anyone seen starmer?

[Offwiththecircus]

From what I can see, after his entirely unconvincing "position" on gaza he has essentially disappeared from view. Blair notoriously used to do this a lot when he wanted to avoid legitimate questions, leaving brown nosing slaves to face questions from the proles.
So over to the mnet net, which I know has wise tentacles everwhere
Has the famous SIR dropped into your church fete/tombola recently? Selfies welcome.

If I was like some on here, I would try to get all desperate patronising and say "google it" but will try to dig out - I have a vague idea that it may have been a sky or beeb report.
Will also try to find/dredge back some other critical disappointed stuff on starmer.
Which many folks seem not to be able to see - maybe using a crippled/selective google.
It does at least reassure me that my perceptions aren't totally off/that I am far from alone.

I don't think he ever answered the question why he was using 'La Starmer'

I remain mystified by your insistence on quote etiquette - as far as I am aware I either use the "quote" button (has the disadvantage of quoting a great chunk, and inflicting more on folks) or cut and paste the particular bit. Am not aware that I have ever misquoted anyone.
I suggest you concentrate more on substance and less on your supposed Mnet etiquette.
Unless you want to tell me how to use a fish knife.

Yes do try and dig out the story, it helps to discuss things when you have the information.

probably shouldn't reply to your post as it clogs things.
Hand on heart, yep, it was quite probably dismissive, after my experience of him over several years, maybe dissing him as somewhat theatrical/lacking in substance.
Though I seem to recall that someone upthread tried to desperately claim that I was hinting at some sort of buried scandal. Which was bizarre.

Must admit I do find many of the responses on this thread interesting, if depressing.

well you did ask.
will try to do.

Link to book by Jon Cruddas which covers Starmer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/30/keir-starmer-detached-labour-party-jon-cruddas

He was at Queen Mary University of London on a panel on the topic last night but unfortunately I couldn't get there.

Am sure it would have been interesting.

Did anyone on here go?

Of course his points have been picked up by the Tory press.

But still interesting/worthy of debating I think.

I stress that I don't expect him to be ditched so close to an election - would be electoral suicide.

But as Cruddas points out here or elsewhere, a victory (pretty much inevitable) may be a precurser to a wilderness.

There's even a theory that some Tories would like him to win.

I think anyone with any sense of realism knows better than to expect 1997 style miracles from a Starmer government.

But.

At least what little money there is, is likely to be redirected.
At least schools, health and the economy will be prioritised over tribal infighting.
At least the essentials will be more important than the endless war on woke.
At least there will be a start to improving relationships with the EU and a move away from divergence for its own sake and no good outcome.
At least the erosion of workers' rights and environmental protection will stop.

Wilderness? Let's put the current government there, shall we? Because the one thing we can be sure of is that 5 more years of what we have now really will make things much, much worse.

Being "Decent and Principled" is a good start.

But if you can't see beyond your dislike for Starmer then there is not nuch anyone here can say.

Am not aware that I have ever misquoted anyone.

And I never said that you had.

I suggest you concentrate more on substance and less on your supposed Mnet etiquette.

It's not about etiquette. It's about making your posts easier to read. And please don't patronise me.

There's even a theory that some Tories would like him to win.

I don’t think it’s any secret that there are Tory MPs who don’t fancy the poison chalice of the next five years in government. It’s probably why they’re stepping down in droves. 52 of them so far.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-standing-down-next-election

Am perpetually horrified to see how so much decent "political correctness" of the 80s has morphed into rampant me me me identity politics.

Careful, your mask is slipping.

Oh my. Sunak open to appointing Lee Anderson as his deputy! They are an utter shambles.

Eh? He's just resigned! Have you got a link to that story, please?

No 10 has hinted that Rishi Sunak is open to reappointing Lee Anderson as one of the Conservative party’s deputy chairs.
Anderson, a working-class rightwinger, resigned from his post two weeks ago because he wanted to defy the party whip and vote for “rebel” amendments to strengthen the Rwanda bill.
But he and Brendan Clarke-Smith, who also resigned as a Tory deputy chair for the same reasons, issued a remarkably conciliatory resignation letter, stating their “100% support” for Sunak.
Anderson has now told the Daily Telegraph that he should have voted for the Rwanda bill at third reading, instead of abstaining, and that he would like his Tory deputy chair job back.
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing, asked if Sunak would reappoint him, the PM’s press secretary said it was “the PM’s prerogative to choose and when” who gets which jobs. She went on:
I think we can say that we have a lot of time for Lee. He made it clear that he had concerns but actually he really supports getting this deterrent up and running so it’s good to see him talking about that today.

(from the Guardian live blog @ 13:48)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/24/tories-simon-clarke-pmqs-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-labour-resignation-uk-politics-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-65b112a18f08af761dc327a6#block-65b112a18f08af761dc327a6

Shows how weak Sunak really is.

So really standing up for his principles then?!

10p Lee, that is.

Sorry, @BIWI , I was making pizza!

'sok!