All Ed Miliband's work, and both left and right of the party standing to applaud. As I've mentioned many times, the centre of the party, not Mandelsonianism, will be key for Starmer.
Do we have a link to what this means?
There a lot of versions of it around.
Within the Labour Party Miliband stands in a more parallel historical position to Wilson than Blair, quite simply, which many, though not all, Labour members consider nearer the centre of their tradition.
Starmer is showing much more agility with this speech than in last week's over-reach, introducing a Blairite presentational face, but actually allowing enough leeway in the substance of what he's saying, for potentially wider or more ambitious policy than that of the 1990's. His prospects may be looking up.
If he was so decent why was he prepared to stand with the far left and stand against those who were opposing antisemitism in 2019? Why did he put his career before saying that antisemitism is wrong?
Probably the same reason Corbyn and his rabble didn't leave in the 1990s. They were biding their time, just as the more moderate wing of Labour had to bide theirs.
You can't just leave a party you don't agree with at the current time (well, you can, but you'll achieve very little unless you really are lucky). You wait and try and change it back to your vision of what Labour should be.
Corbyn didn't bide his time in Blair's Cabinet.
Starmer could have stabbed Corbyn in the front and stood up against antisemitism and bided his time on the backbenches.
But no, he put his own personal career first.
But he had a wonderfully cunning plan to stop Brexit. It does make me wonder if him moaning about a lack on plans on the part of the government is really his best point.
On a personal note, Starmer is still on the "might vote for" list, unlike the NIMBY borderline antivax Lib Dems right now. I've a mind to read the manifestoes thoroughly this time round.
I can't vote for anyone, dislike Starmer for his plans to destroy private schools.
That's a US level for R&D spending. I can't see a Labour government offering similar business and financial terms to support it. Are Labour going to let such investors get filthy rich? Are they going to change the law so that businesses that fail and the people that run them can rapidly bounce back? And they going to offer the massive tax breaks you can get in the US at Federal and State level?
Nice target, but I really would be surprised to see Labour adopt policies that would see the UK catch up with the US. Labour usually condemns such stuff.
The only way you could achieve anything like that is more than 100% tax relief on R&D, a policy I have suggested before. But it would be expensive.
The US government is throwing $10 billion a year for the next 5 years at the semiconductor industry which is generally highly profitable. It's a bung. I simply do not believe Labour would be willing to compete for such development. More likely Labour would talk a great deal about the topic but would be wary of investing public money, and would not fund already highly profitable large businesses.
He seems a deep, deep functionalist. He is going to do lots of small but important foundational stuff to make things run smoother, change emphasis and piece it all together in the belief the end result will amount to big stuff. I think he is genuinely working up not down - this is the level at which Starmer will govern, perhaps there isn't and doesn't need to be more. If done well and with thought, it could work, but how is that pitch to be made?
Contrast with BoJo.
This government is all about the slogans- "Get [REDACTED] Done", "Level Britain Up". But we all know, deep down, that they haven't got a clue about turning those into practical actions.
Partly it's about the temperaments of the two men, but it also sashays round the "Mr and Mrs Voter weren't stupid to vote for Johnson" issue a bit. It puts the blame for the fallout where it belongs, on Johnson's lack of competence.
That line about Johnson, a showman with nothing left to show, that's got to sting... especially because BoJo might fear that it's true.
I can get behind this. It is boringly presented and I don't agree with much of the answers but he has chosen the right topics and has the right intent.
He's chosen the right topics by covering everything. Expect a passage on water resource allocation in Guatemala incoming.
He didnt mention Palestine, nationalisation, how bad the US is, anything woke or scum.
Now onto crime. Hammering away. It's like New Labour never left the building.
Assuming that Labour were successfully tough on crime and its causes from 1997-2010 then everyone now aged 11-24 was born under that regime, so crime should be pretty negligible among the early 20s right now who gained max benefit from the Labour years.
On a personal note, Starmer is still on the "might vote for" list, unlike the NIMBY borderline antivax Lib Dems right now. I've a mind to read the manifestoes thoroughly this time round.
