Starmer closing wallpaper

[r00fie1]

I’m just reading a book about D Day and the battle of Normandy, that’s the impression I get anyway, obviously I wasn’t there to witness him first hand!

War is not about getting it right every time.
Its a dirty business.
There will always be casualties fighting an evil fascist regime that was bombing London and major British city`s, killing millions across the world.
The Battle{s} of Normandy effectively signalled the end of the Third Reich.

Montgomery and Eisenhower devised the plan which saw 133,000 US / Canadian / British / Polish / Free French / Commonwealth and Allied troop deploy to attack and defeat the German SS Panzers, storm troopers and occupiers in Northern France and create a corridor to the European mainland.

10,000 troops sacrificed their lives - hind-sight is a wonderful thing: the landings drove the German forces into the "Falaise Pocket" which was a decisive battle in the war. The allies drove the Panza`s east - knowing they had no escape as the allies closed in.
I visited there in 2019 with the ABF Soldiers Charity and their historian - a former Marine, whose Grandfather was one of those who took part in the D-Day landings.

Its different learning and experiencing how Eisenhower`s and Montgomery`s plan evolved - especially when you`ve been to where the invasion and the battles took place.

Montgomery knew how to rally his troops to the cause - that in itself is a skill.Leadership is knowing how to maintain morale and give the nation self - belief in times of crisis - facing an enemy who was dropping bombs on Britain and murdering our troops across the globe.

Every soldier / sailor / airman knows that they may have to pay the ultimate sacrifice. That didnt mean that Montgommery and Eisenhower were laissez-faire about the cost in lives of the invasion. Leaders take a calculated risk - there can never be a military manouvre or invasion which is completely free of risk. If you are in uniform - its an occupational risk. Montgomery and Eisenhower took that risk, knowing that without it, Europe would remain in the hands of dark forces who were a threat to the world, not just our little island.

 

[bear66]

ok thanks for that, I stand corrected

Got up at 5am and taken to a costal location just before D-Day. About 10,000 troops given a great send off. Then he just got out of his jeep in Normandy and started talking and shaking hands with troops

 

[r00fie1]

There's the problem your relying on what the media choose to focus on.

No!
I hope I look a lot further than the BBC and the Capitalist press to get my information and form an objective insightful - informed, assessment.
The country look at their TV screens - they see the wallpaper sketch and think that sums him up!
I couldnt give a monkeys what he did yesterday in a wallpaper shop.

Let me highlight the reallity in my locality:

There are 9000 families on the Local Authority Housing waiting list where I live and over 22,000 Council Houses have been sold into the private market in the last 35 years - what does the opposition look like on their TV screens to those who want and deserve decent homes?
THAT is what matters - and Starmer has no answer.

This is replicated across the country - he needs to Lead on the big picture and local councils and authorities need a plan and leadership to do something positive about our chronic housing shortage. That is what motivates and leads people - gives them hope and confidence.

 

[r00fie1]

There's the problem your relying on what the media choose to focus on.

Why do you think that is? [ie the media focus].
I dont rely on the BBC Editor who chose that item.

 

[BoroFur]

What amazes me about this board is how a thread created to take the **** out of Johnson gets hijacked by pro-Corbyn, anti-Starmer (supposed) Labour supporters.

People knowingly mis-spell Starmer's name (Sturmer) as if that gives their criticism of him greater credibility. Does it really?

We're then given a history lesson on how Starmer should be 'more like Monty'.

Quite, quite unbelievable.

 

[HolgateCorner]

War is not about getting it right every time.
Its a dirty business.
There will always be casualties fighting an evil fascist regime that was bombing London and major British city`s, killing millions across the world.
The Battle{s} of Normandy effectively signalled the end of the Third Reich.

Montgomery and Eisenhower devised the plan which saw 133,000 US / Canadian / British / Polish / Free French / Commonwealth and Allied troop deploy to attack and defeat the German SS Panzers, storm troopers and occupiers in Northern France and create a corridor to the European mainland.

