Will Starmer be "fine" or "fined" ?

[danumdon]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833

And your point is?

What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.

I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.

[wilts rover]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833

And your point is?

What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.

I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.

My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!

I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?

[drfchound]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

Maybe bst will know mate, he seems to know everything.

[tyke1962]

If Boris Johnson had shown the same contempt and dishonesty as Keith Starmer has when he campaigned for the Tory leadership we'd now be currently rejoining the EU .

[danumdon]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833

And your point is?

What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.

I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.

My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!

I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?

So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,


Is Keith what a Labour leader  looks like or thinks like?

From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.

2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.

2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,

Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.

At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.

For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.

[tyke1962]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833

And your point is?

What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.

I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.

My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!

I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?

So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,


Is Keith what a Labour leader  looks like or thinks like?

From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.

2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.

2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,

Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.

At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.

For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.

I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .

That's simply not true .

[danumdon]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833

And your point is?

What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.

I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.

My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!

I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?

So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,


Is Keith what a Labour leader  looks like or thinks like?

From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.

2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.

2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,

Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.

At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.

For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.

I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .

That's simply not true .

I didn't suggest that at all, what i'm thinking is even worse, he was incompetent in the post and it all simply passed him by.

[SydneyRover]

How can anyone trust a man who changes his mind on major issues the way he does?

The bloke's a ditherer.

Steve, there's no reason to attack tyke in this way, he's trying his best with the limited resources he has, but I will admit that Andy Capp had more political nous, hehe

[Metalmicky]

I wonder if a fuss will be made out of Starmer's oversights....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62431183

[Ldr]

But yeah, they’re not all the same aye

[selby]

  Well done, and on holiday, just a coincidence I suppose, what a toss pot, a forgetful judge for gods sake, and that waste of time has given judgement on others.
  Take the poster down in the bedroom Syd it's an embarrassment.

[danumdon]

I wonder if a fuss will be made out of Starmer's oversights....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62431183

This does beg the question from someone who said the Tories were a disorganised rabble.

Could we expect a Labour administration with this bloke in charge to be any more organised and competent than the last lot if this is an example of how he runs his back office?

[SydneyRover]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833

And your point is?

What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.

I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.

My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!

I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?

So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,


Is Keith what a Labour leader  looks like or thinks like?

From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.

2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.

2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,

Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.

At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.

For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.

I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .

That's simply not true .

I didn't suggest that at all, what i'm thinking is even worse, he was incompetent in the post and it all simply passed him by.

Starmer receives an honour awarded by the cabinet office of the government of the day (ooh I wonder which government did that then) and then a member of the royal household presents the award namely the queen.

This 'smear' must cover those that gave the award and the woman that presented it I guess.

[danumdon]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833

And your point is?

What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.

I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.

My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!

I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?

So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,


Is Keith what a Labour leader  looks like or thinks like?

From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.

2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.

2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,

Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.

At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.

For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.

I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .

That's simply not true .

I didn't suggest that at all, what i'm thinking is even worse, he was incompetent in the post and it all simply passed him by.

Starmer receives an honour awarded by the cabinet office of the government of the day (ooh I wonder which government did that then) and then a member of the royal household presents the award namely the queen.

This 'smear' must cover those that gave the award and the woman that presented it I guess.

So basically an award for being "in the job" gets your juices flowing does it.

I wonder what you will have to say when Johnson gets his "award for being in the job"

And yes he doesn't deserve it either.

[drfchound]

But yeah, they’re not all the same aye

Well he has only made eight offences, that have so far come to light by the way, but he has apologised so I suppose it is ok.

[SydneyRover]

If you can't see the difference between Starmer and johnson you really are a dick danum

[tyke1962]

Sorry Syd, but you are sounding like a desperate man now.
It is not "silly" to suggest that you do only what you can afford, it is silly not to.

Labour have to cut their cloth according to the reduced resources for a GE, caused by loss of membership fees and reduced TU support.

That means fewer national candidates and contesting priority winnable seats.

It is also sensible to look at the numbers before a GE and focus where it is effective.
Without regaining ground in Scotland, and a LD revival in the south, Labour will not form a majority government.

The task is to prevent the Tories returned on a lower majority, or to broker a deal with others beforehand to maximise the seats lost by Truss. Wasting money drawing a small number of votes in no chance constituencies is completely barmy.

That said, what is it that you are actually voting FOR in supporting Keith....not public ownership by the look;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-ownership-nationalise-reeves-starmer-b2130382.html

I still don't see how pitching for "growth" is going to tame climate breakdown, do you?

How you getting on with the Forde Report?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

Unfortunately for Labour its now becoming apparent why Keith's been lagging behind on coming out with policies for Labours fight with the Tories for the next election.

It seems Keith has decided that "Growth" is the priority and all traditional Labour staples like bringing back into public ownership Rail, Energy, public utilities is for the birds.

So its now clear that the fella has no clear aspiration or ambition that sits square with traditional Labour values, instead choosing to take the same road already trodden by the present incumbents.

So, can one of the sycophants on here tell me what exactly Labour under this pretend leader stands for?

I have no idea, the country has no idea and unfortunately neither does Keith.

