gizasqueezemister
Well-known member
Kier has 4 years to build a decent front bench to be in with a chance. He’s not there yet with that task. And as someone already said, he won’t be taking on Boris. It will be Sajid Javid or Rishi Sunak
Kier Starmer
- Thread starter Laughing
- Start date
HarryVegas
Well-known member
Exactly the same here WG
American_Mary
Well-known member
He’s a man who has risen from modest beginnings to the highest echelons in two very cut throat careers, law and politics, this is not through any great personality traits or by wide coverage in the media, but by capability and hard work, traits that traditionally resonate with British voters, he has no extreme views, no exciting back story, and as of yet no skeletons in his cupboard, he’s difficult to target with smears and he’s not going to attract the cultist support of a Johnson or a Corbyn for example.
He has work to do on certain things, but what he isn’t doing is given away easy own goals and by doing that he is building a foundation that will help going forward, he’s new to the job and has much to learn but his career in law shows that he will learn it and put it to his Parties best advantage.
He has work to do on certain things, but what he isn’t doing is given away easy own goals and by doing that he is building a foundation that will help going forward, he’s new to the job and has much to learn but his career in law shows that he will learn it and put it to his Parties best advantage.
Last edited:
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I’ve been very happy just to see him taking Johnson apart in the Commons on an intellectual level. This may not register too much with the Sun readers but it has certainly got the attention of the media and you can already see in the opinion polls the benefits of good coverage. I think he’s had quite an impact in an unexpected way.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/keir-starmer-tilts-labour-sharply-towards-israel
https://www.timesofisrael.com/keir-...f-apologizes-to-jews-for-party-anti-semitism/
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-challenged-to-publish-all-campaign-donations
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...-donation-from-jewish-philanthropist-1.499078
Alvez_48
Well-known member
Like BBG says he has a lot to do to show he's anything but a bog standard centre right politician.
Someone said above words to the effect 'why do left wing candidates have to be whiter than white and Tories can be corrupt as feck'.
For me it's that the progressive left candidate is meant to help us all.. We know what's coming with a Tory and everything it entails so when labour get in and don't deliver it ruins progressive politics for another 10-15 years.
You also have the reaction when an Obama comes along promises change and delivers none.. He's called Donald and he's very popular on these pages.
Someone said above words to the effect 'why do left wing candidates have to be whiter than white and Tories can be corrupt as feck'.
For me it's that the progressive left candidate is meant to help us all.. We know what's coming with a Tory and everything it entails so when labour get in and don't deliver it ruins progressive politics for another 10-15 years.
You also have the reaction when an Obama comes along promises change and delivers none.. He's called Donald and he's very popular on these pages.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Fair comment but you can‘t accuse Starmer of that when he’s only been Labour leader for a few months, you have to give him a chance rather than just run him down. I also think you can point the massive track record of the Blair government in at least trying to do things which helped the part of society which is not rich, I still think Blair would have won the 2010 election had he still been there. Plus any failures by Labour should not be an excuse to tolerate incompetent and corrupt government by the Tories. So Johnson can do what he likes but Starmer has to be lily white? How does that work then?
Alvez_48
Well-known member
It's tricky for me mate and I bounce between voting for the lesser of two evils and my vote needs to be earned, it's certainly a subject I wrestle with (not that I'd ever vote Tory just that I might vote green
).As for Starmer there are alarm bells coming from people like BBG who's views I respect, I read his links and they don't fill me with hope but if there were an election tomorrow I'd go with Starmer.
I'm lucky to be in a position where I've got ok savings, good career etc so status quo politicians don't really impact my life either side of the aisle so what I want to see is a progressive politician who will help those in need at the expense of the wealthiest in society.
Centralscrutinizer
Well-known member
Somewhere between 25 and 40 years
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I’m similar to you in that I feel ok personally whoever is in but I want a decent future for the kids.It's tricky for me mate and I bounce between voting for the lesser of two evils and my vote needs to be earned, it's certainly a subject I wrestle with (not that I'd ever vote Tory just that I might vote green
As for Starmer there are alarm bells coming from people like BBG who's views I respect, I read his links and they don't fill me with hope but if there were an election tomorrow I'd go with Starmer.
I'm lucky to be in a position where I've got ok savings, good career etc so status quo politicians don't really impact my life either side of the aisle so what I want to see is a progressive politician who will help those in need at the expense of the wealthiest in society.
Laughing
Well-known member
Thanks for the links BGG. The gaurdian one doesn't work BTW.
There seems to be a fair bit of opinion in the articles.
