Keir Starmer

[johnnytapia]

There was an interesting interview with Rachel Reeves recently, where she was clear that they didn't want to make that case yet.

They were happy with the windfall tax being picked up by the Tories, but if you look at the detail of the Tory version, it's a very different beast. Labour don't want to put out a full list of commitments now, and see the Tories pick off the best ideas, and present right wing versions of them which would make it more difficult to differentiate.

She was certain that they had the ideas in place to fight an election, but when you're fighting a populist government which has a very loose relationship with ethics, they needed to be more clever with when they presented ideas.

Could be a load of bollocks, and she's bluffing, but it does make sense. It's also pretty much what every other opposition has done over the years.

Good point.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

What has changed and why Starmer is in a difficult place is the Tories/Brexit has totally fucked the economy. We already have the highest tax burden in living memory and are running on a massive deficit while infaltion is driving key workers in to poverty and the NHS is at breaking point.

I remember David Cameron banging on about fixing the roof when the weather was good. Well Johnson has dismantled the roof and burnt the wood.

So Starmers offering will be a bit lighter weight than the last manifesto. But there are good reasons for that.

Aye. It‘s always the way that the Tories will get rid of services but these fuckers have gone further than anybody imagined, and I think it will continue if Truss gets in.

Labour have a real challenge if they get in power, there’ll be very little left for them to turn it around and I’m hoping they get some time in to do so.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Not a criticism of you, but most of that is just generalised, twee bollocks. “Every child is unique.” And most, if not all of those “policies” could be lifted direct from Tory HQ.

There’s other stuff on there, mate, including the stuff for pre-school. Not my manifesto, just answering a question.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Good point.

It is a good point and it was notable that the government basically stole a lot of Labours incentives during the last couple of years and rehashed them as their own.

Another point, which I’d not heard of, was to do with the Unions. I was under the impression that Labour had steered well clear of them but listening to one of the big Union rep’s, he basically stated that they’ve done tons of stuff behind the scenes and are supporting them well.

 

[johnnytapia]

There’s other stuff on there, mate, including the stuff for pre-school. Not my manifesto, just answering a question.

Ta, just wish they’d be clear, for example, a policy that all teachers must be qualified. Something Gove thought was worth ditching to allow non-qualified people the chance to teach rowing because they’d been first pick at the Henley Regatta

 

[Postman Pep]

Their argument is that they were continuing to support a list of candidates that had been agreed, and that the LOTO staff told them to divert funding away from candidates that were anti-Corbyn to a different group who were pro-Corbyn, many of whom were in safe seats.

Even if this was true, and there is zero evidence that it is, non of it negates the fact that Labour staffers with no mandate secretly diverted £135,000 of funding....... surprised they had time given the amount of time they spent 'trot spotting'.... Mind you having read the report it is worth noting that they allocated £225k and didn't get round to spending it.

That's not what I said though. I said they're claiming they were asked to do the opposite but didn't. The Forde report says this was also wrong, but couldn't be verified as he was told the pressure to change was verbal - and given that Corbyn and others on his side wouldn't answer questions from Forde, he would have found that harder to dismiss.

The actual words were 'we were unable to establish the truth of these allegations '. If true it would be wrong but there is no evidence to back up this claim, just word of mouth...... sounds familiar:)

Final point. As far as I am aware Corbyn gave a submission to Forde so have you anything to back up your claim he and his acolytes refused to engage?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Ta, just wish they’d be clear, for example, a policy that all teachers must be qualified. Something Gove thought was worth ditching to allow non-qualified people the chance to teach rowing because they’d been first pick at the Henley Regatta

I think that would be a given with Labour with their Union links, Gove’s a prick ;-)

 

[bluenova]

Even if this was true, and there is zero evidence that it is, non of it negates the fact that Labour staffers with no mandate secretly diverted £135,000 of funding....... surprised they had time given the amount of time they spent 'trot spotting'.... Mind you having read the report it is worth noting that they allocated £225k and didn't get round to spending it.

The actual words were 'we were unable to establish the truth of these allegations '. If true it would be wrong but there is no evidence to back up this claim, just word of mouth...... sounds familiar:)

Final point. As far as I am aware Corbyn gave a submission to Forde so have you anything to back up your claim he and his acolytes refused to engage?

Corybn was described as "notably silent" and "did not engage in our requests to interview him". I believe he signed a joint submission with other people, but then refused to answer questions about it - something they say happened with other senior figures too.

I can understand that it's 'word of mouth', but I'd be surprised if it says no evidence, as clearly someone telling them that's the case is evidence - it's just not proof. You can have an opinion that you don't believe it, but I don't think it can be dismissed, especially when one side was willing to have their version of events interrogated, while the others refused.

