The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I agree, I think most people do. Hypo just needs to wet his pants about something.

You seem a tad upset. We've had months and months of scandal and disappointment from this shambles of a government and we've had people on here consistently saying it's all a storm in a teacup, no big deal, voters don't care, you've been brainwashed by the right wing press if you're bothered and now it's always been obvious that Starmer needs to go.

The fact we had loads of talking heads talking about adults back in the room, getting back to the sensible business of government and how nice the silence is is both tragic and hilarious given how action packed the last year and a half have been and not in a good way.

If what you say is true and this ends up being his death knell then what an absolute cluster fuck of an administration to get themselves in this position with cratering approval rating s and no one trusting a word they say in a year and a half. I didn't think they'd be a good government but fuck me they've surpassed expectations on that score.

Edited 4 hours ago by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You seem a tad upset. We've had months and months of scandal and disappointment from this shambles of a government and we've had people on here consistently saying it's all a storm in a teacup, no big deal, voters don't care, you've been brainwashed by the right wing press if you're bothered and now it's always been obvious that Starmer needs to go. If what you say is true and he needs to go then what an absolute cluster fuck of an administration to get themselves in this position with catering approval rating s and no one trusting a word they say in a year and a half.

Why would I be upset, I've never voted Labour in my life.

You're the one wetting your pants over this.

Edited 4 hours ago by aintforever

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

Why would I be upset, I've never voted Labour in my life.

You're the one wetting their pants over this.

It's the biggest UK political scandal in decades and may well cause the leader to be removed. I'd say that is worthy of comment and a dash of derision at those who've spent the premiership so far playing down every terrible decision this government has made. Hardly pant wetting to discuss reality.

[egg]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Boris is no longer in power. What is relevant now is the corruption being uncovered in the Labour Party which to my mind is even more hypocritical given that they sold themselves on being different. Boris never tried to hide the fact that he was a massive throbbing bellend.

I'm not sure who you're debating with here. Starmer has fucked up. Accept that people accept that. 

And trying to convince people how other people may, hypothetically, have reacted is absolutely pointless. 

[Gloucester Saint]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's the biggest UK political scandal in decades and may well cause the leader to be removed. I'd say that is worthy of comment and a dash of derision at those who've spent the premiership so far playing down every terrible decision this government has made. Hardly pant wetting to discuss reality.

It’s very poor judgment and Starmer and McSweeney will go for it, that’s very clear. It’s been their Achilles heel.
Biggest for decades? It’s certainly big and not very clever at all. Covid was worse still objectively, though, for anyone coming from a neutral perspective, and Truss was a major economic disaster and that’s what leads to certain and heavy defeat - Major and ERM, 2008 Financial Crisis and Truss. Sunak was holding the wheel but Truss and Boris did the damage.

Thatcher had a public friendship with Jimmy Savile when it was pretty obvious he was iffy at the time and she was usually a very shrewd operator. She had another couple of perverts in her inner circle as well - eg Peter Morrison. Liberals messed up about Cyril Smith. 

But these days, it’s near impossible for these scandals not to come out, as Steve Bannon and Donald Trump are also finding out. Starmer has been a sitting duck for the red tops because of convicting Coulson and Brooks (rightly) but that meant being cautious and that’s what he was elected on. Appointing Mandelson was always a huge risk and it’s blown up in his face. If you are known as the Prince of Darkness in your own party it’s normally a clue.

Edited 4 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[aintforever]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's the biggest UK political scandal in decades and may well cause the leader to be removed. I'd say that is worthy of comment and a dash of derision at those who've spent the premiership so far playing down every terrible decision this government has made. Hardly pant wetting to discuss reality.

That remains to be seen, it depends what he knew when he appointed him. At the moment it just looks like piss poor judgement on the part of Starmer, it's not like he's been partying with the KGB on the eve of a NATO meeting.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, trousers said:

Starmer's argument seems to be: "I knew Mandleson was still involved with a convicted peadophile but I didn't know by how much"

Surely the depth of his relationship is immaterial? Surely any level of relationship is enough to rule him out? 

Starmer doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's almost as bad a judgement as eating a piece of birthday cake during a Covid lockdown...

it’s not great but if Mandelson had said that he was only keeping in touch with Epstein to wind up some business, what do you do? Starmer said today that Mandelson lied several times. To accuse someone of lying in the Commons is a big deal. A lot depends on what Starmer was told at the time but it seems clear that the vetting process didn’t have a problem with him.

