Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Kaos said:
I'd like to hear from Labour supporters what their take is for why Starmer has ascended a horrible, bigoted mess of a candidate that is Luke Akehurst. We're getting plenty of mental gymnastics to justify the brutal deselection of the likes of Faiza Shaheen, but by the same token I'd want to hear what the benefits are to incorporate the likes of Akehurst.
Click to expand...
They'd have come up with an excuse if Starmer had nominated Harold Shipman's corpse as a candidate.
 
VorZakone said:
Well, does Labour think it's safe enough without Akehurst?
Click to expand...
44% of the vote in 2019, 59% in 2017. Yes its very much safe enough, especially if you'd factor the expected nationwide swing in Labour's favour. I think its safe to assume they haven't parachuted him in because they were worried they were losing that one, and even if that were the case why would they have expected someone like him to be the clutch factor?

So it begs the question as to why he's been parachuted in? He's not local to the area, isn't considered a talented or future star of the party, and his only claim to fame is being a vehement apologist of Israel to the extent that he's dancing with accusations of antisemitism considering the comments he's made about anti-Zionist Jews.
 
Kaos said:
44% of the vote in 2019, 59% in 2019. Yes its very much safe enough, especially if you'd factor the expected nationwide swing in Labour's favour. I think its safe to assume they haven't parachuted him in because they were worried they were losing that one, and even if that were the case why would they have expected someone like him to be the clutch factor?

So it begs the question as to why he's been parachuted in? He's not local to the area, isn't considered a talented or future star of the party, and his only claim to fame is being a vehement apologist of Israel to the extent that he's dancing with accusations of antisemitism considering the comments he's made about anti-Zionist Jews.
Click to expand...
This is the long and the short of it really. It's such a safe seat that even he can't feck it up.
 
Kaos said:
44% of the vote in 2019, 59% in 2017. Yes its very much safe enough, especially if you'd factor the expected nationwide swing in Labour's favour. I think its safe to assume they haven't parachuted him in because they were worried they were losing that one, and even if that were the case why would they have expected someone like him to be the clutch factor?

So it begs the question as to why he's been parachuted in? He's not local to the area, isn't considered a talented or future star of the party, and his only claim to fame is being a vehement apologist of Israel to the extent that he's dancing with accusations of antisemitism considering the comments he's made about anti-Zionist Jews.
Click to expand...
A 'thank you' for getting and sustaining a pro-leadership majority on the NEC. Plus an assurance that he will never break the whip. Plenty of safe seats or expected gains have been stitched up this way.
 
Raven said:
This is the long and the short of it really. It's such a safe seat that even he can't feck it up.
Click to expand...
Frosty said:
A 'thank you' for getting and sustaining a pro-leadership majority on the NEC. Plus an assurance that he will never break the whip. Plenty of safe seats or expected gains have been stitched up this way.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree completely.

I'm just curious to hear the justifications from Starmer's most stalwart defenders here. I've heard all sorts of justifications as to why Shaheen and Abbott (initially) were deselected, I'd also be keen to hear what they'd have to say about Akehurst.
 
Kaos said:
Oh I agree completely.

I'm just curious to hear the justifications from Starmer's most stalwart defenders here. I've heard all sorts of justifications as to why Shaheen and Abbott (initially) were deselected, I'd also be keen to hear what they'd have to say about Akehurst.
Click to expand...
They've twisted themselves into mental pretzels pre Akehurst, no excuse will surprise me this time. @VorZakone suggesting he's been parachuted into one of Labours safest seats because they're worried about votes is going to be one of the less outrageous takes I'd imagine.
 
Raven said:
They've twisted themselves into mental pretzels pre Akehurst, no excuse will surprise me this time. @VorZakone suggesting he's been parachuted into one of Labours safest seats because they're worried about votes is going to be one of the less outrageous takes I'd imagine.
Click to expand...
I have no expertise on UK politics. It was just a random question because usually the explanation is "they think this is electorally good" when it comes to politics in general.
 
Kaos said:
44% of the vote in 2019, 59% in 2017. Yes its very much safe enough, especially if you'd factor the expected nationwide swing in Labour's favour. I think its safe to assume they haven't parachuted him in because they were worried they were losing that one, and even if that were the case why would they have expected someone like him to be the clutch factor?

So it begs the question as to why he's been parachuted in? He's not local to the area, isn't considered a talented or future star of the party, and his only claim to fame is being a vehement apologist of Israel to the extent that he's dancing with accusations of antisemitism considering the comments he's made about anti-Zionist Jews.
Click to expand...
Alright, it does seem safe. I don't know why they parachuted the guy in.
 
VorZakone said:
I have no expertise on UK politics. It was just a random question because usually the explanation is "they think this is electorally good" when it comes to politics in general.
Click to expand...
I really hope the people of Durham feck him off back into irrelevance but I just can't see it happening.
 
