About as far off thread as you can get, but has anyone else noticed the extraordinary score line from the Womens WC qualifying match in which Bosnia-H are leading Lichtenstein 10-1.....at half time! Makes you wonder if some longstanding records are about to be broken.
Jesus. Sobering encounter with my cheerful cockney neighbour
She has a late 30s son with a young family. Wife and two tiny kids. Aged 4 and 1. All good - but began to feel oddly unwell later last year. Still nothing serious. January he was diagnosed with multiple cancers and now has “a few months to live”
Those poor kids! His poor wife…
Eat drink and be merry, PB
A good friend and neighbour died last year a few months after being diagnosed with cancer, early forties, two primary aged children. You just never know what's around the corner. Live life to the full.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate.
He inherited a broken Country broken economy, broken trust in Politics broken trust with EU, broken public services.
Early decisions on pensioners and a few other issues did not help.
He has played Trump on tariffs better than anyone, bar none, aided by what Mandy had on Trump and Epstein.
Why the vitriolic hatred?
Simple a concerted news media campaign from day 1,GB News Sky, ITN, BBC especially orchestrated by Robbie Gibb and 90% of the print media mostly complete lies
Just as the economy turned things improve Trump starts WW3... What do re media do.. Attack Starmer and gloat, fucking gloat that it may cause economic turmoil.
So what happens next, well we all know Farage, Badenoch and Polanski get an easy ride, none of them handle what lite pressure from the media that they get.
So all we ask is they get treated the same as Starmer, or the next Labour leader gets treated the same easier way they are.
I won't hold my breath
I don't 'hate' Starmer. I am just hugely disappointed in him. I have never been a Labour voter and dislike the whole Statist philosophy that permeates Labour (and the Lib Dems and Tories to a great extent).
But I genuinely hoped that after the useless May, the criminally idiotic Johnson and Truss and the pointless Sunak, we might have a few years of boring, steady, sensible and stolid leadership. What we have got is spineless, indecisive, craven and incoherent governance that has managed some how to make things even worse than they were under the Tories.
And I see no prospect of this improving. Starmer is a poor man's Major and his cabinet is filled with PPE non entities who see politics as a career rather than a service.
And no, none of the alternatives look to be any better. So this isn't a clarion call for the Tories, Reform, Lib Dems or Greens. They are all as bad as each other and, to quote good old Rowan Atkinson, I wouldn't trust any of them to sit the right way on a toilet.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate.
He inherited a broken Country broken economy, broken trust in Politics broken trust with EU, broken public services.
Early decisions on pensioners and a few other issues did not help.
He has played Trump on tariffs better than anyone, bar none, aided by what Mandy had on Trump and Epstein.
Why the vitriolic hatred?
Simple a concerted news media campaign from day 1,GB News Sky, ITN, BBC especially orchestrated by Robbie Gibb and 90% of the print media mostly complete lies
Just as the economy turned things improve Trump starts WW3... What do re media do.. Attack Starmer and gloat, fucking gloat that it may cause economic turmoil.
So what happens next, well we all know Farage, Badenoch and Polanski get an easy ride, none of them handle what lite pressure from the media that they get.
So all we ask is they get treated the same as Starmer, or the next Labour leader gets treated the same easier way they are.
I won't hold my breath
I don't 'hate' Starmer. I am just hugely disappointed in him. I have never been a Labour voter and dislike the whole Statist philosophy that permeates Labour (and the Lib Dems and Tories to a great extent).
But I genuinely hoped that after the useless May, the criminally idiotic Johnson and Truss and the pointless Sunak, we might have a few years of boring, steady, sensible and stolid leadership. What we have got is spineless, indecisive, craven and incoherent governance that has managed some how to make things even worse than they were under the Tories.
And I see no prospect of this improving. Starmer is a poor man's Major and his cabinet is filled with PPE non entities who see politics as a career rather than a service.
And no, none of the alternatives look to be any better. So this isn't a clarion call for the Tories, Reform, Lib Dems or Greens. They are all as bad as each other and, to quote good old Rowan Atkinson, I wouldn't trust any of them to sit the right way on a toilet.
SKS and Reeves arrived without a plan or purpose - now the plan or purpose may have been crap and not what I agreed with but virtually anything would have been better than just about competent continuation Rishi which is what we got.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate.
He inherited a broken Country broken economy, broken trust in Politics broken trust with EU, broken public services.
Early decisions on pensioners and a few other issues did not help.
He has played Trump on tariffs better than anyone, bar none, aided by what Mandy had on Trump and Epstein.
Why the vitriolic hatred?
Simple a concerted news media campaign from day 1,GB News Sky, ITN, BBC especially orchestrated by Robbie Gibb and 90% of the print media mostly complete lies
Just as the economy turned things improve Trump starts WW3... What do re media do.. Attack Starmer and gloat, fucking gloat that it may cause economic turmoil.
So what happens next, well we all know Farage, Badenoch and Polanski get an easy ride, none of them handle what lite pressure from the media that they get.
So all we ask is they get treated the same as Starmer, or the next Labour leader gets treated the same easier way they are.
I won't hold my breath
Starmer being “loathed” isn’t illogical. It’s politics: people mostly don’t hate leaders for being evil, they hate them for being disappointing, inauthentic, or pointless.
He’s managed the rare trick of annoying both wings for different reasons: Right: thinks he’s stealth-statist, tax-and-spend, soft on borders, etc. Left: thinks he’s managerial mush, triangulation, and abandons anything resembling a moral spine when it gets hard.
Add in: A vibe problem. “Boring competence” only works if it feels like competence. If it reads as caution + comms + drift, it just looks weak. Early unforced errors (pensioners, flip-flops, “who is this for?” policies). People form impressions fast and then interpret everything through that lens. Trust and clarity. If voters can’t summarise what you stand for in one sentence, they assume you stand for yourself.
Yes, parts of the media run campaigns. They always have. But you don’t get to blame the ref when you keep booting it into Row Z.
And no, the alternatives don’t look better. Which is exactly why the disappointment hits harder: we all wanted a few years of dull, competent repair work and got… whatever this is.
BartholomewRoberts , thank you for your attention in this matter.
Trump spoke to CNN’s Dana Bash on the phone and told her that liberating the Iranian people is not a goal of the war. Trump said he’d be happy to install an undemocratic religious leader so long as they treat the U.S. and Israel “fairly” https://x.com/loffredojeremy/status/2030154629049110712
Another leftist expresses scepticism about the war.
Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni:
Italy will not enter into a direct conflict against Iran. Our absolute priority is de-escalation and peace, not fueling a regional fire that would be devastating for everyone.
The air bases on our territory are used for logistics and support, not as launch platforms for offensive actions without prior democratic debate.
Its not a left versus right issue, its a wrong versus right one.
And sadly most of Europe is on the wrong side.
Step away from Europe and not just America and Israel, but the Iranian public, Iranian diaspora and Gulf states want to see regime change in Iran.
Sadly Europe has become so scared of its own shadow that it can not be taken seriously anymore. Which includes the UK under this Government.
In your view - and you do have views, I’ve see you express them on this blog - is Trump in this for human rights for Iranian’s, or his eyes full of oil barrels and dollar signs?
I could not trust Trump further than I could throw the fat fuck.
Not sure what point you were trying to make in tagging me in that, but I have always been consistent in that I do not like or respect or trust Trump, whom I have always opposed.
I just oppose the Mullahs and want to see them defeated more.
Do I trust Trump to do the right thing? No, not a chance. Will this conflict guarantee a free Iran? No.
Is this still the best chance of getting a free Iran/Persia? Yes.