Given Trump’s direct connections with Epstein it would be nice to see the people who haven’t said a word so far calling for his head too.

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's the biggest UK political scandal in decades and may well cause the leader to be removed. I'd say that is worthy of comment and a dash of derision at those who've spent the premiership so far playing down every terrible decision this government has made. Hardly pant wetting to discuss reality.

You're pant wetting seems to be because we're not saying Mandelson and Starmer are in the wrong, and should go, even though we are.

"But babe, they're not shouting as loud as I want them to."

[tdmickey3]

51 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It would be more self righteous and vociferous. They'd be calling for him to step down, saying that his government is mired in sleaze and corruption and saying there should be a general election.

 I know you hate labour so its hard for you to be objective but...

The only reason that the tories are not asking for an election because they know they have no chance of winning and don't want reform either so don't kid yourself 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

That remains to be seen, it depends what he knew when he appointed him. At the moment it just looks like piss poor judgement on the part of Starmer, it's not like he's been partying with the KGB on the eve of a NATO meeting.

Prior to being appointed the bloke was leaking private information to someone with links to the Russians and God knows who else! At the very least he was appointed when Starmer knew he continued to have a relationship with a paedophile after he had been to prison. That on its own is scandalous enough even if nothing else comes out.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

it’s not great but if Mandelson had said that he was only keeping in touch with Epstein to wind up some business, what do you do? Starmer said today that Mandelson lied several times. To accuse someone of lying in the Commons is a big deal. A lot depends on what Starmer was told at the time but it seems clear that the vetting process didn’t have a problem with him.

Given Trump’s direct connections with Epstein it would be nice to see the people who haven’t said a word so far calling for his head too.

I'm not sure you're the best person to judge given you don't think Huw Edwards did much wrong.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

 I know you hate labour so its hard for you to be objective but...

The only reason that the tories are not asking for an election because they know they have no chance of winning and don't want reform either so don't kid yourself 

I don't hate anyone. I think Labour form Blair onwards have been terrible for the country and I fundamentally disagree with the majority of theor political outlook. I don't hate them I'd just prefer they weren't in power and I don't think many posters on here who really do hate the conservative party have been particularly objective about the many fuck ups since they came to power.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You're pant wetting seems to be because we're not saying Mandelson and Starmer are in the wrong, and should go, even though we are.

"But babe, they're not shouting as loud as I want them to."

I never claimed you said Mandelson and Starmer were not in the wrong. What I'm saying is that there has been a great many other things they have been wrong about that some posters are loathe to mention-preferring instead to bring up the Conservatives and particularly Boris Johnson and Trump. You can look at earlier pages for plenty of examples where clear fuck ups and errors have been downplayed which wouldn't have been the case whilst the Tories were in power. 

[Gloucester Saint]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

 I don't think many posters on here who really do hate the conservative party have been particularly objective about the many fuck ups since they came to power.

Don’t hate the Conservatives overall, but I do hate the ERG wing - Brexit is the biggest scandal of the lot. This iteration of Labour are very frustratingly piecemeal, don’t follow decisions through nor take a considered view - £1m limit on farm tax way too low, private school fees which didn’t generate much income despite the noise it created, small business relief. Not my cup of tea in other words.

Your opinion about what not particularly objective means but the constant red top noise generated probably engendered something contrary in us, most of it because Coulson and Brooks rightly went to jail as serious criminal offenders should. That’s because of his work at the CPS not Labour per se. 

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:At the very least he was appointed when Starmer knew he continued to have a relationship with a paedophile after he had been to prison. That on its own is scandalous enough even if nothing else comes out.

Well that obviously depends on the nature of the relationship and what Starmer knew. Clearing up existing business is obviously very different to joining Epstein in gang-bangs on his Island. 

[Gloucester Saint]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I never claimed you said Mandelson and Starmer were not in the wrong. What I'm saying is that there has been a great many other things they have been wrong about that some posters are loathe to mention-preferring instead to bring up the Conservatives and particularly Boris Johnson and Trump. You can look at earlier pages for plenty of examples where clear fuck ups and errors have been downplayed which wouldn't have been the case whilst the Tories were in power. 

Simple - this is the worst error Starmer has made. Far from the only, but the most material and highest profile. The only poster I’ve seen doing what you suggest over the last 18 months is Soggy and even he’s not defending Starmer here. 

