UK Politics - Caesar: Most senators didn’t stab me, so all good!

[Raja]

I don't think the lib dems are okay

[Raja]

 

[Spockydog]

Thursday briefing: Has Keir Starmer suffered signal failure on rail strikes?

Quote

 

It’s right there in the ten pledges he made when he campaigned to become Labour leader:

Number 7. “Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions,” Keir Starmer promised. “Stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.” But on the first day of strike action this week, Starmer made no public appearance or comment – and now he is ready to take on the frontbenchers who joined pickets. Why the change of emphasis?

Well, if he wanted a fight, he has the makings of one. At least 25 MPs joined picket lines on Tuesday. While that figure may not represent mutiny given Starmer’s diktat only applied to frontbenchers, three PPSs [parliamentary private secretaries], one junior minister, and a whip – as well as the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar – also joined pickets in direct defiance of their leader.

Hostilities were not soothed by Emily Thornberry dismissing the PPSs who rebelled as “bag-carriers”; Diane Abbott praised Sarwar and asked: “what is Keir Starmer going to do, remove Anas as leader?“. Three MPs Heather spoke to from different wings of the party described the picket line ban as “imbecilic”, “pointless”, and “dumb”.

“Many of those dismayed by Starmer’s moves were less like, ‘We should be on picket lines’, and more, ‘why would you do that?’” she added. “Some MPs complain that because he came to electoral politics fairly late, they feel like he thinks they’re employees and he’s the chief executive. But they don’t think parliament works like that.”

 

If he starts disciplining Labour MPs for showing solidarity with striking workers, my grandfather will be spinning in his grave. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

WUT? When was I insisting that Labour were going to lose Wakefield? Please show me the post where I said that.

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

He has to go because, unbelievably, and after everything, more people think Boris Johnson would make a better prime minister.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/710316/prime-minister-voting-intention-in-great-britain/

 

[Spockydog]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

What's up with the Tory level of misrepresentation? We just making shit up now?

"Failing to win Wakefield will certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons."

Is what I actually said. And nothing remotely like "Starmer must go if he loses the Wakefield by-election, which I fully expect he will." FFS.

And I'm guessing the reason you couldn't find the quote where I said I "fully expected Labour to lose" Wakefield, is because that quote does not exist. Because I never said that.

[Spockydog]

20 minutes ago, mormont said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/710316/prime-minister-voting-intention-in-great-britain/

 

Poll says Keir Starmer worse choice for PM than Boris Johnson

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

And, yeah, I make no apologies for wanting him gone. Behold:

Wakefield Labour votes 2019: 17,925
Wakefield Labour votes 2022: 13,166

Clearly, Starmer isn't the man to defeat the Tories. Because, for all intents and purposes, that's basically what he is.

Dude, you are comparing the absolute vote numbers of the last GE to by-election with the latter having a much lower turnout.

Turnout 2019: 45,027

Turnout 2022: 27,466

18.000 vote would have been a vote share of roughly 66%. This is thread title levels of spin.

[mormont]

17 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

What's up with the Tory level of misrepresentation? We just making shit up now?

"Failing to win Wakefield will certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons."

Is what I actually said. And nothing remotely like "Starmer must go if he loses the Wakefield by-election, which I fully expect he will." FFS.

And I'm guessing the reason you couldn't find the quote where I said I "fully expected Labour to lose" Wakefield, is because that quote does not exist. Because I never said that.

Hmm. Some would say that 'failing to win Wakefield will put the cat among the pigeons' is a prediction that Starmer will fail to win Wakefield. But if you want to say it's not remotely like saying that you expect him to lose it, fair enough. Words mean things, but you may have meant to communicate something entirely different.

12 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Poll says Keir Starmer worse choice for PM than Boris Johnson

That article references one poll (with a lead within the margin of error) and notes that Starmer's approval ratings are 21 points better than Johnson's, with Labour in front on polling. It's not the best counter to a series of polls consistently showing Starmer to be the preferred choice as PM.

[Spockydog]

31 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Dude, you are comparing the absolute vote numbers of the last GE to by-election with the latter having a much lower turnout.

Turnout 2019: 45,027

Turnout 2022: 27,466

18.000 vote would have been a vote share of roughly 66%. This is thread title levels of spin.

Oops. Yeah, you're right. Imma go stand on the corner for a bit... 

[BigFatCoward]

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Oops. Yeah, you're right. Imma go stand on the corner for a bit... 

This is the Internet. You never admit you are wrong.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Heh

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Hmm. Some would say that 'failing to win Wakefield will put the cat among the pigeons' is a prediction that Starmer will fail to win Wakefield. But if you want to say it's not remotely like saying that you expect him to lose it, fair enough. Words mean things, but you may have meant to communicate something entirely different.

Lol. The irony is strong here.

You claimed that last week I insisted that Starmer must go if he were to lose the Wakefield by-election, and that I fully expected them to lose.

You extrapolated that from a single sentence, posted in response to a piece talking about Starmer's struggles to connect with voters in Wakefield.

