Starmer As Labour's Leader-what should he do?

161 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky

NDPP, are you talking about the “great whistleblower and freedom fighter” who conspired with the Trump campaign to put him in power and who, like him, is likely a rapist to boot?

NDPP

No. That's the  propaganda construction long debunked and created by those the fearless leader of the UK Labour Party  worked on behalf of. Except you forgot 'the Russians' bit of the demonization. You're misinformed of course and should review your mistaken assumptions unless, as I suspect, you prefer them to actual proven realities. Thanks for disclosing, will let you, Ken et al get back to flogging the dead horse that is UK Labour under Sir Keir.

Matt Kennard With 5 Key Questions For UK's New Labour Leader

https://twitter.com/TheGrayZoneNews/status/1269070916941725696

"The public deserves answers about Keir Starmer's relationship with the national security establishment, including MI5 and The Times newspaper, and his former role in the Julian Assange case..."

NDPP

"As the Black Lives Matter struggle challenges racist police brutality on an international scale, Sir Keir Starmer delivers a powerful, uncompromising and heartfelt message of solidarity - WITH THE POLICE!

https://twitter.com/JohnOCAP/status/1277630553420898307

"Keir Starmer has declared that the call from BLM to defund the police is 'nonsense."

Sir Keir Starmer is a Pig Politician. See #153

NDPP

Labour MP: 'The Party that Created the NHS and Founded NATO'...

https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1308366038568964097

"Founded NATO.' Creating a militarist organization led by former Nazis complicit in the deaths of millions and threatening world peace isn't something to be proud of Angela."

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

NDPP, are you talking about the “great whistleblower and freedom fighter” who conspired with the Trump campaign to put him in power and who, like him, is likely a rapist to boot?

Trump didn't scrape in because of Assange.  He scraped in because HRC ran a horrifically awful campaign and took the "firewall states" for granted.

What nicky's post does illustrate, however-since nicky's views, in many respects, echo those of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party in the States- is why those establishment Dems are all in on the prosecution/persecution of Assange.  They still can't accept that Trump's Electoral College victory was entirely their own fault, and they want the book thrown at Assange because, if he is given a life sentence, it gives them another excuse for an avoidable defeat that nobody but themselves bears responsibility for.

nicky

No Ken, that’s not accurate at all. There were many reasons for Clinton’s loss but Assange’s meddling was surely one of them. Trump’s win was so close that Assange was likely enough to put him over the top. Of course we’re were other reasons that also could have been decisive by themselves.

NDPP

No it wasn't. Not even close. But the very few who did bother to read those godawful emails will never ever see the Democratic Party the same way again.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

No Ken, that’s not accurate at all. There were many reasons for Clinton’s loss but Assange’s meddling was surely one of them. Trump’s win was so close that Assange was likely enough to put him over the top. Of course we’re were other reasons that also could have been decisive by themselves.

Assange's role was far less important than

1) The fact that Hillary never held a rally in the Wisconsin or Michigan, and only one in Pennsylvania in the fall campaign, but focused instead on trying to flip states like Arizona and Georgia that everyone knew she was never going to flip.  The arrogance of that choice offended and drove away hundreds of thousand of voters in those states, many in the Democratic base itself, who sat out the election in disgust at the dismissiveness they'd been subjected to;

2) The fact that Hillary never mentioned the Sanders items she had had to accept in the Democratic platform in her campaign ads-ads that focused solely, instead, on the useless, irrelevant themes of A) "it's time for a woman as president", B) "Defend reproductive choice", a valid issue, but hardly the most important item on most of the country's agenda that year, and C) "Trump is a misogynist scumbag"- a true fact, but a fact that no swing voter anywhere cared about, as the results proved;

3) Her refusal to allow the Democratic platform to explicitly oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord, giving Trump his single-most effective wedge issue;

4) Her all out support for the bloodsoaked, militarist LBJ/"Scoop Jackson" Democratic foreign policy tradition, which gave Trump another wedge issue by allowing him to present himself as the peace candidate- a presentation, bogus that it is, that he continues to this day in his insincere yet loud denuniciation of "endless wars"- a presentation which leaves the Biden-Harris wing of the party running to his right on military policy;

If the Clinton campaign had been explicitly anti-TPP, had run ads specifically appealing to Sanders voters and promising them that their issues would be a real part of her agenda as president- none of the Sanders items in the platform were in any way unpopular- if she had treated working-class voters of all races as being just as important as the wealthy white suburbanites she was courting in Georgia and Arizona- the ones who were never GOING to vote for her, because wealthy white suburbanites never vote for anyone but the most right wing candidate in the race- if she had done any of that, she would have won.

Her campaign did none of that, and, four years later, the Democratic establishment is insisting on running an exact replay of her failed campaign this year.   

That is why the establishment anti-progressive Dems are obsessed with passing the blame from themselves to Assange; they would rather stop any real change within the Democratic Party and lose by continuing to run as centrist militarists than win by letting the party change, letting it at least go New Deal 2.0 on economic issues.

Assange is a sometimes exasperating character, but he did not cause Trump.   The epic incompetence of the Clinton-Kaine campaign did that, combined by the epic stupidity of the Democratic establishment in insisting that the party nominate the least popular, least-electable and most-distrusted candidate they could find.  

And they've probably lost most of the next generation in the process.

There is a real danger that the Biden-Harris campaign will replicate the Tom Dewey GOP presidential campaign of 1948, in which Dewey, by saying nothing, lost what should have been an unlosable election.

And there is an even worse danger that, if that happens, the establishment Dems will once again argue that Democrats need to move even "further to the center" for 2024-they'll probably end up arguing that the party should just embrace the current GOP platform, with the sole exception of being mildly "pro-choice" and mildly pro-LGBTQ.

And that, after doing that, they will STILL pound their fists on the table and insist that all progressives have a moral obligation to "vote Blue- no matter WHO!"

 

NDPP

Three Labour MPs Lose Roles For Voting Against Overseas Operations Bill

https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1308964435843780608

"Labour sacked 3 of its junior shadow ministers who defied the whip and voted against the legislation. Synchronous to the prosecution of journalist Julian Assange, MPs who object to torture are also silenced in the UK."

Bill would decriminalize war crimes/torture by UK soldiers with 5 year statute of limitations. See thread for more details. UK Labour under Starmer takes another giant step rightwards. In his previous role with the Crown Prosecution Service, Starmer also played a key role in the UK's lawfare against Julian Assange.

Ken Burch

 There's no way supporting that kind of bill or any part of the "national security state" mentality can gain Labour votes-there's no large block of voters who'd want left-of-centre domestic policies AND a state apparatus that suppresses dissent while keeping the permanent war economy going.  Social and economic justice and militarism can't co-exist.

Pages