Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
My understanding is that Starmer is an Arsenal season ticket holder and has been supporting them for years.
Well, he’s a lifelong Gooner who still plays a local five a side every week.
Yes there is a political angle to where he’s announcing things. But it feels a whole lot more organic than what most other politicians do.
Say what you like about his politics, but he really loves football. The fact that he’s bright and worked his way through a career that saw him become a QC/KC doesn’t invalidate that.
Laura K is practically seething there. Not at the thing he’s doing, but that he really is at ease in those spaces. He looks pretty uncomfortable in many public spaces, but he looks effortlessly authentic at football grounds. It’s a really safe space for him.
It’s good politics, but also a very easy space for him to hold.
It’s far more galling for Sunak to rock up at Cricket venues because that’s the sport that his social class watch. Then get bowled out by teenagers as he hasn’t got an athletic bone in his body.
That soppy cow needs to disappear from tv though. She’s gotta be toast. The last four days have been abominable.
He is. I was at a Q&A with him once and he was gushing about the Invincibles and how much he’d like to see another Title win. But said that Michael Thomas’ clinching goal against Liverpool was his favourite moment as a fan. He’s a proper fan who walks to the ground too.
The argument for Starmer is that he is a electable politician who can play the media game to win office.
Kuenssberg is just pointing this out. Not sure why Labour people are mad at this.
Last edited:
Is it the same that if he wins he has a year of immunity from another vote or is that Tory party rules or at least if the vote is triggered by your own party?
That's just an internal Tory party thing. Dont think there is any limit on motions of confidence in the commons.
Generally no, but votes of confidence are based on convention rather than any legal basis so it is a bit fuzzy on the specifics.
People are pointing this out because she has been a Tory stooge for a while and the criticism from her is pathetic.
No that’s just Tory stuff but for this it might be mean Tories will have to turn up and actually vote for a change. Will be interesting to see how people like Braverman vote.
I can’t remember her once commenting on the ridiculous cosplaying as a tank operator, train driver, farmer, supermarket worker, electrician, construction worker etc etc from Johnson or Sunak’s cosplaying as a human being.
Will never pass, too many Tories know they’ll be out on their ass come the GE to have a big enough rebellion in the vote for it to pass.
Pointing out Starmer is playing into the centrist dad/every man persona isn’t a criticism but more a fact(Apparently even the party say this is true). She even mentions how different Starmer plan is the awful Ed Miliband one.
This media planning/playing the game Kuenssberg mentions Labour are doing was one of big reasons why people elected Starmer as leader. There’s really no reason why Labour voters should be mad about this video.
Also the Tory stooge stuff is meaningless now. It’s strange for Labour voters to get angry at Kuenssberg for her role with the likes of Johnstone while also thinking Labour accepting Tory MP’s into the party is a good thing.
Last edited:
Can't see how this goes through.
I think you’re mistaking our beef with the Tory bitch as us giving a shit about Starmer and the Labour Party. It’s a long held grudge against her personally for the damage her client journalism has done over the past decade.
It’s just interesting that the closer we edge towards the Tories being booted out, the thinner her veneer of impartiality gets. The lip is curling more often and and she no longer hides her contempt. She won’t be in the role this time next year but until then, she’s going to get worse and worse and she knows there’s zero consequence. Tim Davie will turn a blind eye, or more likely encourage it and Ofcom will say that no rules are broken. It all leads towards her getting a very cushty job in the private sector paid for by a very rich Tory donor to say thanks for her years of service.
It doesn't. They don't. The last one to succeed was 1979, by one vote, and that was because there was a Labour minority government.
I predict she will be the next head of Ofcom.
Stop it
I don't understand why you're mad at people pointing out Laura's hypocrisy. That she's a tory hypocrite is just a fact.
Yep exactly this.
It’s people defending Labour / Starmer that he can’t stand.
Just saw that video of him trying to use a bank card. How rich do you have to be to never have used a bank card. Has he had a private helper at all times?
White text was ommitted for reasons more obvious than SweetSquare themselves.
If it’s about a larger point then fair enough. Kuenssberg is really awful but imo the actual video and her observation(Starmer is a centrist dad)is perfectly fine.
Normal response.
The most despicable PR clip ive ever seen was Sunak giving food to a homeless guy, then asking if he had plans that weekend
We can probably stop calling her a bitch though? Probably my feminist sensibilities kicking in, but it feels like we have lots of words available and probably don’t need to call women bitches?
No critique of you. I’m sure I’ve called Braverman and Farage Thundercunts on numerous occasions.
Laura has sold out as a journalist. She’s self serving, opportunistic, dishonest, a shill, mouthpiece and thoroughly unpleasant… but ‘Bitch’ does feel like a word we could stop throwing around.
Could just be me though, we all have different lines in the sand.
Just you
I really don’t think it is mate. It really grates on me. I think I certainly used to use it and not really think it was a big deal. But I do think that now. Though I’ll probably use it freely when talking about men still. And perhaps it’ll slip out when it shouldn’t. Probably being a hypocrite.
Just pointing it out as it seemed out of character. Not up to me to argue the point. All good.
Tory Bitch™ any better?
I thought it was even worse than that: Sunak asked him “are you an entrepreneur?” and the recipient of the bowl of gruel replied “no, I’m homeless”.
Actually, yes. But only because it can be used for any of the pricks that orbit the Toryverse. Like Andrew Pierce or Dan Whooton. Feels more inclusive. A bitch of the party, rather than gendered.
For real, I know you’re a good un, and maybe it shouldn’t grate, but it did.
I did run a search to see if I use it freely. And I don’t. But I have. Also culpable.
Ah. But remember..... being homeless is a lifestyle choice.
Well if you actually believe it is going to be close, call a GE and put it to the test.
yeah the whole passage i found very uncomfortable. You have people brainstorming scenarios, and nobody thought that was a bad idea
The lovely Labour party.
Don’t do that. It’s a racist person being racist. It’s not indicative of the party and I’m sure they’ll be removed from whatever their role is, within a week.
Don't do what? Don't Corbynse the issue you mean?
Been a couple of those lately in the Labour party eh. Not too long after a Labour spokesperson blamed Muslims for almost 'gifting' the East Midlands mayoral election to the Tories. Perhaps Labour has an Islamophobia/racist problem, or did we stop caring after all the leftists were purged?