Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, Neil G said:

So as long as you delete and apologise when you’re called out you can get away with any racist shit you like, is that where we’re at?

I’m not sure if characterise his tweet in quite the way you did, but it definitely played into tropes. I think it was right that he removed it and apologised. I think it would have been right for RLB to delete and apologise too, but she didn’t and was sacked for it. Seems consistent to me. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Well it was a load of bollocks. I wince at people who accuse Corbyn and his supporters not getting behind the new leader after the shit Corbyn had to put up with from the right wing of the labour party. Section should address his concerns over disloyalty to the people who did their upmost to disrail the prospect of a labour government at the last election.

He did. We both did. The only difference is that we are consistent against it, you support it when it’s against somebody you hate and cry about it when it’s against somebody you like. You’re not a lefty, you’re a Corbyn acolyte. 

[skend04]

Surely if you withdraw the whip from Sheerman then you have to retrospectively do the same with RLB? 

 

She's still a Labour MP as far as I'm aware and being booted from the shadow cabinet isn't the same as being sacked as a Labour MP. What will everyone asking for consistency say then? 

 

Personally speaking, when you're 80 seats down it doesn't matter, just sack them both from Labour. Not just from shadow posts but from the party. No one will have cause for complaint then.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Tempted to neg "upmost".

 

I'll let it go this time, but I'm watching you.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, skend04 said:

Surely if you withdraw the whip from Sheerman then you have to retrospectively do the same with RLB? 

 

She's still a Labour MP as far as I'm aware and being booted from the shadow cabinet isn't the same as being sacked as a Labour MP. What will everyone asking for consistency say then? 

 

Personally speaking, when you're 80 seats down it doesn't matter, just sack them both from Labour. Not just from shadow posts but from the party. No one will have cause for complaint then.

Well, I think a few might! 

[skend04]

6 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Well, I think a few might! 

Gnasher and Sir Roger don't count.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, skend04 said:

Surely if you withdraw the whip from Sheerman then you have to retrospectively do the same with RLB? 

Really?

 

Long-Bailey retweeted an interview from a mainstream newspaper with an actress talking about acting and class and racism and capitalism; in one sentence, to illustrate a point about the links between globalised capitalism and racist state violence, she referenced a claim someone else had made, which overstated a point which had some basis in fact. Some people followed the link that, because the initial overstatement was critical of Israel it was therefore anti-Semitic, therefore Maxine Peake is a massive anti-Semite, therefore anyone who agrees with her politics is basically a Nazi and needs sacking.

 

I've not seen the Sheerman tweet, but it sounds like it's several levels more anti-Semitic than anything Rebecca Long-Bailey did.

 

Again, the fundamental problem is that Labour don't have a clear Code of Conduct, which would have provided consistency and wouldn’t have left charges of anti-Semitism to be determined according to factional infighting.  (Maybe that's the real reason the anti-Corbyn mob were so keen to kill it off.)

[Gnasher]

9 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Well, I think a few might! 

I would actually. I think it would be an overreaction to a problem which is has been overblown for political purposes. It's a flimsy excuse to exclude people who a certain section from the right do not like from the party. The other losers are the real victims of anti semitism as they could unfortunately find themselves in a boy and the wolf scenario. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

I would actually. I think it would be an overreaction to a problem which is has been overblown for political purposes. It's a flimsy excuse to exclude people who a certain section from the right do not like from the party. The other losers are the real victims of anti semitism as they could unfortunately find themselves in a boy and the wolf scenario. 

Agreed. 

[Gnasher]

10 minutes ago, skend04 said:

Gnasher and Sir Roger don't count.

Another blair bum boy. The site is fucking full of em, like a gang of internet sparrows.

[Numero Veinticinco]

18 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Really?