10,000 troops sacrificed their lives - hind-sight is a wonderful thing: the landings drove the German forces into the "Falaise Pocket" which was a decisive battle in the war. The allies drove the Panza`s east - knowing they had no escape as the allies closed in.
I visited there in 2019 with the ABF Soldiers Charity and their historian - a former Marine, whose Grandfather was one of those who took part in the D-Day landings.

Its different learning and experiencing how Eisenhower`s and Montgomery`s plan evolved - especially when you`ve been to where the invasion and the battles took place.

Montgomery knew how to rally his troops to the cause - that in itself is a skill.Leadership is knowing how to maintain morale and give the nation self - belief in times of crisis - facing an enemy who was dropping bombs on Britain and murdering our troops across the globe.

Every soldier / sailor / airman knows that they may have to pay the ultimate sacrifice. That didnt mean that Montgommery and Eisenhower were laissez-faire about the cost in lives of the invasion. Leaders take a calculated risk - there can never be a military manouvre or invasion which is completely free of risk. If you are in uniform - its an occupational risk. Montgomery and Eisenhower took that risk, knowing that without it, Europe would remain in the hands of dark forces who were a threat to the world, not just our little island.

The book I am reading gives a slightly different take on the allied approach compared to the ‘daring do send the men in‘ perception which possibly prevails.

It talks about how Monty and Eisenhower used the strategic assets to their maximum, shelling and air bombing the German frontline in advance so that the enemy forces were seriously weakened or softened up before the ground troops went in to finish the job. This led to accusations that they were slow and too deliberate in their approach particularly from Churchill but they saw it as the best way of minimising deaths amongst their men and stuck to their plan.

If this is accurate I think that says more about Monty as a top man and a General than anything, hence my comment above about him being a strategist.

 

[r00fie1]

What amazes me about this board is how a thread created to take the **** out of Johnson gets hijacked by pro-Corbyn, anti-Starmer (supposed) Labour supporters.

People knowingly mis-spell Starmer's name (Sturmer) as if that gives their criticism of him greater credibility. Does it really?

We're then given a history lesson on how Starmer should be 'more like Monty'.

Quite, quite unbelievable.

No.
Leadership may mean something different to you.
In a time of crisis we need policies and leadership.
People dismiss Johnson as a buffoon.
Starmer has no policies.
Montgommery is an example of a strong leader.
Starmer will never be a Montgommery.
Different times.
Different priorities.
Strong leaders emerge - not from Cob shops or wallpaper departments.

Johnson happens to be the Prime Minister - the highest elected official in the land.
Taking the pzz might be funny ha-ha
but his authoritarian corrupt back - handed government has real consequences for our people.

 

[uncle_rico]

Perhaps it's not that you're one of the lost 'potentiall' Labour voters after all you're plainly a shy Tory. Defend the Tories, nothing to see here, look over there at that incompetent Labour lot. You, sir, are typical of what is so wrong in this country and allowing utter corruption to thrive at the heart of government.

And then resort to insults. As I said, typical.

 

[r00fie1]

The book I am reading gives a slightly different take on the allied approach compared to the ‘daring do send the men in‘ perception which possibly prevails.

It talks about how Monty and Eisenhower used the strategic assets to their maximum, shelling and air bombing the German frontline in advance so that the enemy forces were seriously weakened or softened up before the ground troops went in to finish the job. This led to accusations that they were slow and too deliberate in their approach particularly from Churchill but they saw it as the best way of minimising deaths amongst their men and stuck to their plan.

If this is accurate I think that says more about Monty as a top man and a General than anything, hence my comment above about him being a strategist.

I dont recall any suggestion of "daring to send men in".
It isnt about "daring" - its about the response cost: what is the objective and what is required to achieve it.
It isnt a game of Chess.

 

[BoroFur]

And then resort to insults. As I said, typical.

He's not insulting you, stop being so precious.

 

[HolgateCorner]

I dont recall any suggestion of "daring to send men in".
It isnt about "daring" - its about the response cost: what is the objective and what is required to achieve it.
It isnt a game of Chess.

