Starmer’s challenge: LAB starts in an almost impossible position – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
He looks as if he has his party back
Let's hope so1 -
I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.1
-
Within the Labour Party Miliband stands in a more parallel historical position to Wilson than Blair, quite simply, which many, though not all, Labour members consider nearer the centre of their tradition.MattW said:
Do we have a link to what this means?WhisperingOracle said:
All Ed Miliband's work, and both left and right of the party standing to applaud. As I've mentioned many times, the centre of the party, not Mandelsonianism, will be key for Starmer.bigjohnowls said:Best 3 words of speech so far
GREEN NEW DEAL
gets standing ovation.
Pity he didnt want it discussed at Conference
There a lot of versions of it around.
Starmer is showing much more agility with this speech than in last week's over-reach, introducing a Blairite presentational face, but actually allowing enough leeway in the substance of what he's saying, for potentially wider or more ambitious policy than that of the 1990's. His prospects may be looking up.1 -
How many people will actually watch the whole speech ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Actually you are wrongbigjohnowls said:
BigG gone off SKS now!!TheScreamingEagles said:Standing ovation for Mark Drakeford after Starmer mentions him.
OK I cant watch anymore he is crap
This speech is too long but in many ways he is bringing labour out of its unelectability and laying down a challenge to Boris
(I certainly didn't.)
It's the soundbites and how it is reported which will matter, not whether its length exceeds @bigjohnowls endurance...2 -
"I've loved it" about conference. Golden opportunity to troll people with 'I'm lovin' it' and he missed it.0
-
Psssttt Starmers a Tory...pass it on.0
-
He has done really well.0
-
The faithful clearly out number the Cult as they cheer for a Labour government and not a protest movement.1
-
I agreeNigelb said:
How many people will actually watch the whole speech ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Actually you are wrongbigjohnowls said:
BigG gone off SKS now!!TheScreamingEagles said:Standing ovation for Mark Drakeford after Starmer mentions him.
OK I cant watch anymore he is crap
This speech is too long but in many ways he is bringing labour out of its unelectability and laying down a challenge to Boris
(I certainly didn't.)
It's the soundbites and how it is reported which will matter, not whether its length exceeds @bigjohnowls endurance...0 -
But he had a wonderfully cunning plan to stop Brexit. It does make me wonder if him moaning about a lack on plans on the part of the government is really his best point.Philip_Thompson said:
Corbyn didn't bide his time in Blair's Cabinet.TheValiant said:
Probably the same reason Corbyn and his rabble didn't leave in the 1990s. They were biding their time, just as the more moderate wing of Labour had to bide theirs.Philip_Thompson said:
If he was so decent why was he prepared to stand with the far left and stand against those who were opposing antisemitism in 2019? Why did he put his career before saying that antisemitism is wrong?
You can't just leave a party you don't agree with at the current time (well, you can, but you'll achieve very little unless you really are lucky). You wait and try and change it back to your vision of what Labour should be.
Starmer could have stabbed Corbyn in the front and stood up against antisemitism and bided his time on the backbenches.
But no, he put his own personal career first.2 -
Pidcock looking even more miserable.
0 -
I believe Gina Miller is starting a new party …TheScreamingEagles said:
I can't vote for anyone, dislike Starmer for his plans to destroy private schools.Pulpstar said:On a personal note, Starmer is still on the "might vote for" list, unlike the NIMBY borderline antivax Lib Dems right now. I've a mind to read the manifestoes thoroughly this time round.
0 -
The US government is throwing $10 billion a year for the next 5 years at the semiconductor industry which is generally highly profitable. It's a bung. I simply do not believe Labour would be willing to compete for such development. More likely Labour would talk a great deal about the topic but would be wary of investing public money, and would not fund already highly profitable large businesses.DavidL said:
The only way you could achieve anything like that is more than 100% tax relief on R&D, a policy I have suggested before. But it would be expensive.glw said:
That's a US level for R&D spending. I can't see a Labour government offering similar business and financial terms to support it. Are Labour going to let such investors get filthy rich? Are they going to change the law so that businesses that fail and the people that run them can rapidly bounce back? And they going to offer the massive tax breaks you can get in the US at Federal and State level?rottenborough said:3% of GDP on R&D.
