Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Why isn't Starmer representing those that voted him in?

I wish I knew why he isnt, Sith. He put forward a plausible mandate and has pretty much failed on everything promised, as well as various U turns away from policies which he even started in motion. Just a personal view but I think the current opinion polls tend to underpin my view as to how well people assess his governance. But he has become good mates with the Donald....

[SithHappens]

A lot comes down to opinion though. The mechanism is there that if he is really doing a dreadful job a vote of no confidence can be called for.

Should that happen and/or he resigns then I would agree there is a case for an election.

[ramAnag]

Two wrongs dont make a right.

His appointment of Lammy as deputy merely is a protective move that demonstrates his own lack of self belief - a bit like Nixon appointing Ford as VP: "they wont impeach me if thats whats to follow"

Except that they did?and he did and I don?t think things quite work like that - not in the long term - as far as deputy PM?s are concerned.

As for being ?mates? with Trump. I?m sure Starmer finds it all enormously difficult, but surely his ability to maintain a cordial relationship with the mad man (imo) who happens to be the current leader of our closest and strongest allies is a plus point. We?re in the sh1t as it is. Imagine how much worse it would be if Trump was hitting us with the tariffs he?s using against others.

[Geoff Parkstone]

A lot comes down to opinion though. The mechanism is there that if he is really doing a dreadful job a vote of no confidence can be called for.

Should that happen and/or he resigns then I would agree there is a case for an election.

Erm, I dont think I've ever considered you naive Sith - but a call for a vote of no confidence?? Remind me what is the current Labour overall majority? MP's are generally shrewd enough to know where the bread is buttered. Turkeys dont vote for Christmas. A new election would see many potentially lose their seats, but not the tool makers son who is sat in a solid red seat.

Same as when the Tories were split over Brexit under Johnson - a vote of no confidence would simply pull the party together for fear of losing out on the cushtie seat as an MP. I dread to think what a leader would need to do to lose a vote of no confidence: he had 411 seats, now 399 following various suspensions, resignations and defections giving an overall majority of almost 150 assuming everyone were to vote.

That means over 75 turkeys voting for Christmas....

[Andy_Faber]

A lot comes down to opinion though. The mechanism is there that if he is really doing a dreadful job a vote of no confidence can be called for.

Should that happen and/or he resigns then I would agree there is a case for an election.

IMO there's a limit to principles and that's the point at which an MP might lose his or her job. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.

I said a while ago my POV is always to wish a new administration well in improving 'our' lives but he's really bogging things up at the mo. To use another forum's marking system, Sonny Bradley/10

[swaledale]

Two wrongs dont make a right.

I agree that the Tories were a stale, amoral and ineffective government for many of those 14 years, under May, that other woman who made Lady Jane Grey look enduring and Johnson in particular, but any hope of Starmer bringing fresh enthhusiasm and ideas to the role have long gone in my view.

His promises have been shattered in short order and the opinion polls (yes I know they are clearly far right wing orchestrated and so false,Obergruppenfuhrer Swale) say it all. I dont recall anyone who has lost the confidence of a country in such short order. He has lost all credibility and comes over as a weak leader. His appointment of Lammy as deputy merely is a protective move that demonstrates his own lack of self belief - a bit like Nixon appointing Ford as VP: "they wont impeach me if thats whats to follow"

I don't disagree that on the perception front, Starmer has done badly, many being self inflicted mistakes or simply ill thought out policies that seem on the face of it to have been written on the back of a fag packet.

Leaving aside the obvious bias of the right wing media and the relentless atacks that have been as full of made up BS as they have been true, there is unfortunately a simplicity amongst the voting public, which fails or doesn't even try to understand, either the complexities of government (I'll accept that on the surface Starmer seems lacking in this aspect as well) or the sheer magnitude of the mess that Labour inherited.

One only has to think how Labour were unfairly and incorrectly blamed for the world financial crash, when in fact Gordon Brown's decisive action prevented it being worse than it was, yet the Tories have got away with, Brexit, not processing asylum seekers promptly, vastly increasing legal immigration, austerity, and so on and so forth.

So what have Labour done thats positive?

Brought down legal immigration, vastly reduced the use of hotels for asylum seekers, speeded up the processing of asylum claims, managed to deport more failed asylum seekers and people here working illegally, significantly reduced NHS waiting lists, started the nationalisation of the railways, ended the series of strikes that plagued the country, managed so far to reduce the negative effects of the mad orange Trump as far as possible, improved the relationship with the EU, negotiating both the start of a returns agreement for migrants and reduced checks on exports and imports. Increased the funds for building more council/social housing.

Whilst at the same time having to contend with a febrile political atmosphere whereby Farage the arch agitator and purveyor of simplistic, uncosted and unrealistic solutions to complex policies is managing to avoid scrutiny over his financing of a house in Clacton, his many jobs on the side and his frequent trips to the US, the last one where he was slagging off the UK like the great patriot he is!

