Keir Starmer

[Chris152]

Given their performance over the first 100 days, it is difficult to have any greater trust in our current government.

This is quite good, I think. Successes as well as failures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv2xp40vpvo

 

[Jacob]

This is quite good, I think. Successes as well as failures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv2xp40vpvo

Starmer is still supplying arms in support of the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians and now the Lebanese. He is aiding and abetting Netanyahu and the USA in generating an even bigger conflagration in the middle east.
Probably in excess of 100,000 deaths by the time it finishes, large numbers women, children, aid workers, non combatants. Destruction of infrastructure - housing, livelihoods, hospitals, schools, wiped from the map.
"In only the first 200 days of the war, Israel dropped more explosives on Gaza than were dropped on Dresden, Hamburg and London combined during World War II. And, of course, the bombing hasn't stopped, obliterating infrastructure, making water, for example, beyond scarce."
He is an utter disaster and the sooner he goes the better.

 

[RobinBHM]

Given their performance over the first 100 days, it is difficult to have any greater trust in our current government

Their legislative programme seems pretty good to me.

The only real mistake they’ve made is the winter fuel allowance…..they were correct to change it as millionaire pensioners shouldn’t be getting money that needs to go to the more vulnerable, but Labour have set the means testing in the wrong place.

The rest of the stuff like Starmer following the rules on expenses is just right media distraction.

 

[sploo]

Always amuses me

The fact he was by far the least appalling candidate out of himself, Jenrick, and Badenoch tells you just how vile the latter two are.

 

[Jacob]

Starmer is still supplying arms in support of the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians and now the Lebanese. He is aiding and abetting Netanyahu and the USA in generating an even bigger conflagration in the middle east.
Probably in excess of 100,000 deaths by the time it finishes, large numbers women, children, aid workers, non combatants. Destruction of infrastructure - housing, livelihoods, hospitals, schools, wiped from the map.
"In only the first 200 days of the war, Israel dropped more explosives on Gaza than were dropped on Dresden, Hamburg and London combined during World War II. And, of course, the bombing hasn't stopped, obliterating infrastructure, making water, for example, beyond scarce."
He is an utter disaster and the sooner he goes the better.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/10/simply-no-red-lines-at-all/

 

[Chris152]

Starmer is still supplying arms in support of the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians and now the Lebanese. He is aiding and abetting Netanyahu and the USA in generating an even bigger conflagration in the middle east.
Probably in excess of 100,000 deaths by the time it finishes, large numbers women, children, aid workers, non combatants. Destruction of infrastructure - housing, livelihoods, hospitals, schools, wiped from the map.
"In only the first 200 days of the war, Israel dropped more explosives on Gaza than were dropped on Dresden, Hamburg and London combined during World War II. And, of course, the bombing hasn't stopped, obliterating infrastructure, making water, for example, beyond scarce."
He is an utter disaster and the sooner he goes the better.

I agree that it's horrific and hate that my taxes go toward this. But it seems to be the world we live in; maybe there'll come a time when we can stop such nonsense.

 

[AJB Temple]

Their legislative programme seems pretty good to me.

The only real mistake they’ve made is the winter fuel allowance…..they were correct to change it as millionaire pensioners shouldn’t be getting money that needs to go to the more vulnerable, but Labour have set the means testing in the wrong place.

The rest of the stuff like Starmer following the rules on expenses is just right media distraction.

No it is out and out sleaze. The slagging off of P&O by Haigh and Dep. PM red Angie just shows how inept the top team is. How to weaken the UK government negotiating position in one easy lesson.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Per UK inflation since 1960, that £999 would be nearly £20k in today's money. Still tiny compared to £200k though, so it does illustrate the huge inflation in house prices over the decades.

In 1960 the average weekly pay was £14.2s (for those who remember £SD) - about £700 pa.

Average pay in 2024 is £35830 - 50 times as much. Property has increased 4 times as fast as incomes.

Tells the same story but much more credible. Largely down to the fact that we have built too few houses to meet demand from a population increased by 12m + social changes - family breakdown, single parents, divorce etc which has reduced average household size.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

This is quite good, I think. Successes as well as failures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv2xp40vpvo

At the moment, to my mind the negatives far exceed the positive.

The successes are still aspirational - we will all get to judge in a few years time whether BG Energy, nationalising rail etc etc (a) actually happen, and (b) deliver.

 

[sploo]

No it is out and out sleaze. The slagging off of P&O by Haigh and Dep. PM red Angie just shows how inept the top team is. How to weaken the UK government negotiating position in one easy lesson.

Slagging off P&O was entirely justifiable (given P&O's scummy recent behaviour). It was perhaps not particularly tactful, given Haigh and Rayner's positions, but still justifiable. Or, we could welcome abusive companies with open arms?

