news & politics:discussion

[mattiloy]

37 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Every one of your claims about Starmer I have pointed out aren’t true such as he isn’t focussing on the Tories. He is, his speech on Monday referenced them a whole bunch but I doubt you even watched it because you have already made your mind up about him. You keep on bringing up points then dropping straight away.

Take the coward part, you said he doesn’t have guts to do something yet when he takes action today the problem is that it’s not the certain action you want him to take.

It is serious, I don’t see why you spend so much energy on a man you clearly have no time for that is in a county you don’t live in. You spend so much time moaning about politics in a country that you don’t live in and doesn’t really impact you. You could just let it go, although then I suppose who would tell us how boring Starmer is (until he does something then he’s a coward or petty or whatever). 

I don’t respond to your points if I think they don’t warrant a response because they are either unserious or just daft.

But just for the sake of finishing it I will now.

Starmer is absent from the publics consciousness other than an occasional cameo to say nothing of any substance, in a time when he should be front and centre, slamming the tories, doing what Mick Lynch is doing.

Thats what I claimed. Then I posted a video that shows Mick Lynch thinks that too. Many people do. Because its true.

You go and seek out Starmer news so you see whatever cliché he farts out to a crowd of 5 in Liverpool as soon as it drops, and you suck that fart right up.

But the rest of the country doesn’t care enough about him to look out for that so whilst these strikes and the tory leadership stuff has been going on, he’s let the tories back in through being invisible and letting the moment get seized by others. And that is a fact.

And your last point, I won’t respond again because its just stupid and if you can’t see that then I don’t know what more to say.

Edited July 27, 2022 by mattiloy

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mattiloy said:

I don’t respond to your points if I think they don’t warrant a response because they are either unserious or just daft.

But just for the sake of finishing it I will now.

Starmer is absent from the publics conscience other than an occasional cameo to say nothing of any substance, in a time when he should be front and centre, slamming the tories, doing what Mick Lynch is doing.

Thats what I claimed. Then I posted a video that shows Mick Lynch thinks that too. Many people do. Because its true.

You go and seek out Starmer news so you see whatever cliché he farts out to a crowd of 5 in Liverpool as soon as it drops, and you suck that fart right up.

But the rest of the country doesn’t care enough about him to look out for that so whilst these strikes and the tory leadership stuff has been going on, he’s let the tories back in through being invisible and letting the moment get seized by others. And that is a fact.

And your last point, I won’t respond again because its just stupid and if you can’t see that then I don’t know what more to say.

You’ve done it again, moan about Starmer not doing a certain thing then go on to even point out that he has done that thing but it happens to not be good enough for you.

I’ll highlight it for you - Starmer have a speech on Monday highlighting his vision of his Labour government in which he regularly criticised the Tories 12 years in power. It got focus in the news and built on a speech from 2 weeks prior. Literally what you’ve been asking for but that won’t be good enough as you’ll just make up something else that’s wrong. Just admit nothing is good enough.

Starmers actions in the Commons played a big part in the downfall of Johnson, he’s hardly absent from politics. I wonder how much you actually watch or just get from left wing accounts on Twitter?

I don’t think it’s stupid to wonder why someone living in another country gets so annoyed over a politician in the UK. I understand following what’s going on in your home country but not to get so worked up over it.  

[steviewevie]

Apparently Sam Tarry is Angela Rayner's boyfriend!

🤩

[blutarsky]

You know one reason I think Mick Lynch and Eddie Dempsey are cutting through so well? I reckon some of the right wing pundits and politicians are too scared to cut them off or try and gaslight them because Lynch and Dempsey could so obviously kick the living shit out of them. It really does give you the upper hand in a negotiation when the other side know you could tear them limb from limb if it all went south. 

Aside from Johnny Mercer, Ben Wallace, and maybe Nadim Zahawi, I can’t think of a cabinet member who could punch their way out of a wet paper bag. No Labour front benchers.  

[mattiloy]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You’ve done it again, moan about Starmer not doing a certain thing then go on to even point out that he has done that thing but it happens to not be good enough for you.

I’ll highlight it for you - Starmer have a speech on Monday highlighting his vision of his Labour government in which he regularly criticised the Tories 12 years in power. It got focus in the news and built on a speech from 2 weeks prior. Literally what you’ve been asking for but that won’t be good enough as you’ll just make up something else that’s wrong. Just admit nothing is good enough.

Starmers actions in the Commons played a big part in the downfall of Johnson, he’s hardly absent from politics. I wonder how much you actually watch or just get from left wing accounts on Twitter?

I don’t think it’s stupid to wonder why someone living in another country gets so annoyed over a politician in the UK. I understand following what’s going on in your home country but not to get so worked up over it.  

I don’t see how I’ve been inconsistent here. He’s just not good enough. He’s not been aggressive enough in his opposition to the tories, he has not been present enough in the media, he has not stood up enough for Labour values, he has not seized this moment and now it has passed him by. In fact he not only didn’t seize it, he has ended up completely fumbling it.

I mean the mans such a fence sitter that he’d U turned about 4 times on rail nationalisation before lunchtime on monday.

