Analysis comment

Video: Starmer’s excruciating response to Neil’s question confirms big donors not yet declared

Uncomfortable performance as Starmer fudges on donor question yet again

On Tuesday, Labour leadership candidate Keir Starmer’s latest donor update was finally published in the parliamentary register of MPs’ financial interests.

It was an anodyne list that immediately triggered comments that it could not be a complete list, or else Starmer would not have needed to avoid publishing it personally, as his two rivals in the contest have done.

During his appearance on last night’s Andrew Neil programme, Starmer’s response – which again failed to answer the question directly – suggested that this assessment has substance.

Challenged by the interviewer to say why he wouldn’t simply publish a list or name his top five donors, Starmer did not say that he had named them in his parliamentary declaration.

Instead, as Neil noted, he ‘hid behind process’ in a winding response that was painful to watch:

Neil repeatedly asked for the five biggest donors – if they were already on the parliamentary website, Starmer could have said so. Instead, while he said that nobody had given ‘more than £100,000’, he clarified only that ‘one of’ his biggest donors was already on the Parliament site and covered the rest by referring to crowdfunding, unions and unnamed individual donors – with some apparently declared to Parliament since Tuesday but not yet published.

As of the time of writing, Starmer’s most recent entry in the register shows Unison as the next-largest donor, with £10,321.

That Starmer did not say his two largest donors are on the Parliament page and that the one of his five largest who is shown is barrister Robert Latham with £100,000 means logically that four donors giving between around £11,000 and £100,000 (since he said no one has given more than £100,000) are still undeclared.

Since, as Neil noted, the donors declared so far come to only around £125,000 in total, that could mean that as much as £400,000 in donations – more than three times the amount so far declared – are not yet in the public domain.

Starmer’s postal campaign alone, which saw members receiving a large format poster of him with the words ‘Integrity, Authority, Unity‘, is widely believed to have cost hundreds of thousand of pounds.

Yet votes are being cast daily in ignorance of who is funding him.

The question posed by the SKWAWKBOX last week remains unanswered: if Starmer does not think the identity of those still-missing donors would damage his election chances, why hasn’t he declared them?

There is nothing in Labour’s rules forcing him to wait for the Parliament page to get round to it – or preventing him from simply publishing a full list on his campaign page, as Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy have already done.

Starmer’s unwillingness to do so is certainly damaging his campaign. If he thinks that damage is less than will be done by disclosing his donors’ identities, that is worrying indeed.

Keir Starmer’s campaign was contacted for comment about his declaration and remaining funders on Tuesday but did not respond.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

123 comments

    1. I just noticed the photo at the top of the article.
      Earl Hickey’s looking OLD.
      I don’t think I’ll look for a photo of my dream squeeze Joy – couldn’t bear seeing her as a 40-year-old toothless meth-head 🙂

  1. What would be the most damaging name there could possibly be on the list?
    Murdoch? Blair? Rees Mogg? Corbyn?
    Prizes for the most amusing answers 🙂

    1. McNiv, humour is a necessity, yet the most amusing answers will not be ha ha amusing. Starmer is extremely bad news. when the stench breaks into the public domain, even Starmer will find it impossible to leave any hiding place. the same media which promoted will hound him.

      1. Yep, if the sleazy MSM comics can paint the most honest man in politics as a monster – what will they do to someone like Rim Streaker? (I love the Countdown Solver app)

    2. Boris Johnson, perhaps?

      I see that Gordon Brown has endorsed him. That is a very good reason for not voting for him.

      Today’s Guardian reports:

      “Brown’s predecessor as Labour prime minister, Tony Blair, has not backed a candidate, saying he does not want to harm their chances.”

      Very wise decision.

      If only he had shown more wisdon when he was in office.

  2. If Spanish centrists and lefties can work together, why can’t we?
    “While British progressives tell each other to ‘fuck off and join the Tories’ at the slightest hint of ideological difference, the respective leaders of each of the Spanish parties – Pedro Sanchez and Pablo Iglesias – hugged it out and signed an agreement to raise the highest rate of tax, bring in rent controls and implement radical climate legislation………….

    ……….Political circumstances aside, it is still a remarkable coalition, as likely as Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn hugging and governing together. And yet, it is happening. The stark reality is that this could only happen in a country with a sensible political system. Spain has proportional representation, which allows for more than one party on the left to have a significant amount of seats. Under PR, our last general election would have resulted in a hung parliament, a far cry from the 80-seat majority that gives Boris Johnson a carte blanche for the next five years.

