Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:38 am
Normal reaction here from the Telegraph
No similar reaction to Thatcher / Davidson / Truss.
Charles Moore, get in the fucking sea.
Page 123 of 152
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2023 1:43 am
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:24 am
"We know you who you are, Clark: you are a company man for the Tory party, not a journalist. Stop trying to pretend you know one end of an A5 notebook from another,"
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:09 am
Ross Clark, who looks and writes like a rejected League of Gentlemen character.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2023 10:42 am
The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:38 am Normal reaction here from the TelegraphYep, cosplaying politicians are bad
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2023 11:25 am
Well done Jenkinson for cosplaying every bad guy from Red Riding, The Shield, Line of Duty and Training Day in one go.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2023 4:12 pm
I'm getting serious Neil Razor Ruddock at Swindon Town* vibes.
*one of those hard man of football types, m'lud, who was carrying so much timber that his new club couldn't find a pair of shorts to fit him.
*one of those hard man of football types, m'lud, who was carrying so much timber that his new club couldn't find a pair of shorts to fit him.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 6:36 pm
Thanks, Jon Cruddas. Though greater thanks to the Guardian for elevating this to stop story.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... on-cruddas
I'm not really sure why he expects the actual leader to start spouting political theory in public. Did Jim Callaghan do that?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... on-cruddas
Cruddas, MP for Dagenham and Rainham and a former party policy chief, writes that “apart from his actual name, little ties Starmer to the ethical and spiritual concerns of Labour’s early founders, figures such as Keir Hardie and George Lansbury”.Rather embarrassing [sic] there.
He continues: “His approach to economics does not appear to be grounded in any specific theoretical understanding of inequality, material justice and welfare distribution. Despite a successful career as a human rights lawyer, as Labour leader Starmer appears disinterested [sic] in questions of liberty and freedom.”
I'm not really sure why he expects the actual leader to start spouting political theory in public. Did Jim Callaghan do that?
Cruddas concludes by warning that without more connections to the party’s traditions and values, and a clearer offer to the electorate, an election win could bring real dangers and even existential risk.I reckon a manifesto will be published at some point.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 6:45 pm
Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 11:25 am Well done Jenkinson for cosplaying every bad guy from Red Riding, The Shield, Line of Duty and Training Day in one go.As well as the late Cyril Smith, too.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 6:52 pm
Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 6:36 pm
I'm not really sure why he expects the actual leader to start spouting political theory in public. Did Jim Callaghan do that?
More pertinently, did the blessed Jezza ever do it ?
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 7:03 pm
Cruddas isn't a Jez fan, Not sure what his idea of a leader would be.
I suppose Starmer has done lecture-type speeches in the past, so maybe Cruddas has looked at those and found them wanting. From my point of view, the fewer of those speeches the better. I mean, how does politics work? Do you knock up, say, a childcare policy and then chuck it away because it doesn't gel with what George Lansbury said in 1930? Should students of George Lansbury be put in charge of rail investment?
I suppose Starmer has done lecture-type speeches in the past, so maybe Cruddas has looked at those and found them wanting. From my point of view, the fewer of those speeches the better. I mean, how does politics work? Do you knock up, say, a childcare policy and then chuck it away because it doesn't gel with what George Lansbury said in 1930? Should students of George Lansbury be put in charge of rail investment?
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 9:33 pm
In Casino Royale, Ian Fleming said that the Conservative Party of the 1950s would look pretty damn socialist to a Tory from the 1920s. Times and circumstances change.
And yes, let's try to second guess a bunch of long dead people. Because that works really well for the US supreme court.
And yes, let's try to second guess a bunch of long dead people. Because that works really well for the US supreme court.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:09 pm
Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 6:36 pm Thanks, Jon Cruddas. Though greater thanks to the Guardian for elevating this to stop story.On another forum someone said he's the leader of the Labour Party our best chance of ousting the Tories and he should be persuading voters to vote for his party.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... on-cruddas
Cruddas, MP for Dagenham and Rainham and a former party policy chief, writes that “apart from his actual name, little ties Starmer to the ethical and spiritual concerns of Labour’s early founders, figures such as Keir Hardie and George Lansbury”.Rather embarrassing [sic] there.
