I think that’s harsh on Starmer. The first time I came across Keir Starmer was in the McLibel trial in which he represented the defendants Pro Bono. Everything I have heard about him from with the Labour Party is that he understands social justice and does fundamental get it when it comes to equality and poverty.
But he is also an arch pragmatist. He will try to stake a pitch in the centre ground and appeal to wavering centrists. As for the red wall, he cannot go to those communities and be talking about rejoining the EU. The optics for that are just not there.
My disappointments in him are that he hasn’t really set out any kind of vision for what a Labour government looks like. I totally get that he might be better keeping quiet while the Tories are making a shambles of everything (the Art of War and all that) but something that actually shows a bit of an alternative would be useful. I’m also really think it’s a mistake to purge the socialist left as he has. These people are his campaigning footsoldiers and they won’t be there when he needs them. He can fight by-elections by bussing in centrally controlled activists. He can’t do that in a GE.
It’s interesting to me that the Stories have been absolutely annihilated at the last few bi-elections, so much so that they’re hesitant on removing the whip from Chris Pincher, but still the narrative “The Conservatives need Boris to win” persists.
Seems to me they have a much better chance of winning back those middle ground voters of they fuck Johnson off and go with some backbencher who isn’t associated with this government.
Just interesting though not surprising that considering how vocal you’ve been about Starmer’s curry, how little you’ve had to say about Pincher other than an allusion to victim blaming and an attempt to shift the attention to Carrie’s involvment in government. So can’t really infer anything else from such little input.
There are already plenty of people voicing criticisms of Pincher, Johnson etc…without knowing the full circumstances, I might add. I’m always hesitant to jump to conclusions about what someone was found to have done or what someone knew about it when we do not have a complete picture; hence my questions regarding those issues being directed to considering the broader picture.
However, when it comes to Sky News giving a platform to Carrie Johnson’s opinions that’s not a point that had been taken and so something I wanted to comment upon. It’s become part of the media landscape and can be discussed without speculation. Even Mascot is buying into it with “when even the mistress, as she was at the time, is waving a red flag on someone, then maybe it should be listened to”. No, she should absolutely not be listened to. Making her viewpoint relevant on these issues normalises accepting that her viewpoint on governmental issues is of importance. It’s not and in no way should be.
But by all means, keep making assumptions about what has happened whilst pretending to know the full picture.
Surely Tories will soon be setting off to their Caribbean islands/Tuscan villas/Scottish estates and thus be free to grope and embezzle unobserved by the commie press.
Hurrah for summer hols!
A basic tenet of safeguarding practice is that if you suspect a problem raise it with the people responsible and if you are a person responsible take all reporting seriously. The identity of the person should not be an issue.
On a basic level, if concerns were raised about Pinchers behaviour, that should have been acted on and taken seriously, regardless of who raised it.
Presume you’re married mate? Missus ever asked you a question about work? Mine does all the time. Everybody’s other half (if they have one) has an influence on their job. If your worse half is the PM, I’d imagine there’s more than a temptation to have a hell of an opinion on everything.
Of course being paid for said opinion is a whole different ball game.
Johnson has so thoroughly mined ‘I don’t remember’ as his stock excuse, I think he’s going to need to go to ‘I don’t care’ as his default position quite soon.
