My post wasn't serious
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Thats grim. Also unless I missed it, Starmer didn't mention the murder Brianna Ghey in his speech. The anti trans movement has really gone up a gear and there's really no big political movement pushing back against it.
Very bleak times ahead.
The thing is the expectation is him accepting the findings of the EHRC report, that's what starmer wanted him to do to restore the whip.
The EHRC report is highly inaccurate and coming out and accepting those findings would be wrong.
He's never denied antisemitism he made a speach saying one antisemite in the party is too many and accepted antisemitism existed many times.
The fact that corbyn is still used as a weapon in PMQs every other week is a farce in itself too and just another dark shadow over British politics given all the clear controversies over the last 4 years and this one still gets spoken about.
The Labour manifesto in 2019 was the most radical we've seen in this country for a very long time. Its no surprise that the antisemitism allegations only amplified in volume after this. It was never about antisemitism, it was about blocking corbyn from getting into power and the wealthy media moguls did a stern job in preventing that.
He didn't mention it in the speech, or any interview, or even on Twitter. Nothing. He has mentioned a firefighter who died in a fire in Edinburgh, and laid into UEFA following the report into the Champions League final though since her murder, and posted tributes to Pele and Pope Benedict within a few hours of their deaths being announced.
Listen to voices! Amplify lived experiences!
It absolutely was satirical. I was just adding a non satirical point.
It's been a long few months, I lack the capacity to create satire.
Attack on democracy Corbyn says yet he is free to stand as an independent.
Because it is up to the constituencys Labour members to select the Labour candidate for the area.
So they are losing their democratic right within the party to select the candidate they want to represent them.
They are free to vote for him as an independent. What's the big deal? It's not stopping them voting for a Labour candidate if they want either.
God that’s so depressing and disturbing.
might not even run. The Labour Left are really something
How strange, Corbyn's best mate Diane Abbott calls him a Brexiteer and no one says a word. I posted that in the Brexit thread during Brexit and was met with a barrage of imbecile smileys and told it was all lies. Posters queued up to say how wrong I was.
Actions speaks louder than words and the party backed a second referendum under Corbyn.
It's typical of Starmer, to be fair. If he has any core values, he's happy to throw them away if it will get him more votes.
He is irrelevant now.
Eventually! Him and McDonnell tried his best to stop Conference even discussing it. Corbyn was a Brexiter, most of the old left were, and the younger left will have no credibility until the come to terms with it.
Starmer's a liar too of course, but at least he's a cleverer one, and will be in power, for good or ill.
We should remember that the Indicative Brexit votes included a customs union option which was defeated by 5. All the Lib Dem MPs voted it down.
And Jared O'Mara was coked off his tits and suspended MPs like Kelvin Hopkins were able to push for a hard Brexit.
Yeah pretty much.
Labour Party is dead. The corporations have spoken
Apart from when people like Claudia Webbe and Jared O’Mara got parachuted in. Didn’t see Corbyn kicking up a fuss then. How can Corbyn be a Labour candidate when he has lost the whip?
I’m sure if he stood as an Independent there is a good chance he would win.
That whole week of politics was mental and yeah it seems to have been heavily forgotten. It was that small period where it actually looked like the party might have moved on to work together and then the Lib Dems and I think Change UK numpties fecked it all.
We were so close to a better direction for the country not just on brexit but overall.
There were so many votes and it was so complicated that I ain't going back to study it, but I agree in general, I'd just add that Labour failed to support the Libs on their proposals, which would also have led to a better Brexit, and maybe none at all. Those that wanted Brexit, of both right and left, didn't want a 'better Brexit' in the first place, that was a major part of the problem.
i don't think that's true, Labour very much voted with the Lib Dems but there were never enough votes for it to pass.
Even Lamb (Lib Dem) came out immediately and slated his own lot for it and Kinnock explained he understood from conversations that they'd agreed to vote for his amendment because he had gathered support for theirs but then they backtracked.
As much as people want to try and forget and blame Brexit on Corbyn it was his side that compromised and tried to take a centrist view. Many of the centrist heroes of the time like Chukka were the ones entrenched and unwilling to compromise.
Now ironically Labour are in the position of supporting exactly what Starmer and many of the loudest critics at the time refused to support then.
I suspect factionalism and career ambition was the main blockers at the time. Elements which aren't removed from Labour today sadly.
Too right he was, one of Tony Benn's anti common market/EEC gang, back in the 70's.
Benn and Corbyn at the time professed the view that this 'common market' was a vehicle (at one time in one speech I think the words 'trojan horse' were used) that was a way for the multi-nationals to control things under the guise of European economic co-operation. Don't think Jeremy ever really changed his view on that, but he made less noise about it.
Having surprised everyone in becoming leader of a party, that over the years since he joined, he had a opposed Labour policy on virtually every major issue, he suddenly became its leader and led the greatest electoral defeat for the party in many years. Surely, Jeremy cannot be surprised that any subsequent leader, Starmer (or whoever) of the Labour Party, following his dismal performance wouldn't give him the time of day.
Jeremy is an old 'International Socialist' and cared more for that mantle than being a solid British Socialist. In the opinion of many (my age, and former Labour Party members) he spent too much time championing socialist causes around the world, most of which of course he could never really influence, rather than knuckling down to fight for British socialism, through a diverse, but broadly left, Labour party.
