The New Leader of the Labour Party

[Rico1304]

26 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Starmer going along with the taxes on above £80k earnings. That intelligent chap on QT isn't going to like that.

I’m withdrawing my support. 

[Sugar Ape]

 

[Red Phoenix]

Holy shit, Starmer's a member of the Trilateral Commission! I've seen that brought up several times over the years reading conspiracy theories, it's often mentioned as one of the groups controlling things behind the scenes in a similar way that they'd mention secret societies and groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group and others.

 

Yes I said it's mentioned as that, not that I believe it.

 

Fucking madness. I'm not saying there's any actual conspiracy going on with it but I don't think for a second they're out there trying to improve things for the working classes. Just another elite institution contributing to the overall fucked up crony capitalist mayhem that's going on. What Starmer thinks he can do in a socialist sense with that lot I have no fucking idea. It'll be no big deal at all to many here and I've no issue with that, if I'd not read conspiracy stuff over the years I'd maybe not think anything of it either and might not have heard of them, but I never imagined for a second he'd be in a group like that.

 

If he wins the leadership contest he might have to leave them anyway, and definitely if he's ever elected PM, they don't allow world leaders in the group (I checked the membership on their site too and he is currently listed there.)

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

I read this too yesterday and it was enough to make me pretty sure that I'll be back with the Greens if he's elected, or maybe I'd even support Galloway's communist uprising if they're getting a decent amount of voters with them. I can't vote for Starmer.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Sheesh. Well, that’s that then. Prole-Star has spoken. 

[Red Phoenix]

48 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Sheesh. Well, that’s that then. Prole-Star has spoken. 

 

They're just getting warmed up. They'll have his illuminati membership info by tomorrow tea time.

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Holy shit, Starmer's a member of the Trilateral Commission! I've seen that brought up several times over the years reading conspiracy theories, it's often mentioned as one of the groups controlling things behind the scenes in a similar way that they'd mention secret societies and groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group and others.

 

Yes I said it's mentioned as that, not that I believe it.

 

Fucking madness. I'm not saying there's any actual conspiracy going on with it but I don't think for a second they're out there trying to improve things for the working classes. Just another elite institution contributing to the overall fucked up crony capitalist mayhem that's going on. What Starmer thinks he can do in a socialist sense with that lot I have no fucking idea. It'll be no big deal at all to many here and I've no issue with that, if I'd not read conspiracy stuff over the years I'd maybe not think anything of it either and might not have heard of them, but I never imagined for a second he'd be in a group like that.

 

If he wins the leadership contest he might have to leave them anyway, and definitely if he's ever elected PM, they don't allow world leaders in the group (I checked the membership on their site too and he is currently listed there.)

 

 

Well if he's part of some big shady global conspiracy with the likes of the smoking man off the xfiles, well maybe he has a chance of the press leaving him alone and he can get on with winning a GE. 

[RedKnight]

We're back to the old shadowy organisations thing again are we? Good grief.

[Red Phoenix]

It's not going to affect his chances of being leader I don't think. RLB is the "continuity Corbyn" candidate so she'll get most of the smears from the media. They're not going to be posting about Trilateral Commissions when a "hard-left" socialist is threatening things like open selection in the Labour Party

 

Most people probably haven't heard of it anyway so it won't have any effect. I guess a few fellow conspiracy nuts will be shaking their heads though if they see it on twitter or wherever.

 

46 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

Well if he's part of some big shady global conspiracy with the likes of the smoking man off the xfiles, well maybe he has a chance of the press leaving him alone and he can get on with winning a GE. 

.

If it was a smoking man level group they'd not have their own website with members listed, and I'd probably need more than a few layers of tinfoil to protect myself after speaking about them online. Haven't seen X-Files in ages, might have to watch some soon.

[SasaS]

Don't get it, surely having a leader who is also a member of the secret organization ruling the world would be a good thing for Labour? He could pull some strings and stuff like that.

[sir roger]

He probably killed Robert Langdon with his bare hands.

 

I'm in.

[Red Phoenix]

I think any pulling strings would be in the favour of corporations if the Trilateral Commission is doing it, would prefer Starmer not to be dealing with them. This is a mad read, 40 years old too so I'm not making out like it's their view on things now either : https://chomsky.info/priorities01/

 

Quote

The report argues that what is needed in the industrial democracies “is a greater degree of moderation in democracy” to overcome the “excess of democracy” of the past decade. “The effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups.” This recommendation recalls the analysis of Third World problems put forth by other political thinkers of the same persuasion, for example, Ithiel Pool (then chairman of the Department of Political Science at MIT), who explained some years ago that in Vietnam, the Congo, and the Dominican Republic, “order depends on somehow compelling newly mobilized strata to return to a measure of passivity and defeatism… At least temporarily the maintenance of order requires a lowering of newly acquired aspirations and levels of political activity.” The Trilateral recommendations for the capitalist democracies are an application at home of the theories of “order” developed for subject societies of the Third World.

 

A second threat to the governability of democracy is posed by the “previously passive or unorganized groups in the population,” such as “blacks, Indians, Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students and women — all of whom became organized and mobilized in new ways to achieve what they considered to be their appropriate share of the action and of the rewards.” The threat derives from the principle, already noted, that “some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups” is a prerequisite for democracy. Anyone with the slightest understanding of American society can supply a hidden premise: the “Wall Street lawyers and bankers” (and their cohorts) do not intend to exercise “more self-restraint.” We may conclude that the “greater degree of moderation in democracy” will have to be practiced by the “newly mobilized strata.”