Actual policy alert.
Nice target, but I really would be surprised to see Labour adopt policies that would see the UK catch up with the US. Labour usually condemns such stuff.0 -
He didn't use the words Comrade or socialist once...
what a fake!!0 -
Contrast with BoJo.Pro_Rata said:He seems a deep, deep functionalist. He is going to do lots of small but important foundational stuff to make things run smoother, change emphasis and piece it all together in the belief the end result will amount to big stuff. I think he is genuinely working up not down - this is the level at which Starmer will govern, perhaps there isn't and doesn't need to be more. If done well and with thought, it could work, but how is that pitch to be made?
This government is all about the slogans- "Get [REDACTED] Done", "Level Britain Up". But we all know, deep down, that they haven't got a clue about turning those into practical actions.
Partly it's about the temperaments of the two men, but it also sashays round the "Mr and Mrs Voter weren't stupid to vote for Johnson" issue a bit. It puts the blame for the fallout where it belongs, on Johnson's lack of competence.
That line about Johnson, a showman with nothing left to show, that's got to sting... especially because BoJo might fear that it's true.2 -
He didnt mention Palestine, nationalisation, how bad the US is, anything woke or scum.dixiedean said:
He's chosen the right topics by covering everything.noneoftheabove said:I can get behind this. It is boringly presented and I don't agree with much of the answers but he has chosen the right topics and has the right intent.
Expect a passage on water resource allocation in Guatemala incoming.0 -
I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?2
-
One of the best ways to be radical is to not sound too radical.Stocky said:
He doesn't mean it though. It's fake jingoism. Confected for the thicko punters (sorry voters).Roger said:A bit jingoistic for a Labour leader.
He's sounding too much like a Tory for my taste. Let's hope not being Johnson is enough..0 -
Does Stamer have that "eye on the object look"? Whatever that may be...1
-
What was this "Eye on the object look" thing.
Have I misheard?0 -
You're not the target audience comrade. It was a speech for the Red Wall.Roger said:A bit jingoistic for a Labour leader.
He's sounding too much like a Tory for my taste. Let's hope not being Johnson is enough..1 -
Assuming that Labour were successfully tough on crime and its causes from 1997-2010 then everyone now aged 11-24 was born under that regime, so crime should be pretty negligible among the early 20s right now who gained max benefit from the Labour years.rottenborough said:Now onto crime. Hammering away. It's like New Labour never left the building.
1 -
Thank you! I had no idea what he was on about.DecrepiterJohnL said:I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?
0 -
Did the Trans issue get a mention?0
-
The main criticisms seem to be too long, too boring and he was in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
As a bunch of objections I think he'll take them.0 -
Cannot abide her.ThomasNashe said:
I believe Gina Miller is starting a new party …TheScreamingEagles said:
I can't vote for anyone, dislike Starmer for his plans to destroy private schools.Pulpstar said:On a personal note, Starmer is still on the "might vote for" list, unlike the NIMBY borderline antivax Lib Dems right now. I've a mind to read the manifestoes thoroughly this time round.
Plus the name of the party triggers me. True and Fair is an accounting/banking term that brings me out in cold sweats.
It is one of those things that occupies my professional day.1 -
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
5 -
That his wife? He's gone up in my estimation.1
-
Its a reference he made at the start of his speech talking about his dad working would get an "eye on the object look" while concentrating on what he was working upon.DecrepiterJohnL said:I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?
0 -
He got the Labour conference on their feet for our armed forces. This is a huge difference. He's done really well.Leon said: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, yet1 -
You have voted LD over Conservative ever since Cameron left No 10 and will almost certainly do so again at the next general election.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, I've said I cannot vote for the Lib Dems as some of them have drunk the antivax/5G koolaid.HYUFD said:
You will vote LD then I imagine like you usually doTheScreamingEagles said:
I can't vote for anyone, dislike Starmer for his plans to destroy private schools.Pulpstar said:On a personal note, Starmer is still on the "might vote for" list, unlike the NIMBY borderline antivax Lib Dems right now. I've a mind to read the manifestoes thoroughly this time round.