Today's younger left of course see Jeremy as the 'grand old man of the left', but its a left that will never gain power or be able to influence it, in the UK unless it is prepared to focus on winning power via a moderate Labour Party.
I don't think there was anything more factionalist than a Labour leadership (with McDonell) who refused to divulge their Brexit beliefs throughout, on what was far and away the biggest issue facing the country for decades, and until your analysis takes account of that, or even acknowledges it, I can't take it too seriously, sorry.
My own view is that the old left didn't want just brexit, they wanted complete freedom from EU legislation that would restrict what they wanted to do, and a soft Brexit would never have been compatible with that. If they had talked about it honestly the party and the country might have been able to consider their views, but they didn't.
Again not true though and you seem to be judging events based on character opinion than factual events.
McDonnel was the one who worked with Starmer most closely on Labours strategy. He co-ordinated efforts to bring everyone on board with the direction to the point it was only Seumus Milne who was opposed and he was upset others turned.
McDonnel publically on multiple occasions even clashed with Corbyns stance. He publically declared on multiple occasions he'd vote remain over a labour brokered brexit deal.
Think some of you lot have selective memory of events.
Mate, don't put childish arguments into my mouth. I've been debating this on this forum for longer than is healthy. I was right about this, and people like you were wrong and still can't admit it despite all legal findings that back up the argument. All you basically have is conspiracy theories.
All the way through this, I have marvelled at how if this had been about any other race, there would have been far more listening, empathy and introspection, rather than this outright denial from a certain part of the party. I just can't get over it.
Last edited:
I'm basing my opinion of McDonnell on the reports at a Labour conference that he was personally going round trying to block debate on having a second referendum. If that was isolated from his general opinions on the subject then fair enough.
But you still haven't addressed Corbyn's views and how they fitted in. Diane Abbott said clearly yesterday that Corbyn was a Brexiter, and to me that fitted in with his actions at the time. His supporters on here will simply not admit it.
You don't have to be personally racist to preside over something that looked like an institutionally racist organisation. Although arguably people would be justified in saying that person was racist, if they refused to do anything about it and had the power to do so.
Last edited:
It's likely even more institutionally racist now... but unlikely to hear a peep from you about that are we? Corbyn's toast so everyone can pretend the party is cleansed. So disingenuous that you have to laugh really.
You use the word "likely" so whats' your evidence?
I don't think there's much push back on the idea he was a brexiteer at one point. So was McDonnel and many of thr rest of the older left.
That doesn't mean he was a brexiteer when in charge of Labour though, like McDonnel his actionable views changed. If we held every politician to standards of old views there wouldn't be many suitable politicians left and that includes Starmer.
You know the party threatened a holocaust survivor with expulsion a few weeks ago because he planned to give a talk at a holocaust memorial event? If you had a slight bit of intellectual curiosity you could see lots of evidence of left-wing Jewish members getting suspended or expelled. You're far more likely to be suspended now in the Labour party for antisemitism if you are Jewish, than those who are not.
Trevor Phillips allowed back in the party despite clear Islamophobic comments. Punishing members for any connection they may have previously had with a newly proscribed group. You know the Labour party literally had to change their own rule book and remove the part about the principles of natural justice to do this?
Clear evidence of the leadership meddling in the disciplinary process to punish Corbyn, despite the EHRC report specifically railing against this.
Mate, don't put childish arguments into my mouth. I've been debating this on this forum for longer than is healthy. I was right about this, and people like you were wrong and still can't admit it despite all legal findings that back up the argument. All you basically have is conspiracy theories.
All the way through this, I have marvelled at how if this had been about any other race, there would have been far more listening, empathy and introspection, rather than this outright denial from a certain part of the party. I just can't get over it.
Hardly conspiracy theories is it. You're only defence is "EHRC report says this so therefore this happened" but you don't actually analyse the report, the content of the report, the authors of the report. It suits your agenda so of course you accept all the findings. Not as if the uk government and their "independant" boards have got stuff wrong before with some of their reports or anything.
It's baffling though that more jewish people are being kicked out of the party than any time in history right now and yet it's the previous leader who is the antisemite. How does that work Nick? Is Labour infiltrated with a load of jewish antisemites and they're the root cause of the problem so by revoking their membership Kier has now fixed the issues?
What next, tackle racism by kicking out all the black and asian members?
I will accept that institutions are imperfect, and can always be criticised, but you need to do better than dismissing a whole institution, Trump style, because you don't like the outcome - which obviously must be because a few people on the Board were appointed by your political enemies. If the EHRC had come down the other way, you'd be lauding their independence and clarity of thought. I accept the EHRC report because the organisation is credible and they did the work.
Ultimately they are getting expelled because they refused to accept there was a problem. They aren't being expelled because they are Jewish. Is it a great look? No. But if labour want to be taken seriously on this, they have to kick out the ideologues that deny it, whoever they are.
Perhaps because they didn't see it that way?
Yes, it's not lovely and arguably heavy handed in this instance, and an over reaction but (a) he was in fact a labour member and (b) it was a memorial event organised by a proscribed organisation that labour members aren't supposed to support, at a time when Starmer wants discipline in the ranks because he's about to fight an election. So, you know...