Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

11 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

And open himself up for the easy retort of 'this was before it was known that he was a sexual predator of children, but what you did was after you knew'. Not to mention having just quoted Thatcher herself, and relying on those who seem to adore her to get rid of Johnson. Nah, not for me. I don't think it would have done much good. 

 

Now... smacking Johnson in the face? That I could get behind.

I agree Starmer should continue taking the moral hihh ground but hes lacking a political bruiser. Blair had Prescott, Thatcher had Tebbit and Johnson has Mogg and enjoys taking the role on himself.

 

Be interesting to see how Johnsons dead cat plays with the general public and away from the Westminster/Twitter/Political crew, I wouldn't be shocked to find some of the mud Johnsons thrown sticking. A lot of the public were not born or have forgot about the Tory party's close relationship with Savile, someone Lammy should remind them, David Lammy perhaps? He could start by asking Johnson to pay all donations raised by Saville for the tory party(with interest) to child abuse charities. 

[sir roger]

2 hours ago, Section_31 said:

 

It's the word traitor people take issue with, why would prosecuting Julian Assange make someone a traitor? 

Fair enough , but as you said yourself every arsehole is using the word these days , it's hardly a shocker anymore.

 

I'm assuming it was aimed at the politics bit rather than the Assange bit anyway , although you might have expected a human rights lawyrer to have a bit more empathy for the Assange actions.

[sir roger]

2 hours ago, Creator Supreme said:

I'm sorry, I'm as left as you get, but even I think the attacks on Starmer have gone too far.

 

I much preferred Corbyn to Starmer, but to get the tories out Labour needs to get behind him, even if it means holding your nose at some of his actions. This goes for my party (Greens), the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid, SDLP etc. At this time it's going to take a coalition to take that Teflon coated fucker down.

 

At local council level, fine, have all the infighting you want, but at parliamentary level it needs to be a united front (and yes the same should have applied when Corbyn was leader)!

I think the 'attacks' by the left are extremely mild compared to Starmer's attacks on the left and particularly left-wing Jews.

[Creator Supreme]

59 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I think the 'attacks' by the left are extremely mild compared to Starmer's attacks on the left and particularly left-wing Jews.

Maybe so mate, but sometimes you just have to polish that turd you've been left with. If by backing him (reluctantly or not) we get rid of that fucking shambles in number 10 and get his fucking evil party out of government, it's worth it.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

I think the 'attacks' by the left are extremely mild compared to Starmer's attacks on the left and particularly left-wing Jews.

What are your views on attacks by the left, for example the Saville stuff. 

[sir roger]

3 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

What are your views on attacks by the left, for example the Saville stuff. 

I can't believe he didn't know anything at all about it myself. He was obviously not involved in the early stages , but I would be amazed if he wasn't at least given progress reports ( and so he should have to be fair ).

 

Generally , I think he has deliberately started a war with the left , calculating it will be a net vote winner . He's the leader and that is his choice , but he can't expect them to then thank him for it. 

 

[skend04]

Just out of interest, were there any moves against the left leaning members prior to Corbyn publicly defying Starmer and giving his view on the EHRC report before Starmer's own response?

 

To me, it just really seems like everything that has happened since was set off by that one clash. Could be wrong but I couldn't find anything prior to that point in time so I'm happy to be shown otherwise.

[Captain Turdseye]

Pretty sure people were disgruntled about him reneging on his pledges before the Corbyn stuff. I don’t know. I’m just totally disenfranchised by it all. We can’t win where I live anyway. What’s the fucking point?

[Captain Turdseye]

I’m not gonna call him a nonce enabler but neither am I going to knock on peoples doors asking them to vote for him. 

[sir roger]

1 hour ago, skend04 said:

Just out of interest, were there any moves against the left leaning members prior to Corbyn publicly defying Starmer and giving his view on the EHRC report before Starmer's own response?

 

To me, it just really seems like everything that has happened since was set off by that one clash. Could be wrong but I couldn't find anything prior to that point in time so I'm happy to be shown otherwise.

I don't get the impression this is the case , although it may have shifted it into a higher gear thereafter.

 

Starmer's first cabinet had a sprinkling of left-leaning members but they had all been removed or put in situations requiring resignations before the spat with Corbyn. Other earlier evidence like the choice of GS , the hiding of the Forde report , the acceptance of Mandelson into his team , the demand that only the BoD or JLM will be listened to on anti-semitism by the party and the payouts to the Panorama ' whistleblowers ' suggest the direction of travel was well established.

 

As I said to NV , Starmer is the leader and can make his own choices , but he can't have it both ways and not expect people to like it and just shrug it off easily.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 hours ago, sir roger said:

I can't believe he didn't know anything at all about it myself. He was obviously not involved in the early stages , but I would be amazed if he wasn't at least given progress reports ( and so he should have to be fair ).

 

Generally , I think he has deliberately started a war with the left , calculating it will be a net vote winner . He's the leader and that is his choice , but he can't expect them to then thank him for it. 

 

That reads as a bit 'he deserves what he gets'? I don't think he started a war, I think his actions regarding Corbyn - who is seen as some sort of saint/saviour/hero by some - have set off his supporters in a way that he either didn't expect or just doesn't care about. Either way, I agree he shouldn't expect thanks. He probably shouldn't expect false claims of peado-acceptance, nooses, or jibes about being hanged. 

