Will Starmer be "fine" or "fined" ?

[SydneyRover]

Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.

''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''

wiki

without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought

[drfchound]

Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.

''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''

wiki

without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought

It was his job to do that.
Are you saying he might have favoured the LP people and let them off.

[SydneyRover]

Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.

''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''

wiki

without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought

and before some pettifogger (w**ker) comes along and says 'that's his job' they need to inform bb and johnson who used it for political point scoring. All those tories that continued to back johnson through thick and thick and now want to take his place ffs

[drfchound]

Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.

''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''

wiki

without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought

and before some pettifogger (w**ker) comes along and says 'that's his job' they need to inform bb and johnson who used it for political point scoring. All those tories that continued to back johnson through thick and thick and now want to take his place ffs

When people start to lose an argument they often revert to abuse.
I assume you are now saying that it wasn’t Starmers job to prosecute people who had flouted the law.
That says much about you.
I was going to say that McSheffrey was quick to jump into Wellens position but that story was in the football section of the forum so I don’t suppose you would have heard about that.

[Colemans Left Hook]

Starmer has no idea about what he would do if he ever got in power. He is a prosecutor, and his only role is to conduct accusations against the opposition.

''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''

wiki

without fear or favour, vote for someone who can't be bought

and before some pettifogger (w**ker) comes along and says 'that's his job' they need to inform bb and johnson who used it for political point scoring. All those tories that continued to back johnson through thick and thick and now want to take his place ffs

When people start to lose an argument they often revert to abuse.
I assume you are now saying that it wasn’t Starmers job to prosecute people who had flouted the law.
That says much about you.
I was going to say that McSheffrey was quick to jump into Wellens position but that story was in the football section of the forum so I don’t suppose you would have heard about that.

see below for Sid's stats

[SydneyRover]

And the point is of course in circumstance where given an option to take action Starmer did the correct thing and the prosecutions went ahead .............

''In February 2010, Starmer announced the CPS's decision to prosecute three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer for offences relating to false accounting in the aftermath of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal.[31] They were all found guilty''

........... does anyone want to make a fool of themselves more than normal hound  (clh -hound - dd -pud - bb etc) and tell us that johnson or someone for his cabinet would have taken a similar option?

You've all watched the ethical and fiscal train wreck on your own tellies for years.

Johnson, bb and Albie of course get a special mention in forum honours for using the Savile scandal to try and smear Starmer, well done your efforts will not be forgotten ..... when the pressure is on aye?

[MachoMadness]

Anyone using the Savile smear is talking nonsense. It's come from the far right to throw red meat to the dimmest Kitsons on earth.

There is plenty Starmer should be taken to task for, like his bone headed stance on the strikes and his habitual broken promises, outlined below.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1547639798348730368?t=ZCCbxVqd9h6q3XeyUgI5Pw&s=19

Is there a word for someone who habitually says things they don't mean, and makes promises they have no intention of keeping? Hmmm.

[Bentley Bullet]

Anyone using the Savile smear is talking nonsense. It's come from the far right to throw red meat to the dimmest Kitsons on earth.

There is plenty Starmer should be taken to task for, like his bone headed stance on the strikes and his habitual broken promises, outlined below.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1547639798348730368?t=ZCCbxVqd9h6q3XeyUgI5Pw&s=19

Is there a word for someone who habitually says things they don't mean, and makes promises they have no intention of keeping? Hmmm.

Liar?

[SydneyRover]

Anyone using the Savile smear is talking nonsense. It's come from the far right to throw red meat to the dimmest Kitsons on earth.

There is plenty Starmer should be taken to task for, like his bone headed stance on the strikes and his habitual broken promises, outlined below.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1547639798348730368?t=ZCCbxVqd9h6q3XeyUgI5Pw&s=19

Is there a word for someone who habitually says things they don't mean, and makes promises they have no intention of keeping? Hmmm.

Liar?

And I notice you have shut your gob and don't directly accuse corbyn of being a terrorist either bb?

[drfchound]

From that Twitter link:

Keir_Starmer
The most morally bankrupt argument in politics:

"Breaking promises is crucial to getting elected"


I remember a very prominent poster on here saying that the above is acceptable.

[albie]

Syd,

What on earth are you ranting on about now;
"Johnson, bb and Albie of course get a special mention in forum honours for using the Savile scandal to try and smear Starmer, well done your efforts will not be forgotten ..... when the pressure is on aye?"