There would be more chance of getting a good result if we were fighting for good and not just relying upon Trump and Bibi, but sadly we're not.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
And Trump does???
It's not an either/or. Actually given the choice between Starmer and Trump to rule the world I would probably just drown myself.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Seems @DefenceHQ realized it’s big video “reveal” showing British engineers at a workshop repairing vehicles inside Ukraine was quite a flub, as it revealed identifiable features and featured @LukePollard going so far as to describe the surroundings, making it likely to be geolocated and targeted by Russia. The post has been taken down but the damage is done.
BartholomewRoberts , thank you for your attention in this matter.
Trump spoke to CNN’s Dana Bash on the phone and told her that liberating the Iranian people is not a goal of the war. Trump said he’d be happy to install an undemocratic religious leader so long as they treat the U.S. and Israel “fairly” https://x.com/loffredojeremy/status/2030154629049110712
Another leftist expresses scepticism about the war.
Prime Minister of Italy, Giorgia Meloni:
Italy will not enter into a direct conflict against Iran. Our absolute priority is de-escalation and peace, not fueling a regional fire that would be devastating for everyone.
The air bases on our territory are used for logistics and support, not as launch platforms for offensive actions without prior democratic debate.
Its not a left versus right issue, its a wrong versus right one.
And sadly most of Europe is on the wrong side.
Step away from Europe and not just America and Israel, but the Iranian public, Iranian diaspora and Gulf states want to see regime change in Iran.
Sadly Europe has become so scared of its own shadow that it can not be taken seriously anymore. Which includes the UK under this Government.
In your view - and you do have views, I’ve see you express them on this blog - is Trump in this for human rights for Iranian’s, or his eyes full of oil barrels and dollar signs?
I could not trust Trump further than I could throw the fat fuck.
Not sure what point you were trying to make in tagging me in that, but I have always been consistent in that I do not like or respect or trust Trump, whom I have always opposed.
I just oppose the Mullahs and want to see them defeated more.
Do I trust Trump to do the right thing? No, not a chance. Will this conflict guarantee a free Iran? No.
Is this still the best chance of getting a free Iran/Persia? Yes.
There would be more chance of getting a good result if we were fighting for good and not just relying upon Trump and Bibi, but sadly we're not.
I quite agree.
It's remarkable that some people seem to think you can't distinguish the two.
Seems @DefenceHQ realized it’s big video “reveal” showing British engineers at a workshop repairing vehicles inside Ukraine was quite a flub, as it revealed identifiable features and featured @LukePollard going so far as to describe the surroundings, making it likely to be geolocated and targeted by Russia. The post has been taken down but the damage is done.
Seems @DefenceHQ realized it’s big video “reveal” showing British engineers at a workshop repairing vehicles inside Ukraine was quite a flub, as it revealed identifiable features and featured @LukePollard going so far as to describe the surroundings, making it likely to be geolocated and targeted by Russia. The post has been taken down but the damage is done.
Seems @DefenceHQ realized it’s big video “reveal” showing British engineers at a workshop repairing vehicles inside Ukraine was quite a flub, as it revealed identifiable features and featured @LukePollard going so far as to describe the surroundings, making it likely to be geolocated and targeted by Russia. The post has been taken down but the damage is done.
Utter idiots.
Why is the MOD even on twitter?
I think even MI6 is on Twitter. Bunch of f***wits.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate.
He inherited a broken Country broken economy, broken trust in Politics broken trust with EU, broken public services.
Early decisions on pensioners and a few other issues did not help.
He has played Trump on tariffs better than anyone, bar none, aided by what Mandy had on Trump and Epstein.
Why the vitriolic hatred?
Simple a concerted news media campaign from day 1,GB News Sky, ITN, BBC especially orchestrated by Robbie Gibb and 90% of the print media mostly complete lies
Just as the economy turned things improve Trump starts WW3... What do re media do.. Attack Starmer and gloat, fucking gloat that it may cause economic turmoil.
So what happens next, well we all know Farage, Badenoch and Polanski get an easy ride, none of them handle what lite pressure from the media that they get.
So all we ask is they get treated the same as Starmer, or the next Labour leader gets treated the same easier way they are.
I won't hold my breath
I don't 'hate' Starmer. I am just hugely disappointed in him. I have never been a Labour voter and dislike the whole Statist philosophy that permeates Labour (and the Lib Dems and Tories to a great extent).
But I genuinely hoped that after the useless May, the criminally idiotic Johnson and Truss and the pointless Sunak, we might have a few years of boring, steady, sensible and stolid leadership. What we have got is spineless, indecisive, craven and incoherent governance that has managed some how to make things even worse than they were under the Tories.
And I see no prospect of this improving. Starmer is a poor man's Major and his cabinet is filled with PPE non entities who see politics as a career rather than a service.
And no, none of the alternatives look to be any better. So this isn't a clarion call for the Tories, Reform, Lib Dems or Greens. They are all as bad as each other and, to quote good old Rowan Atkinson, I wouldn't trust any of them to sit the right way on a toilet.
SKS and Reeves arrived without a plan or purpose - now the plan or purpose may have been crap and not what I agreed with but virtually anything would have been better than just about competent continuation Rishi which is what we got.
The important caveat is that I don't think Starmer was expecting to need to have to have a plan for government until about September 2022. Before that, his job was to have a manifesto and shadow cabinet to lose better in 2023 than in 2019. And if the Conservative succession had gone Johnson - Sunak direct, that may have worked. It was the Trusstastophe that messed that plan up. So here we are.
But whilst he's not good, he probably remains better than the available (or even semi-available, Andy) alternatives. And whilst I'm sure Britain would like to have a better PM, I'm not convinced that it deserves one, or would fall in behind one if it had one.
Trump spoke to CNN’s Dana Bash on the phone and told her that liberating the Iranian people is not a goal of the war. Trump said he’d be happy to install an undemocratic religious leader so long as they treat the U.S. and Israel “fairly” https://x.com/loffredojeremy/status/2030154629049110712
Re: Conversations about the UK's role in this caper. Trump wants a pliant Iran which can be milked for the US and other (!!) interests. The bill for bring 'freedom' will be paid by taxing Iranians' oil wealth. Expecting the UK's cost of mounting support will be reimbursed by the US or Iran will not happen. So we would be using up UK taxpayers' money to support Trump's ego and Israel's ambition to dominate the ME. Of course, the US also subsidises Israel to the tune of multi-billions each year whereas the UK has to wear it's own costs.
It makes no commercial or political sense to follow these overseas ventures when we have pressing issues at home and in Europe. Let Trump blow US Taxpayers money for his own vanity.
Seems @DefenceHQ realized it’s big video “reveal” showing British engineers at a workshop repairing vehicles inside Ukraine was quite a flub, as it revealed identifiable features and featured @LukePollard going so far as to describe the surroundings, making it likely to be geolocated and targeted by Russia. The post has been taken down but the damage is done.
FFS...yesterday it was putting confidental messages on a platform that anybody could read. Lammy thinks we have "Tycoon" fighter jets and "Cyprus is in Nato". Starmer is on TikTok with Dire Straits tracks.
Seems @DefenceHQ realized it’s big video “reveal” showing British engineers at a workshop repairing vehicles inside Ukraine was quite a flub, as it revealed identifiable features and featured @LukePollard going so far as to describe the surroundings, making it likely to be geolocated and targeted by Russia. The post has been taken down but the damage is done.
