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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
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?
Insufficient evidence for prosecution is always going to be the big issue with rape. Still: 3,500 prosecutions in 2013 vs 2,000 today is a significant drop.
Right now, there is an issue with the British criminal justice system. There are massive backlogs, and prosecutions collapsing due to the lengths of time between offences and trials. From reading Secret Barrister, it appears there's an approximately 18 month wait between prosecution and trial. And those long gaps result in lots of problems, from fading memories, to hard to find witnesses, to innocent people spending time on remand.
What's worse is that if a trial ends up being delayed for any reason (witness or barrister sick, etc) then there's another 18 month wait. Suddenly, you can be talking about trials that are four or five years since the original offence.
What is going to make an impact on Labour in the polls, is how this is reported.
"The left vs Keir Starmer", he'll get a big increase in support, I think.
Nothing to do with the fuel crisis then all down to this riveting performance
You are changing the rules.
Everyone knows Governments lose elections, Oppositions don't win them, but for you this won't count in Starmer's case... should it happen.
Well todays YG says SKS has gone backward on every measure so if the fuel crisis gives them a temporary lead it is down to temporary factors and will be temporary.
SKs is a loser and Pete I believe if you were honest you believe the same.
Andy Burnham would be 20pts ahead in the Polls IMO
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
Rayner [facepalm emoji]. Of course in every interview she gets asked about slagging off Johnson. She's made the labour deputy leader essentially someone who can't get any useful point across in an interview.
Kim Leadbeater comes across as likeable and not very politician-y, tlaking sense. Dealt with the Jo question well. Labour could use her more if she's well prepped, not sure how she'd do under hostile questioning. Good on Rayner just now.
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
That's all true. And it's going to need a heck of an acceleration to concertina Labour's progress from 1983-1997 into a single Parliamentary term, especially with the first 18 months Covided off. Even 1983-1992 would be a remarkable achievement.
On the other hand, the Corbynites have been reduced to howling from the sidelines. Starmer's putdowns in the speech today worked. Rayner has made herself look silly again. The policy wonks have got a decent steer about what kind of Britain Starmer wants; now it's their job to come up with schemes to turn that into reality. They've got about a year to come up with something chunky. And we all have a better idea of who SKS thinks he is. Boring, but also decent, humane and respectful. Like early John Major. If the UK finds itself looking for someone who isn't Boris, Starmer is pretty much perfect casting.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
Actually it is better for the Union for any indyref2 to take place under a Labour government than a Tory majority government as No would be more likely to win it in centre left Scotland. Starmer would also largely remove the Irish sea border by aligning more closely to SM and CU regulations for GB too.
However yes if Starmer allowed an indyref2 and lost it then he would also lose power when Scottish MPs left the Commons as the Tories would almost certainly still have a majority in England and Wales.
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'm very happy in the LibDems so this isn't about my own political journey. But having been taken in why the wave of optimism the Corbyn project offered I agree with you. A complete volte face was needed and that is what Starmer brings.
That it so enrages the lunatics and the trots and the entryists is great. They need to be shown the door as quickly as possible. Britain needs a sane viable Labour Party.
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 don't think there's any doubt about what happened:
The Blairites put up a terrible candidate, and JC was re-elected Labour leader in a landslide.
China has begun rolling blackouts in Beijing and Shanghai, metropolises home to 48 million people, as the country struggles with crippling power shortages that have hit key factories in a further threat to the economy.
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.
If you are happy WO, I like to think the average soft leftie (?) is too.
China has begun rolling blackouts in Beijing and Shanghai, metropolises home to 48 million people, as the country struggles with crippling power shortages that have hit key factories in a further threat to the economy.
In my opinion the SNP would never make SindyRef2 approval part of any Coalition negotiation and Labour would never offer it as part of Coalition negotiation.
Both side would have far, far too much to lose by doing so.
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.
In my opinion the SNP would never make SindyRef2 approval part of any Coalition negotiation and Labour would never offer it as part of Coalition negotiation.
Both side would have far, far too much to lose by doing so.
But that is after the election in question, ergo a longer term issue.
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.
Oh no, not the tanks? Anything but the tanks.
I thought you were talking about the ones under petrol station forecourts for a moment!
China has begun rolling blackouts in Beijing and Shanghai, metropolises home to 48 million people, as the country struggles with crippling power shortages that have hit key factories in a further threat to the economy.
Oh dear, the Brexit effect is spreading far and wide!
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?
Insufficient evidence for prosecution is always going to be the big issue with rape. Still: 3,500 prosecutions in 2013 vs 2,000 today is a significant drop.
Right now, there is an issue with the British criminal justice system. There are massive backlogs, and prosecutions collapsing due to the lengths of time between offences and trials. From reading Secret Barrister, it appears there's an approximately 18 month wait between prosecution and trial. And those long gaps result in lots of problems, from fading memories, to hard to find witnesses, to innocent people spending time on remand.
What's worse is that if a trial ends up being delayed for any reason (witness or barrister sick, etc) then there's another 18 month wait. Suddenly, you can be talking about trials that are four or five years since the original offence.
So you're saying 'fast tracking' might make sense... ?
(Note, I am not a massive Starmer fan, but some of the more dismissive posts over the course of the thread seem a bit misplaced.)
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.
You on the other hand are a LD with a Trot obsession and a mental health problem.
I wish you well but your views are water of a ducks back.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
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 don't think there's any doubt about what happened:
The Blairites put up a terrible candidate, and JC was re-elected Labour leader in a landslide.
