New Labour leader , Sir Keir Starmer

by Guest Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:38 pm

News appears to have crept under the radar, certainly the Tories here have kept mute..
With good reason.
Johnson will have much to fear, and will in all probability lose the debates in PMQ's.
So Sir Kier Starmer has taken over the helm, immediately apologised for Labour's anti semitism, has agreed to work with Johnson and other parties.

All gone rather under the political and news radar. Which may suit him.
Labour, it seems may be back on track to eventually becoming an electable party.
When it comes to PMQ's, Johnson will not be as dominating as he was with Cornyn.
Starmer is a fluent, articulate and authoritative debater, well versed in court speaking and is a forensic interrogator.
I suspect Starmer will bide his time, select a new, fresh young cabinet with a few old hands around him as well, and will not produce much in the way of long term policy and strategy until the coronavirus threat has subsided.
By co- operating with Johnson, Starmer will be seen as a moderate, willing to compromise and will be more respected by the public for doing just that.
Long term, I just cannot see Johnson sticking around. The job has suddenly taken on immeasurable and almost insurmountable problems.
He looked out of his depth before the virus, he looks too indecisive and prone to over reliance on his spin doctors and advisors at a time where strong and positive leadership is required.
From an economy and budget that promised the world, the harsh and stark reality is austerity and depression like we haven't seen since the 1920's and 30's.
Contracting the illness won't help, he has caught a big dose, after 10 days he still looks dreadful, and speaking from experience, it will take him many weeks, if not months to return to full fitness.
He has a serious, if inexperienced contender in Sunak waiting to pounce on his job..There are few other candidates, Hunt, Gove, IDS and Ress-Mogg are no longer credible contenders.
Fascinating times lie ahead after this shit dies down.

by Eilzel Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:24 am

Very glad to see Sir Keir as Labour leader. It isn't surprising he got little attention though, other issues considered.

However, this may work in his favour. Ed Miliband was assaulted immediately and dubbed Red Ed from the beginning of his run as leader. Corbyn was savaged by the media as some kind of loon for 5 whole years.

Now the media are turned away, and Boris is being defined by this era. It may well be the smooth start Labour need.

by Tommy Monk Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:10 am

He was appointed as DPP in 2008 by the old 1997-2010 labour govt... Where he presided over many highly questionable decisions... From lack of action against Pakistani Muslim child abuse gangs, to his knowledge/action over 'spycops' involvement in other areas...

by Victorismyhero Mon Apr 06, 2020 2:11 pm

there is a reason why the word sinister comes from the latin for left 0^0

by Guest Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:16 pm

It won't take long for the smear campaigns to start, from the rw press here in the UK, and from links provided by the right wingers here.
It will be a sign that the Conservative party have much to fear from a doughty and forensically analytical opponent.

by Tommy Monk Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:07 pm

No smear campaign... Just the truth...

by Guest Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:56 pm

We all know your truth, Tom. About as reliable as Trump's truth.

by Tommy Monk Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:58 pm

Are you saying what I posted about Keir starmer is not true...!?

by Guest Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:09 pm

Nothing you say is true. You are Newsfix's Donald Trump.

by nicko Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:14 pm

Starmer has got rid of a few hardliners, but has given top jobs to Remainers, Labour just don't get it,they'll be in the wilderness for years unless they face up to why they lost the last Election !

by Tommy Monk Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:24 pm

Brutus wrote:Nothing you say is true. You are Newsfix's Donald Trump.

Are you seriously trying to say that Kier Starmer was not appointed as DPP in 2008 by the then labour govt....!!!???

by Guest Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:58 pm

The Only part of your paragraph that is correct is the first part of the sentence.
But then again, you hate ANYONE who even talks to Muslims, so little wonder you are smearing someone for something historical and non political.
Not like Thatcher trying 4 times to knight her favourite, Jimmy Savile.

by Eilzel Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:50 am

nicko wrote:Starmer has got rid of a few hardliners, but has given top jobs to Remainers, Labour just don't get it,they'll be in the wilderness for years unless they face up to why they lost the last Election !

Brexit is done. It won't be an issue in the next election. This government will hold or fall in 2024 based on their actions now, not getting Brexit done.

by Tommy Monk Tue Apr 07, 2020 1:09 am

He was appointed as DPP in 2008 by the then labour govt... He did nothing against the Pakistani Muslim child abuse gangs...

The labour govt and the other lefty authorities were all denying that there was any Pakistani Muslim child abuse gangs going on at that time.

by Guest Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:21 am

Do you actually know ANYTHING about the justice system in the UK.
Police had insufficient EVIDENCE to secure a conviction. Starmer was not a member of the Labour party. He was following the legal guidelines and process.