Firstly the quote from Starmer “I support Zionism without qualification” . I cannot find any context for this other than a couple of articles which use the same copy. Do you know where he said this, and the complete quote? If he actually said that, it is quite damning. I have no problem with apologising to the jewish community and party members for anti-semitism in the party, whether it is rampant or marginal, seems fair enough to me.
On the donation from Chinn, I am not sure what to make of that. is it a big donation, what was promised in return for the financial backing. The suggestion that Starmer is in Chinn's pocket seems a bit of senstionalism. MP's take donations for campaigns all the time. You could equally say the same for any donor.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
The Guardian link works for me. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-challenged-to-publish-all-campaign-donations
What it addresses is Rebecca Long-Bailey challenging Starmer to reveal his donors because he had a lot of money to spend during the leadership election. However the rules state that you have 30 days to accept a donation and then another 28 days to declare it. So when Starmer was saying he was completely above board and publishing all his donations, he didn't accept the Chinn £50,000 until the voting was completed. He knew exactly what he was doing.
You are right to ask for context in regards to that quote, as it is incomplete. Its missing the beginning bit which changes things quite a bit. 'If Zionism means the right for Israel to exist...then I support zionism without qualification'.
Given that plenty of modern definitions consider Zionism the right for Israel to exist, answering it in that way is clearly the least controversial. Saying no you are not a zionist opens up a door for people to accuse him of not believing Israel has the right to exist, and just saying yes without qualification has problems too. I imagine this is also why Rebecca Long Bailey referred to her self as a zionist as well. Everyone in the Labour party should believe in the right for Israel to exist so should have no problem with his statement.
He has appointed Lisa Nandy to foreign secutery and she has pretty strong pro Palestine views and has already made plenty of statements condemning the proposed Trump deal and the further acquisition of land by Israel. That said, I've got no reason to worry until he does something in terms of policy that would make me worry. Keir also has an excellent voting record when it comes to foreign policy AND human rights because he is a decent bloke.
As for not dealing with the report, that's also not true, he commissioned a review straight away and we are still awaiting those results. The problem is that Corbyn die hards are upset and feel betrayed so want to see heads roll as soon as possible, but unfortunately that make little sense to a new Labour leader running on a ticket of unity. He has other priorities right now and was right to not drag his party through the mud as his first move in opposition. Time play within the rules of the game now and take an intelligent approach to how the party come across, no more open goals.
Last edited:
Alvez_48
Well-known member
I agree with that @Duke and let's face it we have 4.5 years to wait and see.
I'd say he's a mixed bag so far in reality.
Pros - speaks well, has commissioned a review into the report, not a terrible voting record, didn't actively undermine Corbyn.
Cons - commissioned a review into a report that was infact a report, hasn't proposed anything worthwhile on lockdown (understandable, let the gov eat that cake), has manipulated his receipts from donors, attempted to prosecute the kid who called in a 'threat' to an airport under terrorism legislation.
Then there's taking a knee which I understand but is also shameless PR so not sure where to put that one.
I'd say he's a mixed bag so far in reality.
Pros - speaks well, has commissioned a review into the report, not a terrible voting record, didn't actively undermine Corbyn.
Cons - commissioned a review into a report that was infact a report, hasn't proposed anything worthwhile on lockdown (understandable, let the gov eat that cake), has manipulated his receipts from donors, attempted to prosecute the kid who called in a 'threat' to an airport under terrorism legislation.
Then there's taking a knee which I understand but is also shameless PR so not sure where to put that one.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
The problem so far is that he seeks to discover the leaker of the report, not root out the people who were actively working against the party in the 2017 GE, who were allowing the anti-Semitism cases to pile up so that Corbyn took the blame and who were using racist language against Corbynite MP's. I will have more respect for him if he addresses these things.
I do think he's been effective in PMQs.
His biggest challenge is the far left faction of his party, a lot of whom were upset the minute he got the job. The amount of spin work I've seen trying to paint Starmer in a negative light has been a bit pathetic tbh.
The factionalism within the Labour party could end up being a disaster, it's too much of a mixed bag of people who are completely unwilling to unify across common ground.
Labour are going to have to give up some ground and play the game a bit to win back socially Conservative working class voters, and the far left won't even entertain that, even when it's purely semantics and the wording around certain issues rather than ideological shifts. They are out of touch with working class voters (blame Twitter imo) and also out of touch with left wing movements across Europe, the most succesful of which have come off the back of partnerships between the hard left and the soft left.
Not true again, there's three pillars of the investigation, one of them is the nature of the leak and where it come from, which is a given, and another is the actual content of the report and the accusations levied within it.