Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)

[JagLover]

crankedup5 said:

Just a few days out from the GE and yet no sign, no hear for weeks from the Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy. And where the heck is the Green energy secretary Ed Milliband.
Both Offices of National importance and yet Labour choose to hide them both away for the duration of their electoral campaign. Why would they do that?

In the case of Miliband because they don't want the public to get the slightest inkling of the costs of net zero in energy production by 2030.

As is often the case in elections these days the media carefully avoid talking about the issues that matter.

[BigMon]

crankedup5 said:

Just a few days out from the GE and yet no sign, no hear for weeks from the Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy. And where the heck is the Green energy secretary Ed Milliband.
Both Offices of National importance and yet Labour choose to hide them both away for the duration of their electoral campaign. Why would they do that?

Why would they? Thjey don't need to do anything apart from watch the Conservatives tear themselves apart, and Reform administer a kicking to their twitching corpse.

All they need to do is 'carry the vase' until polling day.

Given the Sunday Times has thrown it's weight behind Labour (albeit it with several caveats) it would be a monumental shock if we didn't have a Labour government later this week then we'll know for sure if they will be an utter disaster or just carrying on with more Titanic deckchair shuffling.

[Vanden Saab]

crankedup5 said:

Just a few days out from the GE and yet no sign, no hear for weeks from the Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy. And where the heck is the Green energy secretary Ed Milliband.
Both Offices of National importance and yet Labour choose to hide them both away for the duration of their electoral campaign. Why would they do that?

They have kept Lammy out of the way since he suggested that trans women could grow a cervix a couple of years ago and that campaigners for women's rights were dinosaurs.

[don'tbesilly]

Vanden Saab said:

crankedup5 said:

Just a few days out from the GE and yet no sign, no hear for weeks from the Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy. And where the heck is the Green energy secretary Ed Milliband.
Both Offices of National importance and yet Labour choose to hide them both away for the duration of their electoral campaign. Why would they do that?

They have kept Lammy out of the way since he suggested that trans women could grow a cervix a couple of years ago and that campaigners for women's rights were dinosaurs.

The Guy is a liability, it’s hardly surprising Labour are keeping him well away from any form of exposure to the general public.



https://x.com/alexharmstrong/status/18067532363026...

[hidetheelephants]

What are the foreign policy implications of artificial cervixes? I think the voters want to know!

[Mr Penguin]

BigMon said:

Why would they? Thjey don't need to do anything apart from watch the Conservatives tear themselves apart, and Reform administer a kicking to their twitching corpse.

All they need to do is 'carry the vase' until polling day.

Given the Sunday Times has thrown it's weight behind Labour (albeit it with several caveats) it would be a monumental shock if we didn't have a Labour government later this week then we'll know for sure if they will be an utter disaster or just carrying on with more Titanic deckchair shuffling.

One might hope that they have something to say on foreign policy given it's particularly important at the moment.

[BigMon]

Mr Penguin said:

One might hope that they have something to say on foreign policy given it's particularly important at the moment.

Priority for them at the moment is just to get over the line. Like it or not no other party would be different in this situation.

[Ascayman]

S600BSB said:

bhstewie said:

Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.

It's actually pathetic.

It’s actually hilarious!

It’s hilarious to use kids as political pawns?

[hidetheelephants]

Ascayman said:

S600BSB said:

bhstewie said:

Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.

It's actually pathetic.

It’s actually hilarious!

It’s hilarious to use kids as political pawns?

No, it's hilarious that right wing pearl clutchers who were enthusiastic about the potential binning of ECHR because it inconveniently stopped the sending of a very small number of immigrants to a camp in africa are now champions of ECHR.

[Vanden Saab]

Ascayman said:

S600BSB said:

bhstewie said:

Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.

It's actually pathetic.

It’s actually hilarious!

It’s hilarious to use kids as political pawns?

Only those not in poverty.

[borcy]

Mr Penguin said:

One might hope that they have something to say on foreign policy given it's particularly important at the moment.

I doubt they'd risk it, there's little upside in talking foreign policy pre election but potential downsides.

[Ascayman]

hidetheelephants said:

Ascayman said:

S600BSB said:

bhstewie said:

Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.