The Lib Dem’s are pro EU and according to the right wing posters Davey is unfit. Farage admits today Reform are nowhere near ready, neither is Badenoch. Therefore as a non-Labour voter I have to hope Streeting launches a leadership challenge. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Simple - this is the worst error Starmer has made. Far from the only, but the most material and highest profile. The only poster I’ve seen doing what you suggest over the last 18 months is Soggy and even he’s not defending Starmer here. 

I agree it is the worst. Don't agree that there hasn't been significant downplaying though. I have more respect for those who think the Tories were absolutely terrible but can hold their hands up and say that this labour government have been on the whole absolutely fucking shit as well. They have been, everyone I know who voted for them regrets it and thinks they have been crap.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Well that obviously depends on the nature of the relationship and what Starmer knew. Clearing up existing business is obviously very different to joining Epstein in gang-bangs on his Island. 

What level of friendship is acceptable when the friend is a paedophile?

Edited 4 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I agree it is the worst. Don't agree that there hasn't been significant downplaying though. I have more respect for those who think the Tories were absolutely terrible but can hold their hands up and say that this labour government have been on the whole absolutely fucking shit as well. They have been, everyone I know who voted for them regrets it and thinks they have been crap.

They’re too piecemeal to make decent policies, fly too many kites in public, those OBR budget leaks did my head in. Policies don’t seem to be configured end to end, impacts fully considered and it still feels far too Tory post 2016. Are they worse than the Coalition 2010-15? For me, yes, comfortably and worse than New Labour as well. Those governments had clear sense of purpose and direction which is a difference.

But what I will say is that he’s had to deal with Trump 2.0 with no domestic guardrails over there, the economy was left in the worst state WW2 and public services through the floor. And Brexit carving 6% off the economy. They’ve made choices on NI, small business rates, International Student Levy that I’d never have made but they’ve not made enough inroads in clearing up. 

[Turkish]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What level of friendship is acceptable when the friend is a paedophile?

Depends on if its a Tory or not.

Tory - absolute scum, self serving, lying peado lovers

Labour - Stop wetting your pants, its not great but (insert excuse) 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

@whelkdo you agree with this assessment?

Not really although I have been avoiding the news, stopped listening to political podcasts as all too depressing. I don’t think Starmer should resign. He’s been a disappointment though.

[Gloucester Saint]

23 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Depends on if its a Tory or not.

Tory - absolute scum, self serving, lying peado lovers

Labour - Stop wetting your pants, its not great but (insert excuse) 

Or non-Labour/depends on the Tory (Hunt, Heseltine, Willetts, Clarke all good, I don’t even mind Osborne and Sunak was alright as well)

I liked the Coalition and voted for it (knowing it was a possibility and open to it). Voted Tory in 2017 as whilst May’s deal had flaws it was way better than anything Boris and Frost would blunder upon (I was 100% correct on that aspect indisputably but sadly we ended up with their fuck up putting the skids under the last few governments).

The country ain’t in a very good state and everyone has played their part - Starmer, Reeves, Truss, Boris and Farage, the electorate, Corbyn for not doing the opposition job properly during Brexit, the Remain campaign and ultimately, 52% of the electorate fucking it up with a Spors/Damion Downs moment in 2016. Everyone wants change but within 5 minutes the pitchforks are out whoever wins. We are doing down the American ungovernable road if not careful. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

It's the biggest UK political scandal in decades

lol - recency bias I think

Edited 3 hours ago by whelk

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

lol - recence bias I think

Quite a few commentators have considered it the worst since profumo. Even if not the worst it's up there. I honestly think you are downplaying the significance.

[Gloucester Saint]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Quite a few commentators have considered it the worst since profumo. Even if not the worst it's up there. I honestly think you are downplaying the significance.

Chris Mason, who is pretty much kissing Farage’s arse, to be exact. 

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

They have been, everyone I know who voted for them regrets it and thinks they have been crap.

You’d get on like a house on fire with Sir Ralph. Endlessly posting smearing rumours caveats with ‘if true’ about rent boys, affairs etc. Your MO is always to deny having an agenda but your desperation for failure is palpable. You are an intelligent lad but fear you are being unbalanced due to your idealogical opposition 

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Quite a few commentators have considered it the worst since profumo. Even if not the worst it's up there. I honestly think you are downplaying the significance.

