Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

19 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Let's agree to disagree on his credibility and the degree to which he's presenting an alternative. 

 

And no - I'm not "concocting a 'he's a Tory' fantasy".  I'm expressing a "he's not a good leader" opinion.

In fairness to Numero I agree that it's not essential at this point to box himself in with a load of pledges, hes got four long years to do that, he dosnt need to set out his stall if his only objective is to win the next election.

[Anubis]

19 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Seems like Starmer may be finding, as Corbyn did,  that this issue is like nailing jelly to the wall. Within an hour of the report being issued  the CAA has presented him with a 72 page dossier demanding 32 Labour mps including Angela Rayner,have the whip removed. As my mum always said, much always wants more.

The Civil Aviation Authority can get to fuck.

[No2]

21 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

The whole thing is fucking tragic, Corbyn seems a good man, Starmer seems decent, the party is filled with good people (and some shitbags too) but this shouldn't be the fight, the fight should be against the Tories yet here we are. What a disaster. 

For the vast majority that couldn't give 2 fucks this will be yesterday's news in less than a week.  Corbyn is a jew hater, its to late to argue differently with the uninformed, the label has stuck. Corbyn is right to stand up for himself and Starmer is right to put the party first. Dragging this on to clear his good name is the nobel thing to do but that's what the Tories have always wanted. Whatever Starmers real thoughts on this he had to feed Corbyn to the wolves to move on. 

 

Someone mentioned the Suarez case a little earlier, Corbyn is like Suarez. The masses, fuelled by influential people think they need a head on a stick and there is nothing anyone can do. They have won this battle, time to be smarter and not get yourself into positions where you can be screwed so easily.

[Gnasher]

25 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Seems like Starmer may be finding, as Corbyn did,  that this issue is like nailing jelly to the wall. Within an hour of the report being issued  the CAA has presented him with a 72 page dossier demanding 32 Labour mps including Angela Rayner,have the whip removed. As my mum always said, much always wants more.

Exactly, it was obvious.

 

As soon as Starmer made his statement they scented blood. I think Starmer has made a fucking howler of this today, you've now got Margaret Hodge, John Mann, Ruth Smeeth and various other two bob cunts pushing for the expulsions of life long Labour party members who have dedicated their lives fighting against inequality and injustice.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

The CAA letter has been leaked to Guido Fawkes. 

 

Some of the complaints they've made seem legitimate and could warrant sanction. 

 

But, some of them are laughable. Including Labour members who've called out the relationship the Tories have with Richard Desmond and how he might influence their policy making by being a donor. The CAA have ignored the obvious - that political donors often buy favours - and have instead claimed that highlighting this re: Desmond is antisemitic because of his Jewish ethnicity and as it perpetuates the "trope" of the shady, rich Jewish person in the shadows, running things through their wealth. 

 

Other complaints include suggestions by party members that some people have used Labour's antisemitism issues for political capital, sharing letters from the Guardian by authors who've made controversial comments in other, totally separate documents, sharing stuff from Norman Finkelstein and other stuff that happened over 10 years ago. 

 

Starmer should tell them to fuck off. But, will probably suspend them all. 

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Like when Liverpool decided not to contest the Suarez lynching. That worked a treat. 

[Rico1304]

8 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Exactly, it was obvious.

 

As soon as Starmer made his statement they scented blood. I think Starmer has made a fucking howler of this today, you've now got Margaret Hodge, John Mann, Ruth Smeeth and various other two bob cunts pushing for the expulsions of life long Labour party members who have dedicated their lives fighting against inequality and injustice.

Apart from when he was committing murder Peter Sutcliffe led a very quiet and law abiding life. 

[TheHowieLama]

16 minutes ago, No2 said:

 

Someone mentioned the Suarez case a little earlier, Corbyn is like Suarez. The masses, fuelled by influential people think they need a head on a stick and there is nothing anyone can do. They have won this battle, time to be smarter and not get yourself into positions where you can be screwed so easily.

[A Red]

Unpopular policies presented by someone whose past gave him a lack of credibility. Corbyn would never have won an election despite however shit the Tories were.

 

Starmer has a far better chance.

[Bruce Spanner]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Exactly, it was obvious.

