak and inspiring. Not a real leader that our forces want to get behind. Some people might suggest that’s the profile of a “progressive” British liberal man.

He's talking about GM, not Starmer.

Fucking hell, you piss off for a week and then fuck up as soon as you get back.

[Farmer Saint]

19 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Nic/Ralph’s mates aren’t faring too well in Dubai.

Of course they’ll turn down the evacuation plane because it’s organised by a centre left government, paid for by us mugs.

Anyone that comes back on those planes should be liable for taxes not paid over the past 5 years.

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Anyone that comes back on those planes should be liable for taxes not paid over the past 5 years.

Absolutely 💯

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Anyone that comes back on those planes should be liable for taxes not paid over the past 5 years.

Should put them in army barracks until we can clear them as net contributors to the UK economy. Non tax paying influencers funded by UAE spin team not welcome

[AlexLaw76]

55 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Anyone that comes back on those planes should be liable for taxes not paid over the past 5 years.

Not even treated to a hotel or HMO

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Not even treated to a hotel or HMO

Only if they come on an RIB.

[rallyboy]

Why don't they just go to the country next door to them?

Stop the planes, we just haven't got any room - unless they have lots of dogs, then we can take them.

Edited yesterday at 10:24 by rallyboy
woof

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not a Starmer or Labour man but that’s as bad as any of Soggy’s posts labelling everyone far right. You’re a cunt for generalising tens of millions of people with crackpot views. You’ve also joined John and your Thailand pervert alter ego on ignore so don’t bother responding.

Everyone far right? I only label those as far right who spout far right rhetoric or who support those who spout far right rhetoric.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

Everyone far right? I only label those as far right who spout far right rhetoric or who support those who spout far right rhetoric.

antisemitism is a foundational and persistent element of far-right, neo-Nazi, and white supremacist ideologies. While antisemitism exists across the political spectrum—including the far-left and within certain extremist movements—it is a core component of the far-right worldview

 

Sound like we need to start giving you that label too.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

100% agree with your assessment of Starmer. Weak and inspiring. Not a real leader that our forces want to get behind. Some people might suggest that’s the profile of a “progressive” British liberal man.

Both “weak” and “inspiring?” Not sure how that works?

Anyway, standing up to Trump is not being “weak.” Taking decisions which are unpopular is not being “weak.” It has been a long time since we have had a PM that looks like a grown up on the international scene. If you want “weak” people, take a look at Trump and Farage. Anyone who gives in to base instincts is not a strong person. Bullies are not strong. They are weak. The people you support are weak. You are weak. It takes strength to do the right thing. Something you know nothing about.

Edited yesterday at 10:46 by sadoldgit
Typo

[Guided Missile]

3 hours ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Pretty certain that CB Fry was referencing GM.

Like I give a fuck...

[Guided Missile]

Ali Starmaini

[Guided Missile]

Meanwhile, Lammy refuses to rule out strikes on Iran
Deputy Prime Minister says ‘all operational capability’ open to UK to defend country

[badgerx16]

42 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Ali Starmaini

It was much funnier a couple of days ago with the Sam Allardyce pictures.

 

You are just a sad excuse for a human being desperately trying to be relevant and hoping that somebody equally pathetic will agree with you.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Both “weak” and “inspiring?” Not sure how that works?

Anyway, standing up to Trump is not being “weak.” Taking decisions which are unpopular is not being “weak.” It has been a long time since we have had a PM that looks like a grown up on the international scene. If you want “weak” people, take a look at Trump and Farage. Anyone who gives in to base instincts is not a strong person. Bullies are not strong. They are weak. The people you support are weak. You are weak. It takes strength to do the right thing. Something you know nothing about.

It turned out that Starmer wanted to immediately let Trump use the bases. It was Ed Miliband, and 3 others in the cabinet, who told him they wouldn't support it. That's where the using of them for "defensive" purposes came from.

[tdmickey3]

55 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

 

Edited yesterday at 12:24 by tdmickey3

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Everyone far right? I only label those as far right who spout far right rhetoric or who support those who spout far right rhetoric.

I was actually pointing out the contradiction that when you generalise about how right wing something/someone is, people jump all over it, so I don’t see why the likes of Ralph/Nic (like 🇹🇷 I suspect it’s the same poster) should get away with it either. 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

It was much funnier a couple of days ago with the Sam Allardyce pictures.

 

You are just a sad excuse for a human being desperately trying to be relevant and hoping that somebody equally pathetic will agree with you.

With a liver so scarred and destroyed it looks like Katie Hopkins’s face. 

 

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

It turned out that Starmer wanted to immediately let Trump use the bases. It was Ed Miliband, and 3 others in the cabinet, who told him they wouldn't support it. That's where the using of them for "defensive" purposes came from.

It was right though, and one of our finest Foreign Secretaries agrees (albeit he got the Tory Party leader gig way too early. I would literally run to the ballot box to vote for him these days, politician and man of substance) 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/tacticalvoting/posts/1862449064439613/

[whelk]

14 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

With a liver so scarred and destroyed it looks like Katie Hopkins’s face. 

 

I think it would work better if you said like Katie Hopkins’s snatch

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

I think it would work better if you said like Katie Hopkins’s snatch

That’s what John’s breath probably smells like, with a background note of cheap, stale wine. 🍷 

Lucky Lowford 😂

[harvey]

According to (thick as shit) Lammy, Cyprus is a member of NATO.

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, harvey said:

According to (thick as shit) Lammy, Cyprus is a member of NATO.

Thick as shit people don’t tend to study at Harvard

[harvey]

27 minutes ago, whelk said:

Thick as shit people don’t tend to study at Harvard

David Lammy served as foreign minister July 5th 2024  to September 5th 2025...I would therefore assume that he would be well aware that Cyprus was NOT a member of NATO.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, harvey said:

David Lammy served as foreign minister July 5th 2024  to September 5th 2025...I would therefore assume that he would be well aware that Cyprus was NOT a member of NATO.

 

But I'm sure he's aware (unlike you, apparently), that the sovereign British territory in Cyprus IS a member of NATO.

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

So on Iran, is Starmer waiting a good thing now or bad thing? Seems like a number of other countries are hesitant too.

I genuinely don't know enough. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

So on Iran, is Starmer waiting a good thing now or bad thing? Seems like a number of other countries are hesitant too.

I genuinely don't know enough. 

It was never a bad thing that he wanted to know what the actual plan was. It was also right to question the legality given that a) the independent assessors had said that Iran were nowhere near nuke capability and b) there was no imminent threat to the US (and frankly no threat at all. 

Once Iran started going mental and pinging drones and missiles everywhere, Including towards British interests, supporting the defence of that made sense. 

He was bang on about not using our runways for the initial strikes though. They were illegal and unjustified, and would have been akin to lending someone your car to go and do a drive by shooting. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

It was never a bad thing that he wanted to know what the actual plan was. It was also right to question the legality given that a) the independent assessors had said that Iran were nowhere near nuke capability and b) there was no imminent threat to the US (and frankly no threat at all. 

Once Iran started going mental and pinging drones and missiles everywhere, Including towards British interests, supporting the defence of that made sense. 

He was bang on about not using our runways for the initial strikes though. They were illegal and unjustified, and would have been akin to lending someone your car to go and do a drive by shooting. 

Understood. 

I've been away and all I've seen initially is a load of backlash and people calling Starmer a pussy. So not had the chance to do much reading.

Understand that Iran is a terrorist sponsoring state, which could be a reason used for attacking them.

Only winners are the oil and energy companies making a quick raise.