You are so obsessed with smearing someone you hate for no other reason that he is the Labour leader, you cannot see the wood from the trees.
But not a word about your heroine Thatcher's idolization of Savile.
Strange how you spout about some things but remain silent on others.

by nicko Tue Apr 07, 2020 2:11 pm

what do you think of that Racist Bigot Lammey being invited into Starmers cabinet ?

by Guest Tue Apr 07, 2020 2:18 pm

Is he any more a racist bigot than Farage?

by nicko Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:00 pm

A hundred times worse ! Not that it bothers me , Starmers Cabinet is the same old same old . They'll never learn why they lost the Election, unless they take up what the People want, they'll lose the next one as well !

by Original Quill Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:08 pm

Brutus wrote:It won't take long for the smear campaigns to start, from the rw press here in the UK, and from links provided by the right wingers here.
It will be a sign that the Conservative party have much to fear from a doughty and forensically analytical opponent.

The RW has had their chance, with their lies and plans to reintroduce slavery to make everyone servants to the rich. They are going to have to be put in isolation camps, surrounded by anchor fencing. I suggest Greenland, waaaay back away from civilization. Brazil is another possibility. Razz

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:36 pm

He reminds me a little of David Cameron...puffy and pompous.

by Guest Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:48 pm

He is smartly dressed, well groomed, articulate and intelligent. .
People slaughtered Corbyn for being none of these.
He LOOKS like a leader should.

by Guest Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:09 pm

eddie wrote:He reminds me a little of David Cameron...puffy and pompous.

And Rishi Sunak reminds me of a young Tony Blair, both in the way he speaks, but also his intonation. And so far his budgetary policies have been quite Socialist.

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:14 pm

Brutus wrote:
eddie wrote:He reminds me a little of David Cameron...puffy and pompous.
And Rishi Sunak reminds me of a young Tony Blair, both in the way he speaks, but also his intonation. And so far his budgetary policies have been quite Socialist.

To be honest I don’t know anything about the guy. My first impression was that he reminded me of Cameron. I hope I’m wrong.

by Guest Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:17 pm

2 out of 2 remind you of Cameron.
Not every politician is a posh rich Bullingdon boy arsehole.

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:18 pm

Brutus wrote:2 out of 2 remind you of Cameron.
Not every politician is a posh rich Bullingdon boy arsehole.

I agree Brutus. Like I said, I gave my first impression. I don’t know the guy so I’ll wish him luck and hope he’s a great labour leader.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:45 pm

In February 2009, Starmer approved a decision not to prosecute any police over the controversial shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.[20]

In July 2010, Starmer announced the decision not to prosecute the police officer Simon Harwood in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson; this led to accusations by Tomlinson's family of a police cover-up.[21] After a subsequent inquest found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, Starmer announced that Harwood would be prosecuted for manslaughter. The officer was acquitted in July 2012, but dismissed from the police that September.[22][23][24]

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:50 pm

I wonder what his position on grammar schools is...?

Considering that he went to grammar school and then attanded another independent school that was also a fee paying grammar school while he was there...?

by Guest Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:54 pm

I guess you don't want a strong opposition party. Or any opposition .
A 1 party state seems just what you desire.

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:58 pm

Brutus wrote:I guess you don't want a strong opposition party. Or any opposition .
A 1 party state seems just what you desire.

I’d like to see a government of 50/50 - Tory and Labour (or similar). I know it’s a stupid “out there” view and I’ll probably be ridiculed as airy-fairy, but I do have strange ideas at times.

by Victorismyhero Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

In February 2009, Starmer approved a decision not to prosecute any police over the controversial shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.[20]

In July 2010, Starmer announced the decision not to prosecute the police officer Simon Harwood in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson; this led to accusations by Tomlinson's family of a police cover-up.[21] After a subsequent inquest found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, Starmer announced that Harwood would be prosecuted for manslaughter. The officer was acquitted in July 2012, but dismissed from the police that September.[22][23][24]

The problem THERE tommy, was that they couldnt (or didnt want to) "get at" the person REALLY responsible...the chief of police....

the whole thing was a clear lack of command and control.

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:02 pm

eddie wrote:
Brutus wrote:I guess you don't want a strong opposition party. Or any opposition .
A 1 party state seems just what you desire.

I’d like to see a government of 50/50 - Tory and Labour (or similar). I know it’s a stupid “out there” view and I’ll probably be ridiculed as airy-fairy, but I do have strange ideas at times.

You mean that both sides would be forced to work together to get anything done? That's not airy-fairy, it's brilliant.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

In February 2009, Starmer approved a decision not to prosecute any police over the controversial shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.[20]

In July 2010, Starmer announced the decision not to prosecute the police officer Simon Harwood in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson; this led to accusations by Tomlinson's family of a police cover-up.[21] After a subsequent inquest found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, Starmer announced that Harwood would be prosecuted for manslaughter. The officer was acquitted in July 2012, but dismissed from the police that September.[22][23][24]

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

I wonder what his position on grammar schools is...?

Considering that he went to grammar school and then attanded another independent school that was also a fee paying grammar school while he was there...?