Eleven-Eighteen said:
Starmer's turning out to be more of a nothing burger than I had originally expected. Almost to the point where I have no idea what his plans are for the country at all. The gobshite state of the UK economy is, to me, the single biggest problem that anyone in 10 Downing St should be looking to tackle and Sunak/ Hunt are at least putting forward ideas. Starmer/ Reeves have nothing concrete to offer - all they keep harping on in every interview is Lizz Truss and how she fecked up that interim budget. Well it's been almost two years on from that and like it or not but Sunak/ Hunt have stabilized inflation, have brought energy prices down a little, and state that they plan to grow the economy by cutting taxes. You can disagree with them on whether that's how you should fix the economic problems of the UK but at least they have ideas. Reeves keeps talking about how she will balance the budget like it's some revolutionary thought but that's basic math and table stakes for a Chancellor. Being better than Quasi Quarteng is not enough - a high schooler could've done a better job.

The Tories have been absolutely disgraceful the last 10 years - poltically, economically, and morally - but with just one month to the election I am suddenly finding it hard to get myself to vote Labour given that Starmer's only pitch is that they're "not the Tories"

What an absolute let down
Click to expand...
Not going to defend the criticisms of Labour or Starmer in your post but i absolutely need to do a little fact checking here to highlight that the bolded is catagorically not true. Hunt and Sunak have they themselves, done absolutely nothing in terms of policy to affect inflation or energy prices.

A) Energy prices have lulled from the record highs because the supply shock factors which instigated them have consolidated for the time being, as worldwide supply has rejiged itself to get around sanctions. This is outside of the fact they are going to rise again later in the year.
B) Inflation has come down as it allways was going to, off the back of the prices baking themselves in as demand has better matched supply, as well as the bank of england increasing interest rates which was wholley independant of the chancellor to assist in achieving this. Its why the "will halve inflation" pledge was a gimmic, a cat as chancellor would have halved inflation eventually as long as it replaced Kwarteng and Truss to reaffirm markets.
c) They may have indicated they want to cut taxes to grow the economy as a plan but they have also indicated uncosted plans to spend. Coupled with the pledge to not borrow these 2 are at odds with each other and indicate they one of the 2 are bullshit.
 
Raven said:
This is the long and the short of it really. It's such a safe seat that even he can't feck it up.
Click to expand...

I still think he can.

He is a remarkably unlikeable person, and at some point, a mainstream jounralist is going to pick up on his open racism. I see the latest 'find' is his remarks about Glenda Jackson. Her son is daily mail journalist Dan Hodges.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
I still think he can.

He is a remarkably unlikeable person, and at some point, a mainstream jounralist is going to pick up on his open racism. I see the latest 'find' is his remarks about Glenda Jackson. Her son is daily mail journalist Dan Hodges.
Click to expand...
Or this from 1998!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-urged-to-smear-lib-dems-1199983.html

LABOUR ACTIVISTS facing pressure from the Liberal Democrats should "find one flaw and smear them all", according to a leaked party document.

The paper, written by a researcher in Lambeth, was meant to show how New Labour can win back council seats lost because of the "loony left" in the 1980s.

Lambeth's Labour group, which took back control of the council in May, has been praised by Tony Blair as "more New Labour than New Labour".


The paper was leaked to a left-wing magazine, Red Pepper, after being sent to Labour councillors and ward secretaries in Hackney by Luke Akehurst, a former aide to Frank Dobson and Glenda Jackson. Mr Akehurst, who now works for Hackney Labour group, was a member of the Blairite Labour Co-ordinating Committee.

---

Yes, that's right. Akehurst was an aide to Glenda Jackson.
 
It's fecking creepy seeing this fat, sweaty, gammon goy Luke Akehurst running around measuring the skulls and ethnic makeup of Jewish and black people and publicly discussing whether they clear his personal vetting process.
 
I see medhi Hasan, with his 1.5 million followers, has just tweeted about akehurst.

I doubt the 'ignore it all' strategy is going to play out now, and they can't even replace him now, candidate deadline has gone.

Absolute idiocy putting him anywhere near the public.
 
Nogbadthebad said:
I see medhi Hasan, with his 1.5 million followers, has just tweeted about akehurst.

I doubt the 'ignore it all' strategy is going to play out now, and they can't even replace him now, candidate deadline has gone.

Absolute idiocy putting him anywhere near the public.
Click to expand...
Can you share the tweet please?
 
Kaos said:
I'd like to hear from Labour supporters what their take is for why Starmer has ascended a horrible, bigoted mess of a candidate that is Luke Akehurst. We're getting plenty of mental gymnastics to justify the brutal deselection of the likes of Faiza Shaheen, but by the same token I'd want to hear what the benefits are to incorporate the likes of Akehurst.
Click to expand...
Political pragmatism and you're a naive zealot if you think otherwise if I remember correctly.
 
Giggsyking said:
I feel sorry for anyone who is voting for him.
Click to expand...

