Keir Starmer

[Bjornebye]

14 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Seems part of a deliberate policy to dumb down the significance of PMQ’s, if he keeps doing this people will lose interest and tune out meaning they won’t see him being barely sentient on a weekly basis. The echo chamber from both sides tend towards their bias which will, ironically, confirm each independently and form the same conclusion and eventuality, but with different emotional loads.

 

If viewer apathy sets in then they get what they want, Alex can only look like a cunt to the few in the house and won’t  lose any of his ‘man of the people’, grandstanding shite. They’re taking a loss at PMQ’s for granted so want to change the optics to it not being that important and a bit of an archaic giggle.

 

Very deliberate, if you reduce the importance of something by being useless at it you reduce the impact it can have on you by being useless at it and it becomes less important in the overall impression that the public get.

 

Starmer is doing a good job and they want to hide that as much as possible. If Alex was any good they’d be front and centre to reporting.

 

Yeah for sure. Lots more whooping and hollering from the tory back-benches today as well. 

 

I'm not being a labour or 'lefty' in saying this, I genuinely believe Johnson, Hancock, Patel, Gove, Jenrick and Rees-Mogg should be in jail. 

[Red Phoenix]

From The Guardian :

 

Quote

Dan Carden quits Labour frontbench over failure to oppose MI5 bill

Carden says he will vote against legislation, defying Keir Starmer who wants MPs to abstain

 

A Labour frontbencher has resigned in protest at the party’s failure to oppose legislation regulating the conduct of MI5 and police informants.

As shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, Dan Carden was one of the few leftwingers remaining on Keir Starmer’s frontbench after the sacking of the former leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey.

Critics of the covert human intelligence sources bill argue it could authorise spying by undercover agents or police, including on groups such as trade unions.

In a statement released to Tribune magazine, Carden said he had supported the party’s decision to abstain on the bill at its second reading, but felt he must vote against it when it returns to the House of Commons. Starmer has made clear he intends to whip his party to abstain on the legislation, even if it is unamended.

“As a Liverpool MP and trade unionist, I share the deep concerns about this legislation from across the labour movement, human rights organisations, and so many who have suffered the abuse of state power, from blacklisted workers to the Hillsborough families and survivors,” Carden said.

He said he had discussed the issue at length with Starmer, but “on this occasion I am resolute that as a matter of conscience I must use my voice and my vote on behalf of my constituents to object to legislation that sets dangerous new precedents on the rule of law and civil liberties in this country.”

Carden is a former staffer for the Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey. Unite was among the signatories to a joint letter with the grassroots campaign group Momentum this week opposing the bill and urging Starmer to do the same.

One ally of Carden suggested there could be more resignations in the days ahead over Labour’s stance on the bill, which has heightened fears on the left of the party that Starmer will not defend civil liberties robustly.

Other vehement critics of the legislation include the former shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti.

With the next round of voting on the bill due to take place on Thursday evening, Labour MPs sceptical about the bill were particularly irked by briefing notes sent around the parliamentary party.

These conceded that the bill was “far from perfect” but claimed legislation was “needed now to provide a clear legal framework for undercover sources to operate and to protect national security”.

A Labour spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that Dan is stepping down from his role as shadow financial secretary. Dan has been a valued member of Keir’s frontbench and the shadow Treasury team, and will continue to play an important role in ensuring a Labour government after the next election.”

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/15/dan-carden-quits-labour-frontbench-over-failure-to-oppose-mi5-bill

[Bobby Hundreds]

Good for him. Principles the rarity. Unlike the other idiot who rightly asked for Cummings to resign for breaking covid rules but failed to do so herself.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

34 Labour MPs voted against the party whip. Also, 8 of them have resigned from the Labour front bench. 

 

Thankfully, my local MP falls into both of these categories. 

 

But, either way, you get the feeling that such an act of party rebellion won't be as newsworthy under the new leadership as it was under the old leadership. For some reason. 

[Red Phoenix]

This is from the BBC :

 

Quote

How would the new rules work?

There are existing laws to allow security agencies and the police to recruit and authorise an agent to go undercover. That system will be extended to allow them to commit a specific crime as part of that job. If that authorisation is correctly followed, then the agent and the officers overseeing the operation can't be prosecuted.

At the end of each year, the watchdog overseeing covert powers will report on their use.

What crimes can be committed? Well, the legislation doesn't tell us.

It simply says that an authorisation must "take into account" the requirements of the Human Rights Act.

Which agencies will be able to authorise their undercover agents to commit crimes?

MI5 and other intelligence bodies, Police forces and the National Crime Agency, Immigration and Border Officers, HM Revenue and Customs, Serious Fraud Office, UK military forces, Ministry of Justice, Competition and Markets Authority, Environment Agency, Financial Conduct Authority, Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission and Medicines and Healthcare Regulation Authority.

 

 

Nice bit of fascism there.

[lifetime fan]

I like Starmer but this is a massive own goal for me. 

[Red Phoenix]

This was voted through hours ago now and checking google news for "Covert Human Intelligence Sources" there's only Amnesty International that are even showing as having reported on it. More proof that the media is completely fucked if google have that right.

 

Most of them will get there eventually I suppose (even those that add an article way down their front page so that it's not seen by too many people), but like Nelly said, if this was something to hit Corbyn with it probably would've been plastered all over the media in no time. And the possible implications of this are way more serious than anything Corbyn ever did.

