Biggest creep in politics. An absolute plant

@JohnMcChrystal: Aye! You are much too kind in your description of the vermin!

Worst part is we will get his smug face for 5 more years

​@@ac4486 reminds me of blair with all his stuttering and non answers.

Welp.......politics is like that: you don't only get 'a party to vote for that is juuuuuuust the way I want it'. Imho Starmer is a massive hinderance to the party but it's either vote for the only party that can stop the tories getting another term (despite having Starmer as the current leader) or helping the tories getting another term.

The tory party thank you in advance

@Tao_Tology there is currently no difference between the tories and “new new labour”. voting for labour will not make a blind bit of difference, but guardian-reading centrist dads can tell themselves otherwise to feel better!

@@nl5828 "there is currently....." The tory party thanks you in advance.

​@@nl5828Starmer’s threadbare Labour Manifesto makes the Tories look like the party for change, lol.

@@Noel-ji8nm So you can vote tory on election day, then.

Which Starmer tried to get to Pro-Stay

Quite.

Stop acting like the Brexit policy is the only reason Labour lost & stop acting like Corbyn couldn't have changed the policy if he wanted to as party leader...

He could have, and he should have, but he didn't. Corbyn's failings doesn't excuse Starmer's... It was a Brexit election, and Kier Starmer's policy proposal was madness.

Imagine if this man were fighting a competent and more-or-less united Tory Party. He'd be toast.

Water is one of the most important things in our life and Corbyn won't let anyone touch it

​@@davidalderson4980 🤔 Erm the devil or a satan❓

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Never have The Who's lyrics been more prescient than with this guy.

Time to hold the establishment to account the main parties are unfit to run a bath

What happened in 2019?

@@LondGWils Well, the press, the BBC, the Conservatives and the right wing of his own party realised there was a real possibility of a Corbyn-led government. So they set out to destroy him and his reputation. Unfortunately, they succeeded.

@@LondGWilsJohnson’s Get Brexit done happened-Ref MK II in all but name -you still asleep.

"It's a hypothetical."

Completely normal speech patterns for a narcissist. Also doesn’t handle criticism or accountability well

cuntry first party nowhere; by party he means the money men

What would happen if Labour won but he lost his seat? 😂

Not even Tory. Both sides are actually just globalists, unwilling to do anything to upset the borderless billionaire class and the corporate hegemony.

Absolutely. It’s a relatively measly amount of money.

Quite. He takes the 'difficult decisions' not to abolish the two-child cap, and scrap the 'Green New Deal', but not the 'difficult decisions' to tax the rich (i.e. those donors on whom Labour once again relies on for funding).

5 years in the uk

he expelled the socialist. He wants it to be the democrats just like America

I think boris has retired the title.

like Johnson, he hardly bothers to hide the lies now he is winning. It just shows the society we live in. At least Boris made you laugh. He just makes you sick

Two liars arguing about their lies. Brilliant! No more to be said.

I can't watch him.

Vile man

Going to be a long 5 years... 😂

@@sarahjaneross2918Ha ha. It is if he answers every question like that! Has anyone ever before bored their way into power?

St George was a palestinian

Reform makes me sick.

It's called the greens

Thinking!🎉

I was thinking about this myself. The argument they use is like if restaurants that failed their food rating had to be bought out by the govt to be closed down. It's nonsense.

As a barrister in our justice system you work on a "cab rank" principle basis. More or less like a taxi driver does. You do not have a choice in transporting the next passenger in the line. One day he can be defending someone accused of war crimes. The next day he could be prosecuting a the accused person. A barrister's duty is to act in the best interest of their client. They do not have any duty of impartiality in a court setting. That's the role of the judge. Starmer is running as leader of the Labour Party in a general election to deal with matters that impact the lives of ordinary British people. We must all respect the law but as an MP or PM he acting as a politician not a lawyer. So inevitably he will take political stances as a politician that are entirely inconsistent with his work as a lawyer. The British people are not interested in voting for the Labour Party because of Starmer's career as a lawyer or for his stance on the foreign war that the Jews and Arabs are waging hundreds of miles from these shores. What we want him to do is to prioritise fixing our broken country, reducing levels of poverty, improving our NHS and schools, dealing with the climate emergency. Leave the Arabs and the Jews to resolve their conflict.

​@@LondGWils Yes I shouldn't have just said impartiality with scare quotes, I can see how that is misleading. I understand the Cab Rank rule (hence my last sentence). What I was trying to refer to is the bar's standards of conduct that discourage giving personal opinions on cases that you are involved with and duty to serve the court, which is what he was appealing to in his response using his experience on the ICTY to deflect giving an answer (and does not apply anyway if you are not a lawyer). What I was saying is that eliding standards of conduct in a legal setting with the role of the Prime Minister is wrong, which is exactly what he was doing. My comment isn't disagreeing with your perspective. I'm also saying that we are electing a political position, not a legal one, so he should not hide behind legal ethics for political questions. But regarding your final point. At no point did I say that Palestine is/should be the number one issue, or that it is/should be everyone's priority. I'm still most likely voting Labour. But even so, my comment is just an observation about how he is dealing with that issue, because however minor/irrelevant a position you think it is or if you disagree, there is a portion of the electorate that does actually care (and if you think they don't matter on a national scale then why do you care what they think). People care not just because of the specific dispute or position, but because of what it implies about how he sees the UK's foreign policy, which is increasingly important/unavoidable as the world is becoming more chaotic. This conflict is a major stressor in global alliances, international law, and diplomacy, and one that the UK has been deeply involved with from the very start going back to the British Mandate, and is still physically/economically/militarily/diplomatically involved with to this day. Even if you disagree with that characterization, many states across the world do see it like that, and we can't just ignore how other states see us or how we act on the world stage. We are still a P5 member of Security Council and we can't deny that, or the ways we are currently involving ourselves in the conflict. It is just being a realist/pragmatist to understand and manage disputes that affect us and our other diplomatic efforts, and to care about how we navigate those tensions and foreign policy. It's not unreasonable for the electorate to want to know what those Foreign Policy intuitions would be, or indeed if he has any other than vacuous legalism. If you're advocating an isolationist approach then that's totally fine, but that's also not what Starmer is saying, nor what the UK has been/is doing.

Mainstream media has already made up its mind and wants Labour