Starmer might be trampling over party members' rights and acting like a demagogue, but at least we're 20 points ahead in the polls. Oh, wait ...

Good explanation of the state of the Labour Party under Starmer as they sadly somehow position themselves to the right of the Tories on corporate tax policy.

I didn't vote for Starmer, but I really didn't think he'd be as bad as he's turned out to be. He's turned out to be the lying Blairite many suggested he was all along.

I've seen him referred to (by his enemies admittedly) as Captain Hindsight. That's not a good tag to pick up early.

My own opinion is that his only ambition is to go from Sir Starmer to Lord Starmer.

Kier Starmer got kicked out of a pub. It was not for fighting. It was for not fighting. The landlord was not happy about Kier's lack of opposition to lockdown measures. Kier bravely abstained from commenting.

zerne wrote:Kier Starmer got kicked out of a pub. It was not for fighting. It was for not fighting. The landlord was not happy about Kier's lack of opposition to lockdown measures. Kier bravely abstained from commenting.

Linky: (BBC)

Apparently they cocked up and cleared the visit with a person who wasn't actually the pub landlord - thus demonstrating an inability to organise a piss-up in a pub.

I actually thought the guy was quite restrained and Starmer's minder was completely out of order in the way he roughed the guy up (I think I'd be inclined to press assault charges based on the video).

I also wasn't impressed by Starmer's waving off the guy by saying he was opposed to lockdown, which may have been the case, but what he actually said was that he was unhappy with the lack of any sort of questioning and holding the government to account by the opposition (which I'd actually go along with).

Hoo boy..

"you have failed me" [former Labour supporter & voter]
"you have failed the country" [former Labour supporter & voter]

Truth.

Sir Kier Starmer "..i don't need a lecture from you!"

Classy. Very classy.
Workers of the World, tug your forelock...

But how, exactly, has Starmer failed this chap or other people?

Is he just meant to oppose anything the government does regardless?

From what I can tell, the chap in question thinks the economy - more specifically, his own business - is more important than the health, well-being and lives of others.

We've got the most blatantly corrupt government in a generation and when it comes to to the questioning of the awarding of health contracts, in depth analysis of decisions on the timing of lockdowns, questioning of the efficacy of the test and trace system, etc, etc a deafening silence from the opposition benches who mostly seem to be concerned with party in-fighting.

It doesn't matter if I or anyone else profoundly disagrees with the landlord on what should or should not have been done. He is correct in pointing out that the opposition benches could have been replaced by a row of nodding dogs when as "her majesty's loyal opposition" it was incumbent on then to call the government to account and justify their actions.

Tortured_Genius wrote:We've got the most blatantly corrupt government in a generation and when it comes to to the questioning of the awarding of health contracts, in depth analysis of decisions on the timing of lockdowns, questioning of the efficacy of the test and trace system, etc, etc a deafening silence from the opposition benches who mostly seem to be concerned with party in-fighting.

It doesn't matter if I or anyone else profoundly disagrees with the landlord on what should or should not have been done. He is correct in pointing out that the opposition benches could have been replaced by a row of nodding dogs when as "her majesty's loyal opposition" it was incumbent on then to call the government to account and justify their actions.

But is that really his complaint? Or is it that you've projected that onto him?

If it is his complaint, I don't feel he really made it in any way that conveys such a sense. He just seemed to want to express anger at something, and as far as I can tell from the information I've seen, his actual complaint is to do with lockdown and the purported loss of freedom that containing the epidemic has incurred.

I am not disagreeing with you that Labour has been terribly ineffective, not just recently, but over the last decade of Tory government. In fact, I agree with all your points raise above. I just didn't hear them from the chap in the video.

Spearthrower wrote:But how, exactly, has Starmer failed this chap or other people?

I could give an extensive list of the current opposition leader's failings but broadly it relates to his habit of abstaining from key votes, along with 2nd and 3rd readings of bills that grant the Tories further and more extensive powers that violate international laws:
Overseas Operation Bill

In addition to giving an extension to the emergency lockdown powers without challenging the conditions or demanding concessions. Or more imprtanty, offering alternatives. More negotiations and flexibility between local authorities and central government would be a start.

Spearthrower wrote:Is he just meant to oppose anything the government does regardless?