I can't vote for anyone, dislike Starmer for his plans to destroy private schools.
I believe Gina Miller is starting a new party …
Cannot abide her.
Plus the name of the party triggers me. True and Fair is an accounting/banking term that brings me out in cold sweats.
It is one of those things that occupies my professional day.
Not bad, not brilliant. Some good lines for the TV news. Far too long. Not much meat on the bones. No plan. One or two decent jabs at the enemy. Really dull bits in the middle. Dealt very well with hecklers. 7/10 maybe even 8
I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?
Its a reference he made at the start of his speech talking about his dad working would get an "eye on the object look" while concentrating on what he was working upon.
Not bad, not brilliant. Some good lines for the TV news. Far too long. Not much meat on the bones. No plan. One or two decent jabs at the enemy. Really dull bits in the middle. Dealt very well with hecklers. 7/10 maybe even 8
Necessary - but not sufficient, yet
He got the Labour conference on their feet for our armed forces. This is a huge difference. He's done really well.
On a personal note, Starmer is still on the "might vote for" list, unlike the NIMBY borderline antivax Lib Dems right now. I've a mind to read the manifestoes thoroughly this time round.
I can't vote for anyone, dislike Starmer for his plans to destroy private schools.
You will vote LD then I imagine like you usually do
Nope, I've said I cannot vote for the Lib Dems as some of them have drunk the antivax/5G koolaid.
As for usually, out of the seven general elections I've been eligible to vote in I've voted Conservative in five of them. So I usually vote Conservative.
The only two times I haven't was when I had to vote tactically and stop Corbynites winning the seat.
You have voted LD over Conservative ever since Cameron left No 10 and will almost certainly do so again at the next general election.
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
The eye on the object refers back to the beginning of the speech in an anecdote about his Dad. No great surprise folk can't remember it. Seems like last month already.
That is a clever little trick you did there given that those two stats are completely different.
The 2013 number is the the number of prosecutions which led to a conviction. The 2020 number is the number of accusations that led to a charge
They are measuring completely different things.
Just to return to the point, toward the end of Starmer's term as DPP, around 16k rapes were reported annually. Of those cases, over 3500 were prosecuted.
Before the pandemic shut down the courts, well over 50k rapes were being reported each year, and the number of prosecutions was under 2000.
Clearly there are a number of reasons for the number of reported rapes to have increased so dramatically, but you are wrong in calling Starmer disingenuous on this, as the number of prosecutions has fallen significantly.
On a personal note, Starmer is still on the "might vote for" list, unlike the NIMBY borderline antivax Lib Dems right now. I've a mind to read the manifestoes thoroughly this time round.
I can't vote for anyone, dislike Starmer for his plans to destroy private schools.
You will vote LD then I imagine like you usually do
Nope, I've said I cannot vote for the Lib Dems as some of them have drunk the antivax/5G koolaid.
As for usually, out of the seven general elections I've been eligible to vote in I've voted Conservative in five of them. So I usually vote Conservative.
The only two times I haven't was when I had to vote tactically and stop Corbynites winning the seat.
You have voted LD over Conservative ever since Cameron left No 10 and will almost certainly do so again at the next general election.
The heckling can go either way. Yes, it gave Starmer the chance to stand up to them. But then it will also remind the public that the Labour Party contains some complete nutters.
Now, it's been mentioned that they are outnumbered, but people watching the Six O'Clock News won't get that impression.
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
That's a US level for R&D spending. I can't see a Labour government offering similar business and financial terms to support it. Are Labour going to let such investors get filthy rich? Are they going to change the law so that businesses that fail and the people that run them can rapidly bounce back? And they going to offer the massive tax breaks you can get in the US at Federal and State level?
Nice target, but I really would be surprised to see Labour adopt policies that would see the UK catch up with the US. Labour usually condemns such stuff.
The only way you could achieve anything like that is more than 100% tax relief on R&D, a policy I have suggested before. But it would be expensive.
We already have that, a very big bung for small and medium sized companies. Even for large companies, it's more than 100%.
