Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)

[Mr Penguin]

DeejRC said:

I never quite get the obsession with WRM. He’s an MP for a remote part of Somerset and he doesn’t hold a major position in govt. He doesn’t say much on defence, foreign policy, the economy, energy or even that much on domestic policy. His entire 2 things and the 2 things which ppl seem to obsesses about over him is he’s not overly a fan of the EU and migrants. Two things which frankly baffle me as to their perceived place in voter priority/importance, as everytime the question has been asked of the public, they have replied that they aren’t!
So all that’s left is he looks a bit weird and posh.
I just don’t get it.

His views are no more out of kilter with the average voter than Diane Abbott. All parties have wide ranges of views and those should be represented in Parliament, or so the advocates of PR say.

[768]

Rayner eating a microphone next to Keir at the moment.

I wonder if the police will have to sit on their hands until mid-July now.

[119]

768 said:

Rayner eating a microphone next to Keir at the moment.

I wonder if the police will have to sit on their hands until mid-July now.

I reckon Rishi and Kier have got their heads together and decided now is a good time to distract from all the issues.

[Electro1980]

turbobloke said:

119 said:

What is so offensive about that?

Nothing. What does teaching within Islam say? Does it get an airing?

What on earth does any of that have to do with what was being said? Oh, nothing. You’re just desperate, trolling and trying to derail the conversation to “win”.

How about addressing the issue being discussed about JRM rather than resorting to logical fallacies?

The question was about him holding fundamentalist religious views, and a claim he doesn’t advocate them in public. The quote demonstrates the reality quite clearly. He’s a man that demands freedom of expression for himself but wants to apply his personal religious beliefs to everyone. An awful person, which was what the question was about.

Edited by Electro1980 on Thursday 23 May 10:04

[S600BSB]

Electro1980 said:

turbobloke said:

119 said:

What is so offensive about that?

Nothing. What does teaching within Islam say? Does it get an airing?

What on earth does any of that have to do with what was being said? Oh, nothing. You’re just desperate, trolling and trying to derail the conversation to “win”.

How about addressing the issue being discussed about JRM rather than resorting to logical fallacies?

The question was about him holding fundamentalist religious views, and a claim he doesn’t advocate them in public. The quote demonstrates the reality quite clearly. He’s a man that demands freedom of expression for himself but wants to apply his personal religious beliefs to everyone. An awful person, which was what the question was about.

Edited by Electro1980 on Thursday 23 May 10:04

Don’t be too hard on the old boys - throw them a bone occasionally!

[119]

I see Kier is saying now is the time to 'turn the page'.

It's a good point as he has great experience with doing that in the past.

[Vanden Saab]

119 said:

I see Kier is saying now is the time to 'turn the page'.

It's a good point as he has great experience with doing that in the past.

I for one will be looking forward to turning the pages on the Labour manifesto with all the detail that has been lacking until now.

[frisbee]

Vanden Saab said:

119 said:

I see Kier is saying now is the time to 'turn the page'.

It's a good point as he has great experience with doing that in the past.

I for one will be looking forward to turning the pages on the Labour manifesto with all the detail that has been lacking until now.

You could get it printed onto toilet paper and sell it to all your PH chums!

[s1962a]

SKS will probably end up being a tax high/spend high PM, and for many their tax burden will increase.

And still they will vote for him because the current shower of st are that bad.

[DeejRC]

Electro1980 said:

turbobloke said:

119 said:

What is so offensive about that?

Nothing. What does teaching within Islam say? Does it get an airing?

What on earth does any of that have to do with what was being said? Oh, nothing. You’re just desperate, trolling and trying to derail the conversation to “win”.

How about addressing the issue being discussed about JRM rather than resorting to logical fallacies?

The question was about him holding fundamentalist religious views, and a claim he doesn’t advocate them in public. The quote demonstrates the reality quite clearly. He’s a man that demands freedom of expression for himself but wants to apply his personal religious beliefs to everyone. An awful person, which was what the question was about.

Edited by Electro1980 on Thursday 23 May 10:04

Electro - in the quote you gave he advocated for marriage.
Have at least two thinks about what you just said. If you still can’t work out how you are incorrect then go to the pub for a pint because well frankly you have missed the pt by more than Pyscho taking a penalty.
You have though perfectly illustrated my bafflement. As did Stewie in his post.
I think I shall remain perfectly content in my bafflement at some of you.

[Mr Penguin]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/jerem...

Corbyn to stand as an independent in Islington North

[Electro1980]

DeejRC said:

Electro - in the quote you gave he advocated for marriage.
Have at least two thinks about what you just said. If you still can’t work out how you are incorrect then go to the pub for a pint because well frankly you have missed the pt by more than Pyscho taking a penalty.
You have though perfectly illustrated my bafflement. As did Stewie in his post.
I think I shall remain perfectly content in my bafflement at some of you.

