Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

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

Fuck all going on in the world, might as well take this opportunity to get a bit of fox hunting done before popping over to Tarquin’s golf club down in Chichester for pheasant burgers and swan en croute. 

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Fuck all going on in the world, might as well take this opportunity to get a bit of fox hunting done before popping over to Tarquin’s golf club down in Chichester for pheasant burgers and swan en croute. 

To be fair, Chichester is lovely. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

To be fair, Chichester is lovely. 

So is swan en croute. 

[magicrat]

10 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

So is swan en croute. 

Is it your cygnetory dish ?

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, magicrat said:

Is it your cygnetory dish ?

Thats fucking superb. 

[mattyq]

20 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

To be fair, Chichester is lovely. 

Certainly is

Bosham is particularly lovely

[magicrat]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Thats fucking superb. 

Nice with corn on the Cob.  

[Neil G]

19 hours ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

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. 

I have noticed, it was obvious from Steve Reed’s case that speed of apology is a key factor in whether disciplinary action is taken. If it’s the only factor or even the main factor then I think Starmer has definitely drawn the line in the wrong place. The severity of the offence should be at least as important.

 

What Starmer is implementing isn’t zero tolerance. Zero tolerance means you’re subjected to visible punishment if you transgress, with this creating a deterrent effect to dissuade others from repeating the transgressions, until the behaviour is stamped out.

 

That’s clearly not what’s in operation with Labour. There is no deterrent effect, because people know that if they repeat antisemitic tropes at least up to the severity of Sheerman’s, they won’t be punished if they get their apology in quickly enough. And let’s face it, the apologies are usually forced on the offender via complaints as opposed to them having some kind of personal epiphany. I think Reed was very lucky to keep his shadow cabinet job even with his apology, and if he had been given the boot then maybe Sheerman would have thought twice before tweeting something which deeply offended a lot of the Jewish people that Labour are trying to build bridges with.

 

Starmer said when he became leader that his success in tackling antisemitism would be judged by the number of Jews who had their trust in Labour restored. The effect of his inaction over Sheerman has been to persuade a lot of Jews that Labour hasn’t changed and is still a fundamentally antisemitic party. With this current approach he’s failing on his own terms.

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 minutes ago, Neil G said:

I have noticed, it was obvious from Steve Reed’s case that speed of apology is a key factor in whether disciplinary action is taken. If it’s the only factor or even the main factor then I think Starmer has definitely drawn the line in the wrong place. The severity of the offence should be at least as important.

 

What Starmer is implementing isn’t zero tolerance. Zero tolerance means you’re subjected to visible punishment if you transgress, with this creating a deterrent effect to dissuade others from repeating the transgressions, until the behaviour is stamped out.

 

That’s clearly not what’s in operation with Labour. There is no deterrent effect, because people know that if they repeat antisemitic tropes at least up to the severity of Sheerman’s, they won’t be punished if they get their apology in quickly enough. And let’s face it, the apologies are usually forced on the offender via complaints as opposed to them having some kind of personal epiphany. I think Reed was very lucky to keep his shadow cabinet job even with his apology, and if he had been given the boot then maybe Sheerman would have thought twice before tweeting something which deeply offended a lot of the Jewish people that Labour are trying to build bridges with.

 

Starmer said when he became leader that his success in tackling antisemitism would be judged by the number of Jews who had their trust in Labour restored. The effect of his inaction over Sheerman has been to persuade a lot of Jews that Labour hasn’t changed and is still a fundamentally antisemitic party. With this current approach he’s failing on his own terms.

Oh, I can't agree with that. He has received a lot of praise from the Jewish community for the way he has dealt with things. On his own terms, that's not a failure. We also need to stop judging everything so immediately. It's going to take time to turn things around. You've got people pointing at the polls - which have closed dramatically and are trending in the right direction - being pointed to as a failure. Even after a couple of months.

 

This antisemitism issue isn't going to be resolved overnight. It takes time, education, dialogue, etc. It's not just about one person and one issue.You're making out as if his actions have been universally denounced and that it equates to failure. That's just not the case. It was said that he did more in four days than Corbyn did in four years. Then he received huge praise over the way he dealt with RLB. Jewish Voice for Labour, who describe Sheerman's comments as being 'pretty low on the Richter scale of antisemitism' but criticised a double standard (on the day it happened). I've not seen anything else, certainly not one that shows a 'lot of Jews' being persuaded that 'Labour hasn't changed and is still a fundamentally antisemitic party'. Knowing you, you won't have pulled that out of your arse, but I've not seen indications of that. 