I wasn’t necessarily referring to what you posted, but the inference of a ‘soldiers General’ is gathering the troops to lift morale and get them to do perform bravely on the battlefield.

 

[Laughing]

I read these threads and I am always a little confused. I can never decide whether the labour party are:

Too far lefy OR too far right
Too racist OR not racist enough
The leader is boring OR the leader is playing politics
They have no policies OR they are keeping their policies close to their chest
They offer no opposition OR they hold the tories to account

I am really confused. I think, and it's just my opinion, Labour is split because the left have very different views about what left means. There is no consensus on what or how far left the electorate would go for, it may actually be you have to start off to the right, I don't know.

The tories are equally as split ideologically on lots of issues but unite at election time.

We just sound like were arguing about whether we hate the tories more or the peoples front of judea, or of course the much lambasted popular peoples judean front.

I understand that Starmer isn't everyones cup of tea, and I also understand that some of his expulsions folks don't agree with. I don;t know as I haven't followed that as much as Roofie and otehrs.

What I do know is that if the left, or indeed less right, can't unite we will be out of power for ever. A political party never gives you everything you want you have to compromise 58 million different ways.

Stop taking the party personally and when policy is announced, if the manifesto isn't for you look for a party that has a manifesto you like more, but then stop crying that there is no opposition.

Starmer isn't the opposition to right wing rule, the electorate are. You can bitch amongst yourselves all you want, nothing will improve. It almost seems like some folk want to moan about the tories, and it ends there.

 

[r00fie1]

I wasn’t necessarily referring to what you posted, but the inference of a ‘soldiers General’ is gathering the troops to lift morale and get them to do perform bravely on the battlefield.

OK Holgate.
Time for T and a pee.

 

[WeeGord]

And then resort to insults. As I said, typical.

Insults? Where? Are you suggesting all ever do is resort to insults because if so, I’d prefer you backed that up.

As you’ll be unable to do that however why not tell me why you’re deflecting and saying I’m insulting you rather than you telling us why as a supposed potential Labour voter what you think of Johnson and his cash for contracts etc.

 

[Zoophonic]

I read these threads and I am always a little confused. I can never decide whether the labour party are:

Too far lefy OR too far right
Too racist OR not racist enough
The leader is boring OR the leader is playing politics
They have no policies OR they are keeping their policies close to their chest
They offer no opposition OR they hold the tories to account

I am really confused. I think, and it's just my opinion, Labour is split because the left have very different views about what left means. There is no consensus on what or how far left the electorate would go for, it may actually be you have to start off to the right, I don't know.

The tories are equally as split ideologically on lots of issues but unite at election time.

We just sound like were arguing about whether we hate the tories more or the peoples front of judea, or of course the much lambasted popular peoples judean front.

I understand that Starmer isn't everyones cup of tea, and I also understand that some of his expulsions folks don't agree with. I don;t know as I haven't followed that as much as Roofie and otehrs.

What I do know is that if the left, or indeed less right, can't unite we will be out of power for ever. A political party never gives you everything you want you have to compromise 58 million different ways.

Stop taking the party personally and when policy is announced, if the manifesto isn't for you look for a party that has a manifesto you like more, but then stop crying that there is no opposition.

Starmer isn't the opposition to right wing rule, the electorate are. You can bitch amongst yourselves all you want, nothing will improve. It almost seems like some folk want to moan about the tories, and it ends there.

The Labour Party are doing a good job tearing each other apart. The left and centre of the party are a chasm at the moment. There are Labour voters on this thread who would rather continue throwing mud at Starmer rather than at the worst Prime minister this country has ever had

 

[r00fie1]

I read these threads and I am always a little confused. I can never decide whether the labour party are:

Too far lefy OR too far right
Too racist OR not racist enough
The leader is boring OR the leader is playing politics
They have no policies OR they are keeping their policies close to their chest
They offer no opposition OR they hold the tories to account

I am really confused. I think, and it's just my opinion, Labour is split because the left have very different views about what left means. There is no consensus on what or how far left the electorate would go for, it may actually be you have to start off to the right, I don't know.

