talkFORUM

birdie wrote: It's gaffes like that that often make for trouble, she's a barrister and as such should have a brain capable of not coming out with words that can be catastrophic.

What was catastrophic about her getting the length of his service wrong when making a point about his security? She misspoke whilst broadcasting to 2 million people, doesn't seem that catastrophic.

Vespa wrote:

birdie wrote: It's gaffes like that that often make for trouble, she's a barrister and as such should have a brain capable of not coming out with words that can be catastrophic.

What was catastrophic about her getting the length of his service wrong when making a point about his security? She misspoke whilst broadcasting to 2 million people, doesn't seem that catastrophic.

Thornbury seems to be talking quite reasonably and rationally about for example Soleimani’s malign influence and Harry. Predictably, right wing pedants are making a huge deal about a slip up with what she said.

kancutlawns wrote:

Vespa wrote:

birdie wrote: It's gaffes like that that often make for trouble, she's a barrister and as such should have a brain capable of not coming out with words that can be catastrophic.

What was catastrophic about her getting the length of his service wrong when making a point about his security? She misspoke whilst broadcasting to 2 million people, doesn't seem that catastrophic.

Thornbury seems to be talking quite reasonably and rationally about for example Soleimani’s malign influence and Harry. Predictably, right wing pedants are making a huge deal about a slip up with what she said.

I always found her a solid performer, don't think she should be leader, but it would be silly to put her off the front bench.

They need to wait for by elections and try to get some credible candidates into parliament because , quite objectively, there isn't anyone there who the public could take seiously

Royal24s wrote:They need to wait for by elections and try to get some credible candidates into parliament because , quite objectively, there isn't anyone there who the public could take seiously

Really?

subsub wrote:

Royal24s wrote:They need to wait for by elections and try to get some credible candidates into parliament because , quite objectively, there isn't anyone there who the public could take seiously

Really?

The labour leadership process finishes about a month before the locals.

Yeah I know, but unless they're resolved to pantomime status they'll have to find a way to replace whoever gets it at that stage. The only one who can form a sentence or appear in public without alienating half the population is Starmer, and he's tainted by his remoaner antics rather like Theresa May was after the first referrendum for her campaigning to remain.
It's worse in his case though, and he's got absolutely no one credible to choose for his shadow cabinet.

Royal24s wrote:Yeah I know, but unless they're resolved to pantomime status they'll have to find a way to replace whoever gets it at that stage. The only one who can form a sentence or appear in public without alienating half the population is Starmer, and he's tainted by his remoaner antics rather like Theresa May was after the first referrendum for her campaigning to remain.
It's worse in his case though, and he's got absolutely no one credible to choose for his shadow cabinet.

ROYALS BACKS STARMER.

'Starmer, and he's tainted by his remoaner antics'

Wasn't Boris a big time remainer ?

Royals continually assumes his prejudices are shared by the population at large.
Starmer is a Remainer. So are at least 16m others.
So was Johnson until he saw Leave gave him a better career break
And consider the field the Tories presented a few months ago....one who favoured legislation that would have deported his own father..one who thought Dublin was in Northern Ireland...one who ran away from interviews but stuck around long enough to deny he would suspend Parliament but did it three months later. Jolly impressive.

My "prejudices", or opinions as some may call them, are beside the point.
I think 16m is a high claim, but even if it were true, it wouldn't be enough.

No one is worried which position anyone took before the referrendum, or the undoubted fact that BoJo just followed the money. Those who tried to play endless tricks to thwart the outcome however, attracted a great deal of public hostility , as shown by the fact that most of them lost their seats.
Unfortunately for him with hindsight he nailed his colours to the wrong mast very strongly and that's what will impede him. Nothing to do with me cause I'm certainly never going to vote labour, but the feelings of the electorate as a whole

Hillman avenger wrote:Royals continually assumes his prejudices are shared by the population at large.
Starmer is a Remainer. So are at least 16m others.
So was Johnson until he saw Leave gave him a better career break
And consider the field the Tories presented a few months ago....one who favoured legislation that would have deported his own father..one who thought Dublin was in Northern Ireland...one who ran away from interviews but stuck around long enough to deny he would suspend Parliament but did it three months later. Jolly impressive.

Corbyn was the issue at the election. I don't think Starmer would be a good leader atm, he's too polished and Johnson would be happy to face him. The Brexit thing he'll spin away as he was implementing Labour Party policy as voted by the membership.

ToRmAtO wrote:'Starmer, and he's tainted by his remoaner antics'

Wasn't Boris a big time remainer ?

Indeed he was, and he wrote several columns saying exactly that.
Of course, the gullible believed his abrupt U-turn and the lies about £350m a week going to the NHS, and now the whole country will suffer due to the selfishness and naivety of those who voted Leave.

17.4 million with inferior education and never met a lovely EU migrant and had a friendly chat with them.
Maybe they didn't Google the E.U enough.