As for usually, out of the seven general elections I've been eligible to vote in I've voted Conservative in five of them. So I usually vote Conservative.
The only two times I haven't was when I had to vote tactically and stop Corbynites winning the seat.
Most antivaxxers are in RefUK not the LDs anyway0 -
He first brought it out quoting from Auden (I just remembered). It's in the poem:kle4 said:
Thank you! I had no idea what he was on about.DecrepiterJohnL said:I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?
https://allpoetry.com/Horae-Canonicae:-Sext
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.1 -
It’s from AudenMattW said:What was this "Eye on the object look" thing.
Have I misheard?
‘In his series of poems, Horae Canonicae, W.H. Auden captures this desirable condition:
You need not see what someone is doing
to know if it is his vocation,
you have only to watch his eyes:
a cook mixing a sauce, a surgeon
making a primary incision,
a clerk completing a bill of lading,
wear the same rapt expression,
forgetting themselves in a function.
How beautiful it is,
that eye-on-the-object look.’1 -
Bloody hell - Pidcock first interviewee.
Be off.0 -
And he was being rude about LatinSelebian said:
He first brought it out quoting from Auden (I just remembered). It's in the poem:kle4 said:
Thank you! I had no idea what he was on about.DecrepiterJohnL said:I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?
https://allpoetry.com/Horae-Canonicae:-Sext
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.0 -
The eye on the object refers back to the beginning of the speech in an anecdote about his Dad.
No great surprise folk can't remember it. Seems like last month already.3 -
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.Richard_Tyndall said:
That is a clever little trick you did there given that those two stats are completely different.Nigelb said:
The numbers do not appear to be identical.Richard_Tyndall said:Bit disingenuous there. Claiming he was shocked when he found out 98% of rape cases don't end in a criminal conviction.
What was he doing all that time he was DPP and head of the CPS?
These have been the same numbers for years. Did he not know what was going on when he was the man responsible for prosecutions?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/23/rape-conviction-rate-high
(2013)...In raw figures, there were 3,692 prosecutions for rape last year, resulting in 2,333 convictions...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/23/fewer-than-one-in-60-cases-lead-to-charge-in-england-and-wales
(2020) ...While there were 52,210 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in 2020, only 843 resulted in a charge or a summons – a rate of 1.6%..
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.
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.0 -
Laura Pidcock on BBC.0
-
The heckling will have done no harm.
Particularly because the shouty woman with the visor that the cameras focused on looked as mad as a bag of frogs.2 -
You are a tedious troll.HYUFD said:
You have voted LD over Conservative ever since Cameron left No 10 and will almost certainly do so again at the next general election.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, I've said I cannot vote for the Lib Dems as some of them have drunk the antivax/5G koolaid.HYUFD said:
You will vote LD then I imagine like you usually doTheScreamingEagles said:
I can't vote for anyone, dislike Starmer for his plans to destroy private schools.Pulpstar said:On a personal note, Starmer is still on the "might vote for" list, unlike the NIMBY borderline antivax Lib Dems right now. I've a mind to read the manifestoes thoroughly this time round.
As for usually, out of the seven general elections I've been eligible to vote in I've voted Conservative in five of them. So I usually vote Conservative.
The only two times I haven't was when I had to vote tactically and stop Corbynites winning the seat.
Most antivaxxers are in RefUK not the LDs anyway2 -
Far right Candidate i presume you meanCorrectHorseBattery said:I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly0 -
0
-
The heckling can go either way. Yes, it gave Starmer the chance to stand up to them. But then it will also remind the public that the Labour Party contains some complete nutters.
