zerne wrote:
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.

If you don't mind me saying, I don't think you've listened to what the guy said, so you're not aware of what was actually motivating him which is why you are reading things into what he said that definitely were not there, and you're not responding to the things that he did actually say.

His actual criticism of the Labour party, the reason he said it had failed him and the rest of the country, was because the Labour party didn't oppose covid related lockdown or stop children from having to go to school with masks. That's what he blames Labour for: agreeing with medical consensus.

He said all this at the time, and he reiterated it on the Good Morning Britain show where he was pounced on and shredded by Dr Hilary Jones.

For example, the piece of paper you can see him waving at Starmer is 'research' on the average age of people who have died from Covid; his argument basically being 'look most of them are old, why should I lose my business just to keep old people alive?'.

Spearthrower wrote:

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.

He does have to worry about it though, as events proved.

Spearthrower wrote:... 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.

Who is elevating him? He was involved and, despite your unkind descriptions, managed to comport himself civilly. Did not swear, spit, or get violent, but made himself heard. Firmly. Starmer conducted himself adequately. But that didn't prevent him from being ejected.

Spearthrower wrote:

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.

I think what is most desireable in a politician, who is full-time, well-paid and experienced is the ability to do their job well.

This is the political equivalent of profesional footaller playing non-league and managing to get themselves a red card in friendly.

Spearthrower wrote:

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.

Antipathy? Antipthay! LET ME YOU ABOUT MY AUNTIPATHY!!!
Lovey woman, a saint, kind to cats and dogs,
won't hear a word against her,
she has but one fatal flaw,
in that she sadly fictional.

There is challenging a misinformed voter, and succeeding. Then there is whatever Kier wants to call that debacle.

He's barred.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2769904

You already replied before.

Seems like you might have wanted to up the stakes though.

I don't think I've been in the slightest bit unkind. Humphris' motivation was dangerously antiscientific baloney.

Humphris wrote:There are a lot of things which are simple facts which need to be discussed, for example - as I put to him on the street - the average age of death with covid is 82 years and 3 months, the average age of death is 81 years, that means, basically, that old people die; when we get old, we die. That's fundamentally what's been happening. The last time as a proportion this many people died in this country was 2008, now, and every preceding year more people had died going back to the 2nd world war. So I don't remember us doing this, doing all this stuff in 2008.

People live longer with covid? Oh and everyone dies, so let's not worry about pandemics - just so long as me pub stays open!

Humphris wrote:Why is he (Starmer) not talking about Florida, why is he not talking about Texas, Sweden, Tanzania, Belarus - all places in the world where they simply haven't done this and lots of people haven't died. He should be in Parliament asking these questions on behalf of us.

And on and on - all completely misinformed nonsense. Every state/country above has posed lockdown and restrictions as a way of addressing Covid except for Tanzania who has a complete fucking fruitbat as a President who declared Tanzania free of covid thanks to the prayers of the citizens. And every state/country above has experienced tens of thousands of cases and thousands of deaths - including Tanzania despite their government refusing to publish figures specifying the extent of the virus' impact.

So clearly Humphris is not just badly informed, but willfully misinformed, and seems to think it's Labour's job to address these fictional complaints. He says so in no uncertain terms in his own words.

His issue is that Labour is not opposed to covid restrictions, nothing else.

The publican is a twat, but Starmer's handling of the situation was incredibly poor.

chairman bill wrote:The publican is a twat, but Starmer's handling of the situation was incredibly poor.

True, but only one of the above is seeking your vote.

zerne wrote:True, but only one of the above is seeking your vote.

Quite. I didn't vote for him in the leadership election & the sooner the lying Tory-enabler is gone, the better.

chairman bill wrote:Quite. I didn't vote for him in the leadership election & the sooner the lying Tory-enabler is gone, the better.

Is there much chance of him going? Is there anyone who would want to replace him at this time?

I just can't see Sir Kier being deposed yet. Nor do i see him winning the next GE. Not with a lukewarm answer to Brexit and the EU. At best he can hope for a marginal improvement over the last guy. That will be hailed as progress and might secure enough support for the one after that. Long time away though. The UK might have shrunk a bit by then.

