Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

The New Leader of the Labour Party


Numero Veinticinco
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Why would they do that, if they ran the party? And isn't leaking or making all this dirt public a move in that direction, judging by the reaction of people on here threatening to leave? As in, apres mois la deluge as Delboy would say?

They hadn't always run the party. And the leak, it would seem to me, is borne out of frustration at the EHRC not accepting the report. If there's a genuine desire to find out what happened re Labour and antisemitism, I don't know how anyone can argue that the information it holds isn't relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I'd argue the Danczuk stuff was a little more serious, but that's a dead-end not worth exploring. I do agree Murphy's handling of Willsman situation wasn't right.

 

I'm not seeing much evidence of Corbyn's allies sabotaging Labour's election chances, though. Surely that's a fairly substantial difference? I've heard it repeated over and over again, that everyone "just wants Labour to win". It's the one thing that unites us under the broad church blah blah blah. Well, these cunts didn't even want that. To them, the Tories winning, and their mates not losing their seats, were more desirable than an actual Labour government.

The start of that 2nd paragraph is exactly what’s happening now. The left throwing toys out the pram because Starmer is leader and just showing everyone the Labour Party is still a bunch of leftie cry babies.

 

2017 has been and gone. Just fuck off and knock this shit on the head. Two wrong and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

They hadn't always run the party. And the leak, it would seem to me, is borne out of frustration at the EHRC not accepting the report. If there's a genuine desire to find out what happened re Labour and antisemitism, I don't know how anyone can argue that the information it holds isn't relevant.

If this was borne out of a genuine desire to get to the truth, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Walter Sobchak said:

The start of that 2nd paragraph is exactly what’s happening now. The left throwing toys out the pram because Starmer is leader and just showing everyone the Labour Party is still a bunch of leftie cry babies.

 

2017 has been and gone. Just fuck off and knock this shit on the head. Two wrong and all that.

You must favour that colossal fucking bump under the carpet then Walter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

If this was borne out of a genuine desire to get to the truth, yes.

Well, they first submitted it to the EHRC, rather than leaked it to the public, so that suggests it was. But regardless, it's not even in the same fucking ballpark as senior staffers misallocating party funds during an active election campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Well, they first submitted it to the EHRC, rather than leaked it to the public, so that suggests it was. But regardless, it's not even in the same fucking ballpark as senior staffers misallocating party funds during an active election campaign.


Where have you read that they tried to submit it to the EHRC? All the reports I’ve read say that Labour Party lawyers said it couldn’t be submitted as it covered a different period than the EHRC investigation. 
 

 

EDB90EAE-15F7-4A0F-9EF5-FE4EA9B291B3.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:


Where have you read that they tried to submit it to the EHRC? All the reports I’ve read say that Labour Party lawyers said it couldn’t be submitted as it covered a different period than the EHRC investigation. 
 

 

EDB90EAE-15F7-4A0F-9EF5-FE4EA9B291B3.png

Why would party lawyers need to determine whether something was eligible or not if it hadn't been submitted, or sent to them with the intention of it being submitted? Genuine question. I'm also quite sure I read that attempts had been made to submit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

Why would party lawyers need to determine whether something was eligible or not if it hadn't been submitted, or sent to them with the intention of it being submitted? Genuine question. I'm also quite sure I read that attempts had been made to submit it.


Well the report covers a period outside the remit the EHRC are investigating and was made for internal review. The party have already made their submissions to the EHRC ages ago as far as I know. As Paul Mason says it seems there are questions over who ordered the report and collated it and with what aim since Formby had already submitted the evidence they wanted to the EHRC. 
 

I’m assuming someone raised the possibility of sending this report to the EHRC but it was knocked back by the lawyers. Don’t know who or why. I only know what I’ve read above. 
 

I thought you were saying the EHRC have rejected the report though so was wondering where you read that as I haven’t seen it mentioned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sugar Ape said:


Well the report covers a period outside the remit the EHRC are investigating and was made for internal review. The party have already made their submissions to the EHRC ages ago as far as I know. As Paul Mason says it seems there are questions over who ordered the report and collated it and with what aim since Formby had already submitted the evidence they wanted to the EHRC. 
 

I’m assuming someone raised the possibility of sending this report to the EHRC but it was knocked back by the lawyers. Don’t know who or why. I only know what I’ve read above. 
 

I thought you were saying the EHRC have rejected the report though so was wondering where you read that as I haven’t seen it mentioned. 

No, my understanding was party lawyers blocked it.

 

Here's where I read it was intended for EHRC:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

No, my understanding was party lawyers blocked it.

 

Here's where I read it was intended for EHRC:

 


 

I guess we’ll see when the independent investigation concludes who commissioned it and for what reason, which is why Starmer and Rayner have made that one of the aims of the investigation. 
 

If Mason is right and the leadership and NEC knew nothing about it then it does raise interesting questions over who ordered it and under what authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

On the bright side surely the only way for Labour now is up, this has to be as low as it can possibly go, completely dysfunctional and unelectable. It’s genuinely sad to see.

We've been here before.

 

 

You can walk my path
You can wear my shoes
Learn to talk like me and be an angel too
But maybe you ain't never gonna feel this way
You ain't never gonna know me, but I know you
I'm singing it now
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

We've been here before.

