Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two weeks into LAB’s leadership election and Starmer’s looking

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 20 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two weeks into LAB’s leadership election and Starmer’s looking good

So far, fourteen CLPs have nominated candidates to be leader of the Labour Party.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 3,979
    First like RLB
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,909
    Second, also like RLB.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943
    I think we can safely make one prediction.

    The first party with a black or minority ethnic leader will NOT be Labour.

    The Tories, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the LibDems, UKIP, the Brexit Party, Mebyon Kernow, the Yorkshire Party ..... they are all possible.

    But, not the Labour Party.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273
    Not on the ballot, like Jess.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,909

    I think we can safely make one prediction.

    The first party with a black or minority ethnic leader will NOT be Labour.

    The Tories, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the LibDems, UKIP, the Brexit Party, Mebyon Kernow, the Yorkshire Party ..... they are all possible.

    But, not the Labour Party.

    Ed Miliband says hi.

    Although I'm not convinced he'd thank me for bringing this up.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943
    Endillion said:

    I think we can safely make one prediction.

    The first party with a black or minority ethnic leader will NOT be Labour.

    The Tories, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the LibDems, UKIP, the Brexit Party, Mebyon Kernow, the Yorkshire Party ..... they are all possible.

    But, not the Labour Party.

    Ed Miliband says hi.

    Although I'm not convinced he'd thank me for bringing this up.
    I am not sure Ed Miliband counts as BAME, but if does, then Disraeli beat him by a century.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943

    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,246


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,812

    Endillion said:

    I think we can safely make one prediction.

    The first party with a black or minority ethnic leader will NOT be Labour.

    The Tories, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the LibDems, UKIP, the Brexit Party, Mebyon Kernow, the Yorkshire Party ..... they are all possible.

    But, not the Labour Party.

    Ed Miliband says hi.

    Although I'm not convinced he'd thank me for bringing this up.
    I am not sure Ed Miliband counts as BAME, but if does, then Disraeli beat him by a century.
    Disraeli, was, of course a Tory, the original "Conservative". The Tories now have had two women PMs, a Jewish PM, and now, someone of Turkish (and presumably one time Muslim) decent. Labour has had very little diversity in its leaders. Its most successful ones have been privately educated. In spite of all of this, Starmer is still better than the other candidates that Labour have offered up, and will continue to be so.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,812
    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    He queered Labour's pitch to just about everyone with a modicum of judgement. It will be up to the new leader of Labour to steady the ship.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943
    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).

    I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!

    If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139
    edited January 20
    I can't help thinking that Starmer is a poor choice for Labour. I just don't see him connecting with or enthusing the core Labour voter or the traditional (as opposed to momentum) Labour members who they have relied on for the donkey work for years.

    That is not to say there is a better alternative. I suspect, and this is a theory that will never be tested, that Emily Thornberry would be the most successful of the candidates available, regardless of her flagellation. (Is that the right word for someone who is anti St Georges flag displays? Innocent face ;) )
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273
    Lisa Nandy ticks both the gender and BAME boxes.

    If she were to come out as LGBT+ we would have a full house.

    None of the above has anything to do with why I'm planning to vote for her. Nor should it.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 3,979
    edited January 20
    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.

    The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273
    edited January 20

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).

    I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!

    If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
    Any candidate who thinks taking the battle to the SNP in Scotland should be a priority needs their head examined. We need to maximise non-Tory seats in parliament after the next GE. An SNP landslide enables a Labour government.

    We have to do our bit in England and Wales.

    Edit: And so do the Lib Dems.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    edited January 20
    philiph said:

    I can't help thinking that Starmer is a poor choice for Labour. I just don't see him connecting with or enthusing the core Labour voter or the traditional (as opposed to momentum) Labour members who they have relied on for the donkey work for years.

    That is not to say there is a better alternative. I suspect, and this is a theory that will never be tested, that Emily Thornberry would be the most successful of the candidates available, regardless of her flagellation. (Is that the right word for someone who is anti St Georges flag displays? Innocent face ;) )

    The thing is, for all the criticism Thornberrry got, and her weaselly way of trying to say she wasn't saying what she obviously was re the flag... there are plenty of working class people who would roll their eyes at a house with the Flag of St George on it. If it was so popular, more houses would have them
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,812

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.

    The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
    Perhaps that is what you hope? I think analysis and election results will show that the recent GE is not as reversible as you think. Johnson is unlikely to prove to be a good PM based on his previous behaviours. The last GE was essentially an anti-Corbyn election not a pro-Johnson or an anti-Labour one. Our peculiar system essentially indirectly votes for a government and the electorate hated Corbyn and McDonnell.

    Labour need to bring in a sensible credible leader and in 5 years the Northern Tory MPs will be receiving P45s. If Long Bailey is successful in this leadership bid, with or without her hyphen, Labour are then doomed, and so is our rather flawed system of democracy.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943
    philiph said:

    I can't help thinking that Starmer is a oor choice for Labour. I just don't see him connecting with or enthusing the core Labour voter or the traditional (as opposed to momentum) Labour members who they have relied on for the donkey work for years.

    I think the word I would use is unimaginative. Keir is personally unimaginative. And it is a very unimaginative choice by Labour.

    It is the choice of a party that has lost its confidence and lost its nerve in the shattering defeat.

    In fact, I think all of the female candidates are better, bolder choices. Even Philips -- who I think is ghastly at a personal level -- is a better, bolder choice.

    Keir is the person to preside over managed decay.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 4,812

    Lisa Nandy ticks both the gender and BAME boxes.

