Keir Starmer

Prestwich_Blue said:
All you need to know about Len McCluskey and the utter irony and sheer hypocrisy of him criticising the Labour Party over using members' money in libel cases. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...es-leader-the-bullyboys-were-set-loose-on-her
Click to expand...

Len McClusky is everything that is wrong with the labour party.

As for Corbyn and the whip. I think the speculation is around what will happen once the EHRC report is released. Most people would accept they are independent and unbiased in assessing what has gone on. The wording will be key, if they say that the system was unable to cope but he didn't get involved and their was no conscious effort to suppress the handling of anti-Semitism then fair enough, I wouldn't argue with it. However the accusation is that he and others intervened in specific cases and delayed outcomes and watered down sanctions creating an environment that allowed it to go unchecked. If that is true then I would think the current leadership would have to do something. In any normal business you would be asked to resign. As I said it all hinges on the wording - if they find a tolerance of anti-Semitism and it is very strongly pinned on Corbyn and Formby and others they will have to go. If they form a new party then Labour is better off without those that would chose to follow them.
 
Gaudion M said:
Len McClusky is everything that is wrong with the labour party.

As for Corbyn and the whip. I think the speculation is around what will happen once the EHRC report is released. Most people would accept they are independent and unbiased in assessing what has gone on. The wording will be key, if they say that the system was unable to cope but he didn't get involved and their was no conscious effort to suppress the handling of anti-Semitism then fair enough, I wouldn't argue with it. However the accusation is that he and others intervened in specific cases and delayed outcomes and watered down sanctions creating an environment that allowed it to go unchecked. If that is true then I would think the current leadership would have to do something. In any normal business you would be asked to resign. As I said it all hinges on the wording - if they find a tolerance of anti-Semitism and it is very strongly pinned on Corbyn and Formby and others they will have to go. If they form a new party then Labour is better off without those that would chose to follow them.
Click to expand...
Although I'd imagine corbyn may be criticised for weak leadership with regard to AS, my understanding is that the suppression and delay of AS investigation was by other elements within the party? - Rather worryingly that this was a political tactic to damage corbyn.
 
Rascal said:
Has this happened? I have been away and not seen the news.

If he removed the whip from Corbyn, it would split the party even further than he already has, how that makes the party more electable is a mystery to me, because lots of the membership that still remain would go nuts about that. I know this is a generalisation but most of the hardcore canvassers, leafleters, campaigners are on the left of the party and he would lose the grass roots support.
Click to expand...


It was one of the demands by the liars who the Labour Party settled with for lying to the BBC. They are now planning to sue Corbyn as well.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Although I'd imagine corbyn may be criticised for weak leadership with regard to AS, my understanding is that the suppression and delay of AS investigation was by other elements within the party? - Rather worryingly that this was a political tactic to damage corbyn.
Click to expand...

There are many theories / accusations washing around - lets see what it says. It should be fairly easy to unpick as there were a number of pretty high profile cases and there was a process that should have been followed.
 
Gaudion M said:
There are many theories / accusations washing around - lets see what it says. It should be fairly easy to unpick as there were a number of pretty high profile cases and there was a process that should have been followed.
Click to expand...
Why do you think Starmer instructed the lawyers to settle?

The evidence was in Labours favour to win it. Had that happened it would have shown Corbyn was right along with shaming members of the party who openly fought against him in the public record.

Not a good look for a new leader trying to move the party to right of the previous one you fought against has been justified in court
 
The fact is that there was an AS issue in labour, and unless you believe Starmer has some sort of fairy dust or magic wand it still does. All he has done to combat AS is say a few reassuring things and use it as a reason to dispose of internal political opponents (RLB). Corbyn was weak on the issue to the point where he may justly be accused of being complicit. However, if it turns out that the delay and suppression of dealing with AS was down to his enemies hijacking and weaponising AS in order to remove corbyn/ advance their own careers then that is truly evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
The fact is that there was an AS issue in labour, and unless you believe Starmer has some sort of fairy dust or magic wand it still does. All he has done to combat AS is say a few reassuring things and use it as a reason to dispose of internal political opponents (RLB). Corbyn was weak on the issue to the point where he may justly be accused of being complicit. However, if it turns out that the delay and suppression of dealing with AS was down to his enemies hijacking and weaponising AS in order to remove corbyn/ advance their own careers then that is truly evil.
Click to expand...