The tories are equally as split ideologically on lots of issues but unite at election time.

We just sound like were arguing about whether we hate the tories more or the peoples front of judea, or of course the much lambasted popular peoples judean front.

I understand that Starmer isn't everyones cup of tea, and I also understand that some of his expulsions folks don't agree with. I don;t know as I haven't followed that as much as Roofie and otehrs.

What I do know is that if the left, or indeed less right, can't unite we will be out of power for ever. A political party never gives you everything you want you have to compromise 58 million different ways.

Stop taking the party personally and when policy is announced, if the manifesto isn't for you look for a party that has a manifesto you like more, but then stop crying that there is no opposition.

Starmer isn't the opposition to right wing rule, the electorate are. You can bitch amongst yourselves all you want, nothing will improve. It almost seems like some folk want to moan about the tories, and it ends there.

Maybe thats because the Labour Party has never understood itself what it is?
Disagreement and debate is positive.
Conflict is the driving force for unity and change.

This board cant agree whether Neil Warnock`s choice of substitutes are always the right ones!
It would be grey and dull if we didnt have a point of view

 

[HolgateCorner]

What amazes me about this board is how a thread created to take the **** out of Johnson gets hijacked by pro-Corbyn, anti-Starmer (supposed) Labour supporters.

People knowingly mis-spell Starmer's name (Sturmer) as if that gives their criticism of him greater credibility. Does it really?

We're then given a history lesson on how Starmer should be 'more like Monty'.

Quite, quite unbelievable.

Yes the Sturmer reference is typically Tory, it has to be said.

Starmer is clever.

He checkmated Johnson in the Commons the other day by trying to get him to lie about the flat, after which he lost his temper. Johnson said he followed the ministerial code.

The more informed Tories are aware of the potential consequences of a PM lying to Parliament which is why they are in a tailspin.

I think the MSM know the consequences as well which is why they are keeping it bubbling until the independent reports come out.

 

[WeeGord]

The biggest problem Labour have is that they cover a much broader part of the political spectrum than the Tories and that is why they’re always seemingly in conflict.

I’m a fully signed up socialist and personally believed that Corbyn would have brought great changes for the better to the vast majority of the population. I accept that probably 70 percent plus of the electorate are sitting in and around the centre ground so when Corbyn got close, but sadly not close enough, I voted Starmer in the leadership election.

The reasons were pragmatic - I understand that as much as I’d love a true socialist government it’s unlikely to happen at this point in time. To appeal to a bigger section of the electorate I knew Starmer would be most likely to achieve that. Ideally I would have loved to feel confident enough to vote RLB but sadly she’d have been portrayed as Corbyn in disguise and the media lies would have continued in the same way.

I still dream of a socialist Labour government but I accept we may well need a centrist Labour government first. It’s not ideal but it’s a step and is a damn site better than a corrupt right wing Tory regime.

 

[uncle_rico]

Insults? Where? Are you suggesting all ever do is resort to insults because if so, I’d prefer you backed that up.

As you’ll be unable to do that however why not tell me why you’re deflecting and saying I’m insulting you rather than you telling us why as a supposed potential Labour voter what you think of Johnson and his cash for contracts etc.

Telling me I am "what is wrong with this country" is pretty insulting to be fair. I'll take it on the chin though.

 

[Laughing]

Maybe thats because the Labour Party has never understood itself what it is?
Disagreement and debate is positive.
Conflict is the driving force for unity and change.

This board cant agree whether Neil Warnock`s choice of substitutes are always the right ones!
It would be grey and dull if we didnt have a point of view

Roofie, I agree with that to a certain extent, and debate is good, sometimes very heated and vitriolic debate is required for change.

However, to use an analogy you might appreciate, the debate shouldn't happen in the heat of battle. When election time comes around, the left should show a united front. It doesn't matter if you disagree, even vehemently, with some of Labours policies or actions in the last 4 years. Support the party unequivocally, on social media, in the pub, arguing with your racist auntie. Labour aint the enemy, the Nazi's are.