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
Not bad, not brilliant. Some good lines for the TV news. Far too long. Not much meat on the bones. No plan. One or two decent jabs at the enemy. Really dull bits in the middle. Dealt very well with hecklers. 7/10 maybe even 8
Necessary - but not sufficient, yet
He got the Labour conference on their feet for our armed forces. This is a huge difference. He's done really well.
Yes, he has reason to be pleased. And for Blairites/sensible people like you it must be great to have your party back
It’s also good for the nation/union to have a sane, credible Labour Opposition
But Jesus they need some really good new ideas, to win over Scotland, the working class, the Leavers. There was nothing in this speech that spoke to that. And Boris remains a formidable opponent
Yet it does feel like Labour have finally begun the journey, that will eventually lead back to government
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
And that the really leftie lot have just said he's crap over and over.
Means it landed in the centre ground - exactly where it was supposed to.
Best speech by a Labour leader since Brown in 2010, I would say (not a high bar)
That is a clever little trick you did there given that those two stats are completely different.
The 2013 number is the the number of prosecutions which led to a conviction. The 2020 number is the number of accusations that led to a charge
They are measuring completely different things.
Just to return to the point, toward the end of Starmer's term as DPP, around 16k rapes were reported annually. Of those cases, over 3500 were prosecuted.
Before the pandemic shut down the courts, well over 50k rapes were being reported each year, and the number of prosecutions was under 2000.
Clearly there are a number of reasons for the number of reported rapes to have increased so dramatically, but you are wrong in calling Starmer disingenuous on this, as the number of prosecutions has fallen significantly.
Better DNA evidence leading to fewer offences involving a stranger, while a greater awareness of ‘consent’ issues leading to more reports where the sexual activity itself it not in doubt, but with often insufficient evidence for a prosecution?
That is a clever little trick you did there given that those two stats are completely different.
The 2013 number is the the number of prosecutions which led to a conviction. The 2020 number is the number of accusations that led to a charge
They are measuring completely different things.
Just to return to the point, toward the end of Starmer's term as DPP, around 16k rapes were reported annually. Of those cases, over 3500 were prosecuted.
Before the pandemic shut down the courts, well over 50k rapes were being reported each year, and the number of prosecutions was under 2000.
Clearly there are a number of reasons for the number of reported rapes to have increased so dramatically, but you are wrong in calling Starmer disingenuous on this, as the number of prosecutions has fallen significantly.
He was being disingenuous in claiming he was surprised by the numbers. It was his job to know them. Literally.
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types
I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
Far right Candidate i presume you mean
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly
What does "far right" mean to you?
If you mean racist, anti-semite etc then the only far right party leader for any party in decades at least is the one you supported at the last election.
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
And he was being rude about Latin
Ah, latin is it? I thought* the title was a reference to some old toolmaker called Horace (typo?) getting into trouble for sexting. I admit that didn't really seem to come out in the poem (depends what the 'object' is, I guess).
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
You know how it used to be said that Ed Miliband was a bit weird? Well, I think Starmer is a bit odd.
The key take away was that he was trying to frame himself and his character. He wants to make it about him v Boris Johnson. Will it work? I'm doubtful.
Particularly because the shouty woman with the visor that the cameras focused on looked as mad as a bag of frogs.
Said it yesterday, it just gave him opportunity or some Kinnock-esque moments. Some responses seemed more scripted than others, though probably all were, but they make for good TV and show him as someone who is not a pushover for the more contrarian elements.
One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
Hah
But we’ve also learned another. After that unionist speech, no way is Starmer going into Coalition with the SNP, offering them Sindyref2. That’s quite significant
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types
None. But that's not my point. We need to win over centrist voters. See my post above/below. I'm on the left of the party.
Just listening to Martin Lewis. Tip. Take a weekly screenshot of your energy bill if you are Online only and in credit. You'll need proof if they go bust.
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types
He's not appealing to Conservatives he's appealing to conservatives.
Those conservatives who habitually voted Labour through family tradition, union links, habit or whatever - who deserted the LP for the first time in 2019. He's sunk without them. Disaffected Conservatives will mostly go LD or not vote at all.
