Keir Starmer

[Numero 7,027]

1 hour ago, cloggypop said:

Uh oh

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/26/jeremy-corbyn-start-legal-action-over-suspension-labour-whip?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1606419815

Interesting. 

[Duff Man 1,733]

Tbf to Evans, I wouldn't want people discussing my bungling ineptitude, either.

[Red Phoenix 1,917]

1 hour ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Probably sensible until everything is cleared over and we figure out where we are.

 

The mudslinging can wait.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Spanner 3,397]

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

That's going well :

 

 

 

Oh, good...

[Numero 7,027]

10 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Oh, good...

Got to love it. 

[Gnasher 1,915]

On 25/11/2020 at 20:07, Numero said:

Out of interest, considering he called him out for not having got rid of Corbyn, so you think Starmer letting it go would have stopped the Tories from mentioning it? Think they would have just let the report go? Come on. 
 

There was no reason to call for Corbyn to be suspended from the Labour party, no one called for him to be suspended from the Labour party, the Labour party (Nicol/Starmer?) did it all by itself. The report would've been yesterday's news, by making this about Corbyn, who is now just a backbencher after all, the labour party has prolonged the shelf life of the issue instead of a acknowledging the report and moving on.

 

Corbyn has offered no resistance to Starmer, in his statement he offered his full support so the divisions were avoidable. In my opinion Johnson and the tories have handled the Patel scandal (the only minister to survive after breaking the ministerial code) a lot better than Starmer and the Labour party has handled Corbyn, because it looks like it's now going to rumble on and take time and energy away from fighting this Conservative government.

 

On 25/11/2020 at 20:07, Numero said:

The dip is 3-4 points and considering how devout the Corbyn fans are, that seems okay. Obviously if it keeps going down and down and hits the depths of when he took over, there’s an issue. 

I’ve no idea. I’m not a Labour member and have been since before the Iraq War. No idea what he will do. What I do know is they still have load of members and, I’m fairly sure. More than when they were last in government. My point here is that it isn’t everything. 

 

[Numero 7,027]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

no one called for him to be suspended from the Labour party

What!!!

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

The report would've been yesterday's news

Pure fantasy.

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

Corbyn, who is now just a backbencher after all

Just a back bencher. Wow. 

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

the divisions were avoidable

The divisions were already there. The idea that if he just did nothing it would have gone away is childishly naive. 
 

Anyone who thinks Corbyn is just a backbencher and this would have all gone away if Starmer just ignored it is living in fantasy land. 

 

[Section_31 20,754]

For all the demonising of Starmer, it's important to remember that Corbyn kicked this whole thing off with his statement, which he released despite having had a conversation with his duly elected party leader the night before.

 

Much in the same style of "I'm not deleting my tweet" RLB, it's been nothing but a series of "fuck yous",  as one would expect from someone who's broken the whip more than a poundshop Indiana Jones, and his chosen successor. But when their bluff has been called the indignation and outrage has flown thick and fast. 

 

It's just protest politics and he doesn't care who he's protesting against. He probably views the Labour party, save for a handful of close friends, as being no different from the rest of the people and organisations he's railed against in his career.

 

But if you showed Corbyn a crystal ball and he could see he'd never have been in number 10 for the next 20 years, but he could have had plenty of chances to profess his outrage at various establishment injustices, he'd have taken that IMO, and that makes him a bad party leader and someone who clearly doesn't care as much as he says he does.

 

It's no good for the many millions doomed to perpetual Tory rule though, and that's why I don't swallow the bollocks about what a lovely man he is. Personally I don't want hugs or solidarity, I want a functioning government that doesn't take back handers and is content to see my kids starve. 

[Gnasher 1,915]

26 minutes ago, Numero said:

What!!!

Pure fantasy.

Just a back bencher. Wow. 

The divisions were already there. The idea that if he just did nothing it would have gone away is childishly naive. 
 

Anyone who thinks Corbyn is just a backbencher and this would have all gone away if Starmer just ignored it is living in fantasy land. 

 

Well you've said it yourself he is now effectively just a one man backbencher. As my quote about it going away, you make a fair point about it not disappearing but the Corbyn suspension has highlighted it and it lengthens the the period before we finally move on. 