Now, it's been mentioned that they are outnumbered, but people watching the Six O'Clock News won't get that impression.0 -
You have gone off the deep end now. Seek help.bigjohnowls said:
Far right Candidate i presume you meanCorrectHorseBattery said:I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly0 -
Another reason I cannot vote for Starmer.MattW said:
And he was being rude about LatinSelebian said:
He first brought it out quoting from Auden (I just remembered). It's in the poem:kle4 said:
Thank you! I had no idea what he was on about.DecrepiterJohnL said:I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?
https://allpoetry.com/Horae-Canonicae:-Sext
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
Latin is the best.0 -
Well he just emasculated the left of the party.MattW said:Did the Trans issue get a mention?
4 -
We already have that, a very big bung for small and medium sized companies. Even for large companies, it's more than 100%.DavidL said:
The only way you could achieve anything like that is more than 100% tax relief on R&D, a policy I have suggested before. But it would be expensive.glw said:
That's a US level for R&D spending. I can't see a Labour government offering similar business and financial terms to support it. Are Labour going to let such investors get filthy rich? Are they going to change the law so that businesses that fail and the people that run them can rapidly bounce back? And they going to offer the massive tax breaks you can get in the US at Federal and State level?rottenborough said:3% of GDP on R&D.
Actual policy alert.
Nice target, but I really would be surprised to see Labour adopt policies that would see the UK catch up with the US. Labour usually condemns such stuff.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-development-rd-relief0 -
Nothing of any interest. Unsurprisingly, she wasn't impressed.Philip_Thompson said:1 -
I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.2
-
And aptlyLeon said:
It’s from AudenMattW said:What was this "Eye on the object look" thing.
Have I misheard?
‘In his series of poems, Horae Canonicae, W.H. Auden captures this desirable condition:
You need not see what someone is doing
to know if it is his vocation,
you have only to watch his eyes:
a cook mixing a sauce, a surgeon
making a primary incision,
a clerk completing a bill of lading,
wear the same rapt expression,
forgetting themselves in a function.
How beautiful it is,
that eye-on-the-object look.’
There should be monuments, there should be odes,
to the nameless heroes who took it first,
to the first flaker of flints
who forgot his dinner,
....
3 -
Yes, he has reason to be pleased. And for Blairites/sensible people like you it must be great to have your party backJonathan said:
He got the Labour conference on their feet for our armed forces. This is a huge difference. He's done really well.Leon said: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
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 government0 -
Mr. Eagles, nescio Latinus.0
-
And that the really leftie lot have just said he's crap over and over.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
Means it landed in the centre ground - exactly where it was supposed to.
Best speech by a Labour leader since Brown in 2010, I would say (not a high bar)0 -
.
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?Nigelb said:
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.Richard_Tyndall said:
That is a clever little trick you did there given that those two stats are completely different.Nigelb said:
The numbers do not appear to be identical.Richard_Tyndall said:Bit disingenuous there. Claiming he was shocked when he found out 98% of rape cases don't end in a criminal conviction.
What was he doing all that time he was DPP and head of the CPS?
These have been the same numbers for years. Did he not know what was going on when he was the man responsible for prosecutions?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/23/rape-conviction-rate-high
(2013)...In raw figures, there were 3,692 prosecutions for rape last year, resulting in 2,333 convictions...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/23/fewer-than-one-in-60-cases-lead-to-charge-in-england-and-wales
(2020) ...While there were 52,210 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in 2020, only 843 resulted in a charge or a summons – a rate of 1.6%..
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.
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.2 -
One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.5
-
He was being disingenuous in claiming he was surprised by the numbers. It was his job to know them. Literally.Nigelb said:
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.Richard_Tyndall said:
That is a clever little trick you did there given that those two stats are completely different.Nigelb said:
The numbers do not appear to be identical.Richard_Tyndall said:Bit disingenuous there. Claiming he was shocked when he found out 98% of rape cases don't end in a criminal conviction.
What was he doing all that time he was DPP and head of the CPS?