The first JC only spent 40 days in the wilderness though …
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?
Insufficient evidence for prosecution is always going to be the big issue with rape. Still: 3,500 prosecutions in 2013 vs 2,000 today is a significant drop.
Right now, there is an issue with the British criminal justice system. There are massive backlogs, and prosecutions collapsing due to the lengths of time between offences and trials. From reading Secret Barrister, it appears there's an approximately 18 month wait between prosecution and trial. And those long gaps result in lots of problems, from fading memories, to hard to find witnesses, to innocent people spending time on remand.
What's worse is that if a trial ends up being delayed for any reason (witness or barrister sick, etc) then there's another 18 month wait. Suddenly, you can be talking about trials that are four or five years since the original offence.
So you're saying 'fast tracking' might make sense... ?
(Note, I am not a massive Starmer fan, but some of the more dismissive posts over the course of the thread seem a bit misplaced.)
18 months isn't that long at the moment.
I've seen reports from the secret barrister or someone else I've followed on twitter because of her about cases from 2018 that will arrive in court in 2022.
And I seem to remember some criminal cases already have 2023 dates
For weeks "the water industry has been warning the government about a looming shortage of ferric sulphate due to distribution and supply chain issues. The big risk is the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways." https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1442756665934290951
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?
Insufficient evidence for prosecution is always going to be the big issue with rape. Still: 3,500 prosecutions in 2013 vs 2,000 today is a significant drop.
Right now, there is an issue with the British criminal justice system. There are massive backlogs, and prosecutions collapsing due to the lengths of time between offences and trials. From reading Secret Barrister, it appears there's an approximately 18 month wait between prosecution and trial. And those long gaps result in lots of problems, from fading memories, to hard to find witnesses, to innocent people spending time on remand.
What's worse is that if a trial ends up being delayed for any reason (witness or barrister sick, etc) then there's another 18 month wait. Suddenly, you can be talking about trials that are four or five years since the original offence.
So you're saying 'fast tracking' might make sense... ?
(Note, I am not a massive Starmer fan, but some of the more dismissive posts over the course of the thread seem a bit misplaced.)
From my admittedly limited reading I gather that the field of forensic science (sensu lato, includijng e.g. document analysis) is now badly fragmented with a lot of private companies and more recently that some of those companies are struggling thanks to HO cuts to police funding. It occurs to me to wonder how many forensic expert witnesses will even be traceable with their records and samples on a scale of 2 -5 years. .
For weeks "the water industry has been warning the government about a looming shortage of ferric sulphate due to distribution and supply chain issues. The big risk is the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways." https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1442756665934290951
George Monbiot has been excellent recently on how this has already increased tenfold, both in rivers, and on seafronts, since the Cameron administration hugely cut the relevant regulatory authorities. Even worse, would be truly dire.
Magdalena Andersson is the sole nominee to the leadership of the Social Democratic Party and will now become Sweden’s first female prime minister in early November.
Theo Usherwood @theousherwood Gordon Brown to lead a commission to settle the issue of the Union, Keir Starmer announces. *Smart politics. Should put to bed an attack line from the Conservatives at the election that there'll be a second indy referendum if Keir Starmer needs a coalition with the SNP. 1:26 pm · 29 Sep 2021
For weeks "the water industry has been warning the government about a looming shortage of ferric sulphate due to distribution and supply chain issues. The big risk is the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways." https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1442756665934290951
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.
You on the other hand are a LD with a Trot obsession and a mental health problem.
I wish you well but your views are water of a ducks back.
I feel sorry for you
Stop it the pair of you. It’s like the Peoples Liberation Front versus the Front for Peoples Liberation when your standard of debate is to get personal and call names.
Labour source: “You can tell Seumas Milne and James Schneider were involved in this hard left coup attempt this week because it has been a fucking shambles that has made its opponents stronger.”
For weeks "the water industry has been warning the government about a looming shortage of ferric sulphate due to distribution and supply chain issues. The big risk is the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways." https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1442756665934290951
Isn't the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways already taking place, or is this even more shit over and above the existing shit?
We can all see that inflation is coming. Yet fixed income investors seem to be very relaxed about this. 10 year UK government bonds yield less than 1%.
And in the US, which is about to engage in some massive fiscal stimulus, they yield little more.
Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands all have negative 10 year interest rates.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would anyone want to own instruments which guarantee you will lose large amounts of money?
(In the old days, we could blame QE, but we can't even do that any more.)
Following the recent Norwegian GE, where the “red” bloc decisively defeated the incumbent “blue” bloc (100 vs 68), the centre-left coalition talks have collapsed after the hard left walked out. Grand coalition on the cards?
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?
Insufficient evidence for prosecution is always going to be the big issue with rape. Still: 3,500 prosecutions in 2013 vs 2,000 today is a significant drop.
Right now, there is an issue with the British criminal justice system. There are massive backlogs, and prosecutions collapsing due to the lengths of time between offences and trials. From reading Secret Barrister, it appears there's an approximately 18 month wait between prosecution and trial. And those long gaps result in lots of problems, from fading memories, to hard to find witnesses, to innocent people spending time on remand.
What's worse is that if a trial ends up being delayed for any reason (witness or barrister sick, etc) then there's another 18 month wait. Suddenly, you can be talking about trials that are four or five years since the original offence.
So you're saying 'fast tracking' might make sense... ?
(Note, I am not a massive Starmer fan, but some of the more dismissive posts over the course of the thread seem a bit misplaced.)
