Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,185
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 767
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 06:02:18 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Labour Party Desolation v2: a beige loafer stamping on a human face forever

Started by pancreas, July 23, 2020, 12:57:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Buelligan

Quote from: Blinder Data on July 24, 2020, 11:03:30 AM
IF Labour go bankrupt as a result of the legal cases brought about because of the leaked dossier, why would that be Starmer and his team's fault? If it can be proved the dossier contains falsehoods, slurs, etc. the blame lies with whoever wrote and/or leaked it.

All of the slurs, all of the work to undermine the Party, its membership and its Leader, that I've read in it were undertaken by people who were working to oust Corbyn.  Some of them have just been paid off by Starmer and given a letter about how simply fucking marvelous they are.  It's Keith's fault because he's handed them our money and that letter without so much as a murmur and when our lawyers, paid for by us, told him he didn't need to.

A letter, which, IMO, could be used by those fucks as an acknowledgement that they were acting in good faith and righteousness in any future litigation.  Effectively a weapon to use against the Party voluntarily presented to them by Keith.

Kelvin

What this thread really highlights is that the wider Left movement needs leadership and organisation away from the party political sphere. Momentum seems best placed to become this, but regardless, there need to be some unifying group around which all factions can gather, with decisions made about where we all focus our energies - on undermining the media, on fighting within Labour, or in forming a new party, etc. The biggest problem we have within the movement is that everyone has a different view of how to move forward, so nothing ever happens - we never start the new party, we don't all stay in Labour so our voice grows weaker, the attacks on the establishment are all small scale and lack focus. We need organisation, and explicitly leadership - initially voted on by the left movement, but then allowed to make decisions we must all get behind.

Jockice

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on July 23, 2020, 10:48:42 PM
How much business donations can Keir rustle up by being a bent establishment cunt?

That's his next election slogan sorted. Not Quite As Bent As 'Boris.'

pancreas

Quote from: Blinder Data on July 24, 2020, 11:03:30 AM
IF Labour go bankrupt as a result of the legal cases brought about because of the leaked dossier, why would that be Starmer and his team's fault? If it can be proved the dossier contains falsehoods, slurs, etc. the blame lies with whoever wrote and/or leaked it.

Seeing as you are struggling to come to terms with the treachery here, let me drag you through your self-imposed stupidity:

Keith has the legal advice which says that Labour would have won the case against them. Nevertheless, Keith decided to spend members' money on compensating saboteurs for losing us votes.

Endicott

Quote from: Blinder Data on July 24, 2020, 11:03:30 AM
IF Labour go bankrupt as a result of the legal cases brought about because of the leaked dossier, why would that be Starmer and his team's fault? If it can be proved the dossier contains falsehoods, slurs, etc. the blame lies with whoever wrote and/or leaked it.

Any legal cases aren't about the content of the dossier, as I understand it. Not yet anyway. I'll remind you that the content of those whatsapp chats has already been tacitly acknowledged, by calling it 'workplace banter'. None of it has been actually denied, to my knowledge anyway.

Ware is thinking of (or has already filed, I don't know) suing Corbyn because of what's Corbyn has said this week.

And also what pancreas has said.

Paul Calf

Quote from: Jockice on July 24, 2020, 11:47:29 AM
That's his next election slogan sorted. Not Quite As Bent As 'Boris.'

Or 'Labour: Who Else Are You Going To Fucking Vote For, Cunt?'

Endicott

Quote from: Buelligan on July 24, 2020, 11:09:18 AM
A letter, which, IMO, could be used by those fucks as an acknowledgement that they were acting in good faith and righteousness in any future litigation.  Effectively a weapon to use against the Party voluntarily presented to them by Keith.

Yes. Ware is already considering weaponizing this settlement.

The settlement is astonishing to me for another reason - there is an outstanding ongoing inquiry into the leaked report. There is also (I'm sure I read this, but can't find the details now) an ongoing legal case brought by a labour member alleging misappropriation of funds on the part of those people in the whatsapp chats. That's about them secretly siphoning off about £200,000 to spend on safe seats in GE2017, instead of using the money in marginals.

