Not for me, jon, but for society. Social experminentation's fine for the Lefties, but when it comes knocking on my front door, that's where some folks draw a line in the sand!
Anyway, are you Lyzko (a Democrat) or a troll impersonating him? I think we know.
that's where some folks
The new party leader is a decision for the party members and for the party members alone. "Some folks" can vote for whatever party they choose when it's time for the next general election..
@jon, all I mean is that Britain might not be ready to accept the three groups I' d mentioned. See how long it took you lot to accept a Jew (Disraeli) and a woman (Thatcher). -
Starmer had to go because he was the leader of the thought police, the free speech police, and the leader of illegal migration. He is the biggest POS in the UK and does not care one bit about real British people. He should be hung for treason.
Yo, free speech, like freedom itself, AIN'T free!! Free speech ends where your neighbor's civil rights begin.
Anti-Semites, Muslim bashers, women abusers or the like are toxic in any society, Britain is no exception.
On the other hand, the UK does not have the melting pot culture of the US, therefore the sort of diversity with which we're familiar in the States is still not known or accepted across the broad swath of Great Britain. London is always the exception, as with most megalopoli world wide.
Andy Burnham, my prediction is that in one year you will be crying to bring..
I'm not a fan. This is someone who in the past has constantly changed his political stances.
decent PMs in the past couple of decades, who earnestly tried to fix your country's..
I think his heart was in the right place but like so many politicians, out of touch with the people.
Anyone walking into the mess that the Conservatives left behind had their work cut out for them and he didn't get off to the greatest of starts by ostracising the disabled and pensioners with proposed cuts. He did a U-turn on those and has done U-turns on many other things since. That doesn't inspire confidence and has caused much infighting amongst backbenchers.
In addition, there were the disastrous May local elections when Labour lost so many seats. That triggered many resignations from the party.
However, In my opinion the final nail in his coffin was the fallout from the controversial appointment of Peter Mandelson and his friendship with Epstein. Starmer was continually having to justify that he was kept in the dark about the extent of the friendship.
I don't think there's one single reason behind the pressure for him to resign, rather a build-up of policy failures and dwindling support.
I feel sad about the whole sorry state of British politics. I've been a life-long Labour supporter but they've lost their way. Not the Labour Party of old.
More recently, jon, though not traditionally. "Londonistan" and those outbursts by Ken Livingston were only within the past thirty-some years, not one-hundred thirty.
In my opinion the final nail in his coffin was the fallout from the controversial..
Who cares about Peter Mandelson?
Look at what your ambassador to the United States (Mandelson's replacement), Sir Christian Turner said:
Turner also told the students he considered it "extraordinary" that the scandal over the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein had "brought down a senior member of the royal family [Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor], a British ambassador to Washington [Peter Mandelson], potentially the prime minister [Keir Starmer], and yet here in the U.S., it really hasn't touched anybody."
I understand that he meant this, to some extent, as criticism of America - but it should also serve to make you stop and think about whether or not you have too precious an attitude towards these things.
In America - the PRESIDENT was a close friend for more than two decades. HALF OF THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT is somehow tarnished through relations with Epstein.... and nothing happens.
Poor Keir Starmer merely appointed a guy, without checking how close he was to Epstein - and you call it the FINAL NAIL IN HIS COFFIN.
Come on...
Keir Starmer did not go to any pedophile islands. Did not attend soirées at Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Never exchanged so much as a text message with Epstein... and this is the final nail in the coffin?
Are you guys retarded?
In Italy, a former prime minister would regularly host "bunga bunga" parties with 18 year olds, and kept getting elected. In France, a president would put on a helmet and leave the residence on a moped to visit his lover. I already told you that in America it's an absolute non-event.
Buncha Puritans in Britain, not letting a good person do his job.
I think the media bear a lot of the responsibility for this.
I can't remember how many dozens of articles I read in the past two years, with headlines like "Starmer is finished", "The end of the road for Starmer?", "Starmer living on borrowed time", etc, etc.
Each time I would read the article diligently, and be left scratching my head over what exactly the big deal was.
British media is especially vicious. Much more than America's. Always out for blood, without any care for how it will affect the country.
Vanishingly few articles cheering Starmer on, defending him... Maybe the only time I saw such articles was when he gave some good speeches on the Tommy Robinson business.
I can't remember how many dozens of articles I read in the past two years,..
There's part of that, and within the party there are a lot of people within the Party who wished Andy hadn't been Greater Manchester Mayor and therefore unable to stand back in 2022.
Vanishingly few articles cheering Starmer on, defending him..
Plenty appearing now.
British media is especially vicious. Much more than America's.
