Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[stw2022]

You just meant 'why is it LGBT?' didn't you?

There's virtually no crossover. Sexuality and gender identity are as related as gender identity and race, or race and sexuality. In the broadest sense you can look at oppression of minorities in general and cobble together some kind of link with that but it's extremely vague

The rights and issues of trans people seem entirely different to the rights and issues of gay, lesbian and bisexual people that it seems strange they're now represented as a single group. The result of which means that issues affect LGB people simply aren't on the agenda any more. There should be, but isn't, national strategies on sexual violence, domestic abuse and drug use that hugely disproportionately impact LGB people. Yet you'd think these last couple of years the only issues was the misgendering of Sam Smith or the Tweets J.K Rowling.

Sexuality and gender identity are no more natural bedfellows than race and ageism or female emancipation and disability rights.

If someone asked "Wait, why is it considered the Women's and Disability Rights movement?' it would be a fair question, especially if it meant the discourse surrounding the 'community' of women and disabled people became dominanted by just one group.

Issues that impact LGB people have been taken off the table for the last two or three years now. That's not to say trans issues aren't equally important. But they're entirely separate issues and separate concerns.

 

[RedChip]

There's virtually no crossover. Sexuality and gender identity are as related as gender identity and race, or race and sexuality. In the broadest sense you can look at oppression of minorities in general and cobble together some kind of link with that but it's extremely vague

The rights and issues of trans people seem entirely different to the rights and issues of gay, lesbian and bisexual people that it seems strange they're now represented as a single group. The result of which means that issues affect LGB people simply aren't on the agenda any more. There should be, but isn't, national strategies on sexual violence, domestic abuse and drug use that hugely disproportionately impact LGB people. Yet you'd think these last couple of years the only issues was the misgendering of Sam Smith or the Tweets J.K Rowling.

Sexuality and gender identity are no more natural bedfellows than race and ageism or female emancipation and disability rights.

If someone asked "Wait, why is it considered the Women's and Disability Rights movement?' it would be a fair question, especially if it meant the discourse surrounding the 'community' of women and disabled people became dominanted by just one group.

Issues that impact LGB people have been taken off the table for the last two or three years now. That's not to say trans issues aren't equally important. But they're entirely separate issues and separate concerns.

There is a long history of allyship between all those groups, which have all long suffered disenfranchisement; the Stonewall inn uprising is a good example. It isn't just about what defines the groups, but how they historically have been a community.

 

[Member 125398]

There's virtually no crossover. Sexuality and gender identity are as related as gender identity and race, or race and sexuality. In the broadest sense you can look at oppression of minorities in general and cobble together some kind of link with that but it's extremely vague

The rights and issues of trans people seem entirely different to the rights and issues of gay, lesbian and bisexual people that it seems strange they're now represented as a single group. The result of which means that issues affect LGB people simply aren't on the agenda any more. There should be, but isn't, national strategies on sexual violence, domestic abuse and drug use that hugely disproportionately impact LGB people. Yet you'd think these last couple of years the only issues was the misgendering of Sam Smith or the Tweets J.K Rowling.

Sexuality and gender identity are no more natural bedfellows than race and ageism or female emancipation and disability rights.

If someone asked "Wait, why is it considered the Women's and Disability Rights movement?' it would be a fair question, especially if it meant the discourse surrounding the 'community' of women and disabled people became dominanted by just one group.

Issues that impact LGB people have been taken off the table for the last two or three years now. That's not to say trans issues aren't equally important. But they're entirely separate issues and separate concerns.

I get were you're coming from but the over riding theme is surely the right to be who you are without interference or discrimination.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

I think he should probably apologise to Sunak and stop embarrassing his MPs by sending them out to defend this hateful advert. Remember when Johnson made those Savile comments and he came out pontificating about civility in politics? How many faces does this guy have? Time he put one in front of a camera and apologise.

 

[stw2022]

There's a long history of allyship between gay rights activism and the miners. They even made a film about it. The issue isn't allyship or even the sometimes necessary joining together of disparate causes.

The issue is as valid and worthy as trans activism is, it has effectively wiped every single gay rights issue off the agenda. Both sides would benefit from a separation.

As a gay man my rights and my life experiences simply aren't related to the issue of changing gender and visa versa. Someone's rights to fight for legal recognition to live as a gender different to the one they were born with has nothing to do with someone wanting to cohabit with someone of the same sex.

Only in 2023 do we go through the exhausting rigmarole of pretending these self-evident truths are controversial or 'bigoted'

 

[nickm]

I'm just not feeling the desire to clutch my pearls at Labour's attack ads. The Tories are 100% going to do the same to Starmer, so Labour needs to get its blows in first and stick Sunak's name on the entirety of the last 13 years. I hope they get kicked as hard as Labour can.

This is going to be a very dirty campaign. The Tories won't be able to run on their record, they will be afraid of losing power, and Labour will need to match them blow for blow.

