Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

19 minutes ago, Mudface said:

In that case, why not oppose it?

Simple answer to that really. They don’t care about somebody abstaining on something, they do care when it’s used in the future to say how they voted against MI5 being able to stop this latest terror attack, or whatever insane shit Tories will throw. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s generally how it works. 

[Jairzinho]

54 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.

No fucking idea, but I have to believe that all of this is just politics. The alternative is...less good.

[Section_31]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

No fucking idea, but I have to believe that all of this is just politics. The alternative is...less good.

He's had doings with MI5 in the past hasn't he? 

 

I'll be honest I don't know enough about it in terms of different sides to the story, presumably the spooks think they need the powers for something rather than to just be cunts, I just don't know, but as you say it doesn't sound good and not something a Labour leader should be championing. 

 

That being said, Starmer has had that much shit from word go from people with axes to grind it's tough to filter out the white noise and know when criticism is legit or not, ironically, it was the same with Corbyn.

[Red Phoenix]

2 hours ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

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

However it's supposed to work in practice, having agents that are beyond prosecution and with no limit on the types of crimes they can commit is wide open to abuse. And in theory, if Cummings draws up a list and Johnson agrees with all or part of it, I don't see any authority stopping him or any future PM from directing MI5 to cause all types of problems for anyone they don't like. Maybe that was always the case but at least in the past we'd have hoped for some law to keep them in check. Now it doesn't look like there is one.

 

Quote

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.

 

If that's right things are clearly a lot worse than they were before that was passed last night.

I thought the same as Scooby, that they abstained so Tories couldn't attack them on national security as much. It won't work though I don't think because they'll just say they abstained so they can't be trusted. Anything short of voting with it will result in the attacks.

 

The Guardian did eventually write something last night too and at the end Patel is already at it :

Quote

A Labour spokesperson said: “We are disappointed colleagues have stepped down. They were valued members of Keir’s frontbench and will continue to play an important role in ensuring a Labour government after the next election.”

Priti Patel, the home secretary, sought to highlight the Labour divisions: “Once again, Labour has refused to stand up for those who protect our country and keep us all safe. Their leader may have changed, but Labour still can’t be trusted on national security.”

 

And if the media don't report on these things properly it's hard to see how the general public are going to give a shit. If they focused on it though I'd bet that a lot more soon would do.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

However it's supposed to work in practice, having agents that are beyond prosecution and with no limit on the types of crimes they can commit is wide open to abuse. And in theory, if Cummings draws up a list and Johnson agrees with all or part of it, I don't see any authority stopping him or any future PM from directing MI5 to cause all types of problems for anyone they don't like. Maybe that was always the case but at least in the past we'd have hoped for some law to keep them in check. Now it doesn't look like there is one.

 

On the BBC it's stated that :

 

 

Mate, this just isn’t right. I can’t give a proper multi-quote reply at the moment but you’re basically saying something that isn’t anything new or isn’t quite right. 
 

I’ll ask you this. Have you read the entire bill. Has anybody here who is complaining about it? 

[Red Phoenix]

Just now, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Mate, this just isn’t right. I can’t give a proper multi-quote reply at the moment but you’re basically saying something that isn’t anything new or isn’t quite right. 

Ok, that post is totally bust with the quotes I just made too, I'm still trying to sort it out. Fuck knows why it does that sometimes.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Red Phoenix said:

Ok, that post is totally bust with the quotes I just made too, I'm still trying to sort it out. Fuck knows why it does that sometimes.

Just blame Dave, mate. 

[Red Phoenix]

11 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Just blame Dave, mate. 

I might've missed something when typing a quote tag, then forgot what the HTML (or code as it says hovering on the icon) was and was trying to edit it using the preview button. I got there eventually though I think.

 

I haven't read the entire bill either but I don't see how reading it would negate what's been reported. The main point being that there's nothing stopping them committing any crime that they want to.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

I might've missed something when typing a quote tag, then forgot what the HTML (or code as it says hovering on the icon) was and was trying to edit it using the preview button. I got there eventually though I think.

