Keir Starmer

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

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

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.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

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.

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.

 

[mat]

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.

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.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

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.

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.

 

[mat]

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.

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

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

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.

 

[mat]

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.

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.

 

[The perfect fumble]

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

Did Cohen boycott Twitter?

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

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

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?

 

[The perfect fumble]

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

It's a good thing for Starmer there'll be no party conference this year.