Keir Starmer giving Johnson another tough time at PMQ’s

Baggins said:
Starmer is performing reasonably well, but as per usual with lawyers he is being economical with the facts and information himself, and taking some things out of context. His letter was very quickly replied to, and it's another opportunity lost.

It's good to see an opposition leader who will at least attempt to take on the Tories, only issue for me though is he is not doing enough right now, he needs a significant hit or two since these minor skirmishes don't mean a thing. It would be good if instead of focusing on relatively small point scoring they can come up with some good alternatives to the Tory failures, show that they are a real alternative and not basically a protest group.

Starmer does need to be very careful too. Once this "unity politics" that the Tories claim to be following is over they have a lot of muck to throw at Labour and Starmer personally.

*edited to say Starmer does, instead of Starmer dies :censored:
Click to expand...
Agree, it’s really easy to criticise but if you don’t offer up any alternatives then you won’t get far.
 
1finny said:
It’s a bit early to say ‘opportunity lost’.
Starmer has yet to declare his hand. Johnson’s response is widely seen as a further incorrect interpretation.
At some stage there will be a public inquiry and this kind of poor advice that, lets face it, killed people will be poured over.
Click to expand...

Problem is Finny that Starmer may be scoring small victories, but he is letting Boris off the hook on a lot of things too, if you follow PMQs previous to the last couple of sessions then he has made some pertinent points but failed to really hammer them home. If he is going on the attack then he needs bigger hits. Boris is not himself right now, but you can guarantee at some point the Tories will get their finger out.

No matter what people think I believe Starmer also has an image problem, he is a lawyer, and opinion of the legal profession (especially those with his history on some very inflammatory situations) is poor at best. They are certainly not seen as being on the side of the "people".
 
Baggins and fatty: do you actually accept the response from Boris?

Have you read it? Can you not understand what Starmer was asking and how Boris lied to get out of the answering the question. Interesting, and as Fabio said your opinion seems to be out of odds with the general consensus.

I think this is Starmers initial problem he must overcome. There is an alarming group of Borisettes in this country who will defend the man regardless of action, regardless of howe many deaths his incompetence is causing. It really frightens me.
 
Which response are you referring to Smalltown, and to which question?

Also, if you want to engage on a subject then forget things like your last point. It is sensationalist nonsense. People don't have to blindly accept anything any politician says to support their view or their point; Boris, Starmer, Sturgeon, whoever. We are here to hold our elected or selected party representatives to account. We should not blindly follow and accept half measures because they are "our side".
 
does anyone have a link to the tory reply to Starmers request for clarification? I can't find it (didnt look)
 
SmallTown said:
Baggins and fatty: do you actually accept the response from Boris?

Have you read it? Can you not understand what Starmer was asking and how Boris lied to get out of the answering the question. Interesting, and as Fabio said your opinion seems to be out of odds with the general consensus.

I think this is Starmers initial problem he must overcome. There is an alarming group of Borisettes in this country who will defend the man regardless of action, regardless of howe many deaths his incompetence is causing. It really frightens me.
Click to expand...
The official response tried to infer that Starmer had said somethng else (from Section 1 when he'd quoted from Section 7 in PMQs). It appears to have done the job in fooling some people though. That is an issue with forensic examination though; it will be easy to bluff and blunder and get away with it.
 
Baggins said:
Which response are you referring to Smalltown, and to which question?

Also, if you want to engage on a subject then forget things like your last point. It is sensationalist nonsense. People don't have to blindly accept anything any politician says to support their view or their point; Boris, Starmer, Sturgeon, whoever. We are here to hold our elected or selected party representatives to account. We should not blindly follow and accept half measures because they are "our side".
Click to expand...

The response, that I assume you were referring to. About the government guidance saying it was unlikely that Covid-19 would spread in care homes and Starmers question that the government could have done more, given said guidance. Which Boris initially lied about in the house then claims it was taken out fo context but doesn't actually explain how, and certainly doesn't acknowledge his lie.
 
Ah that, I read that the Tories refused to amend what was said because Starmer was selective in what he chose to actually report from the Public Health England wrote. Which was my initial point.

The subject is dodgy ground for the NHS, since ultimately it is their decision who to move out of hospitals and it may be their way of interpreting the government directive to "protect the NHS". An inquiry will be very interesting to see which way this falls. The Tories could be to blame, or they could be protecting the NHS management.
 
bear66 said:
The official response tried to infer that Starmer had said somethng else (from Section 1 when he'd quoted from Section 7 in PMQs). It appears to have done the job in fooling some people though. That is an issue with forensic examination though; it will be easy to bluff and blunder and get away with it.
Click to expand...
It isn't though, because he hasn't. Apart from the hardcore Borisettes, more end more people are starting to see how ill suited to power our lying, divisive, scheming, manslaughtery prime minister is.
 