I haven't got a clue what Starmer stands for. But I doubt that someone who called Corbyn's plan for re-nationalisation 'giving the house away' is being entirely honest about their views of Starmer on nationalisation either:

https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=283693.msg1157833#msg1157833

And your point is?

What i wrote there still stands as far as Keith is concerned, the bloke pretends to be a Labour leader, but could very easily sit with the tory center right MP's and not blush. Sold out his party's left wing and its socialist policies.

I wonder what he will do when either Sunak or Truss are crowned, will he be still looking to sneak policy away from this "far right Tory" party as you said elsewhere.

My point is its irrelevant what he does - it will never please you. You criticise a leader who proposes nationalisation. You criticise a leader who says he wont bring in nationalisation. And you complain about someone else's double standards!

I think it is unlikley he will be sending refugees to Rwanda, banning noisy protests, allowing unlimited dumping of sewage in rivers & lakes and bringing in restrictions on voting - but who knows?

So plenty of guff about irreverence but you failed to answer my post,


Is Keith what a Labour leader  looks like or thinks like?

From where im siting he's dumped any pretence of being a Labour leader, cares not a jot for the traditional Labour base and is prepared to swing in the wind on policy,hoping to snatch power without a shred of conviction behind it.

2019 stood on a ticket of mass re nationalisation, now can't be arsed.

2019 desperate to remain in the EU and was prepared to ride roughshod over a democratic vote and ignore the majority, now trying to convince us he's changed his mind and is prepared to not seek membership of CU or SM,

Can we believe a thing this man says, remember he presided over the debacle that was the Rotherham grooming gangs and the Saville scandal.

At least with Corbyn you knew exactly what you would get, this Camelion is a proper chancer.

For all the Tory failings, i still think that Labour will get nowhere with this leader.

I imagine you are suggesting Keith deliberately put a spanner in the works regarding the prosecution of Saville and The Rotherham Grooming Gangs .

That's simply not true .

I didn't suggest that at all, what i'm thinking is even worse, he was incompetent in the post and it all simply passed him by.

Starmer receives an honour awarded by the cabinet office of the government of the day (ooh I wonder which government did that then) and then a member of the royal household presents the award namely the queen.

This 'smear' must cover those that gave the award and the woman that presented it I guess.

So did Jimmy Saville .

[SydneyRover]

tyke you don't don't know the difference between a newspaper set up to oppose the institution and the mail

[tyke1962]

tyke you don't don't know the difference between a newspaper set up to oppose the institution and the mail

Clearly neither do you if you believe the Guardian is the voice of the anti establishment .

[SydneyRover]

As Ldr is fond of saying you read what you want to read tyke

[tyke1962]

As Ldr is fond of saying you read what you want to read tyke

You do indeed , so presumably you'll be ignorant of the leading Guardian writer reported by a female member of staff for sexual harassment and the Guardian doing nowt about it .

Then again some of us have wider reading capabilities Sydney .

Everyday is a school day bro .

[SydneyRover]

As Ldr is fond of saying you read what you want to read tyke

You do indeed , so presumably you'll be ignorant of the leading Guardian writer reported by a female member of staff for sexual harassment and the Guardian doing nowt about it .

Then again some of us have wider reading capabilities Sydney .

Everyday is a school day bro .

try and keep your mind on the topic tyke, I know it's difficult but do the best you can

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Poor from Starmer this, he's either completely disorganised or deliberately avoided it, neither are good traits when his USP is supposed to be competency.

[wilts rover]

Poor from Starmer this, he's either completely disorganised or deliberately avoided it, neither are good traits when his USP is supposed to be competency.

Given his current stance on supporting/not supporting official trade union strikes, I'm not sure which one of those it is either BFYP.

[danumdon]

If you can't see the difference between Starmer and johnson you really are a dick danum

"Dick", how old are we, my youngest lad used to use that phrase when he was 7, what's your excuse.

[SydneyRover]

Danum, I'm sorry if it brings up sad memories of you son calling you a dick, they do grow out of things fairly quickly

[BillyStubbsTears]

Poor from Starmer this, he's either completely disorganised or deliberately avoided it, neither are good traits when his USP is supposed to be competency.

Agreed. It's very, very cack handed.

[Colin C No.3]

I’d have Angela Rayner as Leader in a blink.

She’d eat Truss or Sunak alive.

[albie]

Syd,

Astonished by this;
"Starmer receives an honour awarded by the cabinet office of the government of the day (ooh I wonder which government did that then) and then a member of the royal household presents the award namely the queen."

Honours in the UK are given for services rendered to the establishment.
I know that the occasional school dinner lady gets an award, but that is just cover for the real purpose of the system.
It is the interests of the elite that really matters.

As you say, Keith was rewarded by the government, whose interests he served....the Queen has nowt to do with it.
So the question is why he was rewarded by them, and why he accepted, because the present honours system and the House of Lords is against any socialist idea of reformation.

What do you reckon?

[SydneyRover]

Just going on what you said previously Albie, the head of any organisation etc blah blah ............ the queen or her representative makes the award, therefore by dint of that she is besmirched by it.