 

I personally dont mind Starmer, I thought he was head and shoulders above other candidates for the job and he looks and sounds the part ie prime ministerial

 I just think hes making a howler over the Corbyn issue.

[Numero 7,027]

9 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Well you've said it yourself he is now effectively just a one man backbencher. As my quote about it going away, you make a fair point about it not disappearing but the Corbyn suspension has highlighted it and it lengthens the the period before we finally move on. 

 

I personally dont mind Starmer, I thought he was head and shoulders above other candidates for the job and he looks and sounds the part ie prime ministerial

 I just think hes making a howler over the Corbyn issue.

Well, he is a one man backbencher, and that’s the reason I raised that point; he isn’t treated that way. Miliband virtually disappeared after the leadership. Corbyn had a lot of stuff still hanging over his head. The report is a big one. I genuinely think you’re underestimating how that report would have been used and how poorly his response was. 
 

I actually don’t even care who was right or wrong any more. I want an effective opposition come election time. If that requires a purge, then get the fuck on with it. If it requires a coup to oust Starmer, then get the fuck on with it. This shit can’t be left under the surface to fester for years. That’s what would have happened had it been left. 

[sir roger 6,408]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/28/starmer-prepares-to-reopen-old-labour-wounds-over-brexit-deal-vote

 

Fair chance we are heading for no-deal and this will be moot, but if not it will be an interesting debate.

[Numero 7,027]

6 minutes ago, sir roger said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/28/starmer-prepares-to-reopen-old-labour-wounds-over-brexit-deal-vote

 

Fair chance we are heading for no-deal and this will be moot, but if not it will be an interesting debate.

Yeah, I really don’t know how to feel about it. My heart is saying ‘fuck that, fight until the last’, but actually my head is saying ‘this will pass no matter what Labour want’ so why bother voting at all? If it goes badly, which it will, they don’t want to touch it will a shitty stick. You don’t want to be a signatory of that deal. So I don’t see the benefit of voting for it outside of the Labour heartlands being happy that Labour finally saw sense and voted for Brexit. If they vote for it, they can’t smack Tories over their deal. 
 

I’d abstain. It’s one of those that there’s no win. It’s all lose. 

[Bruce Spanner 3,397]

9 minutes ago, Numero said:

Yeah, I really don’t know how to feel about it. My heart is saying ‘fuck that, fight until the last’, but actually my head is saying ‘this will pass no matter what Labour want’ so why bother voting at all? If it goes badly, which it will, they don’t want to touch it will a shitty stick. You don’t want to be a signatory of that deal. So I don’t see the benefit of voting for it outside of the Labour heartlands being happy that Labour finally saw sense and voted for Brexit. If they vote for it, they can’t smack Tories over their deal. 
 

I’d abstain. It’s one of those that there’s no win. It’s all lose. 

‘We abstain as we don’t believe this deal is the deal that best suits the country. This is the Tories deal, they negotiated, they argued, they signed it off. We needed a deal and they got a terrible one. This is theirs and we can not in good faith say we support what is a terrible deal for this country when we needed it most. Labour supports leaving the EU as it’s the will of the people, but it can not support this terrible Tory deal’ 

 

Should do it.

 

Make this all about them, they own this bullshit and don’t let anyone forget.

[skend04 2,236]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

‘We abstain as we don’t believe this deal is the deal that best suits the country. This is the Tories deal, they negotiated, they argued, they signed it off. We needed a deal and they got a terrible one. This is theirs and we can not in good faith say we support what is a terrible deal for this country when we needed it most. Labour supports leaving the EU as it’s the will of the people, but it can not support this terrible Tory deal’ 

 

Should do it.

 

Make this all about them, they own this bullshit and don’t let anyone forget.

Tweet/email it to Kier.

[skend04 2,236]

17 minutes ago, sir roger said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/28/starmer-prepares-to-reopen-old-labour-wounds-over-brexit-deal-vote

 

Fair chance we are heading for no-deal and this will be moot, but if not it will be an interesting debate.

I think Biden winning put paid to No Deal but we're still fucked as the oven ready deal was a big load of shite.

[Numero 7,027]

Just now, Bruce Spanner said:

‘We abstain as we don’t believe this deal is the deal that best suits the country. This is the Tories deal, they negotiated, they argued, they signed it off. We needed a deal and they got a terrible one. This is theirs and we can not in good faith say we support what is a terrible deal for this country when we needed it most. Labour supports leaving the EU as it’s the will of the people, but it can not support this terrible Tory deal’ 

 

Should do it.

Yeah, I think they’re going to support it though. I don’t really care if they ‘say’ they support it, voting for it is support. I hope they’re not going into the realms of 4D chess on this one. They need to deal with this properly and try to come out as undamaged as possible. 
 

[braces for ‘tribal’ claims]

 

I do feel a bit for Starmer though, imagine taking over at a time when Brexit just went through and you’ve got to navigate that and the fallout of the antisemitism stuff with Corbyn. It would have been the same for RLB, except she would have sided with Corbyn and the debate would have raged on anyway. It would be nice if the leader could have just focused on new policies and building support rather than all this other bollocks. 

[Captain Howdy 1,199]

The party is a complete embarrassment 

[Bruce Spanner 3,397]

28 minutes ago, skend04 said:

Tweet/email it to Kier.

He’s blocked me after I called him a fascist Tory cunt.

 

People are so touchy nowadays.

[MegadriveMan 893]

13 hours ago, Numero said:

I actually don’t even care who was right or wrong any more. I want an effective opposition come election time. If that requires a purge, then get the fuck on with it. If it requires a coup to oust Starmer, then get the fuck on with it. This shit can’t be left under the surface to fester for years. That’s what would have happened had it been left. 

I agree with you.

 

The issue is by refusing to give Corbyn the whip back after he had been reinstated to the party, Starmer is the one that is dragging this out. This will rumble on for months and could even still be an issue at the next election. 

 

He spent the majority of his leadership campaign talking about unifying the party and yet he has already caused a massive rift with many members and supporters.  If he'd allowed Corbyn back in, nobody would even be talking about this now. Come election time Labour need to appeal to the left and the centre, not either or.

 

[Numero 7,027]

3 hours ago, MegadriveMan said:

I agree with you.

 

The issue is by refusing to give Corbyn the whip back after he had been reinstated to the party, Starmer is the one that is dragging this out. This will rumble on for months and could even still be an issue at the next election. 

 

He spent the majority of his leadership campaign talking about unifying the party and yet he has already caused a massive rift with many members and supporters.  If he'd allowed Corbyn back in, nobody would even be talking about this now. Come election time Labour need to appeal to the left and the centre, not either or.

 

Completely disagree. The same people wouldn’t be still talking about it, different people would. They did, immediately. 

[Gnasher 1,915]

23 hours ago, Section_31 said:

For all the demonising of Starmer, it's important to remember that Corbyn kicked this whole thing off with his statement, which he released despite having had a conversation with his duly elected party leader the night before.

 

Much in the same style of "I'm not deleting my tweet" RLB, it's been nothing but a series of "fuck yous",  as one would expect from someone who's broken the whip more than a poundshop Indiana Jones, and his chosen successor. But when their bluff has been called the indignation and outrage has flown thick and fast. 

 

It's just protest politics and he doesn't care who he's protesting against. He probably views the Labour party, save for a handful of close friends, as being no different from the rest of the people and organisations he's railed against in his career.

 

But if you showed Corbyn a crystal ball and he could see he'd never have been in number 10 for the next 20 years, but he could have had plenty of chances to profess his outrage at various establishment injustices, he'd have taken that IMO, and that makes him a bad party leader and someone who clearly doesn't care as much as he says he does.

 

It's no good for the many millions doomed to perpetual Tory rule though, and that's why I don't swallow the bollocks about what a lovely man he is. Personally I don't want hugs or solidarity, I want a functioning government that doesn't take back handers and is content to see my kids starve. 

The statement Corbyn put out was 100% true though. The antisemitism issue in the labour party was exaggerated. The Starmer statement on zero tolerance on anyone who questions the scale of antisemitism was ludicrous. The antisemitism card was played again Corbyn tirelessly.

 

 

 

As John Lennon once sang "give me some truth" Wasnt the whole point of the report to get to the truth of scale and effect of antisemitism in the Labour party? Why shouldn't Corbyn respond after suffering years of being labelled a racist? Britain and the labour party is a democracy that upholds and defends free speech (apparently).

 

Corbyn wasnt a great leader and we all want rid of a tory government that subjects us to misery and poverty but a large section of the labour party did everything they could to ensure the Conservatives won a majority at the last election. It's an awful slur to throw but it's  true. My ire is for them not Corbyn.

[AngryOfTuebrook 18,908]

I've just read (from an anti-Starmer outlet, so you can take it with as many pinches of salt as you like) that Starmer and Rayner are spending International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People at an event organised by JLM and LFI; two organisations established expressly to provide support to the oppressors of the Palestinian people. 

[Rico1304 7,118]

31 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I've just read (from an anti-Starmer outlet, so you can take it with as many pinches of salt as you like) that Starmer and Rayner are spending International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People at an event organised by JLM and LFI; two organisations established expressly to provide support to the oppressors of the Palestinian people. 

And the millions of people who don’t give a fuck about Palestine will continue their lives not giving a fuck about Palestine.  

[Kevin D 7,891]

On 28/11/2020 at 09:23, Section_31 said:

For all the demonising of Starmer, it's important to remember that Corbyn kicked this whole thing off with his statement, which he released despite having had a conversation with his duly elected party leader the night before.

 

Much in the same style of "I'm not deleting my tweet" RLB, it's been nothing but a series of "fuck yous",  as one would expect from someone who's broken the whip more than a poundshop Indiana Jones, and his chosen successor. But when their bluff has been called the indignation and outrage has flown thick and fast. 

 

It's just protest politics and he doesn't care who he's protesting against. He probably views the Labour party, save for a handful of close friends, as being no different from the rest of the people and organisations he's railed against in his career.

 

But if you showed Corbyn a crystal ball and he could see he'd never have been in number 10 for the next 20 years, but he could have had plenty of chances to profess his outrage at various establishment injustices, he'd have taken that IMO, and that makes him a bad party leader and someone who clearly doesn't care as much as he says he does.

 

It's no good for the many millions doomed to perpetual Tory rule though, and that's why I don't swallow the bollocks about what a lovely man he is. Personally I don't want hugs or solidarity, I want a functioning government that doesn't take back handers and is content to see my kids starve. 

 

Nobody on this forum loves you more than I do Mark, but this is way off target.

 

It's certainly correct to say Corbyn is inherently and constitutionally incapable of being a modern leader for a major political party. I think that is fair. All of his most vehement supporters have been imploring to be more ruthless, better with the press, negotiate with/supply friendlier terms to moderates etc, etc.

 

Essentially, everything that Starmer has shown himself willy enough to manouevre.

 

But I cannot accept that defending yourself against the most outrageous smears and allegations any politician has ever been subjected to means he is less than. 

 

Does anybody really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite? No. He has spent his whole advocating for human rights, equality and justice. That what is right for a comfortable, rich, white, Londer like him is right for everyone. To let that central belief in right and wrong be equated with bigotry without challenging it would let the causes of Palestine today and South African apartheid before it stand as realpolitik considerations - which would be completely unacceptable.

 

He has a 70% approval rating in the Labour party and Starmer romped to victory by promising to advocate for many of the cross racial, working class ideas that Corbyn exemplifies. I think it's right we hold him to it, and there is only so little I'm willing to compromise with knobheads in Preston/Darlington who betrayed their fathers and grandfathers.

[MegadriveMan 893]

7 hours ago, Numero said:

Completely disagree. The same people wouldn’t be still talking about it, different people would. They did, immediately. 

Yes, like what happened with the Dominic Cummings Bernard Castle fiasco or with the Pritti Patel bullying issue. However once Johnson had made it clear that they weren't being sacked, people moaned about it, but then have to move on. The same applied here. The Tories would have made a big deal of it for up to a week, but then would have had to move on.

 

As I've said before, Starmer is going to make himself unpopular amongst almost every demographic the way he is going.