    The Labour Party in the UK is rare amongst its global sister parties in supporting first-past-the-post, and the debate around proportional representation has been surprisingly absent from the leadership debate. For decades, Labour has opposed a change to the electoral system, thinking it would shut progressives out of power. In fact, as Spain shows, the opposite could be true. Perhaps, in order to have a progressive government, it’s not unity we need, but a divorce. Then perhaps one day Keir Starmer and Richard Burgon can hug it out, and start rebuilding Britain after decades of Tory rule.”
    https://labourlist.org/2020/03/if-spanish-centrists-and-lefties-can-hug-it-out-and-work-together-why-cant-we/

    1. The problem is that the Toytown Left and the Tory fellow-travellers are both happy with Labour losing – albeit for different reasons. Neither are serious about progressive politics.

    2. The absolute fucking state of that^^^

      Centrist hipster bullshit. Jesus wept.

      Not hard to see that the ‘centrists’ are starting to realise now, how, when & where they fucked it up for the rest of us, and now they want a hug?!

      …Well they can get to fuck out of it, AFAIC.

      ‘Start rebuilding after decades of toerag rule’…..That the centrists facilitated and enabled, for total fs

      LABOUR ALWAYS SHOULD BE A PARTY OF THE LEFT.

      CENTRISTS SHOULD FUCK RIGHT OFF AND GO JOIN THE LIBDIMS.

      1. @Toffee

        Absolutely! The British centre has shown itself to be as trustworthy as a scorpion to a frog.

      2. Electoral advantage might tempt competing left of centre parties with profound differences to put them aside for a time but would alliances survive a win or would the ‘centre’ go back to its old ways?
        Maybe the Left in Spain speaks mainly in the plain but does that say anything about the lying, conniving half-Tories we have here?
        I don’t think so.
        If there’s an example that proves me wrong I’ll gladly concede but for now I’m not going to trust a Bliarite further than ten feet, thanks.
        The drop on the other side of the broken window doesn’t count.

      3. David – You appear to be at odds with RLB the great hope of ‘the left’.

        “She said her campaign message of ‘aspiration’ was similar to the New Labour message in the 1990s, and agreed that Labour now needs the type of “renewal” delivered by Tony Blair then. She said she would talk to the former Prime Minister himself about this aim.”

      4. Toffee. The description ‘centrist’ has been made meaningless by Lexiters such as you and Skwawky who used it to denigrate those on the left who supported remaining in the EU. It was a petty reaction by a small section of the left who clung to out of date Bennite quotations from the past, virtue signalling their ‘left’ credentials.

        They can now sit back overseeing how their support for the far right Brexit has split the Labour Party, put Johnson in power and has begun the damage to the economy with the consequential harm to those who can least resist it.

    3. Most villages get by with one idiot,but we are in our little village are blessed with two.SteveH and RH in unholy matrimony.

      1. John – Thanks for your ‘ringing endorsement’ although I do note that you’ve chosen to attack the messenger rather than actually addressing the substance of what I was reporting. This appears to be a tactic that JC actively discourages.

        Also do you have any comment on RLB getting into bed consulting with Tony Blair

      2. john thatcher, I’ve had disagreements with both SteveH and RH in the past and whatever they are, they’re not idiots.
        You I’m not sure about yet because I haven’t really noticed you, but my impression so far is that all you do is make such non-specific attacks on those two – as if you were toffee’s yappy little dog.
        I’ll get back to you.

      3. Don’t bother getting back to me McNiven.Better you get back to not noticing me,since what I have to say appears to offend you.

  3. Serious questions about doners need to be answered,.The Labour party need to intervene and they have not shown hesitation in other candidates for spurious reasons.ITs time to unmask this plant Sir keir Starmer and his backers..

    1. But these are the Labour Party’s own rules that were decided by the NEC. If the rules are not fit for purpose then the fault lies with the incompetence of our supposedly ‘left wing’ NEC.

      1. The Labour Rule book refers to enabling members to select
        “Labour Party candidates representative of our
        society who can uphold the highest standards of
        probity and integrity in public life”

        This actually means that Labour Party candidates are mandated to observe
        “The Nolan Principles” which require Interests to be declared where non-disclosure of them might be of personal benefit.
        For these principles to be effective it means interests that may give benefit have to be disclosed before any benefit is gained from the non-disclosure.
        I.e. Starmer should have disclosed them before the voting started or in realtime like the other two candidates do.
        Otherwise he is in breach of LP rules.

  4. By all means pick up on Stalmer, but meanwhile, Becky’s amateur performance and adhesion to the Israel Lobby’s propaganda goes unremarked.

    Shum bias, shurely?

    Anyone can see that Becky would be a walk-over for the Tories – that’s the immediate problem, not Starmer’s alleged venality. Celebration of a basic lack of competence and confision isn’t really an alternative political strategy

    1. ”Anyone can see that Becky would be a walk-over for the Tories – that’s the immediate problem,”

      Wrong. Again.

