Keir Starmer's time is up

[two sheds]

top political analysis there

 

[Humberto]

top political analysis there

Whatev

 

[two sheds]

I'll doubtless get jumpted on tomorrow morning for the defence of Corbyn but fuck it eh what.

 

[Humberto]

Nah you know what xxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Humberto]

top political analysis there

People say that. I don't get it. The implication being I'm sub U75 in terms of intelligence and acuman for anyalytical writing and arguments.


I stand by what I said in 12,480.

 

[Humberto]

Imagine humberto talking about westminster. AHAH

 

[two sheds]

People say that. I don't get it. The implication being I'm sub U75 in terms of intelligence and acuman for anyalytical writing and arguments.


I stand by what I said in 12,480.

No not at all. It's just that you're just throwing insults with no actual evidence to back them up. This is your 12,480 post.

I have.

He's shit and was therefore way out of his depth. His record is easy meat to the London establishment/he's a fool. He's a wanker with shit politics and no poltical skills.

Your argument just seems to be that he's shit because you think he is but that's impossible to argue against.
How was he out of his depth? Why was his record any easier meat to the London establishment than any other labour leader when all of them get taken apart? How were his politics shit? If he had no political skills how could he get his policies on the agenda after they'd been rejected by Labour since Blair and before?

Of course Corbyn can be criticized for example - particularly with hindsight - for not getting rid of all the backstabbing right wingers like Starmer has now got rid of the left wingers. But then the headlines every day would have been worse than Stalin, bloodletting, Stasi, fascist, Night of the Long Knives etc etc ...

His democratic socialist policies always meant he was going to be taken apart by the right wing press because they realized he was serious about implementing them. You're just echoing that rather than adding anything of substance.

Although this should go to the Corbyn thread.

 

[Dogsauce]

Should have had McDonnell instead of Corbyn, at least he was good with the press, stood his ground and not flustered.

 

[The39thStep]

Corbyn and McDonnell should have cadre-ised the left and Trade Union membership and forced the right wing MPs to split.

 

[Pickman's model]

Corbyn and McDonnell should have cadre-ised the left and Trade Union membership and forced the right wing MPs to split.

And purged the wreckers

 

[Pickman's model]

No not at all. It's just that you're just throwing insults with no actual evidence to back them up. This is your 12,480 post.



Your argument just seems to be that he's shit because you think he is but that's impossible to argue against.
How was he out of his depth? Why was his record any easier meat to the London establishment than any other labour leader when all of them get taken apart? How were his politics shit? If he had no political skills how could he get his policies on the agenda after they'd been rejected by Labour since Blair and before?

Of course Corbyn can be criticized for example - particularly with hindsight - for not getting rid of all the backstabbing right wingers like Starmer has now got rid of the left wingers. But then the headlines every day would have been worse than Stalin, bloodletting, Stasi, fascist, Night of the Long Knives etc etc ...

His democratic socialist policies always meant he was going to be taken apart by the right wing press because they realized he was serious about implementing them. You're just echoing that rather than adding anything of substance.

Although this should go to the Corbyn thread.

Night of the long knives was Hitler and macmillan. And corbyn's social democracy was of the slightest pink and tepid version possible

 

[Karl Masks]

Corbyn and McDonnell should have cadre-ised the left and Trade Union membership and forced the right wing MPs to split.

what is that?

 

[Karl Masks]

Should have had McDonnell instead of Corbyn, at least he was good with the press, stood his ground and not flustered.

I heard he wasn't well enough, a heart condition. No idea if that's true

 

[The39thStep]

what is that?

It's a word that I've copyrighted as I couldn't think of something less cumbersome than 'to create experienced and trained layers of the party membership with politics, ideology, organisational and communication skills , tactics etc to fight a battle inside the Labour Party structures to win hearts and minds and occupy key positions within the party machinery

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No not at all. It's just that you're just throwing insults with no actual evidence to back them up. This is your 12,480 post.



Your argument just seems to be that he's shit because you think he is but that's impossible to argue against.
How was he out of his depth? Why was his record any easier meat to the London establishment than any other labour leader when all of them get taken apart? How were his politics shit? If he had no political skills how could he get his policies on the agenda after they'd been rejected by Labour since Blair and before?

Of course Corbyn can be criticized for example - particularly with hindsight - for not getting rid of all the backstabbing right wingers like Starmer has now got rid of the left wingers. But then the headlines every day would have been worse than Stalin, bloodletting, Stasi, fascist, Night of the Long Knives etc etc ...

His democratic socialist policies always meant he was going to be taken apart by the right wing press because they realized he was serious about implementing them. You're just echoing that rather than adding anything of substance.

Although this should go to the Corbyn thread.

And he nearly won in 2017. A Corbyn labour party would walk the election this year. Frustrating.

