Sir Keir Starmer

In terms of Blair lying BoroMart, the Chilcott enquiry reached a couple of conclusions. The first that is relavant to telling lies is the communication to Bush ,directly from Blair. Now I can't remember the exact words, but to paraphrase: "I am with you, whatever". This communication was before ratification for war in parliament. Hidding this commitment was a lie by exclusion. Blair was getting his mandate for war whatever. And that ommission goes to the second point.

Secondly, the evidence of WMD. Whilst the Chilcott report could not reach a conclusion that the document was sexed up. This doesn't mean it wasn't sexed up. It was concluded also that he (blair) hid advice received from his closest advisers. This advice was that the evidence of WMD was stale and thin. i.e. it was stale because there was evidence that Hussain destroyed WMD's after the first Iraq war and thin because there wasn't a lot of it. This was hidden from parliament, and as I recall from his cabinet also.

One thing I would say, MI6 did let Blair down, probably....
 
RandySavage said:
There are those who argue that the fact Bush and Blair got rid of Saddam Hussein contributed to the current fracturing in the Middle East. Some say Hussein was the one who kept all the despots and dictators in line.

Tory's will be throwing all sorts at Starmer over the next 12-18 months as a distraction technique and to see if anything sticks, hoping to get an easier ride to the next election..
Click to expand...
Can't remember it being suggested Hussein kept dictators in line. His main influence was obviously within Iraq. Don't forget he received a lot of support from the west - when it suited.!
 
BoroMart said:
As discussed brexit won't be a factor, and those northern towns may face real poverty over the next few years. They've already got the worst infection rates for Covid at least partly through Tory ineptitude. The mobilisation of working class northerners into Tory voters will drop significantly. Many of them will go back to 'no point voting, nothing will change', others will return to labour. 80 seats isn't the key point in a FPTP system, it's 43% tory, vs 32% Labour. All it takes is about 5% of swing voters to return to labour OR say 3% return 4% not bother voting (highly likely), and it all looks very different.
Click to expand...

Is this more of a best case scenario than a prediction? What makes you think only the tories will lose voters to 'no point voting, nothing will change'?

I can't see Brexit being forgotten to the point its not a factor in 2024. Of course you're right that some of the negative effects may have been felt by then, but similarly maybe Covid19 will end up forcing the EU to bail out a couple of members economies backing up part of the case for leaving. Whatever happens I think there'll be plenty of voters that want to protect what they've gained.
 
SuperStu said:
Is this more of a best case scenario than a prediction? What makes you think only the tories will lose voters to 'no point voting, nothing will change'?

I can't see Brexit being forgotten to the point its not a factor in 2024. Of course you're right that some of the negative effects may have been felt by then, but similarly maybe Covid19 will end up forcing the EU to bail out a couple of members economies backing up part of the case for leaving. Whatever happens I think there'll be plenty of voters that want to protect what they've gained.
Click to expand...
' to protect what they've gained.' !
 
r00fie1 said:
Israeli Apartheid is funded and supported by the West - torturing and murdering Palestinians in cold blood.
It imprisons children without trial and places Palestinians in "administrative detention" indefinitely.
It steals Palestinian land and daily demolishes their homes - using JCB manufactured bull-dozers.
It aggressively attacks neighbouring countries and possesses an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The racist apartheid regime continues to perpetuate the worst human rights abuses with impunity - because it is strategic to the middle east plan.

Look beyond the headlines.
If you get the opportunity - go and visit the West Bank for yourself.
Click to expand...
Again, you are not teaching me anything, I know all this already, I do not buy into western rhetoric about the middle east, but that doesn't mean that everything the west says and does in that region is wrong. Look for a bit more of a balanced view. Saddam was a murderous tyrant AND Israel are an apartheid state. These two facts are not mutually exclusive.
 
SuperStu said:
Is this more of a best case scenario than a prediction? What makes you think only the tories will lose voters to 'no point voting, nothing will change'?