 

As soon as Starmer made his statement they scented blood. I think Starmer has made a fucking howler of this today, you've now got Margaret Hodge, John Mann, Ruth Smeeth and various other two bob cunts pushing for the expulsions of life long Labour party members who have dedicated their lives fighting against inequality and injustice.

Like the human rights lawyer, former DPP and former CPS?

 

That guy?

[Bruce Spanner]

3 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

The CAA letter has been leaked to Guido Fawkes. 

 

Some of the complaints they've made seem legitimate and could warrant sanction. 

 

But, some of them are laughable. Including Labour members who've called out the relationship the Tories have with Richard Desmond and how he might influence their policy making by being a donor. The CAA have ignored the obvious - that political donors often buy favours - and have instead claimed that highlighting this re: Desmond is antisemitic because of his Jewish ethnicity and as it perpetuates the "trope" of the shady, rich Jewish person in the shadows, running things through their wealth. 

 

Other complaints include suggestions by party members that some people have used Labour's antisemitism issues for political capital, sharing letters from the Guardian by authors who've made controversial comments in other, totally separate documents, sharing stuff from Norman Finkelstein and other stuff that happened over 10 years ago. 

 

Starmer should tell them to fuck off. But, will probably suspend them all. 

Cool, we end it there then.

 

The rest is unnecessary.

[mattyq]

Who are the CAA?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just now, mattyq said:

Who are the CAA?

The Campaign Against (Labour) Antisemitism. 

[Bruce Spanner]

1 minute ago, mattyq said:

Who are the CAA?

Corbyn absolutionist apologists. 

[A Red]

Corbyn anti aspiration 

[Gnasher]

10 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Apart from when he was committing murder Peter Sutcliffe led a very quiet and law abiding life. 

You seem to have a fetish for mad murder.

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, A Red said:

Corbyn anti aspiration 

These criticisms of Corbyn are getting more and more absurd.  Maybe he preferred paracetamol.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

You seem to have a fetish for mad murder.

Everyone needs a role model. 

[Bruce Spanner]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

These criticisms of Corbyn are getting more and more absurd.  Maybe he preferred paracetamol.

Nah, he’s bang in to these...

 

[Gnasher]

 

[Gnasher]

8 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Nah, he’s bang in to these...

 

I stand with Jeremy, i'll take the three.

[Section_31]

Thinking about the reaction to this though and it kind of shows Starmer's (or any new leader's) dilemma. Has there been a labour leader in modern times with so many people personally devoted to him? If Ed Miliband, Brown or dare I say it - Blair been suspended by their successor, would the fallout have been anywhere near as ferocious?

 

It's almost a party within a party. People who are personally loyal to one man. The only leaders they would have accepted would be Abbott, McDonnell or RLB. 

[Bruce Spanner]

21 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Cool.
 

‘The organisation has been described as controversial^[32] and the Jewish Labour Movement has called its views an "extreme fringe".^[33] Jewish Leadership Council chairman Jonathan Goldstein has said that JVL is "not representative of our community".^[34] Board of Deputies of British JewsPresident Marie van der Zyl has referred to JVL as "a tiny organisation whose odious views are representative of no-one but themselves."^[35] Jon Lansman, founder of Momentum, stated that JVL "is an organisation which is not just tiny but has no real connection with the Jewish community at all" and "It doesn't represent the Jewish community in a way that JLM clearly does represent the Labour wing of the Jewish community." Luke Akehust, director of We Believe in Israel and secretary of Labour First, has called for JVL to be proscribed.^[36]’

[Pidge]

Probably one of that Rachael Swindon dude's alt accounts.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Cool.
 

‘The organisation has been described as controversial^[32] and the Jewish Labour Movement has called its views an "extreme fringe".^[33] Jewish Leadership Council chairman Jonathan Goldstein has said that JVL is "not representative of our community".^[34] Board of Deputies of British JewsPresident Marie van der Zyl has referred to JVL as "a tiny organisation whose odious views are representative of no-one but themselves."^[35] Jon Lansman, founder of Momentum, stated that JVL "is an organisation which is not just tiny but has no real connection with the Jewish community at all" and "It doesn't represent the Jewish community in a way that JLM clearly does represent the Labour wing of the Jewish community." Luke Akehust, director of We Believe in Israel and secretary of Labour First, has called for JVL to be proscribed.^[36]’

"Wrong kind of Jews"