Seems @DefenceHQ realized it’s big video “reveal” showing British engineers at a workshop repairing vehicles inside Ukraine was quite a flub, as it revealed identifiable features and featured @LukePollard going so far as to describe the surroundings, making it likely to be geolocated and targeted by Russia. The post has been taken down but the damage is done.
Oh dear. That seems like a fail at several levels of management.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
All true, but I would add three points as to why Starmer is despised right across the political spectrum:
- he has no ability to communicate and sell a vision - the specific issue of the winter fuel allowance made him widely loathed - the Two Tier scandals in the first couple of months of the government gave him a reputation for personal hypocrisy, which, though trivial compared with some of the other calamities the government has inflicted on us, didn't help given how much he'd attacked people in the previous government for simlar behaviour.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate.
He inherited a broken Country broken economy, broken trust in Politics broken trust with EU, broken public services.
Early decisions on pensioners and a few other issues did not help.
He has played Trump on tariffs better than anyone, bar none, aided by what Mandy had on Trump and Epstein.
Why the vitriolic hatred?
Simple a concerted news media campaign from day 1,GB News Sky, ITN, BBC especially orchestrated by Robbie Gibb and 90% of the print media mostly complete lies
Just as the economy turned things improve Trump starts WW3... What do re media do.. Attack Starmer and gloat, fucking gloat that it may cause economic turmoil.
So what happens next, well we all know Farage, Badenoch and Polanski get an easy ride, none of them handle what lite pressure from the media that they get.
So all we ask is they get treated the same as Starmer, or the next Labour leader gets treated the same easier way they are.
I won't hold my breath
I don't 'hate' Starmer. I am just hugely disappointed in him. I have never been a Labour voter and dislike the whole Statist philosophy that permeates Labour (and the Lib Dems and Tories to a great extent).
But I genuinely hoped that after the useless May, the criminally idiotic Johnson and Truss and the pointless Sunak, we might have a few years of boring, steady, sensible and stolid leadership. What we have got is spineless, indecisive, craven and incoherent governance that has managed some how to make things even worse than they were under the Tories.
And I see no prospect of this improving. Starmer is a poor man's Major and his cabinet is filled with PPE non entities who see politics as a career rather than a service.
And no, none of the alternatives look to be any better. So this isn't a clarion call for the Tories, Reform, Lib Dems or Greens. They are all as bad as each other and, to quote good old Rowan Atkinson, I wouldn't trust any of them to sit the right way on a toilet.
SKS and Reeves arrived without a plan or purpose - now the plan or purpose may have been crap and not what I agreed with but virtually anything would have been better than just about competent continuation Rishi which is what we got.
The important caveat is that I don't think Starmer was expecting to need to have to have a plan for government until about September 2022. Before that, his job was to have a manifesto and shadow cabinet to lose better in 2023 than in 2019. And if the Conservative succession had gone Johnson - Sunak direct, that may have worked. It was the Trusstastophe that messed that plan up. So here we are.
But whilst he's not good, he probably remains better than the available (or even semi-available, Andy) alternatives. And whilst I'm sure Britain would like to have a better PM, I'm not convinced that it deserves one, or would fall in behind one if it had one.
While true, since 2022 it's been obvious that Labour would likely win, so you would hope over the intervening 2 years they would have come up with some vision as to how they wanted the UK to look in 2028 and what they needed to do to get there.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Jesus. Sobering encounter with my cheerful cockney neighbour
She has a late 30s son with a young family. Wife and two tiny kids. Aged 4 and 1. All good - but began to feel oddly unwell later last year. Still nothing serious. January he was diagnosed with multiple cancers and now has “a few months to live”
Those poor kids! His poor wife…
Eat drink and be merry, PB
A good friend and neighbour died last year a few months after being diagnosed with cancer, early forties, two primary aged children. You just never know what's around the corner. Live life to the full.
Every summer my neighbour - who has the ground floor flat - inflates a paddling pool for her son's kids. So I've watched that little family grow and get bigger. They are fun, kind, polite, noisy in a good way
From my beat, the updated Statutory (ahem - there is still the "must have regard to", not "must follow" loophole) Guidance on Floating Bus Stops, which came out in late January.)
A general tightening, alighting directly into a mobility lane is outlawed, and for the first they recognise that disabled people may be in the mobility lane as well as waiting for the bus.
Claude summary: LTN 1/20 (2020) briefly covered two floating bus stop designs in four non-statutory paragraphs: the bus stop bypass (cycle track behind a waiting island) and the shared use boarder (passengers stepping directly into the cycle track), treating both as valid options with limited design detail.
The 2026 statutory guidance, issued under the Bus Services Act 2025, replaces those paragraphs with a much more comprehensive framework. Key changes:
Shared use boarders are effectively prohibited for new schemes following a ministerial pause A third design type — cycle track with bus boarding island — is introduced as a safer alternative for constrained sites Zebra crossings are now specified at cycle track crossing points Detailed minimum dimensions and a structured assessment process are provided Accessibility for disabled users is placed at the centre, driven by research showing floating bus stops caused fear and avoidance among vision-impaired people The guidance is now statutory, meaning authorities must have regard to it
The overall shift is from a brief, cyclist-focused note to a legally-backed, accessibility-led design standard.*
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate.
He inherited a broken Country broken economy, broken trust in Politics broken trust with EU, broken public services.
Early decisions on pensioners and a few other issues did not help.
He has played Trump on tariffs better than anyone, bar none, aided by what Mandy had on Trump and Epstein.
Why the vitriolic hatred?
Simple a concerted news media campaign from day 1,GB News Sky, ITN, BBC especially orchestrated by Robbie Gibb and 90% of the print media mostly complete lies
Just as the economy turned things improve Trump starts WW3... What do re media do.. Attack Starmer and gloat, fucking gloat that it may cause economic turmoil.
So what happens next, well we all know Farage, Badenoch and Polanski get an easy ride, none of them handle what lite pressure from the media that they get.
So all we ask is they get treated the same as Starmer, or the next Labour leader gets treated the same easier way they are.
I won't hold my breath
Vapid bilge
Starmer worked hard to piss off the entire left of the Labour Party. Who left for the Greens. Precisely none of them read/watch “Right Wing Media”
He spent all his political capital marching the party up a hill and then turning round. See the WFA.
So he pissed off his own supporters by getting them to spend *their* political capital - only to embarrass them by backing out later.
This is an illustration of the problem with governing by focus group and chasing the voters.
What might actually work is a plan that makes sense. Then sticking to that.
The irony is that by chasing the voters, the old parties are plumbing depths in their polling that breaks records.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
And, as with Corbyn, peo-Kemi partisans don't know how they look to people outside their bubble, and really don't want to be told.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
And, as with Corbyn, peo-Kemi partisans don't know how they look to people outside their bubble, and really don't want to be told.
I would point out, that historically, when people start resorting to “criticising the government/military in a time of war is disloyal/treasonous”, then the shit is really piling up.
Resorting to the rhetoric of Luigi Cadorna makes you sound as if you admire him.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
I despair. As I've said, Borthwick is Gareth Southgate but even worse
Despite the ample talent at his disposal he has never won anything, and never will. Unfortunately we have to wait until he does nothing in the World Cup for him to depart
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
PB's Little Miss Angry writing in BIG letters again!
Jesus, this French side is going to obliterate Borthwick's boring England
Noting that Borthwick is a village in Midlothian, what would be it be in the Meaning of Liff?
I'm thinking about that bunged up sensation in the chest when one has consumed 2/3 of a large burger bap with no glass of water or cup of to hand to wash it down. And when one does get a drink your chest feels like a pipe being rodded.