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
And that the really leftie lot have just said he's crap over and over.
Means it landed in the centre ground - exactly where it was supposed to.
Best speech by a Labour leader since Brown in 2010, I would say (not a high bar)
It also soared over the hurdle of not self-sabotaging himself. Which was not a negligible possibility.
One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
Hah
But we’ve also learned another. After that unionist speech, no way is Starmer going into Coalition with the SNP, offering them Sindyref2. That’s quite significant
Bollocks! That careerist? If he needed to agree Sindyref2 to get into power then he would do it without a second's hesitation.
He'll abandon today's unionism with as much speed as he's abandoned the far left. He'll use and discard whoever he can to further his own career.
One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
John Major did it too, and Mrs Thatcher come to that. It is not just since Britain's Got Talent that we are expected to listen to a largely irrelevant family history. It worked for Pitt the Younger, I suppose.
IANAE but I understand there to be some uncertainty about that.
PB pedantry point: there is no doubt that JC died on the Cross and was buried (unless there is some relevant heresy of which I am unaware). It's what happened 3 days later that is the matter for discussion.
I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
Far right Candidate i presume you mean
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly
What does "far right" mean to you?
If you mean racist, anti-semite etc then the only far right party leader for any party in decades at least is the one you supported at the last election.
SKS is expelling Jews and black people at record rates.
Both groups more than 5 times more likely to be targeted and expelled than non BME non Jewish people.
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types
Not a Tory but not voted Labour at a GE since 2005. Would be leaning Labour for next GE and wasn't before the speech. Starmer is far from perfect but the standard of all the UKs leading politicians has dropped. Relative to the others he is fine.
IANAE but I understand there to be some uncertainty about that.
PB pedantry point: there is no doubt that JC died on the Cross and was buried (unless there is some relevant heresy of which I am unaware). It's what happened 3 days later that is the matter for discussion.
I think that there is in fact some doubt about that too, or whether he even existed, but I would accept that that is the premise of the story.
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types
Not a Tory but not voted Labour at a GE since 2005. Would be leaning Labour for next GE and wasn't before the speech. Starmer is far from perfect but the standard of all the UKs leading politicians has dropped. Relative to the others he is fine.
No you see we don't want your vote, we want the person in the 10,000 Labour majority in Liverpool, thanks anyway now fuck off and join the Tories.
This is the mind of the people Starmer is causing to leave
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
You know how it used to be said that Ed Miliband was a bit weird? Well, I think Starmer is a bit odd.
The key take away was that he was trying to frame himself and his character. He wants to make it about him v Boris Johnson. Will it work? I'm doubtful.
Yes, but. One thing you can't describe the PM as being is a bland average bloke. Somehow he gets to be a "character" with a lot of folk. I find him deeply odd. Much weirder than Starmer or EdM.
One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
Hah
But we’ve also learned another. After that unionist speech, no way is Starmer going into Coalition with the SNP, offering them Sindyref2. That’s quite significant
Bollocks! That careerist? If he needed to agree Sindyref2 to get into power then he would do it without a second's hesitation.
He'll abandon today's unionism with as much speed as he's abandoned the far left. He'll use and discard whoever he can to further his own career.
You seem oddly provoked by this speech.
I don’t doubt Starmer’s sincerity and principles, and I accept he had to be Claudius to Corbyn’s Caligula. Someone sane and dull had to stick around, to take over when the madman finally imploded. It doesn’t mean Starmer was happy a horse was made senator
I do doubt if Starmer has the charm, wit, cunning and most of all ideas - to win an election
But it is clear his unionism is heartfelt. He won’t grant sindyref2 and sturgeon has a further problem
I know people will like to draw attention to my previous support of Corbyn, which is fine.
But I would respectfully say, I believed the 2017 approach was the way to win a GE, I was obviously wrong as we had 2019. But I thought it was a route to victory.
I think the problem with the people left over now is that it's not about victory, it's about factional and ideological battles. And I don't want to be part of that.
I suppose that is why I find it easier to get behind the leadership when I think they have a more plausible route to victory.
