@DeltapollUK 🚨New Voting Intention🚨 Labour lead widens slightly to eighteen points in our latest results. Con 27% (+1) Lab 45% (+2) Lib Dem 8% (-2) Reform 10% (-) SNP 2% (-1) Green 6% (+1) Other 2% (-) Fieldwork: 10th-13th May 2024 Sample: 1,031 GB adults (Changes from 3rd-7th May 2024)
On the Natalie Elphicke defection I seem to remember a similar furore when Shaun Woodward defected from the Tories to Labour. If memory serves the scandal was more about finding him a patently ill fitting Northern constituency so at least Starmer has avoided doing that. He eventually settled down to be a completely conventional New Labour minister so I’m sure this current outrage will pass too.
Different. The big noise then was about him being a bit posh IIRC. The problem with Elphicke is that she exemplifies what it is about the Tory party (populist, ignorant, incompetent, jobs for the boys and girls, assumes that rules don't apply to me, attempted undue influence) that is persuading two million Tory voters to vote Labour. It remains an insane decision of Starmer's. Toxic but not, I hope, fatal, but they must suspend her membership/party whip this week or it will fester on.
Just read through the last thread. Incredible the number of fine posters on PB who have been banned yet the likes of Livermore who would probably be banned from most Nazi sites just sail on spreading their ignorant poison
Calling for other posters to be banned is not an engaging attribute imo.
As for Blanche, I disagree with their take on Gaza and on the benefits system but it hardly struck me as something that 'would probably be banned from most Nazi sites'.
Get a grip Roger.
What is this list of banned posters?
A number of people have left, but the list of banned is pretty small.
Stuart ....Ishmael....and several other Scottish posters.
And in their place we have posters like this;
"Do the Palestinians who want their kids to be martyrs have kids because they want dead Jews, or because they want the Hamas endowment? "
Even Braverman might think twice before posting this fascistic drivel. It's ugly and ill informed. My question was not to get Livermore banned but to wonder what these other posters could have written that was considered worse?
Er, that’s a totally fair question. Let’s go through it
1. Do some Palestinians WANT their sons to be martyrs? Yes, absolutely. We have tons of evidence of this. Young Gazans grow up in a theo-fascist statelet which inculcates the glory of martyrdom into them. Their parents go along with it, some embrace it (cf trans….)
2. If they want their kids to be martyred, why is that? there are two obvious reasons
2a they think killing Jews in Israel is a noble and holy cause; they want Jews in Israel dead
2b (less likely but plausible, perhaps in combination with the above) they believe it will advance the family as a whole. Gain them social status. This is hardly unknown - families sacrifice sons in martial societies in exchange for esteem and position
There. Sorted for you. @BlancheLivermore was making an entirely rational if polemical point
"Gazans"? "Theo-fascist statelet"? Remind me how most Palestinian families in Gaza got there, and also which side has bombed the churches.
You're throwing shit at Palestinians for getting killed. Apparently even when they get killed it's because they're so sick and Jew-haty that they want to be killed.
Are you denying Gaza is a “theo-fascist statelet”? Because it really is. They throw gays off buildings dontchaknow
I’ve not said a word about Israel. But here’s a few words: Israel’s behaviour is barbaric, demonic even. I’ve discussed before that they seem so traumatised by the Holocaust they are intent on re-enacting one; like abused children who reiterate that abuse in later life
But radical Islam has not done a lot to win friends in the last 40 years so I have almost zero sympathy for anyone associated with it
Quite frankly I’m bored and sickened by the whole thing and I’m tired of it hijacking global politics taking attention away from more deserving communities and problems
Let them fight to the death and be done with it
It's all immensely boring. I might prefer Israel because they're industrious, developed, Westernised and more liberal - we all know Palestine would be like another Lebanon in the counterfactual - and they run it better but it's really fucking boring and has been since at least the 1930s.
What is not - or should not be - immensely boring is the level of abuse and hatred levelled at Jews in this country by fellow citizens in recent months. It should shame us.
We can do little or nothing about what happens in the Middle East. We can and should do something about how people are treated here. Instead we barely notice, for instance, that the Green Councillor elected in Oldham is one of those whose threats against the Jewish chaplain at Leeds University led to him and his family having to go into hiding.
The vast majority of my Jewish friends and relatives are far more discomforted by what the Israelis are doing in their name in Gaza than they are by any slights in this country of which I have so far heard of none.
As a matter of interest, do they routinely go about town wearing a kippah or other Jewish dress?
It seems to me that Sunak's speech sets up a question to which he may not wish to hear the answer.
He paints a picture of great dangers and great opportunities in the next few years - so who do you want to take charge of dealing with that? The answer, rather obviously, is not you Prime Minister.