In Scotland the High Court seems to do little else by rape trials at the moment. There was a strong rumour that a man being sentenced for an armed robbery was given 6 months off his sentence because he did not sexually molest the teller on the way out and therefore gave the court some unexpected variety.
There are a variety of reasons for that. Rape cases can be quite short, I did 2 in Stirling in 8 court days. There tends to be only one accused and they tend to have a limited number of witnesses for obvious reasons. All of these features mean that they are ideal for dealing with in our remote jury system courts. In contrast running a multiple accused drug gang bust is a bit of a non starter.
Would "fast tracking" these cases help? Not sure, but it certainly wouldn't do much for the other crimes.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
Mphm. A fair thesis to put forward. OTOH it might actually reduce fragmentation in Scotland - as the significant proportion of Labour voters who are pro-Yes are reminded that the leadership of their party is in bed with the Tories yet again as in 2014.
Blimey, it's now possible to measure the (relativistic) change in the passage of time made by the difference of single mm in distance from the gravitational centre of the earth.
Resolving the gravitational redshift within a millimeter atomic sample https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.12238 Einstein's theory of general relativity states that clocks at different gravitational potentials tick at different rates - an effect known as the gravitational redshift. As fundamental probes of space and time, atomic clocks have long served to test this prediction at distance scales from 30 centimeters to thousands of kilometers. Ultimately, clocks will study the union of general relativity and quantum mechanics once they become sensitive to the finite wavefunction of quantum objects oscillating in curved spacetime. Towards this regime, we measure a linear frequency gradient consistent with the gravitational redshift within a single millimeter scale sample of ultracold strontium. Our result is enabled by improving the fractional frequency measurement uncertainty by more than a factor of 10, now reaching 7.6×10−21. This heralds a new regime of clock operation necessitating intra-sample corrections for gravitational perturbations.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
Or it might not. Your track record in the Brahan Seer department is appalling Sean.
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.
If you are happy WO, I like to think the average soft leftie (?) is too.
To be honest, I’m surprised how much of a success this has been for Labour this week. I really didn’t think they would say the things that Lexits need to hear.
“ The government is learning that it is not enough to 'Get Brexit Done'. You need a plan to 'Make Brexit Work'. "I do see a way forward after Brexit if we invest in our people and our places, if we deploy our technology cleverly and if we build the affordable homes we so desperately need. ”.
I really didn’t think that speech after speech from the front bench would be so succinctly and aggresivly after the working class votes Boris took. If they keep this up it will make the next general election very interesting indeed.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
Or it might not. Your track record in the Brahan Seer department is appalling Sean.
Well, we'll certainly know who it is if we get a new BPer called @CoinneachOdhar.
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?
Insufficient evidence for prosecution is always going to be the big issue with rape. Still: 3,500 prosecutions in 2013 vs 2,000 today is a significant drop.
Right now, there is an issue with the British criminal justice system. There are massive backlogs, and prosecutions collapsing due to the lengths of time between offences and trials. From reading Secret Barrister, it appears there's an approximately 18 month wait between prosecution and trial. And those long gaps result in lots of problems, from fading memories, to hard to find witnesses, to innocent people spending time on remand.
What's worse is that if a trial ends up being delayed for any reason (witness or barrister sick, etc) then there's another 18 month wait. Suddenly, you can be talking about trials that are four or five years since the original offence.
So you're saying 'fast tracking' might make sense... ?
(Note, I am not a massive Starmer fan, but some of the more dismissive posts over the course of the thread seem a bit misplaced.)
This is actually a key failing of the 2010-2015 government, which many people on here admire so much. They cut way in to the bone, in terms of courts and criminal justice. It reveals a reckless disregard of the how the essential functions of the state work. 6 years on, and it is not clear that this is getting any better at all. The problems are compounded by the continuous creation of new criminal offences to satisfy popular demand, thus increasing pressure on the police and court system.
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.
You on the other hand are a LD with a Trot obsession and a mental health problem.
I wish you well but your views are water of a ducks back.
I feel sorry for you
Stop it the pair of you. It’s like the Peoples Liberation Front versus the Front for Peoples Liberation when your standard of debate is to get personal and call names.
I'm happy to drop all names with regards to @bigjohnowls and proffer an apology.
However, answer me this. As an unhappy left-winger who quit Labour because it wasn't left wing enough to harry the Tories, what on earth drives you to vote Tory?
"I'm voting Tory, that'll show them" is not what someone who claims to be as principled as you are would do.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
That relies on Labour winning most seats, more likely the Tories win most seats but Labour + the SNP combined win more seats than the Tories and the Tories + DUP. So unless the SNP actively vote to make Starmer PM and agree confidence and supply for his government, the Tories would stay in power.
If Labour win most seats in a hung parliament or a majority then Starmer can therefore become PM and refuse indyref2.
If the Tories still win most seats despite losing their majority then Starmer will need to offer the SNP devomax +indyref2 to become PM
For weeks "the water industry has been warning the government about a looming shortage of ferric sulphate due to distribution and supply chain issues. The big risk is the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways." https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1442756665934290951
George Monbiot has been excellent recently on how this has already increased tenfold, both in rivers, and on seafronts, since the Cameron administration hugely cut the relevant regulatory authorities. Even worse, would be truly dire.
At this rate, the seriously naff "Brexit isn't working" slogan might even get some traction.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
Indeed. The Tank Commander’s commitment to the Union has a whopping bid “Best Before” proviso. Currently looking like 2023.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
In such a situation it needs to be remembered that the Tories would either have 1 A leadership election going on after a defeat. 2 A lame duck leader who has lost their majority, but hanging around like a bad smell. 3 A newly coronated leader. Which has its own issues too. See G Brown. T May pretty much.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
That’s my thinking too.