I have to be honest it hasn’t resonated much with me. Never liked or trusted Mandelson. The amount of people linked with Epstein is huge and no doubt so much corruption and insider dealings that go on at the level. Just don’t get the outrage but then I am not reading commentators telling me to be. It’s like some are only just aware of Epstein- fck me been a story for years.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Chris Mason, who is pretty much kissing Farage’s arse, to be exact. 

No. The times journos mentioned it this morning. Like I said though, even if you disagree it's definitely up there as one of the worst scandals that coukd result in the PM resigning. To suggest it isn't is downplaying things imo.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

I have to be honest it hasn’t resonated much with me. Never liked or trusted Mandelson. The amount of people linked with Epstein is huge and no doubt so much corruption and insider dealings that go on at the level. Just don’t get the outrage but then I am not reading commentators telling me to be. It’s like some are only just aware of Epstein- fck me been a story for years.

It's pretty tiring when you say that every time. Is someone not able to read what happened and form their own opinion without being unduly influenced by commentators? You've even got labour supporters on here saying Starmer should go. Are they only saying that because commentators have told them to?

[tdmickey3]

You are not fooling anyone, you have been on their case from the off.

So you don’t want Labour so who do you want?

Tories ?

Reform?

My money is in you wanting the Tory failures

[iansums]

19 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Or non-Labour/depends on the Tory (Hunt, Heseltine, Willetts, Clarke all good, I don’t even mind Osborne and Sunak was alright as well)

I liked the Coalition and voted for it (knowing it was a possibility and open to it). Voted Tory in 2017 as whilst May’s deal had flaws it was way better than anything Boris and Frost would blunder upon (I was 100% correct on that aspect indisputably but sadly we ended up with their fuck up putting the skids under the last few governments).

The country ain’t in a very good state and everyone has played their part - Starmer, Reeves, Truss, Boris and Farage, the electorate, Corbyn for not doing the opposition job properly during Brexit, the Remain campaign and ultimately, 52% of the electorate fucking it up with a Spors/Damion Downs moment in 2016. Everyone wants change but within 5 minutes the pitchforks are out whoever wins. We are doing down the American ungovernable road if not careful. 

I would say that in 2027 the Tories needed a strong Brexiteer to properly drive through Brexit. Much as I liked May, she tried to compromise and this led to further infighting. 

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I never claimed you said Mandelson and Starmer were not in the wrong. What I'm saying is that there has been a great many other things they have been wrong about that some posters are loathe to mention-preferring instead to bring up the Conservatives and particularly Boris Johnson and Trump. You can look at earlier pages for plenty of examples where clear fuck ups and errors have been downplayed which wouldn't have been the case whilst the Tories were in power. 

Absolute rubbish 

[whelk]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

It's pretty tiring when you say that every time. Is someone not able to read what happened and form their own opinion without being unduly influenced by commentators? You've even got labour supporters on here saying Starmer should go. Are they only saying that because commentators have told them to?

I can’t speak for others - it’s my opinion. However If you collated every Telegraph and Mail headline since the election, 90% would be complaining about Labour - It’s ideological. Same with so many bots- they want anger and discontent and are at it 24/7 - you still seem to frequent the cesspit that is X and I can only imagine the amount of misinformation swilling around. I am being 100% honest in that this scandal hasn’t outraged me, and that is absolutely nothing towards any blind loyalty to Starmer and co

[egg]

I'd recommend a lie down @hypochondriac. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

You’d get on like a house on fire with Sir Ralph. Endlessly posting smearing rumours caveats with ‘if true’ about rent boys, affairs etc. Your MO is always to deny having an agenda but your desperation for failure is palpable. You are an intelligent lad but fear you are being unbalanced due to your idealogical opposition 

Eh? Other than when that happened I don't recall ever posting about that. I believe I even said it was likely to be a Russian psyop. I haven't endlessly posted that at all. I have said consistently I want Labour to be a success so that the country succeeds, the problem is that other than foreign policy where they haven't done badly if you ignore Chagos,  they've failed almost every time. I didn't have high hopes for labour but they've been a lot worse than I expected them to be. Like I said I disagree with them ideologically. I'd suggest that you are rather unbalanced in the opposite direction (you are of course an intelligent chap yourself clearly.)

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

You are not fooling anyone, you have been on their case from the off.