I despair. As I've said, Borthwick is Gareth Southgate but even worse
Despite the ample talent at his disposal he has never won anything, and never will. Unfortunately we have to wait until he does nothing in the World Cup for him to depart
And his teams play DULL rugby
The RFU ridicilious decision to ban the picking of any player who plays abroad or who has stated they will play abroad is insane. England could pick another 15 players and many would be nailed on starters.
Willis brothers and Ribbons, into the pack straight away. Junior Kpoku onto the bench.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
When are you signing up?
This is such a pathetic argument that gets trotted out time and again.
I respect those who volunteer to sign up for risky jobs, whether it be Police, or Firefighters, or the Military.
Does not mean that those people who do should not be called upon to do their job, when it is required.
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
When are you signing up?
A question I also asked, last week. It went unanswered.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
They usually have to be told what to do.
You’d hope so. One of the important bits of functional democracies is that the military does nothing unless the politicians tell them otherwise.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
When are you signing up?
This is such a pathetic argument that gets trotted out time and again.
I respect those who volunteer to sign up for risky jobs, whether it be Police, or Firefighters, or the Military.
Does not mean that those people who do should not be called upon to do their job, when it is required.
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
But uniquely among the PB village, you know EXACTLY how this war should be planned, prosecuted, and ended, you should contribute your extensive military wisdom, and be out their valiantly leading from the front!
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
Okay.
Both our positions are crystal clear. Nothing more needs to be added.
Has Rogan come out against Trump yet over Iran? I suppose one positive thing from this conflict, is that it's exposed so-called disaffected liberal grifters who went to Trump 'because I didn't leave the left, the left left me' as nothing more than unprincipled, hypocritical t**ssers.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
When are you signing up?
This is such a pathetic argument that gets trotted out time and again.
I respect those who volunteer to sign up for risky jobs, whether it be Police, or Firefighters, or the Military.
Does not mean that those people who do should not be called upon to do their job, when it is required.
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
But uniquely among the PB village, you know EXACTLY how this war should be planned, prosecuted, and ended, you should contribute your extensive military wisdom, and be out their valiantly leading from the front!
Where have I ever claimed to know "EXACTLY" how this war should be planned, prosecuted and ended?
Saying we should be taking part is not saying "EXACTLY" (what's with the dumb CAPS LOCK again?) how it should be done. The operational details should be left to the experts.
The two British companies linked to Iran’s billionaire shadow banker Telegraph names firms allegedly acting as fronts for cryptocurrency exchange that processed transactions worth $1bn
The two firms – Zedcex Exchange Ltd and Zedxion Exchange Ltd – list their registered office as an upmarket office on a back street of Covent Garden, in the heart of London. Since their incorporation, neither has filed accounts and they are listed as “dormant” on Companies House.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
You do move in politer circles
Starmer IS genuinely hated, in a way I've not known before, in a British politician (tho maybe Thatcher had the same effect on a certain kind of northerner in the 80s)
People aren't singing "Keir Starmer's a wanker" as an example of cheerful banter, they really mean it. And it comes from many kinds of voter, each with their own animus
Paradoxically, this is potentially good for Labour. Simply removing Starmer should provide a boost to their polling, and maybe give them a second hearing
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people ,are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
I've lost track of all of your Kriegsspiele, but I think if the government were following your guidance, British troops would currently be fighting and dying in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. Probably Lebanon as well, they looked at us a bit funny.
The two British companies linked to Iran’s billionaire shadow banker Telegraph names firms allegedly acting as fronts for cryptocurrency exchange that processed transactions worth $1bn
The two firms – Zedcex Exchange Ltd and Zedxion Exchange Ltd – list their registered office as an upmarket office on a back street of Covent Garden, in the heart of London. Since their incorporation, neither has filed accounts and they are listed as “dormant” on Companies House.
Another example of how easy it is to abuse the Companies House system.
Whereas Joe Public pays in £1,000 cash and can get debanked, all so we can pretend we clamp down on money laundering, when we actually encourage it to bring in foreign cash.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
When are you signing up?
This is such a pathetic argument that gets trotted out time and again.
I respect those who volunteer to sign up for risky jobs, whether it be Police, or Firefighters, or the Military.
Does not mean that those people who do should not be called upon to do their job, when it is required.
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
But uniquely among the PB village, you know EXACTLY how this war should be planned, prosecuted, and ended, you should contribute your extensive military wisdom, and be out their valiantly leading from the front!
Where have I ever claimed to know "EXACTLY" how this war should be planned, prosecuted and ended?
Saying we should be taking part is not saying "EXACTLY" (what's with the dumb CAPS LOCK again?) how it should be done. The operational details should be left to the experts.
We shouldn’t be taking part. We should not be putting our troops lives on the line to fight a war that has been started on the flakiest of pretexts.
You’re very happy to see other people put their lives on the line for what would be a political and economic war, as much about sending a message to China than anything else. Sunil’s question is perfectly fair.
This war, you think is so marvellous, is going to see Russian oil being sold legally again. Result for Putin. No wonder he won’t help the Mullahs
Also once high oil prices and the consequences start feeding through into inflation and standard of living both here and in the US it will become very unpopular.
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people ,are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
I've lost track of all of your Kriegsspiele, but I think if the government were following your guidance, British troops would currently be fighting and dying in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. Probably Lebanon as well, they looked at us a bit funny.
I wish we could be doing our bit in Ukraine, but Russian nukes mean its not realistically an option. Not a threat to worry about in Russia's ally Iran though.
When did Gazans actively seek to kill Brits as the Iranians under the Mullahs have time and again? Or the Lebanese?
Not that I'd object to us fighting Hamas or Hezbollah directly, but not sure Israel either needs nor wants our help.
Claims that Portsmouth dockyard is only working 9-5 are false. GB News understands sailors, engineers, contractors and civil servants are working round the clock to get HMS Dragon operational.
Claims that Portsmouth dockyard is only working 9-5 are false. GB News understands sailors, engineers, contractors and civil servants are working round the clock to get HMS Dragon operational.
I thought the original report came from the unions?
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
I think it was deliberately provocative to say ‘hated’ by Brixian to make people defensive and it helps stop criticism. It’s a tactic as old as God.
I don’t know anyone who hates Starmer but I never knew anyone who hated Sunak, apart from a few here, I just get the impression Starmer is not liked or respected. He’s a dull, middle manager, with little ability to get what agenda he has through.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
A good post. After listening to Any Questions today I realised that struggling to find good in the way Starmer runs the Labour Party is just too exhausting. The Minister representing him Lucy(?) was nice enough but completely incoherent.
Only one panellist took a significantly opposing view and as expected the whole audience were on her side. Even 'Any answers' couldn't find anyone to speak up for Trump. Not a single person. Feel the room! Feel the country! It's all obvious but Starmer has stapled the mouthes of his ministers and it embarrasses them and it embarrases those who want to support Labour.
Labour could replace him with someone who isn't a robot but they haven't found such a person yet
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
I think it was deliberately provocative to say ‘hated’ by Brixian to make people defensive and it helps stop criticism. It’s a tactic as old as God.
I don’t know anyone who hates Starmer but I never knew anyone who hated Sunak, apart from a few here, I just get the impression Starmer is not liked or respected. He’s a dull, middle manager, with little ability to get what agenda he has through.
I also totally concur with Viewcodes analysis.
Exasperated would be the word I would use to describe basically everybody I know, most of which are on the left from left centre New Labour types to people who are definitely big fans of the boobie grower.
