Keir Starmer

[Brewster's millions]

It would be good to see Sunak get his shit together, it will benefit us all as a country. He’s just got to keep those on the far-right in check.

If Starmer wants to win the next election, he needs to stop flip-flopping around, trying to suck up to all sides, and ensure that is stall is set-out so we can all make an informed decision. At the moment he’s catering for nobody.

The challenge will obviously change for Starmer over the next year, and he’s going to have to do better than he did today.

Sunak has a big year ahead of him, but I don’t think he’ll be really scrutinised until the spring as the next few months will just be firefighting the various crises. I do however think that if he gets through the first half of the year, then things could look a lot better for him quite quickly, and he may be in a position to signal tax cuts next year and go for a summer 2024 election. Sounds quite a long way off at the moment but both inflation and mortgage rates could turn around very quickly, so he needs to be in a position to capitalise when they do.

 

[Rascal]

You mean kakistocracy

Quite so.

 

[domalino]

Definitely not the same ....

Of course not. That's why she joined the Labour Party rather than the Nasty Party.

Even a cursory glance says she merely asked Osborne about the situation of a shadow Chancellor becoming Chancellor.

Reeves was wrong though about Lynch in his interview with Michelle Hussain. He wasn't rude to try and get her off a dead-end question that she wouldn't let go.

This is classic Labour member behaviour. Imagine how stupid you have to be to get angry that your shadow chancellor has spoken to the most recent person to hold her position before going into power to discuss what it's like to take over, how much can be achieved in a term etc.

That someone across the aisle thinks your party leadership won't destroy the country if they get elected is not a reason to throw a fit.

Reeves was wrong though about Lynch in his interview with Michelle Hussain. He wasn't rude to try and get her off a dead-end question that she wouldn't let go.

How much the strike is personally costing RMT members is not a dead end question, it's an incredibly relevant one and doesn't suit one side or the other. He lost his temper, and she's not the only one who remarked upon it - there was quite a lot of discussion in the otherwise overwhelmingly pro-RMT thread on here for example.

 

[Vic]

How much the strike is personally costing RMT members is not a dead end question, it's an incredibly relevant one and doesn't suit one side or the other. He lost his temper, and she's not the only one who remarked upon it - there was quite a lot of discussion in the otherwise overwhelmingly pro-RMT thread on here for example.

But he'd answered it. It depends on what shifts they're on.

Is asking "Why are you pursuing this line of questioning?" really rude? And his asking her why she was going on about it drew her to say "Because we're in a cost of living crisis" to which he gave the obvious response, "Well, why don't they give us a decent pay rise then?"

Try from 7 minutes.

 

[domalino]

Is asking "Why are you pursuing this line of questioning?" really rude?

It's pretty rude when you lose your cool and then tell the person they are just getting their talking points from the right wing (when "look how much hurt RMT members are having to go through" is not a RW talking point at all).


Earlier on he misunderstands her (she says a significant number of members voted to accept the deal, but not the majority) and he talks over her to tell her she was wrong, even when she tries to clarify it for him.

He speaks over her for a good 30 seconds despite the fact he's in the wrong, and she's agreeing with him and trying to rephrase it in a way he'll accept.

The fact that support for strikes has dropped from 90% to 60% obviously struck a nerve, because he completely loses his cool and refused to accept the basic premise that 90 > 60 and starts bickering about how 60 is still a majority - great but that wasn't the question.

He's been very good with the media, but he lost his cool in this interview and it drew widespread discussion across all media, and on forums like this one, so it's not that surprising Reeves thought the same.

 

[domalino]

If Sunak can avoid any disasters once the worst of the shit passes then the polls will get a lot more interesting by the end of the year

The great thing about Sunak is he creates disasters.

Look at this NHS/Private GP thing.

By refusing to answer the question, he turned it into a big news story, pissed off everyone, now he's released a bullshit statement about being registered with an NHS GP (like everyone else who uses a private one).

The only time his poll numbers go up is when he goes MIA, until people notice the PM is nowhere to be seen and he's forced into saying something.

 

[mexico1970]

I'm voting for Starmer for one reason only, to get this shit-show out of the big seat. The nuances of the left don't concern me at all they can have their infighting after the election.

 

[ganganvince]

The great thing about Sunak is he creates disasters.

Look at this NHS/Private GP thing.

By refusing to answer the question, he turned it into a big news story, pissed off everyone, now he's released a bullshit statement about being registered with an NHS GP (like everyone else who uses a private one).

The only time his poll numbers go up is when he goes MIA, until people notice the PM is nowhere to be seen and he's forced into saying something.

Might sound a bit thick but surely BUPA is an expensable item for am MP?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Boring fucker, just what’s needed.

 

[Don Karleone]

Boring fucker, just what’s needed.

You can vote for the duplicitous twat, I won't be.