Broadly; yes. It's his job to organise his party and other opposition parties to oppose the UK government when it acts unlawfully. Many counts of that so far. To highlight the mistakes, to broadcast the malfeasance and where possible obstruct the government by allying with it's rebels. Of which there are enough to halt some of the legislation or slow it down enough to get scrutinised fully.

The Labour Party in Scotland do this to every bill, every white paper proposed. They always have something to say, or criticise or oppose.

Spearthrower wrote:From what I can tell, the chap in question thinks the economy - more specifically, his own business - is more important than the health, well-being and lives of others.

It is largely irrelevant what reasons motivated the guy, the key thing is how Starmer responded. Not well. If he had simply walked off after the exchange on the street, no real harm done. A brush with an slightly irate former supporter of the Labour Party. Move on.

Nope. He walked into the guy's pub.

Starmer did not know who he was talking to.
He did not bother to ask his name, profession or his relation to the area.
Nor did he have the inclination to find out.

He failed to be a politician.

The ironic thing is that this wasn't some Brexiteer or ultra-right opponent. It was a former Labour supporter, someone perhaps most amenable to persuasion. A voter that Starmer was elected to court and win. He failed to do that. Spectacularly.

Add in his BLM moment and no-one of any integrity on the left of UK politics could comfortably vote for Sir Kier, no beer and out on your ear, Starmer.

I think I'm not being clear enough. To me, all points are potentially quite true, but don't seem relevant to the event at discussion which is whether the chap confronting Starmer actually has a reasonable complaint.

What I've read about the chap... (google) Rod Humphris... is that his actual complaint with Starmer is that Labour hasn't opposed lockdown and other measures taken to deal with Covid.

The BBC reports some of his complaints as being that the economy has been sacrificed just because old people are dying ("Do you understand we have fucked our economy because old people are dying?", and that Labour didn't oppose children having to wear masks to school ("You have allowed our children to wear masks in schools when there's never been any evidence for it.").

"Why have we just accepted lockdown? Why have we just accepted the loss of all our freedoms?"

His complaint is that Labour didn't oppose measures taken to deal with covid.

Whatever Labour's actual failings, I don't think they're represented by Humphris at all - his complaint, as far as I can see, looks a lot like someone like jamest's - it's all about him and he doesn't give two fucks for anyone else. I don't think any politician is obligated to court someone representing such bad ideas - I'd rather have seen someone competent and capable enough to challenge this view and expose it.

Does it matter whether the complaint is entirely reasonable? The conclusions are fairly spot on. The failure of opposition is correctly identified. The complainer is aware that Starmer is not responsible for the legislation itself or the measures enacted.

I don't see why there should be some standard of debate applied to any member of the public who encounters a paid professional politician out canvassing the area in search of a photo-op. That is for other venues.

In this situation the public is an unknown quantity that you approach at your own peril. The onus is on Starmer to be politic with his engagement. His contribution to this incident was dismissive, abrupt and condescending. Not a good way to deal with someone. But do-able so long as you land the exit.

Instant karma then occurs as the slighted pub landlord then watches Sir diddy as he waltzes into his own building. Handing him an opportunity to oppose the leader of the opposition personally. Which he then did. With a focused passion that sent Kier Starmer packing. Kier then issues a statement saying he profoundly disagrees with the pub landlord. No one cares.

Kier failed to impress. Kier failed to oppose. Failed to organise and, most damningly of all, he failed to get a pint.

Lying Boris, or Starmer? It's not rocket science, Unless your a devout, left-wing socialist, then it's like an astrologist trying to be a cosmologist.

zerne wrote:Does it matter whether the complaint is entirely reasonable?

For me, yeah kind of!

zerne wrote: The conclusions are fairly spot on. The failure of opposition is correctly identified. The complainer is aware that Starmer is not responsible for the legislation itself or the measures enacted.

But again, to me this is basically you projecting your reasonable criticisms of the Labour party onto Rod Humphris. He said none of this. What apparently motivated him was anti-scientific selfishness. I am not sure why that's worthy.

zerne wrote:I don't see why there should be some standard of debate applied to any member of the public who encounters a paid professional politician out canvassing the area in search of a photo-op. That is for other venues.

