|
Post by maxplonk on Jul 30, 2020 9:42:56 GMT
Starmer is very much the grown-up in the room when it comes to PMQs*. I like him because he's clever, has humble origins, is willing to stick up for the underdog (e.g. the McDonalds two), has got to where he is (Knighthood etc.) by hard work and ability (as opposed to privilege and connections). I can understand why he's labelled as "Tory-lite" - perhaps that should be "Tony-lite" - which will probably shield him from some of the excesses of the media (in a way which Corbyn never was). It's a shame that he's inherited a lot of problems in his party (polarisation, anti_semitism etc.) which weren't necessarily of his making. *I find it very interesting watching PMQs not for what is said but for how it is said. Starmer is factual, concise and relevant (as you'd expect from a QC). Johnson is all bollox and bluster who, in the absence of pertinent answers, often resorts to personal attacks - something I've yet to see Starmer do. I think Starmer sees PMQs for the charade it is. No wonder he sometimes looks so frustrated. You see what you want to see. Everybody does (including you) - but not everyone is aware of it (how about you?).
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 10:21:30 GMT
I personally will stick with the first But just out of interest what is your opinion on Starmer Starmer is very much the grown-up in the room when it comes to PMQs*. I like him because he's clever, has humble origins, is willing to stick up for the underdog (e.g. the McDonalds two), has got to where he is (Knighthood etc.) by hard work and ability (as opposed to privilege and connections). I can understand why he's labelled as "Tory-lite" - perhaps that should be "Tony-lite" - which will probably shield him from some of the excesses of the media (in a way which Corbyn never was). It's a shame that he's inherited a lot of problems in his party (polarisation, anti_semitism etc.) which weren't necessarily of his making. *I find it very interesting watching PMQs not for what is said but for how it is said. Starmer is factual, concise and relevant (as you'd expect from a QC). Johnson is all bollox and bluster who, in the absence of pertinent answers, often resorts to personal attacks - something I've yet to see Starmer do. I think Starmer sees PMQs for the charade it is. No wonder he sometimes looks so frustrated. I can't knock Starmers forensic skills when asking questions But is it what people want to see? As for standing up for the underdog I would suggest many thousands of young girls serially abused would beg to differ The big question is Are the millions of northern (outside of M25) voters who have slowly deserted Labour over the last twenty years often feeling alienated by the Liberal Islington elite suddenly be prepared to lend their support to yet another London based lovey lawyer
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 30, 2020 10:26:14 GMT
You see what you want to see. Everybody does (including you) - but not everyone is aware of it (how about you?). I’m fully aware of it.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jul 30, 2020 10:41:54 GMT
Starmer is very much the grown-up in the room when it comes to PMQs*. I like him because he's clever, has humble origins, is willing to stick up for the underdog (e.g. the McDonalds two), has got to where he is (Knighthood etc.) by hard work and ability (as opposed to privilege and connections). I can understand why he's labelled as "Tory-lite" - perhaps that should be "Tony-lite" - which will probably shield him from some of the excesses of the media (in a way which Corbyn never was). It's a shame that he's inherited a lot of problems in his party (polarisation, anti_semitism etc.) which weren't necessarily of his making. *I find it very interesting watching PMQs not for what is said but for how it is said. Starmer is factual, concise and relevant (as you'd expect from a QC). Johnson is all bollox and bluster who, in the absence of pertinent answers, often resorts to personal attacks - something I've yet to see Starmer do. I think Starmer sees PMQs for the charade it is. No wonder he sometimes looks so frustrated. I can't knock Starmers forensic skills when asking questions But is it what people want to see? As for standing up for the underdog I would suggest many thousands of young girls serially abused would beg to differ The big question is Are the millions of northern (outside of M25) voters who have slowly deserted Labour over the last twenty years often feeling alienated by the Liberal Islington elite suddenly be prepared to lend their support to yet another London based lovey lawyer I've asked this before and never got an answer, but what is the link between Keir Starmer and grooming gangs?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 30, 2020 10:46:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 11:11:31 GMT
I can't knock Starmers forensic skills when asking questions But is it what people want to see? As for standing up for the underdog I would suggest many thousands of young girls serially abused would beg to differ The big question is Are the millions of northern (outside of M25) voters who have slowly deserted Labour over the last twenty years often feeling alienated by the Liberal Islington elite suddenly be prepared to lend their support to yet another London based lovey lawyer I've asked this before and never got an answer, but what is the link between Keir Starmer and grooming gangs? He was in the DPP when various cases were not proceeded with But compared to certain labour politicians both national and local he has a lot less to answer for
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jul 30, 2020 11:13:06 GMT
Everybody does (including you) - but not everyone is aware of it (how about you?). I’m fully aware of it. I'm glad to hear that. Have you ever considered why do you want to see some information rather than other?
