The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Seat68]

1 minute ago, Demitri_C said:

Mark im sure with respect if that was labour in charge you and i presented the debt had gone up you would have said it was covid so not labours fault. We all dislike the tories but lets not hide the pandemic debt cost. There was no escaping that. The furlough scheme (although some people took the absolute **** piss fraudulently taking out grants) was a success and kept people in jobs ans able tp pay their bills.  Then youe throw in the billions for the vaccines of cause the national debts going to go up.

The point i do agree on was the billions paid to their tory mates that was despicable 

Im trying to look at a balanced view not a die hard labour supporter

The national debt versus GDP was on a significant increase way before the pandemic. Half way through Browns tenure if I recall rightly but the Tories said hold my beer. I repeat, it increased significantly under successive Tory governments. 

[Chindie]

I think there's a few people that don't much like Mr Starmer.

[bickster]

22 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I think there's a few people that don't much like Mr Starmer.

I’d fully expect an SNP MP not to like him

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

I’d fully expect an SNP MP not to like him

Controversial move from Labour to have SNP MPs as press officers but these are progressive times I guess.

[bickster]

41 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Controversial move from Labour to have SNP MPs as press officers but these are progressive times I guess.

Why do you imagine the press officers dislike Starmer?

Labour sources could mean a number of different things but the hating tree huggers thing sounds very much like it was briefed with Starmer's approval. It’s a vote winner not a vote loser

[foreveryoung]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

I think there's a few people that don't much like Mr Starmer.

3 quarters of VT maybe?

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

3 quarters of VT maybe?

Underestimate.

[Chindie]

25 minutes ago, bickster said:

Why do you imagine the press officers dislike Starmer?

Labour sources could mean a number of different things but the hating tree huggers thing sounds very much like it was briefed with Starmer's approval. It’s a vote winner not a vote loser

Throwing the green agenda under the bus with disdain might be a vote winner for some, but it's laughably short sighted and, once again, makes it look like all Starmer cares about is power and believes in nothing.

[Jareth]

Are they just trying to defuse the link to the Just stop Oil funder? Can't see why being dismissive of environmental issues would otherwise be a good idea, people want a strong green policy. 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Throwing the green agenda under the bus with disdain might be a vote winner for some, but it's laughably short sighted and, once again, makes it look like all Starmer cares about is power and believes in nothing.

To some maybe. I’d suggest a lot of things people seemingly dislike Starmer for are just confirmation bias. People read into things what they want.

Here you have a non-attributable story, essentially tittle tattle, being repeated by opposition party MPs to give it some credence. There’s absolutely no corroboration that it’s true or why it was briefed off the record.

Given the current public opinion of Just Stop Oil and the damage they are doing to the environmental lobby with their tactics, to me, it just looks like Labour trying to distance themselves from that. Nothing more, nothing less.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Are they just trying to defuse the link to the Just stop Oil funder? Can't see why being dismissive of environmental issues would otherwise be a good idea, people want a strong green policy. 

I agree with this, that’s exactly what it is. I’d forgotten the donor link to both organisations.

[Chindie]

The full story builds on the eye catching stuff to essentially state that the green stuff is a fault line in the party whereby Starmers firm is uninterested in the green agenda and wants to focus hard on the economy (though not so hard as to point at the elephant in the room, of course - won't win votes) and feel the green stuff gets in the way.

A more admirable position might be to meld the 2.

Still, we see what we want.

[OutByEaster?]

Bloody Miliband extremists again.

Commie.

 

 

[DCJonah]

On 07/07/2023 at 10:32, Demitri_C said:

Not a sunak fan but at least he has a plan that is failing your right but i think @Genie is right to be sceptical about the vagueness starmer is presenting himself. People saying it can't get worse but it can at least we have jobs available and unemployment is not theough the roof yet.

I guess we will see what happens come thw nwxt 18 months bwfore labour takes over

Yeah let's keep going with the current lot because it might get worse. 

[foreveryoung]

23 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Yeah let's keep going with the current lot because it might get worse. 

The problem with Labour is not really the party (no pun intended) unfortunately its Starmer, he has the personality of a stone, an the male version of Liz Truss.

 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

The problem with Labour is not really the party (no pun intended) unfortunately its Starmer, he has the personality of a stone, an the male version of Liz Truss.

 

Really odd take, in a lot of respects, he’s the exact opposite of Truss. He’s Ying to her Yang 

His dullness is what a lot of people actually want in a politician

[markavfc40]

I get that it attracts some people but I have never really got why some want their politicians to be personalities. I'd happily take the blandest, most boring person you can imagine as PM as long as they run the country for the benefit of the masses. I'm not looking for what I may want to see in a pop/film star.

We've recently had the smooth talking Cameron and the buffoon playing act of Johnson and both were absolutely useless, self serving bastards and have been huge contributors in the big demise of this country. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by markavfc40

[chrisp65]

55 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I get that it attracts some people but I have never really got why some want their politicians to be personalities. I'd happily take the blandest, most boring person you can imagine as PM as long as they run the country for the benefit off the masses. I'm not looking for what I may want to see in a pop/film star.

We've recently had the smooth talking Cameron and the buffoon playing act of Johnson and both were absolutely useless, self serving bastards and have been huge contributors in the big demise of this country. 

Agreed. I absolutely do not want my politicians to be personalities.

I do find it helps if they believe in something beyond competent admin..

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Agreed. I absolutely do not want my politicians to be personalities.

I do find it helps if they believe in something beyond competent admin..

Thing is, there are essentially 3 types of MPs. Ones on a huge ambition chase, ones who became MPs because they actually do believe in stuff and making things better, and then there’s the time serving dullards. Starmer is in the second group, as was Corbyn as was Milliband as was Gordon Brown as was May. Cameron, Johnson, Truss in the first group. The ones with personality and believing in something don’t seem to get on so well for some reason, they seem to do really good work, but stay mostly out of the higher positions (there are Exceptions).

Starmer’s problem isn’t IMO that he only believes in competent admin, it’s that people haven’t seen what he believes in, so assume he doesn’t believe in much at all.

[ml1dch]

33 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Agreed. I absolutely do not want my politicians to be personalities.

I do find it helps if they believe in something beyond competent admin..

Sure, in an ideal world they'd do all the good things.

But apolitical, competent admin is still a massive improvement on anything we've seen in a decade and half, and probably before that.

I'd also take it over incompetent idealism.

Baby steps. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by ml1dch