Piss off enough different groups of people and it might.
Keir Starmer's time is up
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
I was up the pub earlier with life long Labour voters one 60 the other 70 we all agreed that we cannot vote for Starmer.
Starmer’s “slightly less Tory that the Tories” schtick has catastrophically ran aground.
The only question is can he be usurped before the election? I won’t hold my breath.
Starmer’s “slightly less Tory that the Tories” schtick has catastrophically ran aground.
The only question is can he be usurped before the election? I won’t hold my breath.
Humberto
Justice is order
Starmer being so uninspiring, untrustworthy is a feature not a bug. It's a patronising politics that they are all in on. Johnson with his small time appeal to some never was Bulldog Spirit is the same as Trump. People saw that as preposterous. It's a world of blocs. They have to preserve their position in it. They tell themselves that they are the good guys, even that they are trying to help us. Whilst restricting the population, acting against them and enriching themselves.
Britain fairly irrelevant. East vs West for the third world. Britain is just a strip mine. America's toy.
They want: post truth, technological oppression, perpetual hand on the scale.
Somewhere that will lead to a confrontation between powers, who probably all have each others' numbers.
Britain fairly irrelevant. East vs West for the third world. Britain is just a strip mine. America's toy.
They want: post truth, technological oppression, perpetual hand on the scale.
Somewhere that will lead to a confrontation between powers, who probably all have each others' numbers.
Last edited:
Flavour
hang the bankers
Given his consistently good polling, I think that's highly unlikely. To the point of impossible. Even if his poll lead shrinks there's no way he's being replaced unless he somehow, miraculously, loses the next GE.
Eric Jarvis
Well-Known Member
And that is 19.7% of the electorate in Starmer's constituency.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It's very possible the tories will win the next election.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Could it be a principled position? I know we dont see them that often but?
And even if he was replaced it would be by wes 'margerine man' streeting who is being groomed as starmer's successor I reckon. Streeting of course, being a man who makes starmer look slightly less beige wallpaper by comparison!
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
It's possible, of course it's possible - but very possible?
How close are you from probable?
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Nah - Rayner is the elected Deputy. If Starmer loses his seat on election night, but Labour win the GE, she'll be appointed PM the next day, and once she's got her feet under the table I can't see anyone else winning the subsequent party leadership election.
not a trot
Well-Known Member
If enough thick WC voters vote for them.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
My own belief is that the Labour party have learnt fuck all from the last ge or tbh the recent by-elections. The reason the tories lost recently is many of their supporters have stayed at home; sure, labour might have won those anyway even with a greater tory turnout, but the swing is artificial. Few people, imo, have had their minds changed by the shammerites. In the 2019 ge shammer played a great part in the Labour debacle due to his fuckwitted brexit policy.
The tories ran a very strong campaign based on few policies - mainly 'get brexit done' and on Corbyn's weaknesses. Labour led with a great array of policies, introducing new ones every few days. Nothing was allowed to settle or be developed, no matter how good an idea they were.
Since assuming the leadership we've found shammer can't be held to anything he's said. Any promises he's made. Things which were shibboleths melt into air. This wasn't the case in 1997, when the Labour party under Blair presented a united front. Blair and brown had been working for years towards the election and where able to hone ideas and target elements of the electorate with an alternative way forwards to the tories. I don't think either of those elements can be found now. The best shammer offers is more efficient toryism.
Sure, the tories are a shambles. But Labour is no less chaotic and arguably they're more so - things which are promises one day are junked the next. They are going to lose many potential adherents over the middle East conflict no matter which way they jump. They'll loss votes over their planning policies. Many people who saw Labour as the great remain hope will be put off by shammer's refusal to countenance exploration of anything more than tinkering with the UK relationship to the eu. And there's 12-15 months before a ge, in which time I very much doubt shammer will turn into a figure widely seen as an attractive alternative to sunak. He's simply a more efficient sunak, not more liberal, offering no positive future. I can't see young people, first time voters, believing he will offer a way forwards on climate change - on their future. Where are the big ideas to bring people to Labour? Simply not being sunak is unlikely to be enough.
And, as we've discussed so many times, the electoral arithmetic is stacked in the tories' favour. The next year is not 1996 or 1997, it's a very unpredictable horror of a year in which we're going to be engages in at least two wars, the one in Ukraine and the other the Middle East. While troops may not be on the ground the UK government is hitched to kyiv and tel aviv, as is the Labour party. But the conflicts are opposite - in Ukraine 'we' oppose the horrors of the Russian occupation and invasion, contrary to international law. In Palestine 'we' support the breaching of international law. How Labour approaches this conundrum will have an influence on the outcome of the ge.