I don't believe I'm expecting a 'standard of debate' - I am saying that Humphris is quite possibly a fruitloop with batty ideas that don't really need to be taken seriously, even by a politician who has to worry about his public image. In fact, I'd rather a politician NOT worry about his public image when confronted with dangerously anti-scientific criticisms. I am not suggesting Starmer was right or wrong, or anything other than that there's little reason I can see to elevate Rod Humphris given what he actually said and what beliefs were motivating him.

zerne wrote:In this situation the public is an unknown quantity that you approach at your own peril. The onus is on Starmer to be politic with his engagement. His contribution to this incident was dismissive, abrupt and condescending. Not a good way to deal with someone. But do-able so long as you land the exit.

Quite possibly true, but on the other hand, when a member of the public says something dangerously wrong, I am quite happy to see a politician challenge it. Perhaps he could've done it better - I didn't see the full exchange, just snippets, but it reminds me somewhat of McCain taking the mic off the woman ranting about Obama being a Muslim. Perhaps the biggest criticism is Starmer's management of the encounters, but I am not sure that ability to stylishly fend off fruitloops is really what I would consider to be the most desirable quality in a politician.

zerne wrote:Instant karma then occurs as the slighted pub landlord then watches Sir diddy as he waltzes into his own building. Handing him an opportunity to oppose the leader of the opposition personally. Which he then did. With a focused passion that sent Kier Starmer packing. Kier then issues a statement saying he profoundly disagrees with the pub landlord. No one cares.

Kier failed to impress. Kier failed to oppose. Failed to organise and, most damningly of all, he failed to get a pint.

Ahh, I see. I have to note then that you have personal antipathy towards Starmer as indicated by calling him names and enjoying the idea of his discomfort which may then be causing you to review this incident in quite a different light. You may well be justified in holding that opinion of him. I don't really hold an opinion of him one way or another, so for me this isn't some huge blow to him or his image. I'm actually glad Starmer challenged (even if not entirely effectively) the guy's anti-covid ranting and apparently, other people have started to make that same criticism too - I've just seen an article that Humphris was on a morning TV show and was called out by a doctor for promoting these bad ideas.

james1v wrote:Lying Boris, or Starmer? It's not rocket science, Unless your a devout, left-wing socialist, then it's like an astrologist trying to be a cosmologist.

False dichotomy. Neither are entitled to your vote.

Nor is "vote for us you have no choice" an inspiring message. Being the lesser of two evils still means being slightly evil.
A nicer sort of Tory is still a Tory. NPC Labour is a bad brand for attracting the anyone leaning left. What you might find instead is
that those who are are politically aware will apply their votes to a party that more represents their views. For any lefty environmentally conscious people in England & Wales that would be the Green Party.

zerne echoed my thoughts on the pub incident far more eloquently than I could. The landlord's background and what he'd said outside the clip attached were irrelevant and I was picking up on the rather lacklustre performance of the opposition to the government in general, which he appeared to reflect.

On that subject Starmer's latest performance at PMQ's (BBC) appears to be far more in line with what would be hoped for and I'll be much happier if he can keep it up.

He claimed there was a "pattern to this government".

"Every day there are new allegations about this Conservative government: dodgy PPE deals; tax breaks for their mates; the health secretary owns shares in a company delivering NHS services," Sir Keir said. "Sleaze, sleaze, sleaze, and it's all on his watch."

Spearthrower wrote:

zerne wrote:Does it matter whether the complaint is entirely reasonable?

For me, yeah kind of!

I would call that an unrealistic expectation. This is politician out in public so there is already no real conventions in place beyond a perimeter of security personnel. This is a setting in which rebuttal by hastily flung milkshake is a distinct possibility. Where cries of "wanker!" are commonplace. It's usually considered something of a success when it doesn't end in a scuffle.

This ended in a scuffle.

Spearthrower wrote:

zerne wrote: The conclusions are fairly spot on. The failure of opposition is correctly identified. The complainer is aware that Starmer is not responsible for the legislation itself or the measures enacted.

But again, to me this is basically you projecting your reasonable criticisms of the Labour party onto Rod Humphris. He said none of this. What apparently motivated him was anti-scientific selfishness. I am not sure why that's worthy.

He did say it though. He called the leader of the opposition a failure for him, the country and in opposition whilst identifying himself as a former Labour voter. It's not so much projection as derivation from the words spoken. I'll credit him with enough awareness of who he was calling out and why.

No i don't call it worthy. I called it irrelevant. I am slightly more interested in how a paid politician, experienced with campaigning, deals with such a situation. In this case, not well.