He continues: “His approach to economics does not appear to be grounded in any specific theoretical understanding of inequality, material justice and welfare distribution. Despite a successful career as a human rights lawyer, as Labour leader Starmer appears disinterested [sic] in questions of liberty and freedom.”
I'm not really sure why he expects the actual leader to start spouting political theory in public. Did Jim Callaghan do that?
Cruddas concludes by warning that without more connections to the party’s traditions and values, and a clearer offer to the electorate, an election win could bring real dangers and even existential risk.I reckon a manifesto will be published at some point.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:14 pm
The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:09 pmStarmer literally does nothing else.
On another forum someone said he's the leader of the Labour Party our best chance of ousting the Tories and he should be persuading voters to vote for his party.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:55 pm
Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:14 pmI made that very point.The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:09 pmStarmer literally does nothing else.
On another forum someone said he's the leader of the Labour Party our best chance of ousting the Tories and he should be persuading voters to vote for his party.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 3:18 pm
We are a good few weeks away from a General Election, even if Sunak does opt for one in May. No opposition party is going to lay out in detail its full programme now because the governing party will cherry pick the best bits and bad mouth the rest. Better to speak in broad themes and aspirations for now and in the background do the work on the detail so that when April comes and we are starting an election campaign you hit the ground running.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:25 pm
I wouldn't even say that themes are that important to most voters. We've heard for ages about the need for Starmer to lay these out, but he's not done so and remains miles ahead. Things can change, but so far it seems like concentrating on showing up the government has been quite sufficient. Anyway, one man's theme is another man's tax bombshell waiting to fall on them, Themes can wait for the couple of months before the election.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:42 pm
He can see the end of the corridor in sight; he'd be stupid to start juggling the vase now.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 8:07 pm
Heavyweight jurist, Alex Nunns, weighs in.
Starmer's already said payments should start immediately and the Post Office should lose its prosecution powers. What does Alex want? The PM to personally cancel convictions en masse? That's not normally what PMs do. These are unusual circumstances, sure, but we can doubtless afford to spend a while getting the process right.
By the way, the bloke in the clip doesn't actually say what should happen there- I'm sure he went on to. But the point is that he criticised Starmer for not being "radical". So Alex whacks the clip right up.
Starmer's already said payments should start immediately and the Post Office should lose its prosecution powers. What does Alex want? The PM to personally cancel convictions en masse? That's not normally what PMs do. These are unusual circumstances, sure, but we can doubtless afford to spend a while getting the process right.
By the way, the bloke in the clip doesn't actually say what should happen there- I'm sure he went on to. But the point is that he criticised Starmer for not being "radical". So Alex whacks the clip right up.
Re: Keir Starmer
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2024 8:32 pm
Here by the way is Prof Hodges' position.
There would seem to be some middle ground between universal pardons by the executive, and the current process which everyone (including Sir Keir) seems to agree isn't working.
The reasons for this, Prof Hodges added, included an unwillingness of people to appeal due to a "deep distrust of authority", evidence being lost or destroyed, and issues with compensation if a Post Office manager is not granted a retrial.You can still appeal after pleading guilty (though I appreciate that normally this would be taken as a bad sign.
"The convictions are unsafe not only because they relied on the Horizon computer evidence, but also because of egregious systemic Post Office behaviour in interviews and pursuing prosecutions," he said.
"This led to guilty pleas and false confessions, driven by legal advice to victims to minimise sentences, and by the psychological pressure of dealing with an institution systematically disregarding the truth and fairness."
There would seem to be some middle ground between universal pardons by the executive, and the current process which everyone (including Sir Keir) seems to agree isn't working.