    If she were to come out as LGBT+ we would have a full house.

    None of the above has anything to do with why I'm planning to vote for her. Nor should it.

    She ticks the Labour out of office for at least 10 years box perhaps. It is why so many Tories try and big her up. She has middle management competence and no more.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    edited January 20
    ...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,131
    isam said:

    philiph said:

    I can't help thinking that Starmer is a poor choice for Labour. I just don't see him connecting with or enthusing the core Labour voter or the traditional (as opposed to momentum) Labour members who they have relied on for the donkey work for years.

    That is not to say there is a better alternative. I suspect, and this is a theory that will never be tested, that Emily Thornberry would be the most successful of the candidates available, regardless of her flagellation. (Is that the right word for someone who is anti St Georges flag displays? Innocent face ;) )

    The thing is, for all the criticism Thornberrry got, and her weaselly way of trying to say she wasn't saying what she obviously was re the flag... there are plenty of working class people who would roll their eyes at a house with the Flag of St George on it. If it was so popular, more houses would have them
    More the fact there were 3 flags !
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,131
    edited January 20
    Certain seats (Top of the rural east Mids for instance) are gone for the long term from Labour; but Pudsey, Reading West, Keighley, Dewsbury, Peterborough sit as the marginals needed by Labour to win as they always were.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).

    I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!

    If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
    Any candidate who thinks taking the battle to the SNP in Scotland should be a priority needs their head examined. We need to maximise non-Tory seats in parliament after the next GE. An SNP landslide enables a Labour government.

    An SNP landslide almost certainly means Scottish independence.

    Wales and N. Ireland would see no reason to stay (Llafur would rather run Wales in perpetuity than be in perpetual opposition in England & Wales). Wales may even be pushed -- I doubt many English Tories think it's worth keeping in the Union.

    The Labour Party would then be left to fight England alone.

    It would have to change out of all recognition to win in England.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,907
    edited January 20

    philiph said:

    I can't help thinking that Starmer is a oor choice for Labour. I just don't see him connecting with or enthusing the core Labour voter or the traditional (as opposed to momentum) Labour members who they have relied on for the donkey work for years.

    I think the word I would use is unimaginative. Keir is personally unimaginative. And it is a very unimaginative choice by Labour.

    It is the choice of a party that has lost its confidence and lost its nerve in the shattering defeat.

    In fact, I think all of the female candidates are better, bolder choices. Even Philips -- who I think is ghastly at a personal level -- is a better, bolder choice.

    Keir is the person to preside over managed decay.
    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139

    philiph said:

    I can't help thinking that Starmer is a oor choice for Labour. I just don't see him connecting with or enthusing the core Labour voter or the traditional (as opposed to momentum) Labour members who they have relied on for the donkey work for years.

    I think the word I would use is unimaginative. Keir is personally unimaginative. And it is a very unimaginative choice by Labour.

    It is the choice of a party that has lost its confidence and lost its nerve in the shattering defeat.

    In fact, I think all of the female candidates are better, bolder choices. Even Philips -- who I think is ghastly at a personal level -- is a better, bolder choice.

    Keir is the person to preside over managed decay.
    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.
    Prominent as DPP yes. There may be divided opinions on the question of him showing good leadership in that role.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943



    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.

    I think Cyclefree may be a good judge of his performance as DPP.

    What does she say? Extremely uncomplimentary things is my recollection.

    If Keir saw the "best way to the leadership as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet" then all that tells me is he is personally very ambitious.

    The Mike Smithsons are exactly the kind of person who Keir will appeal to. But, the Mike Smithsons already vote Labour regularly ...

    They are not the people Labour need to win over.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139



    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.

    I think Cyclefree may be a good judge of his performance as DPP.

    What does she say? Extremely uncomplimentary things is my recollection.

    If Keir saw the "best way to the leadership as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet" then all that tells me is he is personally very ambitious.

    The Mike Smithsons are exactly the kind of person who Keir will appeal to. But, the Mike Smithsons already vote Labour regularly ...

    They are not the people Labour need to win over.
    I think that post is open to a challenge from a Mr M Smithson!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 10,273

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).

    I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!

    If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
    Any candidate who thinks taking the battle to the SNP in Scotland should be a priority needs their head examined. We need to maximise non-Tory seats in parliament after the next GE. An SNP landslide enables a Labour government.

    An SNP landslide almost certainly means Scottish independence.

    Wales and N. Ireland would see no reason to stay (Llafur would rather run Wales in perpetuity than be in perpetual opposition in England & Wales). Wales may even be pushed -- I doubt many English Tories think it's worth keeping in the Union.

    The Labour Party would then be left to fight England alone.

    It would have to change out of all recognition to win in England.
    45% gives a landslide. It doesn't give a referendum victory.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004
    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,023

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).

    I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!

    If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
    Any candidate who thinks taking the battle to the SNP in Scotland should be a priority needs their head examined. We need to maximise non-Tory seats in parliament after the next GE. An SNP landslide enables a Labour government.

    We have to do our bit in England and Wales.

    Edit: And so do the Lib Dems.
    The problem is that's what's working against labour in England. The whole 'Vote Ed, get Salmond' thing, worked well in 2015, and will continue to for as long as the SNP are a major force north of the border.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943
    edited January 20
    philiph said:



    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.

    I think Cyclefree may be a good judge of his performance as DPP.

    What does she say? Extremely uncomplimentary things is my recollection.

    If Keir saw the "best way to the leadership as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet" then all that tells me is he is personally very ambitious.