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jul 30, 2020 11:25:19 GMT
I can't knock Starmers forensic skills when asking questions But is it what people want to see? As for standing up for the underdog I would suggest many thousands of young girls serially abused would beg to differ The big question is Are the millions of northern (outside of M25) voters who have slowly deserted Labour over the last twenty years often feeling alienated by the Liberal Islington elite suddenly be prepared to lend their support to yet another London based lovey lawyer I've asked this before and never got an answer, but what is the link between Keir Starmer and grooming gangs? Do you mean this?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 30, 2020 11:39:11 GMT
I'm glad to hear that. Have you ever considered why do you want to see some information rather than other? The answer to your question is confirmation bias. Personally I like to hear and read things that challenge what I think or understand. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy the Moral Maze. It’s why I enjoy reading.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jul 30, 2020 11:45:21 GMT
Starmer is very much the grown-up in the room when it comes to PMQs*. I like him because he's clever, has humble origins, is willing to stick up for the underdog (e.g. the McDonalds two), has got to where he is (Knighthood etc.) by hard work and ability (as opposed to privilege and connections). I can understand why he's labelled as "Tory-lite" - perhaps that should be "Tony-lite" - which will probably shield him from some of the excesses of the media (in a way which Corbyn never was). It's a shame that he's inherited a lot of problems in his party (polarisation, anti_semitism etc.) which weren't necessarily of his making. *I find it very interesting watching PMQs not for what is said but for how it is said. Starmer is factual, concise and relevant (as you'd expect from a QC). Johnson is all bollox and bluster who, in the absence of pertinent answers, often resorts to personal attacks - something I've yet to see Starmer do. I think Starmer sees PMQs for the charade it is. No wonder he sometimes looks so frustrated. I can't knock Starmers forensic skills when asking questions But is it what people want to see? As for standing up for the underdog I would suggest many thousands of young girls serially abused would beg to differ The big question is Are the millions of northern (outside of M25) voters who have slowly deserted Labour over the last twenty years often feeling alienated by the Liberal Islington elite suddenly be prepared to lend their support to yet another London based lovey lawyer Is it what people want to see? That smacks of the Alan Durban defence (pun intended). As for the serially abused young girls (was it really many thousand?) I'm not familiar with the details of the case (who is?) but I can imagine reasons for deciding not to prosecute the perpetrators ("lack of evidence" and "witness protection" come to mind). And Starmer also wanted to review the way in which such cases were handled by the CPS. And another "London based lovey lawyer"? If people label him so then that is their choice. How would they label Johnson - who actually lived in Islington? I'd much rather support a working-class lad came good (who actually knows what he is doing), rather than a privileged, serial liar. But then, that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jul 30, 2020 12:03:22 GMT
I'm glad to hear that. Have you ever considered why do you want to see some information rather than other? The answer to your question is confirmation bias. Personally I like to hear and read things that challenge what I think or understand. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy the Moral Maze. It’s why I enjoy reading. Yes. Confirmation bias, was my first answer to my question as well. Presentation is another issue. I find it a lot easier to listen to somebody who presents clear and well-supported arguments rather than some bumbling incoherent, who regularly seems to promise "jam tomorrow". I think BJ does this deliberately precisely because it is more difficult to make sense of what he is saying and, therefore, more difficult to analyse and challenge. Perhaps it will be better when he hires a spokesperson. (No Boris-bike jokes, please.) But then what? Digging a little deeper I find that I have quite a lot in common with KS, at least on a superficial level, and so maybe I identify with him to a certain extent. Similar social, economic and political background. Heck, we were even at the same university at the same time (never met him, though).