These have been the same numbers for years. Did he not know what was going on when he was the man responsible for prosecutions?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/23/rape-conviction-rate-high
(2013)...In raw figures, there were 3,692 prosecutions for rape last year, resulting in 2,333 convictions...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/23/fewer-than-one-in-60-cases-lead-to-charge-in-england-and-wales
(2020) ...While there were 52,210 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in 2020, only 843 resulted in a charge or a summons – a rate of 1.6%..
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.
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.2 -
Like Len McCluskey, he seems to believe that Labour won the 2017 election.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You have gone off the deep end now. Seek help.bigjohnowls said:
Far right Candidate i presume you meanCorrectHorseBattery said:I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly1 -
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types0 -
So he just sounds like a Tory b******?Northern_Al said:One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
0 -
What does "far right" mean to you?bigjohnowls said:
Far right Candidate i presume you meanCorrectHorseBattery said:I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly
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.0 -
I'm on the left of the party. But I want to win elections. I want power. Starmer is the best shot at that at the moment. It was a fine speech.SandyRentool said:
Well he just emasculated the left of the party.MattW said:Did the Trans issue get a mention?
0 -
Ah, latin is it? I thought* the title was a reference to some old toolmaker called Horace (typo?) getting into trouble for sexting. I admit that didn't really seem to come out in the poem (depends what the 'object' is, I guess).MattW said:
And he was being rude about LatinSelebian said:
He first brought it out quoting from Auden (I just remembered). It's in the poem:kle4 said:
Thank you! I had no idea what he was on about.DecrepiterJohnL said:I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?
https://allpoetry.com/Horae-Canonicae:-Sext
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
*Don't blame me, I'm state educated.0 -
You know how it used to be said that Ed Miliband was a bit weird? Well, I think Starmer is a bit odd.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
The key take away was that he was trying to frame himself and his character. He wants to make it about him v Boris Johnson. Will it work? I'm doubtful.0 -
Said it yesterday, it just gave him opportunity or some Kinnock-esque moments. Some responses seemed more scripted than others, though probably all were, but they make for good TV and show him as someone who is not a pushover for the more contrarian elements.Northern_Al said:The heckling will have done no harm.
Particularly because the shouty woman with the visor that the cameras focused on looked as mad as a bag of frogs.1 -
That means, I am an ignorant person from somewhere near Rome.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, nescio Latinus.
0 -
You are changing the rules.bigjohnowls said:
Nothing to do with the fuel crisis then all down to this riveting performanceCorrectHorseBattery said: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.
Everyone knows Governments lose elections, Oppositions don't win them, but for you this won't count in Starmer's case... should it happen.0 -
HahNorthern_Al said:One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
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
0 -
There's also a dig at Boris ?IshmaelZ said:
And aptlyLeon said:
It’s from AudenMattW said:What was this "Eye on the object look" thing.
Have I misheard?
‘In his series of poems, Horae Canonicae, W.H. Auden captures this desirable condition:
You need not see what someone is doing
to know if it is his vocation,
you have only to watch his eyes:
a cook mixing a sauce, a surgeon
making a primary incision,
a clerk completing a bill of lading,
wear the same rapt expression,
forgetting themselves in a function.
How beautiful it is,
that eye-on-the-object look.’
There should be monuments, there should be odes,
to the nameless heroes who took it first,
to the first flaker of flints
who forgot his dinner,
....
Where should we be but for them?
Feral still, un-housetrained, still..
And a piece of self-deprecation...
...without these judicial mouths
(which belong for the most part
to very great scoundrels)
how squalid existence would be,
0 -
None. But that's not my point. We need to win over centrist voters. See my post above/below. I'm on the left of the party.bigjohnowls said:
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types0 -
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.
