Starmer Faces a Crucial Decision: Sack Reeves or Risk Political Collapse

[The Cyclist]

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

Where does that supposed "quote" appear in The Guardian? The nearest your linked article gets to criticism of Starmer is to call his trip to Saudi 'controversial'.

 

This quote ?
 

Quote

Keir Starmer will meet Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as part of a controversial trip to the region this week designed to drum up investment for his pledge to overhaul British infrastructure.

 

Very 1st paragraph in the article.

 

It is the double standards that are in play 

 

Quote

In 2022, Starmer accused Boris Johnson of “going cap in hand from dictator to dictator” ahead of a visit to the kingdom that was pitched as an attempt to become less reliant on Russian energy.

 

And what is Starmer doing ? 

 

Is it somehow different when Socialist / Marxist do the same thing ?
 

Yuman Rites Lawyer and double standards go hand in hand.

[RuamRudy]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm of the opinion that politics is becoming so toxic that anybody that is intelligent would never consider becoming an MP, and that doesn't apply only to the UK.

 

Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I think we should pay our politicians significantly more. If we want to be led by the best, most qualified people, we need to offer competitive salaries. Otherwise you get people like Jonathan Gullis or Jared O'Mara in positions of power, and nobody could surely want that. 

[RayC]

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

This quote ?
 

 

Very 1st paragraph in the article.

 

It is the double standards that are in play 

 

 

And what is Starmer doing ? 

 

Is it somehow different when Socialist / Marxist do the same thing ?
 

Yuman Rites Lawyer and double standards go hand in hand.

 

What you claimed was a quote from The Guardian: "A Yuman Rites Lawyer meeting the ruler of a Country with an absolutely horrendous record on Yuman Rites issues, begging for cash"

 

What The Guardian actually said: "Keir Starmer will meet Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as part of a controversial trip to the region this week designed to drum up investment for his pledge to overhaul British infrastructure"

 

Spot the difference?

 

Starmer was a Human Rights lawyer. (Did he represent Yuman?). He is now UK PM. His current role might entail dealing with individuals/ regimes whose principles conflict with his own. He isn't the first - and almost certainly won't be the last - politician to face that conundrum. I'll repeat my previous question: What would you have him do? Place his personal principles above the perceived needs of the country?

[RuamRudy]

24 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

This quote ?
 

 

Very 1st paragraph in the article.

 

It is the double standards that are in play 

 

 

And what is Starmer doing ? 

 

Is it somehow different when Socialist / Marxist do the same thing ?
 

Yuman Rites Lawyer and double standards go hand in hand.

 

If you think that Starmer is either a socialist or a Marxist than I can say, with confidence, that you don't know what either term means. 

[The Cyclist]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I think we should pay our politicians significantly more. If we want to be led by the best, most qualified people, we need to offer competitive salaries. Otherwise you get people like Jonathan Gullis or Jared O'Mara in positions of power, and nobody could surely want that. 

 

I don't disagree

 

But the obvious question is. Qualified, what does that even mean when referring to Politicians ?
 

The whole thing needs ripped up and started from scratch.

[The Cyclist]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If you think that Starmer is either a socialist or a Marxist than I can say, with confidence, that you don't know what either term means. 

 

Well your confidence is shot to bits. He is actually a Pabloist, which is a combination of Socialism / Marxism.

[RayC]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I think we should pay our politicians significantly more. If we want to be led by the best, most qualified people, we need to offer competitive salaries.

 

Agreed. At the same time, I would ban MPs from taking second jobs (including paid speaking engagements) and accepting personal donations.

 

I would also like to see Ministers freed from having to act as constituency MPs as both are full-time jobs in their own right. Quite how this could be done under our current electoral system I don't know 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Well your confidence is shot to bits. He is actually a Pabloist, which is a combination of Socialism / Marxism.

 

You should stop reading the Mail on Sunday. It's not good for the soul. 