 

 

You can walk my path
You can wear my shoes
Learn to talk like me and be an angel too
But maybe you ain't never gonna feel this way
You ain't never gonna know me, but I know you
I'm singing it now
 


I think the lyrics of another 90s song hold more meaning. 
 

Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
(I'm the Scatman)
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
 

Ba-da-ba-da-ba-be bop bop bodda bope
Bop ba bodda bope
Be bop ba bodda bope
Bop ba bodda 
Ba-da-ba-da-ba-be bop ba bodda bope
Bop ba bodda bope
Be bop ba bodda bope
Bop ba bodda bope

 

Really makes you think doesn’t it?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

I guess we’ll see when the independent investigation concludes who commissioned it and for what reason, which is why Starmer and Rayner have made that one of the aims of the investigation. 
 

If Mason is right and the leadership and NEC knew nothing about it then it does raise interesting questions over who ordered it and under what authority. 

I'd say it's far more important to establish the truth of the content, tbh, given the public were told repeatedly that things such as slow/delayed complaints procedures and soft touch disciplinary action were entirely the fault of LOTO.

 

Anyway, the inquiry announced by Starmer covers that, too, so I retain some vain hope that the issue can finally be put to bed with something approaching a just outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

I'd say it's far more important to establish the truth, tbh, given the public were told repeatedly that things such as slow/delayed complaints procedures and soft touch disciplinary action were entirely the fault of LOTO.

 

Anyway, the inquiry announced by Starmer covers the actual content, too, so I retain some vain hope that the issue can finally be put to bed with something approaching a just outcome.


That’s only ever going to be established by someone independent of the party investigating it. Starmer has said it’ll be an independent review so I hope he keeps to his word and has someone truly independent conduct it. 
 

Something like the Chakrabarti report will only get people on all sides jumping on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sir roger said:

The use of inquiries in this country appears solely to delay any action as long as possible,  in the hope that nobody will give a shit about the outcome by the time they appear ( if ever ).

Sadly, there's more than a grain of truth to this, and worth bearing in mind if you're expecting the inquiry into the government's handling of the Coronavirus pandemic to a) conclude before the next general election, or even before most of these cunts have left office, and b) result in anything other than fleeting reputational damage for a select few people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

That’s only ever going to be established by someone independent of the party investigating it. Starmer has said it’ll be an independent review so I hope he keeps to his word and has someone truly independent conduct it. 
 

Something like the Chakrabarti report will only get people on all sides jumping on it. 

Yep, totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this report is credible, accurate and fair then, from the highlights I've seen, it tells a damning story of Labour staffers, many senior, behaving in awful ways and in some instances conspiring against figures in their own party - including the leader. The people named in the email/text exchanges need to be sacked, and they surely would be. The exchanges read like a script of the Thick of It, but it's not so funny when I'm reading about people behaving like this in real life, and members of the Labour party working to effectively ensure Tory rule.

 

But, I'm holding off from dusting off the pitch fork at this point because, quite simply, like everyone else reading this for the first time today, I've no idea who wrote this report, who commissioned it, and for what reasons. Hell, at this point, I'd have to be a fool to conclude that every thing in the report is  a credible, accurate and fair assessment of everything that took place in recent years regarding whatever it is that the report was commissioned to discover. Who's to say with confidence right now that the quotes attributed to the staffers in question are in context. Or, although perhaps unlikely, that they aren't completely fabricated bollocks designed to create a shitstorm before the truth gets its boots on. Truth and context matter in these things, especially when the reputation and potential survival of a political party people claim to love depend on it. 

 

And yet, for some of these people, the fact that so much remains unanswered about the report, is of no importance at all. I've seen that Starmer and Rayner have just released a statement ordering an investigation into the contents and practices described in the report, and also who commissioned it and leaked it. The response  to the idea that we should find out the latter two things is offensive to those who are apparently convinced already that the report is fair, and who now claim this investigation is further evidence of the 'right' in Labour seeking to bury the report and hang out to dry those who wrote and leaked it.

 

I did say in my previous post on this thread following Starmer's victory last week that I wouldn't be holding my breath hoping that a section of self-proclaimed Labour supporters (I think I used the term 'Corbynistas'...) would unite behind the party now. Given the rush to judgement from this section to accept the validity of this anonymous report without question it seems my scepticism was warranted. As I say, if it is found that the report is fair and accurate, then great, fuck off the traitors and lets knuckle down for another generation of Tory rule. But until then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Sadly, there's more than a grain of truth to this, and worth bearing in mind if you're expecting the inquiry into the government's handling of the Coronavirus pandemic to a) conclude before the next general election, or even before most of these cunts have left office, and b) result in anything other than fleeting reputational damage for a select few people.

When was the last time anybody mentioned the Russian report that was a hot item during the election ? , and are the police still deliberately delaying the Arcuri report , and I am not even going to go into the really important stuff like Grenfell.

 

Starmer wont give it to anybody independent as it makes his life easier if this disappears. At most he will waffle something about an NEC sub-committee setting out the remit of a possible investigation and then hope people die before it sees the light of day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...