 

As for your view on his involvement with Savile, this is what actually happened (for anybody who doesn't actually know). The CPS (which Starmer was the head of from 2008-2013) is fully independent from the Police. The Police received complaints in 2007 and 2008, Savile was interviewed under caution but no arrests were made. The Police then consulted the CPS, and it the reviewing lawyer who must apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors in their judgement and decision to prosecute. They said they made their decision on the complainants not being willing to support police action. From there, after the decision was made, Starmer launched a review into the decision and posted the findings in full. 

 

As far as the 'the buck stops with him' approach that some talk about, I agree; It does. Though that doesn't mean he was responsible for somehow letting Savile off the hook. He was responsible for how the organisation as a whole treats those cases in a procedural fashion. The rules, guides, protocols etc. He absolutely is responsible for that. Let's be honest here, there slur is that he somehow is fine with kiddy fiddlers. That's the real thing being thrown at him here, not about CPS protocols, and it's fuckin' grim. 

[Captain Turdseye]

He did the interview with The Sun. That’s enough for me to fuck it off. I’ll still vote Labour, because there’s no alternative, but I won’t be spending any time convincing others to do the same. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, sir roger said:

As I said to NV , Starmer is the leader and can make his own choices , but he can't have it both ways and not expect people to like it and just shrug it off easily.

 

Again, just to clarify, I think there's a difference to people shrugging off what they see as injustice - whether grounded in reality or not - and talk of hangings and peado-apology. The punishment for running the Labour party into a 10 point lead surely isn't such slurs. 

[Creator Supreme]

As I say I'm not a fan, but if he can shift the turds in downing Street, he's worth backing.

 

If and when he gets power, that's when it's time to lobby for changes to be made in the party.

[Section_31]

A hugely depressing read.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/they-all-blame-each-other-little-sympathy-for-starmer-after-savile-slur

[sir roger]

50 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Again, just to clarify, I think there's a difference to people shrugging off what they see as injustice - whether grounded in reality or not - and talk of hangings and peado-apology. The punishment for running the Labour party into a 10 point lead surely isn't such slurs. 

I may have missed stuff, but where have 'the left' talked of hangings or paedo-apology. As far as I heard reported , one person among a shower of anti-vax loons was heard to shout the word Saville and some of the other idiots had show nooses ( I can't see in the reports whether they were there for him or he was the unfortunate victim of poor timing ). 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I may have missed stuff, but where have 'the left' talked of hangings or paedo-apology. As far as I heard reported , one person among a shower of anti-vax loons was heard to shout the word Saville and some of the other idiots had show nooses ( I can't see in the reports whether they were there for him or he was the unfortunate victim of poor timing ). 

 

 

Give that video on the previous page a view, you'll see examples of both.

[Harry's Lad]

4 minutes ago, Captain Turdseye said:

He did the interview with The Sun. That’s enough for me to fuck it off. I’ll still vote Labour, because there’s no alternative, but I won’t be spending any time convincing others to do the same. 

I can understand the interview was to try and curry favour with Murdoch, but he crossed a line. I can't and won't forgive it. 

I've always voted Labour and still will because as you say, there's no viable alternative.

[sir roger]

29 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Give that video on the previous page a view, you'll see examples of both.

They are the anti vax loons I mentioned , not anything to do with the left wing of the Labour party. 

[Brownie]

1 hour ago, Captain Turdseye said:

He did the interview with The Sun. That’s enough for me to fuck it off. I’ll still vote Labour, because there’s no alternative, but I won’t be spending any time convincing others to do the same. 

That's where I am. If there was an election tomorrow it would be an incredibly reluctant vote for Labour.

[Denny Crane]

54 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

A hugely depressing read.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/they-all-blame-each-other-little-sympathy-for-starmer-after-savile-slur

Not surprised I've heard reports on the news and radio specfically frame it as the fake news that Starmer didn't prosecute Saville as referenced by Johnson. It highlights how difficult it is to defend yourself against allegations --  is this framing helping Starmer because then most of the public then say but he didn't prosecute did he. Part of the problem is the media and politicians are unprepared to go deep into Saville territory as they don't know where it will lead. Or they do and don't want to go anywhere near it not surprisingly. A few years back I remember reading up on Cyrille Smith and thinking wtf it was a cesspit of the police M15 the DPP and politician's of the time involved in the worst type of stuff. This is a lot of older people's reference point. It was predictable Starmers time practicing and as Head of the DPP would be used as an attack line. Team Starmer have regularly championed his work prior to entering politics as an example of his leadership skills and his success. His opponent's are then saying you can't have your cake and eat it. 

 

Even if the Starmer Saville line doesn't stick the aim seems to be to tag him as a lefty do-gooder lawyer. 

[Strontium]

Starmer definitely does a lot less preaching to the converted than his predecessor. 

[sir roger]

2 minutes ago, Strontium said:

Starmer definitely does a lot less preaching to the converted than his predecessor. 

Fantastic , I'm sure the newbies will be champing at the bit to go knocking doors in the rain when elections come around.

[Brownie]

6 minutes ago, Strontium said:

Starmer definitely does a lot less preaching to the converted than his predecessor. 

Yeah, you can see that in the accounts.

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

A hugely depressing read.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/08/they-all-blame-each-other-little-sympathy-for-starmer-after-savile-slur

Doesn't suprise me, as I said a few posts up Johnsons audience is not the political/twitter/journalist sect, he's bypassing them and putting false information in the minds of those with little interest in politics