 

I haven't read the entire bill either but I don't see how reading it would negate what's been reported.

Reading it means you don’t have to rely on the veracity of what’s being reported and how it’s being reported, especially the things it leaves out. 

[Red Phoenix]

22 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Reading it means you don’t have to rely on the veracity of what’s being reported and how it’s being reported, especially the things it leaves out. 

 

I've read it now, I don't see anything that contradicts what's been reported, or the reasons why MP's have either quit the front bench or spoken out on it.

[Numero Veinticinco]

13 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I've read it now, I don't see anything that contradicts what's been reported, or the reasons why MP's have either quit the front bench or spoken out on it.

Righto. 

[Tony Moanero]

Keir Starmer has shit hair. Not as shit as Johnson’s, obviously, but still shit.

[Captain Howdy]

3 hours ago, Tony Moanero said:

Keir Starmer has shit hair. Not as shit as Johnson’s, obviously, but still shit.

Nah, he’s 58. Good head of hair for that age.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[Creator Supreme]

Priti Patel needs a fucking good shoeing the shit smirking evil cunt!

[lifetime fan]

37 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

Not without getting elected he wouldn’t! 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

Not without getting elected he wouldn’t! 

I think "... if he'd been elected" was kind of implied.

[Numero Veinticinco]

49 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

Fucking hell, still banging on about Corbyn are they? You can only transform the country if you’re running things. Starmer’s credentials for transforming the country are still to be seen. What I do know is, if he can’t win the next election he won’t transform anything. Just like Corbyn. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Nothing about Starmer gives me any reason to believe he can win an election.  I hope he does, but an honest election slogan would be "Not as wilfully awful as that lot". And that won't inspire anyone to vote.

 

So, yeah, I'll keep "banging on" about wanting a Labour leader who supports the values of the Labour movement.  Maybe Starmer does. Maybe he doesn't.  Who knows what he believes in?

[lifetime fan]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I think "... if he'd been elected" was kind of implied.

I was/am a Corbyn fan.
 

But I’m fucking fed up of implied. I’m fed up of being the bigger person. I’m fed up of great intentions never getting anywhere. I’m fed

up of being the party of opposition. 
 

The country is going to hell in a hard cart and Labour voters/supporters are spending just as much time slagging each other off as they are the tories. 
 

I’d have Blair and Campbell back in a heartbeat if it meant these cunts gone. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Nothing about Starmer gives me any reason to believe he can win an election.  I hope he does, but an honest election slogan would be "Not as wilfully awful as that lot". And that won't inspire anyone to vote.

 

So, yeah, I'll keep "banging on" about wanting a Labour leader who supports the values of the Labour movement.  Maybe Starmer does. Maybe he doesn't.  Who knows what he believes in?

Corbyn. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

I was/am a Corbyn fan.
 

But I’m fucking fed up of implied. I’m fed up of being the bigger person. I’m fed up of great intentions never getting anywhere. I’m fed

up of being the party of opposition. 
 

The country is going to hell in a hard cart and Labour voters/supporters are spending just as much time slagging each other off as they are the tories. 
 

I’d have Blair and Campbell back in a heartbeat if it meant these cunts gone. 

I've no intention of doing anything  - or supporting anyone who does anything - to undermine the electoral chances of Labour, whoever the Leader is; not then and not now. I just thought that tweet was a neat summary of the difference between the two men. I'm not about to hurl charges of "Blairism" at Starmer, but it does seem that his leadership style is more about steady-hand-on-the-tiller managerialism, devoid of inspiration or any hope for the radical change this country desperately needs.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

12 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

Corbyn. 

Thank you for your fascinating contribution. 

[skend04]

6 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

No 'coulda woulda shouldas' about it. The red wall went blue in part due to Corbyn. Hugely transformative for the country I would say.

[Bjornebye]

6 hours ago, Creator Supreme said:

Priti Patel needs a fucking good shoeing the shit smirking evil cunt!

This should be the Labour Party slogan