This idea that he’s leading, that he’s a good or great or strong leader. What is he leading exactly? The government are doing and saying utterly reprehensible stuff and he’s saying he’ll do it but do it in a slightly less reprehensible way. So he’s agreeing that there’s a small boats crisis, that women’s rights are under threat because of trans people, that political correctness prevented police from tackling child abuse. None of those things are true. Going along with it, this is not leadership. It’s absolutely sh*t, actually, to just go along with this stuff.
And before someone brings Corbyn up, again, it’s about 13 years of this. Corbyn isn’t the only one to lose an election in this time. But at least he had the balls to stand up for what he believed in.
You can absolutely bet your bottom dollar that Keir Starmer is going to be absolutely monstered by the press at some point. He’s walked into every trap that’s been set for him. They will bring up all the times he lied and all the times he agreed with the Tories. His position on Brexit. His donors. All the times his party abstained on crucial issues.
The very worst people are doing and saying the very worst things and getting away with it. Call me old fashioned but the way to fight that is not to go along with it. He is going to be absolutely butchered and he will have nothing to cling to. This idea that he’ll behave better in office comes from… where, exactly?
He will eventually require the support of those who he has chosen to ignore, purge, dismiss. It’s going to be very messy for him and his team at some point. But, you know, obviously he’ll have delivered this radical left-wing agenda - that everyone insists the last leader and his predecessor were definitely offering, which was actually very good but it was just the leader themselves that was unelectable - by the time that happens and everyone will be back onboard. Definitely.
Starmer's leading the polls, which is quite important. He'll lead in the election result too which is more important.
Once this happens, you can control what happens (and try to rebuild), rather than let the Tories do as they see fit and cause more damage, as they will have done for 8 years covering the time for the last bloke who lost, and another 7 from before that. Things seemed to work quite a bit better from 97-2010, when they last had power. Unsurprisingly the Labour left were against that guy too.
Immigration (and other aspects linked to this) won the leave/ brexit vote, single handily, no matter what anyone pretends or says otherwise. Most of that used to come through as it was allowed, with passports, on big boats, trains and cars, now we get similar numbers which were apparently not supposed to happen, who have changed mode of transport and method of processing.
There is a small boat crisis, the numbers have gone up drastically, and it's unsafe and largely arranged illegally. The right-wing press treat this as some sort of invasion, with zero compassion.
Labour dealing with this issue will be very different to how the Tories deal with it. If we stop people traffickers (largely white blokes living in England) it puts a big dent in the problem, and if we then treat those being trafficked legally and fairly (not sending them to Rwanda etc), then we can get them integrated, working, and their lives back on track.
A lot of people believe Womens rights are under threat by trans rights, in some circumstances, and it's hard to argue otherwise, but there is no win in this argument, as no matter what anyone says, there's no neutrality on it, as it's effectively impossible. If you're for one, you're against the other apparently. No matter what he said on this impossible topic, he would get it picked at in microscopic detail by the Labour left.
He said trans rights shouldn't overrule womens rights, and why should they? Surely you just want a fair scenario on this, and if there is no fair scenario, then should we prioritise 0.1% trans at the expense of 99.9% women? How do you think this will go down with woman voters, who make up half of the people Labour need to secure a win?
5/7 of the last 13 years (which will be 15 years), Labour were under the control of basically the same guys who lost power after 13 years of control. So you don't get to mention that 5, without acknowledging the 13 before it, where things were pretty good. Corbyn lost to the worst of the lot, at the worse time, and he was also there when the UK voted to leave, which is long term probably more damaging than any election vote ever. Everyone from the supposed side of the remain campaign is to blame for not shutting down the far right, and Corbyn was luke warm on the EU at best. Of course, he wasn't fully to blame, but loads of the supposed red wall voted leave, and it would have only took a 1% voter swing to level the vote, small margins.
Starmer will get attacked by the press, it's par for the course. He doesn't stick a target on his own back though, and the Labour members in the last vote, didn't vote for a leader who the right could target easily. The press are dicks, we know this, we can't change this. The press are right/ far right though, as we all agree, so if they're trying attack him then surely that's good, as it means he's against what they want (Tories). Can you see how this doesn't work with the claim that Starmer's a Tory or whatever?
How many traps did Corbyn walk into in 5 years, even traps which were not even real, which could have been easily avoided? How many traps did Corbyn set for the Tories, which made any meaningful impression on the election votes? Starmer will get a net win in the traps aspect, like he has done since he's been in control. He's let the Tories walk into their own traps, and has been quite elusive from theirs, hence the change in vote predictions.
The worst people will get away with saying the worst things when they have the power, but even worse than this is they're able to do even worse things, as they have the power. Actions mean more than words, and we will have had Tory actions for 15 years, this is what needs to stop, as priority 1.
The idea that he will be better in office, is because being in office with 400 seats is better than being on the opposition bench with 200 seats. He seemingly understands the tactics and knows how to play the current game, so on that assumption, he'll be able to play the game in the future, as it develops. Why do you assume that he won't be able to do this? Corbyn never got in office, and nor did he even give himself a chance, you need to be in the office to make any decision, this is a fact, not an assumption like you're making.
Why will he need the support of those who have supposedly been purged or dismissed, if they've been replaced (by other Labour members/ MP's etc)? For every one person who has supposedly ignored, he's gained more elsewhere. Corbyn lost support of Labour voters and MP's, an apparently enough of them to take over control of the party if we belive what you all say. It works both ways.
I would rather have 450 seats, and 80% on my side than 200 seats and 90% on my side.
If those in the Labour party don't align with the direction Labour members voted to take, and what their current public vote clearly support, then why should they remain in their position? Undermining the party basically concedes control to the Tory alternative.
Sure, there will come a time when he loses, leaves or is ousted, it's an absolute certainty/ reality, regardless of what it does or doesn't do. For all we know he could do two terms, stop/ ride out this horrendous landslide the UK is in, and then from there it may open up the public's eyes that things on the left woulda actually be better for the majority.
or Blue
?
In other words I hopefully won't ever read you claim again that Starmers change is because of the war in Ukranine, yeah 