It's actually pathetic.

It’s actually hilarious!

It’s hilarious to use kids as political pawns?

No, it's hilarious that right wing pearl clutchers who were enthusiastic about the potential binning of ECHR because it inconveniently stopped the sending of a very small number of immigrants to a camp in africa are now champions of ECHR.

So kids both private and state being disadvantaged are just collateral damage so you can laugh at the ‘pear clutchers’ whatever or whoever they are?

[Mr Penguin]

borcy said:

I doubt they'd risk it, there's little upside in talking foreign policy pre election but potential downsides.

Which is part of why we are in a mess - the press would rather comment on the polls and wonder how many seats the Conservatives will lose or who comes up with ideas for Ed Davey's stunts than try to get the likely next government to have a serious conversation about what they plan to do when in office and Labour would rather the electorate put them in government without really knowing what that means (something which will come back to bite them, but that's tomorrow's problem so no need to think about it today).

[isaldiri]

Ascayman said:

So kids both private and state being disadvantaged are just collateral damage so you can laugh at the ‘pear clutchers’ whatever or whoever they are?

Of course it does and always has been so. The end justifies the means, it sticks 2 fingers up at all the nasty rich posh people so just too bad for everyone else affected…..

[Ascayman]

isaldiri said:

Ascayman said:

So kids both private and state being disadvantaged are just collateral damage so you can laugh at the ‘pear clutchers’ whatever or whoever they are?

Of course it does and always has been so. The end justifies the means, it sticks 2 fingers up at all the nasty rich posh people so just too bad for everyone else affected…..

Well yes except it won’t effect the Nasty, rich, posh people they’ll be totally unaffected so who are the ‘pearl clutchers’ we are disadvantaging both state and private kids for so that we can laugh at?

[borcy]

Mr Penguin said:

borcy said:

I doubt they'd risk it, there's little upside in talking foreign policy pre election but potential downsides.

Which is part of why we are in a mess - the press would rather comment on the polls and wonder how many seats the Conservatives will lose or who comes up with ideas for Ed Davey's stunts than try to get the likely next government to have a serious conversation about what they plan to do when in office and Labour would rather the electorate put them in government without really knowing what that means (something which will come back to bite them, but that's tomorrow's problem so no need to think about it today).

I agree he should be more in the public eye about what labour propose to do, however i understand why he's been kept away from the public even if i don't agree with it.

I think the press have asked for interviews with lammy but they keep getting turned down.

[hidetheelephants]

Ascayman said:

So kids both private and state being disadvantaged are just collateral damage so you can laugh at the ‘pear clutchers’ whatever or whoever they are?

Nice bit of projection there, I care not at all about the VAT policy I just find the hypocrisy rich in humour.

[Mr Penguin]

borcy said:

I agree he should be more in the public eye about what labour propose to do, however i understand why he's been kept away from the public even if i don't agree with it.

I think the press have asked for interviews with lammy but they keep getting turned down.

I agree that tactically it is best for them to keep him hidden because he's one of those who will put his foot in it.
I haven't heard that the media have asked for interviews with him but if true this is something they should be making public to move the conversation towards getting both parties to be more open.

[borcy]

Mr Penguin said:

I agree that tactically it is best for them to keep him hidden because he's one of those who will put his foot in it.
I haven't heard that the media have asked for interviews with him but if true this is something they should be making public to move the conversation towards getting both parties to be more open.

I heard it on times radio in an interview with wes streeting, asked about where David lammy was. They hadn't been able to have an interview, neither had the press pool. He just dodged the questions.

[Vanden Saab]

hidetheelephants said:

Ascayman said:

S600BSB said:

bhstewie said:

Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.

It's actually pathetic.

It’s actually hilarious!

It’s hilarious to use kids as political pawns?

No, it's hilarious that right wing pearl clutchers who were enthusiastic about the potential binning of ECHR because it inconveniently stopped the sending of a very small number of immigrants to a camp in africa are now champions of ECHR.

Not championing the ECHR at all. I will be delighted if Labour tell them to sod off and leave or ignore their ruling. I also find those who spent so much time supporting the ECHR including Starmer himself now doing a screeching u-turn absolutely delightful. No hypocrisy here.