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 30, 2020 12:10:21 GMT
Charlie Elphicke trial: Ex-MP guilty of sexual assaults link
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 12:48:08 GMT
I can't knock Starmers forensic skills when asking questions But is it what people want to see? As for standing up for the underdog I would suggest many thousands of young girls serially abused would beg to differ The big question is Are the millions of northern (outside of M25) voters who have slowly deserted Labour over the last twenty years often feeling alienated by the Liberal Islington elite suddenly be prepared to lend their support to yet another London based lovey lawyer Is it what people want to see? That smacks of the Alan Durban defence (pun intended). As for the serially abused young girls (was it really many thousand?) I'm not familiar with the details of the case (who is?) but I can imagine reasons for deciding not to prosecute the perpetrators ("lack of evidence" and "witness protection" come to mind). And Starmer also wanted to review the way in which such cases were handled by the CPS. And another "London based lovey lawyer"? If people label him so then that is their choice. How would they label Johnson - who actually lived in Islington? I'd much rather support a working-class lad came good (who actually knows what he is doing), rather than a privileged, serial liar. But then, that's just me. I would suggest he wasn't quite the working class lad you have made out How many working class kids do you know who went to a fee paying grammar school And I wonder if he's one of the typically hypocritical socialists that are against the very thing that gave them a start in life On the point of whether it ammounts to thousands I suggest you read into it You really do a disservice to those poor young girls to think otherwise
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Jul 30, 2020 13:05:22 GMT
Is it what people want to see? That smacks of the Alan Durban defence (pun intended). As for the serially abused young girls (was it really many thousand?) I'm not familiar with the details of the case (who is?) but I can imagine reasons for deciding not to prosecute the perpetrators ("lack of evidence" and "witness protection" come to mind). And Starmer also wanted to review the way in which such cases were handled by the CPS. And another "London based lovey lawyer"? If people label him so then that is their choice. How would they label Johnson - who actually lived in Islington? I'd much rather support a working-class lad came good (who actually knows what he is doing), rather than a privileged, serial liar. But then, that's just me. I would suggest he wasn't quite the working class lad you have made out How many working class kids do you know who went to a fee paying grammar school And I wonder if he's one of the typically hypocritical socialists that are against the very thing that gave them a start in life On the point of whether it ammounts to thousands I suggest you read into it You really do a disservice to those poor you g girls to think otherwise Working class. His mother was a nurse and his father, a tool-maker. He qualified for his (then independently supported) school by passing the 11+ exam. Its status changed while he was there. I'm not privy to the precise details of his place thereafter. I wonder if anyone has bothered to ask him about his thoughts on his own background and educational opportunities? You do yourself a disservice by deliberately misinterpreting my admitted ignorance of the details of a matter which YOU raised, as being tantamount to an opinion opposite to the one raised by you.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 13:30:36 GMT
I would suggest he wasn't quite the working class lad you have made out How many working class kids do you know who went to a fee paying grammar school And I wonder if he's one of the typically hypocritical socialists that are against the very thing that gave them a start in life On the point of whether it ammounts to thousands I suggest you read into it You really do a disservice to those poor you g girls to think otherwise Working class. His mother was a nurse and his father, a tool-maker. He qualified for his (then independently supported) school by passing the 11+ exam. Its status changed while he was there. I'm not privy to the precise details of his place thereafter. I wonder if anyone has bothered to ask him about his thoughts on his own background and educational opportunities? You do yourself a disservice by deliberately misinterpreting my admitted ignorance of the details of a matter which YOU raised, as being tantamount to an opinion opposite to the one raised by you. Well as long as once you have looked into it you realise that many thousands of young girls/women were badly let down by Labour politicians
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jul 30, 2020 13:50:51 GMT
Working class. His mother was a nurse and his father, a tool-maker. He qualified for his (then independently supported) school by passing the 11+ exam. Its status changed while he was there. I'm not privy to the precise details of his place thereafter. I wonder if anyone has bothered to ask him about his thoughts on his own background and educational opportunities? You do yourself a disservice by deliberately misinterpreting my admitted ignorance of the details of a matter which YOU raised, as being tantamount to an opinion opposite to the one raised by you. Well as long as once you have looked into it you realise that many thousands of young girls/women were badly let down by Labour politicians I suspect there are just as many young people badly let down by Tory politicians.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 14:42:57 GMT
