Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
KarlMac said:
Weird how you so pro-change when it was the Brexit vote, despite very little evidence prior or since that anything would be better.
The Tory Party - Vote for Us for Five More Years of being Kicked in the Dick, because at least you know what you’re getting.
You’ve all gone mad.
Same old binary options. The Tory Party - Vote for Us for Five More Years of being Kicked in the Dick, because at least you know what you’re getting.
You’ve all gone mad.
I am planning to vote for neither party, as the South Park elections for the school mascot sum up the options on offer perfectly.
JagLover said:
KarlMac said:
Weird how you so pro-change when it was the Brexit vote, despite very little evidence prior or since that anything would be better.
The Tory Party - Vote for Us for Five More Years of being Kicked in the Dick, because at least you know what you’re getting.
You’ve all gone mad.
Same old binary options. The Tory Party - Vote for Us for Five More Years of being Kicked in the Dick, because at least you know what you’re getting.
You’ve all gone mad.
I am planning to vote for neither party, as the South Park elections for the school mascot sum up the options on offer perfectly.
Seasonal Hero said:
The SNP motion was deliberately crafted to have lines in it—e.g. about Israel’s “collective punishment” of Gaza—that Starmer couldn’t support. The idea was that Labour would be ordered to abstain and the SNP could then say, “look, Labour don’t back a ceasefire”
The SNP are now s
tting their pants in public because they face a severe kicking from Labour in the GE. See also the Tories.
This is precisely fk all to do with 'convention' (because remember that didn't seem to matter too much when Johnson unlawfully prorogued parliament) and everything to do with performative theatrics to make life difficult for Starmer et al.
'Twas ever thus,
Yes, but also no. The SNP motion was indeed set up to do what you describe, but the Government amendment dealt with that. There was no need for Labour to forcefully insert itself save for the need to grandstand for its Muslim voters. In fact if you think about it, what Hoyle has said is that he was told that if the Labour amendment was not brought forward then Labour MPs risked physical attack from Muslims... Think about that. Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want. I simply do not believe that is true to any substantive degree (aside from a few nutters who are already likely to be on an MI5 list somewhere) so what Starmer is ACTUALLY worried about is losing the Muslim vote in a number of seats. Changing the rules of Parliament to preserve your party's voter base, whilst at the same time implying that that same base are violent thugs. The SNP are now s
tting their pants in public because they face a severe kicking from Labour in the GE. See also the Tories. This is precisely f
k all to do with 'convention' (because remember that didn't seem to matter too much when Johnson unlawfully prorogued parliament) and everything to do with performative theatrics to make life difficult for Starmer et al.'Twas ever thus,
Read the Government amendment and ask yourself why on earth Starmer and Labour couldn't get behind that!
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:andymadmak said:
Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want.
Where are they "actively saying" that please Andy?You can dance and jiggle as much as you like, but there was no reason for Labour and Starmer to do this other than for grandstanding and votes. The Government amendment dealt with the SNP bear trap pretty effectively.
OK, you got me on my phraseology, Labour has not put out a press release saying Muslim hoards will attack at dawn if the Labour amendment was not the one to be debated.. Be happy that you've (again) missed the point by several country miles.
Anyone making threats is a thug and the law needs to come down on them very hard.
Pretty sure they aren't all Muslim though Andy.
Might want to reflect on why you immediately make that leap to "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want".
Pretty sure they aren't all Muslim though Andy.
Might want to reflect on why you immediately make that leap to "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want".
Wombat3 said:
S600BSB said:
President Merkin said:
There's a few things I loathe in politics. One is denial, which is all over these threads, nothing more than a form of lying to oneself. Another is cynicism. This is cynicism. The idea that no matter which way you vote, you lose, Even a cursory acquaintance with history disproves this completely. It's a lazy, uninfomed outlook & usually punted by those drawn to the status quo. Third would be the dicks who post gifs & rofls but that's for another day.
It’s just an age thing. The cynics are likely just old men with too much time on their hands. 
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Anyone making threats is a thug and the law needs to come down on them very hard.
Pretty sure they aren't all Muslim though Andy.
Might want to reflect on why you immediately make that leap to "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want".
Pretty sure they aren't all Muslim though Andy.
Might want to reflect on why you immediately make that leap to "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want".
Nice try Stewie, earned your party card for that one. I might want to reflect? The world and his dog knows what was being implied by Starmer. Unless you're more inclined to go with the deselecting as Speaker threat version?
No party card Andy.
"Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want" is simply not true.
They haven't said that. At all. Nothing of the sort.
Anyone making threats needs to be dealt with robustly by the Police and the courts.
Whoever they are.
It's a very simple point.
"Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want" is simply not true.
They haven't said that. At all. Nothing of the sort.
Anyone making threats needs to be dealt with robustly by the Police and the courts.
Whoever they are.
It's a very simple point.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: No party card Andy.
I don't believe you. Not that you'd care either way about that (why should you?) Just wonder why you're so reluctant to admit it. Your position across multiple threads has consistently been pro Labour. Nothing wrong with that, but it's curious that you want so desperately to deny it. Maybe you think you're more effective if you try to maintain a veneer of neutrality? bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Anyone making threats needs to be dealt with robustly by the Police and the courts.
Whoever they are.
It's a very simple point.
So who are these people that SKS and Hoyle are so worried about that they change long standing rules of Parliament to bring forward a Labour amendment when the Government amendment would have sufficed? Who specifically is SKS referring to? And why does the threat only apply to Labour MPs?Whoever they are.
It's a very simple point.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:swisstoni said:
Right so I expect the police are following up on these serious threats to our representatives as we speak.
They absolutely should be.We've had the murders of Jo Cox and David Amess and we don't need any more.
andymadmak said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: No party card Andy.
I don't believe you. Not that you'd care either way about that (why should you?) Just wonder why you're so reluctant to admit it. Your position across multiple threads has consistently been pro Labour. Nothing wrong with that, but it's curious that you want so desperately to deny it. Maybe you think you're more effective if you try to maintain a veneer of neutrality? bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Anyone making threats needs to be dealt with robustly by the Police and the courts.
Whoever they are.
It's a very simple point.
So who are these people that SKS and Hoyle are so worried about that they change long standing rules of Parliament to bring forward a Labour amendment when the Government amendment would have sufficed? Who specifically is SKS referring to? And why does the threat only apply to Labour MPs?Whoever they are.
It's a very simple point.
As for the question some of the people who are protesting about Palestine or the Labour position or whatever you want to call it are dangerous thugs and the Police need to deal with them.
They won't all be Muslim.
If you'd said "Labour is actively saying that they face a threat from thugs if they don't get exactly what they want" you might be onto something.
What you chose to say was "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want" which is lazy scaremongering at best and something pretty unpleasant at worst.
I don't know what's so hard to get here.
andymadmak said:
So who are these people that SKS and Hoyle are so worried about that they change long standing rules of Parliament to bring forward a Labour amendment when the Government amendment would have sufficed? Who specifically is SKS referring to? And why does the threat only apply to Labour MPs?
My feeling is that the amendment was scripted to appease the Muslim vote, just as the U-turn on calling for a ceasefire was. However there are plenty of ideologues on the far-left of the party who would happily see 'traitor' Labour MPs hung from the nearest lamp post for their lack of purity.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff