Keir Starmer

[mattyq]

9 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Dennis Skinner.

Your hero and top Socialist Tony Blair

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, mattyq said:

Your hero and top Socialist Tony Blair

Tone knew what you had to do to gain power, and he realised being a socialist in the labour party was then considered a plus.

[mattyq]

49 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Tone knew what you had to do to gain power, and he realised being a socialist in the labour party was then considered a plus.

He certainly did

Would have bee handy if our last leader had known how to do it

Let's hope our current leader knows it

[Captain Turdseye]

11 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Here is a great overview of the London centric momentum telling it how it is.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0e99fc98-4872-11e8-8ae9-4b5ddcca99b3

 

Full disclosure, I personally know Beth and she’s great, but I don’t agree with everything she says, may the lord strike me down! 

It’s behind a paywall, you London centric capitalist shrill. 
 

Edit: Forgot to call you a posh twat. 

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, mattyq said:

He certainly did

Would have bee handy if our last leader had known how to do it

Let's hope our current leader knows it

I think the last leader had an unprecedented amount of land mines to dodge, many planted by people in his own party.

[mattyq]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

I think the last leader had an unprecedented amount of land mines to dodge, many planted by people in his own party.

Yup, I'd agree

He also created a few himself and didn't seem to know how not to set them off

He probably should have followed the advice of not blundering around when in the presence of land mines

[Bruce Spanner]

17 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

It’s behind a paywall, you London centric capitalist shrill. 
 

Edit: Forgot to call you a posh twat. 

 

It basically say's that anybody not to the left of Ghandi is a cunt, says new to politics loudmouth.

 

No idea why it's not working, it was last night, maybe you only get to read one article free and you used that checking on your fossil fuel share prices?

 

You could have, for brevity,  just called me a champagne socialist, or a Tory, as effectively they’re the same thing now apparently.

[Captain Turdseye]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

It basically say's that anybody not to the left of Ghandi is a cunt, says new to politics loudmouth.

 

No idea whay it's not working, it was last night, maybe you only get to read one article free and you used that checking on your fossil fuel share prices?

 

You could have, for brevity,  just called me a champagne socialist?

Champagne socialist isn’t a term in my vocabulary. I’m proper grassroots so posh twat will have to do for now. 

[Anubis]

14 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

Champagne socialist isn’t a term in my vocabulary. I’m proper grassroots so posh twat will have to do for now. 

Just go with One Nation Tory to really wind him up.

[Bruce Spanner]

3 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Just go with One Nation Tory to really wind him up.

Oooo, you bitch! 

[Section_31]

The fuck, I didn't know Corbyn had nominated Karrie Murphy for a peerage. How does that jive with the 'Ser Kier Starmer, knight of the realm, Lord of the andals' crowd then? 

 

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

The fuck, I didn't know Corbyn had nominated Karrie Murphy for a peerage. How does that jive with the 'Ser Kier Starmer, knight of the realm, Lord of the andals' crowd then? 

 

I think the reason was she would promote unions and the rights of workers. I havnt heard hardly any murmurings from the 'crowd' it's just another made up story to beat Corbyn with, tiresome. It does seem being a socialist in the labour party is now something to be frowned upon.

[Section_31]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

I think the reason was she would promote unions and the rights of workers. I havnt heard hardly any murmurings from the 'crowd' it's just another made up story to beat Corbyn with, tiresome. It does seem being a socialist in the labour party is now something to be frowned upon.

I've got no problem with him nominating anyone, or her accepting it, but it certainly opens the door to accusations of double standards by some of his and RLB's supporters given the grief Starmer gets for having been knighted.

 

The absolute black and white nature of the Corbyn good, Starmer bad stuff that's been peddled by some since he took the reigns is nothing less than political extremism. Minds made up to the same extent as a member of the Taliban that won't have a telly in his house, and nothing will change his mind. Ever.

[Mudface]

.

[Duff Man]

Mad that even at a time like this, so much of The Discourse is taken up with what random Joes with rose emojis say on Twitter. It's not unintentional, of course, but it is wild how many people don't see it for the obvious bollocks that it is.

[Rotpeter]

43 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Mad that even at a time like this, so much of The Discourse is taken up with what random Joes with rose emojis say on Twitter. It's not unintentional, of course, but it is wild how many people don't see it for the obvious bollocks that it is.

s/random Joes/random bots/

[Neil G]

On 02/08/2020 at 13:54, Bruce Spanner said:

What the fuck is wrong with people! 
 

Long-Bailey was given the option of deleting and apology and she refused, so not a true comparison.

 

On 02/08/2020 at 14:02, 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?

 

Not sure if I misread your first post here Bruce. I assumed “what the fuck is wrong with people” was aimed at me for failing to grasp the difference between the responses to RLB and Sheerman, hence my reply.

 

On 02/08/2020 at 14:09, Bruce Spanner said:

No of course not, it’s all a clusterfuck and I can’t think of one reason for this to still be happening, unless Labour is full of antisemites. Which, surely, it can’t be? 

 

He should be kicked out, as should anybody shown to be in any way prejudicial to any minority group. Swift and unapologetically. 

 

Long-Bailey made a mistake, she should have been more thoughtful, and, I hope, it was a genuine mistake which she has been punished for, but if not, good riddance. 
 

You think Sheerman should be kicked out, but given that he hasn’t had any action taken against him at all, can we take it you think Starmer has been inconsistent in his responses to the two cases? And if so, what do you think the reason for that inconsistency might be?

 

[Neil G]

On 02/08/2020 at 14:09, Nummer Neunzehn said:

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. 

 

Don’t take my word for it that it was grossly antisemitic and that the apology didn’t cut it. Like I said, lots of Jewish people found it unforgivably offensive. The people I’ve seen calling for Sheerman to lose the whip aren’t Corbynites looking for a factional victory, they’re mostly centrist / soft left staunch Zionists who despise Corbyn and want him kicked out of the party.

 

Starmer’s actions are only consistent if you think that an apology and deletion is sufficient to allow someone to face no consequences for antisemitism. I agree that failure to apologise should automatically incur punishment - I think it was the right decision to sack RLB and I’m disappointed she hasn’t apologised, even if her claim is true about Starmer’s office going back on an agreement with how to deal with it. Sheerman’s actions are on another level though. Even his apology came across as insincere and forced, and shouldn’t be enough to spare him.

 

When he was elected leader and promised zero tolerance on antisemitism, Starmer pledged to “tear out this poison by its roots.” That was exactly the kind of uncompromising language and commitment that was needed from the leadership after Corbyn’s failure to tackle the problem effectively, and I welcomed it. But his complete inaction over Sheerman flies in the face of that commitment. Zero tolerance of a proscribed behaviour means “you will be punished and seen to be punished if you do this”, not “you’ll be ok if you apologise quickly enough and the media don’t run with it.”

 

It’s genuinely the worst instance of overt antisemitism from a sitting Labour MP that I can remember, certainly since the issue exploded under Corbyn and going back long before that. Sheerman has been an MP for over 40 years, has had a front row seat through Labour’s battles over antisemitism, and publicly called in 2018 for antisemitism to result in expulsion from the party. If the rows in Labour weren’t enough to keep him on the straight and narrow, we only last week had a mass public boycott of Twitter to protest against antisemitism from high profile figures on the site. His conduct here has been shocking. In most other public facing walks of life a person would face professional repercussions if they came out with that level of antisemitism, even if they apologised. In most high profile media jobs it would have resulted in instant dismissal.

 

I’m not even demanding that he lose the whip, although I think that would be a perfectly fitting punishment. At the very least I’d expect a suspension, a public rebuke from Starmer and a warning that any repeat would result in his expulsion from the party. The fact that Starmer has taken no visible action at all leads me to question his commitment to tackling antisemitism in Labour, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable now for people to suspect he’s applying it selectively based on factional affiliation. There’s only so long that you can keep labelling the left’s concerns as baseless paranoia.

 

On 02/08/2020 at 14:56, 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. 

 

 

Mate, it’s way worse than what Peake said. The fact that you can even have a debate with AoT about the nuances of Peake’s statement shows that. Sheerman’s tweet by contrast was a balls out, unvarnished repetition of one of the oldest and most pernicious antisemitic slurs that exists. That trope has gained a lot more traction and caused a lot more damage throughout history than conspiracies like the one Peake alluded to (unwittingly moreover, she apologised for it shortly after as I recall). For centuries schoolchildren have learnt, internalised and propagated slurs about money-grabbing Jews long before they’re exposed to tropes about Jews controlling the world.

 

 

P.S. I haven’t forgotten I still owe you another reply in this thread, it’s working it’s way up my to do list.

[Bruce Spanner]

33 minutes ago, Neil G said:

 

 

Not sure if I misread your first post here Bruce. I assumed “what the fuck is wrong with people” was aimed at me for failing to grasp the difference between the responses to RLB and Sheerman, hence my reply.

 

You think Sheerman should be kicked out, but given that he hasn’t had any action taken against him at all, can we take it you think Starmer has been inconsistent in his responses to the two cases? And if so, what do you think the reason for that inconsistency might be?

 

No, the response was aimed at another idiot putting a target firmly on the back of Labour, it’s beyond a fucking joke how anybody with a functioning brain, not to mention a Labour fucking MP, would post that shite. It’s beyond parody now.

 

I think Starmer gave RLB the chance to apologise, and for whatever reason she didn’t, so she was asked to step down. Sheerman did apologise, so no inconsistency, agreeing there’s consistency and agreeing the consistency is correct are two different thing though. 
 

Was either right? No, I think RLB fell on a sword for a mistake and stubbornness which was easily avoidable, she had a lot to offer and it’s a shame, some of the profiles of her can’t say enough about how good she is with detail, policy etc, so she would have been a huge help trying to chip away at the Tories. Sheerman on the other hand there’s no justification for him, he knew what he was doing, and if he didn’t he’s a fucking idiot. The result is incorrect, but the reasoning correct. Long-Bailey could have put and end to this easily and it would have been buried. Sheerman should be asked leave, he fucked up, badly, and did away with any good will, but withdrew the offending material and apologised. It’s not inconsistent, it is consistent, but it is wrong.

 

Reasons, we can only speculate, but I think his hands are tied either way. RLB’s obstinance left him no choice, she had to go. Sheerman should go, but has apologised when asked, so does he wield the sword again and allow this to dominate the news again? 
 

The odds are stacked against him and no matter what he does he’ll not appease everyone. It looks like he’s not a unifying leader as hoped and that’s concerning, but counter to that it’s even more concerning that people are not willing to put aside decades long grievances at a time when we have, potentially, the worst iteration of the Tories ever.

 

Has he handled this badly, yes, but there are a myriad of manifestations which you couldn’t plan for or foresee. Have others caused significant problems for him for reasons of partisanship and stupidity, yes. Is he solely to blame, no. Could he be a good person to take us to the next election and potentially have enough to get a coalition government, I hope so.
 

That’s where I’m at. 
 

There was no offence intended to you.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

50 minutes ago, Neil G said:

 

Don’t take my word for it that it was grossly antisemitic and that the apology didn’t cut it. Like I said, lots of Jewish people found it unforgivably offensive. The people I’ve seen calling for Sheerman to lose the whip aren’t Corbynites looking for a factional victory, they’re mostly centrist / soft left staunch Zionists who despise Corbyn and want him kicked out of the party.

 

Starmer’s actions are only consistent if you think that an apology and deletion is sufficient to allow someone to face no consequences for antisemitism. I agree that failure to apologise should automatically incur punishment - I think it was the right decision to sack RLB and I’m disappointed she hasn’t apologised, even if her claim is true about Starmer’s office going back on an agreement with how to deal with it. Sheerman’s actions are on another level though. Even his apology came across as insincere and forced, and shouldn’t be enough to spare him.

 

When he was elected leader and promised zero tolerance on antisemitism, Starmer pledged to “tear out this poison by its roots.” That was exactly the kind of uncompromising language and commitment that was needed from the leadership after Corbyn’s failure to tackle the problem effectively, and I welcomed it. But his complete inaction over Sheerman flies in the face of that commitment. Zero tolerance of a proscribed behaviour means “you will be punished and seen to be punished if you do this”, not “you’ll be ok if you apologise quickly enough and the media don’t run with it.”

 

It’s genuinely the worst instance of overt antisemitism from a sitting Labour MP that I can remember, certainly since the issue exploded under Corbyn and going back long before that. Sheerman has been an MP for over 40 years, has had a front row seat through Labour’s battles over antisemitism, and publicly called in 2018 for antisemitism to result in expulsion from the party. If the rows in Labour weren’t enough to keep him on the straight and narrow, we only last week had a mass public boycott of Twitter to protest against antisemitism from high profile figures on the site. His conduct here has been shocking. In most other public facing walks of life a person would face professional repercussions if they came out with that level of antisemitism, even if they apologised. In most high profile media jobs it would have resulted in instant dismissal.

 

I’m not even demanding that he lose the whip, although I think that would be a perfectly fitting punishment. At the very least I’d expect a suspension, a public rebuke from Starmer and a warning that any repeat would result in his expulsion from the party. The fact that Starmer has taken no visible action at all leads me to question his commitment to tackling antisemitism in Labour, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable now for people to suspect he’s applying it selectively based on factional affiliation. There’s only so long that you can keep labelling the left’s concerns as baseless paranoia.

 

 

Mate, it’s way worse than what Peake said. The fact that you can even have a debate with AoT about the nuances of Peake’s statement shows that. Sheerman’s tweet by contrast was a balls out, unvarnished repetition of one of the oldest and most pernicious antisemitic slurs that exists. That trope has gained a lot more traction and caused a lot more damage throughout history than conspiracies like the one Peake alluded to (unwittingly moreover, she apologised for it shortly after as I recall). For centuries schoolchildren have learnt, internalised and propagated slurs about money-grabbing Jews long before they’re exposed to tropes about Jews controlling the world.

 

 

P.S. I haven’t forgotten I still owe you another reply in this thread, it’s working it’s way up my to do list.

Oof. I disagree with almost all of that. Not sure where to start really, mate. I see both his and Peake's quite differently to you. I could reply practically line by line on that, but I'm not sure it would do much other than obfuscate what is the root of our disagreement which is how we see their tweets. From that view you derive your view on Starmer's action or lack of it. From my view, I think it's pretty consistent and appropriate. 

[Neil G]

2 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

No, the response was aimed at another idiot putting a target firmly on the back of Labour, it’s beyond a fucking joke how anybody with a functioning brain, not to mention a Labour fucking MP, would post that shite. It’s beyond parody now.

 

I think Starmer gave RLB the chance to apologise, and for whatever reason she didn’t, so she was asked to step down. Sheerman did apologise, so no inconsistency, agreeing there’s consistency and agreeing the consistency is correct are two different thing though. 
 

Was either right? No, I think RLB fell on a sword for a mistake and stubbornness which was easily avoidable, she had a lot to offer and it’s a shame, some of the profiles of her can’t say enough about how good she is with detail, policy etc, so she would have been a huge help trying to chip away at the Tories. Sheerman on the other hand there’s no justification for him, he knew what he was doing, and if he didn’t he’s a fucking idiot. The result is incorrect, but the reasoning correct. Long-Bailey could have put and end to this easily and it would have been buried. Sheerman should be asked leave, he fucked up, badly, and did away with any good will, but withdrew the offending material and apologised. It’s not inconsistent, it is consistent, but it is wrong.

 

Reasons, we can only speculate, but I think his hands are tied either way. RLB’s obstinance left him no choice, she had to go. Sheerman should go, but has apologised when asked, so does he wield the sword again and allow this to dominate the news again? 
 

The odds are stacked against him and no matter what he does he’ll not appease everyone. It looks like he’s not a unifying leader as hoped and that’s concerning, but counter to that it’s even more concerning that people are not willing to put aside decades long grievances at a time when we have, potentially, the worst iteration of the Tories ever.

 

Has he handled this badly, yes, but there are a myriad of manifestations which you couldn’t plan for or foresee. Have others caused significant problems for him for reasons of partisanship and stupidity, yes. Is he solely to blame, no. Could he be a good person to take us to the next election and potentially have enough to get a coalition government, I hope so.
 

That’s where I’m at. 
 

There was no offence intended to you.

 

 

Ok, fair dos and apologies for misinterpreting your post. Agree with a lot of what you’ve written here.

 

On the bolded part, I did wonder whether Starmer chose not to make an issue of this because he thought the media furore would contribute to Jews feeling unwelcome in Labour. If he did then I think it’s a mistake - if he’s serious about rooting out antisemitism in the Labour Party then that isn’t achieved by sweeping stuff under the carpet.

[Neil G]

1 hour ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Oof. I disagree with almost all of that. Not sure where to start really, mate. I see both his and Peake's quite differently to you. I could reply practically line by line on that, but I'm not sure it would do much other than obfuscate what is the root of our disagreement which is how we see their tweets. From that view you derive your view on Starmer's action or lack of it. From my view, I think it's pretty consistent and appropriate. 

Ha, that must be a record for us getting to Agree to Disagree.

 

Doesn’t look like there’ll be any wider discussion around this as there has been zero media coverage of it. Disappointing imo - there are clearly widely divergent views on how bad this stuff actually is, and it could have been helpful to explore and clarify it, as happened with the debate over RLB.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Neil G said:

Ha, that must be a record for us getting to Agree to Disagree.

 

Doesn’t look like there’ll be any wider discussion around this as there has been zero media coverage of it. Disappointing imo - there are clearly widely divergent views on how bad this stuff actually is, and it could have been helpful to explore and clarify it, as happened with the debate over RLB.

For me, the quick apology and deletion is the main difference between the wider reaction to him and RLB. Had RLB apologised and quickly deleted, she’d still be in a job. I don’t think either action warranted dismissal, it was the way she fucked up afterwards. Have you noticed the immediate action from others who have misstepped since? He said this is the line (of course, you’re free to disagree about where the line is) and if you don’t do as you’re told, you’re done. 

[Bruce Spanner]

11 minutes ago, Neil G said:

Ok, fair dos and apologies for misinterpreting your post. Agree with a lot of what you’ve written here.

 

On the bolded part, I did wonder whether Starmer chose not to make an issue of this because he thought the media furore would contribute to Jews feeling unwelcome in Labour. If he did then I think it’s a mistake - if he’s serious about rooting out antisemitism in the Labour Party then that isn’t achieved by sweeping stuff under the carpet.

On a more practical point. It happened over the weekend, Parliament is in recess, there’s been no official statement, to my knowledge.
 

This might still be addressed and a conclusion could be drawn soon. If, what I believe to be, the correct decision is made he will be asked to leave.

[Bjornebye]

Parliament in recess right now sums up how little shit the tories give