Starmer has to be quite explicit before the election that he won’t be dealing with the SNP, and won’t be held over a barrel to grant another referendum on Scottish independence.
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.
Bigger tip, put all of them in a spreadsheet and use it to reduce your consumption over time, combined with a plug in power-measurer (a few pounds) to test which things are costing you money.
Then you will be less affected by price fluctuations.
For weeks "the water industry has been warning the government about a looming shortage of ferric sulphate due to distribution and supply chain issues. The big risk is the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways." https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1442756665934290951
Surely we have suffered enough shit from this government already?
Oh FFS this BBC interview is crap. Who gives a toss? Kim Leadbeater comes across well.
She sounds like a normal person who cares about normal issues. A rarity in the Labour Party.
I'm old enough to remember when PB Tories thought she was a parachuted-in disaster who couldn't take some heckles. I'd only have to be around 6 months old to remember that mind.
For weeks "the water industry has been warning the government about a looming shortage of ferric sulphate due to distribution and supply chain issues. The big risk is the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways." https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1442756665934290951
"... is this even more shit over and above the existing shit?"
If Starmer is a loser, what was Corbyn? He lost Labour their heartlands, and led the party to their worst result since before the Second World War.
I mean, it's possible that the country is just begging for some hard left solutions. But there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of that.
Labour won elections - in my lifetime - under Blair and under Wilson. When was the last time (if any) that someone from the left of the party led them to electoral success?
We can all see that inflation is coming. Yet fixed income investors seem to be very relaxed about this. 10 year UK government bonds yield less than 1%.
And in the US, which is about to engage in some massive fiscal stimulus, they yield little more.
Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands all have negative 10 year interest rates.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would anyone want to own instruments which guarantee you will lose large amounts of money?
(In the old days, we could blame QE, but we can't even do that any more.)
I was discussing this with our pension fund advisors this morning. Our fund is currently quite comfortably in surplus after a truly stellar run over the last 3 years and we were discussing how to take some chips off the table and bank them. One possible way is to buy more bonds but there are 2 problems. Firstly, the bonds are, if anything, more volatile than equities and secondly they are more vulnerable to inflation.
Its a conundrum. I would like to see us reduce our risk profile substantially but genuinely safe investments are very hard to find. Which is presumably why people are still buying gilts.
Sounds like it was a half-decent Starmer speech - fair play.
Unfortunately, I find him too boring to even switch the telly on for, let alone listen to, so it's all passed me by.
It was a different Starmer. Like the difference between something switched off now switched on. It blew the heckles away.
I think he is probably too left wing and too working class to become prime minister, voters will always go for the posher person with money behind them. But the Tories certainly have more of a battle on their hands next time.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
Care to make a bet?
I'd wager £100 that in a NOM situation, where the SNP hold the 'balance of power' that Starmer will agree to Sindyref2. If he doesn't, I pay you £100 and if he does you pay me. Bet void if after the next election the SNP don't hold the balance of power.
What do you say? Bet would probably be void anyway.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
Or it might not. Your track record in the Brahan Seer department is appalling Sean.
Well, we'll certainly know who it is if we get a new BPer called @CoinneachOdhar.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
That’s my thinking too.
Starmer has to be quite explicit before the election that he won’t be dealing with the SNP, and won’t be held over a barrel to grant another referendum on Scottish independence.
Oh yes, indeed. Mr Starmer will be taking all his advice straight from Conservative Central Office.
We can all see that inflation is coming. Yet fixed income investors seem to be very relaxed about this. 10 year UK government bonds yield less than 1%.
And in the US, which is about to engage in some massive fiscal stimulus, they yield little more.
Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands all have negative 10 year interest rates.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would anyone want to own instruments which guarantee you will lose large amounts of money?
(In the old days, we could blame QE, but we can't even do that any more.)
I was discussing this with our pension fund advisors this morning. Our fund is currently quite comfortably in surplus after a truly stellar run over the last 3 years and we were discussing how to take some chips off the table and bank them. One possible way is to buy more bonds but there are 2 problems. Firstly, the bonds are, if anything, more volatile than equities and secondly they are more vulnerable to inflation.
Its a conundrum. I would like to see us reduce our risk profile substantially but genuinely safe investments are very hard to find. Which is presumably why people are still buying gilts.
Those gilts are currently giving you returnless risk. 10 year bonds could easily lose a third of their value.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
That relies on Labour winning most seats, more likely the Tories win most seats but Labour + the SNP combined win more seats than the Tories and the Tories + DUP. So unless the SNP actively vote to make Starmer PM and agree confidence and supply for his government, the Tories would stay in power.
If Labour win most seats in a hung parliament or a majority then Starmer can therefore become PM and refuse indyref2.
If the Tories still win most seats despite losing their majority then Starmer will need to offer the SNP devomax +indyref2 to become PM
If Starmer won most seats , but not a majority, what would the Tories offer the SNP to stay in power?
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.
You on the other hand are a LD with a Trot obsession and a mental health problem.
I wish you well but your views are water of a ducks back.
I feel sorry for you
Stop it the pair of you. It’s like the Peoples Liberation Front versus the Front for Peoples Liberation when your standard of debate is to get personal and call names.
I'm happy to drop all names with regards to @bigjohnowls and proffer an apology.
However, answer me this. As an unhappy left-winger who quit Labour because it wasn't left wing enough to harry the Tories, what on earth drives you to vote Tory?