I can't see Brexit being forgotten to the point its not a factor in 2024. Of course you're right that some of the negative effects may have been felt by then, but similarly maybe Covid19 will end up forcing the EU to bail out a couple of members economies backing up part of the case for leaving. Whatever happens I think there'll be plenty of voters that want to protect what they've gained.
Click to expand...
Oh sure, I'm sure some people will be whipped up by the Daily Mail into making sure they don't have their blue passports taken away
 
Laughing said:
In terms of Blair lying BoroMart, the Chilcott enquiry reached a couple of conclusions. The first that is relavant to telling lies is the communication to Bush ,directly from Blair. Now I can't remember the exact words, but to paraphrase: "I am with you, whatever". This communication was before ratification for war in parliament. Hidding this commitment was a lie by exclusion. Blair was getting his mandate for war whatever. And that ommission goes to the second point.

Secondly, the evidence of WMD. Whilst the Chilcott report could not reach a conclusion that the document was sexed up. This doesn't mean it wasn't sexed up. It was concluded also that he (blair) hid advice received from his closest advisers. This advice was that the evidence of WMD was stale and thin. i.e. it was stale because there was evidence that Hussain destroyed WMD's after the first Iraq war and thin because there wasn't a lot of it. This was hidden from parliament, and as I recall from his cabinet also.

One thing I would say, MI6 did let Blair down, probably....
Click to expand...
So the first comment is simply Blair showing his intent to back Bush, and cosying up to him. Now I don't particularly agree with that behaviour but that in itself isn't a lie.

Second point is that Chilcott said it was MI6 that screwed up the dossier, not Blair. Did he run with it because it aligned with his gut feel (that Saddam needed removing), did he ignore his advisors (PMs do that every day), Yes and Yes, but again neither of those are lies to the commons are the people. He made a judgement call on a bad bit of intelligence, almost certainly influenced by 'american intelligence' (yeah, I know, right!) and probably prejudiced by his own pride that Saddam was mocking him and Bush, but it wasn't lying. But that is the easy spin from the right, which is used to discredit what was a largely successful labour government.

Let's never forget that Saddam was the catalyst to the action, he was ******* around the UN weapons inspectors and was given many chances to co-operate. That he had already instigated 2 major wars, one with the west. But he clearly was addicted to conflict, he thought he could drag other nations in, it was a failed honeytrap. It never quite worked how he envisaged, no other arab nations came to his rescue, the US and us went steaming in heavier than he anticipated and his people were not as loyal as he believed. But ultimately Iraq is still paying for his regime now.
 
SuperStu said:
Okay but plenty of people do see it as a gain don't they? If there was another referendum now, surely nobody actually thinks remain would win?
Click to expand...
Still not entirely sure what the gains are? Blue passports? That are less useful than their burgundy EU equivalents as they provide access to fewer countries?

What else? We've gained the ability to pay more for our food I guess? As well as gaining the ability to kick out the foreigners currently working for our NHS/delivery services/public transport too keep the company running.
So, yes, gains.
 
SuperStu said:
Okay but plenty of people do see it as a gain don't they? If there was another referendum now, surely nobody actually thinks remain would win?
Click to expand...
It would still be close to a 50-50 split, because views are entrenched, whichever side of the fence anyone is on, I think we can all agree the referendum has had a hugely damaging effect on our nation, ripping people apart, creating argument and division, while allowing all of us to take our eyes off the ball on other important topics.
 
BoroMart said:
So the first comment is simply Blair showing his intent to back Bush, and cosying up to him. Now I don't particularly agree with that behaviour but that in itself isn't a lie.

Second point is that Chilcott said it was MI6 that screwed up the dossier, not Blair. Did he run with it because it aligned with his gut feel (that Saddam needed removing), did he ignore his advisors (PMs do that every day), Yes and Yes, but again neither of those are lies to the commons are the people. He made a judgement call on a bad bit of intelligence, almost certainly influenced by 'american intelligence' (yeah, I know, right!) and probably prejudiced by his own pride that Saddam was mocking him and Bush, but it wasn't lying. But that is the easy spin from the right, which is used to discredit what was a largely successful labour government.