    The Mike Smithsons are exactly the kind of person who Keir will appeal to. But, the Mike Smithsons already vote Labour regularly ...

    They are not the people Labour need to win over.
    I think that post is open to a challenge from a Mr M Smithson!
    In what way? I think OGH is a typical LibDem. He votes "tactically" for Labour in Bedford

    If you always end up voting "tactically" for Labour, you are a Labour voter, no? A reluctant one, maybe.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).

    I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!

    If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
    Any candidate who thinks taking the battle to the SNP in Scotland should be a priority needs their head examined. We need to maximise non-Tory seats in parliament after the next GE. An SNP landslide enables a Labour government.

    An SNP landslide almost certainly means Scottish independence.

    Wales and N. Ireland would see no reason to stay (Llafur would rather run Wales in perpetuity than be in perpetual opposition in England & Wales). Wales may even be pushed -- I doubt many English Tories think it's worth keeping in the Union.

    The Labour Party would then be left to fight England alone.

    It would have to change out of all recognition to win in England.
    45% gives a landslide. It doesn't give a referendum victory.
    45 percent -- plus a mistake by your opponents -- gives a referendum victory.

    Also, I think the next Sindy referendum will be very close. A mistake by one side or the other could easily decide it.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.

    The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.

    That all depends on how the next few years pan out, doesn't it? If the Tories deliver on the promises they have made it will not matter who the Labour leader is, the Tories will win. If they don't, then you need someone who can hold them to account effectively and also not frighten wavering Tory/LD voters into sticking with the Tories for fear of letting an unreconstructed Marxist into power.

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139

    philiph said:



    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.

    I think Cyclefree may be a good judge of his performance as DPP.

    What does she say? Extremely uncomplimentary things is my recollection.

    If Keir saw the "best way to the leadership as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet" then all that tells me is he is personally very ambitious.

    The Mike Smithsons are exactly the kind of person who Keir will appeal to. But, the Mike Smithsons already vote Labour regularly ...

    They are not the people Labour need to win over.
    I think that post is open to a challenge from a Mr M Smithson!
    In what way? I think OGH is a typical LibDem. He votes "tactically" for Labour in Bedford

    If you always end up voting "tactically" for Labour, you are a Labour voter, no? A reluctant one, maybe.
    I think the word 'Regularly' may well be contestable.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943
    philiph said:

    philiph said:



    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.

    I think Cyclefree may be a good judge of his performance as DPP.

    What does she say? Extremely uncomplimentary things is my recollection.

    If Keir saw the "best way to the leadership as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet" then all that tells me is he is personally very ambitious.

    The Mike Smithsons are exactly the kind of person who Keir will appeal to. But, the Mike Smithsons already vote Labour regularly ...

    They are not the people Labour need to win over.
    I think that post is open to a challenge from a Mr M Smithson!
    In what way? I think OGH is a typical LibDem. He votes "tactically" for Labour in Bedford

    If you always end up voting "tactically" for Labour, you are a Labour voter, no? A reluctant one, maybe.
    I think the word 'Regularly' may well be contestable.
    OK -- at the last few elections.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,246

    philiph said:



    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.

    I think Cyclefree may be a good judge of his performance as DPP.

    What does she say? Extremely uncomplimentary things is my recollection.

    If Keir saw the "best way to the leadership as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet" then all that tells me is he is personally very ambitious.

    The Mike Smithsons are exactly the kind of person who Keir will appeal to. But, the Mike Smithsons already vote Labour regularly ...

    They are not the people Labour need to win over.
    I think that post is open to a challenge from a Mr M Smithson!
    In what way? I think OGH is a typical LibDem. He votes "tactically" for Labour in Bedford

    If you always end up voting "tactically" for Labour, you are a Labour voter, no? A reluctant one, maybe.
    Many Conservatives in Edinburgh South vote tactically for Labour and keep Ian Murray in place as by far the lesser evil.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    isam said:

    The thing is, for all the criticism Thornberrry got, and her weaselly way of trying to say she wasn't saying what she obviously was re the flag... there are plenty of working class people who would roll their eyes at a house with the Flag of St George on it. If it was so popular, more houses would have them

    Good point. It is not widespread outside World Cups. I suppose those flying it all year round would say that their love of country is so strong and such an integral part of their sense of self that it has to be expressed in no uncertain terms to the neighbourhood at large.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Touch of the Leonard Cohens there?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 3,943
    geoffw said:

    philiph said:



    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.

    I think Cyclefree may be a good judge of his performance as DPP.

    What does she say? Extremely uncomplimentary things is my recollection.

    If Keir saw the "best way to the leadership as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet" then all that tells me is he is personally very ambitious.

    The Mike Smithsons are exactly the kind of person who Keir will appeal to. But, the Mike Smithsons already vote Labour regularly ...

    They are not the people Labour need to win over.
    I think that post is open to a challenge from a Mr M Smithson!
    In what way? I think OGH is a typical LibDem. He votes "tactically" for Labour in Bedford

    If you always end up voting "tactically" for Labour, you are a Labour voter, no? A reluctant one, maybe.
    Many Conservatives in Edinburgh South vote tactically for Labour and keep Ian Murray in place as by far the lesser evil.

    Then, they are Labour voters, by definition.

    If you voted Labour in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in Edinburgh South, then you're a very loyal Labour voter.

    Suppose this pattern goes on for ever, that Murray is always "the lesser evil", and you carry on voting Labour in 2024 and 2029 and 2034 and so on. You end up voting Labour all your life (or for as long as Scotland remains part of the UK).

