Keir Starmer

If there is an 'open secret' about Starmer that is truly damaging there is nothing to stop an MP (perhaps a Tory, Reform or SNP) bringing it up in the Commons, as under parliamentary privilege they cannot be sued for libel.

As no one has we can assume that the 'open secret' is either non-damaging or complete fiction.

(As an aside, why did no MP use parliamentary privilege to name Savile (among others) as a wrong 'un? )
 
BrianW said:
If there is an 'open secret' about Starmer that is truly damaging there is nothing to stop an MP (perhaps a Tory, Reform or SNP) bringing it up in the Commons, as under parliamentary privilege they cannot be sued for libel.

As no one has we can assume that the 'open secret' is either non-damaging or complete fiction.

(As an aside, why did no MP use parliamentary privilege to name Savile (among others) as a wrong 'un? )
Click to expand...
What was said is it's a open secret that people think there's something dodgy about him. But not that anyone has managed necessarily to nail down what it is. Sounds a bit odd that I know but I assume journalists suspect fire when they see smoke, without yet knowing what's burning.

I think that's why they are pouring over his expenses and Alli dealings. They are trying to find something juicy which would be a massive scoop. If they knew what it was, they'd publish it already.
 
Chippy_boy said:
What was said is it's a open secret that people think there's something dodgy about him. But not that anyone has managed necessarily to nail down what it is. Sounds a bit odd that I know but I assume journalists suspect fire when they see smoke, without yet knowing what's burning.

I think that's why they are pouring over his expenses and Alli dealings. They are trying to find something juicy which would be a massive scoop. If they knew what it was, they'd publish it already.
Click to expand...
Just more bullshit and propaganda by the RW power brokers.
 
Bill Walker said:
I don't know much about UK politics but it's absolutely no surprise to learn that the new government are just as sleazy and dishonest as the last lot.
Click to expand...
To add balance they have:-)

done some things they promised In the manifesto( thats actually a plus in our politics and I'm being serious)

Started or stopped some things without a conclusion yet, so not really worth a thumbs up or down at this point.

Fucked up the Wfa change

Grabbed themselves some booty like grubby fifa voting officials.

A mixed bag would be a fair description but fair has nothing to do with it on here.

The budget is the biggie

As you were.
 
Chippy_boy said:
What was said is it's a open secret that people think there's something dodgy about him. But not that anyone has managed necessarily to nail down what it is. Sounds a bit odd that I know but I assume journalists suspect fire when they see smoke, without yet knowing what's burning.

I think that's why they are pouring over his expenses and Alli dealings. They are trying to find something juicy which would be a massive scoop. If they knew what it was, they'd publish it already.
Click to expand...
Open secret that people think there’s something dodgy?

I’d say it’s an open secret that you’ve lost the plot.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Seems you are preparing yourself so that when he gets the chop you can put it down to be a RW conspiracy. Nothing to do with him being a lying, hypocritical twat.
Click to expand...
He won’t get the chop for being a lying hypocritical twat.
If that was the case Johnson wouldn’t have lasted a fortnight.
 
Politicians in this country have relatively low moral standards; although probably better than in some countries, not that that's saying much.

We had a chance to elect a principled PM a bit back, but people, for the most part, either hated him or laughed at him, and the media crucified him, including the 'leftie' BBC when it put up a background with him wearing a Russian hat in from of the Kremlin. Very unbiased.

For what it's worth, I think Corbyn would have been only marginally less disastrous than Johnson or Truss. He would probably not have been an effective leader. But he certainly had principles and I doubt very much that in office he would have taken bungs from every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

When it comes down to it, people prefer bent twats to people of principle because principles are uncomfortable to live with. That's why they crucified Jesus. (And no, I am not comparing Corbyn to Jesus before anyone misdirects themselves.)
 
BrianW said:
Politicians in this country have relatively low moral standards; although probably better than in some countries, not that that's saying much.

We had a chance to elect a principled PM a bit back, but people, for the most part, either hated him or laughed at him, and the media crucified him, including the 'leftie' BBC when it put up a background with him wearing a Russian hat in from of the Kremlin. Very unbiased.

For what it's worth, I think Corbyn would have been only marginally less disastrous than Johnson or Truss. He would probably not have been an effective leader. But he certainly had principles and I doubt very much that in office he would have taken bungs from every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

When it comes down to it, people prefer bent twats to people of principle because principles are uncomfortable to live with. That's why they crucified Jesus. (And no, I am not comparing Corbyn to Jesus before anyone misdirects themselves.)
Click to expand...
Corbyn the IRA sympathiser, busy calling Hamas and Hezbollah his friends.

What a principled chap he is.
 
BrianW said:
Politicians in this country have relatively low moral standards; although probably better than in some countries, not that that's saying much.

We had a chance to elect a principled PM a bit back, but people, for the most part, either hated him or laughed at him, and the media crucified him, including the 'leftie' BBC when it put up a background with him wearing a Russian hat in from of the Kremlin. Very unbiased.

For what it's worth, I think Corbyn would have been only marginally less disastrous than Johnson or Truss. He would probably not have been an effective leader. But he certainly had principles and I doubt very much that in office he would have taken bungs from every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

When it comes down to it, people prefer bent twats to people of principle because principles are uncomfortable to live with. That's why they crucified Jesus. (And no, I am not comparing Corbyn to Jesus before anyone misdirects themselves.)
Click to expand...

I think they have certain principles but they get mired in the shit show that is Westminster.

I agree Corbyn was principled (and that cost him) but when it would come to getting policy done he’d still struggle.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Agree about them not bringing him down directly. But they will just keep adding fuel to the fire that he's dishonest, which clearly he is. I don't know what will get him in the end. Lying to parliament perhaps, or something from left field.
Click to expand...
That didn’t bring down Johnson, so why would that end Starmer? MPs can’t even call another MP a liar in Parliament. We found that out under the last government.

Who was the last “honest” prime minister, in your opinion?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
That didn’t bring down Johnson, so why would that end Starmer? MPs can’t even call another MP a liar in Parliament. We found that out under the last government.

Who was the last “honest” prime minister, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Even Pitt the younger lied about his age, he was actually 85.

Lying ****.
 
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