Listened to the speech in the car. A few thoughts. 1. Fire Whomever. Told him. To speak. So slowly. 2. Piss funny hecklers both in the hall and on here. Fuck off and vote Tory already. 3. Genuinely clear that he has a clear vision for the country. Invest in technology and education a massive compare and contrast with "back to Deliveroo you plebs" 4. Great to see how extol stuff that normals like and the Trots hate.
One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
John Major did it too, and Mrs Thatcher come to that. It is not just since Britain's Got Talent that we are expected to listen to a largely irrelevant family history. It worked for Pitt the Younger, I suppose.
One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
Hah
But we’ve also learned another. After that unionist speech, no way is Starmer going into Coalition with the SNP, offering them Sindyref2. That’s quite significant
Bollocks! That careerist? If he needed to agree Sindyref2 to get into power then he would do it without a second's hesitation.
He'll abandon today's unionism with as much speed as he's abandoned the far left. He'll use and discard whoever he can to further his own career.
He won't abandon unionism. Even if he offered the SNP indyref2 to become PM he would still campaign for a No vote, not least as he would continue to need Scottish MPs support to stay PM (probably with devomax on top).
However if there was a UK Labour government offering devomax No would probably win again anyway
IANAE but I understand there to be some uncertainty about that.
PB pedantry point: there is no doubt that JC died on the Cross and was buried (unless there is some relevant heresy of which I am unaware). It's what happened 3 days later that is the matter for discussion.
There is doubt as to whether JC even existed or not. There is next-to-zero contemporary evidence for the character called Jesus - and what little there is, there's reasons to be sceptical that its actually contemporary.
Quite possible that Jesus is a fictional character, or even a character based upon other people with the story twisted.
IANAE but I understand there to be some uncertainty about that.
PB pedantry point: there is no doubt that JC died on the Cross and was buried (unless there is some relevant heresy of which I am unaware). It's what happened 3 days later that is the matter for discussion.
I think that there is in fact some doubt about that too, or whether he even existed, but I would accept that that is the premise of the story.
Careful! I know we both live north of the border but that is a heresy under the Church of England, and therefore treasonable under certain views expressed on PB.
Filled up at Sainsbury's, bust but nothing out of the ordinary queue wise. However did have one fellow filling up a petrol can on foot and another person who had apparently never used a petrol station before and stopped at the first available pump rather than pulling forward to the next free pump.
I hate it when they do that.
Because I didn't anticipate this I had rolled too close behind them so needed to reverse to get the space to go round them. As I started to do so a Taxi zoomed passed me to make it to the pump first.
He seems a deep, deep functionalist. He is going to do lots of small but important foundational stuff to make things run smoother, change emphasis and piece it all together in the belief the end result will amount to big stuff. I think he is genuinely working up not down - this is the level at which Starmer will govern, perhaps there isn't and doesn't need to be more. If done well and with thought, it could work, but how is that pitch to be made?
Contrast with BoJo.
This government is all about the slogans- "Get [REDACTED] Done", "Level Britain Up". But we all know, deep down, that they haven't got a clue about turning those into practical actions.
Partly it's about the temperaments of the two men, but it also sashays round the "Mr and Mrs Voter weren't stupid to vote for Johnson" issue a bit. It puts the blame for the fallout where it belongs, on Johnson's lack of competence.
That line about Johnson, a showman with nothing left to show, that's got to sting... especially because BoJo might fear that it's true.
To make your point, Starmer claimed for himself the need to "Make Brexit Work" accusing Johnson of failing to plan beyond the slogan of "Get Brexit Done".
The charge that the Conservatives are all about empty rhetoric is a powerful one that can only grow as time marches on.
From someone who's studied the Fall of the Red Wall:
Keir Starmer’s speech was impressive, well crafted and well delivered. Flabby in the middle but it had a big heart. In substance and tone, it was pure New Labour. Could have easily been delivered by Tony Blair. Starmer took on the left hecklers and won, it’s his party now. #lab21...