 

[esmufc07]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[nickm]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tend to agree on the 5 missions and the Ed Stone comparison. The Blair 5 pledges were how to do this kind of thing properly. Surprised I don't see that mentioned more often.

 

[Raven]

Good to see that he hasn't wasted his Easter Sunday.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

And therein lies the problem. Not only are his lies morally questionable. It leaves him (and Labour) politically vulnerable.

 

[rotherham_red]

wariotifo on Twitter: "hahaha he's going to get absolutely ratfecked by our world's-worst print media and the two fox news clones that have started since the last GE, and he's spent over 3 years devoting all his time and energy to picking brutal political war with all his natural allies in that fight" / Twitter

Not going to lie, I feel more than a tinge of affinity with the sentiments in this tweet...

 

[Semper Fudge]

wariotifo on Twitter: "hahaha he's going to get absolutely ratfecked by our world's-worst print media and the two fox news clones that have started since the last GE, and he's spent over 3 years devoting all his time and energy to picking brutal political war with all his natural allies in that fight" / Twitter

Not going to lie, I feel more than a tinge of affinity with the sentiments in this tweet...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

There you go.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TwoSheds]

And therein lies the problem. Not only are his lies morally questionable. It leaves him (and Labour) politically vulnerable.

I'll be honest, I think he's too boring for anyone to give a shit. Who's watching a 2 minute video of Keir Starmer? He could be saying he wants to start a nuclear war with Russia and you'd just think "cup of tea would be nice".

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

How very brave of that Labour insider to come forward like this.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I'll be honest, I think he's too boring for anyone to give a shit. Who's watching a 2 minute video of Keir Starmer? He could be saying he wants to start a nuclear war with Russia and you'd just think "cup of tea would be nice".

The spotlight will be on him in the next GE campaign. So he will either come across as boring or a liar.

We'd better hope the Tories continue imploding! As that seems to be his only strategy, other than purging the Labour party.

 

[DavelinaJolie]

Good to see that he hasn't wasted his Easter Sunday.

I'm shocked. Shocked I say.

 

[Bert_]

His (handlers) strategy from day one was to nullify anything remotely anti-establishment. The wannabe Tories who didn't have the family ties, wealth or the stomach for out and out classism/racism to join the Tory party, shit their pants when Corbyn won the leadership election because it fecked up their career path as the "not Tory" politians. So scared where they that a bunch of them actively campaigned against Labour in the last GE. Not only where they willing to see the country endure a Tory majority for the next 5 years, they also ensured Brexit would happen on the Tories terms entirely.

Well they are now in full charge of the party. Any decent has been silenced. Whatever happens next is on them.

 

[Member 125398]

His (handlers) strategy from day one was to nullify anything remotely anti-establishment. The wannabe Tories who didn't have the family ties, wealth or the stomach for out and out classism/racism to join the Tory party, shit their pants when Corbyn won the leadership election because it fecked up their career path as the "not Tory" politians. So scared where they that a bunch of them actively campaigned against Labour in the last GE. Not only where they willing to see the country endure a Tory majority for the next 5 years, they also ensured Brexit would happen on the Tories terms entirely.

Well they are now in full charge of the party. Any decent has been silenced. Whatever happens next is on them.

Could not disagree less.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

They're going after Yvette Cooper?!

I see he's writing in The Mail today.

feck this guy.

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I thought he was in favour of letting women speak?

 

[nickm]

I'll be honest, I think he's too boring for anyone to give a shit. Who's watching a 2 minute video of Keir Starmer? He could be saying he wants to start a nuclear war with Russia and you'd just think "cup of tea would be nice".

More to the point, people have far bigger worries at the moment.

Also people have pretty much made up their minds about Starmer, the Tories, etc etc. None of it is going to make a difference, except at the margins.

 

[nickm]

Whatever happens next is on them.

Like... winning the election?

 

[Bert_]

Like... winning the election?

Or being handed a default victory in an election. Which the Tories won't be too concerned about as they get a slightly more centrist version of what they have become running the show for a few years until they can retake power the following election without the stink of the past 13 years attached to them.

 

[nickm]

Or being handed a default victory in an election. Which the Tories won't be too concerned about as they get a slightly more centrist version of what they have become running the show for a few years until they can retake power the following election without the stink of the past 13 years attached to them.

Nah, it doesn't work like that. The Tories will be devastated at losing, the scale of the loss will be crushing to them and you will see them fall apart with all sorts of recriminations, the swing will be enormous and hard to turnaround in a single parliament especially given the level of distrust the electorate has for them, and Labour will be able to consolidate their win, if they are smart. It will be bleak for the Tories. There's no brushing off a bloodbath with a quick bounce back.

 

[owlo]

Nah, it doesn't work like that. The Tories will be devastated at losing, the scale of the loss will be crushing to them and you will see them fall apart with all sorts of recriminations, the swing will be enormous and hard to turnaround in a single parliament, and Labour will be able to consolidate their win, if they are smart. It will be bleak for them. There's no brushing off a crushing defeat with a quick bounce back.

