Keir Starmer

[Arniepie]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

If I'd said that you had said these things, I'd definitely do that. As I didn't, I won't. I referred to the peado thing because of the Saville comment, I referred to what you said about him hitting out at those criticising murderous regimes in the same way. I did so in a flippant way because, as was explained to you above, he wasn't lambasting them for criticising murderous regimes (I mean, why would he unless he is in favour of murderous regimes?), but because they don't always do that. As I mentioned above, it's not just him who has hit out at their double standard on this, from Peter Tatchell to leaders inside Momentum. Any good left winger would point these out, in my view. When they used to carry articles calling for an attack on Israel in the pursuit of peace in the middle east, you really have to wonder if it's stopping wars they want or a political tool. 

 

EDIT: I did a quick search for the article that I had in mind. 

 

I'm no expert on what they have done in the past.

I know they were instrumental in the war against iraq but like I said I'm no fair with everything they have prosed.

The article stronts posted claimed Putin ran a brutal regime so I'm not really sure how sychophantic that was?

I guess a conspiracy theorist may argue that the close connection to Corbyn was also a factor in the interview given by starmer. 

All I know is there are much bigger cunts in this country than an organisation that opposes war.Most of them running the country.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

It’ll be interesting to see how Starmer deals with Neil Coyle. 
 

https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-dyer-personal-statement-on-neil-coyle-2022-2

[Strontium]

8 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

All I know is there are much bigger cunts in this country than an organisation that opposes war.

 

As has already been pointed out to you, they're only opposed to some wars.

 

They're also genocide deniers. They published this article in 2014 while the Yazidi genocide was happening:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20140816055533/http:/stopwar.org.uk/news/the-tale-of-two-sieges-the-yazidi-one-in-iraq-that-wasn-t-and-the-one-in-gaza-that-is

 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Strontium said:

 

As has already been pointed out to you, they're only opposed to some wars.

 

They're also genocide deniers. They published this article in 2014 while the Yazidi genocide was happening:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20140816055533/http:/stopwar.org.uk/news/the-tale-of-two-sieges-the-yazidi-one-in-iraq-that-wasn-t-and-the-one-in-gaza-that-is

 

You say that like you think it's a bad thing 

[sir roger]

11 minutes ago, Nelly-Fauci said:

It’ll be interesting to see how Starmer deals with Neil Coyle. 
 

https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-dyer-personal-statement-on-neil-coyle-2022-2

Ooh , I wonder.

 

 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Nelly-Fauci said:

It’ll be interesting to see how Starmer deals with Neil Coyle. 
 

https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-dyer-personal-statement-on-neil-coyle-2022-2

 

As the old saying goes 'the cunts got form'

 

 

[Gnasher]

12 hours ago, sir roger said:

Ooh , I wonder.

 

 

Just had the whip taken away, whatever that means.

[skend04]

55 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Just had the whip taken away, whatever that means.

He'll be joining Corbs's fledgling party of independents.

 

I'm assuming that Sir Rog is a little bit placated now that the party has acted on the racism by Coyle.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Just had the whip taken away, whatever that means.

More pro-Corbyn, left-wing witch hunt cuntery by Starmer. Just don't mention that this one was anti-Corbyn, supported Smith to oust him, and regretted ever voting for Corbyn. Other than that, fuck Starmer and this imaginary witch hunt. 

1 hour ago, skend04 said:

I'm assuming that Sir Rog is a little bit placated now that the party has acted on the racism by Coyle.

I doubt it, to be honest. Starmer was probably put up to it by his mates on the tRilaTeRal COmMISsIon. 

[sir roger]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

More pro-Corbyn, left-wing witch hunt cuntery by Starmer. Just don't mention that this one was anti-Corbyn, supported Smith to oust him, and regretted ever voting for Corbyn. Other than that, fuck Starmer and this imaginary witch hunt. 

I doubt it, to be honest. Starmer was probably put up to it by his mates on the tRilaTeRal COmMISsIon. 

Surprised to be honest even if it appeared Hoyle intervened looking for action , but lets see what happens after the 'investigation' before all you Keir the Abstainer fanboys start smelling yourself too much.Also ,  I must have somehow missed January completely is the Forde enquiry report out yet ?

[Numero Veinticinco]

7 minutes ago, sir roger said:

all you Keir the Abstainer fanboys

Are you reading this before posting. It's quite unbecoming and a bit embarrassing. 

7 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I must have somehow missed January completely is the Forde enquiry report out yet ?