"I'm voting Tory, that'll show them" is not what someone who claims to be as principled as you are would do.
I will only vote Tory if they are offering more progressive policies than Labour which under Johnson vs SKS is entirely possible IMO
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?
Insufficient evidence for prosecution is always going to be the big issue with rape. Still: 3,500 prosecutions in 2013 vs 2,000 today is a significant drop.
Right now, there is an issue with the British criminal justice system. There are massive backlogs, and prosecutions collapsing due to the lengths of time between offences and trials. From reading Secret Barrister, it appears there's an approximately 18 month wait between prosecution and trial. And those long gaps result in lots of problems, from fading memories, to hard to find witnesses, to innocent people spending time on remand.
What's worse is that if a trial ends up being delayed for any reason (witness or barrister sick, etc) then there's another 18 month wait. Suddenly, you can be talking about trials that are four or five years since the original offence.
So you're saying 'fast tracking' might make sense... ?
(Note, I am not a massive Starmer fan, but some of the more dismissive posts over the course of the thread seem a bit misplaced.)
This is actually a key failing of the 2010-2015 government, which many people on here admire so much. They cut way in to the bone, in terms of courts and criminal justice. It reveals a reckless disregard of the how the essential functions of the state work. 6 years on, and it is not clear that this is getting any better at all. The problems are compounded by the continuous creation of new criminal offences to satisfy popular demand, thus increasing pressure on the police and court system.
They did the same with FE. Now folk bemoan too many go to Uni. Why don't they train for more profitable skills? Where? Who will teach them? And, no, a "modern apprenticeship" isn't exactly the same.
Labour source: “You can tell Seumas Milne and James Schneider were involved in this hard left coup attempt this week because it has been a fucking shambles that has made its opponents stronger.”
Its been funny and appalling in equal measure. "The World Transformed" circus tent was a parody when it was first held under Corbyn's leadership, now its just bizarre. The ones who found themselves promoted beyond their level of political incompetence appeared to have genuinely believed they were somehow relevant.
Andy McD quitting was cheered by both the hard left and the party management, albeit for different reasons. The 26% vote in favour of anti-semitism just reinforced the need to keep sweeping. And now a speech where lunatics heckled, got absolutely owned by Starmer, and the Laura Pillock gets interviewed to say "that was crap wasn't it".
Starmer didn't tell them to do one. He didn't need to. That speech was New Labour Rebooted. If it wasn't clear that the left have lost and aren't welcome before, it surely is now. "I don;t want to do this every year" he said at the end. I doubt he will need to.
We can all see that inflation is coming. Yet fixed income investors seem to be very relaxed about this. 10 year UK government bonds yield less than 1%.
And in the US, which is about to engage in some massive fiscal stimulus, they yield little more.
Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands all have negative 10 year interest rates.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would anyone want to own instruments which guarantee you will lose large amounts of money?
(In the old days, we could blame QE, but we can't even do that any more.)
I was discussing this with our pension fund advisors this morning. Our fund is currently quite comfortably in surplus after a truly stellar run over the last 3 years and we were discussing how to take some chips off the table and bank them. One possible way is to buy more bonds but there are 2 problems. Firstly, the bonds are, if anything, more volatile than equities and secondly they are more vulnerable to inflation.
Its a conundrum. I would like to see us reduce our risk profile substantially but genuinely safe investments are very hard to find. Which is presumably why people are still buying gilts.
Those gilts are currently giving you returnless risk. 10 year bonds could easily lose a third of their value.
We don't buy gilts, we buy BBBs but if inflation really gets going the problem is the same.
We can all see that inflation is coming. Yet fixed income investors seem to be very relaxed about this. 10 year UK government bonds yield less than 1%.
And in the US, which is about to engage in some massive fiscal stimulus, they yield little more.
Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands all have negative 10 year interest rates.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would anyone want to own instruments which guarantee you will lose large amounts of money?
(In the old days, we could blame QE, but we can't even do that any more.)
I was discussing this with our pension fund advisors this morning. Our fund is currently quite comfortably in surplus after a truly stellar run over the last 3 years and we were discussing how to take some chips off the table and bank them. One possible way is to buy more bonds but there are 2 problems. Firstly, the bonds are, if anything, more volatile than equities and secondly they are more vulnerable to inflation.
Its a conundrum. I would like to see us reduce our risk profile substantially but genuinely safe investments are very hard to find. Which is presumably why people are still buying gilts.
Those gilts are currently giving you returnless risk. 10 year bonds could easily lose a third of their value.
Is that not true of cash, equities, property, or resources as well?
The Tory’s on PB knew it would come eventually - The country is now hungry for change, dangle it out there and they will eat it.
This week Starmer and his team have dealt with the left brilliantly - the left came organised for war, an asymmetrically guerrilla war, and the media loved that “can Starmer win this war?”
Team Starmer didn’t come for a war, they just came for pest control.
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
That’s my thinking too.
Starmer has to be quite explicit before the election that he won’t be dealing with the SNP, and won’t be held over a barrel to grant another referendum on Scottish independence.
Oh yes, indeed. Mr Starmer will be taking all his advice straight from Conservative Central Office.
It's probably good advice, though. (And it doesn't mean he might not change his mind after an election.)
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
Or it might not. Your track record in the Brahan Seer department is appalling Sean.
Well, we'll certainly know who it is if we get a new BPer called @CoinneachOdhar.
The Tory’s on PB knew it would come eventually - The country is now hungry for change, dangle it out there and they will eat it.