 

[Postman Pep]

Corybn was described as "notably silent" and "did not engage in our requests to interview him". I believe he signed a joint submission with other people, but then refused to answer questions about it - something they say happened with other senior figures too.

When you say 'it' do you mean the specific allegation that LOTO was demanding that funding be diverted to loyalists in safe seats? Or was it a general assessment of his overall reticence?

Again even if true none of that negates the fact that almost a quarter of million pounds was diverted by people with no mandate. I can't think why people confronted with factual evidence of their shithousery would seek to blame others can you?

I can understand that it's 'word of mouth', but I'd be surprised if it says no evidence, as clearly someone telling them that's the case is evidence - it's just not proof. You can have an opinion that you don't believe it, but I don't think it can be dismissed, especially when one side was willing to have their version of events interrogated, while the others refused.

To repeat the actual words were 'we were unable to establish the truth over these allegations '

Word of mouth against lack of evidence was just me referencing the last long winded judgement I read. No smoke without fire and all that.

There is plenty of 'both siding' to take from this report not sure this one of them tbh.

 

[bluethrunthru]

No smoke without fire and all that.

You need in all instances to change smoke with allegation and fire with proof - thats how the law works

 

[bluenova]

When you say 'it' do you mean the specific allegation that LOTO was demanding that funding be diverted to loyalists in safe seats? Or was it a general assessment of his overall reticence?

Again even if true none of that negates the fact that almost a quarter of million pounds was diverted by people with no mandate. I can't think why people confronted with factual evidence of their shithousery would seek to blame others can you?

To repeat the actual words were 'we were unable to establish the truth over these allegations '

Word of mouth against lack of evidence was just me referencing the last long winded judgement I read. No smoke without fire and all that.

There is plenty of 'both siding' to take from this report not sure this one of them tbh.

In my sentence "it" is his submission. But it applies to everything you want as the report states he wouldn't be interviewed (so not a general assessment - it's just what happened).

And "we were unable to establish the truth over these allegations" means exactly that. It doesn't mean "we don't believe them", or "we think they made them up to cover themselves". It means, that after all the investigations, people who know a lot more than you or I, are saying they don't know.

I'm not taking sides, I'm saying the report says they don't know if it's true that LOTO pressured the party staff to divert funding.

I don't disagree about the shadow fund being dodgy as fuck, and likely worth sacking everyone involved - but I did say in my very first post, that I'd expel them from the party if I had the choice.

 

[mat]

 

[Postman Pep]

In my sentence "it" is his submission. But it applies to everything you want as the report states he wouldn't be interviewed (so not a general assessment - it's just what happened).

And "we were unable to establish the truth over these allegations" means exactly that. It doesn't mean "we don't believe them", or "we think they made them up to cover themselves". It means, that after all the investigations, people who know a lot more than you or I, are saying they don't know.

I'm not taking sides, I'm saying the report says they don't know if it's true that LOTO pressured the party staff to divert funding.

I don't disagree about the shadow fund being dodgy as fuck, and likely worth sacking everyone involved - but I did say in my very first post, that I'd expel them from the party if I had the choice.

I appreciate we are going round in circles here but one last try.

You appreciate that these people were dodgy as fuck but seem determined to take at face value their excuses for acting in the manner they did.

You also dismiss the fact that there is zero evidence for these claims because conveniently it was all done verbally with no communication trail. If funds were being siphoned to Corbyn loyalists in safe seats you'd think there would also be a financial trail to back it up.

So despite these people being dodgy as fuck with no evidence to back up their claims you suggest that the main reason we will never know the truth is that Corbyn and his team refused to engage. Maybe they should have put the allegations to this fella.

 

[bluenova]

I appreciate we are going round in circles here but one last try.

You appreciate that these people were dodgy as fuck but seem determined to take at face value their excuses for acting in the manner they did.

You also dismiss the fact that there is zero evidence for these claims because conveniently it was all done verbally with no communication trail. If funds were being siphoned to Corbyn loyalists in safe seats you'd think there would also be a financial trail to back it up.

So despite these people being dodgy as fuck with no evidence to back up their claims you suggest that the main reason we will never know the truth is that Corbyn and his team refused to engage. Maybe they should have put the allegations to this fella.

I think you're maybe reading more into my comments than I intended.

I'm saying that if Forde has investigated properly (and initially the likes of Owen Jones, Novara etc. seemed happy that he had - obviously Steve Howell's statement contradicts this) and Forde is saying he can't dismiss the claims, then I don't think we can. The claim is also that they were pressured to move funding away from the initial target seats and towards Corbyn loyalists. If they are saying they didn't do this, and avoided it because instead they hid much of the money, then there wouldn't be a financial trail.