 

[PTK]

Whatev

Jeremy Corbyn is "a wanker"?
What's wrong with masturbation? It's sex with someone you love.
I would love to see such a diatribe put into an election leaflet.
"Don't Vote Corbyn, as he is a vertical stroker. He pleasures himself in the dark of the night, and sometimes on Sunday afternoons."

 

[Puddy_Tat]

And he nearly won in 2017. A Corbyn labour party would walk the election this year. Frustrating.

to the centrists, the narrative is 2017 was a disastrous result. asking 'what, after the great triumphs of 2010 and 2015?' tends not to go down well.

if 'the party machine' and more of the parliamentary party had made an effort, then a labour win could probably have happened.

 

[Chz]

I find the notion that all he needed to do was purge the right wing and 2019 would his laughable. He struggled to overcome Theresa May. There was not a hope in hell against Johnson. Much as I think Boris is a joke of a grifter, the public didn't see it that way. He'd have annihilated Starmer too.

As to whether he was out of his depth... I'm afraid that one of the requirements of leadership is managing both the press and your own party. He did not show any sort of ability for either of those. I liked his policies, for the most part, but that's only a small part of the job of leader.

 

[Humberto]

Articulated what I was trying to ^

The 'wanker' bit wasn't good

 

[gosub]

And he nearly won in 2017. A Corbyn labour party would walk the election this year. Frustrating.

Against a PM that lost to Liz Truss...


How low do you need the bar?

 

[ska invita]

corbyn revisionism - stats say it all

 

[The39thStep]

I find the notion that all he needed to do was purge the right wing and 2019 would his laughable. He struggled to overcome Theresa May. There was not a hope in hell against Johnson. Much as I think Boris is a joke of a grifter, the public didn't see it that way. He'd have annihilated Starmer too.

As to whether he was out of his depth... I'm afraid that one of the requirements of leadership is managing both the press and your own party. He did not show any sort of ability for either of those. I liked his policies, for the most part, but that's only a small part of the job of leader.

I agree with the first sentence as there would be no quick fix due to the internal battles . Labour would also be hamstrung by their second referendum policy and a media sympathetic with the Blairite/ Brown rump .
However having weathered the storm I think there would be enthusiasm for a Labour Party with the policies of 2017-2019 than there is for the luke warm jizz that passes for Labour policy under Starmer.

 

[teqniq]

But there was a Labour party candidate Keith, so this is a lie. The fact that he no longer had your support is neither here nor there:

 

[Gramsci]

But there was a Labour party candidate Keith, so this is a lie. The fact that he no longer had your support is neither here nor there:

I see he completely ignores that some voters saw Gaza as an issue. Enough did to give Galloway an unexpected win.

Secondly the local businessman who stood as an independent came a good second.

All the establishment parties and the right wing parties did very poorly.

As Aroon Bastini said on Novara media last night this points to an ongoing disillusionment with mainstream politics.

I'm glad Bastini pointed out the fact that the independent did so well. It's been forgotten in news about Galloway win.

Will this sway the coming election? I doubt it. But it does show that electorate do make choices that should not be just dismissed in way Starmer does.

The other thing. I thought way back when Starmer come to leadership he was going to go out and listen to people. Why they did not vote Labour etc. Where has all that gone? Or is it on certain issues like Palestine that he is not going to listen to part of the supposed broad church that votes Labour? Seems to me no. One thing Starmer has done is to ditch the broad church. Go back to you have no where else to go line.

And how is a "unifier" candidate supposed to work?

I get this from my local Labour Council in Lambeth. That Lambeth is a multicultural borough ( yes it is) so those in local area campaigning for a ceasefire and Palestinian rights are somehow "divisive" is their line of approach to this.

 

[Artaxerxes]

I find the notion that all he needed to do was purge the right wing and 2019 would his laughable. He struggled to overcome Theresa May. There was not a hope in hell against Johnson. Much as I think Boris is a joke of a grifter, the public didn't see it that way. He'd have annihilated Starmer too.

As to whether he was out of his depth... I'm afraid that one of the requirements of leadership is managing both the press and your own party. He did not show any sort of ability for either of those. I liked his policies, for the most part, but that's only a small part of the job of leader.

He'd be a good president, a figure you role out for a few speeches and to rally the troops, it's clear he likes and can work a crowd but he's an awful leader/PM. Indecisive, to tied to some people it would be better to cut out and terrible at rejoinders

 

[teqniq]

Naught but a rumour atm but the poster claims to be in contact with Labour party staffers:

 

[tommers]

LOL. No chance.

 

[PTK]

Naught but a rumour atm but the poster claims to be in contact with Labour party staffers:

This is a parody account, is it not?

 

[lazythursday]

That's a parody account.

 

[tommers]

I mean tbf Supertanskii is also basically a parody account.