In light of those, for Starmer to make a move that obviously influences their outcome is very bold. What a cunt.


Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: pancreas on July 24, 2020, 11:59:09 AM
Seeing as you are struggling to come to terms with the treachery here, let me drag you through your self-imposed stupidity:

Keith has the legal advice which says that Labour would have won the case against them. Nevertheless, Keith decided to spend members' money on compensating saboteurs for losing us votes.

The counter argument I've heard to this is that Keith (and the other right-wing candidates) ran on a mandate to do settle so he has to do it. So presumably anyone who voted for him on that has no right to complain if it financially fucks the party because that's what was important to them.

It's also bollocks because he seems to be quite comfortable reneging on plenty of other stuff.

notjosh

In a way, wasn't Starmer as cornered as Corbyn in how to respond to this case? If he'd allowed Labour to continue fighting it, it would have been seen as evidence that the party was refusing to do 'the right thing' on anti-semitism and 'just APOLOGISE'. Even if they'd won, I suspect it would have been 'a dark day' for justice in this country; evidence that Starmer had used his legal experience to wriggle out on a technicality or something.

In settling it he was presumably hoping to draw a line under the whole matter, but, as his forensic legal mind failed to foresee, all it's done is just opened a can of litigious worms and left the party wide open to attack.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Paul Calf on July 24, 2020, 09:43:56 AM
Right, so the Labour Party and the country have lost their soul to the banal snorting herd of dull, grey pigs at the corporate-fascist trough.

What can we do about this? Can we do anything?

Gorky park, 1am, I'll be wearing sunglasses.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Blinder Data on July 24, 2020, 11:03:30 AM
IF Labour go bankrupt as a result of the legal cases brought about because of the leaked dossier, why would that be Starmer and his team's fault? If it can be proved the dossier contains falsehoods, slurs, etc. the blame lies with whoever wrote and/or leaked it.

Have you been paying attention?

thugler

Quote from: notjosh on July 24, 2020, 12:23:21 PM
In a way, wasn't Starmer as cornered as Corbyn in how to respond to this case? If he'd allowed Labour to continue fighting it, it would have been seen as evidence that the party was refusing to do 'the right thing' on anti-semitism and 'just APOLOGISE'. Even if they'd won, I suspect it would have been 'a dark day' for justice in this country; evidence that Starmer had used his legal experience to wriggle out on a technicality or something.

In settling it he was presumably hoping to draw a line under the whole matter, but, as his forensic legal mind failed to foresee, all it's done is just opened a can of litigious worms and left the party wide open to attack.

I'm leaning towards this being a major fuck up, but would like this legal advice to come out so it can be made clear. I understand the 'get the issue out of the way' defence but it's directly paying out to some absolute cunts and as we've seen is going to mean tons more legal challenges.

Paul Calf


Thomas

The really good thing about institutional problems is that you can just hire a new guy to draw a line under them, and they're gone!

BlodwynPig

Quote from: notjosh on July 24, 2020, 12:23:21 PM
In a way, wasn't Starmer as cornered as Corbyn in how to respond to this case? If he'd allowed Labour to continue fighting it, it would have been seen as evidence that the party was refusing to do 'the right thing' on anti-semitism and 'just APOLOGISE'. Even if they'd won, I suspect it would have been 'a dark day' for justice in this country; evidence that Starmer had used his legal experience to wriggle out on a technicality or something.

In settling it he was presumably hoping to draw a line under the whole matter, but, as his forensic legal mind failed to foresee, all it's done is just opened a can of litigious worms and left the party wide open to attack.

Do what is right or fuck off. He's not done what is right. So he can fuck off. Your drawing a line is essentially ushering in corruption as the new norm and ultimately a totalitarian state. Thanks for your appeasing insights though.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Paul Calf on July 24, 2020, 12:30:01 PM
At 1am?

Listen to the winds of change.