 

Long-Bailey retweeted an interview from a mainstream newspaper with an actress talking about acting and class and racism and capitalism; in one sentence, to illustrate a point about the links between globalised capitalism and racist state violence, she referenced a claim someone else had made, which overstated a point which had some basis in fact. Some people followed the link that, because the initial overstatement was critical of Israel it was therefore anti-Semitic, therefore Maxine Peake is a massive anti-Semite, therefore anyone who agrees with her politics is basically a Nazi and needs sacking.

 

I've not seen the Sheerman tweet, but it sounds like it's several levels more anti-Semitic than anything Rebecca Long-Bailey did.

 

Again, the fundamental problem is that Labour don't have a clear Code of Conduct, which would have provided consistency and wouldn’t have left charges of anti-Semitism to be determined according to factional infighting.  (Maybe that's the real reason the anti-Corbyn mob were so keen to kill it off.)

It doesn’t have basis in fact, AoT. I wish people would stop saying that. As for Sheerman, here are his tweets about two prominent Jews missing out on peerages: 

 

Yesterday morning (Sat) he tweeted to mystified followers: “Apparently there has been a bit of a run on silver shekels!” When Twitter users asked him to explain his cryptic tweet, he posted another one which referred to the first, saying: “Apparently Richard Desmond & Philip Green were on the original list for seats in the House of Lords!”

 

His apology: But the backlash was so fierce he later deleted both tweets and hours later tweeted: “I apologise for my earlier tweet. "I did not intend the meaning which has upset many, and I am very sorry for the upset and offense I have caused. "I will think more carefully in future and will reflect on this…I have fought antisemitism all my political life & have been a Labour Friend of Israel since joining as a student at the LSE. I am deeply sorry that my clumsy tweet has caused offence’

 

I’m not sure I’d class that as ‘vile racism’ and I certainly don’t think it’s on the level of the content from Peake’s article, but it’s generous to call it clumsy and he was right to remove it and apologise. Like RLB, he is a giant fucking idiot for touching it with a barge pole. Labour MPs from right across their broad church seem to be unaccustomed to the Internet. 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

7 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Another blair bum boy. The site is fucking full of em, like a gang of internet sparrows.

Bum boy? Bit homophobic, isn’t it? Corbs didn’t have an issue with the gays. Try not to break ranks. 

[Gnasher]

5 hours ago, skend04 said:

Amazing how a guy who got the leadership of Unite with just 4% of the members voting for him can have such a big say in Labour. More people backed Starmer then Len and yet somehow Gnasher thinks it's the other way around. This is fucking embarrassing.

Not exactly the whole story though but you've got your right wing nut jobs in to green tick you so you can continue to spout your bollocks.

 

The thrust of the argument is not how many backed Starmer but how Starmer is dealing with the made up charges of anti semitism by some utter cunts in the labour party.  These charges include the aforementioned cunts now making ridiculous demands that the former labour leader Jeremy Corbyn be thrown out of the party. The leader of the unite union also makes a valid point about how his members money is being spent. He obviously does not agree with having unite money dished out to the biggest gaggle of treacherous twats in Britain.

 

The way Corbyn appears to be being thrown under a bus and being labelled a racist is imo stomach churning.

 

 

From a brighter day, 5 years ago yesterday.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Turned out well. 

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Turned out well. 

Unfortunately people like some in this thread made sure it didnt.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Unfortunately people like some in this thread made sure it didnt.

That’s right. Us right wing nut jobs. 

[mattyq]

4 hours ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

It doesn’t have basis in fact, AoT. I wish people would stop saying that. As for Sheerman, here are his tweets about two prominent Jews missing out on peerages: 

 

Yesterday morning (Sat) he tweeted to mystified followers: “Apparently there has been a bit of a run on silver shekels!” When Twitter users asked him to explain his cryptic tweet, he posted another one which referred to the first, saying: “Apparently Richard Desmond & Philip Green were on the original list for seats in the House of Lords!”

