Starmer and Labour

Yes I agree that circumstances can change Basgetti, but how many of these families do you see, where parents have tattoos, Botox, lip fillers, drink, or smoke.
When I am in the supermarket, they are ordering taxis to take them & their many bags of shopping home.
Yes there are genuine families struggling.

MT62

I don’t agree with the 2 child cap being lifted. If you can’t afford to give your kids a breakfast, then you shouldn’t really be having kids.

You do realise that families’ circumstances can change?

In Wirral West too. Three times is not a mistake. It's a pattern of deliberate misbehaviour. Good substack piece on this:

substack.com/home/post/p-187115736

I don’t know much about the Greens.
Just heard that that they are getting stronger.
Still, I won’t be bothering to vote for them.

BNP! Who would have thought that Reform would copy them?

Meant to say, the granny letter is an old BNP tactic.

MayBee70

Labour is all that stands between us and Reform. And Reform shoot themselves in the foot constantly but for whatever reason the news media lets them get away with it. Because somebody somewhere wants them in power. They’ve now broken the campaign rules for the by election but they’ll still probably win because although what they did was illegal it’s still done the job.

Not necessarily. The "Dear Neighbour, I'm a local pensioner" electoral fraud committed by Reform in Gorton & Denton - which is now being blamed on the printer (or the printer is taking the fall) - is exactly the same stunt they pulled in Caerphilly. It didn't work there.

MayBee70

Labour is all that stands between us and Reform. And Reform shoot themselves in the foot constantly but for whatever reason the news media lets them get away with it. Because somebody somewhere wants them in power. They’ve now broken the campaign rules for the by election but they’ll still probably win because although what they did was illegal it’s still done the job.

This is why the media will promote Reform no matter what …

“UK media ownership is highly concentrated, with roughly 90% of national newspaper circulation controlled by three companies: DMG Media (Daily Mail/Metro), News UK (The Sun/Times), and Reach PLC (Mirror/Express). Key individuals behind these, alongside other outlets, include Rupert Murdoch, Lord Rothermere, Evgeny Lebedev, and, increasingly, foreign investment funds”

It is in the interests of these billionaire oligarchs to have a government in the UK that they align with, and will implement policies to make the super rich even richer - e.g. Reform.

Blair’s New Labour wasn’t vilified by the media of the day because he cossied up to Murdoch - Blair is Godfather to one of Murdoch’s children. Keir Starmer hasn’t sunk so low, therefore he’s seen as ‘fair game’ by the media.

Even though many people don’t read ‘print’ newspapers now, these organisations all have an online presence; what they put out is repeated ‘ad nauseam’ by TV 24 hour rolling news and makes its way into social media.

It is an interesting, but unfortunately not an academic question: should a Prime Minister, inept and as described this morning by a Labour supporter, 'someone who has contracted out of his conscience,' be retained rather than replaced by another who will apparently be worse.

The present cabinet does not present any suitable challengers, probably handpicked for that reason, but I cannot believe that out of 404 Labour MPs there are no suitable candidates to be found. Someone with experience, knowledge and integrity , without undesirable 'friendships' to blow up in their face, and allegiance to causes beyond this country.

MT62

What about the Greens, aren’t they supposed to be doing well.
I just don’t know who I would vote for, tbh. Definitely not labour.

Zack Polanski as PM - God forbid, it doesn't bear thinking about

What about the Greens, aren’t they supposed to be doing well.
I just don’t know who I would vote for, tbh. Definitely not labour.

Labour is all that stands between us and Reform. And Reform shoot themselves in the foot constantly but for whatever reason the news media lets them get away with it. Because somebody somewhere wants them in power. They’ve now broken the campaign rules for the by election but they’ll still probably win because although what they did was illegal it’s still done the job.

Two ways of looking at this, someone stronger takes over, it could keep labour in power.
If KS stays in, if he keeps shooting himself in the foot, labour will be out soon enough.
I’ve always voted Tory, I like kemi, but don’t think they will get back in next time round.

It was only a few weeks ago that Jenrick was tipped to replace her in the near future. I don’t see what she has done to suddenly become the great leader and saviour of the country.

MayBee70

Sarnia

I didn't vote for Labour at the last GE and won't vote for them at the next, irrespective of who is PM. Starmer will cling like a limpet to being PM and if Angela Rayner is the alternative then I would rather he stayed despite him being a dreadful PM, everlasting U-turning.
Roll on the next GE when the Tories can return to run the country.

You mean with the ones that haven’t joined Reform. But obviously not the good, decent MP’s that Johnson threw out.

Reform won[t get my vote either. Of all the party leaders, Kemi Badenoch appeals to me the most.

TINA

In my opinion people are joining or rejoining the Labour Party not because they know a good man when they see one but because they want a vote in the next leadership contest.

Pre referendum we were speaking to a group of Conservatives who had a vote remain stall at a local village market. And one of them said at the time that it worried him that the people leading the party at the time were all journalists ( eg Gove, Johnson…).

'He is a lawyer, not a leader'.
What, in the minds of us GNs, is the best professional or life experience training to be a Prime Minister?
What has been Kemi Badenoch's 'training'?

The labour party tend not to get rid of their leaders, this isn't a compliment or a criticism ( there have been times when it would have been much better for the party if they had acted in a more brutal fashion) but it isn't how they usually operate.

I agree, it does de-stabilise the country when PMs are replaced too swiftly, witness the Conservatives, but unfortunately Starmer has ignored his electorate to his own peril plus being an incompetent politician. As Kemi Badenoch noted so presciently, he is a lawyer not a leader.

Maybe, if an election had to be called whenever a party leader in government was replaced politicians would think more carefully about who they choose and there would be less infighting. Imo Andy Burnham only wanted to become an MP again because he thought he could step straight into the top job. Cameron, imo shouldn’t’ve walked away from the mess he created by the referendum ( which started this musical chairs party leader stuff which now seems to have become the norm and is not good for the country). Back bench MP’s wouldn’t spend so much time plotting against their party leaders if they think, by doing so, they might lose their job.

I didn't vote Labour but I think it would be better if Starmer stays as PM.
I don't like this present trend of PMs being replaced. It destabilises the country.

Sarnia

I didn't vote for Labour at the last GE and won't vote for them at the next, irrespective of who is PM. Starmer will cling like a limpet to being PM and if Angela Rayner is the alternative then I would rather he stayed despite him being a dreadful PM, everlasting U-turning.
Roll on the next GE when the Tories can return to run the country.

You mean with the ones that haven’t joined Reform. But obviously not the good, decent MP’s that Johnson threw out.

Why should there be a GE if Starmer leaves. How many times did the Tories swap Leaders without resorting to a GE.?