Genuine question, but if you're normally a Labour voter, who the feck do you vote for? There's absolutely no chance I'm voting Conservative, and I'd probably just enjoy the fact they get fecked off more than anything from this election, as I have zero faith in any of these clowns actually doing anything good anyway. But out of spite I just want to see them lose at this stage. I see no other wins to be had anymore.
 
Frosty said:
A 'thank you' for getting and sustaining a pro-leadership majority on the NEC. Plus an assurance that he will never break the whip. Plenty of safe seats or expected gains have been stitched up this way.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I would be worried if they were not doing this. It shows Starmer is preparing for a long slog.

If Labour gets the large majority its looking like from the polls, then Starmer has to aim for a 2-3 term, 10 to 15 years in power to make a real difference.

Even with that length of time, the damage done over the last 14 years, means that to re-build basic public services plus the job to do on housing and employment means, everyone marching in step. Rebuilding the economy, with one of the biggest debts this country has had to run in peacetime, means when in power he does not need to have his own backbenchers rebelling every five minutes... 'muttering in the ranks' maybe tolerated, but no 'grand-standing' on specific issues.

With what is facing ordinary folk in the coming 25 -50 years, this is the last chance for a Labour government to fill the sandbags and clear the decks, to ensure a Health and Social Services fit for purpose, Education that gives everyone a chance, ensuring basic Housing needs are met and Employment is made up of decent paid jobs that do away with the term 'working poor'.

The Labour manifesto would (as a minimum) aim for ensuring people are; fit, well educated, properly housed and have access to decent jobs, get that right then we have a proper Labour government.
 
pocco said:
Genuine question, but if you're normally a Labour voter, who the feck do you vote for? There's absolutely no chance I'm voting Conservative, and I'd probably just enjoy the fact they get fecked off more than anything from this election, as I have zero faith in any of these clowns actually doing anything good anyway. But out of spite I just want to see them lose at this stage. I see no other wins to be had anymore.
Click to expand...
I am probably not going to vote.
 
Sir seems far too posh a cnut to lead a Labour government.

He also seems to have no solutions to anything and he's a dithering feckwit.

I can't stand any politicians I'm not just picking on him but he's a complete fraud.
 
pocco said:
Genuine question, but if you're normally a Labour voter, who the feck do you vote for? There's absolutely no chance I'm voting Conservative, and I'd probably just enjoy the fact they get fecked off more than anything from this election, as I have zero faith in any of these clowns actually doing anything good anyway. But out of spite I just want to see them lose at this stage. I see no other wins to be had anymore.
Click to expand...

You're not born labour voter. You have tens of options. Not vote. If it is necessary to participate in the democratic process, vote blank. If it is necessary to vote for someone, vote independent. If it necessary to vote for a party choose other parties, other than Labour and tory.

If I were to vote in the UK elections, as a medical professional I would vote for the party that pours the most money in the NHS.
 
Eleven-Eighteen said:
Starmer's turning out to be more of a nothing burger than I had originally expected. Almost to the point where I have no idea what his plans are for the country at all. The gobshite state of the UK economy is, to me, the single biggest problem that anyone in 10 Downing St should be looking to tackle and Sunak/ Hunt are at least putting forward ideas. Starmer/ Reeves have nothing concrete to offer - all they keep harping on in every interview is Lizz Truss and how she fecked up that interim budget. Well it's been almost two years on from that and like it or not but Sunak/ Hunt have stabilized inflation, have brought energy prices down a little, and state that they plan to grow the economy by cutting taxes. You can disagree with them on whether that's how you should fix the economic problems of the UK but at least they have ideas. Reeves keeps talking about how she will balance the budget like it's some revolutionary thought but that's basic math and table stakes for a Chancellor. Being better than Quasi Quarteng is not enough - a high schooler could've done a better job.

The Tories have been absolutely disgraceful the last 10 years - poltically, economically, and morally - but with just one month to the election I am suddenly finding it hard to get myself to vote Labour given that Starmer's only pitch is that they're "not the Tories"

What an absolute let down
Click to expand...
Well manifestos are next week, why not wait til then before deciding if they have any ideas?
 
pocco said:
I've considered it, but could you face another 4+ years of these twats?
Click to expand...
There are few things I despise more that them. But Labour have made a specific electoral pitch to the centrist and ex Tory voters. They have made that decision knowing they will lose votes from the left, but hope to gain more overall.

I'll await the manifesto but if they aren't changing the two child tax credit rules and similar I just don't see the change I want to vote for.
 
Kaos said:
I'd like to hear from Labour supporters what their take is for why Starmer has ascended a horrible, bigoted mess of a candidate that is Luke Akehurst. We're getting plenty of mental gymnastics to justify the brutal deselection of the likes of Faiza Shaheen, but by the same token I'd want to hear what the benefits are to incorporate the likes of Akehurst.
Click to expand...
She’s standing as an independent now and is the overwhelming favourite for her constituency. It’s not ideal but any seat that isn’t a Tory/Labour/Reform is a small victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.