Keir Starmer

[domalino]

 

[domalino]

A reminder of what a duplicitous lying **** he is.

Can you specify where he lied ?

 

[domalino]

Saw a quote attributed to Chomsky about Starmer.

It read

" he is returning the Labour Party to a party that is reliantly obedient to power, that will be Thatcher lite in the style of Blair and that wont ruffle the feathers of either the US or anyone who is important in Britain"


and here is a quote from Tony Benn

" If the Labour Party could be bullied or persuaded to denounce its Marxists, the media having tasted blood would demand next it expelled all the Socialists and reunited with the SDP to form a harmless alternative to the conservatives. Which would then now and again be allowed to take office when the conservatives fell out of favour

Thus British capitalism, it is argued, would be made safe forever and socialism squeezed off the national agenda.

But if such a strategy were to succeed ...it would in fact profoundly endanger British society for it would open the danger of a swing to the far right as we have seen in Europe over the last 50 years."


Chomsky and Benn are/were right and Starmer is taking us there full steam ahead.

Would that be the same Noam Chomsky who thinks Ukraine is to blame for getting invaded and neither the UK nor the US should be providing any aid?

A once great man whose mental decline and inability to shrug off the positions he entrenched in the Cold War has made him into a very sorry figure in his 90s.

Read the Monbiot/Chomsky letters and see if you can take anything he said since then seriously.

 

[Rascal]

Would that be the same Noam Chomsky who thinks Ukraine is to blame for getting invaded and neither the UK nor the US should be providing any aid?

A once great man whose mental decline and inability to shrug off the positions he entrenched in the Cold War has made him into a very sorry figure in his 90s.

Read the Monbiot/Chomsky letters and see if you can take anything he said since then seriously.

Thanks for that, I have just read through the correspondence twice and Monbiot's original article "See no evil" about which John Pilger wrote

“Chef Monbiot is a curiously sad figure. All those years of noble green crusading now dashed by his Damascene conversion to nuclear power’s poisonous devastations and his demonstrable need for establishment recognition – a recognition which, ironically, he already enjoyed.”

It really is a curious exchange in which Monbiot was trying somehow to express to Chomsky his own intellectual superiority. It has long been a facet of the intellectual left that they would rather argue minutiae at great length than debate the overall bigger picture.

As I see it, what you suggest does not distract from Chomsky's points on Starmer

 

[The perfect fumble]

Can you specify where he lied ?

You could start with his ten pledges.

 

[domalino]

Thanks for that, I have just read through the correspondence twice and Monbiot's original article "See no evil" about which John Pilger wrote

Ha! Well if you think that Trump supporting prick is worth reading, no wonder.

I genuinely can't believe you think someone who believes the UK government carried out the Salisbury novichok attack to smear Putin is someone you should bring up in serious conversation.

 

[domalino]

You could start with his ten pledges.

Why don't we start with the article posted where @Postman Pep says he's lied?

 

[Don Karleone]

Why don't we start with the article posted where @Postman Pep says he's lied?

You could start by showing how the previous Labour leadership allowed "hate to spread unchallenged". That's bullshit for starters.

 

[domalino]

You could start by showing how the previous Labour leadership allowed "hate to spread unchallenged". That's bullshit for starters.

Well that was the finding of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Labour confirmed they had a policy from 2015 of not investigating party members liking or sharing anti-semitic social media unless the member added their own comment. It was this policy which allowed several members to go about retweeting and sharing holocaust denials and other anti-semitic shit and not getting investigated when it was reported.

"the policy led to the GLU not investigating complaints of likes, retweets and shares even when it was appropriate to do so, which meant that potentially antisemitic conduct went unchallenged"​

 

[Don Karleone]

Well that was the finding of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Must be true then

 

[Postman Pep]

Well that was the finding of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Labour confirmed they had a policy from 2015 of not investigating party members liking or sharing anti-semitic social media unless the member added their own comment. It was this policy which allowed several members to go about retweeting and sharing holocaust denials and other anti-semitic shit and not getting investigated when it was reported.