It is a matter of fact that Starmer was DPP during the Saville investigation.
The head of the department would normally sign off on a high profile case.

What else are you referring to please?

[SydneyRover]

I think what you johnson and bb have been implying is that Starmer is responsible, yes he has apologised for the DPPs failure to act but that doesn't make him personally responsible for what the police bring to the table in order to make a prosecution nor does it make him personally responsible, therefore why would it be used as part of political debate Albie, why at all?

Why have you repeated it, to defend johnson?

[albie]

Syd,

I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

The idea that I repeated something (what, I do not know) to defend Johnson is completely deranged.
Please link to the statement you are talking about, or withdraw your ludicrous claim, be a good lad!

If you think I would want to support Johnson, you have not read my posts about him, have you?

[SydneyRover]

Syd,

I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

The idea that I repeated something (what, I do not know) to defend Johnson is completely deranged.
Please link to the statement you are talking about, or withdraw your ludicrous claim, be a good lad!

If you think I would want to support Johnson, you have not read my posts about him, have you?

remember this? this was just before johnson on pmqs.

''Not speaking for Tyke, but Starmer has a poor track record in his previous position as DPP.

This is not just in relation to Jimmy Saville, but across a number of issues.
Starmer has always been a supporter of Cressida Dick, and recently re-affirmed his support.

Dick should have been sacked after that Brazilian lad Jean Charles de Menezes was shot on his way to work under the operational control of Dick.

Thought to be an armed terrorist.....turned out to be neither!''

[SydneyRover]

I guess this shows that despite the facts some will go out of their way to cast slurs over those they are opposed to politically.

I would expect those that do this would have apologised at some point, they probably just can't quite put their finger on it.

[wilts rover]

Syd,

I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

The idea that I repeated something (what, I do not know) to defend Johnson is completely deranged.
Please link to the statement you are talking about, or withdraw your ludicrous claim, be a good lad!

If you think I would want to support Johnson, you have not read my posts about him, have you?

I guess you must have missed this question in the other thread Albie - is this true? If it is not true - are you wrong - or are you lying?

So you cannot find a single example of Starmer deliberately lying dd, thank you for confirming that.

Sorry Syd, but there are many examples of Starmer lying.

For example, saying on Twitter that candidates should not be imposed on local parties, then doing exactly that in Wakefield and Stroud, leading to local members resigning.

I didn't know Starmer chose Labour Party candidates Albie, you sure about that?

And if you are wrong - does that mean you are lying?

https://twitter.com/BloxsomJohn/status/1542636666212548614

[ravenrover]

Anyone using the Savile smear is talking nonsense. It's come from the far right to throw red meat to the dimmest Kitsons on earth.

There is plenty Starmer should be taken to task for, like his bone headed stance on the strikes and his habitual broken promises, outlined below.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1547639798348730368?t=ZCCbxVqd9h6q3XeyUgI5Pw&s=19

Is there a word for someone who habitually says things they don't mean, and makes promises they have no intention of keeping? Hmmm.

Liar?

A Boris?

[albie]

Syd,

I still don't see how the text you refer to is in any way a smear.
It is factually correct that Starmer was at the DPP as CPS head during the investigation, and signed off on it.
No-one is saying he was the casework officer, but Levitt identified weaknesses in the overall approach.

A summary here;
https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

The section you highlight does exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
I made the point that his DPP record was not just in relation to Savile (which was in the press at the time), but covered other serious matters.
The position could equally be argued in relation to support for Cressida Dick, or the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, as I mentioned, or Julian Assange for example.

The question is his record in the DPP role, and whether it stands up to scrutiny.
You are looking for reasons to disagree, not facing the issue square on!

Now where is this looking to support Boris Johnson, as you ridiculously wrote?

[albie]

Wilts,

"I didn't know Starmer chose Labour Party candidates Albie, you sure about that?"

Yes Wilts, candidates put forward by the local Labour Party can be debarred by Head Office. This is in full swing at the moment.

The long listing of potential candidates determines who is eligible to stand, and can lead to a local vote between choices excluding preferred local councillors. Choosing from a doctored list is not a democratic selection process.

Local Labour party selections for candidates are being ruled out for consideration by Labour Head Office, under David Evans and the team Starmer appointed.
Starmer is responsible for decisions taken under his leadership.

As in Wakefield, where a local councillor was by-passed in favour of a candidate preferred by Head Office, so too in Stroud.
In Wakefield the committee resigned.
 