This week Starmer and his team have dealt with the left brilliantly - the left came organised for war, an asymmetrically guerrilla war, and the media loved that “can Starmer win this war?”
Team Starmer didn’t come for a war, they just came for pest control.
Although that may be sooner than we think. Last night former Conservative chancellor Philip Hammond visited Brighton and told a dinner the Tories have selected all their candidates and are preparing for May 2022. Paging Brenda from Bristol…
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
That relies on Labour winning most seats, more likely the Tories win most seats but Labour + the SNP combined win more seats than the Tories and the Tories + DUP. So unless the SNP actively vote to make Starmer PM and agree confidence and supply for his government, the Tories would stay in power.
If Labour win most seats in a hung parliament or a majority then Starmer can therefore become PM and refuse indyref2.
If the Tories still win most seats despite losing their majority then Starmer will need to offer the SNP devomax +indyref2 to become PM
If Starmer won most seats , but not a majority, what would the Tories offer the SNP to stay in power?
Nothing, we would go into opposition.
We would rather even do a grand coalition with Labour than have to do any deals with the SNP
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.
You on the other hand are a LD with a Trot obsession and a mental health problem.
I wish you well but your views are water of a ducks back.
I feel sorry for you
Stop it the pair of you. It’s like the Peoples Liberation Front versus the Front for Peoples Liberation when your standard of debate is to get personal and call names.
I'm happy to drop all names with regards to @bigjohnowls and proffer an apology.
However, answer me this. As an unhappy left-winger who quit Labour because it wasn't left wing enough to harry the Tories, what on earth drives you to vote Tory?
"I'm voting Tory, that'll show them" is not what someone who claims to be as principled as you are would do.
I will only vote Tory if they are offering more progressive policies than Labour which under Johnson vs SKS is entirely possible IMO
And you're a "socialist" supposedly. I'm a yellow traitor, and I would never ever ever even consider voting Tory. Because its wrong.
Sometimes you are wrong and the people you dislike are right. Confessing your error of judgement is cleansing. Why not try it?
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
Mphm. A fair thesis to put forward. OTOH it might actually reduce fragmentation in Scotland - as the significant proportion of Labour voters who are pro-Yes are reminded that the leadership of their party is in bed with the Tories yet again as in 2014.
Have you been listening to This Union on R4 by Alan Little (who I rate)? Verrry interesting. Today's final episode was the referendum to present day, more or less. TSE should cover his ears, but what a useless fcuker Cameron was.
I am more left wing than Starmer and I knew that when I voted for him. I always knew he would bring Labour back to the centre.
But the difference is that I am happy about that, I believe in Labour Governments in general. Labour was around long before Corbyn and will be around long after, for the priority is achieving one (albeit in the meantime I personally hope for a Hung Parliament so the Lib Dems can help to achieve PR)
If Starmer is a loser, what was Corbyn? He lost Labour their heartlands, and led the party to their worst result since before the Second World War.
I mean, it's possible that the country is just begging for some hard left solutions. But there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of that.
Labour won elections - in my lifetime - under Blair and under Wilson. When was the last time (if any) that someone from the left of the party led them to electoral success?
Wilson was on the moderate left of the party, he won a clear win in 1966 and a small win in 1974
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
Mphm. A fair thesis to put forward. OTOH it might actually reduce fragmentation in Scotland - as the significant proportion of Labour voters who are pro-Yes are reminded that the leadership of their party is in bed with the Tories yet again as in 2014.
Have you been listening to This Union on R4 by Alan Little (who I rate)? Verrry interesting. Today's final episode was the referendum to present day, more or less. TSE should cover his ears, but what a useless fcuker Cameron was.
No, any particularly interestingt comment re today's situation?
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 am not sure I agree with that final statement. Philip Thompson is probably correct that a Sindyref2 will be sacrificed to eject Johnson. There are some of us Unionists who wholly blame Johnson for where we are today. He sacrificed the Union for his career. HYUFD says that is fine so long as the Union is only lost after Johnson's watch.
I completely disagree. No way Starmer as a NOM PM grants Sturgeon sindyref2. For a start, he won’t need to. He will dare sturgeon to vote him down and put the Tories back in power. Is she really going to do that?
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
That relies on Labour winning most seats, more likely the Tories win most seats but Labour + the SNP combined win more seats than the Tories and the Tories + DUP. So unless the SNP actively vote to make Starmer PM and agree confidence and supply for his government, the Tories would stay in power.
If Labour win most seats in a hung parliament or a majority then Starmer can therefore become PM and refuse indyref2.
If the Tories still win most seats despite losing their majority then Starmer will need to offer the SNP devomax +indyref2 to become PM
If Starmer won most seats , but not a majority, what would the Tories offer the SNP to stay in power?
I doubt the Tories Conservative and Unionist Party would talk to anyone, except perhaps the Ulstermen.
Opposition is preferable than trying to speak to Scottish Nationalists. They’d offer to support Starmer to pass a sensible Budget, so long as he didn’t deal with the SNP either.
In reality, probably another election a few months down the line, as @Leon suggested.
If Starmer is a loser, what was Corbyn? He lost Labour their heartlands, and led the party to their worst result since before the Second World War.
I mean, it's possible that the country is just begging for some hard left solutions. But there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of that.
Labour won elections - in my lifetime - under Blair and under Wilson. When was the last time (if any) that someone from the left of the party led them to electoral success?
Wilson was on the moderate left of the party, he won a clear win in 1966 and a small win in 1974
Wilson governed and was elected by being of the centre, just as Blair and Attlee were.
