Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Keir Starmer's time is up

I'm old enough to remember polling reputations taking a dive post 2017 having predicted across the board tory landslides. That said I think starmers labour will get over the line through sheer exhaustion at the tory aeturnum but then I'm told everyone expected kinnock to walk it too so fuck knows...
 
I'm old enough to remember polling reputations taking a dive post 2017 having predicted across the board tory landslides. That said I think starmers labour will get over the line through sheer exhaustion at the tory aeturnum but then I'm told everyone expected kinnock to walk it too so fuck knows...
Certainly, but putting myself into the shoes of Safe Hands Starmer (and I will need therapy), he will see the moaning as short-term collateral damage. I saw a horrific article in the Independent that this 'issue' is a 'test' on his 'credibility'.
 
I'm old enough to remember polling reputations taking a dive post 2017 having predicted across the board tory landslides. That said I think starmers labour will get over the line through sheer exhaustion at the tory aeturnum but then I'm told everyone expected kinnock to walk it too so fuck knows...
Labour's leads going into 1992 were a lot smaller than where we are now. The Tories need to narrow this gap by at least 10 points, and quickly, if they're to have any chance next year.
 
Absolutely. But very notable that she's broken ranks with her usual crowd to call for a ceasefire. Shows just how important this issue is in some constituencies - can't stand Jess Phillips but she recognises how the wind is blowing on this one and is protecting her interests.
It says something about Starmer when Jess Phillips is closer to Corbyn than to Starmer on this issue.
 
It says something about Starmer when Jess Phillips is closer to Corbyn than to Starmer on this issue.
Mind you Jess Phillips's opinions are generally all over the place and seem to mostly be whatever she thinks will get her headlines at any particular moment. Actually I quite like her much of the time, but she doesn't exactly have a consistent set of values or anything resembling a coherent political philosophy. I have no problem with aggressive statements of strong opinions, I just wish that in her case they came with at least some thought behind them. However when she gets it right she's biting and funny, which is way better than the anodyne beige bollocks the Starmer puppets routinely spout.
 
I'm old enough to remember polling reputations taking a dive post 2017 having predicted across the board tory landslides. That said I think starmers labour will get over the line through sheer exhaustion at the tory aeturnum but then I'm told everyone expected kinnock to walk it too so fuck knows...
The same was true in 1987 as is the case now. The media analysis of UK politics has become entirely divorced from reality. The Westminster media political bubble is operating in a fantasy world entirely divorced from the reality of most people's lives and based entirely on some sort of national faux Presidential election between Starmer and Sunak that isn't actually taking place.
 
Is she fuck. If she had any morals she would make a stance and resign.
Like the left wing MPs have? She's called for a ceasefire so clearly is not with the leadership on this one. But will be based on feeling in her constituency and holding onto her votes (and perhaps significant political allies in the local Muslim community?) not some brave moral stance.
 
Like the left wing MPs have? She's called for a ceasefire so clearly is not with the leadership on this one. But will be based on feeling in her constituency and holding onto her votes (and perhaps significant political allies in the local Muslim community?) not some brave moral stance.
Saving her skin. I was agreeing with you.
 
Absolutely. But very notable that she's broken ranks with her usual crowd to call for a ceasefire. Shows just how important this issue is in some constituencies - can't stand Jess Phillips but she recognises how the wind is blowing on this one and is protecting her interests.

The interesting thing about British politicians' response to the war is that it apparently takes no account of public opinion. A backbencher like Phillips can break ranks, but no-one prominent does. Given that they usually follow the polls slavishly, this is significant. It reveals that they are being subjected to pressure from sources other than the electorate.
 
The interesting thing about British politicians' response to the war is that it apparently takes no account of public opinion. A backbencher like Phillips can break ranks, but no-one prominent does. Given that they usually follow the polls slavishly, this is significant. It reveals that they are being subjected to pressure from sources other than the electorate.
I don't think they're 'subjected to pressure ' exactly. They all generally share the same mindset about foreign policy which is very much follow the US in all things. That is just seen as the sensible grown up thing to do if you want to be elected and part of the establishment.

And I don't think they do follow the polls slavishly anyway - there are plenty of issues where public opinion is completely ignored.
 
But who does the US follow in all things? And why?


Not sure what you're trying to imply here - some sort of shadowy Jewish conspiracy?

When surely the basics are that Israel is a longstanding military ally of the US, is a useful regional balance to the likes of Iran, etc. Plus the significant Jewish vote in the US. On the right, the fundamentalists are also pro-Israel for their own loony apocalyptic reasons. It's not that different to how the US and western allies back the Saudis no matter what they do.
 
The interesting thing about British politicians' response to the war is that it apparently takes no account of public opinion. A backbencher like Phillips can break ranks, but no-one prominent does. Given that they usually follow the polls slavishly, this is significant. It reveals that they are being subjected to pressure from sources other than the electorate.
It means most of them have no interest in the real world that the rest of us live in and entirely inhabit a fictional universe portrayed by newspapers and TV. It really doesn't matter to them what voters think, they are assuming that if they slavishly obey the media they will be re-elected.
 
But who does the US follow in all things? And why?


The USA follows the big political donations as it has done for nearly half a century. The big political donations are from fossil fuel companies, the pharmaceutical industry, agribusiness, and arms manufacturers.
 
The USA follows the big political donations as it has done for nearly half a century. The big political donations are from fossil fuel companies, the pharmaceutical industry, agribusiness, and arms manufacturers.

Then how can we explain its blind, unquestioning devotion to Israel right or wrong?
 
Back
Top Bottom