1 -
He's not appealing to Conservatives he's appealing to conservatives.bigjohnowls said:
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types
Those conservatives who habitually voted Labour through family tradition, union links, habit or whatever - who deserted the LP for the first time in 2019. He's sunk without them. Disaffected Conservatives will mostly go LD or not vote at all.5 -
So this is not Sir Keir then?TheScreamingEagles said:
Another reason I cannot vote for Starmer.MattW said:
And he was being rude about LatinSelebian said:
He first brought it out quoting from Auden (I just remembered). It's in the poem:kle4 said:
Thank you! I had no idea what he was on about.DecrepiterJohnL said:I don't get the "eye on the object look" which means nothing to me. Is it a regional saying or one made up by the speech-writer's mother?
https://allpoetry.com/Horae-Canonicae:-Sext
There was something in the idea of it, but it wasn't worth brining the quote out again 30 (45? 60?) minutes later. I had to go back a bit to even make out the words and it means nothing out of context.
Latin is the best.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=latin+grammar+scene+Life+of+Brian&view=detail&mid=2C902F41BD0B3A3FF7E72C902F41BD0B3A3FF7E7&FORM=VIRE0 -
It also soared over the hurdle of not self-sabotaging himself.CorrectHorseBattery said:
And that the really leftie lot have just said he's crap over and over.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
Means it landed in the centre ground - exactly where it was supposed to.
Best speech by a Labour leader since Brown in 2010, I would say (not a high bar)
Which was not a negligible possibility.2 -
Bollocks! That careerist? If he needed to agree Sindyref2 to get into power then he would do it without a second's hesitation.Leon said:
HahNorthern_Al said:One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
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
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.0 -
John Major did it too, and Mrs Thatcher come to that. It is not just since Britain's Got Talent that we are expected to listen to a largely irrelevant family history. It worked for Pitt the Younger, I suppose.Northern_Al said:One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
0 -
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.DavidL said:2 -
I hadn't picked up on that. Emasculated the loony left, is perhaps better.Northern_Al said:
I'm on the left of the party. But I want to win elections. I want power. Starmer is the best shot at that at the moment. It was a fine speech.SandyRentool said:
Well he just emasculated the left of the party.MattW said:Did the Trans issue get a mention?
Blair took plenty of the left with him. Into power.1 -
SKS is expelling Jews and black people at record rates.Philip_Thompson said:
What does "far right" mean to you?bigjohnowls said:
Far right Candidate i presume you meanCorrectHorseBattery said:I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly
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.
Both groups more than 5 times more likely to be targeted and expelled than non BME non Jewish people.
Labour is completely broken under SKS0 -
Not a Tory but not voted Labour at a GE since 2005. Would be leaning Labour for next GE and wasn't before the speech. Starmer is far from perfect but the standard of all the UKs leading politicians has dropped. Relative to the others he is fine.bigjohnowls said:
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types1 -
.
Give her a safe seat! Oh wait, she had one!rottenborough said:Pidcock looking even more miserable.
9 -
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.Carnyx said:
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.DavidL said:2 -
No you see we don't want your vote, we want the person in the 10,000 Labour majority in Liverpool, thanks anyway now fuck off and join the Tories.noneoftheabove said:
Not a Tory but not voted Labour at a GE since 2005. Would be leaning Labour for next GE and wasn't before the speech. Starmer is far from perfect but the standard of all the UKs leading politicians has dropped. Relative to the others he is fine.bigjohnowls said:
Of course more PB Tories are relatively positive.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
How many will vote for him because he is shipping voters big time amongst more left wing types
This is the mind of the people Starmer is causing to leave1 -
Yes, but.tlg86 said:
You know how it used to be said that Ed Miliband was a bit weird? Well, I think Starmer is a bit odd.Northern_Al said:I've applied the PB test to Starmer's speech. The fact that pretty much all the leading right-wingers on here have managed to find something positive to say about it shows that it was a huge triumph. I expected a lot more 'told you so - he's crap'.
The key take away was that he was trying to frame himself and his character. He wants to make it about him v Boris Johnson. Will it work? I'm doubtful.
One thing you can't describe the PM as being is a bland average bloke.
Somehow he gets to be a "character" with a lot of folk.
I find him deeply odd. Much weirder than Starmer or EdM.0 -
You seem oddly provoked by this speech.Philip_Thompson said:
Bollocks! That careerist? If he needed to agree Sindyref2 to get into power then he would do it without a second's hesitation.Leon said:
HahNorthern_Al said:One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
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
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.