Starmer was strongest on the backstory, his motivations in politics. But the weakness was still on the front story: his solutions and alternatives to the Tories remain vague. But Starmer did what he wanted to this week: make a clear break with the Corbyn era. #lab21
I know people will like to draw attention to my previous support of Corbyn, which is fine.
But I would respectfully say, I believed the 2017 approach was the way to win a GE, I was obviously wrong as we had 2019. But I thought it was a route to victory.
I think the problem with the people left over now is that it's not about victory, it's about factional and ideological battles. And I don't want to be part of that.
I suppose that is why I find it easier to get behind the leadership when I think they have a more plausible route to victory.
I agree with you, but I also think people on the right of the party have to be very careful of factionalism, too ; if not, the results can spin out of control, as we saw last week. That's why I think it's imperative that he builds on this generally excellent speech and platform, which is progress, with a wider range of regular voices in his ear than Mandelson's.
I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
Far right Candidate i presume you mean
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly
What does "far right" mean to you?
If you mean racist, anti-semite etc then the only far right party leader for any party in decades at least is the one you supported at the last election.
SKS is expelling Jews and black people at record rates.
Both groups more than 5 times more likely to be targeted and expelled than non BME non Jewish people.
Labour is completely broken under SKS
1. You quit the party 2. You are voting Tory
So why would anyone give a rat's what unhappy Trots think? You're upset that Starmer isn't hard enough on the Tories. And so will punish him by voting Tory. And you think your view on him matters? You're a literal joke. Go find a brazier to fuck off to.
Comments
Let's hope so
Starmer is showing much more agility with this speech than in last week's over-reach, introducing a Blairite presentational face, but actually allowing enough leeway in the substance of what he's saying, for potentially wider or more ambitious policy than that of the 1990's. His prospects may be looking up.
(I certainly didn't.)
It's the soundbites and how it is reported which will matter, not whether its length exceeds @bigjohnowls endurance...
what a fake!!
This government is all about the slogans- "Get [REDACTED] Done", "Level Britain Up". But we all know, deep down, that they haven't got a clue about turning those into practical actions.
Partly it's about the temperaments of the two men, but it also sashays round the "Mr and Mrs Voter weren't stupid to vote for Johnson" issue a bit. It puts the blame for the fallout where it belongs, on Johnson's lack of competence.
That line about Johnson, a showman with nothing left to show, that's got to sting... especially because BoJo might fear that it's true.
Have I misheard?
As a bunch of objections I think he'll take them.
Plus the name of the party triggers me. True and Fair is an accounting/banking term that brings me out in cold sweats.
It is one of those things that occupies my professional day.
Necessary - but not sufficient, yet
Most antivaxxers are in RefUK not the LDs anyway
https://allpoetry.com/Horae-Canonicae:-Sext
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
‘In his series of poems, Horae Canonicae, W.H. Auden captures this desirable condition:
You need not see what someone is doing
to know if it is his vocation,
you have only to watch his eyes:
a cook mixing a sauce, a surgeon
making a primary incision,
a clerk completing a bill of lading,
wear the same rapt expression,
forgetting themselves in a function.
How beautiful it is,
that eye-on-the-object look.’
Be off.
No great surprise folk can't remember it. Seems like last month already.
Before the pandemic shut down the courts, well over 50k rapes were being reported each year, and the number of prosecutions was under 2000.
Clearly there are a number of reasons for the number of reported rapes to have increased so dramatically, but you are wrong in calling Starmer disingenuous on this, as the number of prosecutions has fallen significantly.
Particularly because the shouty woman with the visor that the cameras focused on looked as mad as a bag of frogs.
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly
She's not even an MP. Kick her out of the party.
Now, it's been mentioned that they are outnumbered, but people watching the Six O'Clock News won't get that impression.
Latin is the best.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-development-rd-relief
There should be monuments, there should be odes,
to the nameless heroes who took it first,
to the first flaker of flints
who forgot his dinner,
....
It’s also good for the nation/union to have a sane, credible Labour Opposition
But Jesus they need some really good new ideas, to win over Scotland, the working class, the Leavers. There was nothing in this speech that spoke to that. And Boris remains a formidable opponent
Yet it does feel like Labour have finally begun the journey, that will eventually lead back to government
Means it landed in the centre ground - exactly where it was supposed to.
