Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Rivenink said:
That's the point being made, isn't it.
Stamer has said he'll carve out a bit of time every week for his family, and delusional as they are, the Tories think that'll play badly to the millions of men and women who have families ( and are paying £100's more on their mortgages thanks to the Tories)
Not convinced that’s the case at all.Stamer has said he'll carve out a bit of time every week for his family, and delusional as they are, the Tories think that'll play badly to the millions of men and women who have families ( and are paying £100's more on their mortgages thanks to the Tories)
He is selling himself as a ‘family man’ when realistically every other PM has done the same.
Let’s just hope he answers his mobile on the weekends.
I watched a bit of a News Agents podcast on some independent standing in Birmingham Ladywood; apart from his distinctly simplistic ideas about Gaza he just seems like a standard issue Tiktok bellend with added Andrew Tate. It will be interesting to see what the result will be, the polls are saying the incumbent doesn't need to worry but tiktok man does have a surprising amount of name recognition.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: They shouldn't be attacking a man for saying he'll have dinner with his family once a week because it's important to him and them.
I really didn't think it needed explaining but here we are once again.
It's a huge mistake by SKS which won't win any votes up North. Any self respecting son of a toolmaker should surely refer to it as "tea" I really didn't think it needed explaining but here we are once again.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: They shouldn't be attacking a man for saying he'll have dinner with his family once a week because it's important to him and them.
I really didn't think it needed explaining but here we are once again.
No they shouldn't, but a man who wants that sort of life shouldn't be in the type of job that requites him to be available 24/7I really didn't think it needed explaining but here we are once again.
Edited by Oliver Hardy on Wednesday 3rd July 14:47
Camoradi said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: They shouldn't be attacking a man for saying he'll have dinner with his family once a week because it's important to him and them.
I really didn't think it needed explaining but here we are once again.
It's a huge mistake by SKS which won't win any votes up North. Any self respecting son of a toolmaker should surely refer to it as "tea" I really didn't think it needed explaining but here we are once again.
I always thought dinner/lunch was in the afternoon and tea/supper was in the evening?Learn something new every day
Oliver Hardy said:
No they shouldn't, but a man who wants that sort of life shouldn't be in the type of job that requites him to be available 24/7
Is so much of the electorate really so reductive in its reasoning? He can both have dinner with his family and be available if a threat comes to light.He won't, one presumes, barricade the door and throw his phone out of the window in order he can't be contacted. He will - again, one presumes - arrange his diary such that the day-to-day work is shifted to the 23 hours available either side of his dinner.
In much the same fashion as the vast majority of people, at either end of the indispensability scale and all points in between, do.
As an aside and apropos of nothing, I posit that the more indispensable an individual contends themselves to be, the less indispensable they are. And it's likely the case that the constant machinations of state which surround the prime minister of the day conspire to ensure the prime minister taking an hour off for dinner once a week is basically inconsequential.
Edited by iphonedyou on Wednesday 3rd July 15:38
Rivenink said:
That's the point being made, isn't it.
Starmer has said he'll carve out a bit of time every week for his family, and delusional as they are, the Tories think that'll play badly to the millions of men and women who have families ( and are paying £100's more on their mortgages thanks to the Tories)
Desperation from the condemned men and women. Starmer has said he'll carve out a bit of time every week for his family, and delusional as they are, the Tories think that'll play badly to the millions of men and women who have families ( and are paying £100's more on their mortgages thanks to the Tories)
iphonedyou said:
Is so much of the electorate really so reductive in its reasoning? He can both have dinner with his family and be available if a threat comes to light.
He won't, one presumes, barricade the door and throw his phone out of the window in order he can't be contacted. He will - again, one presumes - arrange his diary such that the day-to-day work is shifted to the 23 hours available either side of his dinner.
In much the same fashion as the vast majority of people, at either end of the indispensability scale and all points in between, do.
As an aside and apropos of nothing, I posit that the more indispensable an individual contends themselves to be, the less indispensable they are. And it's likely the case that the constant machinations of state which surround the prime minister of the day conspire to ensure the prime minister taking an hour off for dinner once a week is basically inconsequential.
Phone on voice mail?bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I suspect some of it is lazy media reporting rather than people reading all of what he actually said.
"I will not do a work-related thing after six o’clock, pretty well come what may."He won't, one presumes, barricade the door and throw his phone out of the window in order he can't be contacted. He will - again, one presumes - arrange his diary such that the day-to-day work is shifted to the 23 hours available either side of his dinner.