No, they wrote a letter explaining why it's been delayed until February. Alas for all you Corbyn [insert ridiculous pun] fanboys, they explained how it had nothing to do with interference from leadership. 

[Bjornebye]

25 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Are you reading this before posting. It's quite unbecoming and a bit embarrassing. 

No, they wrote a letter explaining why it's been delayed until February. Alas for all you Corbyn [insert ridiculous pun] fanboys, they explained how it had nothing to do with interference from leadership. 

You go on about Corbyn more than anyone else (this week) 

[sir roger]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Are you reading this before posting. It's quite unbecoming and a bit embarrassing. 

No, they wrote a letter explaining why it's been delayed until February. Alas for all you Corbyn [insert ridiculous pun] fanboys, they explained how it had nothing to do with interference from leadership. 

I am taking the piss out of you NV , bringing everything around to 'Corbyn' and 'Corbynistas' , but you are such a humourless drone with no self-awareness you can't even see the hypocrisy.

 

I missed the Forde letter in January , was it based on the pro-forma they have been using since 2020 ?

[Captain Turdseye]

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

I am taking the piss out of you NV , bringing everything around to 'Corbyn' and 'Corbynistas' , but you are such a humourless drone with no self-awareness you can't even see the hypocrisy.

 

I missed the Forde letter in January , was it based on the pro-forma they have been using since 2020 ?

Fucking yawn. More embarrassing nonsense. You don't realise it but the only person you're actually taking the piss out of is yourself. It's so tiresome to have such feckless personal insults thrown at you in the place of, well, absolutely fucking anything meaningful. 

 

The point, that you and your bizarre spaces-before-punctuation brain can't seem to understand, was that Starmer is actually being consistent and it has nothing to do with this fucking moronic conspiracy theory - pushed by fucking idiots - about him coming after everyone on the left, despite them being such precious, innocent do-gooders. It's horseshit. Even more horseshit than the Trilateral Commission conspiracies, but it doesn't stop you pushing that angle either. It's boring and unoriginal. 

[sir roger]

I didn't realise you were here to mark our essays.

 

Boring   ,    long-winded   and    hypocritical.   

 

I can sort of see why Keir is your guy.

[Numero Veinticinco]

26 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I didn't realise you were here to mark our essays.

 

Boring   ,    long-winded   and    hypocritical.   

 

I can sort of see why Keir is your guy.

Ironically, I can't see why Corbyn is yours. He's a career politician, privately educated, cares more about himself and his career than winning. Doesn't strike me as similar to you at all. He is a bit of a cunt like you though, so I guess that's the attraction. 

 

Seriously though, that's enough of this childish nonsense from me. You enjoy yourself. 

[Captain Howdy]

It’s sad to see people who want pretty much the same thing tearing themselves apart, the Conservatives must love it, I bet they honestly can’t believe their luck.

[Kepler-186]

5 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

It’s sad to see people who want pretty much the same thing tearing themselves apart, the Conservatives must love it, I bet they honestly can’t believe their luck.

They planned it. The fault lines their policies have created work perfectly for them. 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Captain Howdy said:

It’s sad to see people who want pretty much the same thing tearing themselves apart, the Conservatives must love it, I bet they honestly can’t believe their luck.

I agree, after Corbyn the Labour party needed and needs unity and at the moment Starmer is failing. 

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Captain Howdy said:

It’s sad to see people who want pretty much the same thing tearing themselves apart, the Conservatives must love it, I bet they honestly can’t believe their luck.

Tories are still favourites to win most seats at next election with the bookies.

[Arniepie]

3 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Ironically, I can't see why Corbyn is yours. He's a career politician, privately educated, cares more about himself and his career than winning. Doesn't strike me as similar to you at all. He is a bit of a cunt like you though, so I guess that's the attraction. 

 

Seriously though, that's enough of this childish nonsense from me. You enjoy yourself. 

Of curiosity.. why is he a bit of cunt?

Sutely every politician is a career politician?

[sir roger]

6 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

Of curiosity.. why is he a bit of cunt?

Sutely every politician is a career politician?

Oh , so you accept I am a cunt , but Corbyn gets a pass eh ?

[sir roger]

Keir Starmer’s cynical embrace of Nato is a sad sight indeed

Lindsey German

 

What has happened to Keir Starmer, the seasoned anti-war protester?