[Duff Man]

Quite the day when you factor in the Nita Clarke fiasco.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I see the potential issues (that detractors are obviously bugging up and leaping and jumping then pretending Starmer supports those things) and I also understand the potential need for these measures (of course, those supporting it are bigging it up too). I find it difficult to get all that bent out of shape about it. 

[sir roger]

I'm starting to wonder what Starmer would have to do before you even tutted,  Numero.

[A Red]

Double space

[Numero Veinticinco]

33 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I'm starting to wonder what Starmer would have to do before you even tutted,  Numero.

Probably right before you praise him.
 

I was criticising him the other day on here. I’m not going to pretend I’m mad about something when I’m not though. I’ll leave that to the Corbynites who never mentioned MI5 powers before twitter told them to give a fuck. 

[Vincent Vega]

Must admit I’d quite like him to stand up for the Labour constituencies in the North West in the face of the Tories taking the piss with their lack of support on enforced lockdown measures. Especially seeing as we are now the bedrock of Labour’s support given the desertion of Scotland and the North East.

[Red Phoenix]

It's hard to find the words to describe what I think of Starmer and the others that abstained on that but for me it's not even the main issue now. Anything they did was symbolic anyway because the Tories are stacked with fucking muppet MP's all too glad to sell the country's people out or too stupid to realise what they were voting into power.

 

The main issue I have is that this has just brought into law something that erases so much of what any democratic country should stand for. We can now have any idiot with influence in the Tories, including people like Cummings, drawing up lists of those they think are causing whatever they define as disorder or harm to the economy and if it's allowed by Johnson he's then along with government agents able to decide how severe they want to be with those people. It's the complete opposite of what any normally functioning democracy should do.

 

And we have morons on the right arguing that the left are turning fascist while things like this are just glossed over. We're in a situation where even the opposition are free to be inflitrated and fucked with on any level if they're classed as causing potential disorder or harm to whatever cronyism they want to keep in place.

 

Johnson himself can easily be thought of as a smiley faced fascist but things like this also pave the way for way worse in the future to have the law already behind their plans if they get into power. And of course, Corbyn would now be Stalin incarnate if he'd passed something like this. But seeing as it's their beloved Tories we didn't even have it surface in the media hours after it'd passed last night.

[Bruce Spanner]

It’s all a bit odd.

 

After the second reading, sure, kick it upstairs and see what comes back, but third? 
 

I hope there’s more going on than we know and see, but I don’t see why abstaining serves any purpose.

 

EDIT: All I can see is the long game, ‘we didn’t do this, they did.’ We want do this, they did’ ‘We didn’t vote for this, they did’ politicking, but that seems slightly naive and relies on the public remembering, caring and you being able to get everything across. As I said, odd.

[Mudface]

It just seems utterly bizarre that a human rights lawyer not only isn't opposing this viscerally, but is also prepared to sack people who do or force them to resign. I really hope this isn't going to turn into a Milliband-style opposition, too scared of their own shadow to speak out about the most egregious Tory policies.

[Bruce Spanner]

8 minutes ago, Mudface said:

It just seems utterly bizarre that a human rights lawyer not only isn't opposing this viscerally, but is also prepared to sack people who do or force them to resign. I really hope this isn't going to turn into a Milliband-style opposition, too scared of their own shadow to speak out about the most egregious Tory policies.

I’d say he’s smarter and more astute than Milliband, his career shows that, but Milliband was, apparently, better at close quarters with people.

 

He’s already calling the Tories out, so I don’t think it’s that.

 

I have to believe that there’s some point of strategy to it, otherwise, as you say, it’s bizarre  for a human right brief to do this.

[Jairzinho]

Presumably the stat geeks have run the numbers and this wins the most marginals in four years.

[Mudface]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Presumably the stat geeks have run the numbers and this wins the most marginals in four years.

Yeah, I'm hearing there's a big swing back towards Labour in Stoke North after last night.

[Section_31]

13 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Presumably the stat geeks have run the numbers and this wins the most marginals in four years.

I don't see how though, why would the man in the street care about this either way? Certainly not enough to reject Labour if they'd voted against it. Bizarre.

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I don't see how though, why would the man in the street care about this either way? Certainly not enough to reject Labour if they'd voted against it. Bizarre.

Probably just believe MI5 need the powers and know the way RP described it isn’t how it works in practice. 

[Scooby Dudek]

It seems to me Labour abstaining was a strategy so they couldn't be attacked as not caring about national security/police etc. 

 

Miliband went tough on immigration and let us not forget abstaining on the Welfare bill. That worked out well.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

It seems to me Labour abstaining was a strategy so they couldn't be attacked as not caring about national security/police etc. 

 

Miliband went tough on immigration and let us not forget abstaining on the Welfare bill. That worked out well.

Yeah, although it not working for Miliband on things voters really care about isn’t the same as this where many will just shrug. 

[Mudface]

3 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Yeah, although it not working for Miliband on things voters really care about isn’t the same as this where many will just shrug. 

In that case, why not oppose it?

[Scooby Dudek]

14 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Yeah, although it not working for Miliband on things voters really care about isn’t the same as this where many will just shrug. 

The focus groups must have decided people would care, as I believe "weak on national security", otherwise a free vote would have made sense.

 

Surely showing you have principles and believe in something is better than just "yeah, whatever". 

What is the point of voting for an M.P., if they are just going to abstain on legislation ? 

If he agrees with it vote for it and even have a free vote for other M.P s to show he understands why they might not but to abstain is the tail wagging the dog IMO.  

 

As @Mudface says if people don't care why not allow a vote on it ?