[Youngian]

Do we have any provenance for that?

Dave says it’s true and he’s done his own research.

[Bones McCoy]

A gish with a train of sealions in tow.


See that Stalin.
Horribly dictator, gulags, purges, disappearances.

I much prefer that cuddly Uncle Joe.
Strong leader, dealt with the teutonic Chaplin cosplayer, also knew the best approach to Trots.

[Andy McDandy]

There's some serious "Hitler ate sugar" energy there. If you want to play 6 degrees of separation, everyone has a link to someone a bit iffy.

[mattomac]

Let’s look at that list:

1) You could make that charge though to be fair he has held firm on the climate policy only shifting on finances.

2) Shock horror former DPP worked with the intelligence service.

3) I don’t think it’s possible to be a member.

4) Bollocks and Johnsonian Tory bollocks on Saville, it’s why not one of them will repeat it outside the house because they would be up in court.

5) I’ve searched, some vague rather amusing quip about being able to make global change, a lot less sinister than it suggests, direct quote, nothing.

6) Is he? For the awful online bill though Labour have tried to amend and no doubt it’s going collapse under being unworkable.

7) I remember him saying stuff about supporting the US as part of NATO , he may have said this but again nothing I can find, I doubt he did mind.

8) Who? Corbyn? He gave him chance to apologise and he didn’t, Labour were in the Shit on AS thankfully they now look like a party that can fight and election, not one that’s about to go bankrupt. It was right and proper for any Labour leader to try and eradicate this stain from our party.

9) Closest to this would be Streeting saying they would use private services to bring down the NHS waiting lists, personally I wouldn’t be against that, people are waiting too long and in Cancer it’s vital to spot asap.

10) Guilt by association and just an opinion.

[Youngian]

Top class humiliation for the Tories. What on earth is Sunak’s press secretary on about?

French President Emmanuel Macron will break protocol to host Keir Starmer at Elysée next week to "test" policies with each other

The Tories are not happy

“the strategic nature of the bilateral relationship justifies us receiving him and this desire to come and test the policies with us that he may put into his electoral programme"

Sue Gray will be with him

Rishi Sunak's press secretary responds to the news...

“Whilst he's planning his trip across the pond, he might like to spend five minutes to think about the 100,000 homes that are not going to be built because of what he's doing”

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1701948 ... Dkr8MiQKBg

[mattomac]

That snarky response from the press office and managed to garble it even then calling the channel the pond.

To be fair to Sunak he never swans off on trips abroad that seem to have little point to them…oh.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Seems like a over reaction to this story. If the Tories give up on a project and hand out a bunch of tax cuts instead, surely Labour are within their rights to have a look too?

[kreuzberger]

I was struggling to be convinced by the porcelain vase, worrying that, the further he carries it, the more they will lie, attack and attack again.

However, the more I see it, the greater that vase seems to serve as bullshit magnet which is nigh on impervious to the shrieking with ever greater outlandish claims, (100,000, at the last count) and laughably transparent bollocks. A force shield, if you will. I didn't realise how foolish they would make themselves look before taking that shovel to ever greater depths. Starmer clearly knew how to peel that strategic artichoke. And full well.

"I'll leave that, for now", being the six most spine-chilling words ever spoken in parliament and, with hindsight, both a threat and a promise. Clever cunt, innee?

[Oboogie]

You don't get to be DPS without being a clever cunt, it's in bold on the job description.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

You don't get to be DPS without being a clever cunt, it's in bold on the job description.

Oh! Keir Starmer was a charmer.
As a leader he was very brahma.
He was quite the cat's pyjamas,
Stuffing Corbyn with only minor dramas.

Labour's got some clever bastards
(solid thinkers, got no stinkers)
Labour's got some clever baaastards...

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Nice opinion piece on Keir S by Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... a-blairite

A flavour:

Sir Keir, another extremely competitive type, shares the belief that the purpose of being in politics is to make things happen. “He doesn’t want to be leader of the opposition, he wants to change the country,” says one of his team. Whenever I ask people who know him well what gets Sir Keir out of bed in the morning, they invariably respond along the lines of: “He wants to win.” As he has grown in confidence as a leader, he has been remorseless in disposing of policies, including a lot that he once advocated, and putting aside people, among them some who were close associates, when he has concluded that they are an obstacle on the path to Downing Street. Towards foes, he has demonstrated mercilessness. “When he became leader, there was an expectation that he would be sort of Ed Milibandy,” remarks one Labour frontbencher. “But he’s been very Blairite in being utterly uncompromising towards the hard left. He’s actually been more Blairite than many of the Blairites. I think that’s basically because he was so disgusted by what he inherited.” Sir Tony has been heard to say, in an admiring way, that Sir Keir has been even more ruthless than he was in remaking the party.

[Youngian]

I think that’s basically because he was so disgusted by what he inherited.

Political memories fade quickly so a handy quote to remind ourselves as to how far Starmer has come.
One wrong move by Keir in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and we could have been here today under Long-Bailey and Burgon’s leadership sending Labour into extinction.

[mattomac]

I’d have hoped without that Nandy may have won, but still I doubt Burgon would have won, Rayner seemed very popular.

