The Labour Party

160511-luke-akehurst.jpg
Is that the same bloke?
 
Postman Pep said:
An actual paid lobbyist for Israel. Yesterday he asked why noboby pursues non violent methods any more .... like BDS!
Click to expand...

How nice of him, a former arms lobbyist too. A horrible little man.

electronicintifada.net

New bombshell film exposes Israel lobby role in UK Labour Party

Al Jazeera obtains huge leak of internal documents revealing dirty tricks.
electronicintifada.net electronicintifada.net

electronicintifada.net

Arms industry promoter latest recruit for UK Israel lobby

Luke Akehurst won awards for representing weapons makers; now he's joining top Zionist outfit.
electronicintifada.net electronicintifada.net
 
Paul's just an attention seeking opportunist.

Akehurst is genuinely evil though.

He serves the worst interests of power and uses it to bully MPs and activists who want to do genuine good.

Been reading that horrible little man's timeline and he's been accusing people of using anti-Semitic tropes because they said he has taken his 30 pieces of silver.

This man isn't Jewish and literally works as the director of an Israel lobby group.

Starmer has literally sold his soul to a little red devil.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Paul's just an attention seeking opportunist.

Akehurst is genuinely evil though.

He serves the worst interests of power and uses it to bully MPs and activists who want to do genuine good.

Been reading that horrible little man's timeline and he's been accusing people of using anti-Semitic tropes because they said he has taken his 30 pieces of silver.

This man isn't Jewish and literally works as the director of an Israel lobby group.

Starmer has literally sold his soul to a little red devil.
Click to expand...
Paul Mason, for all his many flaws and his extremely strange turn in the last couple of years, is at least an intelligent guy with an interesting intellectual background and personal interests. (I met him once, was really great to talk to). Akehurst is just a nasty thug.
 
14/197 Labour MPs aren't standing (7.1%). Plus 6 deselected - that's 10% not standing again for Labour for various reasons.
20/244 (at dissolution) didn't stand last time around (8/2%).
Those numbers aren't that different from each other as a percentage (I think the current numbers are about right).

This time, they're likely to be going into govt and you'd think it's a bit more appealling to stay on.
3 of the 4 longest serving Labour MPs are going. 10/31 first elected in 2001 or earlier are going (I think).

This isn't to say that Crick (who's behind Tomorrowsmps) is wrong, but the numbers don't seem unreasonable on the face of it.
 
KPXBLN said:
Paul Mason, for all his many flaws and his extremely strange turn in the last couple of years, is at least an intelligent guy with an interesting intellectual background and personal interests. (I met him once, was really great to talk to). Akehurst is just a nasty thug.
Click to expand...

Was probably being a bit unkind on PM.

I've not met him, but agree with that, he's intelligent and an original thinker. The desperate lost puppy act probably comes from a genuine desire to do good.

Akekhurst is such or horrible man that he would lead an organisation that exterminated other ginger people just as long as he money and power.
 
Interesting article in the FT today about Rachel Reeves’ new book, ‘The women who made modern economics’, where she argues that many female economists have been the victims of shameless plagiarism and received insufficient credit from their more famous male colleagues.

Interesting in that Reeves herself appears to have conducted large scale plagiarism when writing the book, lifting sections wholesale from Wikipedia, a variety of newspapers and even her own (male) party colleagues.

Maybe this is her own version of levelling up?
 
Brewster's millions said:
Interesting article in the FT today about Rachel Reeves’ new book, ‘The women who made modern economics’, where she argues that many female economists have been the victims of shameless plagiarism and received insufficient credit from their more famous male colleagues.

Interesting in that Reeves herself appears to have conducted large scale plagiarism when writing the book, lifting sections wholesale from Wikipedia, a variety of newspapers and even her own (male) party colleagues.

Maybe this is her own version of levelling up?
Click to expand...
Does she quote them or have you read the book and used a red pen to circle these non-referenced quotes?
 
Brewster's millions said:
Interesting article in the FT today about Rachel Reeves’ new book, ‘The women who made modern economics’, where she argues that many female economists have been the victims of shameless plagiarism and received insufficient credit from their more famous male colleagues.

Interesting in that Reeves herself appears to have conducted large scale plagiarism when writing the book, lifting sections wholesale from Wikipedia, a variety of newspapers and even her own (male) party colleagues.

Maybe this is her own version of levelling up?
Click to expand...
I wrote the Wikipedia page for one of our local places then found the Council had lifted it for a booklet about all the local places.

Attribution depends on whether the info is under Commons licence. Even then, it can't be used for commercial purposes without attribution (and maybe payment).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top