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 problem0 -
Italian prices insanely high, it seems:
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/14431282368510566440 -
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.0 -
Listened to the speech in the car. A few thoughts.
1. Fire Whomever. Told him. To speak. So slowly.
2. Piss funny hecklers both in the hall and on here. Fuck off and vote Tory already.
3. Genuinely clear that he has a clear vision for the country. Invest in technology and education a massive compare and contrast with "back to Deliveroo you plebs"
4. Great to see how extol stuff that normals like and the Trots hate.0 -
Also for HMtQ, KGVI, etc. etc.DecrepiterJohnL said:
John Major did it too, and Mrs Thatcher come to that. It is not just since Britain's Got Talent that we are expected to listen to a largely irrelevant family history. It worked for Pitt the Younger, I suppose.Northern_Al said:One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
0 -
He won't abandon unionism. Even if he offered the SNP indyref2 to become PM he would still campaign for a No vote, not least as he would continue to need Scottish MPs support to stay PM (probably with devomax on top).Philip_Thompson said:
Bollocks! That careerist? If he needed to agree Sindyref2 to get into power then he would do it without a second's hesitation.Leon said:
HahNorthern_Al said:One thing we've learnt today. Starmer definitely had a mum and a dad.
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
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.
However if there was a UK Labour government offering devomax No would probably win again anyway0 -
There is doubt as to whether JC even existed or not. There is next-to-zero contemporary evidence for the character called Jesus - and what little there is, there's reasons to be sceptical that its actually contemporary.Carnyx said:
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.DavidL said:
Quite possible that Jesus is a fictional character, or even a character based upon other people with the story twisted.0 -
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.DavidL said:
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.Carnyx said:
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.DavidL said:1 -
Because I didn't anticipate this I had rolled too close behind them so needed to reverse to get the space to go round them. As I started to do so a Taxi zoomed passed me to make it to the pump first.Daveyboy1961 said:
I hate it when they do that.Alistair said:Filled up at Sainsbury's, bust but nothing out of the ordinary queue wise. However did have one fellow filling up a petrol can on foot and another person who had apparently never used a petrol station before and stopped at the first available pump rather than pulling forward to the next free pump.
0 -
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
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1443194119325732876?s=200 -
To make your point, Starmer claimed for himself the need to "Make Brexit Work" accusing Johnson of failing to plan beyond the slogan of "Get Brexit Done".Stuartinromford said:
Contrast with BoJo.Pro_Rata said:He seems a deep, deep functionalist. He is going to do lots of small but important foundational stuff to make things run smoother, change emphasis and piece it all together in the belief the end result will amount to big stuff. I think he is genuinely working up not down - this is the level at which Starmer will govern, perhaps there isn't and doesn't need to be more. If done well and with thought, it could work, but how is that pitch to be made?
This government is all about the slogans- "Get [REDACTED] Done", "Level Britain Up". But we all know, deep down, that they haven't got a clue about turning those into practical actions.
Partly it's about the temperaments of the two men, but it also sashays round the "Mr and Mrs Voter weren't stupid to vote for Johnson" issue a bit. It puts the blame for the fallout where it belongs, on Johnson's lack of competence.
That line about Johnson, a showman with nothing left to show, that's got to sting... especially because BoJo might fear that it's true.
The charge that the Conservatives are all about empty rhetoric is a powerful one that can only grow as time marches on.1 -
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.CorrectHorseBattery said: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.0 -
Oh FFS this BBC interview is crap. Who gives a toss? Kim Leadbeater comes across well.0
-
1. You quit the partybigjohnowls said:
SKS is expelling Jews and black people at record rates.Philip_Thompson said:
What does "far right" mean to you?bigjohnowls said:
Far right Candidate i presume you meanCorrectHorseBattery said:I voted for the right candidate to lead our party.
You are easily pleased.
Labour are going to lose badly
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.
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
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.0