Pitching to the large swathe of 2019 Tory to DKs and, to a lesser extent, Reform. Everything he does from here is about maximising his losing percentage of the vote
I don't see how that pitches to them. It simply reminds them why they parted ways.
Because he's putting himself up as the stop Labour guy. Danger ahead, stick with us, labour is a risk. It won't work, it'll add little to his score but he's out of road so it is what it is, a load of desperate shite
I think the problem is that the obvious logic is, when troubles are ahead, you don't want a man you see as weak at the head of a party you see as hopelessly divided, presiding over a government which you see as having run out of steam.
The approach draws attention to Sunak's biggest problems. If the aim is damage limitation, I'd highlight policy areas. Setting the election up as, "who do you trust to form a competent government?" is a bad move.
The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.
Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.
SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.
The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...
Oh, FFS.
He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?
There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.
I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?
He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.
Arguably Sue Grey/Gray was tapped up, in the style of football managers (you are not supposed to approach other club's mangers without asking permission, but of course to do so implies you may want to change your current one, which leaks out etc). The suggestion is that she lacked impartiality in her report on partygate. An alternative is that she is someone who knows how the civil service works and is an excellent appointment.
Re currygate, I have been pretty clear that I think Starmer probably did break the regulations, but in a trivial way. He also played a blinder with his pledge to to resign - no police force was ever going to force the leader of the opposition to resign over a covid 'parking ticket' My issue with Starmer is that he was always attacking from the I would be more cautious side - longer lockdowns etc. He failed to articulate or convince that he was aware of the other costs of that approach.
AIUI Corbyn did accept the criticisms of the report, but did so in a rather mealy mouthed way.
Yeah but you had your violin out for Johnson when he was "ambushed by a cake".
I can't help believing what I believe. I'm sorry if politely disagreeing is so wrong nowadays. I have always maintained that the 'parties' Johnson was at were not the hedonistic raves depicted in the TV programme. I think he believed they were sticking to the rules. Doesn't mean he was right, and yes he and the rest of them should have done better.
The whole 10 Downing Street operation seemed aware but Johnson alone thought he was sticking to the rules?
OK.
I think, like some of the fantasists I've met, Johnson DID believe he tried to stick to the rules. He is not, and never will be a details person, and he is a colossal dick. Of course those in No 10 should have behaved better. Quite a few of them, I would hope, are rather ashamed of what they did.
The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.
Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.
SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.
The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...
Oh, FFS.
He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?
There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.
I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?
He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.
I can.
He's going to win, and win big, despite being boring and few peoples' first choice.
What does it say about the Corbynite left and the populist right that he is leaving them both in a tangled heap by the roadside?
The secret is to win whilst going as slowly as possible, as Niki Lauda put it. Some people hate the fact that that's true.
With softhead populism on the rise in so many other places I find the prospect of a politician like Keir Starmer triumphing here rather heartening.
The various attacks on Keir’s propriety (currygate, Graygate, and now Elphickegate) are totally risible.
They are also ineffectual.
The suggestion that he has abandoned his leftist platform in order to win the centre-ground of the British electorate is entirely accurate however.
He is poor retail politician, but seems to be a superb bureaucrat. I have been very frustrated by him, but on the evidence we have he certainly promises to surpass the last four PMs for governing capability (all admittedly lower rung).
Good 'retail politician' quite often means bullshitter, though, doesn't it?
A judge has ruled that provisions of the UK's Illegal Migration Act - which created powers to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - should be disapplied in Northern Ireland.
The High Court in Belfast on Monday morning ordered the "disapplication" of sections of the act as they undermine human rights protections guaranteed in the region under post-Brexit arrangements.
The Illegal Migration Act provides new powers for the government to detain and remove asylum seekers it deems to have arrived illegally in the UK. Central to the new laws is the scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Mr Justice Humphreys said the Rwanda policy was "incompatible" with the Human Rights Act, which was incorporated into British law from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Also found to be incompatible with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework:
Article 2(1) WF provides that the UK shall ensure no diminution of rights, safeguards, or equality of opportunity, as set out in the B-GFA, results from its withdrawal from the EU, including in the area of protection against discrimination.
That's the Windsor Framework from... er, last year. The thing that Rishiites hold up as the prime example of his pragmatic, technocratic genius.
The quality of Julie Burchill's writing is no better than when she wrote for the NME fifty years ago. And she wasn't very good back in the day.
She was always a good writer.
Well better than Tony Parsons anyway.
There was an Imagine on the BBC yesterday on Kazuo Ishiguro. It included a preposterous clip of Parsons and Allison Pearson shitting all over his The Unconsoled with Mark Lawson unfortunately chortling along with them. Funny how reputations go up and down.
The quality of Julie Burchill's writing is no better than when she wrote for the NME fifty years ago. And she wasn't very good back in the day.
She was always a good writer.
