Is Starmer soon to be toast?

[vladi]

Looks like current Chinese spying fiasco is going to fester on further now that the White House has come down hard with  criticism.

This follows on from the Chagos  debacle where the UK has committed to giving up these strategic islands whilst paying out £101 million per annum to lease them back from Mauritius ( a staunch China ally) for next 100 years.

The other on-going festering sore is approval for the proposed huge new Chinese embassy at the old Royal Mint site close to tower Bridge. Despite objections from MI5, this massive development in inner London is likely to be approved as a goodwill "gift" to Xi when Starmer visits China later this year. In return, Xi will probably release Jimmy Lai from prison.

It begs the question - just why do we kowtow to China?

 

[Spartacus]

Taking this to the extremes, if Starmer steps down as PM, who would be best to step into the role?

This could be different to who would put themselves forward as the better options may not come forward. 

The grass may not be greener over the fence!

[vladi]

To many Starmer comes across as weak, indecisive a lacking a plan. The complete opposite of a conviction politician. 
He can overcome these perceptions by  having a clear foreign policy and staunchly safeguarding Britain's standing in the world. So far he has alienated our closest ally over the Chagos and the two traitors spying for China.

The word on the street is that the leadership void has been filled by Johnathan Powell and that Starmer  does everything Powell says. Powell should be sacked as his  links to China go back 3 decades during which he was a frequent visitor and meeting senior Chinese officials. The other connection is through his brother -Lord Powell who was chairman of the China-Britain Business Council. Both Powells are members of the 48 Group Club whose stated aim is to "connect China to the world"

Has  Starmer got the guts to clear out the Augean stables?

[malumbu]

Even Dories agreed that we have to maintain diplomatic relations with China rather than label them as a threat.  I don't care about Chagos, beyond that decision should have been made years ago.  He does pretty well with Trump, so give him some credit.

I doubt if there is anyone in the position to take his place, as personable as Burnham is he failed in the past and is not the answer.  Just accept that you have Starmer for till the end of term.  More important to those that would not have Faridge as our next PM, still two thirds, is making the next few years work, or at the least doing well enough that we can have a centre left coalition to prevent Faridge becoming PM..

[Molly26]

Deliberate and childish spelling mistake ?

[Jenijenjen]

It's become a bit of a meme or is it a trope

[Sephiroth]

So this is all coming down to Trump crying and some wet British  people with bees in their bonnets about starmer  saying we must do what he wants? 

Trump is not the same as “our closest ally”

he is in fact the opposite of an ally. He and farage and Russia are what we need to be fearful of. Not china at this moment in time 

 

appeasement doesn’t work 

Edited Sunday at 13:45 by Sephiroth

[vladi]

2 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

appeasement doesn’t work 

So why then are we appeasing China at every step?

Now to get back to my OP and close off the tangent you introduced on Trump, let me state clearly I am no fan of his. He is unstable, unpredictable, misogynistic, dishonest, spiteful and a consummate liar. Oh, not to mention he is a convicted felon. Hopefully, as I predicted previously he will not live to see out his term.

[jazzer]

 

[Sephiroth]

Part of it will be U.K.s place in the world

out of the EU, dealing with sociopaths in us government.  It can ill afford to have a complete falling out with china 

but who knows   Mostly what we are reading is the usually shadowy stuff from, shall we say, vested interests against Labour, without an awful lot by way of substance 

 

[mrwb]

The Chagos deal was done by the last government and they just paused it 6 months before the election as it was obv political dynamite. 

[Sephiroth]

Once again. Worth repeating - it’s not that Labour can’t  or shouldn’t be criticised 

but the reaction to everything being “is this the end for starmer?” Is such a symptom of a broken countr. He isn’t very good but he isn’t behaving in any outrageous ways, and we haven’t had 3 Labour leaders in between an election - so calling for one or saying the leader should be replaced is just hysterical 

 

the Tories record in power since Brexit has broken people’s minds 

[vladi]

13 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

Once again. Worth repeating - it’s not that Labour can’t  or shouldn’t be criticised 

but the reaction to everything being “is this the end for starmer?” Is such a symptom of a broken countr. He isn’t very good but he isn’t behaving in any outrageous ways, and we haven’t had 3 Labour leaders in between an election - so calling for one or saying the leader should be replaced is just hysterical 

I think Labour can be much better. It's just that Starmer is so indecisive and boring. He has no presence, no  charisma and no strategy. Also no vision of what he wants Britain to aspire to. 

He is being led by the nose by Jonathan Powell - a Sinophile.

I would prefer John Healy or McFadden - they are much better communicators. They can think on their feet and that's something Sir Keir seems unable to do.

