Keir Starmer

Bigga said:
I'm assuming you think all those hundreds of thousands that died were 'bad muslims' picked out by US/ NATO?

Do the 'lives saved' outweigh those that were lost? Sure Hussein was a twat, but since he did trade with the West until they decided he was not of use to them, who decides when he should go?

Also, if you're in a gang and one of that gang stabs to death the kid your gang was bullying, do you have blood on your hands too or do you just point the finger?
Click to expand...
Source for this figure then ? How many hundreds was it 2 , 3 10 ?
 
Bigga said:
If you bypass serious issues in society, like foodbanks, you are ignoring a section of the very society you wish to get support from.

One should recognise struggle, so the ones that are suffering feel heard/ seen.

Why would one feel 'positivity' when they're not recognised?
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but foodbanks are a symptom. Labour wouldn't have foodbank policies: "More Foodbanks!", "Better Foodbanks now!" or even "No More Foodbanks!".

People who use them know why they exist- it's because they have no money left after paying their their heating, or their rent, or they're underpaid - and they want to hear how their wages will go up, or their heating bills will go down etc.

The leader of a party has to be the one giving out the inspiring, positive message, and that's telling people what they're going to do to make a society which won't need foodbanks.
 
kaz7 said:
He came across very well yesterday , he is ready, all this he is boring is stupidity , you need a thinker not a buffon
Click to expand...
Aren’t politics supposed to be boring. I like politics when I don’t have to think about it, which hasn’t happened in so many years.

As Starmer, the ‘Thinker’, has already stated, his major concern was if/when the media start to bring his family into it and how to prepare them for the onslaught. That alone should tell you who Starmer is, and how the media will use any tactic to discredit the opposition.
 
Bigga said:
Here You Go, Love...

Lots of different estimates banging around.
Click to expand...
The researchers warn that their estimates are associated with "substantial uncertainties".
So there we are nobody really knows.
Anyway as said it's off topic. This is about Starmer. So do you support a Starmer led Labour government or would you prefer another Tory government but a Labour opposition led by a Labour leader you think isn't tainted by Blairism. I know what most of those that need a Labour government would prefer. For me that's all that matters, the rest is just academic idealogical fluff.
 
bluenova said:
I understand your point, but foodbanks are a symptom. Labour wouldn't have foodbank policies: "More Foodbanks!", "Better Foodbanks now!" or even "No More Foodbanks!".

People who use them know why they exist- it's because they have no money left after paying their their heating, or their rent, or they're underpaid - and they want to hear how their wages will go up, or their heating bills will go down etc.

The leader of a party has to be the one giving out the inspiring, positive message, and that's telling people what they're going to do to make a society which won't need foodbanks.
Click to expand...

See that last section of line you wrote?

That makes the whole difference in reaching people; acknowledgment of the situation in society, the shame of using food banks and the hope moving forward. That would be inclusive and hope, not ignored.

You could do it as you say and foodbanks could still, conceivably, continue to exist.

Mentioning them is a cause to do something about it.

You could attribute that example to any of the issues at hand, Britain has.

It's all in the delivery to be inclusive and understanding of all plights.
 
anything mentioned by Starmer et al about the possibility of energy company windfall tax? or adjusting the price cap policy that the Conservative's have put in place? (which the public will pay for for decades while energy companies rake it in)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPT
blueparrot said:
The researchers warn that their estimates are associated with "substantial uncertainties".
So there we are nobody really knows.
Anyway as said it's off topic. This is about Starmer. So do you support a Starmer led Labour government or would you prefer another Tory government but a Labour opposition led by a Labour leader you think isn't tainted by Blairism. I know what most of those that need a Labour government would prefer. For me that's all that matters, the rest is just academic idealogical fluff.
Click to expand...

My only issue is getting to point of leadership based upon lies. If a party leader got there based upon policies that work for a people over companies, that's a vote winner for me.

I don't happen to like either of the major parties and I'm in a relative safe seat.

Neither will be getting my vote.
 