    You are not a tactical voter, you are a Labour voter.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004
    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 5,340

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.

    The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
    I think that's unlikely. Thatcher was in power for a decade and her influence - love it or hate it - was seismic. Corbyn will just be seen as a historical curiosity and memory of his time will quickly fade. No one's going to harbour any long-term grudges against Labour because of its brief bit of Jezza madness. However, what might happen is that northern voters, enjoying their newly found fame as unlikely Boris men, stick with the Tories simply to be awkward. Or they might go with 'Voted Tory once. Nivver again.' Who knows.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689

    philiph said:

    I can't help thinking that Starmer is a oor choice for Labour. I just don't see him connecting with or enthusing the core Labour voter or the traditional (as opposed to momentum) Labour members who they have relied on for the donkey work for years.

    I think the word I would use is unimaginative. Keir is personally unimaginative. And it is a very unimaginative choice by Labour.

    It is the choice of a party that has lost its confidence and lost its nerve in the shattering defeat.

    In fact, I think all of the female candidates are better, bolder choices. Even Philips -- who I think is ghastly at a personal level -- is a better, bolder choice.

    Keir is the person to preside over managed decay.
    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.
    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.
  • I am not one for offering advice to members of other parties as to whom they should choose as leader - just like advice the other way it will inevitable seen disingenuous, but both the LDs and Labour have a serious problem. This was drawn home to me yesterday watching Ms Davison's Maiden Speech on YouTube. She is a new MP and lets face it she holds a seat that Labour would not have lost in more normal time so she wasn't gifted the safe seat of a future Leaderine.

    I was struck as to how do the five Labour leader hopefuls compare with the new MP for Bishop Auckland ? Well, allow that they have been around for some time and so are moderately experienced whereas she is new. So, you would expect them all to be head and shoulders above Ms Davison. The problem is they aren't. There must be a hundred MPs on the Tory benches who have the ability to make more credible prime ministers than any of the Labour leadership candidates.

    This means Labour have a problem even post Boris, i.e. post 2028. These seats they need to get back now have Tory MPs who will be in there vying to be next Tory PM. Even if it isn't Ms Davison there is Ms Harrison, the guy from Stoke and who knows who else.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,500
    edited January 20

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No doubt you view the Redgraves in the same way.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004
    kinabalu said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Touch of the Leonard Cohens there?

    Yep, Cohen without the talent. All very derivative. At some point he is going to start complaining he can't get gigs because of his views. Just you wait!

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,246

    geoffw said:

    philiph said:



    I don't know how you come to these conclusions. What are they based on? A big factor with Starmer is that unlike many others in the party he saw his best way to the leadership by being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet. This has been a huge constraint on him personally and we clearly don't know how he'll perform once he becomes boss. But he was quite prominent as DPP.

    I think Cyclefree may be a good judge of his performance as DPP.

    What does she say? Extremely uncomplimentary things is my recollection.

    If Keir saw the "best way to the leadership as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet" then all that tells me is he is personally very ambitious.

    The Mike Smithsons are exactly the kind of person who Keir will appeal to. But, the Mike Smithsons already vote Labour regularly ...

    They are not the people Labour need to win over.
    I think that post is open to a challenge from a Mr M Smithson!
    In what way? I think OGH is a typical LibDem. He votes "tactically" for Labour in Bedford

    If you always end up voting "tactically" for Labour, you are a Labour voter, no? A reluctant one, maybe.
    Many Conservatives in Edinburgh South vote tactically for Labour and keep Ian Murray in place as by far the lesser evil.

    Then, they are Labour voters, by definition.

    If you voted Labour in 2015, 2017 and 2019 in Edinburgh South, then you're a very loyal Labour voter.

    Suppose this pattern goes on for ever, that Murray is always "the lesser evil", and you carry on voting Labour in 2024 and 2029 and 2034 and so on. You end up voting Labour all your life (or for as long as Scotland remains part of the UK).

    You are not a tactical voter, you are a Labour voter.
    Fair enough, that's a new psephological category: Scottish Tories for Labour.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004
    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No doubt you view the Redgraves in the same way.

    No doubt at all.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744
    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...
    Excellent list of fictional deaths you were most affected by. I would take yours and add Kes, the red balloon, and Paul Baumer (All quiet on the Western Front).
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004
    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show, and people criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots

    I'd never heard of him before this weekend.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,329
    kinabalu said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Touch of the Leonard Cohens there?
    I said to Gavin Williamson "How lonely does it get?"
    Gavin Williamson hasn't answered yet
    But I hear him coughing all night long
    Oh, a hundred floors above me in the Tower of Song
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 9,760
    edited January 20

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    He got a singing gig on TV through being already well-known in another profession. See also this lot: https://screenrant.com/worst-actors-who-cant-sing-attempted-singing-careers/ Being 'posh', 'white', 'a bloke' and 'right wing' has bugger all to do with it. You're a posh white bloke - when's your TV singing debut?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    He got a singing gig on TV through being already well-known in another profession. See also this lot: https://screenrant.com/worst-actors-who-cant-sing-attempted-singing-careers/ Being 'posh', 'white', 'a bloke' and 'right wing' has bugger all to do with it. You're a posh white bloke - when's your TV singing debut?