Best speech by a Labour leader since Brown in 2010, I would say (not a high bar)
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types
If you mean racist, anti-semite etc then the only far right party leader for any party in decades at least is the one you supported at the last election.
*Don't blame me, I'm state educated.
The key take away was that he was trying to frame himself and his character. He wants to make it about him v Boris Johnson. Will it work? I'm doubtful.
Everyone knows Governments lose elections, Oppositions don't win them, but for you this won't count in Starmer's case... should it happen.
But we’ve also learned another. After that unionist speech, no way is Starmer going into Coalition with the SNP, offering them Sindyref2. That’s quite significant
Where should we be but for them?
Feral still, un-housetrained, still..
And a piece of self-deprecation...
...without these judicial mouths
(which belong for the most part
to very great scoundrels)
how squalid existence would be,
Tip. Take a weekly screenshot of your energy bill if you are Online only and in credit.
You'll need proof if they go bust.
Those conservatives who habitually voted Labour through family tradition, union links, habit or whatever - who deserted the LP for the first time in 2019. He's sunk without them. Disaffected Conservatives will mostly go LD or not vote at all.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=latin+grammar+scene+Life+of+Brian&view=detail&mid=2C902F41BD0B3A3FF7E72C902F41BD0B3A3FF7E7&FORM=VIRE
Which was not a negligible possibility.
He'll abandon today's unionism with as much speed as he's abandoned the far left. He'll use and discard whoever he can to further his own career.
Blair took plenty of the left with him. Into power.
Both groups more than 5 times more likely to be targeted and expelled than non BME non Jewish people.
Labour is completely broken under SKS
This is the mind of the people Starmer is causing to leave
One thing you can't describe the PM as being is a bland average bloke.
Somehow he gets to be a "character" with a lot of folk.
I find him deeply odd. Much weirder than Starmer or EdM.
I don’t doubt Starmer’s sincerity and principles, and I accept he had to be Claudius to Corbyn’s Caligula. Someone sane and dull had to stick around, to take over when the madman finally imploded. It doesn’t mean Starmer was happy a horse was made senator
I do doubt if Starmer has the charm, wit, cunning and most of all ideas - to win an election
But it is clear his unionism is heartfelt. He won’t grant sindyref2 and sturgeon has a further problem
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1443128236851056644
But I would respectfully say, I believed the 2017 approach was the way to win a GE, I was obviously wrong as we had 2019. But I thought it was a route to victory.
I think the problem with the people left over now is that it's not about victory, it's about factional and ideological battles. And I don't want to be part of that.
I suppose that is why I find it easier to get behind the leadership when I think they have a more plausible route to victory.
1. Fire Whomever. Told him. To speak. So slowly.
2. Piss funny hecklers both in the hall and on here. Fuck off and vote Tory already.
3. Genuinely clear that he has a clear vision for the country. Invest in technology and education a massive compare and contrast with "back to Deliveroo you plebs"
4. Great to see how extol stuff that normals like and the Trots hate.
However if there was a UK Labour government offering devomax No would probably win again anyway
Quite possible that Jesus is a fictional character, or even a character based upon other people with the story twisted.
The charge that the Conservatives are all about empty rhetoric is a powerful one that can only grow as time marches on.
Keir Starmer’s speech was impressive, well crafted and well delivered. Flabby in the middle but it had a big heart. In substance and tone, it was pure New Labour. Could have easily been delivered by Tony Blair. Starmer took on the left hecklers and won, it’s his party now. #lab21...
Starmer was strongest on the backstory, his motivations in politics. But the weakness was still on the front story: his solutions and alternatives to the Tories remain vague. But Starmer did what he wanted to this week: make a clear break with the Corbyn era. #lab21
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1443194119325732876?s=20
2. You are voting Tory
So why would anyone give a rat's what unhappy Trots think? You're upset that Starmer isn't hard enough on the Tories. And so will punish him by voting Tory. And you think your view on him matters? You're a literal joke. Go find a brazier to fuck off to.