 

His apology: But the backlash was so fierce he later deleted both tweets and hours later tweeted: “I apologise for my earlier tweet. "I did not intend the meaning which has upset many, and I am very sorry for the upset and offense I have caused. "I will think more carefully in future and will reflect on this…I have fought antisemitism all my political life & have been a Labour Friend of Israel since joining as a student at the LSE. I am deeply sorry that my clumsy tweet has caused offence’

 

I’m not sure I’d class that as ‘vile racism’ and I certainly don’t think it’s on the level of the content from Peake’s article, but it’s generous to call it clumsy and he was right to remove it and apologise. Like RLB, he is a giant fucking idiot for touching it with a barge pole. Labour MPs from right across their broad church seem to be unaccustomed to the Internet. 

 

How depressing

I don't think it's too difficult to not mention anything to do with Jewish matters so why do people persist?

I think both him & RLB should certainly have apologised and withdrawn their comments and am still at a loss as to why RLB didn't. 

[sir roger]

Aye, if only the people gloating now would have given a modicum of support to a democratically elected Labour leader, instead of doing anything in their power to undermine him and now demanding this be forgotten and that the people they shit on should now support them unequivocally. 

[Gnasher]

11 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

That’s right. Us right wing nut jobs. 

Well at least you know yourself, which is good, saves time going on some self discovery voyage.

[mattyq]

6 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Aye, if only the people gloating now would have given a modicum of support to a democratically elected Labour leader, instead of doing anything in their power to undermine him and now demanding this be forgotten and that the people they shit on should now support them unequivocally. 

Mate, aren't you getting bored by this and who is gloating?

I agree with you that anybody who fought against Corbyn when he was leader should have been booted out as the only thing they should be interested in is getting rid of the Tories. The applies equally now

I voted for Corbyn and worked for Labour the last 2 elections despite knowing that he was a fucking useless leader and would have made a hopeless PM, but not as bad as Johnson

If the Corbyn supporters can't do this for Starmer they should leave or be fucked off the sooner the better. 

They can create their own little party and have never ending meetings on the betrayal of Jeremy and the true meaning of Dialectical Materialism vis a vis Nicaraguan Bean Farmers 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Well at least you know yourself, which is good, saves time going on some self discovery voyage.

I only know because you told me. You override fact and logic, and historical definitions. It now means ‘disagree with Gnasher’. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

24 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Aye, if only the people gloating now would have given a modicum of support to a democratically elected Labour leader, instead of doing anything in their power to undermine him and now demanding this be forgotten and that the people they shit on should now support them unequivocally. 

So... revenge at the expense of the country? 

[Duff Man]

There's a difference between people at Labour HQ working to sabotage elections, and randomers on Twitter saying they don't like Starmer.

[Gnasher]

13 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

There's a difference between people at Labour HQ working to sabotage elections, and randomers on Twitter saying they don't like Starmer.

Not according to some on here.

[Bruce Spanner]

23 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

There's a difference between people at Labour HQ working to sabotage elections, and randomers on Twitter saying they don't like Starmer.

But, people at HQ, and especially in the PLP & Momentum are actively working against Starmer. Maybe not as overtly, but the same games are being played.

 

It’s pathetic that personal battles and age old grievances are being put before getting the worst ever iteration of the Tories out and trying to salvage what’s left of this country in the upcoming years. 
 

I’ve said it before and I’ll just repeat for the hard of fucking hearing. I worked on/supported Corbyn’s election campaigns and I will work on/support Starmer’s campaign(s). In an ideal world I would like Corbyn’s policies, but am self aware enough to know that the majority in the UK are led by self interest so would look to compromise. I don’t believe Starmer is the man who will lead us to a golden utopia, but I believe he is a principled, vastly qualified, experienced labour politician who has the best interests of most people in the UK at heart and would, if labour manage to escape this circular self destruction, be a very good prime minster in a coalition government.

 

Its like pushing a stone up a hill with your nose trying to accomplish anything though when we are actively conspiring against each other and actively enabling the worst manifestations of the Tories to run roughshod of you, me, our children and every other stupid cunt who can’t see the wood for the trees.