So you don’t want Labour so who do you want?

Tories ?

Reform?

My money is in you wanting the Tory failures

Is your assertion that you want Labour in charge because everyone else is even worse? Hardly a ringing endorsement.

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, iansums said:

I would say that in 2027 the Tories needed a strong Brexiteer to properly drive through Brexit. Much as I liked May, she tried to compromise and this led to further infighting. 

She compromised quite rightly because of the narrowness of the referendum result and also realised that a very hard Brexit would lead to no chance of some of the outlandish claims from Leave in 2016 being realised economically has led to mass disillusionment by poorer areas who voted Leave the most and ended up Boris’s biggest supporters in 2019 and switched to Labour in 2024. They just saw a red bus with £350m on it, they don’t understand it was a non-binding campaign. 

JRM or someone else on the ERG hard right might have pushed it through but no way that the One Nation group would have folded easily and probably large scale defections to the Lib Dem’s when conflict broke out. It was all in vain because Farage carried on anyway and the economy is much weaker than it was before 2016 on a permanent basis.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

I'd recommend a lie down @hypochondriac. 

As always.I don't need unsolicited advice from you thanks. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Is your assertion that you want Labour in charge because everyone else is even worse? Hardly a ringing endorsement.

It's a darn sight more logical than the masses wanting reform because everyone else is shit. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

As always.I don't need unsolicited advice from you thanks. 

We've had to endure unsolicited overreaction and thread spamming from you, so I'll post as I wish. Genuinely though, you're getting a tad hot under the collar. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

I can’t speak for others - it’s my opinion. However If you collated every Telegraph and Mail headline since the election, 90% would be complaining about Labour - It’s ideological. Same with so many bots- they want anger and discontent and are at it 24/7 - you still seem to frequent the cesspit that is X and I can only imagine the amount of misinformation swilling around. I am being 100% honest in that this scandal hasn’t outraged me, and that is absolutely nothing towards any blind loyalty to Starmer and co

Absolutely fine to think this doesn't matter. Just as long as you can accept that for some people this speaks to a wider lack of trust within the Labour Party and a further example of terrible judgement. For some people this will be the straw that broke the camels back and some people are now calling for Starmer to go. That's not an extremist view that can only be reached by being brainwashed by the mail or social media. 

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, egg said:

We've had to endure unsolicited overreaction and thread spamming from you, so I'll post as I wish. Genuinely though, you're getting a tad hot under the collar. 

A touch of the Ian Holloways (credit to SkintSaint for originally posting this)

 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

What level of friendship is acceptable when the friend is a paedophile?

It was common knowledge that he was friends with Epstein when he was hired as ambassador.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

We've had to endure unsolicited overreaction and thread spamming from you, so I'll post as I wish. Genuinely though, you're getting a tad hot under the collar. 

I'm sure you'd love if I was. As you know I consider your views to normally be personal in nature and lacking in substance so they are easy to not take too seriously. Go ahead and post what you like.

[Gloucester Saint]

Starmer was going to be gone as PM by the summer regardless IMHO. Hence Streeting and Burnham recent moves. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, aintforever said:

It was common knowledge that he was friends with Epstein when he was hired as ambassador.

I know. That's the point.

[aintforever]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I know. That's the point.

And mine. Being a friend with him wasn’t wasn’t considered such a big scandal at the time, the scandal is what has been revealed by the release of these files. 

Starmer has made a massive error of judgment, that’s obvious. What is not clear at the moment is how much he knew about what went on between them when he hired him.

Edited 2 hours ago by aintforever

[Farmer Saint]

Hypo seems to be going through his monthly meltdown, where he spams a thread and argues with himself.

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Absolutely fine to think this doesn't matter. Just as long as you can accept that for some people this speaks to a wider lack of trust within the Labour Party and a further example of terrible judgement. For some people this will be the straw that broke the camels back and some people are now calling for Starmer to go. That's not an extremist view that can only be reached by being brainwashed by the mail or social media. 

It absolutely speaks to a lack of judgement - that is far preferable to corrupt. I’ve made a few posts saying same thing- doesn’t matter who is in govt, they carry the can for so much discontent and not as powerful to change people’s lives as much as people think, or hope. 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Hypo seems to be going through his monthly meltdown, where he spams a thread and argues with himself.

Thanks but this thread is about Starmer. Probably better to stick to discussions of the Labour party if you can.