The two British companies linked to Iran’s billionaire shadow banker Telegraph names firms allegedly acting as fronts for cryptocurrency exchange that processed transactions worth $1bn
The two firms – Zedcex Exchange Ltd and Zedxion Exchange Ltd – list their registered office as an upmarket office on a back street of Covent Garden, in the heart of London. Since their incorporation, neither has filed accounts and they are listed as “dormant” on Companies House.
Another example of how easy it is to abuse the Companies House system.
Whereas Joe Public pays in £1,000 cash and can get debanked, all so we can pretend we clamp down on money laundering, when we actually encourage it to bring in foreign cash.
That’s the way it works. These measures always disproportionately hit normal people or groups yet for the criminals it’s an occupational hazard and they work around it.
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people ,are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
I've lost track of all of your Kriegsspiele, but I think if the government were following your guidance, British troops would currently be fighting and dying in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. Probably Lebanon as well, they looked at us a bit funny.
I wish we could be doing our bit in Ukraine, but Russian nukes mean its not realistically an option. Not a threat to worry about in Russia's ally Iran though.
When did Gazans actively seek to kill Brits as the Iranians under the Mullahs have time and again? Or the Lebanese?
Not that I'd object to us fighting Hamas or Hezbollah directly, but not sure Israel either needs nor wants our help.
It was Hezbollah in Lebanon that Hit Akrotiki with the drone, not Iran.
OT. Interesting piece of polling on 'Today' which will appear in the Observer tomorrow. Only 6% are where Kemi is ie go in all guns blazing with the Americans
That is not her position
She supports action when and if our military come under attack from Iranian missiles
Indeed Lammy arrived on the same page yesterday
Yesterday US B1s landed in UK, and are authorised by Starmer to use our air bases in their war v Iran
Rachel Sylvester said simply that only 6% were where Kemi is whereas despite the UK press SKS following a rules based order is pretty well where the country is. Voters see broad brush strokes. Incidentally that wasn't Lammy's position. It was the Daily Mail misleading. They asked him what the British should do if attacked. Which shouldn't have given rise to their headline
David Lammy was interviewed across the media and your attempt to dismiss the story as misleading is simply you being misleading
Identical positions? Kemi is NOT coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung-Ho? 🥹
Little Miss Angry today -
“Keir Starmer spent days consulting lawyers and plucking up the courage to say whose side he was on, even though our allies had the moral clarity to do so immediately and unequivocally. “Even now, he is sitting on the fence, still deciding what our role is going to be in this war. We are in this war whether Keir Starmer likes it or not. It's time to act.”
The Sunday Newspapers need a poll “do you agree with Big G, Kemi is not coming across as Pro Trumps War and Gung Ho?”
Kemi hitting a nerve and is serious about protecting our military who are in direct line of fire
She is right to say that the RAF will attack Iranian missile launch sites if they are a threat to our planes
Seems Lammy agrees as well
Poll the public on my second sentence and see the response
Striking a nerve. That’s exactly my point.
Why Little Miss Angry should be more careful here, her SCATHING ATTACKS on Labour are coming across as scathing attacks on the UK military, whilst they are in the field.
I respectfully disagree, not least because labour have been woeful and deserve criticism
The Navy ship deployment to Cyprus is simply a farce of unimaginable stupidity with the work force under union orders only to work 9 - 5, 5 days a week !!!!!!!!!!!!
Starmer bans US use of British bases following pressure from Miliband and then someone leaks this from the NSC, and within 48 hours Starmer changes his mind allowing B1s to land and take off on mission to Iran from RAF Fairford and B52s from Diego Garcia
Lammy then comes on the media in broadcast interviews and agrees with Kemi that the UK can attack Iran if our military are threatened
And you want the government to have a free pass !!!!!!!!!!!!!
And with equal respect, Big G - whilst you are expending all this energy trying to convince PB the Tory and Lab positions are identical on Trumps War, Little Miss Angry is out there convincing the UK voters there is a GULF OF CLEAR BLUE WATER between Tories and government on this WAR.
You don’t say a boat took too long to get in the med because it was stuck in refit, by pointing out Bevin in 1950 was patriotic, but Labour is not patriotic anymore - that is two different things. How else do you interpret it?
I simply respectfully disagree with you on this, but I provide my own view as honestly as I see it and of courss many will not be persuaded
I would add refering to Kemi as little miss angry and using capitals will not change my view
Projection from MoonRabbit?
ugh. Don’t dig up Sigmund Freud, and pour him all over me.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Writing in CAPS LOCK does not make your comments either any more accurate or forceful.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
You are defending what Kemi Badenoch said?
Obviously.
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
“British Troops Are just hanging around.”
You would repeat that yourself?
Yes.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
When are you signing up?
This is such a pathetic argument that gets trotted out time and again.
I respect those who volunteer to sign up for risky jobs, whether it be Police, or Firefighters, or the Military.
Does not mean that those people who do should not be called upon to do their job, when it is required.
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
But uniquely among the PB village, you know EXACTLY how this war should be planned, prosecuted, and ended, you should contribute your extensive military wisdom, and be out their valiantly leading from the front!
PB's Angry Mr Train Sniffer using BIG letters again! Apparently. 😆
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people ,are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
I've lost track of all of your Kriegsspiele, but I think if the government were following your guidance, British troops would currently be fighting and dying in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. Probably Lebanon as well, they looked at us a bit funny.
I wish we could be doing our bit in Ukraine, but Russian nukes mean its not realistically an option. Not a threat to worry about in Russia's ally Iran though.
When did Gazans actively seek to kill Brits as the Iranians under the Mullahs have time and again? Or the Lebanese?
Not that I'd object to us fighting Hamas or Hezbollah directly, but not sure Israel either needs nor wants our help.
It was Hezbollah in Lebanon that Hit Akrotiki with the drone, not Iran.
Fair point. So we should be fighting Hezbollah and Iran then.
The two British companies linked to Iran’s billionaire shadow banker Telegraph names firms allegedly acting as fronts for cryptocurrency exchange that processed transactions worth $1bn
The two firms – Zedcex Exchange Ltd and Zedxion Exchange Ltd – list their registered office as an upmarket office on a back street of Covent Garden, in the heart of London. Since their incorporation, neither has filed accounts and they are listed as “dormant” on Companies House.
Another example of how easy it is to abuse the Companies House system.
Whereas Joe Public pays in £1,000 cash and can get debanked, all so we can pretend we clamp down on money laundering, when we actually encourage it to bring in foreign cash.
That’s the way it works. These measures always disproportionately hit normal people or groups yet for the criminals it’s an occupational hazard and they work around it.
I think there is a lot of systems we have that have worked on a) there isn't much financial gain trying to fiddle the system and b) if you do, most have been UK based people who were fairly easy to track down, so fairly easy to clamp down on abuses. What we are seeing is abuse of Companies House, Licence Plate Making, Locksmith Services, it is very easy to abuse and now big rewards plus can do a lot of it without ever stepping foot in the UK.
The worry is that government will come up with many more rules that don't really stop the abuses but more burden on legit people / absolutely wallopping people for small mistakes.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
I think it was deliberately provocative to say ‘hated’ by Brixian to make people defensive and it helps stop criticism. It’s a tactic as old as God.
I don’t know anyone who hates Starmer but I never knew anyone who hated Sunak, apart from a few here, I just get the impression Starmer is not liked or respected. He’s a dull, middle manager, with little ability to get what agenda he has through.
I also totally concur with Viewcodes analysis.
I stated a few days ago on here that Starmer's greatest flaw is that he lacks any charisma.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
A good post. After listening to Any Questions today I realised that struggling to find good in the way Starmer runs the Labour Party is just too exhausting. The Minister representing him Lucy(?) was nice enough but completely incoherent.