In much the same fashion as the vast majority of people, at either end of the indispensability scale and all points in between, do.
As an aside and apropos of nothing, I posit that the more indispensable an individual contends themselves to be, the less indispensable they are. And it's likely the case that the constant machinations of state which surround the prime minister of the day conspire to ensure the prime minister taking an hour off for dinner once a week is basically inconsequential.
Edited by iphonedyou on Wednesday 3rd July 15:38
If he wants a job were he can arrange his diary to be home by 6 on Friday he shouldn't be running for PM.
Obviously not been in jobs were things happen or you just need to be in a place and your diary fails you.
Oliver Hardy said:
iphonedyou said:
Is so much of the electorate really so reductive in its reasoning? He can both have dinner with his family and be available if a threat comes to light.
He won't, one presumes, barricade the door and throw his phone out of the window in order he can't be contacted. He will - again, one presumes - arrange his diary such that the day-to-day work is shifted to the 23 hours available either side of his dinner.
In much the same fashion as the vast majority of people, at either end of the indispensability scale and all points in between, do.
As an aside and apropos of nothing, I posit that the more indispensable an individual contends themselves to be, the less indispensable they are. And it's likely the case that the constant machinations of state which surround the prime minister of the day conspire to ensure the prime minister taking an hour off for dinner once a week is basically inconsequential.
Phone on voice mail?bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I suspect some of it is lazy media reporting rather than people reading all of what he actually said.
"I will not do a work-related thing after six o’clock, pretty well come what may."He won't, one presumes, barricade the door and throw his phone out of the window in order he can't be contacted. He will - again, one presumes - arrange his diary such that the day-to-day work is shifted to the 23 hours available either side of his dinner.
In much the same fashion as the vast majority of people, at either end of the indispensability scale and all points in between, do.
As an aside and apropos of nothing, I posit that the more indispensable an individual contends themselves to be, the less indispensable they are. And it's likely the case that the constant machinations of state which surround the prime minister of the day conspire to ensure the prime minister taking an hour off for dinner once a week is basically inconsequential.
Edited by iphonedyou on Wednesday 3rd July 15:38
If he wants a job were he can arrange his diary to be home by 6 on Friday he shouldn't be running for PM.
Obviously not been in jobs were things happen or you just need to be in a place and your diary fails you.
I've never not been able to organise regular 'family time' events, nor has anyone found it an issue.
Let's not forget he'll be living at the office.
Here you go.
It was a radio interview but I think the full quotes and context are there.
‘Really desperate’: Starmer hits back at Tory attacks on his work hours
Wes Streeting vows to clean up Tory 'vomit' after false claims about Keir Starmer's work ethic
It was a radio interview but I think the full quotes and context are there.
‘Really desperate’: Starmer hits back at Tory attacks on his work hours
Wes Streeting vows to clean up Tory 'vomit' after false claims about Keir Starmer's work ethic
Oliver Hardy said:
iphonedyou said:
Is so much of the electorate really so reductive in its reasoning? He can both have dinner with his family and be available if a threat comes to light.
He won't, one presumes, barricade the door and throw his phone out of the window in order he can't be contacted. He will - again, one presumes - arrange his diary such that the day-to-day work is shifted to the 23 hours available either side of his dinner.
In much the same fashion as the vast majority of people, at either end of the indispensability scale and all points in between, do.
As an aside and apropos of nothing, I posit that the more indispensable an individual contends themselves to be, the less indispensable they are. And it's likely the case that the constant machinations of state which surround the prime minister of the day conspire to ensure the prime minister taking an hour off for dinner once a week is basically inconsequential.
Phone on voice mail?bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I suspect some of it is lazy media reporting rather than people reading all of what he actually said.
"I will not do a work-related thing after six o’clock, pretty well come what may."He won't, one presumes, barricade the door and throw his phone out of the window in order he can't be contacted. He will - again, one presumes - arrange his diary such that the day-to-day work is shifted to the 23 hours available either side of his dinner.
In much the same fashion as the vast majority of people, at either end of the indispensability scale and all points in between, do.
As an aside and apropos of nothing, I posit that the more indispensable an individual contends themselves to be, the less indispensable they are. And it's likely the case that the constant machinations of state which surround the prime minister of the day conspire to ensure the prime minister taking an hour off for dinner once a week is basically inconsequential.
Edited by iphonedyou on Wednesday 3rd July 15:38
If he wants a job were he can arrange his diary to be home by 6 on Friday he shouldn't be running for PM.
Obviously not been in jobs were things happen or you just need to be in a place and your diary fails you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff