What trying to appeal to the center and purging your left leaning leadership does to a MF
What only caring about denying the left from controlling a major party does to a MF
Probably; iirc, the dickhead that's in charge now used to be an actual leftist, so it's probably an "I got lots of quiet government funding/encouragement in order to convince me to erode the left"
He was perhaps a soc-dem as a student at best. Incoming effort post for just some of the reasons Starmer gets the wall even long before he became a Labour MP...
He went to a posh grammar school, met and got cosy with the elite including future conservative American columnists, and became a lawyer. He apparently called himself a socialist, but the first bit of actual organisation he seemed to do was as a member of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, where he tried to get them to drop the socialist part and "NGOify" the org.
He was a human rights lawyer, but pretty much always as a way to justify the abuses of the state. He used to like to tout that he's represent abused IRA prisoners (he doesn't even say that anymore), but his success in Northern Ireland that got him noticed was helping to acquit Lee Clegg, a British soldier who murdered an unarmed Catholic woman in the street which was big news at the time, as well as to write policy and legal arguments to allow things like the use of water cannons and rubber bullets against Catholics who protested Loyalist parades even peacefully.
After that he became the British intelligence services' useful lawyer and promoted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He refused to prosecute the MI5 agents who tortured Binyam Mohamed and there's records of him having dinner and drinks with the head of intelligence services around that time, which never usually would happen (or at least not publicly) . It's probably worth noting here that last year he threatened Labour MPs not to vote against legislation that would prevent soldiers and intelligence officers being prosecuted for torture or war crimes, as well as a bill that allowed immunity for 'intelligence assets' (so not even spooks, just informants or whatever) for crimes up to and including rape and murder.
He continued to refuse to prosecute the worst state abusers, including doing the same for the Home Office thugs that killed Jimmy Mubenga, the police officers who gunned down Charles De Menezes on the tube because he looked foreign and therefore might be a terrorist, and the undercover spy cops who infiltrated leftist and environmental movements going as far as to sleep with (rape) and have children with activists before entrapping them.
He ran 24hr opening for courts and sentencing during the riots that processed suspects before their lawyers could find where they were and consistently sought maximums and draconian sentences for rioters, looters (including a women who stole rice and nappies because she was broke and a guy that took a bottle of water), and so called 'benefit cheats'.
He was mates with Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, and quickly got the Crown Prosecution Service to start doing their dirty work for them, following their lead on the legal aspect of foreign policy and working hand in glove for extraditions they wanted.
He was about to hand over Gary McKinnon, an autistic computer programmer who hacked into US government websites looking for proof of aliens but never even shared any information. The US wanted to give him 70 years in prison. McKinnon was suicidal and needed mental health support. Starmer didn't give a shit, he'd already "pledged McKinnon to Holder". This apparent human rights lawyer had to be overruled by Theresa fucking May of all people who denied the extradition on the basis it would violate McKinnon's human rights. Starmer was apparently furious.
He got his way with plenty of others though, including Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, 'Taliban conspirators' who were held for years in Britain without charges in a situation most legal rights groups deemed to be illegal before being extradited to the US for a lifetime spent in supermax prisons. And of course he oversaw and set the policy in the early days of the legal shitshow and American-demanded extradition promise of none other than Julian Assange.
All somehow worse then I had thought, having never done a deep dive. It's funny he's friends with an Obama pal because it feels almost Obama-esque in the appropriating leftwing language while trying to drive people right
Yeah, very much so except he only adopted it for the three weeks or so of his leadership election and dropped it instantly.
Yeah, his whole career is to be an establishment asset ghoul, destroying what was left of the Labour Party is just the latest chapter. Most of this is stuff I've picked up over the years following those issues, but there's a new book (I haven't read yet but am thinking of buying) called The Starmer Project that's supposed to be very good and appropriately critical.