If Starmer is a loser, what was Corbyn? He lost Labour their heartlands, and led the party to their worst result since before the Second World War.
I mean, it's possible that the country is just begging for some hard left solutions. But there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of that.
Labour won elections - in my lifetime - under Blair and under Wilson. When was the last time (if any) that someone from the left of the party led them to electoral success?
Wilson was on the moderate left of the party, he won a clear win in 1966 and a small win in 1974
No he wasn't. He was very definitely on the right of the party.
Comments
Right now, there is an issue with the British criminal justice system. There are massive backlogs, and prosecutions collapsing due to the lengths of time between offences and trials. From reading Secret Barrister, it appears there's an approximately 18 month wait between prosecution and trial. And those long gaps result in lots of problems, from fading memories, to hard to find witnesses, to innocent people spending time on remand.
What's worse is that if a trial ends up being delayed for any reason (witness or barrister sick, etc) then there's another 18 month wait. Suddenly, you can be talking about trials that are four or five years since the original offence.
SKs is a loser and Pete I believe if you were honest you believe the same.
Andy Burnham would be 20pts ahead in the Polls IMO
Kim Leadbeater comes across as likeable and not very politician-y, tlaking sense. Dealt with the Jo question well. Labour could use her more if she's well prepped, not sure how she'd do under hostile questioning. Good on Rayner just now.
On the other hand, the Corbynites have been reduced to howling from the sidelines. Starmer's putdowns in the speech today worked.
Rayner has made herself look silly again.
The policy wonks have got a decent steer about what kind of Britain Starmer wants; now it's their job to come up with schemes to turn that into reality. They've got about a year to come up with something chunky.
And we all have a better idea of who SKS thinks he is. Boring, but also decent, humane and respectful. Like early John Major. If the UK finds itself looking for someone who isn't Boris, Starmer is pretty much perfect casting.
More to be done, but it might just work...
However yes if Starmer allowed an indyref2 and lost it then he would also lose power when Scottish MPs left the Commons as the Tories would almost certainly still have a majority in England and Wales.
That it so enrages the lunatics and the trots and the entryists is great. They need to be shown the door as quickly as possible. Britain needs a sane viable Labour Party.
The Blairites put up a terrible candidate, and JC was re-elected Labour leader in a landslide.
China has begun rolling blackouts in Beijing and Shanghai, metropolises home to 48 million people, as the country struggles with crippling power shortages that have hit key factories in a further threat to the economy.
"It was long, wasn't it? I didn't think that was his moment"
Ex-Labour MP Laura Pidcock reacts to Keir Starmer's "quite uninspiring" speech
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1443196301311713283?s=20
Ex-Labour MP, or Labour ex-MP?
Starmer No 1 on Radio 2 news. Speech hated by Vine Tories mind you.
Both side would have far, far too much to lose by doing so.
(Note, I am not a massive Starmer fan, but some of the more dismissive posts over the course of the thread seem a bit misplaced.)
I wish you well but your views are water of a ducks back.
I feel sorry for you
No
My guess is that Starmer would then run an unstable NOM govt for a few months then go back to the people. And ask for the tools to finish the job. ie a majority. Against a presumably confused Tory party it might just work
Also worth remembering Sturgeon is not immortal. And there is no obvious genius replacement. When she goes, Scottish politics might fracture significantly
I've seen reports from the secret barrister or someone else I've followed on twitter because of her about cases from 2018 that will arrive in court in 2022.
And I seem to remember some criminal cases already have 2023 dates
For weeks "the water industry has been warning the government about a looming shortage of ferric sulphate due to distribution and supply chain issues. The big risk is the discharge of untreated sewage into waterways."
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1442756665934290951
From my admittedly limited reading I gather that the field of forensic science (sensu lato, includijng e.g. document analysis) is now badly fragmented with a lot of private companies and more recently that some of those companies are struggling thanks to HO cuts to police funding. It occurs to me to wonder how many forensic expert witnesses will even be traceable with their records and samples on a scale of 2 -5 years. .
Magdalena Andersson is the sole nominee to the leadership of the Social Democratic Party and will now become Sweden’s first female prime minister in early November.
Theo Usherwood
@theousherwood
Gordon Brown to lead a commission to settle the issue of the Union, Keir Starmer announces.
*Smart politics. Should put to bed an attack line from the Conservatives at the election that there'll be a second indy referendum if Keir Starmer needs a coalition with the SNP.
1:26 pm · 29 Sep 2021
Tories 41.9%
Pidcock 39.5%
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1443196771530940434?s=20
We can all see that inflation is coming. Yet fixed income investors seem to be very relaxed about this. 10 year UK government bonds yield less than 1%.
And in the US, which is about to engage in some massive fiscal stimulus, they yield little more.
Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands all have negative 10 year interest rates.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why would anyone want to own instruments which guarantee you will lose large amounts of money?
(In the old days, we could blame QE, but we can't even do that any more.)
Following the recent Norwegian GE, where the “red” bloc decisively defeated the incumbent “blue” bloc (100 vs 68), the centre-left coalition talks have collapsed after the hard left walked out. Grand coalition on the cards?
There are a variety of reasons for that. Rape cases can be quite short, I did 2 in Stirling in 8 court days. There tends to be only one accused and they tend to have a limited number of witnesses for obvious reasons. All of these features mean that they are ideal for dealing with in our remote jury system courts. In contrast running a multiple accused drug gang bust is a bit of a non starter.