    I don't have right wing opinions!! I would not say I was that posh either, but that is a personal opion. I do know I cannot sing.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,329
    I was upset when Strelnikov shot himself in Doctor Zhivago.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    He got a singing gig on TV through being already well-known in another profession. See also this lot: https://screenrant.com/worst-actors-who-cant-sing-attempted-singing-careers/ Being 'posh', 'white', 'a bloke' and 'right wing' has bugger all to do with it. You're a posh white bloke - when's your TV singing debut?
    Bob the Builder was a working class man who got a record deal of the back of his tv work
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,500

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    He got a singing gig on TV through being already well-known in another profession. See also this lot: https://screenrant.com/worst-actors-who-cant-sing-attempted-singing-careers/ Being 'posh', 'white', 'a bloke' and 'right wing' has bugger all to do with it. You're a posh white bloke - when's your TV singing debut?

    I don't have right wing opinions!! I would not say I was that posh either, but that is a personal opion. I do know I cannot sing.
    Surely the Redgraves are proof that right-wing opinions are not a necessity to make it in luvvy industries.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 5,340
    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show. People criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots who decide what they think of someones ability depending on whether or not they share their political views
    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004
    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    He got a singing gig on TV through being already well-known in another profession. See also this lot: https://screenrant.com/worst-actors-who-cant-sing-attempted-singing-careers/ Being 'posh', 'white', 'a bloke' and 'right wing' has bugger all to do with it. You're a posh white bloke - when's your TV singing debut?

    I don't have right wing opinions!! I would not say I was that posh either, but that is a personal opion. I do know I cannot sing.
    Surely the Redgraves are proof that right-wing opinions are not a necessity to make it in luvvy industries.

    They are indeed.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908
    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    He got a singing gig on TV through being already well-known in another profession. See also this lot: https://screenrant.com/worst-actors-who-cant-sing-attempted-singing-careers/ Being 'posh', 'white', 'a bloke' and 'right wing' has bugger all to do with it. You're a posh white bloke - when's your TV singing debut?
    Bob the Builder was a working class man who got a record deal of the back of his tv work
    Well, be fair: he could fix it.

    :)
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,399

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    You really are completely disconnected from reality on this aren't you. Being right wing and apparently privileged is the last thing you want to be if you want to get ahead in the current climate.

    I am listening to Fox in conversation with Brendan O'Neil right now and he is spot on about how warped the cultural bubble has become, particularly on the left.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show, and people criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots

    I'd never heard of him before this weekend.
    He was wheeled onto QT as a classic clickbait ruse by the BBC and also to make up for the many dozens of BBC comedians (= left wing, unfunny) that appear on it week in week out and said something which some people describe as right wing. This then duly pushed all the right buttons of the left and he has become more of a celeb than he was hitherto.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616

    Yep, Cohen without the talent. All very derivative. At some point he is going to start complaining he can't get gigs because of his views. Just you wait!

    He's going to be "cancelled" as an actor and musician. But new paths will open. I rather fear we will see a lot of Mr Fox in coming years.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    edited January 20

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show. People criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots who decide what they think of someones ability depending on whether or not they share their political views
    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.
    I don't really watch it. I think he comes across of a bit of a prick to be honest, not sure if he qualifies as a "person of colour", sorry "talent", but it makes me laugh that so many people have decided to negatively critique his singing and acting since QT, and managed to convince themselves it's not because he disagrees with them!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 5,340
    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    He got a singing gig on TV through being already well-known in another profession. See also this lot: https://screenrant.com/worst-actors-who-cant-sing-attempted-singing-careers/ Being 'posh', 'white', 'a bloke' and 'right wing' has bugger all to do with it. You're a posh white bloke - when's your TV singing debut?

    I don't have right wing opinions!! I would not say I was that posh either, but that is a personal opion. I do know I cannot sing.
    Surely the Redgraves are proof that right-wing opinions are not a necessity to make it in luvvy industries.
    I thought Vanessa was a Chomskyite.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,246

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show. People criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots who decide what they think of someones ability depending on whether or not they share their political views
    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.
    When Morse morphed into Lewis the tension between the protagonist pair - one intellectual, the other practical - was maintained by making junior the wise guy. It made an interesting transition around the constant bluff geordie character.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,689



    I don't have right wing opinions!!

    I know you don't. However, I bet the supporters of a prominent controlling faction in the party that you (and I) have just rejoined think differently and take delight in calling you a "right winger".

    On the subject of rejoining, none of the 4 new members interviewed here appear to be fans of Corbyn either.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-vote-member-join-party-candidates-a9289181.html
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    edited January 20

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,399
    kinabalu said:

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
    I am looking forward to re-watching them and enjoying them even more. I find your virtue signalling over this hilarious.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    You really are completely disconnected from reality on this aren't you. Being right wing and apparently privileged is the last thing you want to be if you want to get ahead in the current climate.

    I am listening to Fox in conversation with Brendan O'Neil right now and he is spot on about how warped the cultural bubble has become, particularly on the left.

    My guess is that Lozza is going to do very well for himself from here on in. Not that he has done that badly up to now. I suspect that his privileged upbringing has been a help not a hindrance. That usually turns out to be the case in this country.

  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    edited January 20
    kinabalu said:

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
    Of course he was, his Dad owned the local factory and he went to private school!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744
    edited January 20
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
    Of course he was, his Dad owned the local factory and he went to private school!
    IT BECAME PRIVATE!