[Abernathy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tions.html

Starmer faces a backlash from his own party last night for Labour's controversial plans to let 16-year-olds vote in General Elections

There is simply no valid or justifiable argument for not lowering the voting age to 16, is there?

That’s not to say, of course, that that’ll stop the Mail from doing its level best to invent one. It has dredged up a couple of Brexity old dinosaur Labour MPs (step forward Graham Stringer, 73), who apparently constitute some sort of “backlash” against Starmer’s declared intention to see the franchise extended, according to this ludicrous report.

Perhaps the most absurd “argument” being put forward is this: “We have to draw the line somewhere on the voting age, and I simply believe most youngsters at 16 are not mature enough to exercise that right.”

People that are supposedly “mature enough” voted for Brexit. People allegedly “mature enough” voted to elect Liz Truss. “Mature enough” people voted for fucking Lee Anderson. For Anne Widdecombe. They voted for Jacob Rees-Mogg, for fuck’s sake. I could go on.

And even if the odd 16-year old really is “not mature enough”, then so fucking what? What’s the worst that could happen? They probably just wouldn’t bother to vote. Or vote the way Mum & Dad vote. Or for Lord Buckethead. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Of course, the real reason that the Mail etc, wants to foment a “backlash” against reducing the voting age to 16 is the other accusation they love to throw at Labour – that the sole reason Labour is proposing it is that the change would tend to benefit Labour . Well, yes, it probably would, but it’s also just right. As for cynically trying to engineer electoral benefits- what about imposing a requirement to produce photo ID in order to be able to vote? As brazen an attempt at suppressing non-Tory votes as you’re ever likely to see.

Labour will see this change through, and quite fucking right, too.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

All human characteristics are on a spectrum.
So 16 year olds go from 'very sensible, understand everything' to 'complete fuckwit, understands nothing'.

Just like 26, 36, 46, 56, 66 etc year olds.

I've known 16 year olds I would trust with my life/wallet. And others who couldn't find their own arse with both hands and a diagram. So why not. Give the kids some responsibility and they'll be better for it.

[Youngian]

A pensioner rang into LBC to say she’s voting for Brexit because she wanted to eat fish and chips out of newspaper. Age and maturity aren’t the same thing.

[Oboogie]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tions.html

Starmer faces a backlash from his own party last night for Labour's controversial plans to let 16-year-olds vote in General Elections

There is simply no valid or justifiable argument for not lowering the voting age to 16, is there?

That’s not to say, of course, that that’ll stop the Mail from doing its level best to invent one. It has dredged up a couple of Brexity old dinosaur Labour MPs (step forward Graham Stringer, 73), who apparently constitute some sort of “backlash” against Starmer’s declared intention to see the franchise extended, according to this ludicrous report.

Perhaps the most absurd “argument” being put forward is this: “We have to draw the line somewhere on the voting age, and I simply believe most youngsters at 16 are not mature enough to exercise that right.”

People that are supposedly “mature enough” voted for Brexit. People allegedly “mature enough” voted to elect Liz Truss. “Mature enough” people voted for fucking Lee Anderson. For Anne Widdecombe. They voted for Jacob Rees-Mogg, for fuck’s sake. I could go on.

And even if the odd 16-year old really is “not mature enough”, then so fucking what? What’s the worst that could happen? They probably just wouldn’t bother to vote. Or vote the way Mum & Dad vote. Or for Lord Buckethead. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Of course, the real reason that the Mail etc, wants to foment a “backlash” against reducing the voting age to 16 is the other accusation they love to throw at Labour – that the sole reason Labour is proposing it is that the change would tend to benefit Labour . Well, yes, it probably would, but it’s also just right. As for cynically trying to engineer electoral benefits- what about imposing a requirement to produce photo ID in order to be able to vote? As brazen an attempt at suppressing non-Tory votes as you’re ever likely to see.

Labour will see this change through, and quite fucking right, too.

This.

I've learned to be cautious about quoting the US Constitution but "no taxation without representation" is a principle it's hard to find fault with.

As for the argument that 16 are too immature or ignorant to have a valid political opinion, well so are many adults.
I guess we've all seen the vox pops where members of the electorate fail to recognise the name or photo of senior politicians and cannot match policies to parties. Sometimes these vox pops are carried out outside polling stations as these mature adults are about to cast their informed votes.
Anecdotally I, for my sins, have spent years attempting to teach economics to FE and HE students, some of whom have demonstrated similar levels of political ignorance.
I don't know how we could set about denying people the vote on the grounds of ignorance.

[Youngian]

Those opposed to votes for 16 year olds should be supporters of stepping up political education in schools. If not, why not?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Perhaps if we deny the vote to 16 year olds (has Soft Walter said he wants the franchise to be raised to 28 yet?) on the grounds that they would overwhelmingly vote left, perhaps we should also deny the vote to over 70s because they are also biased but in the other direction.

Just a thought.

[Abernathy]

Keir Starmer is currently visiting world leaders abroad - Macron, Trudeau, the EU- in his role as the UK’s next Prime Minister.

Oddly, I cannot recall Jeremy Corbyn ever doing anything similar.