 

Keir Starmer, Trotskyism and Pabloism

"By the time, Starmer got involved with Socialist Alternatives, despite Pablo’s past, the IRMT had dumped Trotskyism and developed a form of Red/Green politics" 

 

[The Cyclist]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

You should stop reading the Mail on Sunday. It's not good for the soul. 

 

I don't

 

You should stop wasting your time posting crap.

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I don't

 

You should stop wasting your time posting crap.

 

Then please provide evidence that the current PM is a socialist / Marxist. 

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Then please provide evidence that the current PM is a socialist / Marxist. 

 

What do I look like, your PA ?

 

But as this will be our last engagement.

 

The Labour Party Constitution defines the Party as Democratic Socialist Party.

 

In the run to the 2024 GE, Free Gear Kier described him self as Progressive Socialist.

 

Starmer loves spending Lord Alli's money - That makes him a Socialist, or bent as a nine bob note.

 

Take your pick and goodbye.

[BritManToo]

35 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Then please provide evidence that the current PM is a socialist / Marxist. 

I'm a Marxist, we believe women are property and in a redistribution of land, if you ain't doing that you ain't a Marxist!

 

Starmer (son of a factory owner) most definitely isn't a Marxist.

Corbyn, on the other hand, was on his second Mexican take out when deposed.

[The Cyclist]

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm a Marxist, we believe women are property and in a redistribution of land, if you ain't doing that you ain't a Marxist!

 

Starmer (son of a factory owner) most definitely isn't a Marxist.

 

Hmmmmm

 

What does Starmer think of his wife when he is enjoying the company and freebies of Lord Alli, does he consider her no more than property, that lends to the illusion of marital bliss ( It has been noted elsewhere that he appears to have lost his wedding ring )

 

Some might argue that the Inheritance Tax raid on farmers, is indeed, the start of land redistribution. Only it wont be redistrubuted to the people, it will get redistributed to one of the US's largest farmland owners, who Starmer just happened to meet in Downing St  a couple of weeks ago.

 

Goes by the name of Bill Gates.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

What do I look like, your PA ?

You made a statement without substantiating it. Forum rules require you to provide evidence to back up your statements. 

 

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

The Labour Party Constitution defines the Party as Democratic Socialist Party.

 

North Korea is officially known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Do you consider it to be a bastion of democracy? 

 

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

In the run to the 2024 GE, Free Gear Kier described him self as Progressive Socialist.

 

So not a socialist /Marxist then. 

 

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Take your pick and goodbye.

 

It would have been much quicker for you just to write that you are unable to back up you claim. 

 

But you have a good day nonetheless. 

[transam]

On 12/7/2024 at 12:38 PM, billd766 said:

But who has the Labour Party got to replace Starmer and his entire cabinet with?

Angela Rayner............................

[The Cyclist]

On 12/7/2024 at 3:06 AM, Social Media said:

The root cause of these challenges appears to revolve around the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, whose policy decisions and missteps have placed the Labour government in turmoil.  

 

And so it begins

 

Quote

A drop in confidence and a rise in redundancies have been attributed to Rachel Reeves’ tax increases, as analysts say the UK will end the year in contraction

 

https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/economy-likely-to-shrink-as-budget-gloom-spreads-t6kddgn85

 

A singer by the name of Yazz had a hit with a song called ' The only way is up '

 

This Labour Government prefer to emulate Status Quo's ' Down Down '

 

Starmer & Reeves, 2 of the most uninspiring, robotic, wastes of space to inhabit No 10 & 11 Downing Street.

[herfiehandbag]

On 12/7/2024 at 5:49 PM, The Cyclist said:

 

Did you understand the part where I said - Once the effects of the budget have worked there way through the system ?

You might also want to have a think about the following 

 

Did you understand the part where I said the media, including the Guardian, are now turning against Labour ?

 

Do you understand that the King could cause the dissolution of Parliament ?
 

Do you understand the part where Donald Trump could seriously undermine the Government by refusing to deal with them, dealing with Farage and Truss instead ?

 

So right now a VONC will not happen, it could do in 6 months time, and there are other ways that the Government could be forcefully collapsed.

The Guardian may criticise, they will never turn on "the party".

 

The King would only agree to a dissolution of Parliament if no party can demonstrate and maintain a viable majority. Labour have a 170 seat majority so that is not going to happen.

 

Trump cannot collapse the government by only working with Farage and Truss.

 

The most likely "change" is an internal leadership "coup" within the Labour party, heaven only knows what we will end up with then!

[The Cyclist]

5 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

The Guardian may criticise, they will never turn on "the party".

 

We are only a few months in, best wait and see.

 

6 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

The King would only agree to a dissolution of Parliament if no party can demonstrate and maintain a viable majority.

 

He doesn't have to agree to a dissolution, he can simply withold Royal Assent, which would cause the Government to collapse.

 

7 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

The most likely "change" is an internal leadership "coup" within the Labour party, heaven only knows what we will end up with then!

 

Posted it on here somewhere. Raynor is the darling of the Unions, and will be annointed when Starmer is ousted ( stabbed in the back ) by his own Party.

 

Reeves Budget and Raynors workers bill, have just destroyed much of the UK. The effects are just starting, see post above.

 

And Milliband with his Net Zero, not even going to go there.

 

At some stage, a grown up has to step in, before the destruction is terminal and cannot be reversed.

 

 

[transam]

11 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

The Guardian may criticise, they will never turn on "the party".

 

The King would only agree to a dissolution of Parliament if no party can demonstrate and maintain a viable majority. Labour have a 170 seat majority so that is not going to happen.

 

Trump cannot collapse the government by only working with Farage and Truss.

 

The most likely "change" is an internal leadership "coup" within the Labour party, heaven only knows what we will end up with then!

Angela Rayner, the laughingstock............😂

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

doesn't have to agree to a dissolution, he can simply withold Royal Assent, which would cause the Government to collapse.

Which, if he refuses Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament,  passed byboth houses, would precipitate a major constitutional crisis; one which a government with a 170 seat majority is far more likely to survive than The King!

[scottiejohn]

22 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

he can simply withold Royal Assent,

Withhold Royal Assent to what?

[The Cyclist]

14 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Which, if he refuses Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament,  passed byboth houses, would precipitate a major constitutional crisis; one which a government with a 170 seat majority is far more likely to survive than The King!

 

That remains to be seen, however the King could refuse Royal Assent.

[RayC]

21 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

That remains to be seen, however the King could refuse Royal Assent.

 

To what piece of proposed legislation would Charles refuse to grant Royal Assent?

[James105]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

To what piece of proposed legislation would Charles refuse to grant Royal Assent?

 

As much as I would love the king to justify the money/privilege he receives by using his alleged power to demolish this absolute shambles of a clown show of a government, there is no way he would do so.   He understands that he is tolerated so long as he doesn't actually rule over anything and he is well aware the moment he does will be the start of the end of the monarchy in the UK.  

[RayC]

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

As much as I would love the king to justify the money/privilege he receives by using his alleged power to demolish this absolute shambles of a clown show of a government, there is no way he would do so.   He understands that he is tolerated so long as he doesn't actually rule over anything and he is well aware the moment he does will be the start of the end of the monarchy in the UK.  

 

For once we agree (at least about the chances of Charles withholding Royal Assent): I wasn't the one who raised this as a possibility.

[Purdey]

The way the media makes it sound; Reeves made the whole budget in secret and Starmer had no idea what was in it until she revealed it. Load of rubbish, there would have been at least some discussion, and everyone signed off.

[The Cyclist]

20 hours ago, RayC said:

 

To what piece of proposed legislation would Charles refuse to grant Royal Assent?

 

Since I am I dont like taking liberties.

 

Quote

Once a bill has completed all the parliamentary stages in both Houses, it is ready to receive royal assent. This is when the King formally agrees to make the bill into an Act of Parliament (law).

There is no set time period between the conclusion of consideration of amendments/ping pong and royal assent.

 

No formal time limit, is the key words.

 

Anyway, the media screw is starting to turn, 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/09/labour-planning-laws-local-democracy-homes

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/09/human-rights-for-syrians-but-perhaps-not-for-saudis-in-labours-middle-east

 

And this is one to revist in 6 months time 😀😀

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/09/keir-starmer-says-saudi-arabia-trip-fulfils-number-one-mission-to-grow-uk-economy

 

Growth ?

 

I wonder who will be correct, Starmer and Reeves or the multitide of economists who say the opposite.

 

[superal]

Next May 1st 

 

Polling day:

• Local government elections in England
• Local authority mayoral elections
• Combined authority mayoral elections
• Combined county authority mayoral elections
• Parish council elections 

There is no doubt in my mind that Labour will be battered and Reform will be prominent .

At the moment sneaky Starmer is engaging with the EU and negotiating a deal that will permit EU workers to be employed in the UK . Mostly to build the 1.5 million new homes ( which are needed to house immigrants ) Yesterday Yvette Cooper has doubled the time that immigrants can stay in hotels . 

Reeves , Raynor & Starmer are thick as thieves . A national strike could happen to force a new election . This Labour government are accelerating the fall of the UK .   Great Britain now , for sure .

[RayC]

50 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Since I am I dont like taking liberties.

 

 

No formal time limit, is the key words.

 

No the absence of a time limit for granting Royal Assent is not the key. Granting of Royal Assent is a formality.

 

The Monarch acts on the advice of his Ministers. To unduly delay granting Royal Assent, when presented by a bill which had the support of the Government, would be akin to withholding consent. It hasn't happened since the beginning of the 18th century and there is no reason to suppose that it will happen anytime soon. 

 

As others have pointed out, withholding Royal Assent would provoke a constitutional crisis and if the King were to unduly delay signing a bill it would have the same effect.

 

50 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Anyway, the media screw is starting to turn, 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/09/labour-planning-laws-local-democracy-homes

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/09/human-rights-for-syrians-but-perhaps-not-for-saudis-in-labours-middle-east

 

These are opinions by individual contributors to the Guardian. There are many such contributions; some supportive of the government, others less so.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree

 

50 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

And this is one to revist in 6 months time 😀😀

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/09/keir-starmer-says-saudi-arabia-trip-fulfils-number-one-mission-to-grow-uk-economy

 

Personally, I'd give it a year/ 18 months before starting to form any conclusions.

 

50 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Growth ?

 

I wonder who will be correct, Starmer and Reeves or the multitide of economists who say the opposite.

 

 

I thought that "people have had enough of experts"? Wasn't that the view of Michael Gove (and his cabinet colleagues)? 

 

Still, personally I'm glad that economists are back in favour. I just hope that they are wrong on this occasion.

[The Cyclist]

The keys are being put in the ignition on the back to the 70's buses

 

Quote

The government is set for a clash with trade unions after ministers recommended a 2.8% pay rise for teachers, NHS staff and other public sector workers next year.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/10/union-anger-over-labour-governments-insulting-28-public-sector-pay-plan

 

Quote

The number of job vacancies in November fell at the fastest rate since the start of the pandemic, as business confidence slumped to its lowest level in almost two years, according to two new reports.

In a damaging blow to the government efforts to boost growth, the latest monthly report on the job market from accountancy firm KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) found demand for staff declined at a “sharp and accelerated pace” last month, with the steepest fall in vacancies since August 2020.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/09/uk-job-vacancies-fall-at-fastest-rate-since-pandemic-as-business-confidence-slumps

 

Keep believing folks, never here Kier has got it all under control 😀😀