It depends how Labour does in the elections next month. There are certainly some that could do the job. I think Clive Lewis has plenty enough experience to take on the leadership and Zara Sultana, with boundless energy to inspire people, would make a great deputy. Much of the media would obviously turn on them, but I think so soon after Corbyn it would become more obvious to more people that it's largely spin and smears. They'd have good, popular policies and would work to build support across communities and in workplaces from the ground up. The sooner that starts again the better. The difficulty would more likely be getting the initial votes from the rest of the Labour MPs. I don't know if there are enough left wingers in the PLP. Many of them considered it a mistake to let Corbyn on the ballot and they're unlikely to repeat it. Without the party having open selection of MPs I don't see it heading back towards being socialist or democratic any time soon, and if anyone is put forwards to replace Starmer, they'd likely just be another centre-right establishment figure.

I'm only slightly aware of what's happening with the Welsh elections. I know there is a by-election in Hartlepool and there is council elections across E&W. Are there any others? Any key seats for Labour to lose?

Scotland's a bust for Labour certainly. Their election goals are two Con seats and they hope to not finish behind the Tories. Anas Sarwar has a positive popularity rating, but Kier does not and the wider policies of Labour are dragging him down. The problem for the three establishment parties are that their policies are dependent on getting their party, their leader and Westminster to agree.

There are prospects i suppose. Seems so unlikely right now.

I wouldn't be surprised if the local elections were a bit damning for both the Tories and Labour. Either lower than usual turnout and/or gains for smaller parties.

I might keep an eye out for the Bath results.

The Hartlepool byelection shows that turning the Labour Party into Tory Light is a resounding failure. Who could have predicted that, eh?

Once the heartland of Labour, the Tory candidate, Jill Mortimer (15,529 votes amounting to 51.9%) has absolutely thrashed Labour's Paul Williams (8,589 votes or 28.7%).

It's the first time a Conservative MP has won Hartlepool in 62 years. The fact that 70% of Hartlepudlians voted "leave" in the brexit referendum probably did not help.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/07/hartlepool-byelection-result-labour-starmer-conservatives

It's not surprising Labour lost Hartlepool as they've been on a 20 year declining trend only bucked under Corbyn in 2017, but this is a definite return to that trend. Some of the Labour right and leadership are claiming it's a continuation of the 2019 drop in votes under Corbyn and are doubling down that it's all his fault, but even that was up on 2015.



Labour now losing councillors up and down the country too, mostly to Tory and Green gains so far. Just seen a clip of Starmer really not happy, promising to learn lessons, win back trust, and provide a vision, but unable to say what that means in policy terms. He's insistent that Labour has changed but also still needs to change more from what it was under Corbyn. Trouble is the main thing Corbyn's Labour actually had going for it was a strong set of popular progressive policies and a plan for community organising. Starmer's refusal to keep any of that leaves him little to build any vision with, and it shows.

Ooof. Dunno how they'll spin this one as Corbyn's fault.

NEW: Exclusive polling for @Channel4News by @JLPartnersPolls shows the top reason given for not voting Labour in elections in England yesterday was Sir Keir Starmer's leadership.

Fascinating to see Keir S take full responsibility for the election results by ... sacking Angela Rayner.

What the actual fuck?

minininja wrote:
Labour now losing councillors up and down the country too, mostly to Tory and Green gains so far. Just seen a clip of Starmer really not happy, promising to learn lessons, win back trust, and provide a vision, but unable to say what that means in policy terms. He's insistent that Labour has changed but also still needs to change more from what it was under Corbyn. Trouble is the main thing Corbyn's Labour actually had going for it was a strong set of popular progressive policies and a plan for community organising. Starmer's refusal to keep any of that leaves him little to build any vision with, and it shows.

This appears to me - albeit viewed from a distance - to be the nub of the matter. Starmer inherited a fractious party barely able to remain united under a banner. The progressives are cemented in with a significant chunk of Labour electorate support, and the right of the party who want more than anything else, including winning elections, is to defeat the left side of the party.

The Conservatives have been wide open for months with historical sleaze, corruption, and Brexit related economic failures, and we once again see the sole opposition party in the UK unable to leverage any of that, and actually instead lose yet more support.

Does anyone know what Starmer's offering the nation? Not-Corbynism isn't enough, and nor is Tory-lite.

They need new leadership because he's not got any vision.

'keirstone cops'

ronmcd wrote:Fascinating to see Keir S take full responsibility for the election results by ... sacking Angela Rayner.

What the actual fuck?

Dare I say it but, as a Northern working class politician, she was a calculated pick to appeal to that demographic. It didn't work.

On the other hand, Andy Burnham won a convincing victory as Manchester mayor, further increasing his vote share. Just saying...

Starmer: in a hole and frantically digging.

Hello all. Been on a long ‘break’.