Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

[NomduJour]

Unreal said:

NomduJour said:

Hoyle was clear on Sky earlier - the threat is from the far right.

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on here.

Are you suggesting that Hoyle might not be telling the truth? Could he be confused?

[EmBe]

NomduJour said:

Unreal said:

NomduJour said:

Hoyle was clear on Sky earlier - the threat is from the far right.

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on here.

Are you suggesting that Hoyle might not be telling the truth? Could he be confused?

Maybe he was 'urged'...

[swisstoni]

It’s not that bloody Tommy Robinson again is it?

Edited by swisstoni on Friday 23 February 11:57

[andymadmak]

EmBe said:

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.

Exactly! This is all about securing the muslim vote for Labour. In the context of the debate, the reference to threats against Labour MPs (SKS didn't consult with Sunak or the SNP or others about threats to other party MPs did he??) is intended to draw a direct line to the Muslim community. For all of Stewies attempts at deflection he's failing to explain why SKS would allow such a perception to be generated in the first place. Its about votes.
Look, Labour is practically certain to win the next election. What he doesn't need right now is a surprise by-election defeat in a northern town because its large muslim community doesn't turn out for their candidate (even if he has had his official support removed) because Labour somehow isn't seen to be in the forefront of the Palestine ceasefire calls.

[valiant]

Unreal said:

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on here.

Are you saying there's no threat from the far right in this country?

[bitchstewie]

andymadmak said:

Exactly! This is all about securing the muslim vote for Labour. In the context of the debate, the reference to threats against Labour MPs (SKS didn't consult with Sunak or the SNP or others about threats to other party MPs did he??) is intended to draw a direct line to the Muslim community. For all of Stewies attempts at deflection he's failing to explain why SKS would allow such a perception to be generated in the first place. Its about votes.
Look, Labour is practically certain to win the next election. What he doesn't need right now is a surprise by-election defeat in a northern town because its large muslim community doesn't turn out for their candidate (even if he has had his official support removed) because Labour somehow isn't seen to be in the forefront of the Palestine ceasefire calls.

For someone deeply concerned about antisemitism it's odd that you don't seem to see anything wrong with posting untruths such as "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want".

[swisstoni]

valiant said:

Unreal said:

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on here.

Are you saying there's no threat from the far right in this country?

Think about where you are going with this one …

[NomduJour]

valiant said:

Are you saying there's no threat from the far right in this country?

In the ranking of genuine “threat”, how high do Tommy and his boys come?

[JagLover]

NomduJour said:

In the ranking of genuine “threat”, how high do Tommy and his boys come?

However high their level of threat I doubt they are passionately concerned about a ceasefire in Gaza. Probably more interested in Gazza.

[andymadmak]

bhstewie said:

For someone deeply concerned about antisemitism it's odd that you don't seem to see anything wrong with posting untruths such as "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want".

Ouch! I'm concerned about antisemitism, and I am concerned about Islamophobia. It's possible to be concerned about both Stewie. And what I posted is not an untruth imho. It's the natural conclusion of what SKS, Hoyle and Labour has said and done over the past 48hrs. I think what Labour is saying is wrong btw, and I find it deeply regrettable that Labour would play politics with the public perception of a community in this way.
Still no answers as to who SKS might otherwise have been referring to? Why the threats he so desperately had to press the Speaker about only affect Labour MPs?
I'm not the problem here Stewie, SKS and Labour is. Not that it really matters as I suspect all this will blow over by monday. Ypu've just got to hope that Mordaunt doesn't grant the SNP time for another debate on the same issue, otherwise what will poor SKS do then? Hoyle might survive, but he might not.

[Unreal]

valiant said:

Unreal said:

That has to be the funniest thing I've read on here.

Are you saying there's no threat from the far right in this country?

No.

[andymadmak]

NomduJour said:

valiant said:

Are you saying there's no threat from the far right in this country?

In the ranking of genuine “threat”, how high do Tommy and his boys come?

I am fairly sure that I read recently that Islamist terrorism is the primary threat, with far right stuff making up most of the rest

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/renewed-counter...

[Ronstein]

bhstewie said:

turbobloke said:

Sure, but things can only get better

You're another one Turbo.

Defended it all and then go full on revisionist trying to make out you didn't.

Did it ever occur to you that if you and all Johnsons loyal poodles hadn't defended it all and then inflicted Truss on the public that perhaps just perhaps people might have thought they were serious people who had learned from their mistakes?

No need to answer that it's a rhetorical question.

Do you ever make any subjective comment on the qualities and behaviour of Starmer (who, you claim not to support, but no-one believes you) or is every post you create another 'BUT TORIES.......'