"the policy led to the GLU not investigating complaints of likes, retweets and shares even when it was appropriate to do so, which meant that potentially antisemitic conduct went unchallenged"​

The EHRC report fails to take into account the factionalism that was behind the delays in the disciplinary process. For example it notes how things improved dramatically under Formby (Corbyn ally) as opposed to McNichol, who definitely was not.
Read the Forde report or watch the Labour files and get back to me.

 

[domalino]

The EHRC report fails to take into account the factionalism that was behind the delays in the disciplinary process. For example it notes how things improved dramatically under Formby (Corbyn ally) as opposed to McNichol, who definitely was not.
Read the Forde report or watch the Labour files and get back to me.

I’ve read the report, thanks.

Not sure how any of your comment is relevant unless you’re trying to take the ludicrous position that the general secretary of the party isn’t part of the “former leadership of the party”?

It seems like you’re agreeing with Starmer that the party under McNicol left antisemitism unchallenged but can’t bear to hear it from Starmer.

What he said certainly isn’t a lie.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I’ve read the report, thanks.

Not sure how any of your comment is relevant unless you’re trying to take the ludicrous position that the general secretary of the party isn’t part of the “former leadership of the party”?

It seems like you’re agreeing with Starmer that the party under McNicol left antisemitism unchallenged but can’t bear to hear it from Starmer.

What he said certainly isn’t a lie.

It astonishes me that you feel obliged to come out with this stuff.

I understand why Starmer does, it's realpolitik.

He's used it to purge the Party, cast Corbyn into the outer darkness and relaunch New Labour Mark II disguised as a moral crusade. It's been a godsend, that's why he flogs it to death, it's cover for the wholesale gutting of Labour's radical purpose.

 

[Postman Pep]

I’ve read the report, thanks.

Yet, like the EHRC, you are unwilling to join the dots. Not sure how you can read it and conclude that they were all 'on the same team'.

Not sure how any of your comment is relevant unless you’re trying to take the ludicrous position that the general secretary of the party isn’t part of the “former leadership of the party”?

In isolation that would be a ludicrous statement. Which is why I never said it.

It seems like you’re agreeing with Starmer that the party under McNicol left antisemitism unchallenged but can’t bear to hear it from Starmer.

If he'd highlighted the role of McNicol and others in fermenting this 'crisis' then I would agree. But he didn't.
Obviously the true villain of the piece has to be his former friend, the jam making pensioner.

What he said certainly isn’t a lie.

Ironically Chris Williamson would agree. His argument is that Corbyn sealed his own fate by letting a toxic narrative form unchallenged.

So maybe it wasn't specifically a lie but it certainly wasn't the whole truth. The pledges on the other hand......

 

[domalino]

Yet, like the EHRC, you are unwilling to join the dots. Not sure how you can read it and conclude that they were all 'on the same team'.

In isolation that would be a ludicrous statement. Which is why I never said it.

If he'd highlighted the role of McNicol and others in fermenting this 'crisis' then I would agree. But he didn't.
Obviously the true villain of the piece has to be his former friend, the jam making pensioner.

Ironically Chris Williamson would agree. His argument is that Corbyn sealed his own fate by letting a toxic narrative form unchallenged.

So maybe it wasn't specifically a lie but it certainly wasn't the whole truth. The pledges on the other hand......

So it wasn’t a lie.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Postman Pep]

So it wasn’t a lie.

Glad we cleared that up.

Whatever floats your boat.

My original statement was that he is a lying, duplicitous **** and I stand by that.

 

[Postman Pep]

But this is fine ...

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Must be doing well.

 

[Rascal]

Ha! Well if you think that Trump supporting prick is worth reading, no wonder.

I genuinely can't believe you think someone who believes the UK government carried out the Salisbury novichok attack to smear Putin is someone you should bring up in serious conversation.

You brought Monbiot into it.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Seems that he’s purged the anti-semitism from the party.

Any pictures to show that he’s a nasty man?