The Labour Party - Part 2

[ECCOnoob 1,040]

3 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Andy Burnham seems to be getting a lot of press coverage  a lately . Maybe lining up for a leadership battle.  Would anyone like him as leader ?

Personally no.  He talks the talk and knows how to play the Press but very little follow-up and action.

 

Also given he's already been through all that once before and got defeated there doesn't seem to be much appetite for him to be leader by the wider labour populace anyway.

[andyofborg 11]

4 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Andy Burnham seems to be getting a lot of press coverage  a lately . Maybe lining up for a leadership battle.  Would anyone like him as leader ?

He might be a good one, but he wouldn't be able to achieve much because the corbyn wing of the party would call him a blairite and we have another cycle of the battle. 

 

Anyway, he will be the first leader of the the republic of west brigantia formed when the north west breaks away from england following the departure of scotland and wales from the union in a  couple of years. 

 

[ECCOnoob 1,040]

2 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

He might be a good one, but he wouldn't be able to achieve much because the corbyn wing of the party would call him a blairite and we have another cycle of the battle. 

 

Anyway, he will be the first leader of the the republic of west brigantia formed when the north west breaks away from england following the departure of scotland and wales from the union in a  couple of years. 

 

That I do agree with.

[convert 10]

Wouldn’t Andy Burnham have to be elected an MP first...

[andyofborg 11]

3 minutes ago, convert said:

Wouldn’t Andy Burnham have to be elected an MP first...

I can't imagine that would be much of a problem.

[convert 10]

15 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

I can't imagine that would be much of a problem.

Batley and Spen?

[andyofborg 11]

Just now, convert said:

Batley and Spen?

If he has ambitions to be leader then anywhere....

[altus 540]

22 minutes ago, convert said:

Wouldn’t Andy Burnham have to be elected an MP first...

Given that Prime Ministers aren't actually required to be MPs, it's only convention that they are, I doubt that party leaders are required to be.

9 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

If he has ambitions to be leader then anywhere....

I doubt he'll want to make a bid for party leader until the internal civil war has finished.

[El Cid 219]

30 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

On reflection you're right about Blair not being socially liberal.  Invading Iraq, and all that detention without trial stuff, were definitely not "woke".

So Johnson is woke then, we have had lockdowns for months on end.

[andyofborg 11]

7 minutes ago, El Cid said:

So Johnson is woke then, we have had lockdowns for months on end.

not sure why you have linked the two?

[Baron99 794]

12 hours ago, El Cid said:

But you only want to know what Starmer stands for so you can critisize him, if you really did want to find out, then you would Google.

No one knows what Johnson stands for, he is against Heathrow expansion and ID cards, but he COULD change his mind 

My bold. 

 

Oooooo!  I do apologise.  I didn't realise that Starmer wasn't open to criticism.  Thanks for putting me right but following you're train of thought we need to know what Starmer stands for BEFORE any criticism can be directed at him?   Similarly, any politicians who keep their mouths shut can NEVER be criticised?   Well if they only realised it was that simple, although PMQ's & 'Question Time' would be a bit boring, wouldn't it? 

 

Yes I could Google but the problem with that is I might be selective in what I choose to read & then paste on SF as part of an argument for or  against Starmer, so that's why I'm after the view of the average men & women who post of SF who usually have no problem providing facts. 

 

So once again, for the 3rd time, (think of me as the Jeremy Paxman of SF), I'll ask again;

 

What does Starmer ACTUALLY STAND FOR? 

 

Don't feel as though you need to reply personally, if you don't know, there are apparently tens of millions in the same boat who don't have a clue either. 

 

C'mon someone,  What does he stand for? 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Baron99

[Mister Gee 823]

24 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

My bold. 

 

Oooooo!  I do apologise.  I didn't realise that Starmer wasn't open to criticism.  Thanks for putting me right but following you're train of thought we need to know what Starmer stands for BEFORE any criticism can be directed at him?   Similarly, any politicians who keep their mouths shut can NEVER be criticised?   Well if they only realised it was that simple, although PMQ's & 'Question Time' would be a bit boring, wouldn't it? 

 

Yes I could Google but the problem with that is I might be selective in what I choose to read & then paste on SF as part of an argument for or  against Starmer, so that's why I'm after the view of the average men & women who post of SF who usually have no problem providing facts. 

 

So once again, for the 3rd time, (think of me as the Jeremy Paxman of SF), I'll ask again;

 

What does Starmer ACTUALLY STAND FOR? 

 

Don't feel as though you need to reply personally, if you don't know, there are apparently tens of millions in the same boat who don't have a clue either. 

 

C'mon someone,  What does he stand for? 

More like the Jeremy Kyle of SF.