The Labour leader and I both marched on the Stop the War demonstration against the Iraq war in 2003. I remember reading with interest his Guardian article “Sorry, Mr Blair, but [UN resolution] 1441 does not authorise force”, questioning the legality of that war. Only two years ago, when he wanted to appear to be on the left of Labour as he sought election, I was happy to see him promise to bring forward a Prevention of Military Intervention Act.

 

Starmer’s recent outburst about the Stop the War coalition – he claimed that we were effectively on the side of Vladimir Putin for opposing the march towards war over Ukraine – seems to be a critique of his former self. Does he now think he was not a “benign voice for peace” but “at best naive; at worst actively giving succour to authoritarian leaders”? Partly it is sad because he in all likelihood believed what he said then but has now joined the ranks of those politicians who will say anything, no matter how flatly it contradicts their previous statements, if it serves their current ambitions.

Advertisement

 

However, everything we and Starmer thought at the time has been proved correct by events, and every criticism he makes of the anti-war movement now has been made before – and revealed as false.

 

We were told more than 20 years ago that opposition to war in Afghanistan was the same as supporting the Taliban; then that we were aiding Saddam Hussein when we demonstrated against war with Iraq in 2003. When we opposed the Nato bombing of Libya in 2011, we were accused of backing Muammar Gaddafi.

 

It was a lie then, and it is now. We opposed those wars because we believed they would worsen the situation – increase not decrease terrorism, cause greater instability, and leave millions suffering from the consequences. On all those questions we have been proved decisively correct. Our opposition to war in Ukraine is not based on any support for Putin – he has his own record of militarism and war – but because we recognise that such a war would be devastating and that a peaceful resolution can be found.

 

The argument that we oppose war because we support the governments of those countries suggests that there can be no good reason for people to oppose war other than being beholden to another power. This is an insult to all those campaigning for peace, including in Russia, where no doubt pro-war elements claim their opponents are supporting Nato or the US.

 

In order to justify his argument, Starmer has to argue that Nato is purely defensive. “There is no equivalence between a defensive alliance that has never provoked conflict and those who would inflict the appalling cost of war on to others,” he writes.

 

Tell that to the people of Afghanistan and Libya, who have suffered so much as a result of the Nato wars. Stating that the organisation is a defensive alliance does not make it true. It has moved a very long way geographically from the North Atlantic, which was its original remit. Its origins were in the cold war; its role since the end of that war, in 1989, has been expansionist and interventionist, and it is now playing an active role in manoeuvres and arms provision in eastern Europe. It is increasingly looking towards the Indo-Pacific as another theatre of conflict.

 

This military organisation is also putting huge pressure on member states to increase their spending on “defence”. Nato demands at least 2% of GDP from each country, which encourages further militarism and conflict. Meanwhile, in Britain millions of people are facing a serious cost of living crisis, an NHS in permanent emergency mode and record levels of inequality.

 

The Boris Johnson government – whose foreign minister does not appear to know which provinces are in Russia and which in Ukraine – has been the most belligerent in its talk about war with Russia. No doubt this is a tactic to deflect from the prime minister’s own domestic crisis, but it could also lead to an extremely dangerous situation for people in Britain, as well as in Ukraine and Russia.

 

Starmer should be opposing this government, not trying to bang the drum for war even harder. His invocation of the Attlee government in his defence ignores the foreign policy record of that government, which supported wars in Korea and Malaya and introduced the nuclear bomb with “a bloody Union Jack on top of it”, in the words of Starmer’s hero, Ernest Bevin. Starmer sees Nato and the NHS as twinned achievements of Attlee’s government, but a much closer and more meaningful comparison with the creation of the health service is the founding of the United Nations in 1945, rather than the cold war military creation he celebrates.

 

Stop the War has been proved right over the previous wars, while those who mistakenly supported them seem to have learned no lessons from the terrible consequences of their errors. War over Ukraine, involving nuclear powers, could have much more damaging consequences. Diplomacy could lead to a way out, we believe, as even the French and German governments are trying to establish, in contrast to Starmer.

 

We have become all too familiar with Labour politicians promoting wars. Stop the War will continue its campaigning against this threat and the British government’s connivance in it – with Labour acquiescence. Our message is simple: don’t get fooled again.

• Lindsey German is convenor of the Stop the War coalition

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I seriously doubt Starmer is tweaking his nips at the thought of war. The trouble is, diplomacy rarely works without a viable threat should it fail. If all in opposition to Russia rolling into Ukraine were pacifistic, why would they even bother coming to the table?