[Sephiroth]

I don’t think as votes we get to snap out fingers and magic someone else into the position of prime minster. 
 

We’ve  already had about 6 in as many years.  Make it  stop 

Edited Sunday at 19:59 by Sephiroth

[diable rouge]

15 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

the Tories record in power since Brexit has broken people’s minds 

One thing I think is underplayed is that we, the country as a whole, and in particular the Westminster media bubble & 24/7 newstainment cycle, have become addicted to the political drama the Tories served up post-2016, hence the view that Starmer is boring etc. 

It's got so bad that a leader of a respected political party spent the last GE campaign performing a series of publicity stunts in order to get the media's attention, and that became the story not the policies being promoted.

Make Politics Boring Again...

[Sephiroth]

Absolutely correct.  It’s a point I’ve been making for years now 

[Jenijenjen]

I'm baffled why voters believe a media friendly politician makes a competent prime minister. 

See Trump, Johnson, Faridge et al

I thought the electorate had become more sophisticated

[vladi]

Sure, the last two decades have been notable for scandal and mismanagement but these days with multiple social media channels providing widespread and instant exposure plus cameras everywhere, it's more difficult to hide issues. Think of Matt Hancock.

The media is ever vigilant to run with a political story and when they get a sniff of scandal they will dig and keep on digging. 
 

[malumbu]

No denying that Labour's first year or so has disappointed those of us who wanted major change.  But this demonising of the man is just ridiculous.  There have been some good things, but drowned out by this insentient right wing driven media hatred.  The same right wing media that loves Johnson and FaaReg (I think I've at last hit on getting the pronounciation right).

A good example today - John Crace reports: That done [reference to Trump] , Starmer could move on. Britain had offered its full support to the peace process. Had worked tirelessly behind the scenes, with no need of recognition. Because it was our job. Recognising a Palestinian state had allowed other Arab nations to condemn Hamas. And we knew a thing or two about decommissioning weapons from the Good Friday agreement. But it was going to be a long haul. (maybe a rosy look, but nice to see something positive)

A positive view on our position in the world and a player on the peace deal (albeit too late for many in Gaza)

Here's GB news: Suella Braverman says she is 'ashamed to be British' after Keir Starmer’s 'humiliation on world stage'

HTF can Braverman lecture anyone?

Mail: Will Keir Starmer EVER recover from his viral humiliation by Trump in front of world? PM's efforts to bask in Gaza peace deal spectacularly backfire

And slightly earlier in the Times: Starmer ‘duped voters’ and five more claims in explosive new book.  In this case the left sharpening their knives - perhaps they could go back to Corbyn's time as Labour leader.

[vladi]

Without doubt, he is getting a bad rap from the media and no doubt he is a sincere well-intentioned person but he is so expressionless. If only his face could break out into a smile occasionally then that would help. The deadpan, dummy look does not inspire. 

I look forward to the day when he might venture out and  make the odd humorous quip with a smile. Tony Blair could do that rather well. 

If I ever needed a defence lawyer and I had to choose between them both, I know which one I would choose.

Anythings possible with the right determination and a good coach.

[malumbu]

Picking on someone because you don't like their facial features may be hate crime.  This is the same Starmer as some pinned their hopes on in as a vice of reason in pushing for a far more reasonable Brexit deal.

Look back over the years and we had numerous PMs who were considered dull.  The celebrity ones are full of faults, that often gets overlooked by history.  That includes Churchill.  You could say that people didn't like Hume because he could mumble and be incoherent at times.

Edited 4 hours ago by malumbu

[ianr]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Picking on someone because you don't like their facial features is hate crime. 

Not quite.  First establish whether the 'picking-on' is itself a criminal offence; then determine that it was based on one of the specifed personal characteristics.  

"Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:

• demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

Or

been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity"

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

Edited 4 hours ago by ianr

[malumbu]

Amended my earlier post to take this into account.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Picking on someone because you don't like their facial features is hate crime. 

Errr, ever such a knee-jerk response there @malumbu...I am not sure that referring to someone as expressionless is a hate crime - you're making a huge leap with that one and they didn't say they didn't like their facial features - what they are actually being critical of is the lack of use of their facial features.....;-)! 

[vladi]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Picking on someone because you don't like their facial features is hate crime. 

Really? I made no comment on any of his facial features whatsoever.
I observed that he was "expressionless" and suggested that  "if only his face could break out into a smile occasionally then that would help ". These observations refer to behavioural aspects  of Starmer's performance as he appears on the media.

Where's the hate and where's the crime?  
 

Edited 4 hours ago by vladi