Well better than Tony Parsons anyway.
There was an Imagine on the BBC yesterday on Kazuo Ishiguro. It included a preposterous clip of Parsons and Allison Pearson shitting all over his The Unconsoled with Mark Lawson unfortunately chortling along with them. Funny how reputations go up and down.
One of my big non-faves. An arch purveyor of reactionary sentimentalist tripe. Parsons, I mean, not Ishiguro. I really liked his Never Let Me Go.
The Natalie Elphicke recruitment is starting to look like a major blunder. That Rishi is using it as a stick with which to beat Sir Keir says it all. Giving Rishi the opportunity to portray himself as a politician of principles and moral heft - in contrast to Sir Keir's emptiness - was surely not part of the plan.
Well the warning signs have been there for a long time. Supporting Corbyn, then booting him out. The curry night in lockdown. Sue Gray's appointment.
SKS being an unprincipled chancer with no conviction and no policies isn't a new development. The only difference is that now the election is getting closer, he and Labour are (rightly) starting to get more scrutiny.
The Tories are so despised that the increased Lab scrutiny won't be enough to deny Labour from forming the next government, but as I keep saying, the warning lights are flashing in bright red for what that Labour government will be like...
Oh, FFS.
He kicked out Corbyn because Corbyn refused to accept criticisms set out in an independent report into antisemitism the party had commissioned. That was principled. Keeping him because of party loyalty would have been unprincipled. Can you imagine the reaction on here if Starmer had allowed Corbyn to stay?
There was no curry night in lockdown. Not even the most one-eyed Tory called it a "curry night". The event in question wasn't even at night.
I must have missed the problem with Sue Gray. How was here appointment different from, say, appointing Dominic Cummings?
He's dull, boring and not my first choice as leader but the shit he gets from all sides on here is deranged. I can't think of a more hated politician and I can't fathom why.
Arguably Sue Grey/Gray was tapped up, in the style of football managers (you are not supposed to approach other club's mangers without asking permission, but of course to do so implies you may want to change your current one, which leaks out etc). The suggestion is that she lacked impartiality in her report on partygate. An alternative is that she is someone who knows how the civil service works and is an excellent appointment.
Re currygate, I have been pretty clear that I think Starmer probably did break the regulations, but in a trivial way. He also played a blinder with his pledge to to resign - no police force was ever going to force the leader of the opposition to resign over a covid 'parking ticket' My issue with Starmer is that he was always attacking from the I would be more cautious side - longer lockdowns etc. He failed to articulate or convince that he was aware of the other costs of that approach.
AIUI Corbyn did accept the criticisms of the report, but did so in a rather mealy mouthed way.
she may well be lacking partiality given her son is a Labour PPC.
@RobDotHutton How Rishi Sunak press conferences work. Reporters put their hands up, but this is what the prime minister has in front of him...
The BBC won’t be pleased at not getting the first question.
Conservative newspapers having the first two (and three of the first five) slots. OK, it's a game and we all know it's a game, but it looks a bit odd written down like that, doesn't it?
if it was LK she would have been number one of course.
@RobDotHutton How Rishi Sunak press conferences work. Reporters put their hands up, but this is what the prime minister has in front of him...
So what?
Well quite. Do they expect the PM not to be prepared, or to get the name of one of the hacks wrong? Sensible to include photos as well, helps avoid more confusion, and it’s plausible he can just point at people after the first half a dozen from the major publications and broadcasters.
You should see what they have to do for Biden, he mistakingly ended up with “My old friend, Mr Bert Lastname” in his teleprompter last week, an almighty screwup from his own communications team.
Comments
Someone should write an article on why Starmer should look to MacMillan, not Wilson, as he is thought to be.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/us/politics/biden-trump-battleground-poll.html
It also looks plausible
NEW THREAD
The approach draws attention to Sunak's biggest problems. If the aim is damage limitation, I'd highlight policy areas. Setting the election up as, "who do you trust to form a competent government?" is a bad move.
Article 2(1) WF provides that the UK shall ensure no diminution of rights, safeguards, or equality
of opportunity, as set out in the B-GFA, results from its withdrawal from the EU, including in the
area of protection against discrimination.
That's the Windsor Framework from... er, last year. The thing that Rishiites hold up as the prime example of his pragmatic, technocratic genius.
And so much for the ERG's Star Chamber, and their intensive scrutiny. Not a single mention of "Article 2", "immigration", or "discrimination" in their assessment at https://lawyersforbritain.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ERG-Legal-Advisory-Committee-Review-and-Assessment-21-March-2023.pdf - well done, guys, well done!
Funny how reputations go up and down.
You should see what they have to do for Biden, he mistakingly ended up with “My old friend, Mr Bert Lastname” in his teleprompter last week, an almighty screwup from his own communications team.