Don't fucking blow my cover Calf. You're either with us or against us, which is it?

notjosh

Quote from: BlodwynPig on July 24, 2020, 12:32:11 PM
Do what is right or fuck off. He's not done what is right. So he can fuck off. Your drawing a line is essentially ushering in corruption as the new norm and ultimately a totalitarian state. Thanks for your appeasing insights though.

I said I thought it's what he was trying to do, not that it was the right thing to do. My point was that even if he had fought the case, I doubt he would have been able to get control of the narrative anyway - it's too entrenched now.

Buelligan

Quote from: notjosh on July 24, 2020, 12:23:21 PM
In a way, wasn't Starmer as cornered as Corbyn in how to respond to this case? If he'd allowed Labour to continue fighting it, it would have been seen as evidence that the party was refusing to do 'the right thing' on anti-semitism and 'just APOLOGISE'. Even if they'd won, I suspect it would have been 'a dark day' for justice in this country; evidence that Starmer had used his legal experience to wriggle out on a technicality or something.

In settling it he was presumably hoping to draw a line under the whole matter, but, as his forensic legal mind failed to foresee, all it's done is just opened a can of litigious worms and left the party wide open to attack.

Yep, how could we expect poor Sir Keith, a QC and ex-head of the CPS, with his forensic mind and team of highly paid legal experts, to anticipate an outcome that even I, a fucking cleaner, could see riding over the bluff in a black stetson?

BlodwynPig

Quote from: notjosh on July 24, 2020, 12:36:36 PM
I said I thought it's what he was trying to do, not that it was the right thing to do. My point was that even if he had fought the case, I doubt he would have been able to get control of the narrative anyway - it's too entrenched now.

Better to oppose than concede. OPPOSE AT ALL COSTS or we "sleep-goose step in lock step with fascists" into totalitarianism

Blinder Data

Quote from: pancreas on July 24, 2020, 11:59:09 AM
Seeing as you are struggling to come to terms with the treachery here, let me drag you through your self-imposed stupidity:

Keith has the legal advice which says that Labour would have won the case against them. Nevertheless, Keith decided to spend members' money on compensating saboteurs for losing us votes.

We don't know that the legal advice said Labour would've won the case. Corbyn, who has his own axes to grind, only goes so far as to claim: "Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence." Labour could've lost the case which would've been an even worse outcome.

Also, as much as we want to connect this farrago to the leaked report, this court case was only about the the Labour party's response to the Panorama programme. I imagine trying to involve the report into this court case would've made the dispute thermonuclear. People on here would've loved to bear witness to the bloodletting but I think trying to end it ASAP is the correct move (even if twats like McNicol want to keep it going).

Quote from: Sebastian Cobb on July 24, 2020, 12:09:41 PM
The counter argument I've heard to this is that Keith (and the other right-wing candidates) ran on a mandate to do settle so he has to do it. So presumably anyone who voted for him on that has no right to complain if it financially fucks the party because that's what was important to them.

It's also bollocks because he seems to be quite comfortable reneging on plenty of other stuff.

Is RLB right-wing now? She said any claims should be settled.

BlodwynPig

RLB is wrong and is a ghost of her former self. Can you not see the preening face of fascism grinning at you from between the trays of canapés and glasses of Prosecco?

Buelligan

Quote from: Blinder Data on July 24, 2020, 12:50:28 PM
We don't know that the legal advice said Labour would've won the case. Corbyn, who has his own axes to grind, only goes so far as to claim: "Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence." Labour could've lost the case which would've been an even worse outcome.

Also, as much as we want to connect this farrago to the leaked report, this court case was only about the the Labour party's response to the Panorama programme. I imagine trying to involve the report into this court case would've made the dispute thermonuclear. People on here would've loved to bear witness to the bloodletting but I think trying to end it ASAP is the correct move (even if twats like McNicol want to keep it going).

I don't know whether you're an idiot on purpose or by accident, but you're an idiot on this.  Incredible stuff.  You can't just put things like this in discrete little boxes and expect them not to leak into each other, what do you think precedent is (in legal terms)?