Depends just how bad Starmer is. I think he's pretty bad, and Sunak isn't too bad [as a politician] - Could certainly be closer than people think.

I'm Nostalgic for Blair/Brown. And I was too young to appreciate Blair properly.

 

[Sweet Square]

How very brave of that Labour insider to come forward like this.

I thought he was in favour of letting women speak?

They're going after Yvette Cooper?!

Will be interesting to see if this infighting continues.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

His (handlers) strategy from day one was to nullify anything remotely anti-establishment. The wannabe Tories who didn't have the family ties, wealth or the stomach for out and out classism/racism to join the Tory party, shit their pants when Corbyn won the leadership election because it fecked up their career path as the "not Tory" politians. So scared where they that a bunch of them actively campaigned against Labour in the last GE. Not only where they willing to see the country endure a Tory majority for the next 5 years, they also ensured Brexit would happen on the Tories terms entirely.

Well they are now in full charge of the party. Any decent has been silenced. Whatever happens next is on them.

Totally agree.

 

[nickm]

Depends just how bad Starmer is. I think he's pretty bad, and Sunak isn't too bad [as a politician] - Could certainly be closer than people think.

I'm Nostalgic for Blair/Brown. And I was too young to appreciate Blair properly.

I think Starmer is a competent planner and plays a long game, so there's that in favour of a labour 2nd term. I don't see Sunak surviving a Tory bloodbath, he'll be blamed by the right who never wanted him anyway. And the Tories are going to get smashed. Labour would really have to fcuk up to not make that stick for a while.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Nah, it doesn't work like that. The Tories will be devastated at losing, the scale of the loss will be crushing to them and you will see them fall apart with all sorts of recriminations, the swing will be enormous and hard to turnaround in a single parliament especially given the level of distrust the electorate has for them, and Labour will be able to consolidate their win, if they are smart. It will be bleak for the Tories. There's no brushing off a bloodbath with a quick bounce back.

Too many mistaken assumptions here. I don't have time to rebuke them all.

But if (big if) Labour win the next election it will be down to the Tories imploding, not Starmers performance to date.

Also, there will be so little change and Starmer has so few ideas or vision, I personally dont see him lasting more than a term. Unless they court the likes of the Daily Mail and rule as a "Tory party in red ties", achieving very little other than more duping the public, just as Starmer duped Labour party members.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Bert_]

Nah, it doesn't work like that. The Tories will be devastated at losing, the scale of the loss will be crushing to them and you will see them fall apart with all sorts of recriminations, the swing will be enormous and hard to turnaround in a single parliament, and Labour will be able to consolidate their win, if they are smart. It will be bleak for them. There's no brushing off a crushing defeat with a quick bounce back.

It won't be crushing. Tories only need about 1/3 of the popular vote to be the biggest party given how fecked the FPTP system is. Next election is largest party or slim majority for Labour at best (if they can get that). Even if they achieve that then they will have to do a hell of a lot to convince voters to back them a second time. The tory voters that abstained this time won't do so the next cycle.

 

[Member 125398]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I'm not pledging my support until they declare their position on when to put milk in tea.

 

[Bert_]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Next two elections in the bag

 

[Paul the Wolf]

What should be the easiest GE to win ever by Labour on paper, is going to be messed up. Starmer seems so bland, wet and actually rather dim. How the hell did this guy become DPP?
18 months from the GE, predicting another Tory win. Shouldn't be but ...

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I won't post the Daily Mail column itself.

 

[TwoSheds]

Daily Mail. Infighting with Yvette Cooper. Ignoring the massive scandal about the report into £60bn of lost public money being repressed. Scam calls. What a dickhead. And that's just the last 2 days right?

 

[nickm]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Not so sure about that. Phone scams and related fraud are a massive problem. According to Ofcom, 45 million people in the UK were targeted by scammers in the summer of 2021. 45 million!

 

[T00lsh3d]

Will Labour win back their lost seats in Scotland? Is the snp projected to do as well as it did in the last election?

 

[nickm]

It won't be crushing. Tories only need about 1/3 of the popular vote to be the biggest party given how fecked the FPTP system is. Next election is largest party or slim majority for Labour at best (if they can get that). Even if they achieve that then they will have to do a hell of a lot to convince voters to back them a second time. The tory voters that abstained this time won't do so the next cycle.

Not sure I agree with your maths. On 33% for the Tories and 42% for Labour, 15% for Libdems and 10% split between Greens and Reform, is a healthy 40 seat majority for Labour (according to a quick play with this great little calculator, I'm sure someone can do a better job of it). At the moment, Labour is currently on course for a 264 seat majority. I'm sure it'll narrow of course. But even a majority of 40 for Labour would have to be the result of, I think, an unprecedented swing over the course of a single parliament. That's crushing by itself.