Let's never forget that Saddam was the catalyst to the action, he was ******* around the UN weapons inspectors and was given many chances to co-operate. That he had already instigated 2 major wars, one with the west. But he clearly was addicted to conflict, he thought he could drag other nations in, it was a failed honeytrap. It never quite worked how he envisaged, no other arab nations came to his rescue, the US and us went steaming in heavier than he anticipated and his people were not as loyal as he believed. But ultimately Iraq is still paying for his regime now.
Click to expand...
Boromart, let me rephrase lies to : he was a long way from open and honest with parliament. His intention to back bush speaks to his actions that followed, and the disengenuous dealings with parliament. He, very likely did lie, but that couldn't be proved in the Chilcott enquiry.

BTW I don't agree with the rhetoric that Blair should be in the Hague or is a mass murderer. He does however, have a share of the responsability for many deaths. Comparing scenario A with B and trying to judge "profit" is normal, but doesn't sit well with me in these circumstances.
 
SmallTown said:
Still not entirely sure what the gains are? Blue passports? That are less useful than their burgundy EU equivalents as they provide access to fewer countries?

What else? We've gained the ability to pay more for our food I guess? As well as gaining the ability to kick out the foreigners currently working for our NHS/delivery services/public transport too keep the company running.
So, yes, gains.
Click to expand...

SmallTown I don't think you're seeing my point. It doesn't matter what the gains are. It doesn't even matter if any gains even exist. I'm saying some voters perception is that they have gained something and that they'll be concerned with protecting that gain at the next election. And judging by the electoral events in 2016, 2017 and 2019 they're a larger group than the ones that see Brexit as them losing something.
 
So dishonest with parliament, I can agree with....but name me a PM in my lifetime that wasn't. He didn't tell the whole truth in parliament, but again, that is common for PMs and MPs.

Of course he shouldn't be in the Hague, he made a decision, a difficult one, which was tainted by frustration with Saddam running rings around him, Bush and the UN. I don't buy the conspiracy theory stuff that it was for personal financial gain either.

A share of responsibility, is a much more appropriate phrase, of course he does. He chose to go wading in, and even if he had waited it out until the UN, said "Fine, Saddam's a murdering tosspot, go get him", he would still be facing a media barrage for doing so. Removing Saddam was still the right thing to do, maybe the timing was wrong. Maybe Bush Snr should have gone into Bagdad and removed him first time and we wouldn't have needed these discussions about Blair's role. Maybe we should be questioning why Thatcher didn't support deposing Saddam first time, and thus sparing the lives of the Kurds and Shi'ite's and Iraqi citizens...blood on her hands etc.
 
SuperStu said:
SmallTown I don't think you're seeing my point. It doesn't matter what the gains are. It doesn't even matter if any gains even exist. I'm saying some voters perception is that they have gained something and that they'll be concerned with protecting that gain at the next election. And judging by the electoral events in 2016, 2017 and 2019 they're a larger group than the ones that see Brexit as them losing something.
Click to expand...
Even though we ARE losing something? That’s a damning indictment on people who still believe brexit to be a good idea
 
I like Starmer. As time goes on I think he's going to look like the adult in the room whenever he comes up against Boris.
I like that we have a credible opposition again.
I don't think Labour can necessarily win the next election because of the amount of gains they'd need.. but can stop a Conservative majority.
 
So we have a thread about Keir Starmer which has now turned into a conservation about Blair and Iraq and also Smalltown rambling on about Brexit to the point Stu may aswell not bother as ST takes zero notice. ST will surely remark about how I’m blocked no doubt too go along with his ramblings
 
Mendieta420 said:
I like Starmer. As time goes on I think he's going to look like the adult in the room whenever he comes up against Boris.
I like that we have a credible opposition again.
I don't think Labour can necessarily win the next election because of the amount of gains they'd need.. but can stop a Conservative majority.
Click to expand...
I think that the problem, he certainly fits the bill in PMQs questioning the gvt etc but we need to see what he has in terms of his own parties policies. It’s easy to criticise, most people could do that all day long. He needs to be more vocal about the alternative to this gvt that he can offer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top