As for sleaze on the expenses... maybe... but it's interesting how the same voices were quiet about years of dodgy Tory behaviour, and are now strangley quiet about Jenrick's suitability for leadership of the party (given his previous favours to Richard Desmond). Point being: Any sleaze is sleaze, but I can't but help feel that the publicity of said sleaze by certain rags is not exactly even handed.

 

[sploo]

I agree that it's horrific and hate that my taxes go toward this. But it seems to be the world we live in; maybe there'll come a time when we can stop such nonsense.

Not that would want it to happen, but a comment I read sticks in my mind; that there would only be peace once they've turned the middle east into "a glass parking lot".

 

[Jacob]

I agree that it's horrific and hate that my taxes go toward this. But it seems to be the world we live in; maybe there'll come a time when we can stop such nonsense.

Starmer has nothing to lose by taking a moral stance on Palestine and would immediately shoot up the popularity charts. Unfortunately he doesn't need to for the next 5 years, unless enough pressure is generated.

 

[woodieallen]

It’s 4 decades of neo liberal, right wing policies.

Starting with Thatchers flogging of council houses houses to buy working class voters and stopping councils rebuilding.

Then we have deregulation of banking with interest only mortgages and self cert mortgages.

Then we have vast amounts of QE from 2008 onwards.

Then we have the big 6 house builders being donors to the Tory party in exchange for policies which benefit the house builders.

High house prices are transferring assets from ordinary working people to the wealthy.

And that explains main reason for UKs problems: wealth inequality

You've been brainwashed by Jacob.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/10/simply-no-red-lines-at-all/

Echo chamber stuff - hardly illuminating

 

[AJB Temple]

Slagging off P&O was entirely justifiable (given P&O's scummy recent behaviour). It was perhaps not particularly tactful, given Haigh and Rayner's positions, but still justifiable. Or, we could welcome abusive companies with open arms?

It was reasonable at the time. But investment now would have to comply with current law. Rather than focus media attention on an investment summit, what the two numptys did was focus everyone labour's anti employer attitude at the top.

Going on about what the tories did in the past is pointless. To be better off economically we need to forget all that and look forwards not back. Some diplomacy would not go amiss.

 

[woodieallen]

Slagging off P&O was entirely justifiable (given P&O's scummy recent behaviour). It was perhaps not particularly tactful, given Haigh and Rayner's positions, but still justifiable. Or, we could welcome abusive companies with open arms?

As for sleaze on the expenses... maybe... but it's interesting how the same voices were quiet about years of dodgy Tory behaviour, and are now strangley quiet about Jenrick's suitability for leadership of the party (given his previous favours to Richard Desmond). Point being: Any sleaze is sleaze, but I can't but help feel that the publicity of said sleaze by certain rags is not exactly even handed.

Depends on the rag. Guardian or Telegraph. Take your pick.

 

[woodieallen]

It was reasonable at the time. But investment now would have to comply with current law. Rather than focus media attention on an investment summit, what the two numptys did was focus everyone labour's anti employer attitude at the top.

Going on about what the tories did in the past is pointless. To be better off economically we need to forget all that and look forwards not back. Some diplomacy would not go amiss.

Spot on, AJB. Trouble is that rational thought around here is in short supply.

 

[Jacob]

It was reasonable at the time. But investment now would have to comply with current law. Rather than focus media attention on an investment summit, what the two numptys did was focus everyone labour's anti employer attitude at the top.

No it was a focus on Labour's quite proper pro-worker attitude, which is the very reason for the party's existence in the first place. Starmer had nothing constructive to say, as usual.

 

[Chris152]

It was reasonable at the time. But investment now would have to comply with current law. Rather than focus media attention on an investment summit, what the two numptys did was focus everyone labour's anti employer attitude at the top.

Going on about what the tories did in the past is pointless. To be better off economically we need to forget all that and look forwards not back. Some diplomacy would not go amiss.

Agree, it was silly calling for a boycott once they'd agreed to work with UK law. My guess is it's about adjusting to being power rather than being a protest party. It's only been 100 days, great things to come, no doubt. Well, we hope.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Slagging off P&O was entirely justifiable (given P&O's scummy recent behaviour). It was perhaps not particularly tactful, given Haigh and Rayner's positions, but still justifiable. Or, we could welcome abusive companies with open arms?

As for sleaze on the expenses... maybe... but it's interesting how the same voices were quiet about years of dodgy Tory behaviour, and are now strangley quiet about Jenrick's suitability for leadership of the party (given his previous favours to Richard Desmond). Point being: Any sleaze is sleaze, but I can't but help feel that the publicity of said sleaze by certain rags is not exactly even handed.

The attitude of some evidently Labour supporters to the "mis-doings" of the current government are precisely the same as those Tories who could see no fault with the previous senior Tory leadership - despite its obvious failings.

One may have hoped that the pursuit of high standards to which politicians should be held, and the honesty to call out the inappropriate would continue. It seems I was mistaken.