advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
He says nothing about the bombings though. To ask Israel to respect international law is like, well, politely, a complete waste of time... This began because of the ethnic cleansing about to take place in occupied East Jerusalem.
Perhaps you could condemn hundreds of missiles sent from Gaza into Israel, many aimed at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Or perhaps condemn Hamas for turning Gaza into a human shield project.

I won't hold my breath.
 
Starmer just does not inspire people as I have said before he comes across as boring even when he is challenging Johnson . The labour voters now love Boris so labour need a clone ! any turnip haired untruthful , lazy labour candidates ? or at least someone with personality

It depends on whether the party is policy-lead or personality-lead. The expectation was that Starmer would be a boring competent safe pair of hands to manage a centre-left set of policies based around his 10 pledges and a mild reworking the previous position which was not hard left and wouldn't evolve into hard left given the disempowering of the hard left supporters. Instead the labour leadership has put forward no coherent overall position and the one or two positions it has taken have often been in conflict with this assumption presumably in a vain effort to attract rather than not antagonise socially conservative voters. This has forced labour to be personality-lead and, clearly, Starmer is ill equipped to do this. If the labour leadership start making some firm, coherent and believable decisions on where they stand it can likely be turned around with the focus more on position/policies while keeping their current leader given there seems to be nobody else that is likely to be any better despite Starmer setting the bar fairly low.

Of course there comes a point where trust/competence is damaged too much to recover but I don't think that is the case yet. The downward trajectory does suggest that if something significant is not done then that point will be reached, internal will conflict blow up again, and labour will be irrelevant for another long period.
 
PS I’m surprised there has been no mention of the Tory Queen’s Speech setting the stage for a pure Trump/Republican-style ‘voter ID’ strategy to very deliberately remove votes from the poor and marginalised. If the requirement is actually a photo-ID then it could even apply to me as my passport is somewhere around its expiry date, I don’t have a driving license, and as I work for myself I have absolutely no need for photo-ID. I do have a volunteer’s ID for the museum, but I’d be surprised if that counted. I’d expect hundreds of thousands, even millions, to be cut adrift by this. Deliberately.

There's also the planned 'enforced free speech' legislation, whereby universities/student unions could be prosecuted for no-platforming speakers. Also the planned halving of funding for arts subjects in higher education. Basically, with a large overall Commons majority and a useless Opposition, the Tories feel able to get away with anything. Maybe we will once again be forced to rely on the House of Lords to stop some or all of this stuff.
 
Tories won seats in all the deprived areas , no one wants the present labour party , they need to get back to supporting the working class , phil.


They do but the working class of today have discovered the wonders of capitalism - business parks over coal mines these days - and have been seduced by nationalism (via Brexit, vaccines and flags). Many, in particular the less fortunate, like Boris’s can-do attitude, optimism and engagement - and his levelling-up money tree, which is currently being propped up by rising house prices - following years of Labour indifference. "What have you got to lose?”, as Trump once said. And progressive magical-thinking manifestos from Islington don’t appeal to them. For many, today's Labour Party lacks relevance and credibility.

It is trying to adapt though - Angela enjoying a pint with a flag, Kier forgetting his pledges, and troublesome former regime types being shown the door. Even the Queen is back. So far, not so good though. Add in…the Greens nibbling at their heals, the Scots moving on, and the Tories setting up pop-up shops in their policy space - less nasty party, more listening, helpful party…and Labour have the proverbial mountain to climb. It hasn’t won a GE in 16 years. No sign of that changing anytime soon.
 
There's also the planned 'enforced free speech' legislation, whereby universities/student unions could be prosecuted for no-platforming speakers. Also the planned halving of funding for arts subjects in higher education. Basically, with a large overall Commons majority and a useless Opposition, the Tories feel able to get away with anything. Maybe we will once again be forced to rely on the House of Lords to stop some or all of this stuff.

The can't stop anything that was a manifesto commitment though
 
Indeed. The idiocy of this was underlined by some Tory woman on the telly yesterday insisting that anyone who doesn't have a PP or DL can get suitable ID from their Local Council..which begs the question.. WTF is the purpose of Polling Cards?

Everyone who turns up to vote is 'ticked off' the list.

And same woman had no convincing evidence that: 1. Voter Fraud is a significant issue and.. 2. That is takes precedence over sorting out Grenfell, Windrush, serial DWP failures leading to suicides...etc....etc....etc....
 
Indeed. The idiocy of this was underlined by some Tory woman on the telly yesterday insisting that anyone who doesn't have a PP or DL can get suitable ID from their Local Council..which begs the question.. WTF is the purpose of Polling Cards?

And same woman had no convincing evidence that: 1. Voter Fraud is a significant issue and.. 2. That is takes precedence over sorting out Grenfell, Windrush, serial DWEP failures leading to suicides...etc....etc....etc....

People without passports and driving licenses are overwhelmingly Labour voters, that much is a fact. It's nothing more than Republican style voter suppression, there's no evidence of significant electoral fraud (other than Tory candidates lying about previous drink driving convictions and the like ;))
 
IIRC 6 cases of electoral fraud at the last GE, i.e. way less in number than multi-£million fraudulent Tory “crony” PPE contracts.
 
Actually, it might be the right-wing press coverage of the Queen's Speech that will worry Johnson; specifically, their focus on his failure to come up with any sort of policy on adult social care, despite saying it was his top priority when he became Tory leader. Granted, that's mainly because of their reader demographic, but if he loses the tabloids' support, we might see less of the 'Good old Boris, he got it done' headlines in future.
 