    Ahem. While he was there. Did his dad own the factory?
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
    Of course he was, his Dad owned the local factory and he went to private school!
    IT BECAME PRIVATE!
    WHILE HE WAS THERE!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show, and people criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots

    I'd never heard of him before this weekend.
    He was wheeled onto QT as a classic clickbait ruse by the BBC and also to make up for the many dozens of BBC comedians (= left wing, unfunny) that appear on it week in week out and said something which some people describe as right wing. This then duly pushed all the right buttons of the left and he has become more of a celeb than he was hitherto.

    Of course he has. Give an actor a stage and they'll seize it with gusto. It has always beat me why people allow themselves to be so wound up by it. Actors will always do what actors do. They are supremely self unaware, magnificently opinionated and usually as thick as two short planks - no matter what their politics.

  • kinabalu said:

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
    I am looking forward to re-watching them and enjoying them even more. I find your virtue signalling over this hilarious.
    Isn't choosing to watch a program more often because of an actors political opinions the very definition of 'virtue signalling'?!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.

    The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
    I think that's unlikely. Thatcher was in power for a decade and her influence - love it or hate it - was seismic. Corbyn will just be seen as a historical curiosity and memory of his time will quickly fade. No one's going to harbour any long-term grudges against Labour because of its brief bit of Jezza madness. However, what might happen is that northern voters, enjoying their newly found fame as unlikely Boris men, stick with the Tories simply to be awkward. Or they might go with 'Voted Tory once. Nivver again.' Who knows.
    Corbyn’s time as leader will be remembered for a very long time as an example of how a decent party in a largely decent tolerant country can so quickly succumb to the virus of evil racism, in this case, anti-semitism and how so many people who think of themselves as decent people can turn a blind eye to this, defend it or justify it.

    He’ll have his place in history, don’t doubt that. It will simply be a shameful one.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
    Of course he was, his Dad owned the local factory and he went to private school!
    IT BECAME PRIVATE!

    Ahem. While he was there. Did his dad own the factory?
    Apparently so.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139
    edited January 20
    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.

    The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
    I think that's unlikely. Thatcher was in power for a decade and her influence - love it or hate it - was seismic. Corbyn will just be seen as a historical curiosity and memory of his time will quickly fade. No one's going to harbour any long-term grudges against Labour because of its brief bit of Jezza madness. However, what might happen is that northern voters, enjoying their newly found fame as unlikely Boris men, stick with the Tories simply to be awkward. Or they might go with 'Voted Tory once. Nivver again.' Who knows.
    Corbyn’s time as leader will be remembered for a very long time as an example of how a decent party in a largely decent tolerant country can so quickly succumb to the virus of evil racism, in this case, anti-semitism and how so many people who think of themselves as decent people can turn a blind eye to this, defend it or justify it.

    He’ll have his place in history, don’t doubt that. It will simply be a shameful one.
    One of the questions for Labour will be how to convince the frequently sceptical UK electorate that the party will not return to the bosom of the fanatics of the far left if entrusted with power.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744
    kinabalu said:

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
    No more Picasso, Wagner, Gill et al for you then.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 33,004
    philiph said:

    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.

    The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
    I think that's unlikely. Thatcher was in power for a decade and her influence - love it or hate it - was seismic. Corbyn will just be seen as a historical curiosity and memory of his time will quickly fade. No one's going to harbour any long-term grudges against Labour because of its brief bit of Jezza madness. However, what might happen is that northern voters, enjoying their newly found fame as unlikely Boris men, stick with the Tories simply to be awkward. Or they might go with 'Voted Tory once. Nivver again.' Who knows.
    Corbyn’s time as leader will be remembered for a very long time as an example of how a decent party in a largely decent tolerant country can so quickly succumb to the virus of evil racism, in this case, anti-semitism and how so many people who think of themselves as decent people can turn a blind eye to this, defend it or justify it.

    He’ll have his place in history, don’t doubt that. It will simply be a shameful one.
    One of the questions for Labour will be how to convince the frequently sceptical UK electorate that the party will not return to the bosom of the fanatics of the far left if entrusted with power.

    My guess - and hope - is that the EHRC report is gooing to do a lot of heavy lifting on this. The creaiton of a truly independent complaints proicess is going to weed out an awful lot of people.

  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
    No more Picasso, Wagner, Gill et al for you then.
    Isn't @kinabalu saying that his programmes will no longer be repeated, rather than that he will refuse to watch them?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
    Of course he was, his Dad owned the local factory and he went to private school!
    IT BECAME PRIVATE!

    Ahem. While he was there. Did his dad own the factory?
    Apparently so.
    Source? He was telling everyone he was a toolmaker as recently as this weekend. Was he really a member of the boss class? Where is this set out?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699
    Deaths in films:

    1. Kes.
    2. Bambi’s mother.
    3. Ellie in Up.
    4. The little boy in Marcelino, Pan y Vino - a film no-one will have heard of but was shown in Italy when I was a child. I cried buckets when I saw it.

    Plus I also sob at the scene at the railway at the end of The Railway Station: the train disappearing, the steam, the girl standing there, then the cry of “Daddy, my Daddy!”

  • isamisam Posts: 29,895

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show, and people criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots

    I'd never heard of him before this weekend.
    He was wheeled onto QT as a classic clickbait ruse by the BBC and also to make up for the many dozens of BBC comedians (= left wing, unfunny) that appear on it week in week out and said something which some people describe as right wing. This then duly pushed all the right buttons of the left and he has become more of a celeb than he was hitherto.

    Of course he has. Give an actor a stage and they'll seize it with gusto. It has always beat me why people allow themselves to be so wound up by it. Actors will always do what actors do. They are supremely self unaware, magnificently opinionated and usually as thick as two short planks - no matter what their politics.