He’s got to go before its too late.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, blutarsky said:

You know one reason I think Mick Lynch and Eddie Dempsey are cutting through so well? I reckon some of the right wing pundits and politicians are too scared to cut them off or try and gaslight them because Lynch and Dempsey could so obviously kick the living shit out of them. It really does give you the upper hand in a negotiation when the other side know you could tear them limb from limb if it all went south. 

Aside from Johnny Mercer, Ben Wallace, and maybe Nadim Zahawi, I can’t think of a cabinet member who could punch their way out of a wet paper bag. No Labour front benchers.  

Rayner could kick the shit out of any of them.

 

[Zoo Music Girl]

4 hours ago, SheffJeff said:

The Labour Party are supposed to support the unions... thats why they are focusing on them rather than the c**tservatives.  If the Labour Party aren't supporting the unions why should the unions support the Labour Party?

This. Starmer has fucked up this time. Labour should be capitalising on the current political situation and instead they are pissing off unions. Great move.

State of this country.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

I don’t see how I’ve been inconsistent here. He’s just not good enough. He’s not been aggressive enough in his opposition to the tories, he has not been present enough in the media, he has not stood up enough for Labour values, he has not seized this moment and now it has passed him by. In fact he not only didn’t seize it, he has ended up completely fumbling it.

I mean the mans such a fence sitter that he’d U turned about 4 times on rail nationalisation before lunchtime on monday.

He’s got to go before its too late.

So he has shown opposition to the Tories, earlier on your gripe was that he wasn’t focussing on them and now it’s that he’s not aggressive enough. Why don’t you just admit that nothing he’ll do will make any difference for you?

I follow nearly every bit and I’m telling you he’s doing those things. It’s pretty obvious you don’t watch much of it because if you did you’d know what actually happened on Monday.

He’s not going anywhere so considering his actions have no impact on your life why don’t you just ignore him?

[Guest]

 

[Neil]

12 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

This. Starmer has fucked up this time. Labour should be capitalising on the current political situation and instead they are pissing off unions. Great move.

State of this country.

the unions are pissing off people, labour shouldnt get the blame for that.

[blutarsky]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Rayner could kick the shit out of any of them.

 

Probably actually. 
Should get Klitschko to join Labour and be leader, then kick the shit out of the lot of them on the other side. 
Caveat: I know nothing about his politics. 

[blutarsky]

8 minutes ago, Neil said:

the unions are pissing off people, labour shouldnt get the blame for that.

Disagree. Public opinion’s behind the unions imo. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Neil said:

the unions are pissing off people, labour shouldnt get the blame for that.

To be fair public opinion on the strikes are pretty evenly split. 

[zahidf]

Yup definitely Harrass Starmer as the reql bad guy

[Zoo Music Girl]

15 minutes ago, blutarsky said:

Disagree. Public opinion’s behind the unions imo. 

Yeah I think so too. Either way the Labour Party is supposed to support the unions, so this doesn't look great.

[Neil]

3 hours ago, Ozanne said:

To be fair public opinion on the strikes are pretty evenly split. 

Tories will still try to give Labour the public's unhappiness

[steviewevie]

4 hours ago, Neil said:

Tories will still try to give Labour the public's unhappiness

yeah...we could be heading for a big battle between the govt and the unions...and inevitably labour will need to pick a side, but will likely try and stay neutral and then look divided and weak. How public feels I don't know, some will no doubt be supportive of the unions who are standing up for their workers, but I'm sure some will be opposed, especially if strikes make their lives harder than they already are...we've been here before in late 70s and also with the miners strike in mid 80s...and it might not end well for unions or labour.

[mattiloy]

7 hours ago, Ozanne said:

So he has shown opposition to the Tories, earlier on your gripe was that he wasn’t focussing on them and now it’s that he’s not aggressive enough. Why don’t you just admit that nothing he’ll do will make any difference for you?

I follow nearly every bit and I’m telling you he’s doing those things. It’s pretty obvious you don’t watch much of it because if you did you’d know what actually happened on Monday.

He’s not going anywhere so considering his actions have no impact on your life why don’t you just ignore him?

No he hasn’t Ozanne. Just saying ’tories bad, Labour good’ and that ’i would simply fix the economy’ isn’t good enough.

Maybe he just doesn’t know enough about economics to make the case- i don’t know. But when you hear the unions lay into the tories, completely across the facts, completely on top of the economics, it is embarrassing by comparison.

And you are totally incorrect, as I’ve said numerous times, I was open minded about him when he became Labour leader. He’s just been shite ever since. If he started being a good leader, then I’d stop criticising him. If you went through my posts in this thread you will even find occasional ’credit where its due’ posts but unfortunately these are few and far between.

[lost]

30 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

we've been here before in late 70s and also with the miners strike in mid 80s...and it might not end well for unions or labour.

I'm a big believer that the UK being bailed out by the IMF in 1976 under labour was fundamental in Thatcher winning 3 terms. Effectively giving black and white proof that there is no magic money tree as people like to say. As you said Labour need to play this carefully.

Edited July 28, 2022 by lost

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

No he hasn’t Ozanne. Just saying ’tories bad, Labour good’ and that ’i would simply fix the economy’ isn’t good enough.

