Labour: The Keir Starmer years

Sir Keir's won - are you happy with this outcome?


  • Total voters
    34

VoR

Take it or leave it
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
115,677
Location
The Cinema
Ugh, the Church thing is such a disgustingly cynical shower. I can give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of crap, but he needs to get a fucking grip.
 

Gangsta Nancy Lam

Slut's Spaghetti
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
11,311
Location
Hell
Apparently he apologised privately to LGBT Labour but won't apologise publicly or take down the video praising Jesus House, which seems WORSE than not apologising at all :eyes:
 

big ron

Nude inspector
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
26,660
Location
Your DMs
I’m still not feeling SIR KIER but I’ve seen a few people point out he hasn’t really had the chance to lead properly so I’m adopting his on the fence attitude for now.
 

VoR

Take it or leave it
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
115,677
Location
The Cinema


I don't know if it's worse to think he was pandering to the right or that nobody on his team knew at all, given all they needed to do was a fucking Google Search, but at least he's finally (if belatedly and after some really bad mixed messaging) unambiguously walked it back.
 

Gangsta Nancy Lam

Slut's Spaghetti
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
11,311
Location
Hell
I think it was agreed a few pages back that not deleting a tweet that people took offense to was a sackable offense, so Keir Starmer has to go :(
 

Penelope

SMASHING SET
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
31,487
Location
BRING BACK TAGS


I don't know if it's worse to think he was pandering to the right or that nobody on his team knew at all, given all they needed to do was a fucking Google Search, but at least he's finally (if belatedly and after some really bad mixed messaging) unambiguously walked it back.
The really annoying thing about this is it shows his office is lacking in a lot of ways.

The problem was that they almost certainly did do a Google search - but not enough of one, given a quick cursory search would've just brought up that Prince Charles visited them a couple of weeks ago and then Boris Johnson a few weeks before that. What they actually needed to do was do a more in-depth search going back long enough to pick up the Theresa May scandal, and it's just ridiculous that didn't happen. Couple in that his comms team clearly briefed Rachel Reeves to go out on the Sunday equivalent shows today to deliver a line that implicitly contradicted the private apology his office gave to LGBT+ Labour on Saturday, while ignoring a letter sent by the Labour Party LGBT+ staff network on this, and you've just got a shitshow all round.

The above apology is good and welcome, but why wasn't it made immediately on Saturday the second the Guardian story went out to shut it down? This really shouldn't have been made a meal of and dragged out the way it was and a lot of shit *seriously* needs changing (and fast) in his office to sort it the fuck out. If they can't handle this, and go this much to pot when people are off on Easter holidays, what on earth are they going to be like in the face of a proper sustained attack?
 

Suedey

C'est SEX.
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
56,114
I'm done with labour. I won't be voting for them in the next general election. Green it is.
 

Sheena

Hang on to your chair, dearie...
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
123,847
Apparently Starmer today has said he doesn’t believe the media are being racist about Meghan Markle.

I know he’s trying to do a Blair and courting Murdoch, but watching Labour abandon its core principles more and more really is testing my loyalty. I’m *this* close to cancelling my party membership.
 

dmlaw

Democracy doesn't work
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
13,856
Apparently Starmer today has said he doesn’t believe the media are being racist about Meghan Markle.

I know he’s trying to do a Blair and courting Murdoch, but watching Labour abandon its core principles more and more really is testing my loyalty. I’m *this* close to cancelling my party membership.
I'd be very interested in the context in which he has said this. If it's in response to a question, particularly one from the racist press, then it feels like when the mean girl makes the geek insult her friends on the vague promise of bullying her less, whereas the intention all along was to hurt both of them. The questioner has deliberately put him in an impossible position where either answer will damage both him and the party. Obviously, if this is something that he has felt the need to say unprompted then he can get right in the bin.
 