    What would I have seen you in?!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,500
    I see the head honcho job at the BBC is up for grabs - surely a woman this time?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744
    Cyclefree said:

    geoffw said:


    Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.

    Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.

    That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.

    Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?

    They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.

    The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
    I think that's unlikely. Thatcher was in power for a decade and her influence - love it or hate it - was seismic. Corbyn will just be seen as a historical curiosity and memory of his time will quickly fade. No one's going to harbour any long-term grudges against Labour because of its brief bit of Jezza madness. However, what might happen is that northern voters, enjoying their newly found fame as unlikely Boris men, stick with the Tories simply to be awkward. Or they might go with 'Voted Tory once. Nivver again.' Who knows.
    Corbyn’s time as leader will be remembered for a very long time as an example of how a decent party in a largely decent tolerant country can so quickly succumb to the virus of evil racism, in this case, anti-semitism and how so many people who think of themselves as decent people can turn a blind eye to this, defend it or justify it.

    He’ll have his place in history, don’t doubt that. It will simply be a shameful one.
    I don't dispute that will be an element, but I believe the more egregious legacy will be, in the face of Venezuela et al, his attempt to make the UK a true socialist paradise.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
    Of course he was, his Dad owned the local factory and he went to private school!
    IT BECAME PRIVATE!
    WHILE HE WAS THERE!
    Yes exactly. And we don't know whether they made existing pupils pay - my guess? No.

    Plus when he was considering schools, when his family was considering schools, they didn't send him to a private one. It is critical that it became one, as you rightly say, when he was there and hence the charge that he went to a private school is blunted completely.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908
    edited January 20
    tlg86 said:

    ...head honcho...

    Gesundheit.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show, and people criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots

    I'd never heard of him before this weekend.
    He was wheeled onto QT as a classic clickbait ruse by the BBC and also to make up for the many dozens of BBC comedians (= left wing, unfunny) that appear on it week in week out and said something which some people describe as right wing. This then duly pushed all the right buttons of the left and he has become more of a celeb than he was hitherto.

    Of course he has. Give an actor a stage and they'll seize it with gusto. It has always beat me why people allow themselves to be so wound up by it. Actors will always do what actors do. They are supremely self unaware, magnificently opinionated and usually as thick as two short planks - no matter what their politics.

    I don't think that is fair. Actors are just people who chose to act. Where the difficulty comes is when some of them (looking at you, Emma) come to believe that their views are somehow more important than anyone else's. Having a platform for your views is not the same as having views that are worthy of a platform.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,744
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
    No more Picasso, Wagner, Gill et al for you then.
    Isn't @kinabalu saying that his programmes will no longer be repeated, rather than that he will refuse to watch them?
    Ah maybe. But with these left wing virtue signallers you never can tell.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    edited January 20
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
    Of course he was, his Dad owned the local factory and he went to private school!
    IT BECAME PRIVATE!

    Ahem. While he was there. Did his dad own the factory?
    Apparently so.
    Source? He was telling everyone he was a toolmaker as recently as this weekend. Was he really a member of the boss class? Where is this set out?
    To be fair, his Dad could have meant "the factory I worked in"

    Oxted looks lovely

    "And while Sir Keir has made frequent reference to his tool maker father, dad Rodney once boasted that he ran his own factory.

    Reflecting on his son's knighthood in 2014, Rodney Starmer wrote in Oxted's theatre newsletter that his son had spent six months before university working 'in my factory operating a production machine'."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7878643/Is-Labour-leadership-hopeful-Keir-Starmer-real-Mark-Darcy.html
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,139
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I can't imagine why any BAME or working class actor/musician might conclude that their chosen profession is stacked in favour of the talentless posh!!!

    Blimey, old Foxy's acting and singing skills have been evaluated by a lot of new critics in the last 5 days or so!

    Would they bother had he been singing, well or badly, from the centre left hymn sheet I wonder...

    It depends, I guess. I am struggling to see how Lozza managed to get a singing gig on national TV other than for being who he is - a posh, white bloke with right wing opinions. If that is not privilege and identity poilitics I do not know what is. We need to be brave and call it out. Don't you agree?

    No, I disagree. He probably got the gig because he is already famous as an actor in a popular tv show, and people criticising him for his acting and singing talent, or lack of it, now, when they didn't used to a week ago, are just predictably showing themselves to be complete idiots

    I'd never heard of him before this weekend.
    He was wheeled onto QT as a classic clickbait ruse by the BBC and also to make up for the many dozens of BBC comedians (= left wing, unfunny) that appear on it week in week out and said something which some people describe as right wing. This then duly pushed all the right buttons of the left and he has become more of a celeb than he was hitherto.

    Of course he has. Give an actor a stage and they'll seize it with gusto. It has always beat me why people allow themselves to be so wound up by it. Actors will always do what actors do. They are supremely self unaware, magnificently opinionated and usually as thick as two short planks - no matter what their politics.

    I don't think that is fair. Actors are just people who chose to act. Where the difficulty comes is when some of them (looking at you, Emma) come to believe that their views are somehow more important than anyone else's. Having a platform for your views is not the same as having views that are worthy of a platform.
    Actors? People who are over paid for prentending to be someone else. How they have generated such earning power or influence for people with so little talent but such great ego defies any logic.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 5,340
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    I agree with you. Starmer is being criticised for no more than this: That he had the political nous to realise that the Corbynites would not be vulnerable until Corbyn had decisively lost a general election, at which point members would be open to a change of direction, and that a candidate who could not be accused of trying to undermine Corbyn's position would be best placed to take advantage of that. He is in the game, whereas the likes of Hilary Benn, Owen Smith, Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson are not. For "unimaginative" I see "clear strategic political thinking."

