Thread 12 Starmer: From Prescott to Rayner, working class grit

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5203242-thread-11-starmer-will-that-phone-call-be-to-harris-or-to-trump-the-decidedly-superior-looking-cats-thread?page=40&reply=139989436

Another link, the full article rather than selective quotes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33ek51rx57o

My bad, this is the second most popular….

Hey Rachy. There were lots of alternatives. You didn't need to spaff away billions on massive pay awards for your mates in the public sector for example.
1053 likes.

Why didn’t you share this originally?

Hmm, funny that….

Ah yes, government by social media comments 🤣
Hilarious.

Ironic, given you are a prolific poster on MN….

Thanks @DuncinToffee .

I see the phrase "Rachel from accounts" pops up a lot on the comments on that BBC article. Almost as though they are following a script, eh? Also what does this reference to Musk mean? Is he in charge of the US economy now ? God help them!

Labour should be focusing on cutting all the wasted Government expenditure.
It will be fascinating to see what Musk does in this rest in the US.

Not as prolific as you I'm sure.

But I don't pretend to speak for the whole of London.

And look, here’s the FT’s Top comments so far.

Meaning the next tax increases will be on UK taxpayers….

It's back of a fag packet policy. Or in Labours case, back of a free ticket policy.

Decided that enough damage has been done already clearly…

I don’t believe her and I won’t be investing, I’m out.

Well, given their track record so far, who will believe her?

I'm so tired of this woman tripping over the words of her badly-rehearsed boilerplate explanation of "fundamentals" and "stability". She has no grasp of what she's doing and is clearly unfamiliar with the concept of "externalities".

😳

She could have staffed it away to her mates a bit like the tories did. Baroness Mone and Co for example.

The amount of vitriol they are getting from people worried they will make less profit says to me that they are doing something right.

Great logic, well done.

Absolutely. Someone's getting upset.

Gambling is for stupid people. Draw your conclusions.

It's better logic than presenting the rancorous comments of random people on the internet as any kind of evidence.

Well the curtain has fully fallen now. What a shambles. For those who fancy a chuckle, it’s worth reflecting on the FT lunch with “the Chess Prodigy” herself, from last year.

https://www.ft.com/content/652d0a56-03b0-422a-a9c5-c0bf66db4e3c

"Reeves competed at county level, and even became the British under-14 girls champion, though she never considered going professional."

Reality: She came joint 26th in the British Under 14s championship in 1993... I guess they relied on Rachel's word...

🤣

@derxa I think we may have found something we agree on.

On these threads we are grown up enough to have different opinions about things. I think gambling is for stupid people. Others like a flutter. It's all good - the only one nitpicking about it is you.

No, you made a very strong statement about gambling.

Dont try backpedaling.

https://bsky.app/profile/stevenswinford.bsky.social/post/3lbrz7qggic2p

Keir Starmer is this week conducting face-to-face interviews with four candidates to be Cabinet Secretary:

Olly Robbins
Antonia Romeo
Tamara Finkelstein
Chris Wormald

If he goes for Romeo or Finkelstein it would be the first female Cabinet Secretary in history

Oh how terrible. I must go and join the Conservative party at once.

You've really got nothing better to do than this? I don't like gambling because it is addictive, and I've had addicts in my life. I feel strongly about it, yes. Sue me.

I also don't think anyone is going to take you up on your bet, but we'll see you here in a year's time.

Thanks for posting this reminder. I have always appreciated how well people have managed to disagree on these threads without any big fuss. But then I suppose people have generally come on here looking for common ground, and to learn things, not to deliberately cause arguments.