The fact that they say "soft on crime" followed by "their going to get rid of the nukes" implies that nukes are used against crime, does it not?
yeah, but only for serious crimes like regicide, posession of
weed"skunk", and using a bathroom without the proper paperworkI believe now also legally if you ask the police to approve your protest there and they decline, you get nuked. It's a good deterrent, honestly shame on lib dems for trying to get rid of nukes. What, they're just gonna let a Jan 6th happen in London? Yeah. Point made.
Nuclear winter will kill all the weed and coca plants as well as all the opium poppies.
At first I was like "Well it seems like a pretty standard Convervative Part ad"
Oh boy.. ngl they got me in the first half.
I support my dear friend Boris Johnson's plan to start a nuclear war, but I encourage him to go further...
:tory:
I didn't even notice until I got like halfway through the comments here. Jesus Christ.
Imagine being so scared of the Lib Dems that you resort to making them sound cool.
Oh yes, because there's definately room to be found positioning yourself to the right of the lib dems ffs.
About the only people who don't want to legalise at least some drugs (or otherwise do not give a shit) are Mail reading arseholes who vote tory anyway and always will till the heat death of the universe.
As for nukes, apart from the couple thousand odd people who are employed in some way with Trident no one much gives a fuck.
It's amazing that Labour think this is a winning strategy. Damn near everyone in the country is still reeling from the fact that the cost of living has gone up to the point that utilities are costing up to 60% more and food bills are about 20% more. There's a massive increase in foodbank use not only by people working zero hours and unemployed but by people who are on decent enough incomes cos noone has any fucking money. Everyone is at breaking point and if Labour either had any plans to do anything about it or wanted to win any election ever again they'd hammer that home.
Fuck banging on about lib dems wanting to legalise drugs, bring up the fact that last time they were in govt they bought in austerity that led to this. Ditto Boris Johnson's parties. No one really gives a shit about that cos that's what we expect of him. Bring up the fact that while ppl can't pay their mortguages or pay rent the fat fuck is guzzling champagne and probably nobbing the nanny again.
It should be beyond pathetically easy for Labour, now that the entirety of the press and media have gone from portraying them with vitriolic hatred to just indifference, to win. I get the feeling we're gonna see these pricks somehow lose.
Why vote labour instead of cons of lib dems now though? What does Labour even offer, or stand for now?
All hyperbole aside, if (and that is a big if) labour get in we'd see some limited improvements in some areas in conjunction with things getting worse in others.
As everything is going down the shitter at the moment and labour don't have the will or inclination to bring about the kind of changes needed to stop it, those improvements probably won't register. People don't notice so much when their lives could have gotten even worse after all.
We'd see a lot of noise about education, healthcare and social care probably some extra funding for schools, hospitals, extra funding for higher and further ed. Most of that will be snaffled up by private sector sharks of course but realistically things probably won't get as shit as fast as they would have otherwise so again not that noticeable.
I'd also expect the whole surveilance state thing to be massively amped up. I think the tories would absolutely do this too, but I think the direction Labour takes on it might be slightly different and weirdly worse in some ways.
In terms of people who would actually benefit. Firstly, middle class and upper middle classes in the right circles will be absolutely raking it in cos there will be weird think tanks and whatnot popping up like mushrooms after rain to hoover up govt funding. If labour win, it'd also prob mean that the northern constituencies that flipped last time went back. Labour might have enough braincells to rub together to work out it might be worth investing more in those areas but I don't really know.
Either way, they'll get 4 yrs, 8 tops before it goes back to the conservatives and once again it'll be really fucking hard to spot a genuine difference between them.
Typical Jezza, sabotaging Labour from beyond the grave! :long-corbyn:
Their only reason to exist is to deny the left from controlling a major party. That's it.
Broke: Prison abolition
Woke: Increase police funding and incarcerate people for the slightest infractions
Bespoke: Just fucking nuke the prisons
"I say Labour's pro-nuclear-proliferation stance goes too far!"
Labour: "I say the opposition's pro-nuclear-proliferation stance doesn't go too far enough!"
I know the Lib Dems are not this cool, quit lying to me Labor!