Would "fast tracking" these cases help? Not sure, but it certainly wouldn't do much for the other crimes.
Resolving the gravitational redshift within a millimeter atomic sample
https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.12238
Einstein's theory of general relativity states that clocks at different gravitational potentials tick at different rates - an effect known as the gravitational redshift. As fundamental probes of space and time, atomic clocks have long served to test this prediction at distance scales from 30 centimeters to thousands of kilometers. Ultimately, clocks will study the union of general relativity and quantum mechanics once they become sensitive to the finite wavefunction of quantum objects oscillating in curved spacetime. Towards this regime, we measure a linear frequency gradient consistent with the gravitational redshift within a single millimeter scale sample of ultracold strontium. Our result is enabled by improving the fractional frequency measurement uncertainty by more than a factor of 10, now reaching 7.6×10−21. This heralds a new regime of clock operation necessitating intra-sample corrections for gravitational perturbations.
Unfortunately, I find him too boring to even switch the telly on for, let alone listen to, so it's all passed me by.
Keir will be delighted
“ The government is learning that it is not enough to 'Get Brexit Done'. You need a plan to 'Make Brexit Work'.
"I do see a way forward after Brexit if we invest in our people and our places, if we deploy our technology cleverly and if we build the affordable homes we so desperately need. ”.
I really didn’t think that speech after speech from the front bench would be so succinctly and aggresivly after the working class votes Boris took. If they keep this up it will make the next general election very interesting indeed.
However, answer me this. As an unhappy left-winger who quit Labour because it wasn't left wing enough to harry the Tories, what on earth drives you to vote Tory?
"I'm voting Tory, that'll show them" is not what someone who claims to be as principled as you are would do.
Discuss.
If Labour win most seats in a hung parliament or a majority then Starmer can therefore become PM and refuse indyref2.
If the Tories still win most seats despite losing their majority then Starmer will need to offer the SNP devomax +indyref2 to become PM
1 A leadership election going on after a defeat.
2 A lame duck leader who has lost their majority, but hanging around like a bad smell.
3 A newly coronated leader. Which has its own issues too. See G Brown. T May pretty much.
Starmer has to be quite explicit before the election that he won’t be dealing with the SNP, and won’t be held over a barrel to grant another referendum on Scottish independence.
Lab 2nd to 4th.
That imo is problem with SKS strategy may gain a handful of Tory voters whilst losing more to other proressive Parties
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
Brundall (Broadland) by-election result:
GRN: 35.8% (+14.3)
CON: 28.9% (-12.1)
LDEM: 25.6% (+10.3)
LAB: 9.7% (-12.5)
Green GAIN from Conservative (X2)
Then you will be less affected by price fluctuations.
If Starmer is a loser, what was Corbyn? He lost Labour their heartlands, and led the party to their worst result since before the Second World War.
I mean, it's possible that the country is just begging for some hard left solutions. But there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of that.
Labour won elections - in my lifetime - under Blair and under Wilson. When was the last time (if any) that someone from the left of the party led them to electoral success?
Its a conundrum. I would like to see us reduce our risk profile substantially but genuinely safe investments are very hard to find. Which is presumably why people are still buying gilts.
I think he is probably too left wing and too working class to become prime minister, voters will always go for the posher person with money behind them. But the Tories certainly have more of a battle on their hands next time.
I'd wager £100 that in a NOM situation, where the SNP hold the 'balance of power' that Starmer will agree to Sindyref2. If he doesn't, I pay you £100 and if he does you pay me. Bet void if after the next election the SNP don't hold the balance of power.
What do you say? Bet would probably be void anyway.
Now folk bemoan too many go to Uni. Why don't they train for more profitable skills?
Where? Who will teach them?
And, no, a "modern apprenticeship" isn't exactly the same.
Andy McD quitting was cheered by both the hard left and the party management, albeit for different reasons. The 26% vote in favour of anti-semitism just reinforced the need to keep sweeping. And now a speech where lunatics heckled, got absolutely owned by Starmer, and the Laura Pillock gets interviewed to say "that was crap wasn't it".
Starmer didn't tell them to do one. He didn't need to. That speech was New Labour Rebooted. If it wasn't clear that the left have lost and aren't welcome before, it surely is now. "I don;t want to do this every year" he said at the end. I doubt he will need to.
This week Starmer and his team have dealt with the left brilliantly - the left came organised for war, an asymmetrically guerrilla war, and the media loved that “can Starmer win this war?”
Team Starmer didn’t come for a war, they just came for pest control.
(And it doesn't mean he might not change his mind after an election.)
Although that may be sooner than we think. Last night former Conservative chancellor Philip Hammond visited Brighton and told a dinner the Tories have selected all their candidates and are preparing for May 2022. Paging Brenda from Bristol…
We would rather even do a grand coalition with Labour than have to do any deals with the SNP
Sometimes you are wrong and the people you dislike are right. Confessing your error of judgement is cleansing. Why not try it?
Today's final episode was the referendum to present day, more or less. TSE should cover his ears, but what a useless fcuker Cameron was.
But the difference is that I am happy about that, I believe in Labour Governments in general. Labour was around long before Corbyn and will be around long after, for the priority is achieving one (albeit in the meantime I personally hope for a Hung Parliament so the Lib Dems can help to achieve PR)
Opposition is preferable than trying to speak to Scottish Nationalists. They’d offer to support Starmer to pass a sensible Budget, so long as he didn’t deal with the SNP either.
In reality, probably another election a few months down the line, as @Leon suggested.
Labour has never won by being left wing. Never.