Baggins said:
Ah that, I read that the Tories refused to amend what was said because Starmer was selective in what he chose to actually report from the Public Health England wrote. Which was my initial point.
Click to expand...
So you're happy that Boris lied about it then, and has covered up with his response claiming it was a selective quote? All quotes from documents are selective come to think of it, unless he reads the whole guidance out verbatim.
 
I think, for clarity we should also explain right now that the Borisettes are using the phrase "Public Health England" because it detracts from criticism of their beloved government.

It should be made clear that Public Health England IS a government body ergo, by extension IS THE GOVERNMENT.
 
SmallTown said:
So you're happy that Boris lied about it then, and has covered up with his response claiming it was a selective quote? All quotes from documents are selective come to think of it, unless he reads the whole guidance out verbatim.
Click to expand...

Do you understand context? Sometimes you have to read/quote a whole report without picking out a specific quotation, because something taken out of context can be extremely misleading and dangerous. Corbyn was the victim of this a lot, given his somewhat pacifist and anti-nuclear views.

If any politicians lie then no, I am not happy with it.
 
SmallTown said:
I think, for clarity we should also explain right now that the Borisettes are using the phrase "Public Health England" because it detracts from criticism of their beloved government.

It should be made clear that Public Health England IS a government body ergo, by extension IS THE GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...

Are you accusing me of being a Borisette? Whatever a "Borisette" is?
 
Baggins said:
Problem is Finny that Starmer may be scoring small victories, but he is letting Boris off the hook on a lot of things too, if you follow PMQs previous to the last couple of sessions then he has made some pertinent points but failed to really hammer them home. If he is going on the attack then he needs bigger hits. Boris is not himself right now, but you can guarantee at some point the Tories will get their finger out.

No matter what people think I believe Starmer also has an image problem, he is a lawyer, and opinion of the legal profession (especially those with his history on some very inflammatory situations) is poor at best. They are certainly not seen as being on the side of the "people".
Click to expand...
Starmer has an image problem because he is a lawyer?
Like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair did? They were both barristers and last time I looked shared 6 general election wins and 20 years as PM between them.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of defending your Clown Boris.
 
Weren't people being sent back to care homes if they showed no signs of a covid infection, but not tested because tests were limited and the government issued guidelines on using the available tests, i.e. you had to have symptoms?

That being the case, if it is, then the government are to blame not the NHS. It was the severe lack of testing packs that resulted in seeding care homes with a deadly disease.

On the subject of Starmer, you know he is doing a good job when Kuenssberg is supporting him and lambasting Johnson.

Whether that is enough to gain the swings that Labour require, I don't know.
 
Starmer has shown in a couple of short weeks just how poor a leader Mr Corbyn was.

And, if Sir Starmer wasn't surrounding himself with the like of Ms Thornberry, Mr Lammy or Ms Rayner, then they'd have a real chance of kicking out the Tories.
 
HolgateCorner said:
Starmer has an image problem because he is a lawyer?
Like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair did? They were both barristers and last time I looked shared 6 general election wins and 20 years as PM between them.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of defending your Clown Boris.
Click to expand...

"your clown Boris". If you don't want to debate seriously then don't bother at all. What a silly response.

I said in my opinion Starmer has an image problem, and to some people that will partly be because he is a lawyer, and his history in office is very easy to sling mud at. I didn't go into the full detail of why I believe he has an image problem.
 
uncle_rico said:
Starmer has shown in a couple of short weeks just how poor a leader Mr Corbyn was.

And, if Sir Starmer wasn't surrounding himself with the like of Ms Thornberry, Mr Lammy or Ms Rayner, then they'd have a real chance of kicking out the Tories.
Click to expand...

Starmer has undoubtedly made a good start, but like I have said he is not going far enough (both with the PMQs for example, but also with the Labour party problems). He has a very good opportunity here to do lasting damage to the Tories and also the Labour dissenters.
 
Baggins said:
Do you understand context? Sometimes you have to read/quote a whole report without picking out a specific quotation, because something taken out of context can be extremely misleading and dangerous. Corbyn was the victim of this a lot, given his somewhat pacifist and anti-nuclear views.

If any politicians lie then no, I am not happy with it.
Click to expand...
The quote that Starmer referred to was in no way misleading. Pretending he said something else was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top