Only one panellist took a significantly opposing view and as expected the whole audience were on her side. Even 'Any answers' couldn't find anyone to speak up for Trump. Not a single person. Feel the room! Feel the country! It's all obvious but Starmer has stapled the mouthes of his ministers and it embarrasses them and it embarrases those who want to support Labour.
Labour could replace him with someone who isn't a robot but they haven't found such a person yet
Apparently 4 B1s have landed in Fairford and can carry 24 cruise missiles each to be used in Iran
The argument has moved on to the need to protect our military and our interests both here and abroad
Earlier, the hotly contested international dog dancing competition was won by the French entry, Anastasiia with her Collie Pure Treasure, an impressive and artistic routine with lots of distance handling. Anyone who has trained a dog will know how challenging it is to complete a full routine like that, in the stressful environment of the Crufts arena. Second place went to the Czech entry with her Collie, with the UK in third place with little Trip Hazard the MaltiPom, who won yesterday’s UK competition and I am sure would often get under your feet at home.
Just now, the amazing young agility dog handlers got the presentation, and shortly we will be onto…Flyball!
It's some scoreline, didn't see this coming after the Italy defeat!
Say next weekend there's a title showdown, France, Ireland or Scotland could win it. France have an advantage as they play last, they know what they need to win the whole thing. 6 nations doesn't do synchronised final day. Clear flaw in the competition, but I doubt it will ever change due to TV money
@MarqueeMark Am I wrong in thinking your missus is involved with this? Looking forward to seeing it though it may be a bit of an emotional rollercoaster.
Claims that Portsmouth dockyard is only working 9-5 are false. GB News understands sailors, engineers, contractors and civil servants are working round the clock to get HMS Dragon operational.
"I never thought I would see the day when Britain's allies felt that they could not rely on us. This week, they have described us as weak. They've accused us of deserting them, of going missing in action. They have watched Britain refusing to send reinforcements to defend our military bases in the Mediterranean. The US, Greece and France have all sent ships. Ours is stuck in Portsmouth Harbour because of a union dispute." - Kemi Badenoch.
The two British companies linked to Iran’s billionaire shadow banker Telegraph names firms allegedly acting as fronts for cryptocurrency exchange that processed transactions worth $1bn
The two firms – Zedcex Exchange Ltd and Zedxion Exchange Ltd – list their registered office as an upmarket office on a back street of Covent Garden, in the heart of London. Since their incorporation, neither has filed accounts and they are listed as “dormant” on Companies House.
Another example of how easy it is to abuse the Companies House system.
Whereas Joe Public pays in £1,000 cash and can get debanked, all so we can pretend we clamp down on money laundering, when we actually encourage it to bring in foreign cash.
That’s the way it works. These measures always disproportionately hit normal people or groups yet for the criminals it’s an occupational hazard and they work around it.
I think there is a lot of systems we have that have worked on a) there isn't much financial gain trying to fiddle the system and b) if you do, most have been UK based people who were fairly easy to track down, so fairly easy to clamp down on abuses. What we are seeing is abuse of Companies House, Licence Plate Making, Locksmith Services, it is very easy to abuse and now big rewards plus can do a lot of it without ever stepping foot in the UK.
The worry is that government will come up with many more rules that don't really stop the abuses but more burden on legit people / absolutely wallopping people for small mistakes.
The bit that really insults is the way that certain businesses and groups of businesses get a semi-official blind eye turned to them.
During COVID, someone said the quiet bit out loud - that H&S and even the Factory Acts were not being enforced on the Leicester garment trade. As policy.
Claims that Portsmouth dockyard is only working 9-5 are false. GB News understands sailors, engineers, contractors and civil servants are working round the clock to get HMS Dragon operational.
"I never thought I would see the day when Britain's allies felt that they could not rely on us. This week, they have described us as weak. They've accused us of deserting them, of going missing in action. They have watched Britain refusing to send reinforcements to defend our military bases in the Mediterranean. The US, Greece and France have all sent ships. Ours is stuck in Portsmouth Harbour because of a union dispute." - Kemi Badenoch.
Union dispute? Shades of the Bicester to Bletchley rail line, completed over a year ago but still lacking passenger trains!
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk? If a building is on fire and people ,are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk? If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
I've lost track of all of your Kriegsspiele, but I think if the government were following your guidance, British troops would currently be fighting and dying in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. Probably Lebanon as well, they looked at us a bit funny.
I wish we could be doing our bit in Ukraine, but Russian nukes mean its not realistically an option. Not a threat to worry about in Russia's ally Iran though.
When did Gazans actively seek to kill Brits as the Iranians under the Mullahs have time and again? Or the Lebanese?
Not that I'd object to us fighting Hamas or Hezbollah directly, but not sure Israel either needs nor wants our help.
Hacker: British power is about protecting the weak against the strong!
Humphrey: Then why do we not send troops to Afghnistan to fight the Russians?
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
A good post. After listening to Any Questions today I realised that struggling to find good in the way Starmer runs the Labour Party is just too exhausting. The Minister representing him Lucy(?) was nice enough but completely incoherent.
Only one panellist took a significantly opposing view and as expected the whole audience were on her side. Even 'Any answers' couldn't find anyone to speak up for Trump. Not a single person. Feel the room! Feel the country! It's all obvious but Starmer has stapled the mouthes of his ministers and it embarrasses them and it embarrases those who want to support Labour.
Labour could replace him with someone who isn't a robot but they haven't found such a person yet
Apparently 4 B1s have landed in Fairford and can carry 24 cruise missiles each to be used in Iran
The argument has moved on to the need to protect our military and our interests both here and abroad
“ The argument has moved on to the need to protect our military and our interests both here and abroad”
That’s not at all clear, what does that actually mean as an action? UK firing in an offensive way, identical missions to the US and Israel?
Claims that Portsmouth dockyard is only working 9-5 are false. GB News understands sailors, engineers, contractors and civil servants are working round the clock to get HMS Dragon operational.
"I never thought I would see the day when Britain's allies felt that they could not rely on us. This week, they have described us as weak. They've accused us of deserting them, of going missing in action. They have watched Britain refusing to send reinforcements to defend our military bases in the Mediterranean. The US, Greece and France have all sent ships. Ours is stuck in Portsmouth Harbour because of a union dispute." - Kemi Badenoch.
I'm not sure who LMA is targeting with this nonsense. Anybody susceptible to stupid shit like this is already voting tory or Fukker.
She never challenges the Fukkers on policy or probity or anything else, but just restates the Fukker position in a highly irritated tone. This does not shift voting intention as the polls show or actual voting as the by-elections show.
Drinks and rugby at the pub with a fairly loyalist Labour voter, last night
We skirted the many many subjects we disagree on (this gets harder as politics polarises) but there was one area we vehemently concurred. Starmer. Starmer HAS to go. In my view Starmer has to go because he is a dim, vain, despicable, hypocritical lefty quisling, with no redeeming personal characteristics, and a voice that can turn to elves to stone at forty paces. In my friend's view he has to go because is a naff embarrassing loser with no ideas and negative charm, and Labour cannot begin to recover until he's out the door
It was an interesting overlap
Starmer is hated by everyone. How can he endure?
I get the impression it's Starmer personally who is disliked. Not necessarily Labour. It's almost the opposite to the dog days of the Tories. And why a change needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
Yes, I agree. I reckon Labour could recover quite substantially - by 5 points in the polls, at least - if they get rid of Starmer. He is LOATHED. He is seen by the right as a traitor and by the left as a rightwing stooge. There is no coming back from this, plus the voice and persona and his weird personal attachment to doomed or disastrous policies, from assisted suicide to Chagos. PLUS the terrible errors, all the time
But, as you say, the longer Labour delays this necessary regicide the more Starmer will infect the entire Labour brand, fatally
There is absolutely no logical reason who Starmer is so loathed.
