Angela Rayner

It was ever thus. Way back it was Michael Foot in the firing line.
Leopards do indeed tend to hang on to their spots.

 

What a load of b@ll@cks

 

Foot got a lot of stick for wearing animal skin coats.

 

Do you genuinely believe this?

https://www.google.com/search?clien...HWSDEjAQtKgLegQIDRAB&biw=485&bih=890&dpr=2.98

 

I never said he got a soft ride!! I'm saying Corbyn got a much tougher ride. I'm applying the same principle that you seem to have done - I'm just using my own eyes and ears and memory and not backing up my impressions with fact or research. I'm sure we could do some research and get a more objective view of the level of criticism both got/get.

 

Ah yes, the default response of the 'kinder, gentler' clan kicks in.

It's such a well articulated argument, I can feel my whole logic crumbling around me. Have you ever considered a career in politics?

 

Ah, the default response of the 'Starmer can do no wrong' brigade. Nice to be patronised innit?
Have you ever considered a career in diplomacy?

 

I assume you also tried the equivalent search for other politicians too? Weirdly, they all show up loads of images aswell. Any Labour leader is targeted by the right wing press, and they're far more relentless in trying to pin something, anything, they can on Starmer as he's always been a genuine threat to be PM, which Corbyn never was.

Beergate was just a single example, and it ran for 14 days of front pages, solely on the basis of the Mail wanting to create a false equivalence between Starmer's actions and Johnson's.

The difference is that they're having to manufacture many of the stories to attack Starmer with, rather than rely on any dubious previous actions, which they had a plethora of with Corbyn.

We saw this in action in the debate the other day too when Sunak tried to define his time as DPP as "working with Abu Qatada". They're at the stage now where they'll literally throw any old **** in his direction in the hope that something will stick.

 

Who said Starmer can do no wrong? There's plenty of criticism I could aim in his direction, and he wasn't my first preference option in the leadership contest. None of that will stop me voting Labour and welcoming him as our new PM in a few weeks. Beyond that, I'll judge him on what he does in office, but it won't take much for him to be an improvement on any of the last 5 incumbents.

It's also worth adding that he's far exceeded my expectations for what he could achieve in a single electoral cycle, given the state that Corbyn left the party in, with an 80 seat Tory majority and an damning EHCR report about to land. The outcome on July 4th, even if the polls narrow from here, will represent a historic swing that was beyond all comprehension 5 years ago.

 

Might be added that the reference to the Queen on that last one looks less than tasteful.

 

That's a much better response. Thank you for keeping the debate friendly. We all have our opinions about Tories/Starmer. I completely agree that Labours electoral chances have completely turned around in part but not wholly down to Starmer. Ordinarily I would be **** -a-hoop at the prospect. Im concerned however and I shouldn't be. The reason Im concerned is Starmers attitude on key issues and what looks like impending further austerity from an incoming Labour government. You may think Im wrong to be concerned after 14 years of this shower but nevertheless I am and I actually fear for the country in 5 years' time unless Labour help marginalised and disaffected people when they get in. Some radical change is needed or the country will polarise further in my opinion.

 

I'm not a fan of Starmer. The EU stance and weak environmental pledges (hopefully a manifesto will flush that out more and give some crumbs of comfort) are aspects I strongly wouldn't vote for. But he is a grown up and I can't see him doing what Truss, Johnson and Sunak have done. Just on that basis alone, my expectation will be that things will somehow get marginally better and we might have a few instances where hope flickers.

One of the things on his side will be that the rate of government borrowing should fall and that in itself should create a bit of surplus to be able to start reinvesting in crumbling infrastructure and public services. If the economy finds 1 to 1.5% GDP growth, and if taxes are actually collected, that should also generate a little bit of headroom.

I know there is criticism from the left of the party, and its a shame there is the continued civil war within labour. I recall under Corbyns banner there were continued threats of purges and deselections of the centrists. It's little surprise the centre want to do the same in return. Sadly, I don't see that ending.

As to what follows in 5 years time... we've seen in the last 5 years that's a huge time in politics and global events. Think of the last decade and we've had the huge impact of brexit, a pandemic, war in Europe and some of the craziest political leaders in my lifetime and possibly ever (happy to be corrected by political historians). Back in 2021 there was talk of Johnson being PM for a decade.

The first step at this GE is getting power out of the hands of people who really cant be trusted to do things for the benefit of the people of this country and will do and say anything to try and retain power at all costs. That in itself would be novel and refreshing and worth enjoying for a little while at least.

 

We all know regardless of who comes in that the countries finances have been decimated, austerity is a big possibility, almost certain but taking the government as a whole instead of just who will lead, there's a strong possibility that austerity will be much worse with another Tory government. Labour do leave a lot to be desired when comparing policy to old labour but at least the focus will be shined on an attempt to repair public services and will have voices in government advising Starmer of what's best for the public whereas we know full well the Tories will continue to champion policies that put money only in the hands of the super rich and wealthy.

I'd personally prefer to be less well off but able to take my kids to the doctor's and have actual teachers in schools instead of the repetition of constant under qualified substitutes than be less well off and watch Tories profit of off private investment firms and their own laws benefiting their property portfolio's all whilst the country crumbles. There's no 3rd way that offers a sensible alternative currently only populists that claim immigration is our worst problem and have less of a credible plan than either the Tories or labour.

 

You do genuinely believe it then. You genuinely believe the headlines you're referring to are worse than being incessantly labelled a terrorist.

 

As you probably well know mine was a statement of fact yours wasn’t , meanwhile in the alternative universe of Starmer Jack Boot boys another made up allegation is quietly dropped without apology
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...affers-accused-of-leaking-antisemitism-report

 

There isn't a single image in your link which labels him a terrorist. He's generally referred to as a friend of, or apologist for, terrorist groups due to the fact that he has form for associating himself with them, or being seen to support their causes.

See also his proximity to notorious antisemites on multiple occasions for further examples of why he was fundamentally unelectable as a Labour Party leader.

So yes, a sustained campaign of unsubstantiated attacks against Starmer in an attempt to discredit him as a PM-in-waiting are worse than those on Corbyn which can at least be traced back to questionable actions he's taken which enable the link to be made. Both were always going to be subjected to the hostility of the right-wing press, purely by the position they held, as were the ones before them and those that will follow. The attacks on Starmer have considerably less merit than those made against Corbyn.

 

Your political views are very clear from the political posts I've read over many years, but you differ from many of those who align with you in that you try to engage pro-actively and articulate your points, and I will typically always try to do the same, even when in fundamental disagreement with someone.

The post I responded to from Durkar Red, which you commented on, had no merit worthy of the same treatment, and the subsequent response to it was entirely consistent with its content.

 

I know what you mean about quality of debate. Its sometimes difficult not to get pi.ssed off with people who won't engage sensibly, politely or simply dont explain things. It is however incumbent on all of us to not fall down to the same level (particularly of rudeness I would say). If I sometimes come over as rude I should be called out on it and if its a valid criticism of my tone I'll apologise. There's an old adage which I always try to apply when I'm getting miffed....'treat others how you would like to be treated '. It can seem a bit naive in the heat of 'battle' but it's a good self-control to try and apply.
Anyway, I'm always correct in whatever I say as I'm sure you know at heart!