All I'm saying, and I'm pretty sure I've made this clear in my other messages, is that we don't know, and the guy who spent two years putting together the report, says he doesn't know. What someone says is evidence, it's just not proof as we don't know if they're telling the truth. As far as I can seem you're the only one who is making a decision about the truth of what they're saying. I am not :)

 

[Rascal]

All I know is I am sick to fucking death of the Labour RW, Blue Labour, Progress, Fabians and the rest of the liberal centrist cunts. There is more chance of me buying a ST for the swamp than there is me voting Labour ATM.

Starmer is a ****, Reeves is fucking horrible and a majority of Labour MPs are not worth a wank (Ange Raynor is an exception, just) . As the Tories move ever rightwards Labour follows like a little lost puppy because the leadership and the party does not dare to be Socialist.

We have a cost of living crisis and the Tory candidates are falling over themselves to offer tax cuts, tax cuts that will lead to further devastation of our public services, so why the fuck ain't the party of labour out there offering an alternative, a Socialist vision. Why the fuck are Labour MPs not on picket lines, supporting the working class.

Peter Oborne the distinguished RW journalist who worked for the Telegraph and others, said, "my position has not changed, the Tory party has left me" That is exactly how I feel about the Labour party. I do not recognise them anymore and they do no longer speak for me.

I have been a Labour supporter since I became politically aware around the age of 13, I have been a member for years, not anymore, they are lost to me. It breaks my heart, as long as people like that fucking clown Luke Akehurst are on the NEC and his band of Labour First "moderates" run the party it is fucked.

 

[PragueBlue]

We have a cost of living crisis and the Tory candidates are falling over themselves to offer tax cuts, tax cuts that will lead to further devastation of our public services, so why the fuck ain't the party of labour out there offering an alternative, a Socialist vision. Why the fuck are Labour MPs not on picket lines, supporting the working class.

Probably because they want to win an election. I'm not convinced that your vision is one that is shared by enough of the electorate to achieve that.

 

[bluenova]

All I know is I am sick to fucking death of the Labour RW, Blue Labour, Progress, Fabians and the rest of the liberal centrist cunts. There is more chance of me buying a ST for the swamp than there is me voting Labour ATM.

Starmer is a ****, Reeves is fucking horrible and a majority of Labour MPs are not worth a wank (Ange Raynor is an exception, just) . As the Tories move ever rightwards Labour follows like a little lost puppy because the leadership and the party does not dare to be Socialist.

We have a cost of living crisis and the Tory candidates are falling over themselves to offer tax cuts, tax cuts that will lead to further devastation of our public services, so why the fuck ain't the party of labour out there offering an alternative, a Socialist vision. Why the fuck are Labour MPs not on picket lines, supporting the working class.

Peter Oborne the distinguished RW journalist who worked for the Telegraph and others, said, "my position has not changed, the Tory party has left me" That is exactly how I feel about the Labour party. I do not recognise them anymore and they do no longer speak for me.

I have been a Labour supporter since I became politically aware around the age of 13, I have been a member for years, not anymore, they are lost to me. It breaks my heart, as long as people like that fucking clown Luke Akehurst are on the NEC and his band of Labour First "moderates" run the party it is fucked.

There was some interesting research about the values of Labour members, voters and MPs, which suggests that they're far from centrist cunts.

This one suggested MPs are actually more socially liberal than members, but slightly less left wing economically. However, all they're more in tune economically with Labour voters, and well to the left of the average voter.

You'll also notice that the people who voted Labour in 2017 but Tory in 2019 (which was the biggest switch - 11% of Labour 2017 voters went Tory), are on the left economically, but still further towards the centre than Labour MPs or members. (It's also scary to see just how far to the right the Tory MPs are economically, and how much better they appear to be at getting 'normal' people to vote for them!)

I suspect if you discussed politics with most Labour MPs you'd find you had a hell of a lot in common with them, but most will also know that their views are much further to the left than the "average voter", and that you need to take these people with you if you're going to change anything at all.

There's a strong case to say that every Labour government we've ever had was led by MPs that compromised their own views and stood on platforms that were a lot further to the right than the party members, and the leaders of the biggest unions.

 

[Postman Pep]

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Perfect opportunity for the soft left to stage a coup of the party machine.

Marginalise the right and trots at the same time.

 

[Postman Pep]

Perfect opportunity for the soft left to stage a coup of the party machine.

Marginalise the right and trots at the same time.

Maybe they should have when they had the chance ..... If only those tales of 'hard left' momentum stormtroopers purging everyone in sight were true eh :)