Well as long as once you have looked into it you realise that many thousands of young girls/women were badly let down by Labour politicians I suspect there are just as many young people badly let down by Tory politicians. But I wouldn't think they were actually in the care of such politicians Many of these young women were directly in the care system overseen by local Labour run councils
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jul 30, 2020 15:28:38 GMT
I've asked this before and never got an answer, but what is the link between Keir Starmer and grooming gangs? He was in the DPP when various cases were not proceeded with But compared to certain labour politicians both national and local he has a lot less to answer for So nothing at the moment that links him with the decision to not charge someone?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 16:00:03 GMT
He was in the DPP when various cases were not proceeded with But compared to certain labour politicians both national and local he has a lot less to answer for So nothing at the moment that links him with the decision to not charge someone? At the moment covers it
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 30, 2020 16:46:00 GMT
I suspect there are just as many young people badly let down by Tory politicians. But I wouldn't think they were actually in the care of such politicians Many of these young women were directly in the care system overseen by local Labour run councils If that's your view don't vote for them. However the assertion that Starmer was a fee paying schoolboy is bollocks, not all grammar school kids paid.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 16:48:08 GMT
But I wouldn't think they were actually in the care of such politicians Many of these young women were directly in the care system overseen by local Labour run councils If that's your view don't vote for them. However the assertion that Starmer was a fee paying schoolboy is bollocks, not all grammar school kids paid. I didn't vote for Blair I'm certainly not going to vote for the polystyrene version But on the point of grammar schools is Starmer for or against them
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jul 30, 2020 17:20:01 GMT
If that's your view don't vote for them. However the assertion that Starmer was a fee paying schoolboy is bollocks, not all grammar school kids paid. I didn't vote for Blair I'm certainly not going to vote for the polystyrene version But on the point of grammar schools is Starmer for or against them Not even in 1997? Surely you didn't vote for shambles that was the Tories at that point? Easily the most rotten govt in my lifetime
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 17:23:27 GMT
I didn't vote for Blair I'm certainly not going to vote for the polystyrene version But on the point of grammar schools is Starmer for or against them Not even in 1997? Surely you didn't vote for shambles that was the Tories at that point? Easily the most rotten govt in my lifetime Not even 1997 I am quite proud of the fact that I saw through that murdering bastard from the start
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Jul 30, 2020 18:13:16 GMT
Out of all the things that irk me with Johnson and there are a lot, but his conduct when dealing with facts about children in poverty should piss absolutely everyone off.
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Jul 30, 2020 19:06:31 GMT
If that's your view don't vote for them. However the assertion that Starmer was a fee paying schoolboy is bollocks, not all grammar school kids paid. I didn't vote for Blair I'm certainly not going to vote for the polystyrene version But on the point of grammar schools is Starmer for or against them Who would be your ideal prime minister? I'm guessing at Farage..
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 30, 2020 19:15:13 GMT
I didn't vote for Blair I'm certainly not going to vote for the polystyrene version But on the point of grammar schools is Starmer for or against them Who would be your ideal prime minister? I'm guessing at Farage.. The blessed Margaret was the best ever Maybe I'd give sunak a go But if I'd have a choice I'd give mercer a go
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Jul 30, 2020 22:24:50 GMT
Who would be your ideal prime minister? I'm guessing at Farage.. The blessed Margaret was the best ever Maybe I'd give sunak a go But if I'd have a choice I'd give mercer a go Sunak?!! Love a socialist eh?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 30, 2020 22:25:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 31, 2020 4:22:19 GMT
. Seems a straight forward to me and obviously to parliamentary authorities who seem to have taken no action Also most importantly his voters as he has increased his majority twice since first being elected
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 31, 2020 8:34:24 GMT
. Seems a straight forward to me and obviously to parliamentary authorities who seem to have taken no action Also most importantly his voters as he has increased his majority twice since first being elected www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46990210
|
|