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:03 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
eddie wrote:
Brutus wrote:I guess you don't want a strong opposition party. Or any opposition .
A 1 party state seems just what you desire.

I’d like to see a government of 50/50 - Tory and Labour (or similar). I know it’s a stupid “out there” view and I’ll probably be ridiculed as airy-fairy, but I do have strange ideas at times.

You mean that both sides would be forced to work together to get anything done? That's not airy-fairy, it's brilliant.

Maybe it’s brilliant because it’s simple. But I’m sure someone will tell me how stupid it is.

by Victorismyhero Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:06 pm

in which case NOTHING would get done.....

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:07 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

In February 2009, Starmer approved a decision not to prosecute any police over the controversial shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.[20]

In July 2010, Starmer announced the decision not to prosecute the police officer Simon Harwood in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson; this led to accusations by Tomlinson's family of a police cover-up.[21] After a subsequent inquest found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, Starmer announced that Harwood would be prosecuted for manslaughter. The officer was acquitted in July 2012, but dismissed from the police that September.[22][23][24]

The problem THERE tommy, was that they couldnt (or didnt want to) "get at" the person REALLY responsible...the chief of police....

the whole thing was a clear lack of command and control.

The Charles De Menezes operation commander... Clarissa Dick... Was rewarded with promotion for the assassination of this innocent Brazilian electrician...

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:10 pm

eddie wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

You mean that both sides would be forced to work together to get anything done? That's not airy-fairy, it's brilliant.

Maybe it’s brilliant because it’s simple. But I’m sure someone will tell me how stupid it is.

It would result in a 1 party state where the wishes of the democratic majority would be totally ignored...

Welcome to dictatorship and goodbye to democracy.

by Victorismyhero Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:10 pm

yep even though it was HER failures that led to the debacle.....

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:11 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:in which case NOTHING would get done.....

Nothing that the democratic majority of British people want would be getting done...

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:17 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

You mean that both sides would be forced to work together to get anything done? That's not airy-fairy, it's brilliant.

Maybe it’s brilliant because it’s simple. But I’m sure someone will tell me how stupid it is.

It would result in a 1 party state where the wishes of the democratic majority would be totally ignored...

Welcome to dictatorship and goodbye to democracy.

How would having a 50/50 Labour/Tory divide result in a one party state? You're not making sense.

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:17 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:in which case NOTHING would get done.....

How do you know? It’s never happened.

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:18 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

You mean that both sides would be forced to work together to get anything done? That's not airy-fairy, it's brilliant.

Maybe it’s brilliant because it’s simple. But I’m sure someone will tell me how stupid it is.

It would result in a 1 party state where the wishes of the democratic majority would be totally ignored...

Welcome to dictatorship and goodbye to democracy.

Well you are assuming that all party members are children and couldn’t have a majority vote on issues.

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:21 pm

There would be logjams and a learning curve, and at the end of the learning curve, both sides would have to learn to compromise and decide what's truly important.

They wouldn't always be right, and they wouldn't always move quickly, but they're pretty much like that now anyway.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:23 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:yep even though it was HER failures that led to the debacle.....

Failure... Rewarded with promotion... And Labour appointed DPP refuses to prosecute those responsible...!!!???

Sounds more like a targeted assassination surrounded in a load of bluff about it being a mistake...

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:23 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:There would be logjams and a learning curve, and at the end of the learning curve, both sides would have to learn to compromise and decide what's truly important.

They wouldn't always be right, and they wouldn't always move quickly, but they're pretty much like that now anyway.

Exactement. I don’t get the knee-jerk negative response to new ideas.

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:25 pm

eddie wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:There would be logjams and a learning curve, and at the end of the learning curve, both sides would have to learn to compromise and decide what's truly important.

They wouldn't always be right, and they wouldn't always move quickly, but they're pretty much like that now anyway.

Exactement. I don’t get the knee-jerk negative response to new ideas.

Nobody can surprise you if you never give them the chance.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:26 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

It would result in a 1 party state where the wishes of the democratic majority would be totally ignored...

Welcome to dictatorship and goodbye to democracy.

Well you are assuming that all party members are children and couldn’t have a majority vote on issues.

You are forgetting that the majority view of the public should be the majority view in parliament.

Democracy = Demos Kratos

by eddie Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:34 pm

I’m talking about the government. Not the public.
I’m trying to evolve a new idea.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:40 pm

A new idea...???

Sounds more like you are trying to revive an old idea of dictatorial rule where the democratic will of the people is totally ignored...

by Victorismyhero Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:41 pm

the point is eddie

what if 95% of the public wanted one side or the other?

what would you do..force 45% of them to accept the opposite whether they wanted it or not?..that way lies revolution
Now I dont say revolution is necessarily bad, I mean a good way of governing seems to be dictatorship moderated by revolution.....its worked well in south america...oh....wait.........

by Sponsored content