There is nothing in his personality that is evil, nasty,. His career record, record as Leader prior the becoming PM is certainly not worthy of the hate...
Starmer doesn't know what he's doing.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
I agree with most of this but add a caution. Starmer isn't as bad as people think he is. That's not saying much, given he's the most unpopular prime minister in living history, except possibly Truss. He is nevertheless better by a big margin than the two leaders of the likely replacement parties, Farage and Badenoch. He is also better than at least two of his three predecessors. Sunak is marginal and in some ways similar to Starmer. His likely replacements in the Labour Party aren't obviously better and there is maybe an element of rolling the dice on this.
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Perhaps I move in politer circles, but I don't know anyone who HATES Starmer - mild exasperation is as bad as it gets. My problem with him is the lack of any durable perspective. He's preferable to Kemi or Farage, but I'm tired of supporting leaders only by the presence of others who are worse. I think he'd make a good departmental minister where the challenges are technical, but no more. I assume there will be a challenge after the locals, unless they are unexpectedly good, and will make up my own mind after that.
His communication skills are woeful . People think he is stupid and he comes across as such.
Claims that Portsmouth dockyard is only working 9-5 are false. GB News understands sailors, engineers, contractors and civil servants are working round the clock to get HMS Dragon operational.
"I never thought I would see the day when Britain's allies felt that they could not rely on us. This week, they have described us as weak. They've accused us of deserting them, of going missing in action. They have watched Britain refusing to send reinforcements to defend our military bases in the Mediterranean. The US, Greece and France have all sent ships. Ours is stuck in Portsmouth Harbour because of a union dispute." - Kemi Badenoch.
Union dispute? Shades of the Bicester to Bletchley rail line, completed over a year ago but still lacking passenger trains!
Forgot to add:
The West Midlands Metro tram line from Wednesbury to Dudley is "expected" to open in August, just two years late!
Comments
But I genuinely hoped that after the useless May, the criminally idiotic Johnson and Truss and the pointless Sunak, we might have a few years of boring, steady, sensible and stolid leadership. What we have got is spineless, indecisive, craven and incoherent governance that has managed some how to make things even worse than they were under the Tories.
And I see no prospect of this improving. Starmer is a poor man's Major and his cabinet is filled with PPE non entities who see politics as a career rather than a service.
And no, none of the alternatives look to be any better. So this isn't a clarion call for the Tories, Reform, Lib Dems or Greens. They are all as bad as each other and, to quote good old Rowan Atkinson, I wouldn't trust any of them to sit the right way on a toilet.
He’s managed the rare trick of annoying both wings for different reasons:
Right: thinks he’s stealth-statist, tax-and-spend, soft on borders, etc.
Left: thinks he’s managerial mush, triangulation, and abandons anything resembling a moral spine when it gets hard.
Add in:
A vibe problem. “Boring competence” only works if it feels like competence. If it reads as caution + comms + drift, it just looks weak.
Early unforced errors (pensioners, flip-flops, “who is this for?” policies). People form impressions fast and then interpret everything through that lens.
Trust and clarity. If voters can’t summarise what you stand for in one sentence, they assume you stand for yourself.
Yes, parts of the media run campaigns. They always have. But you don’t get to blame the ref when you keep booting it into Row Z.
And no, the alternatives don’t look better. Which is exactly why the disappointment hits harder: we all wanted a few years of dull, competent repair work and got… whatever this is.
I just oppose the Mullahs and want to see them defeated more.
Do I trust Trump to do the right thing? No, not a chance. Will this conflict guarantee a free Iran? No.
Is this still the best chance of getting a free Iran/Persia? Yes.
There would be more chance of getting a good result if we were fighting for good and not just relying upon Trump and Bibi, but sadly we're not.
His "ming vase" strategy meant that when he went into Government he had disabled some of the tools of the Government, which reduced what he could do. He sees the role as administrative/ceremonial, running on rails set down by the law, which suits his personality but is not the function of a PM. He does not administer well, issuing commands without checking that they are carried out (Obama had this problem too). The US/Iran war demonstrates that he vacillates under pressure, moving from one extreme to the other depending on who he is talking to. Assisted dying demonstrated that he could make decisions for capricious reasons (promising Esther Rantzen?!) but did not have the drive to fight the argument that it would create nor push it thru to its conclusion.
This is not to say that his Government is unsuccessful. Ministers who have a clear idea of what to do based on their own beliefs, like Miliband and Mahmood, do well in post. But the results are incoherent: Mahmood (Blue Labour) institutes a policy of paid voluntary repatriation, which older PBers will remember from the Enoch days, Streeting (Blair Labour) increases private sector involvement in NHS, Miliband (Green Labour) creates a policy so mad the pre-Polanski Greens would blush (£20-odd billion for CCS?!!). Things get done but they are not part of a coherent whole and I have difficulty in describing them as left-wing.
His self-generated ideas are bizarre and fleeting. "We all must have ID cards!". "We all must not have ID cards!". We have missions! We have goals! We have...what now? He is defended as a decent man struggling with the job, but John Major had a far better claim to the title, did more, and still lost. Plus Starmer's recorded lies/changes of mind since his leadership campaign do not betoken decency, or even self-awareness.
Some left-wing manifesto commitments are coming down the pike, like renters' rights and employment rights. But they are slow and might not be enough to compensate for the damage.
It is not hateful to point all these out, neither is it right wing. The simple fact is that like Anthony Eden or Edward Heath, he is unsuited to the job and should be removed. Whether it is by the Labour Party in a controlled manner, or the electorate in an uncontrolled manner is the question remaining
We can vote out Starmer, we can't vote out Trump.
https://x.com/christopherjm/status/2030276494036222120
Seems @DefenceHQ realized it’s big video “reveal” showing British engineers at a workshop repairing vehicles inside Ukraine was quite a flub, as it revealed identifiable features and featured @LukePollard going so far as to describe the surroundings, making it likely to be geolocated and targeted by Russia. The post has been taken down but the damage is done.
It's remarkable that some people seem to think you can't distinguish the two.
But whilst he's not good, he probably remains better than the available (or even semi-available, Andy) alternatives. And whilst I'm sure Britain would like to have a better PM, I'm not convinced that it deserves one, or would fall in behind one if it had one.
It makes no commercial or political sense to follow these overseas ventures when we have pressing issues at home and in Europe. Let Trump blow US Taxpayers money for his own vanity.
Led by Morons.
You quoted the answer to your question.
Worthy of a top tier broadsheet op/ed
- he has no ability to communicate and sell a vision
- the specific issue of the winter fuel allowance made him widely loathed
- the Two Tier scandals in the first couple of months of the government gave him a reputation for personal hypocrisy, which, though trivial compared with some of the other calamities the government has inflicted on us, didn't help given how much he'd attacked people in the previous government for simlar behaviour.
But they didn't....
Incidentally the direction of travel is towards digital ID. What Starmer says has little impact on that in my view. Also Miliband didn't create the CCS policy. It was a Conservative Party policy that Miliband has not stopped.
Properly upsetting. Carpe diem indeed
A general tightening, alighting directly into a mobility lane is outlawed, and for the first they recognise that disabled people may be in the mobility lane as well as waiting for the bus.