To win shammer has to actually capture people's imaginations as Blair did in 1997. Do you think that's likely? I don't
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Loony left vs sensible centrist exhibit (if people want to just skip to the embarrassing on-air melt down, it begins at around 2:45):
Eric Jarvis
Well-Known Member
There's a basic miscalculation being consistently made throughout the political/media establishment. On every issue they weigh up who will be harmed by a decision and who will approve of it, and if only a minority will be harmed and a majority will approve they go with that decision. The error lies in that these decisions are cumulative. Whilst people will forget what was in the newspaper or on TV yesterday, they can bear a grudge for life if somebody has done something that harmed them. Every single one of us can be labelled in ways that make us part of several minority groups. The grudges mount up. Furthermore the decisions don't solely affect the people in the minority being harmed, they also resonate with anyone who cares about anyone in that minority. We are now in a position in which a clear majority of the electorate have serious grudges against the Tory party and close to a majority have grudges against Starmer's Labour Party. Yet the same mistake keeps being repeated.
Eric Jarvis
Well-Known Member
That's the plan. In a nearly 20% Muslim constituency, with a huge student population, large numbers of council tenants, nurses and junior doctors from two large hospitals residing there, Starmer has spent his time leading the Labour Party attacking, or at best failing to support, a majority of his constituents (yes I have analysed the census data and Starmer's policy U-turns and then crunched the numbers). Even without adding in black people, benefit claimants, and disabled people, he's going to struggle to hold his seat against any decent independent progressive candidate without his baggage. I'm not a big fan of Rayner either, but at least she's likely to be less of an arrogant authoritarian. The only problem is getting people on the left to stop mothering on about needing a new national political party, wanting PR, or waiting for some sort of saviour to step forward, pull their fingers out and get on with joining in the effort to get Starmer out of Parliament. If everyone who wants major change started getting active now, all over the country, Starmer, Reeves, Cooper, Ashworth, Reed, and a load of others would be competing with Ed Balls on celebrity game shows for a living. The Tories could also be kicked out of most of the "red wall" seats, but nobody is going to do it for us.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
These people are lost. Everyone else is a Hamas terrorist while Jeremy Corbyn lives permanently rent free in their rotting brains.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It would only conflate like that if they organise together or the media tries to create that narrative. And let’s face it, Starmer isn’t going to lose the votes he needs by being attacked by a groups that can be dismissed as ‘lefty’ by right wingers…
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Come all without, come all within,
You're getting nicked for trespass if this cunt gets in
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
'Us Little People'. He's such a prick.
That shtick is really tired and I suspect includes a whole lot of projection as he is hardly salt of the earth himself.
"Sourdough socialists" - a loaf of sourdough bread is 2 quid from the co-op. Warburtons toasty white bread is £1.55. This is hardly the preserve of the elite that he seems to think it is. What next, "Stella socialists" who go for the "reassuringly expensive" Stella Artois instead of a cheaper John Smiths? What a load of crap.
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
Yeah it's just champagne socialists for alcohol-free hipsters isn't it. The idea that if you eat and drink well you're not allowed left-wing politics and must be a fake, viz the working class and the massive forbidden TVs, treacherously expensive smartphones and an obviously middle class ability to speak and write articulately. Things that mark us out as enormous hypocrites and class traitors, or something.
But celeb columnists, grifters and professional bullshitters, all hearty salt of the earth every(wo)men dropping truth bombs. With proper working class parents, obvs
Yeah it's just champagne socialists for alcohol-free hipsters isn't it. The idea that if you eat and drink well you're not allowed left-wing politics and must be a fake, viz the working class and the massive forbidden TVs, treacherously expensive smartphones and an obviously middle class ability to speak and write articulately. Things that mark us out as enormous hypocrites and class traitors, or something.
But celeb columnists, grifters and professional bullshitters, all hearty salt of the earth every(wo)men dropping truth bombs. With proper working class parents, obvs
Also it's extremely parochial - eating fresh fruit and vegetables rather than processed food being a marker of social class is something quite particular to the Anglosphere. McDonalds and KFC are actually relatively expensive compared to healthier traditional options in a lot of countries.
But it's really incredibly patronising and shows how much O'Neill et al look down on working class people. You can't be working class if you aspire to decent nutrition, wtf.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
sounds like a stupid AI created quote
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
The real sleight of hand is in the bit about the transgender Vs wages thing though isn't it. People are right to feel politicians aren't sticking up for their wages but who actually might - the left he's deriding here or any of the cunts the Mail might deem acceptable?
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Let them eat Mother's Pride.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Avocado anarchist has a certain ring to it.
I'm not sure what political position would work alliteratively with quinoa.
Similar threads