I can understand the mindset as it is a decaying obsolete party analysing the only time in 45+ years it has held power. It is just rearranging deckchairs though as the whole world has changed since Blair’s electoral success and Labour have ended out out of touch and out of time. It only has old 1970s to 1990s politics to offer a 21st century world.

I detest Mandelson, but his recent quote of “lose lose lose Blair Blair lose lose lose lose” was bang on. The area I fundamentally disagree with him is reanimating Blair is obviously not the answer to anything. To my mind the only logical conclusion is to accept we are witnessing the total systemic failure of UK politics and get very firmly behind a cross party platform of real electoral reform.

PS I’m surprised there has been no mention of the Tory Queen’s Speech setting the stage for a pure Trump/Republican-style ‘voter ID’ strategy to very deliberately remove votes from the poor and marginalised. If the requirement is actually a photo-ID then it could even apply to me as my passport is somewhere around its expiry date, I don’t have a driving license, and as I work for myself I have absolutely no need for photo-ID. I do have a volunteer’s ID for the museum, but I’d be surprised if that counted. I’d expect hundreds of thousands, even millions, to be cut adrift by this. Deliberately.
I’d have Blair over BJ or any Tory I could think of.
 
…but if he loses the tabloids' support, we might see less of the 'Good old Boris, he got it done' headlines in future.

The tabloids largely exist to sell shit to morons. A simple business model. Racism sells, xenophobia sells, nationalism sells, supporting political winners sells. As soon as Brexit and the end of furlough condemns huge swathes of once working people to the dole and Johnson has, as ever, no interest, let alone answers, they’ll likely flip. I guess this is what Starmer and his whole ‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Tory’ stance is banking on.

Meanwhile no one under 30 even knows what a newspaper was, let alone why anyone would buy such a thing.
 
Perhaps you could condemn hundreds of missiles sent from Gaza into Israel, many aimed at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Or perhaps condemn Hamas for turning Gaza into a human shield project.

I won't hold my breath.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to condemn Israel for teargassing worshippers at Islam’s holiest shrine during Ramadan or killing so many children in a single air strike. Or the fact that the latest round of violence coincides with Netanyahu facing losing power and possible prosecution, any condemnation of Israel being an apartheid state?.
 
Meanwhile no one under 30 even knows what a newspaper was, let alone why anyone would buy such a thing.

This is true, but I believe that the Mailonline is the most popular English language news-based website. Unlike the Torygraph website, for example, it's not behind a paywall.
 
This is true, but I believe that the Mailonline is the most popular English language news-based website. Unlike the Torygraph website, for example, it's not behind a paywall.

The Telegraph is so embarrassed by its content you cannot even see the headlines now.
 
This is true, but I believe that the Mailonline is the most popular English language news-based website. Unlike the Torygraph website, for example, it's not behind a paywall.

True, but I bet it’s reader demographic is almost as old as here on an audio forum. I just can’t see folk who are used to getting their news from YouTube, Twitter, Whatsapp, Facebook etc etc would really give a shit what Lady McGove was being click-bait xenophobic about this week. The Mail is for 50+ gammons. No one else would touch it.
 
True, but I bet it’s reader demographic is almost as old as here on an audio forum. I just can’t see folk who are used to getting their news from YouTube, Twitter, Whatsapp, Facebook etc etc would really give a shit what Lady McGove was being click-bait xenophobic about this week. The Mail is for 50+ gammons. No one else would touch it.

Nah. The Mailonline cunningly mixes in plenty of sleb gossip alongside its clickbait xenophobia. It's probably got more female than male readers, for that reason.
 
This is true, but I believe that the Mailonline is the most popular English language news-based website. Unlike the Torygraph website, for example, it's not behind a paywall.

The two things are possibly connected.

Nah. The Mailonline cunningly mixes in plenty of sleb gossip alongside its clickbait xenophobia. It's probably got more female than male readers, for that reason.

Yep.

https://www.statista.com/statistics...text=The Daily Mail had an,15 to 34 year olds.

But AIUI, this has always been the case, with middle-aged, middle-class, Middle-England women the target audience.
 
True, but I bet it’s reader demographic is almost as old as here on an audio forum. I just can’t see folk who are used to getting their news from YouTube, Twitter, Whatsapp, Facebook etc etc would really give a shit what Lady McGove was being click-bait xenophobic about this week. The Mail is for 50+ gammons. No one else would touch it.

Compared to the Express, the Mail looks like the War Cry when it comes to 'gammon content'.
 
I have to admit I just don’t read tabloids and never have done. I’d never visit the websites either. The only time I ever see them is if they are left on the table in a greasy spoon cafe, but I haven’t been to one for years now (double egg, chips, beans, obvs). Back when I did I’d occasionally flick through in horror and disbelief, plus bewilderment as I have absolutely no idea who any of the ‘slebs’ are. The only papers I have ever paid money for in my life are the Guardian, Sunday Times and FT, but only very occasionally, and all back in the ‘80s before there was an internet or Freeview. I’m just not a newspaper reader. I always found it rather bizarre to process yesterday’s news through someone else’s obviously biased opinion. Just not the way my brain works.

PS Thinking about it I did once buy the Mail On Sunday just to get the free Prince CD. Paper went in the bin unread, obviously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top