I totally agree that Starmer needs to get a grip on both his comms, which is piss poor and articulate a vision, rather than sounding like some middle management wonk, but he hasn't totally failed to do what was promised, unless of course you believe the right wing media agitators based in Dubai, or France, Germany or Florida who almost seem to want the UK to end up in a civil war and spread half truths and damn lies to a gullible public on a daily basis.

[SithHappens]

Naive or not, that mechanism exists to relieve Starmer of his role should it be considered hes doing such a bad job we should be considering an election due to the inadequacy of his 1st year in the role. Do I think its likely to happen? Of course not.

How do we get to be discussing if an election should happen off the back of a defection simply because it was pointed out that both Farage and Anderson have both stated that defecting MPs should call a by-election, to turn it round on Starmer and labour is whataboutery of the highest order.

That Starmer is doing such a bad job he should call an election is not fact, its opinion, that a defecting MP should call a by-election is not fact its just opinion, that Farage and Anderson have both gone on record stating they should IS fact.

[ramAnag]

Two excellent posts directly above imo. It’s always interesting how the picture changes when we swap Right wing rhetoric for facts.

[MadAmster]

Two excellent posts directly above imo. It’s always interesting how the picture changes when we swap Right wing rhetoric for facts.

You mean like the Cambridge student did with Kirk? CK didn't handle that well, at all.

[swaledale]

You mean like the Cambridge student did with Kirk? CK didn't handle that well, at all.

The same applies to Farage who gets very bolshie and aggressive when questioned about the funding arrangements for his, sorry his partners home in Clacton, or when challenged on his plan to deport 100,000's. when previously he had admitted that wasn't remotely possible. None of these shysters and purveyors of BS can handle it when intelligently grilled over their statements. Too often a compliant slavering media doesn't do that.

[swaledale]

Naive or not, that mechanism exists to relieve Starmer of his role should it be considered hes doing such a bad job we should be considering an election due to the inadequacy of his 1st year in the role. Do I think its likely to happen? Of course not.

How do we get to be discussing if an election should happen off the back of a defection simply because it was pointed out that both Farage and Anderson have both stated that defecting MPs should call a by-election, to turn it round on Starmer and labour is whataboutery of the highest order.

That Starmer is doing such a bad job he should call an election is not fact, its opinion, that a defecting MP should call a by-election is not fact its just opinion, that Farage and Anderson have both gone on record stating they should IS fact.

Have you found my post on Kirk's statements Sith? if not I can repost, though to be honest you can find him saying those things online given AF's concern over the context. Just google Charlie Kirk videos.

[ramAnag]

You mean like the Cambridge student did with Kirk? CK didn't handle that well, at all.

Not sure I know enough about that to comment, MA.

I just wish people would be more honest and objective. It happens on here too. Without being personal, GP’s comment about Rainbow and Palestinian flags being the only ones that are acceptable these days was just nonsense.
Likewise on Sunday, AF, when talking about criticism of the forum, accused me of ‘making more fuss about it than everyone else combined’ (#4143) and yet we have a thread dedicated to ‘Problems with the Ram Inn’ and I am responsible for just 17 out of 154 replies and two of them were thanking him when things improved a few weeks ago.

So facts gentlemen please, rather than - for those who are old enough - the Alf Garnett school of chunnering nonsense in the belief that somehow if you say it often enough it becomes true. It doesn’t.

As RS wisely said, we need to be nicer to each other…but we also need to be truthful.

[macstheman]

'Nicer to each other, truthful'!!
I'm sorry rA but I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
This is the ducking human ducking race, after hundreds of years of ducking civilisation we're not only a hateful, vile (and it's twin evil), despicable, selfish, nasty, warmongering, inconsiderate, wealth dominated, small minded....... oh I could go on and ducking on but what's the point!
THE HUMAN DUCKING RACE IS ****E and before we've finished the legacy we'll leave is one big rubbish dump and the world's leaders will do duck all about it!
Thankfully I won't be here to see it!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Two excellent posts directly above imo. It?s always interesting how the picture changes when we swap Right wing rhetoric for facts.

and so the close knit karass closes down still further! What I believe are facts, what you believe are rhetoric. We are a;; entitled to opinion and views but please dont be so condescending as to believe that you know all the facts and others just know BS. That degree of narrow mindedness will bite you in the arse one day, if it hasnt already

[Andy_Faber]

we also need to be truthful.

...which is fine, but when (14/9) I fact checked and offered independant correction of what I believe was an innocently posted falsehood from MA, you were right across it, pushing back with 'MA may or not be correct...I don't know either (and neither) do you'. Yes I did, based on then-current (and still current) knowledge. That's you in denial (I can't think of a better word) about a thoroughly fact-checked (using independant sources), politely put and referenced correction, my assumption I'm afraid being because the original fitted your 'leaning'. Note that MA appeared to take it in good part. You appear to react the same with most facts and anecdotes that don't support your view.

Not sure how I can say the above 'nicely' but I hope its fairly polite