Starmer’s chronicles

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

From what I've heard, that's extremely unlikely.

in that case we need a general election

[Dingbat]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

in that case we need a general election

You mean like when May resigned? Or Johnson? Or Truss?

Or Cameron, or Thatcher…

[papa smurf]

don't worry,you can still vote for king andy,i'm thinking of the future of the country,not the past

[Kursk]

The story of The King of the North has already been told. The people's choice ended up riding off into the wilderness with a ragbag entourage leaving behind chaos and bitterness. The Country doesn't have several seasons to repeat this inevitability.

[Dingbat]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or Cameron, or Thatcher…

Surprising fact. Last PM to win an election and then lose an election was Ted Heath (elected GE 1970, lost GE 1974)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Best friend or not, I’m rather embarrassed to say that Starmer was right not to join in on the Iran war.

But ‘join in’ has flexible boundaries. In one interpretation, it ‘not joining in’ means keeping totally clear of any political or tangible assistance; in another interpretation, it could mean not physically engaging but allowing our closest ally to use our sovereign bases for the USA’s purposes. I favoured the latter.

Starmer was right because Trump would have wanted to be the senior person who would call all the shots and would have got into the current mess whether or not we were in there with him.

Also, even Starmer must have realised that Trump is NOT a trusted partner. All deals/partnerships need a basis for trust. Trump only understands domination. One day, when he is ghone, a trusted alliance can be rebuilt.

In the meantime, may Starmer squirm and cry in his bed. May his whatsits turn square and fester at the corners.

I agree completely that we should not have been involved in the war, but that’s not really the issue. Starmer refused to let the US use our bases, which was not the action that a NATO partner should ever have made. Starmer realised that he shouldn’t have listened to Miliband and his supporters almost immediately, and within a few days he relented.

Starmer twisted the facts to suggest that other political parties wanted to join Trump’s war, but that simply wasn’t the case. Both the Conservatives and Reform were telling Starmer that his decision not to allow the use of our bases was wrong, not that he should have joined Trump in his personal adventures.

---------- Post added at 11:24 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yes, to his credit Starmer had the courage to say no whereas Badenoch and Farage would have pandered to Trump and dumped us in it. History shows they're not to be trusted in positions of real power.

Oh, Andrew, and I thought you were a stickler for the truth!

---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The more I think it is completely ridiculous a non-MP can stalk a PM out of office.

Burnham is an MP. Starmer was only persuaded that he would have to resign on Friday. Until the election announcement, he was saying he’d carry on fighting.

Burnham didn’t cause the discontent with Starmer’s performance - that’s been self evident for some time now.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Burnham is a fan of PR, he'll get my vote in perpetuity if he brings that in, imagine everyone's vote actually counting for something and no more of this 30% of the vote and 100% of the power BS

So you are looking forward to the permanent chaos of coalition governments? Be careful what you wish for.

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

From what I've heard, that's extremely unlikely.

Don’t you think Streeting will stand? Isn’t that why he resigned from the Cabinet?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Carth

aah . . I mistakenly thought 'lectern' was a new silly name for Starmer

Trust you to hannibalise the word ‘lectern’.

Burnham is an MP.

Is he an MP before he swears the oath/affirmation in the HoC?

He can’t take his seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath/affirmation…

I will always be convinced that he won the leadership in the first place because Labour was in opposition with an apparent mountain to climb after the 2019 election and Boris’ seemingly insurmountable 80-seat majority. Nobody thought he’d ever be PM. He was supposed to be a safe pair of managerial hands to lead the party through the wilderness years while the younger generation (hopefully) proved itself.

That being the case, I’m also not really very surprised that he was hopeless as prime minster. Limp, indecisive, grey, unwilling to upset anyone and therefore achieving nothing but to upset everyone. The undignified manner of his departure - helpless to do anything but sit and watch the coup unfold around him over the past few months - is entirely fitting.

[Sephiroth]

To Starmer: now sod off.

[jfman]

My point stands regardless as he wasn't an MP when he kicked this process off. Starmer can say what he wants about fighting on in the intervening time that was irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Is he an MP before he swears the oath/affirmation in the HoC?

He can’t take his seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath/affirmation…

Sophistry, much?

All these things will take place later today, and it’s perfectly conventional to refer to someone as ‘the new MP’ as soon as they win the election that puts them there. Even the abstentionist Sinn Fein lot are conventionally referred to as ‘MP’ even though they never do any of the above.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

I will always be convinced that he won the leadership in the first place because Labour was in opposition with an apparent mountain to climb after the 2019 election and Boris’ seemingly insurmountable 80-seat majority. Nobody thought he’d ever be PM. He was supposed to be a safe pair of managerial hands to lead the party through the wilderness years while the younger generation (hopefully) proved itself.

That being the case, I’m also not really very surprised that he was hopeless as prime minster. Limp, indecisive, grey, unwilling to upset anyone and therefore achieving nothing but to upset everyone. The undignified manner of his departure - helpless to do anything but sit and watch the coup unfold around him over the past few months - is entirely fitting.

It's clear there was no real preparation for office.

Originally Posted by jfman

It's clear there was no real preparation for office.

It’s nuts, isn’t it. Even if they didn’t expect to win the next election after 2019, they had at that point been in opposition for 9 years. You would have thought someone would have done some policy work.