Very. We've long called it the Fourth Estate (after the crown, parliament. It can be hard, however it acts as a check and publishes things that in many countries, including PL, wouldn't be in the public domain.
without any care for how it will affect the country.
Sadly, most of the media nowadays is in the hands of people living abroad, billionaire tax exiles who make money from chaos and change.
You can't manage a country properly, if you only have a year or two in power, and spend most of it batting back attacks from all compass directions.
It's why I thought it was a good idea to extend presidential terms in Russia, to be more like the French ones (pre-2002, when it was 7 years).
Before this ten year period where you had 7 PMs, you had a twenty year period with just 3.
David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair.
What exactly is the difference?
Ok... nobody is as charismatic as Tony Blair, the English Obama. But Gordon Brown and David Cameron were just as unlikable as the current cohort. Why didn't the backbenchers from that period, rape them in the same way as they raped May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Starmer, and now probably... soon... Burnham?
I think, it's because nobody wants to be honest with the British people regarding the unmitigated disaster that was Brexit. You simply won't be as rich as before, and as influential as before. The only way Britain can fix itself now, is if you massively tighten your belts, and get hard at work. But nobody wants to hear that. Hence the infinite progression of politicians.
You can't manage a country properly, if you only have a year or two in..
The party has a 5 year term. I'd be happy with a 6 year term however c'hange is unlikely since the Head of State is a lifetime role, one of duty not ambition or power.
There isn't any sort of 'fuhrerprinzip' or need for an 'Arab strongman' or one of the sort you have with golden toilets and their faces everywhere.
Before this ten year period where you had 7 PMs, you had a twenty year..
Yes. Sadly we had a failed tory administration that kept on changing nand this was an undesirable precedent. Expect more changes in future since this is now a thing.
Ok... nobody is as charismatic as Tony Blair,
Fvck charisma, the tricksters and clowns will laugh us all into hell.
Brexit.
Things there haven't really changed at all due to that. Nevertheless, it is likely to be reversed before the next election.
Burnham
Forget Truss the lettuce and Sunak the billionaire. We got rid of them.
Andy Burnham? I always said I'd probably vote for him in our internal election if he stood again. Nominations for party leader open in about a fortnight on 9/7. If there are no other contenders, he'll need the support of 5% of constituency parties and three affiliated organisations of ehich on e must be a Trade Union. That would happen. If there are challengers, it goes to an internal ballet with higher requirements about support. This looks likely and if Dan Jarvis, Shabana Mahmood or John Healey stand I may vote for one of them, probably Dan. Wes Streeting and Richard Burgon can fvck off.
When are you gonna drop into the Labour thread and tell us what you think about the great satan - getting booted out of office.
Starmer was useless.... Burnham will do much more than Starmer, but mainly bad things....Starmer was not booted out of office, he resigned..where is the Labour thread?
His [Streeting's] Twitter post today was pretty statesmanlike:
"We could spend the summer exaggerating small differences, or we can roll up our sleeves and help him to deliver the change our party and our country needs. That is the choice that I am making and I hope that everyone else will back Andy, too."
For this, he will be rewarded with the Chancellorship - the papers write.
where is the Labour thread?
This is the Labour thread - you muppet.
Burnham will do much more than Starmer, but mainly bad things...
What will he do, which will be "much more"? What are you afraid of?
His [Streeting's] Twitter post today was pretty statesmanlike:
Hard not to. He was one of the main agitators for change however he doesn't have the support base. And they have to sound magnanimous, even if they don't mean it.
For this, he will be rewarded with the Chancellorship - the papers write.
I really hope he won't however he would be better than Ed Miliband who is opposed by the Unions on the grounds of his views on hydrocarbons. He's also not quite trusted
The English have proven themselves fully successful at destroying their own union, and don't need anybody's help. As evidenced by the Brexit vote, where Scotland and NI voted otherwise.
If your own brothers don't agree with you - you don't need Russian help to f*ck up your country.
It's entertaining to observe - I'll give you that much.
they have to sound magnanimous, even if they don't mean it.
You understand all these Game of Thrones things, when it comes to your own politics - but if it happens somewhere much further East - then it's "savagery".
Kind of irritating.
Did you see the tears in Starmer's eyes today, during his resignation speech?
Why pretend that everyone is so different from one another? When it's the same games of power, betrayal, and lies - with equally tragic consequences?
Forget Truss the lettuce and Sunak the billionaire. We got rid of them.
The long discussion between Jon and Bobko would be of interest if it was remotely about Poland as it is, for any interested Pole qualifies as long exchange of stinking farts in the presence of distinguished listeners.
Home / News / What will Britain's Labor Coup mean for Poland?