Claude summary:
LTN 1/20 (2020) briefly covered two floating bus stop designs in four non-statutory paragraphs: the bus stop bypass (cycle track behind a waiting island) and the shared use boarder (passengers stepping directly into the cycle track), treating both as valid options with limited design detail.
The 2026 statutory guidance, issued under the Bus Services Act 2025, replaces those paragraphs with a much more comprehensive framework. Key changes:
Shared use boarders are effectively prohibited for new schemes following a ministerial pause
A third design type — cycle track with bus boarding island — is introduced as a safer alternative for constrained sites
Zebra crossings are now specified at cycle track crossing points
Detailed minimum dimensions and a structured assessment process are provided
Accessibility for disabled users is placed at the centre, driven by research showing floating bus stops caused fear and avoidance among vision-impaired people
The guidance is now statutory, meaning authorities must have regard to it
The overall shift is from a brief, cyclist-focused note to a legally-backed, accessibility-led design standard.*
Link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/floating-bus-stops-provision-and-design/floating-bus-stops-provision-and-design
But the answer is that we all ride Brompton T Lines.
Starmer worked hard to piss off the entire left of the Labour Party. Who left for the Greens. Precisely none of them read/watch “Right Wing Media”
He spent all his political capital marching the party up a hill and then turning round. See the WFA.
So he pissed off his own supporters by getting them to spend *their* political capital - only to embarrass them by backing out later.
This is an illustration of the problem with governing by focus group and chasing the voters.
What might actually work is a plan that makes sense. Then sticking to that.
The irony is that by chasing the voters, the old parties are plumbing depths in their polling that breaks records.
Noticeable BigG didn’t answer, just said No.
How about Little Miss “Slag Off Britain And Slag Off British Military Whilst It’s In The Air In Theatre” Mouth?
SHE’S GETTING IT WRONG, JUST LIKE CORBYN DID OVER SALISBURY.
Slagging off Starmer's choices is not slagging off either Britain or the British Military.
How England plan to fix misfiring attack – kick even more
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2026/03/07/england-tap-spirit-2019-fix-misfiring-attack-six-nations/
She was right. She neither criticised Britain nor the military, she criticised Starmer and she was right to do so.
You would repeat that yourself?
Resorting to the rhetoric of Luigi Cadorna makes you sound as if you admire him.
We are bystanders watching as America does the heavy lifting.
Shame on Starmer. Our troops should be fighting our enemy and ensuring regime change occurs, liberating the Iranian public, defeating our enemies and cutting off the supplier of Shahed drones to Russia which is killing Ukrainians.
Despite the ample talent at his disposal he has never won anything, and never will. Unfortunately we have to wait until he does nothing in the World Cup for him to depart
And his teams play DULL rugby
I'm thinking about that bunged up sensation in the chest when one has consumed 2/3 of a large burger bap with no glass of water or cup of to hand to wash it down. And when one does get a drink your chest feels like a pipe being rodded.
Willis brothers and Ribbons, into the pack straight away. Junior Kpoku onto the bench.
I respect those who volunteer to sign up for risky jobs, whether it be Police, or Firefighters, or the Military.
Does not mean that those people who do should not be called upon to do their job, when it is required.
If an armed gang is beating people up and raping them should the Police not go tackle them because it might put them at risk?
If a building is on fire and people are trapped inside should Firefighters not go in to rescue them because it might put them at risk?
If our enemies are trying to kill us, are actively killing our allies, should our military not go in to stop them?
Both our positions are crystal clear. Nothing more needs to be added.
I suppose one positive thing from this conflict, is that it's exposed so-called disaffected liberal grifters who went to Trump 'because I didn't leave the left, the left left me' as nothing more than unprincipled, hypocritical t**ssers.
Saying we should be taking part is not saying "EXACTLY" (what's with the dumb CAPS LOCK again?) how it should be done. The operational details should be left to the experts.
Telegraph names firms allegedly acting as fronts for cryptocurrency exchange that processed transactions worth $1bn
The two firms – Zedcex Exchange Ltd and Zedxion Exchange Ltd – list their registered office as an upmarket office on a back street of Covent Garden, in the heart of London. Since their incorporation, neither has filed accounts and they are listed as “dormant” on Companies House.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/07/two-british-companies-linked-iran-billionaire-shadow-banker/
Another example of how easy it is to abuse the Companies House system.
Starmer IS genuinely hated, in a way I've not known before, in a British politician (tho maybe Thatcher had the same effect on a certain kind of northerner in the 80s)
People aren't singing "Keir Starmer's a wanker" as an example of cheerful banter, they really mean it. And it comes from many kinds of voter, each with their own animus
Paradoxically, this is potentially good for Labour. Simply removing Starmer should provide a boost to their polling, and maybe give them a second hearing
You’re very happy to see other people put their lives on the line for what would be a political and economic war, as much about sending a message to China than anything else. Sunil’s question is perfectly fair.
This war, you think is so marvellous, is going to see Russian oil being sold legally again. Result for Putin. No wonder he won’t help the Mullahs
Also once high oil prices and the consequences start feeding through into inflation and standard of living both here and in the US it will become very unpopular.
When did Gazans actively seek to kill Brits as the Iranians under the Mullahs have time and again? Or the Lebanese?
Not that I'd object to us fighting Hamas or Hezbollah directly, but not sure Israel either needs nor wants our help.
Claims that Portsmouth dockyard is only working 9-5 are false. GB News understands sailors, engineers, contractors and civil servants are working round the clock to get HMS Dragon operational.
I don’t know anyone who hates Starmer but I never knew anyone who hated Sunak, apart from a few here, I just get the impression Starmer is not liked or respected. He’s a dull, middle manager, with little ability to get what agenda he has through.
I also totally concur with Viewcodes analysis.
Only one panellist took a significantly opposing view and as expected the whole audience were on her side. Even 'Any answers' couldn't find anyone to speak up for Trump. Not a single person. Feel the room! Feel the country! It's all obvious but Starmer has stapled the mouthes of his ministers and it embarrasses them and it embarrases those who want to support Labour.
Labour could replace him with someone who isn't a robot but they haven't found such a person yet
The worry is that government will come up with many more rules that don't really stop the abuses but more burden on legit people / absolutely wallopping people for small mistakes.
Scotland!!
The argument has moved on to the need to protect our military and our interests both here and abroad
Just now, the amazing young agility dog handlers got the presentation, and shortly we will be onto…Flyball!
Say next weekend there's a title showdown, France, Ireland or Scotland could win it. France have an advantage as they play last, they know what they need to win the whole thing. 6 nations doesn't do synchronised final day. Clear flaw in the competition, but I doubt it will ever change due to TV money
https://x.com/mcbuddah/status/2030061340547498185?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Keep it up, lads
- Kemi Badenoch.
During COVID, someone said the quiet bit out loud - that H&S and even the Factory Acts were not being enforced on the Leicester garment trade. As policy.
Fast, hard, brilliant rugby from the Jocks
France look totally shell-shocked
I expected France to ease through this half. Twenty minutes to go and they need four converted tries.
Scotland have just taken the game to France and not let up.
Humphrey: Then why do we not send troops to Afghnistan to fight the Russians?
Hacker: The Russians are too strong!
That’s not at all clear, what does that actually mean as an action? UK firing in an offensive way, identical missions to the US and Israel?
She never challenges the Fukkers on policy or probity or anything else, but just restates the Fukker position in a highly irritated tone. This does not shift voting intention as the polls show or actual voting as the by-elections show.
WTAF!
As a result this would be endlessly hilarious
The West Midlands Metro tram line from Wednesbury to Dudley is "expected" to open in August, just two years late!