Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:21 pm  

Ovavoo wrote:

Yip, about 43% of the electorate, judging by the last general election.

Same as Blair got in the landslide of 1997, 3 points more than Blair got in 2001 and a whopping 9 points more than Blair managed in 2005.

No doubt Blair was far more legitimate in your eyes

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:33 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Bojo will be needing sedatives after Starmer boxed him in yesterday.
Boris seemed to lose his cool a little at PMQ's and Starmer remained ice cool.

Just who did initially pay for these (very) expensive flat renovations ?

A good barrister does not it appears by any means make a good political leader, the guy uses PMQ’s as though he is in a courtroom- can’t see him lasting much longer and to be honest I expected more of him when he first became leader

If people are preferring Bojo as a leader before him then he does have problems

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:34 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Bojo will be needing sedatives after Starmer boxed him in yesterday.
Boris seemed to lose his cool a little at PMQ's and Starmer remained ice cool.

Just who did initially pay for these (very) expensive flat renovations ?

A good barrister does not it appears by any means make a good political leader, the guy uses PMQ’s as though he is in a courtroom- can’t see him lasting much longer and to be honest I expected more of him when he first became leader

If people are preferring Bojo as a leader before him then he does have problems

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:44 pm  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

Another desperate attempt by Van der Leyen's biatch - you need to change the record

What's Van de Leyen got to do with Labour? I'm so confused by a lot of what you're posting nowadays, it's almost incomprehensible with occasional tourette-like exclamations of European leaders you've been brainwashed into thinking are evil.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:31 pm  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

Same as Blair got in the landslide of 1997, 3 points more than Blair got in 2001 and a whopping 9 points more than Blair managed in 2005.

No doubt Blair was far more legitimate in your eyes

Ooh eck. Don't think I mentioned anything about legitimacy but since you have I would say, that no party should have a majority in parliament with anything less than 51% of the vote.

I was in fact, being disingenuous when I quoted 43%. If i remember correctly, 30% vote rightish and around 30% vote leftish and would never vote for tother side no matter what. The floating vote are swayed by many things but imo, popularity and the party leaders tv appeal plus, whatever the cause of the day is, are playing a far more important part than was evident in past elections.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:20 pm  

Who was the guy who decided not to charge Jimmy Saville years ago. It was the head of the CPS. His name evades me though. Can anyone remind me of his name please? He even made a grovelling apology about it for being so bad at his job. Jeez, what was his name again?

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:29 pm  

You know Savile was a stark raving Tory right?

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:39 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

You know Savile was a stark raving Tory right?

But it was the current Labour leader that didn't do his job and prosecute him. Poor judgement in anyone's eyes... even yours surely?

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:51 pm  

The original story was about lying in Parliament, so SC remind us who lies every time he answers or not answers at PMQ’s. I notice that even the speaker does not massively object when someone calls Johnson a liar probably because he knows he is.

Re: Kier Starmer : Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:06 pm  

Steph Curry wrote:

Who was the guy who decided not to charge Jimmy Saville years ago. It was the head of the CPS. His name evades me though. Can anyone remind me of his name please? He even made a grovelling apology about it for being so bad at his job. Jeez, what was his name again?

He was actually made head of the CPS after the initial Saville investigation. The decision not to prosecute was taken by the Police and local CPS representatives and had nothing to do with Starmer. It was in fact Starmer who set up the enquiry into the failures which traced where the mistakes had been made. It was initially decided that Saville was too close to the Police and his celebrity status allowed him too much protection
The reason Starmer apologised was because he was in charge at the time the report was concluded like Johnson did regarding the way non U.K. dead were treated or do you consider Johnson to blame for that.
If you are going to make stupid comments you had better do your homework instead of being blinkered trying to blame Starmer regardless of the truth.