When what I actually said was, "Failing to win in Wakefield will certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.'

I might have used 'will' where I should have used 'would'. But even so, how in the actual fuck do you turn that into fully expecting he was going to lose and demanding he go?

As you said, words mean things. And 'insist' is quite a strong verb. And seeing as you're so fond of pedantry today, I hope you will now accept that I didn't 'insist' on any such thing.

[Spockydog]

Reasons I think Starmer should go:

1. I don't believe he can defeat the Tories.

2. He has already trashed much of his electoral manifesto. And, call me old fashioned, but unashamedly breaking the promises you made to get elected is a betrayal of those who voted for you. It's shifty and untrustworthy. And, frankly, makes him no better than Johnson and the Tories.

3. He has no policies. Or, if he does have policies, he simply lacks the courage to allow them to be scrutinised by the right wing press nation.

4. I don't believe he can defeat the Tories.

None of the above has anything to do with Wakefield.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

We get it you don't like him.

36 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

1. I don't believe he can defeat the Tories.

 

Based on what? Thus far Labour look to be on course.

37 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

2. He has already trashed much of his electoral manifesto. And, call me old fashioned, but unashamedly breaking the promises you made to get elected is a betrayal of those who voted for you. It's shifty and untrustworthy. And, frankly, makes him no better than Johnson and the Tories.

 

Fair enough. Altho, since Labour is in opposition it has very little effect in the real world.

38 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

3. He has no policies. Or, if he does have policies, he simply lacks the courage to allow them to be scrutinised by the right wing press nation.

 

Also, fair enough. Counterpoint being, why offer the Tories in meltdown any targets.

40 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

4. I don't believe he can defeat the Tories.

 

This point is redundant, as you had this as point 1. But again, this belief of yours is based on what exactly? On the other hand, we do know who couldn't beat the Tories, the guy that lost Wakefield in 2019.

[Which Tyler]

 

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

We get it you don't like him.

Based on what? Thus far Labour look to be on course.

It's quite simple. Points 1 and 4 are the beginning and end of it. So no redundancy at all.

And it is points 2 and 3 which lead me to points 1 and 4.

And are you actually holding up Labour's current meagre lead in the polls as some kind of barometer of what will happen in two year's time, when Boris Johnson is just a vague, unpleasant stain on the memory of Britain's electorate? Are you really doing that? Because...

Boost for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour take eight-point poll lead over Conservatives

 

Quote

Fair enough. Altho, since Labour is in opposition it has very little effect in the real world.

If you don't think honesty and integrity are important in politicians, and would be perfectly happy with someone you voted for tearing up their election manifesto the moment they took office, then more power to you. If you can just ignore that kind of thing, then you're a more forgiving man than me. But when you're running as some kind of anti-Boris Johnson, that kind of behaviour doesn't sit well. As I said, it's shifty and untrustworthy, and not what we were sold during "Mr Straight Leadership's" election campaign.

Quote

Also, fair enough. Counterpoint being, why offer the Tories in meltdown any targets.

Yeah, it is certainly an approach to say, 'Ha, if nobody knows what I will do when I become Prime Minister, then nobody in the media will be able to be mean and horrible to me.'

Yup. That is certainly an approach. An approach that will shield your agenda from scrutiny or scorn. But also leave you open to the charge that you've got nothing to offer. Especially when, on the rare occasions you deign to release a hint of policy flavour, it is almost impossible to discern any difference between that and the status quo.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

If you don't think honesty and integrity are important in politicians, and would be perfectly happy with someone you voted for tearing up their election manifesto the moment they took office, then more power to you. If you can just ignore that kind of thing, then you're a more forgiving man than me. But when you're running as some kind of anti-Boris Johnson, that kind of behaviour doesn't sit well. As I said, it's shifty and untrustworthy, and not what we were sold during "Mr Straight Leadership's" election campaign.

Quote

I just said, it is of very little real world consequence. Labour are not in goverment (and with a Tory majority of 80 (?) they are not in any danger of having to a form goverment before the next GE), so they couldn't have passed the pieces of legislation and they need to write a new election manifesto before the next GE anyway. Fair to assume those things won't be in it. If Labour were in goverment and dropped parts of its manifesto/promises, then I'd share your outrage. So this is like, not really regostering on my outrage scale.

[Spockydog]

You're a German, living in Germany. Why on earth would anyone expect you to feel outraged by anything that happens over here? 

Anyway, it matters to me. It matters because I voted for him. But only because he basically promised something akin to Corbyn's radical, crowd-pleasing agenda, minus the Corbyn-related hysteria.

And what did we get instead? An almost instant betrayal of his election pledges, followed by a dribble of vague, Tory-lite platitudes masquerading as policy ideas. 

And for his latest trick? Disciplining colleagues for showing solidarity with striking rail workers. JFC. 

 

[Spockydog]

 

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

 

 

 

Yeah I mean terfs groups or figures  propped upin the U.K is largely funded and coordinated by far right Americans.

Thats partially why terfs like J.K Rowling have literally not condemned the overturn of roe.