    Furthermore, there is enough in Starmer's record to suggest that he is far from the centrist politician that Momentum are vainly claiming he is. That, and the fact that he has kept at arms length from the infighting thus far means he is of all the candidates probably the one with most potential to reunify the party from a position of strength.

    John Smith was also caricatured as an unimaginative barrister type prior to his appointment, yet at the point of his death Labour was enjoying 20%+ opinion poll leads. It turned out that competance was exactly what appealed to the public in contrast to the flamboyant Kinnock years.

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.
    Of course he was, his Dad owned the local factory and he went to private school!
    IT BECAME PRIVATE!
    WHILE HE WAS THERE!
    Yes exactly. And we don't know whether they made existing pupils pay - my guess? No.

    Plus when he was considering schools, when his family was considering schools, they didn't send him to a private one. It is critical that it became one, as you rightly say, when he was there and hence the charge that he went to a private school is blunted completely.
    A very bright chap from my junior school attended Reigate Grammar. This would have been in the early 1980s. He lived in a council house so there was certainly no question of his parents forking out any fees.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,399

    kinabalu said:

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
    I am looking forward to re-watching them and enjoying them even more. I find your virtue signalling over this hilarious.
    Isn't choosing to watch a program more often because of an actors political opinions the very definition of 'virtue signalling'?!
    Nope. I love both the Morse and the Lewis series so rewatch them regularly. I will just enjoy it all the more now knowing there are idiots who chose not to watch them.

    It is like the morons who don't enjoy the comedy of Eddie Izzard because of his politics even though he very, very rarely includes anything political in his act. If you don't watch something because it is not funny or not good then that is understandable. To not watch something because you disagree with the politics of one of the actors when the programme or show has absolutely nothing to do with that political view is genuinely stupid.

    Tony Robinson, as another example, is politically a complete tosser but he makes brilliant programmes both comedy and factual.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,246
    Cyclefree said:

    Deaths in films:
    1. Kes.
    2. Bambi’s mother.
    3. Ellie in Up.
    4. The little boy in Marcelino, Pan y Vino - a film no-one will have heard of but was shown in Italy when I was a child. I cried buckets when I saw it.

    Plus I also sob at the scene at the railway at the end of The Railway Station: the train disappearing, the steam, the girl standing there, then the cry of “Daddy, my Daddy!”

    I remember Marcelino, Pan y Vino, aged about 13. Sad, but I didn't cry.
  • novanova Posts: 130
    kinabalu said:

    The Times have already exposed Starmer as a raving trot who was involved with a subversive far left magazine as recently as 1986.

    Just seven Prime Ministers ago :)

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 20,399
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
    No more Picasso, Wagner, Gill et al for you then.
    Stephen Fry is brilliant on this. Hates pretty much everything Wagner stood for - or was held to stand for at least - but finds his music sublime and will wax lyrical about him at the drop of a hat.
  • isamisam Posts: 29,895
    edited January 20

    kinabalu said:

    To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.

    His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.

    Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
    I am looking forward to re-watching them and enjoying them even more. I find your virtue signalling over this hilarious.
    Isn't choosing to watch a program more often because of an actors political opinions the very definition of 'virtue signalling'?!
    Nope. I love both the Morse and the Lewis series so rewatch them regularly. I will just enjoy it all the more now knowing there are idiots who chose not to watch them.

    It is like the morons who don't enjoy the comedy of Eddie Izzard because of his politics even though he very, very rarely includes anything political in his act. If you don't watch something because it is not funny or not good then that is understandable. To not watch something because you disagree with the politics of one of the actors when the programme or show has absolutely nothing to do with that political view is genuinely stupid.

    Tony Robinson, as another example, is politically a complete tosser but he makes brilliant programmes both comedy and factual.

    I didn't like The Jam, the lead singer was terrible, and Paul Weller said they were going to vote Tory. I loved The Style Council, the lead singer was great, and Paul Weller did Red Wedge. Weller's early solo stuff while he was still a lefty was his best work, although he cheated on his wife which meant a couple of songs were very weak, his material dipped when he admitted agreeing with Boris Johnson on certain topics circa 2008, but has recently seen a return to form coinciding with his acoustic gigs and support for Jeremy Corbyn
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    TOPPING said:

    No more Picasso, Wagner, Gill et al for you then.

    You raise a very interesting point. To what extent can you detach the artist from the art? For me, it depends on the balance between the greatness of the art and just how reprehensible is the artist. The extremes are easy. If the art is monumental and the artist is just a bit dodgy you can carry on appreciating the work virtually unaffected. There are many examples of this (perhaps including yours here?). Likewise, and by contrast, if the art is mediocre and unimportant and the artist a truly appalling individual, that's easy too - you cancel them. Also plenty of examples of this. The two who spring to mind immediately are Hitler and Rolf Harris. You will not find a watercolour by either of these men in many drawing rooms and rightly not. The difficult grey areas are where it's great art by a truly terrible person or where it's 'meh' art by a person who is deeply sub-optimal but by no means a monster. Fox, I think falls into the latter category. So for me, it's just enough to cancel, but it's a marginal thing and I can imagine how others might take a different view and be quite sanguine about continuing to watch ITV3 repeats of "Lewis". I would not condemn them for that.
This discussion has been closed.