 

As an aside:

 

Quite honestly, there seems this rush to portray him in a certain way on absolutely everything and, as with Corbyn when the boot was on the other foot, it seems rooted in politics and point scoring rather than anybody actually giving a fuck about Jews. I mean, did anybody really read Sheerman's tweet about silver shekels and think 'oh, the poor Jews reading that this morning'. Did they fuck, they thought 'let's see what we can make out of this'. Just as the other side did with Corbyn. And you know what, those who are going out of their way to make out as if Starmer is doing something wrong are - generally speaking - the same group who said absolutely fuck all in the way of criticism for the way Corbyn handled things. I think the way the Jewish community have been used to land blows over the last few years have been pretty fucking grim. Rico, for example, was the most vocal supporter of the Jews when Corbyn was in power. He would have jumped on absolutely fucking everything as evidence of Corbyn's antisemitism. I said that's what he was doing at the time. Where is he now, though? Fucks given... zero. It's the same shit but flipped. 

 

Starmer is doing okay. Not great, not amazing; but Labour just suffered a truly massive defeat and now have many years out of power. He must try to get over the issues he inherited (which, to be clear, is a very badly divided party, antisemitism crisis, and the smallest number of seats for a fucking age), start building policy initiative, and avoid any massive new issues of his own creation. He has caused no major issues that have cost anything. He has started winning back popularity, he is performing well in PMQs, he is well regarded in the party according to polls, and it seems the bones his opponents are left to pick through are how similar he treats one situation with another. Then there's the twitterati and skwawkbox dickheads that jump on every tweet as if they were employed to do so by the Tories. Today it was him talking about racism faced by Lammy, black MPs, and black people in general. Immediately jumped on with Dianne Abbott trending because the group thinkers were on him with 'you only support centrist men but not socialist women - why have you never tweeted support for them'. Literally thousands of tweets copying a few influential twats. Of course, when people linked them the tweets and articles they claimed he hadn't made, they fell silent. Just as the Tories did when they said he hadn't spoken out and links came out immediately. It's a bunch of people with nefarious intent are attempting to paint him as some right wing mentalist intent on destroying the bastion of socialism built by Corbyn. It's a big bundle of shite. 

[lifetime fan]

On 02/08/2020 at 11:47, Bruce Spanner said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/18/len-mccluskey-to-step-down-as-unite-leader-earlier-than-planned

 

I fully agree about the Unions having sway, but this should be what’s best for its members, completely, not to fight personal battles.

I don’t think unions should have sway. Same as I don’t think tory party donors should have any sway. 
 

Unions should back the Labour Party because it’s in the best interests of its members. 

[Bruce Spanner]

13 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

I don’t think unions should have sway. Same as I don’t think tory party donors should have any sway. 
 

Unions should back the Labour Party because it’s in the best interests of its members. 

Unions should inform Labour what their members want and what the current issues, problems and areas of need are, they should work symbiotically for the benefit of the work force and couldn’t possibly exist independently.

 

They have sway because they are representing their workforce and standing up for those rights and can hold an ineffective Labour to account if they don’t meet their end of the bargain.

 

One hand washes the other clean.

 

Tory donors are a different kettle of fish and it’s a false equivalency to to compare the two. Ones self serving, the other is collective representation.

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

It was a bit strange to see Len talking about how Unite were paying these antisemitism claims. Well, not really. Labour has plenty more money than just Unite's 7m. That said, Unions should certainly be able to decide what they do with their money if they feel that Labour don't represent them. Where would they put their money other than Labour and have it do any good at all in way of policy? It's Labour or Tory. Good luck with Boris, I guess. On the other hand, Labour need to be a realistic party of government so that they can actually represent the workers of the country, not just 'say stuff', which is where they are now. 

[Mudface]

Unite just sent me free £5000 accidental death cover. Dunno what they're trying to say there.

[Bruce Spanner]

1 minute ago, Mudface said:

Unite just sent me free £5000 accidental death cover. Dunno what they're trying to say there.

If you deliberately die how many bones you get? 

[Bobby Hundreds]

They can give it to my new party The proportional representation fuck the house of Lords party. Our aim is to get power, end the house of Lords, ban all peerages, implement proportional representation, call for an election and disband.

[Mudface]

1 minute ago, Bruce Spanner said:

If you deliberately die how many bones you get? 

Fuck all. I read the small print, unlike HMG.

[Bruce Spanner]

8 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Fuck all. I read the small print, unlike HMG.

That’s rubbish, you should definitely go down the accidental route if it comes to it.

[Mudface]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

That’s rubbish, you should definitely go down the accidental route if it comes to it.

It's tempting, but I'm not sure if 5 grand will be enough for my missus to compensate the cunts I take down with me.

[Section_31]

19 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

It was a bit strange to see Len talking about how Unite were paying these antisemitism claims. Well, not really. Labour has plenty more money than just Unite's 7m. That said, Unions should certainly be able to decide what they do with their money if they feel that Labour don't represent them. Where would they put their money other than Labour and have it do any good at all in way of policy? It's Labour or Tory. Good luck with Boris, I guess. On the other hand, Labour need to be a realistic party of government so that they can actually represent the workers of the country, not just 'say stuff', which is where they are now. 

These days, sadly, it's always a case of what motivates the action. 

 

I've got zero problem with a union boss having a gripe, but it seems somewhat disingenuous when (a) he's used Union funds to defend Squarkbox, (b) being the boyfriend of Murphy, the ex boyfriend of Formby, a friend of Corbyn and a backer of RLB for leader, one might say legitimate questions could be asked over his motives. 

 

This is what gets me down about the whole Starmer thing. Said time and again I don't know if he's the answer or not, I'm not a fanboy, I didn't know much about him, it's more that I can't get my head around how some people would be so wholly opposed to someone based simply on the fact he was not the chosen heir of someone else, and to pore over everything they do and say forever after for evidence that it fits my preconceived expectations of how he'll behave and what he'll do, based largely on the fact he has similar hair to Tony Blair. 

 

Criticize the man for policy or whatever, don't criticize him for not being working class enough even when 'your own' man isn't working class either, or for being a knight, or for a canary article you read about some bollocks. 

 

 

[Rico1304]

22 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Unite just sent me free £5000 accidental death cover. Dunno what they're trying to say there.

They’ve just added you to my list. See you soon. 

[Anubis]

28 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Unite just sent me free £5000 accidental death cover. Dunno what they're trying to say there.

 

Don't use the wood chipper?

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

These days, sadly, it's always a case of what motivates the action. 

 

I've got zero problem with a union boss having a gripe, but it seems somewhat disingenuous when (a) he's used Union funds to defend Squarkbox, (b) being the boyfriend of Murphy, the ex boyfriend of Formby, a friend of Corbyn and a backer of RLB for leader, one might say legitimate questions could be asked over his motives. 

  

This is what gets me down about the whole Starmer thing. Said time and again I don't know if he's the answer or not, I'm not a fanboy, I didn't know much about him, it's more that I can't get my head around how some people would be so wholly opposed to someone based simply on the fact he was not the chosen heir of someone else, and to pore over everything they do and say forever after for evidence that it fits my preconceived expectations of how he'll behave and what he'll do, based largely on the fact he has similar hair to Tony Blair. 

 

Criticize the man for policy or whatever, don't criticize him for not being working class enough even when 'your own' man isn't working class either, or for being a knight, or for a canary article you read about some bollocks. 

 

 

Yes, this is exactly it. It does my head in. And it's weird how quickly somebody will make you out for being a fanboy for not going to extremes. I'm just not willing to jump to any conclusions or make out something is worse than it is just to land a glove. If he makes some shit policies, I'll be the first to say he's a twat. All this talk of him being a right winger is so fucking mental. Not quite as mental as this conspiracy about him ousting the left from Labour though. Don't people know how easy it would be for him in the Tory party? They would squirrel up his arsehole because of his profession and title. They don't give a fuck about politics, half of them. Just what they can get and the circles they can move in. The issue is, he chose the Labour Party. Why? Because he's a Tory? Okay, cool. 

[Mudface]

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

They’ve just added you to my list. See you soon. 

I like the idea of Unite running a massive insurance scam in conjunction with elite assassins.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Today's polls though... 

[Bruce Spanner]

12 minutes ago, Mudface said:

I like the idea of Unite running a massive insurance scam in conjunction with elite assassins.

At 2.5k per hit, based on a 50/50 split you ain’t getting elite assassins, you’ll get passable at best. 
 

There’s going to be a lot of collateral damage and people half poisoned who go on to make recoveries.  

It’ll be a load of botched hits on ‘Julie’ the stalwart from HR, could be a PR nightmare.