In Stroud, the leader of the council resigned (with several colleagues), and now sits as an independent.
This is mentioned in the Bloxham twitter thread you posted.
Her resignation letter explains her reasons;
https://twitter.com/doinacornell/status/1542771544757346304/photo/1

This is part of a wider pattern, mentioned in the Guardian here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/01/starmer-allies-reject-claims-leftwingers-blocked-from-standing-for-labour

The authoritarian trend is reflected in the instruction to Labour MP's not to support RMT picket lines.
It is also shown by the expulsions of members for expressing support for causes that the leadership wish to downplay.

I am unsure what you mean by "And if you are wrong - does that mean you are lying?".
I am not wrong in this case...but even so there is a big difference between being mistaken, and deliberately lying.

Centralised control, and the suppression of dissenting views, are not characteristics of an inclusive socialist project.

[wilts rover]

Ablie

So you are wrong/lying. Starmer did not choose the candidate for Stroud.

What the Labour Party Selection Committee (not Starmer) did was to barr a certain contender from being a candidate on the short list.

The actual (local) candidate was then chosen from that short-list by local members at a hustings as per that link.

You might not like the criteria for that short-list, I might not like the criteria for that short-list, the people who resigned might not - but that is all it was - the candidates barred from standing did not meet the criteria.

Starmer did not choose them - the local parties did. You were wrong/lying when you said he had imposed them.

[albie]

No Wilts,

I am neither wrong nor lying.

Starmer controls the team who apply the long list criteria, they work to his instructions.
Keith could change the terms under which they accept nominations to include local preference as a democratic consideration.

"Starmer did not choose them - the local parties did. You were wrong/lying when you said he had imposed them".......complete bollox, the list was rigged to exclude the candidate who would have probably won.

Even the other candidates disagreed with the exclusion of Cornell.
Are you really saying that the local Labour Party should not be free to nominate a local person with a track record as a local councillor?

It seems extraordinary to me, but there we are.....Starmer's Labour in 2022!

[wilts rover]

Albie, the list was not rigged - an applicant was excluded from it because they did not meet the criteria the leadership want from a future MP.

Yes of course the leadership should be able to exclude people they don't trust from representing them! As should any organisation. Lots have been excluded in the past for this reason - just as they were under Corbyn, Blair, Kinnoch.

The winning candidate, a local Dr, was chosen by a fair meeting of local members (quite a lot of them looking at that link).

You said Starmer had imposed a candidate. He did not. You said the photo you put up proved he was a liar. It does not - the future candidate was chosen by the local party.

Therefore you are wrong. The facts are different to what you said/wrote.

I dont think Starmer is a particuarly impressive leader. Nor am I that impressed by his policies (or lack of them). I think the public is far more open to public ownership of utilities than he is. But the way to change that is to demonstrate the facts of a better policy and push for him and the leadership to change.

Claiming Starmer to be something he isn't just because you don't like him I am afraid says much more about you than it does him.

[albie]

OK Wilts, let's agree to disagree on this.

I do not agree that the leadership should have the power to exclude a candidate with support from the local party.

That choice should be driven by local people....not simply a shortlist of two approved by Labour head office! I am afraid I think that is  a false choice, and anti-democratic in any meaningful way.
Choose Braeburn or Cox's Orange pippin, not a banana instead!

That applies to ANY leader, not just Starmer.

I think that a councillor with over 12 years service in local government has a right to put her case....if local party members then choose someone else, then so be it.

Ms Cornell had the support of a raft of Trade Unions, as well as many local members. Good luck with looking for TU financial support if their candidate is treated in this manner.

Her exclusion has led to other Labour councillors resigning and becoming "Community Independent" councillors.
There is no explanation as to why she was seen as unsuitable to long list.

Local Labour groups have lost many members, and this is likely to cause further disengagement.

[SydneyRover]

Syd,

I still don't see how the text you refer to is in any way a smear.
It is factually correct that Starmer was at the DPP as CPS head during the investigation, and signed off on it.
No-one is saying he was the casework officer, but Levitt identified weaknesses in the overall approach.

A summary here;
https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

The section you highlight does exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
I made the point that his DPP record was not just in relation to Savile (which was in the press at the time), but covered other serious matters.
The position could equally be argued in relation to support for Cressida Dick, or the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, as I mentioned, or Julian Assange for example.

The question is his record in the DPP role, and whether it stands up to scrutiny.
You are looking for reasons to disagree, not facing the issue square on!

Now where is this looking to support Boris Johnson, as you ridiculously wrote?

Now you have calmed down a bit ...............

As you say Starmer did not work on the savile investigation, can you explain which investigation you are referring to and what he signed off?

Those other serious matters, what are they and what do you see as failing and why those failures down to Starmer?

This is the full report

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130703160030/http:/www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/dpp_statement_about_savile_cases/

By the way in the link you provided

This in bold and highlighted are the first two paras'

''Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer''

''WHAT WAS CLAIMED

Keir Starmer stopped Jimmy Savile being charged in 2009''

''OUR VERDICT

Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations''

You provide a link to a ''full fact'' report and presumably ignore their 'about us' statement

''Bad information ruins lives. We’re a team of independent fact checkers and campaigners who find, expose and counter the harm it does''

and their conclusions to write your own nonsense supported by no others except far right nutjobs

well done Albie

[tyke1962]

OK Wilts, let's agree to disagree on this.

I do not agree that the leadership should have the power to exclude a candidate with support from the local party.

That choice should be driven by local people....not simply a shortlist of two approved by Labour head office! I am afraid I think that is  a false choice, and anti-democratic in any meaningful way.
Choose Braeburn or Cox's Orange pippin, not a banana instead!

That applies to ANY leader, not just Starmer.

I think that a councillor with over 12 years service in local government has a right to put her case....if local party members then choose someone else, then so be it.

Ms Cornell had the support of a raft of Trade Unions, as well as many local members. Good luck with looking for TU financial support if their candidate is treated in this manner.

Her exclusion has led to other Labour councillors resigning and becoming "Community Independent" councillors.
There is no explanation as to why she was seen as unsuitable to long list.

Local Labour groups have lost many members, and this is likely to cause further disengagement.

Albie .

The Labour Party of today and probably under its New Labour guise are simply the preferred alternative to the Tories if they can't get elected for the ruling classes and the establishment .

The ruling classes and the establishment will offer you democracy just as long it's their kind of democracy .

The kind of democracy that excludes people fighting for the radical change this country is crying out for .

Keith and his centre Labour Party lemons simply work for the ruling classes and the establishment in exactly the way the Tory Party does .

They may well be more gentle , less bstrds if you will in government but none the less they are part of the game we all have to live under .

Anyone who can't see a red rosette is the same as a blue one but just comes in from a different angle is quite frankly deluded .

[SydneyRover]

Is there a interpreter in the house?

[wilts rover]

Albie

Whether or not you agree or disagree with a policy is irrelevant to what you wrote.

What you wrote is not true.

No one was imposed on Stroud. All the candidates at the hustings were local Stroud members and the candidate was chosen by the rest of the membership. It's in the link.

The leadership have always vetoed candidates. Under Corbyn & Blair they tried to impose them from outside the area:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/18/labour-accused-skewing-candidate-longlist-selections

[albie]

Wilts,

No, the choice in Stroud was limited by exclusion of the most likely candidate to succeed.
Whether they were local is beside the point.
The hustings were from a limited choice of 2 approved candidates.

The link also includes comment on the exclusion of Cornell.

I agree previous leaders have put favoured candidates in seats, such as Mandelson in Hartlepool.
It is offensive to any idea of local democracy.

How does preventing a TU sponsored candidate help Labour get financial backing in future?
Do you think sponsors from private healthcare, or Israeli finance, will bridge the gap without compromise?

Syd,

I posted the full fact link to show you that the point I made in the quote you said was "supporting Johnson" actually says judge Starmer at the CPS on his full record, not one case alone.

You don't want to see it, so you don't......no-one can help you with that!

[SydneyRover]

Albie, use a bit of logic, if any of this shit was remotely true don't you think the tory party would be using it to get rid of Starmer, he's the only threat to government barring themselves? why on earth would they have humiliated johnson and tried to make him withdraw the slur if they could have used it to political advantage. The tory party pretty much stinks atm but they couldn't cop this.

[albie]

Syd,

The head of a service such as the CPS is always responsible for decisions made under his watch, whether or not he was personally involved.

To be clear, I was NOT saying that one one individual decision is crucial, look at the whole record.

The Tories do not want rid of Starmer...they want to keep him in place, because he is unlikely to break the consensus of the Overton window in relation to policy.

Keith is the best electoral asset for them, once they get rid of Bozo and wipe the slate clean with a new leader. He has no profile among the voting public, and his beige personality is a gift to the rebranding of the Tories under a new team.