That is my concern.

It will come out eventually. Probably when I'm dead mind as the historians get to pick through the shit show.
 
mat said:
Why do you think Starmer instructed the lawyers to settle?

The evidence was in Labours favour to win it. Had that happened it would have shown Corbyn was right along with shaming members of the party who openly fought against him in the public record.

Not a good look for a new leader trying to move the party to right of the previous one you fought against has been justified in court
Click to expand...

There will always be a debate about the outcome and significance of this case. I think it is not that important in the grand scheme of things. Defamation is hard to prove so either way it would have gone doesn't give anyone a total clean bill of health, it would not justify anything. That said how do Labour win that case. 4 or 5 members of their own staff testifying against them. How do you prove that they are lying?
 
mat said:
Why do you think Starmer instructed the lawyers to settle?

The evidence was in Labours favour to win it. Had that happened it would have shown Corbyn was right along with shaming members of the party who openly fought against him in the public record.

Not a good look for a new leader trying to move the party to right of the previous one you fought against has been justified in court
Click to expand...

It's a good thing for Starmer there'll be no party conference this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Vic said:
You don't go to court "whether it's right or wrong". First rule of defamation cases. You go if you've been defamed and think you can win. You defend if you think you can show justification or some other defence.

At least, that's the rule if it's your own money. It may be different if it's other people's you're risking, like union members'.
Click to expand...
One of those who was compensated was proved to be lying as the PLP had recorded the interview, yet Starmer still refused to take it to court to prove it.
 
Gaudion M said:
once the EHRC report is released. Most people would accept they are independent and unbiased in assessing what has gone on.
Click to expand...

They are not unbiased, the commissioners are virtually all ex-capitalists and therefore certain to be Tories.

If you think they are, you probably think UEFA is unbiased too.
 
Fame Monster said:
It was a rumour, think it was nonsense tbh.

He might lose some of the people you name but I'm sure Starmer would win a lot more voters than he lost, and plenty of those would be the working class voters who are now voting Tory which would be doubly effective. Whereas if the far-left were fucked off, I can't imagine them voting for the Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Why is he is so far behind in the polls at a time when the Govt is doing so badly?
 
Rascal said:
They are not unbiased, the commissioners are virtually all ex-capitalists and therefore certain to be Tories.

If you think they are, you probably think UEFA is unbiased too.
Click to expand...

On that scale then unbiased does not exist. You are either a socialist or a tory - no middle ground.

I don't know what the report will say but I will accept it.
 
Rascal said:
Why is he is so far behind in the polls at a time when the Govt is doing so badly?
Click to expand...

The last I read, Starmer had better personal ratings than Johnson but the Conservatives had more support than Labour.

That would suggest it's not Starmer that's the problem: it's others in the party i.e. the tranche of MPs in the Corbyn, Abbott, Burgon mould.
 
Gaudion M said:
Repairing the damage is going to be a long haul project. Its moving in the right direction. The big test for tory approval is how people see them at this point next year.
Click to expand...

I hope Starmer will be gone by then. If I want to vote for a centrist party that supports neo-liberal economic policies I have a big enough choice without having to vote Labour.

Starmer is being funded by business and other lobbies, it will be his downfall and hopefully it will be soon.
 
Fame Monster said:
The last I read, Starmer had better personal ratings than Johnson but the Conservatives had more support than Labour.
Click to expand...

The Yorkshire Ripper, Fred West, Attila the Hun, Harold Shipman and Lou fucking Macari would all have a higher approval rating than Johnson
 
mat said:
Why do you think Starmer instructed the lawyers to settle?

The evidence was in Labours favour to win it. Had that happened it would have shown Corbyn was right along with shaming members of the party who openly fought against him in the public record.

Not a good look for a new leader trying to move the party to right of the previous one you fought against has been justified in court
Click to expand...
Did he instruct the lawyers? Or did he take their advice? I've been twice in the small claims court (as plaintiff or as a McKenzie friend) and each time we offered to settle out of court but the other party refused and lost. I thought they'd lose but it's always a risk.
 
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