Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

23 hours ago, Numero said:

Votes with the government, gets smacked for propping up the Tories, doesn’t vote with the government, gets smacked for putting politics ahead of the country. Nice try, Tories and Tory enablers, there’s no deflecting this one, the Tories are split over this, part of the country is going mad, and the news will be that your party aren’t supporting the government. 

Or votes against government, government gets defeated, government then blames Labour for every Covid death after vote.

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Or votes against government, government gets defeated, government then blames Labour for every Covid death after vote.

Yeah, voting against isn’t a good idea. He’s taking a lot of flack from the twitterati though. They hate Starmer so much it’s actually funny. People saying he and Rayner would have supported Thatcher over the miner’s strike. Things like that. They’re trying their best to pin Islamophobia on him like people have pinned antisemitism on Corbyn. Great bunch of lads. 
 

Then there’s that Rachel Swindon, who seems mentally sound. Posting up every day pretty much about how she’s doing it for her family and please give her money.  She is legit taking advantage of people, saying whatever she needs to in order to make money. Most of the people who are into that bizarre little group think cabal are just nice people without the mental faculties to know better, they don’t deserve to be scammed into that bullahit. 

[Gnasher]

13 hours ago, Numero said:

Not sure who the dickhead is or what he posted, but the headline not matching the complaint is irksome. I was ready to fly off the handle in defence is my dearest Keirest, only to find out she didn’t call for Starmer to return it, but Labour. I wonder if the Guardian realise subs don’t go straight into the leader’s bank account. 

Well their are a few broader points and questions arising from the article.

 

Labour loses members, Labour welcomes back money man/men who could ask for conditions on donations  regarding future policy.

 

Labour conducts zero policy on anti semitism. Labour welcomes back member who praises Israel and denounces its neighbour's. Rise in anti Islamophobia in Labour party.

 

Not a good look at not a good time.

 

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Numero said:

Yeah, voting against isn’t a good idea. He’s taking a lot of flack from the twitterati though. They hate Starmer so much it’s actually funny. People saying he and Rayner would have supported Thatcher over the miner’s strike. Things like that. They’re trying their best to pin Islamophobia on him like people have pinned antisemitism on Corbyn. Great bunch of lads. 
 

Then there’s that Rachel Swindon, who seems mentally sound. Posting up every day pretty much about how she’s doing it for her family and please give her money. 

That vote was a lose lose scenario. The Tories would have made hay whichever way Labour voted. Abstaining was the sensible decision in my opinion.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Well their are a few broader points and questions arising from the article.

 

Labour loses members, Labour welcomes back money man/men who could ask for conditions on donations  regarding future policy.

 

Labour conducts zero policy on anti semitism. Labour welcomes back member who praises Israel and denounces its neighbour's. Rise in anti Islamophobia in Labour party.

 

Not a good look at not a good time.

 

Well, if you frame it in a way that attempts to make it look like the loss of members wasn’t happening way before Starmer, as it normally would after an election, then point to one new guy saying some dodgy shit and extrapolate it out to a rule, the sure. I don’t think it washes particularly well though. It’s just the usual shit. If somebody gives to a party, it doesn’t mean they’re responsible for their actions. What worries me more is when big business donates then gets favours in government via contracts. 
 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

That vote was a lose lose scenario. The Tories would have made hay whichever way Labour voted. Abstaining was the sensible decision in my opinion.

Like I say, I really don’t know. I haven’t made my mind up yet, but it probably was smart politics, but it will be judged on how it works out. I guess I’m just waiting. 

[Section_31]

Just now, Numero said:

Like I say, I really don’t know. I haven’t made my mind up yet, but it probably was smart politics, but it will be judged on how it works out. I guess I’m just waiting. 

My initial reaction to the abstention was "fucking hell not again" and "grow some balls". Problem is though, that's probably how most of us have been conditioned in recent years in the age of populism.

 

Everything is gesture politics, symbolism, soundbites, binary answers, there's no room left for tactics and strategy. Starmer still probably thinks like a Barrister. (He did something a while back, can't remember the details but it reminded me of something Carcetti did in The Wire, he wrote a letter to Johnson behind the scenes saying he'd support him on schools or something, then when Johnson had a go at him at PMQs he pulled out the fact he'd sent the letter and Johnson hadn't replied.).

[Numero Veinticinco]

22 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

My initial reaction to the abstention was "fucking hell not again" and "grow some balls". Problem is though, that's probably how most of us have been conditioned in recent years in the age of populism.

 

Everything is gesture politics, symbolism, soundbites, binary answers, there's no room left for tactics and strategy. Starmer still probably thinks like a Barrister. (He did something a while back, can't remember the details but it reminded me of something Carcetti did in The Wire, he wrote a letter to Johnson behind the scenes saying he'd support him on schools or something, then when Johnson had a go at him at PMQs he pulled out the fact he'd sent the letter and Johnson hadn't replied.).

Yeah, that’s one example. He jumped on the circuit breaker thing so he had a weapon in his pocket to hit him with when they called him captain hindsight. He’s a smart guy, you don’t have to be a tribalist like me to acknowledge the obvious. Politics has chewed up and spat out a lot of smart people over the years, though. For me, he needs to get this Corbyn shit under control so that he can move on. It’s like a dark cloud. 
 

Personally I don’t care that much if Corbyn is in the party or out of the party. I’m much more interested in what policy platform Starmer’s Labour is going to rest on. I don’t want it to be backwards facing. If key policies are the same old shut from the past 30 years, then it will be a let down. I don’t want to hear about 5% Titanium taxes going to far. 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Numero said:

Well, if you frame it in a way that attempts to make it look like the loss of members wasn’t happening way before Starmer, as it normally would after an election, then point to one new guy saying some dodgy shit and extrapolate it out to a rule, the sure. I don’t think it washes particularly well though. It’s just the usual shit. If somebody gives to a party, it doesn’t mean they’re responsible for their actions. What worries me more is when big business donates then gets favours in government via contracts. 
 

But this is another problem when you set ridiculous high standards and set your stall out by them, something or someone will crop up and the legitimate question will be 'well what about him then Keir? 

 

I thought Starmer was doing well as a whole and was the right choice for the job I just think he's made a howler over the Corbyn affair and it's now going to dog the party for possibly years to come because of the lines drawn.

[Numero Veinticinco]

12 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

But this is another problem when you set ridiculous high standards and set your stall out by them, something or someone will crop up and the legitimate question will be 'well what about him then Keir? 

 

I thought Starmer was doing well as a whole and was the right choice for the job I just think he's made a howler over the Corbyn affair and it's now going to dog the party for possibly years to come because of the lines drawn.

Yeah, we’ve already addressed the bottom part. The idea that it wouldn’t have dogged the party if he didn’t do what he did is fanciful. I think he just needs to get on with the purge. 
 

Same with the top. I don’t think the ‘what about him’ will go away and even if it did, I don’t think it’s an argument for high standards. The trick is to apply them uniformly. 

[Section_31]

Starmer didn't cause division with his treatment of Corbyn, the division was already there because his loyalists can't and won't accept another leader. Anything Starmer did that was positive would be ignored, only what they perceived to be negative was jumped upon, amplified and of course - retweeted with gusto. 

 

Corbyn then did a Corbyn and was disciplined by his leader. Corbyn doesn't like being told what to do, you don't need to be David Frost to figure that out, just look at his history in Parliament. I see he voted against the Covid tiers bollocks yesterday too, creating another headline, imagine my surprise.

 

Corbyn is unmanageable. That's why he's never achieved anything as an MP in terms of actual policy, as presumably he can't work within a system (or more likely, doesn't want to), it's more a platform for him to express his dismay about stuff that pisses him off. 

 

That never used to be a problem, but that was before he had tens of thousands of people hanging off his every word. 

 

 

[sir roger]

Can we stop the 'Left won't accept any other leader' cobblers , as quite a few of us have been looking for an alternative almost since he was made leader as we aren't blind and can see that he is getting on and has limited leadership skills. A younger person with his zeal for socialism and a less placatory attitude to inside and outside opposition would be nice.

 

My worries are that despite Starmer saying that he wanted unity, within 7 months the only 4 left wingers in his initial shadow cabinet are gone, leaving a mass of austerity enablers including himself, he paid out compo to people working against the party apparently against legal advice, his first thought when hearing about the email leak was to worry about the leaking rather than the contents , he failed originally to vote against the spycops bill , and has now interfered in the disciplinary process , going against two of the EHRC recommendations in the process to take away the whip away from a previous leader who doesn't appear to have broken any particular rules other than upsetting the usual suspects.

 

 

 

the email sc

[Bjornebye]

Let's see what shite PMQs can come up with. 

[Scooby Dudek]

Narrative on BBC is obviously Labour abstained therefore terrible for people for not taking a side. Captain Hindsight already mentioned, obviously in the context of Labour saying circuit breaker now, Tories not doing it, it getting worse and that is somehow hindsight. Abstaining at a time of great national crisis is dereliction of duty, is the agenda.

[Duff Man]

You have to wonder just how bad the party finances are if Starmer's having to chase the likes of David Abrahams for donations.

[Gnasher]

2 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Starmer didn't cause division with his treatment of Corbyn, the division was already there because his loyalists can't and won't accept another leader. Anything Starmer did that was positive would be ignored, only what they perceived to be negative was jumped upon, amplified and of course - retweeted with gusto. 

 

Corbyn then did a Corbyn and was disciplined by his leader. Corbyn doesn't like being told what to do, you don't need to be David Frost to figure that out, just look at his history in Parliament. I see he voted against the Covid tiers bollocks yesterday too, creating another headline, imagine my surprise.

 

Corbyn is unmanageable. That's why he's never achieved anything as an MP in terms of actual policy, as presumably he can't work within a system (or more likely, doesn't want to), it's more a platform for him to express his dismay about stuff that pisses him off. 

 

That never used to be a problem, but that was before he had tens of thousands of people hanging off his every word. 

 

 

I'm sorry but most of the above is rubbish. You're playing the man and not the ball and its affecting your judgement.

 

To say Corbyn has never achieved anything as an mp is ludicrous. An mps job is A. To the national interest. B. To the constituents they represent and C. To the party they belong. In that order.

 

Whatever you think of Corbyn as a national leader the man has proved himself a popular and effective member of parliament in his constituency. That's not an opinion the voting figures he commands make it a fact. It's also an often overlooked fact that his nth London constituency has a massive Jewish population.

 

http://camdennewjournal.com/article/campaign-pays-off-as-victorian-jewish-burial-ground-earns-grade-ii-listing

 

As for his history in parliament, what about it?  So he rebelled against wars which cost thousands of lives. He campaigned and voted against privatisation in our health service and pushed for taking back control of public services. If that happened to be against his own party or the Tories that's the way he saw fit to vote and his constituents seemed to agree. As a local resident I'd say you could do a lot worse than having Corbyn as your member of parliament.

[Numero Veinticinco]

31 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

You have to wonder just how bad the party finances are if Starmer's having to chase the likes of David Abrahams for donations.

Chase him? Poor Dave, can’t even open a cupboard without Starmzy popping out asking for donations. 

 

[Duff Man]

He wrote to him (among others).

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Duff Man said:

He wrote to him (among others).

Link? 

[Duff Man]

[Numero Veinticinco]

I wonder why she believes that. It might have happened, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me, after all he donated to Blair, Brown, Miliband, and Corbyn so he’d be on a list of people to get to return. Seems ropey that she’d know, but certainly not unlikely that he targeted lots of donors. The party finances have been poor for a while haven’t they? No doubt they will need it if the unions keep withdrawing funds in support of Corbyn, sorry, I mean support of working people who are their members that has nothing to do with Corbyn. 
 

I remember an article that mentioned lots of big donors coming back after abandoning the party under Corbyn. 
 

EDIT: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/08/former-labour-donors-returning-to-party-under-keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn

 

Either way, I’ve been saying for years that party financing in the country is terrible. It needs to be completely open, completely transparent, and never to a single person’s office. The amount of dodgy cunts donating to all parties is pretty grim. 

[Duff Man]

Why the reporter believes he wrote to Abrahams? Because it'll have been leaked/briefed. And his donation was returned under Brown.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/dec/02/uk.partyfunding

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

Why the reporter believes he wrote to Abrahams? Because it'll have been leaked/briefed. And his donation was returned under Brown.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/dec/02/uk.partyfunding

Yes, I do like evidence though. Im not questioning it, it’s probably true. Did Corbyn return it? Did Corbyn return the thousands he got from that guy who supported terrorism by Hamas? 
 

Wither way, I don’t think Corbyn is responsible for everything a donor says, and I don’t think Starmer is either. I do think it’s hypocritical to talk about one and not the other though, which ha been happening a lot. No doubt if I searched for Ibrahim Hamami on here, it would come up with you picking Corbyn up on it, so I’m talking about others and not you. 

[Strontium]

Maybe Kier should take inspiration from the legion of Corbynite grifters and just stick his Paypal details on his Twitter.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Maybe Kier should take inspiration from the legion of Corbynite grifters and just stick his Paypal details on his Twitter.

Is it not just one woman?