[Vanden Saab]

Ronstein said:

bhstewie said:

turbobloke said:

Sure, but things can only get better

You're another one Turbo.

Defended it all and then go full on revisionist trying to make out you didn't.

Did it ever occur to you that if you and all Johnsons loyal poodles hadn't defended it all and then inflicted Truss on the public that perhaps just perhaps people might have thought they were serious people who had learned from their mistakes?

No need to answer that it's a rhetorical question.

Do you ever make any subjective comment on the qualities and behaviour of Starmer (who, you claim not to support, but no-one believes you) or is every post you create another 'BUT TORIES.......'

Another rhetorical question

[carlo996]

Ronstein said:

bhstewie said:

turbobloke said:

Sure, but things can only get better

You're another one Turbo.

Defended it all and then go full on revisionist trying to make out you didn't.

Did it ever occur to you that if you and all Johnsons loyal poodles hadn't defended it all and then inflicted Truss on the public that perhaps just perhaps people might have thought they were serious people who had learned from their mistakes?

No need to answer that it's a rhetorical question.

Do you ever make any subjective comment on the qualities and behaviour of Starmer (who, you claim not to support, but no-one believes you) or is every post you create another 'BUT TORIES.......'

The mindset of someone who doesn’t understand that the general public never voted for Truss…perhaps a better understanding of how the House of Commons works for that one

[IanH755]

carlo996 said:

The mindset of someone who doesn’t understand that the general public never voted for Truss…perhaps a better understanding of how the House of Commons works for that one

A reminder that no Prime Minister is voted for, only political parties are, and you can check your ballot next time you vote to confirm this.

By voting solely for a political party, and not a PM, you get no choice when it comes to who leads that party if the leadership changes just like no-one voted for Gordon Brown to be PM when Blair quit.

It really is very simple.

[bitchstewie]

andymadmak said:

Ouch! I'm concerned about antisemitism, and I am concerned about Islamophobia. It's possible to be concerned about both Stewie. And what I posted is not an untruth imho. It's the natural conclusion of what SKS, Hoyle and Labour has said and done over the past 48hrs. I think what Labour is saying is wrong btw, and I find it deeply regrettable that Labour would play politics with the public perception of a community in this way.
Still no answers as to who SKS might otherwise have been referring to? Why the threats he so desperately had to press the Speaker about only affect Labour MPs?
I'm not the problem here Stewie, SKS and Labour is. Not that it really matters as I suspect all this will blow over by monday. Ypu've just got to hope that Mordaunt doesn't grant the SNP time for another debate on the same issue, otherwise what will poor SKS do then? Hoyle might survive, but he might not.

Of course you're concerned Andy it's why you're standing by your "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want" comment when it's a simple fact that they've said no such thing.

Is it just Muslims that you think are a threat to MPs?

[andymadmak]

bhstewie said:

andymadmak said:

Ouch! I'm concerned about antisemitism, and I am concerned about Islamophobia. It's possible to be concerned about both Stewie. And what I posted is not an untruth imho. It's the natural conclusion of what SKS, Hoyle and Labour has said and done over the past 48hrs. I think what Labour is saying is wrong btw, and I find it deeply regrettable that Labour would play politics with the public perception of a community in this way.
Still no answers as to who SKS might otherwise have been referring to? Why the threats he so desperately had to press the Speaker about only affect Labour MPs?
I'm not the problem here Stewie, SKS and Labour is. Not that it really matters as I suspect all this will blow over by monday. Ypu've just got to hope that Mordaunt doesn't grant the SNP time for another debate on the same issue, otherwise what will poor SKS do then? Hoyle might survive, but he might not.

Of course you're concerned Andy it's why you're standing by your "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want" comment when it's a simple fact that they've said no such thing.

Yes I am Stewie. Still no answer to the questions I see. Or are you buying the latest garbage from SKS about it all being about the "far right"?

[Slowboathome]

andymadmak said:

bhstewie 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".

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?

Please could we stop with all the disparaging references to dogs.

Edited by Slowboathome on Friday 23 February 13:36

[bitchstewie]

andymadmak said:

Yes I am Stewie. Still no answer to the questions I see. Or are you buying the latest garbage from SKS about it all being about the "far right"?

Some of the people making threats to MPs are going to be Muslim.

I'm not the one saying that that "Labour is actively saying that Muslims will attack MPs if they don't get exactly what they want" when they haven't said anything of the sort.

Why the focus on Muslims?

Sorry Andy but it's just more Braverman type filth.