Page 31 of 98

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:50 pm
by Crabcakes
Starmer could be in No. 10 with a majority and they’d still be complaining that he wasn’t 20 points clear.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:30 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
The latest seems to be that Starmer should have brought down Johnson already by, er, calling for it. Then again these are people who seemed to think Theresa May was going to chuck in the towel and call a general election when she was being killed by the Brexit Party in polls.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:31 pm
by Abernathy
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:30 pm The latest seems to be that Starmer should have brought down Johnson already by, er, calling for it. Then again these are people who seemed to think Theresa May was going to chuck in the towel and call a general election when she was being killed by the Brexit Party in polls.
Arguably, it may well be better for Labour strategically and electorally to go into the next election with a wounded, damaged, discredited, and deeply unpopular Johnson still leading the Tories, rather than facing a politically revitalised Tory party under (say) Sunak. The Trots are mostly too bloody thick even to consider this.

Me, I have mixed feelings. I’d like almost nothing more than a swift end to the obscenity of having this bloody grifter as our country’s PM, but if keeping him there helps Labour to win, get him kept.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:06 pm
by Boiler
Abernathy wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:31 pm Me, I have mixed feelings. I’d like almost nothing more than a swift end to the obscenity of having this bloody grifter as our country’s PM, but if keeping him there helps Labour to win, get him to fuck.
Same here - I want that bastard gone, preferably in the sort of disgrace that reduces him to penury but I know that won't happen. What worries me more is the sheer amount of damage these bastards can - and will - inflict on our country in order to enrich themselves and/or set up their post-political careers in the interim.

Thing is, the Tories are canny and know that if Johnson looks like he'll be a liability come 2024 he'll be got rid of PDQ - remember, even The Sainted Margaret was hoofed out of the door when she became a liability.

Of course, the other possibility is they have a reversal of fortunes in the polls and Johnson calls an early GE (have they binned the FTP Act yet, or does that not apply?) thus prolonging their term. I'd also wager that the next GE will be the dirtiest one tactically in history.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:30 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Johnson got a vaccine bounce, but what is there in the future that could be like that? Way things are at the moment, he's looking at a bunch of tax rises. These ought to be a gift to the other parties- tax for Johnson's failure. Tax for Brexit failure, if you want to call it that.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:31 pm
by davidjay
Abernathy wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:31 pm
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:30 pm The latest seems to be that Starmer should have brought down Johnson already by, er, calling for it. Then again these are people who seemed to think Theresa May was going to chuck in the towel and call a general election when she was being killed by the Brexit Party in polls.
Arguably, it may well be better for Labour strategically and electorally to go into the next election with a wounded, damaged, discredited, and deeply unpopular Johnson still leading the Tories, rather than facing a politically revitalised Tory party under (say) Sunak. The Trots are mostly too bloody thick even to consider this.

Me, I have mixed feelings. I’d like almost nothing more than a swift end to the obscenity of having this bloody grifter as our country’s PM, but if keeping him there helps Labour to win, get him kept.
The problem I have with that is the amount of damage he can do, in terms of both wrecking the country and its democracy (see today's news about Stuart, G) in the next three years.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:49 pm
by Malcolm Armsteen
Richard Burgon has demanded that Rees-Mogg resigns.

He hasn't.

>Alexa, show me an example of a hollow gesture<

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:15 pm
by mattomac
Remember the last time a Labour leader did something the Tories wanted….

Gave them an 80 seat majority.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:38 am
by Youngian


Meanwhile at the blue wall

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:35 am
by Tubby Isaacs
The Tories lost another seat in Rotherham to the Lib Dems. 3 losses out of 3 so far.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:00 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
The Tories won 2 out of 7. They had 6 of them before, though I think one was a second place they were likely to lose in an FPTP by election. But not very good. One of the wins was with only 38.7% too, with Green, LD and LAB all standing.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:03 pm
by Crabcakes
“bUT iT Isn’T tWEntY pOinTs cLEaR iS It?”


Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:29 pm
by Cyclist
Wen teh aBsulooT boy wos iN charje theer woz A cLear 20 pointz beTwene labor and teh Toriz. Keeth cun ownlY manij 9.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:48 pm
by mattomac
Wes Streeting has it seems been leading in the commons today while the Tories have been following…excellent stuff.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:55 pm
by Youngian
I’d like to believe this and is probably true if she only hung around with Burgon and Duncan Smith. But suspect Laura has a touch of the Dunning Krugers. Sort of thing a Brexit pub bore would come out with.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:20 pm
by Bones McCoy
Youngian wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:55 pm I’d like to believe this and is probably true if she only hung around with Burgon and Duncan Smith. But suspect Laura has a touch of the Dunning Krugers. Sort of thing a Brexit pub bore would come out with.
It may be expressed crudely, but I tend to agree.
Plenty of entitled incompetents, there because of, and making full use of life's cheat codes.

The corollory - that ever so 'umble Laura Smith is therefore a genius among them - does not follow.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:38 pm
by mattomac
Barry Gardiner is in the shit and they need to urgently investigate this…

Shame it took up 2022 considering the Times broke it in 2017, getting desperate now.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chin ... -65d3c92j8

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 6:53 pm
by Oboogie
mattomac wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:38 pm Barry Gardiner is in the shit and they need to urgently investigate this…

Shame it took up 2022 considering the Times broke it in 2017, getting desperate now.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chin ... -65d3c92j8
Her son suddenly resigning from Gardiner's employ this morning is not a good look. If, as Barry says, he was doing nothing wrong, why did he have to go?

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:15 pm
by kreuzberger
If the Chinese government is zoning in on the like of Barrie "blockhead" Gardiner, I think is is safe to say that Moldova presents a far greater threat to peace and security.

Re: Labour, generally.

Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:54 am
by Crabcakes
Crabcakes wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:03 pm “bUT iT Isn’T tWEntY pOinTs cLEaR iS It?”

If only Starmer had ranted and raved and demanded Johnson resign every single time he did anything so that there was no weight behind it when the time was right and the public were jaded to it, just like the Corbyn fan club demanded, then there'd easily be a 20-point gap by now.

Admittedly it'd probably be a gap the wrong way, but 20 points nonetheless.