He advocated for marriage? No, he states marriage is for the church not the state, when talking about why he opposes gay marriage. A view at odds with law, modern views and the existence of other religions. You can’t see how that is evidence of him publicly expressing his religious beliefs? As for why people might not like him for his regressive views on gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights, his arrogant attitude in general, such as his behaviour towards civil servants, leaving snide notes on desks. It’s more than the things you state.

Edited by Electro1980 on Thursday 23 May 17:00

[turbobloke]

Electro1980 said:

DeejRC said:

Electro - in the quote you gave he advocated for marriage.
Have at least two thinks about what you just said. If you still can’t work out how you are incorrect then go to the pub for a pint because well frankly you have missed the pt by more than Pyscho taking a penalty.
You have though perfectly illustrated my bafflement. As did Stewie in his post.
I think I shall remain perfectly content in my bafflement at some of you.

He advocated for marriage? No, he states marriage is for the church not the state, when talking about why he opposes gay marriage. A view at odds with law, modern views and the existence of other religions. You can’t see how that is evidence of him publicly expressing his religious beliefs? As for why people might not like him for his regressive views on gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights, his arrogant attitude in general, such as his behaviour towards civil servants, leaving snide notes on desks. It’s more than the things you state.

What's that lot got to do with anything and what does it matter if somebody does or doesn't "like him"? Not a jot.

People have different views including on religion, to which they're entitled, yours isn't the only view. You don't seem able to cope with that aspect of reality.

While not supporting those views if expressed by anyone including JRM it remains the case that I couldn't give a toss that he holds them, and if he wants to express them lawfully then I respect that and will defend his right to do so without agreeing with him. Censorious attitudes are as bad if not worse.

[MC Bodge]

.

"Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says he is "completely opposed" to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk...


The man is far too prominent. The sudden influx "diversity enthusiasts" on here is wonderful, of course. I'm not quite sure what sort of diversity JRM represents, though.

[MC Bodge]

Mabbs9 said:

turbobloke said:

MC Bodge said:

turbobloke said:

MC Bodge said:

Every time that they wheel out Rees-Mogg, less frequently nowadays, a collective nausea must rise in the population.

In left-wing activists and Labour's rumpies maybe, others don't notice and/or likely to be more tolerant of diverse personalities.

Are you a real person?

Are you capable of non-juvenile discussions online? Rhetorical question.

I find these weird dislikes for people pretty unpleasant. Rees-Mogg is very different to me but I judge him on his substance rather than what he looks or sounds like. It's a grim undercurrent when we judge others by their appearances. I thought our society was a long way to stamping that out.

My dislike for what he says has nothing to do with how he looks or sounds.

[simon_harris]

MC Bodge said:

.

"Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says he is "completely opposed" to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk...


The man is far too prominent. The sudden influx "diversity enthusiasts" on here is wonderful, of course. I'm not quite sure what sort of diversity JRM represents, though.

clearly not the "right" kind of diversity.

As much as I might not agree with his views I have more respect for someone who stands on their principles than someone who changes based on reaction/flavour of the month. This is the same reason I have respect for Corbyn and not Starmer.

[turbobloke]

MC Bodge said:

.

"Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says he is "completely opposed" to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk...


The man is far too prominent. The sudden influx "diversity enthusiasts" on here is wonderful, of course. I'm not quite sure what sort of diversity JRM represents, though.

The sudden influx is your convenient imagination at work. Prominence is irrelevant in an open democracy as views are individual and lawfully expressed views have no limits on prominence. Wannabe censors are the problem, not the Moggs.

[bitchstewie]

MC Bodge said:

.

"Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says he is "completely opposed" to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk...


The man is far too prominent. The sudden influx "diversity enthusiasts" on here is wonderful, of course. I'm not quite sure what sort of diversity JRM represents, though.

Funny thing is all the cap doffers would have a completely different view on that st about thinking someone raped by their own father should have the baby if a brown guy called Mohammed said it.

[MC Bodge]

bhstewie said:

MC Bodge said:

.

"Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg says he is "completely opposed" to abortion, including in cases of rape or incest."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk...


The man is far too prominent. The sudden influx "diversity enthusiasts" on here is wonderful, of course. I'm not quite sure what sort of diversity JRM represents, though.

Funny thing is all the cap doffers would have a completely different view on that st about thinking someone raped by their own father should have the baby if a brown guy called Mohammed said it.

Are you suggesting that their enthusiasm for "diversity" has a fairly narrow scope?

[MC Bodge]

turbobloke said:

The sudden influx is your convenient imagination at work. Prominence is irrelevant in an open democracy as views are individual and lawfully expressed views have no limits on prominence. Wannabe censors are the problem, not the Moggs.

Are you currently employed by the Tories or Russia?