Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
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.
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 He is correct in pointing out that the opposition benches could have been replaced by a row of nodding dogs when as "her majesty's loyal opposition" it was incumbent on then to call the government to account and justify their actions.
Spearthrower wrote:But how, exactly, has Starmer failed this chap or other people?
Spearthrower wrote:Is he just meant to oppose anything the government does regardless?
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.
zerne wrote:Does it matter whether the complaint is entirely reasonable?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests