Out of interest, what is particularly bad about those two?Even if you made a conscious effort to campaign to get some of the most awful of Starmer's MPs out, like Wes Streeting or Thagnam Debbonaire for example, they'd be in the Lords for life the second the summer recess was over.
Blue skies thinking my friend.My money is still on a hung parliament, Labour aren’t in the lead in the opinion polls because they offer something new and exciting, it’s that people are sick of the Tories.
This is more of a Kinnock turning point than a Blair one.
Sounds like many MPs (who were probably standing down anyway) are upset that this has been announced and plan to oust Sunak with the old "vote of no confidence".
This would delay the election from happening.
Are all Tory MPs spineless self-serving arses? Gotta drag out that £80k annual wage as much as possible.
Here you go - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...avid-davis-mark-rowley-republic-b2335670.html
A month later Starmer whipped his Lords to abstain on a motion that would have killed the bill and so it passed into legislation.
There is no lesser evil. You're going to get a Prime Minister who thinks war crimes are fine, surrounded by lackeys who defended his comments until he came up with the utter crap, nine days later after it rightly blew up in his face, that he was answering a different question. Oh and alongside him will be a Chancellor who doesn't think anyone in receipt of benefits deserves political representation and the last time she was running for a government job wanted to be 'tougher than the Tories on welfare' and between them they've already decided to also keep the two-child benefit cap, despite the fact binning it would take a quarter of a million kids out of poverty overnight.
At what point during that interview was cutting off water, food and fuel to an entire population within international law?Starmer was bloody clumsy in the LBC interview (though he did say everything should be done within international law, the left wing YouTubers always cut that bit out)
At what point during that interview was cutting off water, food and fuel to an entire population within international law?
'I think my political opponents should be shot, their families kidnapped and made to work for free and everyone they've ever been friends with lose the right to vote for the rest of their days. But everything should be done within the current laws on murder, kidnapping, slavery and democratic rights'
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant said on Monday 9th October, two days before Starmer's LBC interview. So don't pretend they were saying one thing but secretly planning another, they told the world from the start.At the time he was asked the siege of Gaza was only just beginning and Isreal had told international partners that it was going to be targeted and limited (I mean it clearly wasn’t going to be but that’s another story). Under international law a temporary cut of power to aid hostage recovery would be considered acceptable. Starmer is a Lawyer, he gave a lawyerly answer but it wasn’t a good answer.
It wasn't 'addressed repeatedly days after.' Thornberry went on Newsnight and was directly asked if this siege was within international law and refused to say that it wasn't, with Lammy also appearing in the media to do the same thing. Then nine days after saying absolutely nothing on the matter, Starmer decided actually he was answering the previous question like the Two Ronnies' Mastermind sketch all along.Nick Ferrari (who is a Tory stooge) also knew he had Starmer against a wall as it is a well established convention that opposition parties do not disagree with the government publically on foreign policy (rightly or wrongly), but I can’t for the life of me work out how Starmer and his team hadn’t prepped better for the question. Hence why it had to be addressed repeatedly days after.
No the SNP motion, had it have been voted on, could have seen the UK Parliament attribute Israel's siege of Gaza as collective punishment and as such a war crime. Now given that Starmer went on national radio and said Israel had the right to do that, he wasn't going to risk his own country's government saying he'd given the green light for a war crime. So then came the 'Islamist threat to MPs' crap. People pretend that was the Tories, but Starmer started it, with the Speaker, in order to cover his own backside and get the SNP motion ditched, despite it being the SNP opposition day.It’s the same with the SNP who disgustingly used the conflict for political points. Labour had said to them that so long as the ceasefire statement they proposed acknowledged Hamas atrocities on the 7th of October AND required both Isreal and Hamas ceasefire then they would support it. SNP refused to demand a ceasefire of Hamas (apparently in their minds ceasefires only require one side yo actually cease fire).
Thanks for welcome back, I’ve been out of the country for a few weeks then come back to this…BOOM.Blue skies thinking my friend.
Nice to see you back after a while.
The Tories are going to get absolutely thrashed, without a doubt.
You don't pull more than 20 points back in a few weeks...especially after the complete mess of four (sub)prime ministers due to petty squabbles within the Tory party in eight years.
Labour walkover, the question is...by how big a majority.
Bring on the political annihilation.
I will be staying up to watch this year, I normally avoid bloodsports...but I wouldn't miss this one for the world.
Now they get to hastily parachute their mates in against the local party's wishes, with the excuse being that the election is at too short a notice to go through the usual democratic process.The party which has been calling for a General Election for the past 2 - 3 years, who have insisted that they're battle ready and have been itching for a fight. The party which knows that, no matter what, there had to be a General Election this year still doesn't have candidates for over 100 seats. What the actual? That's the election.
![]()
Revealed: Member anger as around 100 Labour candidates still not unveiled - LabourList
Labour has approximately 100 general election candidates left to publicly announce, LabourList can reveal, despite the party twice…labourlist.org
I'm in a seat which has previously been considered a Tory safe haven. My MP announced that they weren't standing again about a year or so ago. Labour haven't updated their local website since March 2022, their Twitter/X account since April 2023.
What the hell are they playing at?
Now come on Matt, you voted via your father following your instruction in the last one if I recall!I have to say, I can’t wait for this election; I shall be following the pre-election buildup with keen interest! The main source of my excitement is a personal note for me. It’ll be my first ever GE vote, which I’m very excited about; I’ve been interested in politics for quite a few years now and followed the 2017 and 2019 elections quite intently despite being too young to vote in either...
...It’s also worth noting that “shy Tory” syndrome is a very real thing; opinion polls have always underestimated Tory support because people won’t admit to supporting the Tories, but then go on to vote Tory at the ballot box. If there are plenty of “shy Tories” out there, Labour might not do as well as many expect.
It would appear that my seat is similar; the Forest of Dean Labour Party, despite saying that they are “fighting to win the election on 4th July”, appears to have not selected a candidate yet: https://forestofdean.laboursites.org/The party which has been calling for a General Election for the past 2 - 3 years, who have insisted that they're battle ready and have been itching for a fight. The party which knows that, no matter what, there had to be a General Election this year still doesn't have candidates for over 100 seats. What the actual? That's the election.
![]()
Revealed: Member anger as around 100 Labour candidates still not unveiled - LabourList
Labour has approximately 100 general election candidates left to publicly announce, LabourList can reveal, despite the party twice…labourlist.org
I'm in a seat which has previously been considered a Tory safe haven. My MP announced that they weren't standing again about a year or so ago. Labour haven't updated their local website since March 2022, their Twitter/X account since April 2023.
What the hell are they playing at?
That’s correct. However, this is the first one where I’ll actually be casting my own vote rather than telling my Dad who to vote for.Now come on Matt, you voted via your father following your instruction in the last one if I recall!
I do believe I owe him a Crevettes pint for doing it still, don't I.
I think I owe half the planet a pint in Crevettes by now, better get a brewery.
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant said on Monday 9th October, two days before Starmer's LBC interview. So don't pretend they were saying one thing but secretly planning another, they told the world from the start.
It wasn't 'addressed repeatedly days after.' Thornberry went on Newsnight and was directly asked if this siege was within international law and refused to say that it wasn't, with Lammy also appearing in the media to do the same thing. Then nine days after saying absolutely nothing on the matter, Starmer decided actually he was answering the previous question like the Two Ronnies' Mastermind sketch all along.
Also, the 'Tory stooge' thing would hold some credence had Starmer not specifically chosen Ferrari's show to do his monthly phone-in appearances, one of which this interview took place on. He's Starmer's hand-picked host, you don't then get to fob that off. Also, a couple of years prior they'd invited a racist to spout Great Replacement Theory on one of their previous 'Call Keir' shows, so it isn't as if he hadn't got a perfectly valid reason to move elsewhere had he wanted to. He didn't.
No the SNP motion, had it have been voted on, could have seen the UK Parliament attribute Israel's siege of Gaza as collective punishment and as such a war crime. Now given that Starmer went on national radio and said Israel had the right to do that, he wasn't going to risk his own country's government saying he'd given the green light for a war crime. So then came the 'Islamist threat to MPs' crap. People pretend that was the Tories, but Starmer started it, with the Speaker, in order to cover his own backside and get the SNP motion ditched, despite it being the SNP opposition day.
Now they get to hastily parachute their mates in against the local party's wishes, with the excuse being that the election is at too short a notice to go through the usual democratic process.
They're 20 points ahead in every poll. If 80% of them get in, which is almost certain to happen, that's 80 yes men or women who'll do as they're told by Starmer for five years; because they'll owe him one for giving them a candidacy and a £91,346 salary that they didn't stand a chance of getting via the democratic process.That’s true for the Labour safe seats, and definitely happens. Curious that some of the battleground seats are not filled as you don’t parachute people into those. You parachute people you want in a ministerial post (either due to their skills or nepotism) so you pick the safe seats.
You said (and I quote) "Isreal had told international partners that it was going to be targeted and limited" - as an excuse for Starmer's approval of war crimes. Who am I supposed to cite other than an actual member of the Israeli government telling the world the exact opposite a few days prior to prove that was demonstrably wrong? Hell, they even cited food not getting in which you also claimed was never part of the siege Starmer was approving.There really is no point arguing with you, I have quoted line for line Starmers words, you return with a quote from the Isreal defence minister. As I said in my post no-one practically expected Isreal to limit their action but legally until they actually do it they are not breaking international law.
You can argue Starmer forced the speakers hand in a meeting you were not in and one in which the speaker said he didn’t, that’s up to you.
You are right on one point that I forgot which was the collective punishment line, only the ICC can make that statement legally, hence why South Africa went to the ICC to get a ruling. The HoC cannot state a fact on legality of another country, again maybe not logical but it’s a basic rule of foreign policy.
SNP don’t have to pretend they will ever be a UK government, it’s the worst kind of student politics ignoring the realities rather than dealing with them.