 

Huntington’s perception of the “concerned efforts” of these strata “establish their claims” and the “control over… institutions” that resulted is no less exaggerated than his fantasies about the media. In fact, the Wall Street lawyers, bankers, etc., are no less in control of the government than in the Truman period, as a look at the new Administration or its predecessors reveals. But one must understand the curious notion of “democratic participation” that animates the Trilateral Commission study. Its vision of “democracy” is reminiscent of the feudal system. On the one hand, we have the King and Princes (the government). On the other, the commoners. The commoners may petition and the nobility must respond to maintain order. There must however be a proper “balance between power and liberty, authority and democracy, government and society.” “Excess swings may produce either too much government or too little authority.” In the 1960s, Huntington maintains, the balance shifted too far to society and against government. “Democracy will have a longer life if it has a more balanced existence,” that is, if the peasants cease their clamor. Real participation of “society” in government is nowhere discussed, nor can there be any question of democratic control of the basic economic institutions that determine the character of social life while dominating the state as well, by virtue of their overwhelming power. Once again, human rights do not exist in this domain.

 

 

Top bunch of lads. Starmer should bin them off.

[sir roger]

Was he not a human rights lawyer ?

[Red Phoenix]

8 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Was he not a human rights lawyer ?

He was an MP in 2015, first appeared on a Trilateral member list in 2018 I think. I doubt he'll be doing much human rights work for them.

[Numero Veinticinco]

14 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Was he not a human rights lawyer ?

Yes. Barrister since the 80s, human rights, pro-bono, QC of the year, head of CPS, then left to lead an enquiry into changing the law to protect rape victims. No doubt he would be smeared, and has been, but he seems a bit more resilient to that. 

[Strontium]

It does amuse me when people who describe all the charges levelled at Corbyn as smears, when they are almost always supported by at least something in the way of arguable evidence, are willing to swallow any old bullshit with zero grounding in hard fact when it's something aimed at their enemies.

[cloggypop]

I'm made up to hear that Mcdonalds have obviously got no pull in the Trilateral Commission myself. 

[Red Phoenix]

41 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

It does amuse me when people who describe all the charges levelled at Corbyn as smears, when they are almost always supported by at least something in the way of arguable evidence, are willing to swallow any old bullshit with zero grounding in hard fact when it's something aimed at their enemies.

 

Yeah I thought you'd like Starmer. I'm sure you'd be posting plenty of evidence if he was the "continuity Corbyn" guy though, along with Rico I guess.

 

Don't worry I'm back playing Skyrim again now, can't be fucked with it. Have seen enough already and I'm sure if I'm voting in a future election my single vote going Green or whatever other party (maybe Galloway's like I said) if Starmer wins won't cause too much hassle.

[Numero Veinticinco]

7 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Yeah I thought you'd like Starmer. I'm sure you'd be posting plenty of evidence if he was the "continuity Corbyn" guy though, along with Rico I guess.

 

Don't worry I'm back playing Skyrim again now, can't be fucked with it. Have seen enough already and I'm sure if I'm voting in a future election my single vote going Green or whatever other party (maybe Galloway's like I said) if Starmer wins won't cause too much hassle.

It won't cause much hassle, mate. I just hope too many people aren't swayed by it, because it will result in more Tory governments. That said, a large chunk - a 3rd - of RBL supporters would rather a Tory government than compromise. Fair enough, it's their vote. Just a shame for the people who have to suffer. 

[Jairzinho]

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It won't cause much hassle, mate. I just hope too many people aren't swayed by it, because it will result in more Tory governments. That said, a large chunk - a 3rd - of RBL supporters would rather a Tory government than compromise. Fair enough, it's their vote. Just a shame for the people who have to suffer. 

Eh? Where was this?

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Eh? Where was this?

Yougov poll. Starmer's was 5%. Edit: I guess I took liberties in my paraphrasing 'unelectable' with 'Tory government' but it actually means the same thing in practice, so... not all that sorry.

Quote

Only 14% of Labour members say they are completely unwilling to compromise any Labour values, even if doing so would mean the party were unelectable (although this view is held by 32% of Rebecca Long-Bailey supporters).

From here

[Red Phoenix]

45 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

That said, a large chunk - a 3rd - of RBL supporters would rather a Tory government than compromise.

 

Not sure how accurate that is but it could signal that there's a lot of voters that'll maybe switch to other parties. Starmer might make it up with more moderate left wingers and the plus side for him could be that he's more likely to get a coalition going than Corbyn was, so some of those voters might end up allied with him anyway because there's no way a 3rd of RLB's supporters will vote Tory I don't think. I can see him being PM actually, not that I'd be happy about it but if it ends the Tories for a while I'll obviously not be complaining to see them gone.

[moof]

I assume their argument is that “labour values” aren’t or shouldn’t be an impediment to electability. Aside from that, using a gimmicked poll to paint with broad strokes like this probably has to be considered, at best, a dick move. None of this matters anyway because I’m hearing from some well placed sources that Starmer is going to swoop the country off their feet with his dreary charm, roguish good looks and slippery political instincts. As long as we reach the end goal, being elected, it’s alright by me. 

[Red Phoenix]

4 minutes ago, moof said:

None of this matters anyway because I’m hearing from some well placed sources that Starmer is going to swoop the country off their feet with his dreary charm, roguish good looks and slippery political instincts. As long as we reach the end goal, being elected, it’s alright by me. 

 

I was just on the phone with some Trilateral geezer (whilst playing Skyrim obviously) and he said Starmer's a shoe in for PM and that's why they recruited him a couple of years back.

[moof]

Just now, Red Phoenix said:

 

I was just on the phone with some Trilateral geezer (whilst playing Skyrim obviously) and he said Starmer's a shoe in for PM and that's why they recruited him a couple of years back.

Trilateral eh? Are they the fellas that hang around in the Riften sewers?