Maybe he just doesn’t know enough about economics to make the case- i don’t know. But when you hear the unions lay into the tories, completely across the facts, completely on top of the economics, it is embarrassing by comparison.

And you are totally incorrect, as I’ve said numerous times, I was open minded about him when he became Labour leader. He’s just been shite ever since. If he started being a good leader, then I’d stop criticising him. If you went through my posts in this thread you will even find occasional ’credit where its due’ posts but unfortunately these are few and far between.

he's been critising the candidates about their tax policies, abour cost of living etc. But at moment we don't know which direction tories are going to go, because Sunak and Truss are offering different things. And this week he set out part of their strategy for growing the economy, investing in green stuff in all parts of the country. It may be flawed, and it may not be full of sexy nationalisation and he may be back tracking on stuff he said during labour leadership campaign, but it's not nothing.

In my opinion Starmer isn't great, but he isn't that bad either. The way people go on as if he's the fucking devil or something. He is just trying to get labour elected, not for them to just be a protest movement. He told his front bench to not join the picket lines, so this guy joins the picket line then goes on every news programme and broadcasts it the world and tweets about it all day, like fuck you starmer, please sack me.

When he gets in power (haha) then let rip, but until then people have got to focus on the real goal, and that is getting the tories out of power, because they are shifting further to the right, and they nearly always win.

[steviewevie]

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

Yup definitely Harrass Starmer as the reql bad guy

owen jones can be a bit of a twat. He's deleted that tweet, right?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

No he hasn’t Ozanne. Just saying ’tories bad, Labour good’ and that ’i would simply fix the economy’ isn’t good enough.

Maybe he just doesn’t know enough about economics to make the case- i don’t know. But when you hear the unions lay into the tories, completely across the facts, completely on top of the economics, it is embarrassing by comparison.

And you are totally incorrect, as I’ve said numerous times, I was open minded about him when he became Labour leader. He’s just been shite ever since. If he started being a good leader, then I’d stop criticising him. If you went through my posts in this thread you will even find occasional ’credit where its due’ posts but unfortunately these are few and far between.

Yes he has, I’m literally outlining these things to do but you keep moving the goalposts. If you can’t see that then either you aren’t paying enough attention or you are arguing in bad faith which is probably the case. As I’ve said over and over, he has been focussing on the Tories along with outlining his vision/policies; it might not be what you want but he has been doing it.

You change your tune when you realise that your last bad faith argument has fallen through. You wouldn’t praise him at all, you’d find something else to hold up against him because he isn’t Corbyn.

I pay an awful lot of attention to the man and I’m not gonna have someone who isn’t even effected by him spout the nonsense that you do. I’ve never known someone so bothered by a politician that has nothing to do with them.

Starmer is doing a good job, he’s seen off Johnson, rescued Labours polling after Corbyn, win a couple of by-elections and had a decent local election. All going well so far (you’ll claim some other obscure new reason why he isn’t though I’m sure).

[Guest]

These profits are insane, meanwhile we’ll continue to struggle paying our bills. 

[mattiloy]

36 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yes he has, I’m literally outlining these things to do but you keep moving the goalposts. If you can’t see that then either you aren’t paying enough attention or you are arguing in bad faith which is probably the case. As I’ve said over and over, he has been focussing on the Tories along with outlining his vision/policies; it might not be what you want but he has been doing it.

You change your tune when you realise that your last bad faith argument has fallen through. You wouldn’t praise him at all, you’d find something else to hold up against him because he isn’t Corbyn.

I pay an awful lot of attention to the man and I’m not gonna have someone who isn’t even effected by him spout the nonsense that you do. I’ve never known someone so bothered by a politician that has nothing to do with them.

Starmer is doing a good job, he’s seen off Johnson, rescued Labours polling after Corbyn, win a couple of by-elections and had a decent local election. All going well so far (you’ll claim some other obscure new reason why he isn’t though I’m sure).

Check through my posts and see that I have been consistent. In a moment where the leader of the opposition should have been gunning for the tories with everything he’s got, he’s been busy doing another boring relaunch. Or maybe this is everything he’s got. So even after the implosion of probably the worst government in living memory the tories are waltzing back into contention. Thats been my point from my first post on this right through to now.

But its impossible to argue with you because as everybody who engages with this thread sees you are blindly loyal and basically obsessed with Starmer. Its almost restraining order territory.

Yes I’m on the left but I am a pragmatist. If Starmer were 20 points ahead and wiping the floor with the tories then you’d have to say fair enough. But the appetite for blairism/cameronism/third way blandness has died a death in the UK. And rightly so. Because it couldn’t deliver. And it doesn’t have the answers to the deep, messy problems that the country faces. It is just autopilot politics.

Edited July 28, 2022 by mattiloy

[mattiloy]

33 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

These profits are insane, meanwhile we’ll continue to struggle paying our bills. 

Yeah. Be good if someone powerful would go on TV and explain nice and concisely what the problems with the current system are and how it should be fixed.

Without just saying ’well we’d simply fix the energy system’, ’no i don’t believe its necessary to nationalise energy, when you can simply fix it like i would’