Sheena

Hang on to your chair, dearie...
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
123,847
It was in an interview with The Sunday Times apparently. He also said there was “another side” to the Oprah interview.
 

dmlaw

Democracy doesn't work
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
13,856
Sounds like a newspaper which is never going to support him anyway asking a question where they know that either answer will piss off a group that Labour need to win. I'd much rather he'd chosen the other answer but I can see why he didn't, particularly if Labour were careless enough not to have prepared for being asked about it.
 

funky

User
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Messages
81,238
I’d rather government leaders didn’t have an opinion on entertainment gossip to be honest. He should have said it’s not his business.

in the wider context of media fairness maybe there’s room for opinion, but that’s a battle he can never win. Don’t get involved. I agree, it might have worked for Blair, but courting Murdoch is not the answer in 2021.
 

dmlaw

Democracy doesn't work
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
13,856
Yes, which is bad.

The problem is that no one cares when the Tories sell out, certainly not anyone who might consider voting for them. It's only Labour that gets held to higher standard. I'm far more irritated that a right wing paper has set out to embarrass him like this. As funky says, the smart thing would have been to not answer at all, although I'm sure there would be a way to spin that against him as well, probably involving the old chestnut of him dithering and not having any policies.
 

COB

honk
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
36,554
It has felt for a while like Starmer's Labour is trying to court Tory voters and I feel it's misguided - the people they're trying to win over will just vote for the real thing rather than the imitation, I reckon. Having said that we're also years out from the next General Election, so maybe it'll end up being a good strategy after all.
 

dmlaw

Democracy doesn't work
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
13,856
I'm worried that Boris might be plotting another election before the end of the year. The vaccine bounce can't possibly last and he might want guarantee another five years before the combined Brexit/pandemic pain really hits.
 

Peekaboo

User
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
4,806
PATHETIC. And quite telling how UNAMBIGUOUS he was about ANTISEMITISM but when it comes to this type of racism there is "another side" :eyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: COB

VoR

Take it or leave it
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
115,677
Location
The Cinema
Why? I'm not shy of calling out Starmer for being useless in certain areas. I've done so repeatedly. One of my big problems with the other guy was the ridiculous Jesus cult / victim mentality that surrounded him, so i'm hardly going to indulge the same mindset for his successor.

Anyway, here's the full quote.

Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, was a sitting duck for the tabloids’ long tradition of casting Labour leaders as loony lefties. They will have their work cut out with this one, though. Whether or not Starmer is mindful of appeasing them, or simply telling the truth, I can’t tell, but they will certainly like what he has to say about press coverage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I ask if he would describe it as racist, and he shakes his head. “I wouldn’t.”

Did he believe every word the couple said to Oprah? “I’m not in a position to say. What I did think was, like every family argument, there’s always going to be another side to the story. If it was my family, I’d know there was another side to the story. I certainly felt, what’s the other side to this? It’s just a real shame to see a family going through this in public. I wouldn’t want my family to go through anything like that.”

A 2005 video clip recently emerged of Starmer saying he “often used to propose the abolition of the monarchy”, but he says now: “I am a monarchist. I do believe in the Queen. I believe in the royal family.” When, then, did he change his position? “I’ve never gone down the republican route.” Regarding the clip, he insists: “I was making a joke. It was a throwaway remark.” Frankly, I’d be surprised if the 16-year-old socialist who joined the Labour Party was the monarchist he is today.
 

ZenGiraffe

There's nothing grey about my gardens.
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Messages
7,782
Location
Handforth Parish Council
Why? I'm not shy of calling out Starmer for being useless in certain areas. I've done so repeatedly. One of my big problems with the other guy was the ridiculous Jesus cult / victim mentality that surrounded him, so i'm hardly going to indulge the same mindset for his successor.

Anyway, here's the full quote.
For fuck sake.

Taking the Monarchy point, it isn't hard to paint a believable pivot either. No one is surprised when an 18 year olds politics have changed so just a simple "Having a head of state that remains both constant and above day to day politics gives the country stability and it I don't see any benefit now of taking that away".

If you're going to lie (and in this case I do think it's the politically strategic thing to do) at least do it well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom