Sir Keir Starmer #2

1
TheMiceInTheShed said:
Maybe we should draw up a list of acceptable occupations MPs could have had before becoming an MP.

To a degree, that's a good idea.

There should certainly be a minimum age and amount of life experience for some professions - in this I would include MPs, but also eg social workers, psychotherapists eyc.

There should be no "straight out of university, into a cushy political researcher's post, then into a nice safe seat while protected by daddy and mammy's money" MPs. I'm not saying ALL MPs are corrupt/uncaring - but very few of them know what life is like at the sharp end - even at second-hand, because they don't know their constituencies.

They should have to have at least a year working in some grunt job with no other financial support - and if they have been in a nice well-paid profession prior to going into politics, they should have their families with them.

Let them spend 12 months in some mould-covered flat, living from week to week (or day to day) without enough money to buy their child a new pair of shoes, or even put a kit-kit into their lunch box. Let them struggle to juggle their finances to pay their heating and electric bill because their children are too cold to do their homework, and anyway, the leech has been cut off, so they can't do it in the dark anyway.

Vulnerable families are let down by govt after govt and it's a disgrace.
Click to expand...

What should the minimum age be then? How do we get young people voting if they can only be represented by those aged 40+ (or whatever minimum age you propose). Surely having a range of ages and people from different backgrounds allows for different viewpoints to be considered?
---
Dame Christine Bleakley said:
That's just being melodramatic for the sake of it.

A lawyer for the human rights for criminals is one of the most ethically dubious jobs there is going. Not many jobs compare to it.
Click to expand...

Is it? People complain about him being a criminal defence lawyer, and of Angela being a carer. It's just criticising for the sake of it.
 
I don’t agree that there should be any requirement for them to have suffered or had a hard life in order to empathise. The idea of someone living in a mold-infested flat and then rising to become PM is fairytale and not practical. To be PM a person should have a firm understanding of law, education systems, housing and housebuilding, infrastructure planning, social work, world economy, healthcare provision and much more. They should also have experience of managing people, public speaking and handling the media. The idea that someone with those capabilities would have ever got themselves into situations where they can’t pay their rent or can’t find a way to work to remove themselves from situations is ludicrous. I wouldn’t want a PM who isn’t educated, or who hasn’t held positions of power in the past, or who hasn’t had jobs which earn high levels of financial reward…if they haven’t achieved those things…what makes them capable of running a country?

The question of them understanding the issues facing the average person is an important one. I do think there should be some kind of accreditation scheme for candidates that they can undertake before putting themselves forward for election. A bit like Duke of Edinburgh award but for politics.

it would include things like shadowing a social worker, a teacher, a nurse. Attending local planning committees, local chamber of commerce meetings. Meeting with people for life-learning from different parts of the social and financial spectrum, so from the person on benefits really struggling to better themselves, to the benefits scrounger who needs a kick up the arse and to small business owners struggling with things like maternity pay making them fear employing women or large business owners who would be impacted by changes to zero hours contracts. Meeting with landlords who have small and large portfolios to find out their side of how the law doesn’t protect them, as well as where the law also fails tenants. If they intend to have strong views on immigration, they should be meeting with immigrants who have integrated and those who haven’t. They should be visiting locations with high recent immigration to view the impacts it’s having. They should be visiting the prisons to see the conditions, even spending the night to find out what it is actually like and whether the conditions are fair and whether they are too lenient. They should be visiting the ports to find out about drug importation, how import tax/paperwork affects trade etc.

If someone can’t put say 200 voluntary hours into getting some working Knowledge of the country they are representing it’s a bad job. Most of these people will have happily put 3+ years into their university education, so why not have a scheme to accredit them with experiences that have value as a political representative?
 
Eye_Spy said:
I don’t agree that there should be any requirement for them to have suffered or had a hard life in order to empathise. The idea of someone living in a mold-infested flat and then rising to become PM is fairytale and not practical. To be PM a person should have a firm understanding of law, education systems, housing and housebuilding, infrastructure planning, social work, world economy, healthcare provision and much more. They should also have experience of managing people, public speaking and handling the media. The idea that someone with those capabilities would have ever got themselves into situations where they can’t pay their rent or can’t find a way to work to remove themselves from situations is ludicrous. I wouldn’t want a PM who isn’t educated, or who hasn’t held positions of power in the past, or who hasn’t had jobs which earn high levels of financial reward…if they haven’t achieved those things…what makes them capable of running a country?

The question of them understanding the issues facing the average person is an important one. I do think there should be some kind of accreditation scheme for candidates that they can undertake before putting themselves forward for election. A bit like Duke of Edinburgh award but for politics.

it would include things like shadowing a social worker, a teacher, a nurse. Attending local planning committees, local chamber of commerce meetings. Meeting with people for life-learning from different parts of the social and financial spectrum, so from the person on benefits really struggling to better themselves, to the benefits scrounger who needs a kick up the arse and to small business owners struggling with things like maternity pay making them fear employing women or large business owners who would be impacted by changes to zero hours contracts. Meeting with landlords who have small and large portfolios to find out their side of how the law doesn’t protect them, as well as where the law also fails tenants. If they intend to have strong views on immigration, they should be meeting with immigrants who have integrated and those who haven’t. They should be visiting locations with high recent immigration to view the impacts it’s having. They should be visiting the prisons to see the conditions, even spending the night to find out what it is actually like and whether the conditions are fair and whether they are too lenient. They should be visiting the ports to find out about drug importation, how import tax/paperwork affects trade etc.

If someone can’t put say 200 voluntary hours into getting some working Knowledge of the country they are representing it’s a bad job. Most of these people will have happily put 3+ years into their university education, so why not have a scheme to accredit them with experiences that have value as a political representative?
Click to expand...

We've had people who are seemingly accomplished become PM but fail miserably though. Look at Liz Truss. She was a chartered management accountant and economic director of a company and couldn't even outlast a lettuce.
 
The key to understanding them (know your enemy) is that virtually none of them have EVER had to work for a living in the private sector. Go through the cabinet and its full of people like :
Anneliese Dodds - privately educated, Oxford PPE, straight into academia (social sciences natch) and then into politics.
Steve Reed (English at Sheffield Uni), short stint in the "Educational Publishing Industry" then straight into local politics.
Jo Stevens at least had a career as as solicitor.
Lucy Powell - straight from university into party politics and the quangocracy, prior to becoming an MP.
Baroness Smith - straight from Public Administration course at Leicester Poly into local government and the quangocracy, thence an MP.
Darren Jones - a career in the NHS and then as a solicitor, prior to entering politics.
Alan Campbell - university then worked as teacher prior to election as MP.
Lisa Nandy - private school, then uni, then straight into party politics, the charidee sector, thence local government and elected as MP.
Lord Hermer - uni and then stright to work as a yooman rights lawyer, including Cherie Blairs matrix chambers. Enobled by 2TFGK.
Bridget Phillipson - deprived childhood (unusually for this lot), followed by Uni, local government and charidee for five years, the straight to MP.
Ian Murray - uni and then what does appear to be a private sector career, albeit only for seven or eight years, then MP
Hilary Benn - Uni and then briefly in union work before straight into Labour party, local government and thence MP
Jonathon Reynolds - Uni and then almost seamlessly into local government and party roles, before being elected MP.
Peter Kyle - university, straight to academia, charidee and quangocracy, prior to being elected MP.
Louise Haigh - has surprisingly had a non- public job with Aveva, but largely worked in local govt, unions etc.
John Healey - politics, unions, charities, thence to an MP.
Liz Kendall - uni straight to IPPR and then Labour politics
Wes Streeting - Cambridge uni, NUS, charidee, local government, then MP
Shabana Mahmoud - Uni to barrister and at least spent four years in practice before diving into politics
David Lammy - uni to the Bar and at least spent a couple of years in practice including in the states before getting elected as an MP
Yvette Cooper - PPE from Oxford, then straight into quangocracy with a brief spell as a Journo prior to becoming an MP.
Pat McFadden - straight into student union and then to Labour politics before getting elected
Ed Millipede - PPE Oxford, failed a bit, went to LSE, brief spell as TV researcher then straight into Labour politics before being elected MP.
Rachel Reeves - PPE Oxford, followed by a brief spell with Bank of England ( if you believe Guido, largely as an admin assistant) followed by political career
Angela Rayner - No uni, straight into local council care working, followed by union politics, followed by election as MP.
Two Tier, Free Gear Keir - uni, then as a barrister with a bit of charidee work thrown in before spending his time as a yooman rights lawyer before he landed the DPP gig and it's pension.

So there you go, virtually none of them have ever had to work for anywhere that isn't public ally funded. They simply don't get it - and worse, their background means they think profit is something only the rich benefit from. They probably also think companies exist to provide jobs, rather than exist to generate profit, for which jobs are a welcome by-product.

Not my post, but too good not to share
 
Dame Christine Bleakley said:
Sir Keir seems suited to being a civil servant and Angela seems suited to being a union rep. They should have stopped there.

Since David Cameron left the PMs got worse each time, none of them have had the leadership qualities needed. I dread to think who we'll get next.
Click to expand...
Starmer won’t last the full term. He’ll be ousted and someone even worse will be chosen. He’s just the gateway drug for the far left Momentum lot.
 
Picklelily said:
We’ve had a prisoner let out on early release under his new scheme. Considering it’s meant to be for petty crime, the man in question was in for grooming, kidnapping and torturing a 16 year old. He was picked up by his local gang in an armoured truck.

I’d love to be in that man’s brain to see why he thinks this is a good idea
Click to expand...
What? He should be in a hole somewhere not outside enjoying fresh air!
---
Ndrangheta said:
Sir Keir really does seem to have gotten himself into a pickle over what 'working people' means. I think this is probably what happens when you put everything through the filter of 'advisors' and 'spin doctors'. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Like when you ask him to define woman.
 
I hate this whole "working person" stuff.
I'm in my 40s, worked hard for over 20 years, not had children and been able to get myself some financial freedom.
Labour and those types can't stand people like me and probably think as I have wealth it should be redistributed and I should be pushed back into taking a PAYE job. Glad I'm not living in the UK anymore with this lot.
 
Eye_Spy said:
I don’t agree that there should be any requirement for them to have suffered or had a hard life in order to empathise. The idea of someone living in a mold-infested flat and then rising to become PM is fairytale and not practical. To be PM a person should have a firm understanding of law, education systems, housing and housebuilding, infrastructure planning, social work, world economy, healthcare provision and much more. They should also have experience of managing people, public speaking and handling the media. The idea that someone with those capabilities would have ever got themselves into situations where they can’t pay their rent or can’t find a way to work to remove themselves from situations is ludicrous. I wouldn’t want a PM who isn’t educated, or who hasn’t held positions of power in the past, or who hasn’t had jobs which earn high levels of financial reward…if they haven’t achieved those things…what makes them capable of running a country?

The question of them understanding the issues facing the average person is an important one. I do think there should be some kind of accreditation scheme for candidates that they can undertake before putting themselves forward for election. A bit like Duke of Edinburgh award but for politics.

it would include things like shadowing a social worker, a teacher, a nurse. Attending local planning committees, local chamber of commerce meetings. Meeting with people for life-learning from different parts of the social and financial spectrum, so from the person on benefits really struggling to better themselves, to the benefits scrounger who needs a kick up the arse and to small business owners struggling with things like maternity pay making them fear employing women or large business owners who would be impacted by changes to zero hours contracts. Meeting with landlords who have small and large portfolios to find out their side of how the law doesn’t protect them, as well as where the law also fails tenants. If they intend to have strong views on immigration, they should be meeting with immigrants who have integrated and those who haven’t. They should be visiting locations with high recent immigration to view the impacts it’s having. They should be visiting the prisons to see the conditions, even spending the night to find out what it is actually like and whether the conditions are fair and whether they are too lenient. They should be visiting the ports to find out about drug importation, how import tax/paperwork affects trade etc.

If someone can’t put say 200 voluntary hours into getting some working Knowledge of the country they are representing it’s a bad job. Most of these people will have happily put 3+ years into their university education, so why not have a scheme to accredit them with experiences that have value as a political representative?
Click to expand...

I’d vote for you!!
---
cappyaps said:
I hate this whole "working person" stuff.
I'm in my 40s, worked hard for over 20 years, not had children and been able to get myself some financial freedom.
Labour and those types can't stand people like me and probably think as I have wealth it should be redistributed and I should be pushed back into taking a PAYE job. Glad I'm not living in the UK anymore with this lot.
Click to expand...
I moved to the US with my husband 2 years ago (bit of a tinder box here atm) and I want to move back to the UK. Kier starmer is putting me right off.
I’ve had better healthcare here (we pay the same in health insurance as we would in NI contributions) wit no deductibles unless it’s an operation. My husband needed a hip replacement last year, he could have had it done within 3 months of getting here but chose to wait until he was off in the summer (he’s a professor at a university). It cost $1000 all in. Yes it cost money. But the NHS flat out told my husband he would have to be in a wheelchair before they’d even consider it. My husband is an active man and that would have killed him. His arthritis was severe but they still told him no. They wanted him disabled!
I’ve been diagnosed with adenomyosis, which is like endometriosis. I was told by my dr there was nothing wrong with me in the UK and to basically stop whining. I’m having a potential hysterectomy because of it. I have an annual mammogram and I’m 39 because my mum has a history of cancer (she passed away this year)z im never made to feel like a burden or waste of time.
I understand the NHS is a cornerstone of what make Britain great, but I don’t think they can keep it the way they think they can. It’s broken. I had to wait 6 weeks to have lumps in my breasts checked when I still lived there. It was the scariest 6 weeks of my life. I was then in a room filled with students at the height of covid with a dr who had no feeling or sensitivity at all.
They spend so much money on inclusivity training on trying to define what a woman is, what a mother is, who gets to go in what toilet, when in actual fact I’m sure most trans people don’t give a tit. Most of my trans friends have said themselves they don’t understand why they feel the need to change the term “ mother” because that’s what you are! All that money they waste could be spent elsewhere.
And the needless managers and admin staff who float about doing nothing. Pretending to do work. Why? Why are they there? Get rid of them.
Stop allowing health tourism too. When you go abroad and you injure yourself what’s the first thing they ask for? Money. They don’t give two shits about how injured you are. In the states it’s the same. Cash, card and insurance card. “Oh sorry you’re having a heart attack we’ll get that sorted once you pay” (maybe not that extreme but you catch my drift). I understand Bevan had this dream to treat anyone and everyone, but people purposely coming to the UK to drop 5 kids at the cost of £140k isn’t cheap. How many people with cancer can that treat? His dream is dead!
Sorry rant over. I just love my country and hate to see what’s happening to it. Makes me so sad 😞
 
Last edited:
Do they think we’re stupid? Yes, they do.

Guardian:
“The suspect charged with the murder of three girls in Southport is to be separately prosecuted on suspicion of possessing terrorist material and producing the highly toxic poison ricin, police have said.

Axel Rudakubana, 18, will appear at Westminster magistrates court on Wednesday charged with producing the biological toxin ricin and having a document titled “Military studies in the Jihad against the Tyrants – the Al-Qaida training manual”.

However, Serena Kennedy, the chief constable of Merseyside police, said the murder of the three girls – Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven – was not being treated as a terrorist incident.”


https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...eOyCo6HgW8v8e95OHw_aem_q5G7HBlzkbqvkUt5_uvZDQ
 
Theodore said:
Do they think we’re stupid? Yes, they do.

Guardian:
“The suspect charged with the murder of three girls in Southport is to be separately prosecuted on suspicion of possessing terrorist material and producing the highly toxic poison ricin, police have said.

Axel Rudakubana, 18, will appear at Westminster magistrates court on Wednesday charged with producing the biological toxin ricin and having a document titled “Military studies in the Jihad against the Tyrants – the Al-Qaida training manual”.

However, Serena Kennedy, the chief constable of Merseyside police, said the murder of the three girls – Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven – was not being treated as a terrorist incident.”


https://www.12ft.io/https://www.12f...eOyCo6HgW8v8e95OHw_aem_q5G7HBlzkbqvkUt5_uvZDQ
Click to expand...

Obviously just a massive coincidence that this news has come out the day before the MSM are taken over with discussing the budget :rolleyes:
 
Theodore said:
Do they think we’re stupid? Yes, they do.

Guardian:
“The suspect charged with the murder of three girls in Southport is to be separately prosecuted on suspicion of possessing terrorist material and producing the highly toxic poison ricin, police have said.

Axel Rudakubana, 18, will appear at Westminster magistrates court on Wednesday charged with producing the biological toxin ricin and having a document titled “Military studies in the Jihad against the Tyrants – the Al-Qaida training manual”.

However, Serena Kennedy, the chief constable of Merseyside police, said the murder of the three girls – Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven – was not being treated as a terrorist incident.”


https://www.12ft.io/https://www.12f...eOyCo6HgW8v8e95OHw_aem_q5G7HBlzkbqvkUt5_uvZDQ
Click to expand...

The gaslighting of the public has been off the scale - and they are still gaslighting us. Not being treated as a terror incident, as cannot be sure of his motive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top