Paul Calf

Quote from: Blinder Data on July 24, 2020, 12:50:28 PM
We don't know that the legal advice said Labour would've won the case. Corbyn, who has his own axes to grind, only goes so far as to claim: "Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence." Labour could've lost the case which would've been an even worse outcome.

Also, as much as we want to connect this farrago to the leaked report, this court case was only about the the Labour party's response to the Panorama programme. I imagine trying to involve the report into this court case would've made the dispute thermonuclear. People on here would've loved to bear witness to the bloodletting but I think trying to end it ASAP is the correct move (even if twats like McNicol want to keep it going).

Have you noticed that you never hear the far right saying stuff like this at the moment?

Timidity is going to kill us.

ZoyzaSorris

Blinder Data - how bizarre to try and exclude the leaks when they name people from the documentary that are about to be paid out - the two are inextricably linked. similarly the RLB comment is from before the leaked report (and her acquiescence to forces on the right determined to exploit the anti1semitism issue was a major negative)

Paul Calf

In the next 5-10 years, we will see people openly imprisoned, tortured and killed for opposing capital, wealth and power. In fact, we already are seeing it on the streets of Minneapolis, New York, London.

This is the cost of timidity. This is the price of cowardice.

Paul Calf

And I don't believe I will see this situation change significantly in my own lifetime.

pancreas

Quote from: Blinder Data on July 24, 2020, 12:50:28 PM
Is RLB right-wing now? She said any claims should be settled.

She's a fucking idiot. APPEASE, APPEASE. Yes, that worked out well for you, didn't it, Beccy?

If you want to see how the trial would have gone, perhaps read what Schlosberg is saying about it.

https://twitter.com/jrschlosberg

The problem is that you don't want to confront the horror of the corruption that you've bought into.

Paul Calf

Quote from: pancreas on July 24, 2020, 01:50:57 PM

The problem is that you don't want to confront the horror of the corruption that you've bought into.

There's a lot of that about.

thugler

Quote from: pancreas on July 24, 2020, 01:50:57 PM
She's a fucking idiot. APPEASE, APPEASE. Yes, that worked out well for you, didn't it, Beccy?

If you want to see how the trial would have gone, perhaps read what Schlosberg is saying about it.

So she's a fucking idiot now? Yet we should all have voted for her apparently. Plenty of talk about people 'undermining the membership' when several posters have basically called a majority of the membership hapless idiots.

Schlosberg sounds convincing, but without seeing the legal advice how are we supposed to determine anything? According to the Novara episode he was on he also lost a case challenging ofcom for not investigating the program, and then pivoted to basically questioning the legitimacy of the regulatory and legal system itself. I agree that I'd like to see the legal advice.

If there was even a half decent chance we were going to lose the case then the damage of going through with it may not have been worth it. The investigation into the labour leaks stuff is still going on and I expect action will be taken as a result. While it's true that you can connect aspects of the leaks to this case, it's all about the statement in response to the panorama show.

Unless it's a total whitewash I expect peoples fury regarding the leaks and those implicated will be sated when the investigation is done and action taken.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: thugler on July 24, 2020, 02:36:28 PM
So she's a fucking idiot now? Yet we should all have voted for her apparently. Plenty of talk about people 'undermining the membership' when several posters have basically called a majority of the membership hapless idiots.

Schlosberg sounds convincing, but without seeing the legal advice how are we supposed to determine anything? According to the Novara episode he was on he also lost a case challenging ofcom for not investigating the program, and then pivoted to basically questioning the legitimacy of the regulatory and legal system itself. I agree that I'd like to see the legal advice.

If there was even a half decent chance we were going to lose the case then the damage of going through with it may not have been worth it. The investigation into the labour leaks stuff is still going on and I expect action will be taken as a result. While it's true that you can connect aspects of the leaks to this case, it's all about the statement in response to the panorama show.

Unless it's a total whitewash I expect peoples fury regarding the leaks and those implicated will be sated when the investigation is done and action taken.

Naïve, blethering, misguided...and wrong.