Time for a new PM and Chancellor?

[Whenwillitgetwarm]

I wrote this on another thread but feel it should have its own thread.

Although I voted Labour (the current Tory’s are too insane), I think it may be time to swap out Starmer and Reeves. If this is done early, there’s enough parliament time left to bed a new PM and Chancellor in.

They both lack ideas, seem confused, no vision etc. They had 14 years to think up workable plans. Coming in and throwing their hands up saying there’s no money so they can’t do anything is very poor. They want to continue austerity on the sly. They indulge in stupid culture wars like VAT to rob Peter to pay Paul (and Paul won’t see a penny anyway). They have bad advisors and are arrogant. It looks like they are just excited to have the job titles and don’t know what to do.

Get a top two who will come up with a bold plan. We’re in the gutter so there’s opportunities to deliver quick wins. They don’t always need funding, simple policy changes can make big and quick differences. If they gave each department a target to deliver one quick legislative win by Christmas, we’d start 2025 differently.

Unfortunately we’re stuck with two people who can’t believe their luck, and who are afraid of the Daily Mail, Murdoch, some loud Redwall types and bots on X who wish our country economic harm. They are weak.

If Labour were a football team, there would be fans screaming for Starmer to be sacked now.

This is not about getting rid of Labour. I believe there is talent in the wider party, much more than in the Conservatives who hollowed out their party under Johnson. Nevertheless I just don’t think Starmer and Reeves should have their roles.

Well I know that. As you cannot see the issue.

I said you wouldn’t say ‘debatable’ to anyone of another faith and since you’ve admitted you should have ‘used more words’ it seems you agree you got it wrong.

As for the many posts with ‘lol’ or mocking the op’s faith the idea that they will keep calm is unlikely.

If there’s no ridicule they probably won’t respond without thinking.

There is no excuse whatsoever for what she wrote in that deleted post.

I don’t find much excuse for the posts to the pp

Report them if you think they breach the talk guidelines then.

eg this kind of mocking

and the ’lol’ at being Christian

Another agreeing they could not be their faith

Why do it?

As I read it, nobody questioned that she believed/had a faith. Just pointed out that she didn’t act in accordance with it so, belief in God aside, it might not be accurate to describe her as ‘Christian’ since that implies a particular set of morals and behaviours which she doesn’t demonstrate in her posts.

I was mocking the "I do not like you" comment. Report it if you think that breaches the guidelines. I haven't commented on anyone's faith.

Let me try again, because you seem to think I have admitted I was wrong. Not so:

If someone from any faith posts things which demonstrate attitudes and ideas in direct opposition to the tenets of that faith, I will challenge this.

I will henceforth use more words to make myself clearer, but the content and intent will be the same.

I will do this regardless of the faith in question: Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, whatever. Because speaking out against hypocrisy matters.

Clear now?

You might ‘challenge’ but to say to someone they are not Muslim, Christian or Jewish

Well I’d say you are not the arbiter of that and I’m not sure why you believe you would be.

If someone says ‘I am’ well, they are, regardless of the many posts the pp got after on mn

And of course people claim a faith everyday and do things not perfectly in tune with its tenets, religion deals with that. There wouldn’t be anyone left within it otherwise.

There’s ’not perfectly in tune’ - nobody is perfect - and ‘behaving in a way fundamentally opposed’ though.

Faith doesn’t work like that, it’s not down to mners in any case

You might not be able to debate if someone has faith, but you can certainly debate if their actions embody the principles of that faith. No one can say that Jimmy Savile didn’t have personal faith, but it’s obvious to all that his actions didn’t follow the teachings of the faith he claimed hold.

Claiming a faith is one thing, but living by its values is what actually matters. Yes, people fall short all the time and that's life, but when someone’s behaviour directly contradicts the core tenets of their faith, it’s fair to call that out on it.

While we might not be the arbiter of whether someone is Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, we can absolutely point out when their actions don’t line up with what they claim to be.

It's a shame @EasternStandard didn't see the deleted post - I wonder whether that might have made her defence of pp less staunch.

She's been told what it said.

Again, nobody but you is commenting on faith. We are commenting on faith in action.

My questioning was directly related to the ‘I am’

No matter what people on mn say that remains true for that person

Even people who diverge can be part of the faith

For goodness sake Eastern can you drop it. You are completely derailing the thread. You are also defending a bigot who, IMHO, doesn't deserve your efforts.

If I was a suspicious person I would suspect some posters are trying to fill up this thread because of the lack of agreement with the OP.

So many of you quote my posts

And I respond and then you complain

You joined in to support the pp didn’t you?

I stole this from Twitter as it made me laugh:

Good god, it's sooo obvious

Lol. Some of this stuff is getting ridiculous. Or the opposition are desperate.

Too soon to tell on Starmer and Reeves, but whoever iss running their communication needs to go, as they are shocking.

Your posts are that mealy mouthed tbh I struggle to understand your point. Maybe this but maybe that, let’s see, blah blah. Like most of us who inhabit political threads it’s easy to recognise writing styles…

I have no idea what you mean and see no point in engaging more. But I do recognise your style on various threads.