Bigga said:
It's the constant hoop jumping for Blair that always blows my mind, just because he did a few good things.

He has the death of hundreds of THOUSANDS on his hands, over a lie purported as reason to go to war.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
 
PPT said:
There's no one on here who values his own opinion more than you. By some considerable distance.
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true. If someone teaches me something, I say thanks. If I’ve made a mistake, I will say sorry.

You spout your opinion as fact.
 
Bigga said:
See that last section of line you wrote?

That makes the whole difference in reaching people; acknowledgment of the situation in society, the shame of using food banks and the hope moving forward. That would be inclusive and hope, not ignored.

You could do it as you say and foodbanks could still, conceivably, continue to exist.

Mentioning them is a cause to do something about it.

You could attribute that example to any of the issues at hand, Britain has.

It's all in the delivery to be inclusive and understanding of all plights.
Click to expand...
But you don't have to tick every box in every speech. He shouldn't be listing problems and then having people sitting at home thinking, "he didn't mention my problem". He wants to get people thinking, "That idea will help me".

A leader's conference speech isn't about telling us what the Tories did wrong - there is no-one left who is going to say "well, I didn't realise that things were so bad". People know, and anyone still thinking of voting for another party doesn't need to be told what's wrong, they need to know what Labour will do about it.

It was one of the bigger criticisms of Corbyn, that he knew what he was against, and was happy to tell everyone - and that's great for your supporters, but it doesn't change anyone's mind. Starmer can leave the attacks to others - these days the leader of a party has to be the one whose vision is positive - particularly in these big set piece speeches.
 
shemnel said:
anything mentioned by Starmer et al about the possibility of energy company windfall tax? or adjusting the price cap policy that the Conservative's have put in place? (which the public will pay for for decades while energy companies rake it in)
Click to expand...
Yes, he would do windfal tax.
 
bluenova said:
But you don't have to tick every box in every speech. He shouldn't be listing problems and then having people sitting at home thinking, "he didn't mention my problem". He wants to get people thinking, "That idea will help me".

A leader's conference speech isn't about telling us what the Tories did wrong - there is no-one left who is going to say "well, I didn't realise that things were so bad". People know, and anyone still thinking of voting for another party doesn't need to be told what's wrong, they need to know what Labour will do about it.

It was one of the bigger criticisms of Corbyn, that he knew what he was against, and was happy to tell everyone - and that's great for your supporters, but it doesn't change anyone's mind. Starmer can leave the attacks to others - these days the leader of a party has to be the one whose vision is positive - particularly in these big set piece speeches.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree on approach.

The fact that Corbyn told the world what he was against and what he's fight for is what drew people to the party in record numbers. he was inclusive and maybe 'the red wall' saw offence at that? The fact that Starmer doesn't speak inclusively and the party has lost members to the tune of £7M, speaks volumes to me, whereas it won't to you. The fact that Starmer has, actively, chosen to target 'the red wall' as a vote winning strategy also speaks volumes.

Starmer is not a great orator, has carefully chosen lawyer-ese in speech and flip flops positions depending on pop culture (almost BloJo-like).

The only reason he is where he is in the polls is because the Tories are a gift giving clown and shit show of epic proportions!

I always speak of correlations between politics here and the US and nothing has changed my mind, more fortified it.
 
I admire people who stick to their political beliefs no matter what but I can't this time. I supported Corbyn and still agree with his policies I swore I would never vote Labour again after the way they took him down in my eyes it was a betrayal. I changed my mind because even though I don't really trust Starmer the actions taken by the other shower are cruel and vindictive and they have to go.
 
kalouk said:
I admire people who stick to their political beliefs no matter what but I can't this time. I supported Corbyn and still agree with his policies I swore I would never vote Labour again after the way they took him down in my eyes it was a betrayal. I changed my mind because even though I don't really trust Starmer the actions taken by the other shower are cruel and vindictive and they have to go.
Click to expand...
Us anti starmer cunts should be drowned out by people who see these cunts for the cunts they are and see the projection of a competent leader as a vote winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top