      The IMMEDIATE problem is that starmer IS toerag in all but name. But that suits you, doesn’t it?

      1. “Wrong. Again”

        Well – she was certainly a walk-over for Andrew Neil – much the same thing.

      2. Becky is not the leader for the left. PFI lawyer. How much did she make from doing her job? Never mind the social damage caused, the massive bill to taxpayers etc.

        Her Nuremberg defence stunk too.

        Burgon is the man for the hour, and he isn’t in the running. I do hope (as mentioned here by someone else) that he gives whoever is leader a massive portion of TWatson. Some mirth in this awful situation would be appreciated

      3. NVLA – Unfortunately the electorate don’t tend to vote for parties who lack cohesion.

      4. So how do you explain ABdePJ and his band of merry jizzstains? Because everybody loves a bastard?

        2019 will definitely be one for the historical society. Clear bias shown during purdah. Those postal votes. Jeremy Corbyn something. The fractious right-wing (forgetten about them locking Corbyn out of Millbank after the 2017 GE?). Then there’s the money (as always).

        How much faith do you have on Tory cohesion concerning the Kung Flu? Apart from crapping on the least deserving of course

      5. NVLA – BJ pacified the majority of the Tory faithful by simply sacking his malcontents. Job done, the Tories went into the election with a unified front.

      6. And the Tory unfaithful?

        Seems strange how we saw the youths turn out yet the Tories managed to gather (as predicted) 80 seats.

        Right wingers like yourself don’t really care how the election was lost. What mattered was that it was lost. Got Sir Keir in now. And that little bit more division ensuring yet more Tory rule

    1. “Are you on the payroll ….?”

      Your immediate knee-jerk response to political differences is a bit pathetic, Joseph.

      1. Such is your hubris that you’re a parody of yourself, dicky. Everyone on here knows what you are. But still you persist, like some sort of mental deficient.

        You claim to have supported Corbyn yet did & said NOTHING when starmer conspired against him with fatboy slime. Your silence emboldened the pair of shithouses.

        You claim to dislike bliar , but you’re forever extolling the *Ahem* ‘virtues’ of perhaps the biggest blair acolyte in the party, nevermind the leadership race.

        You claim you’re of the left, but eveything you have proclaimed to have been the right move for the party has only facilitated a toerag govt that you’re trying to blame everyone but yourself for.

        Now you want a leader who didn’t have the bollocks to prosecute TWO toerags, both of who became cabinet ministers (one stil is) when the evidence was stacked against them and the probability of conviction almost certain.

        Face it. You’re an establishment goon at best; a filthy purple toerag at worst.

        Everyones got you sussed and STILL you’re trying to kid us all that you’re something we know you’re not. But you lack the social skills required to appreciate that you’re too dense to even be ashamed of being the gobshite we know you are.

      2. I never thought of ‘Full Time Twat’ being an occupation until you emerged from your burrow, Toffer. Otherwise I might be flattered at your assessment of my massive influence on the outcome of the last election.

        Sorry that the outside world won’t fit into the constrained organ that is your brain without distortion and incontinent frothing at the mouth. But, hey-ho, treatment and research keeps moving on.

        (BTW – thanks for the laugh about ‘social skills’. Irony on speed :-). The only thing that winds me up is your pretence at being a protagonist for the working class – they don’t deserve such an insult.

      3. The only thing that winds me up is your pretence at being a protagonist for the working class – they don’t deserve such an insult.

        Oh, so there IS a ‘working class’ now, is there?

        As & when it suits, eh, dicky?

        Make your mind up, knobhead. Oh, and this’ll be another one that’s gonna come back to haunt you.

        The gift that just keeps giving. 😀

      4. Sorry, Toffer.

        I apologize. You really don’t understand fairly simple ideas, do you? Where did you dream up your latest fiction of me denying the existence of class?

        Are you really that much of a numpty? Or is it all part of your fake schtik?

      5. ”Where did you dream up your latest fiction of me denying the existence of class?”

        If I find evidence will you promise to fuck off from this site never to return?

        (Not that anyone expects you’ll keep to your word, because you’re a bigger shithouse than starmer)

  5. God, but he’s atrocious. Totally devoid of any trace of personality. Muculent AND poikilothermic; I’m almost convinced he’s reptilian.

    And irritating? Christ! Even the sound of his voice gives me the urge to commit acts of extreme barbarian maltreatment towards fluffy woodland creatures.

    ‘Please hear me out!?’ Nyarghhhhhhhhh 🤬 GTF starmer, you Godawful excuse for a person.

    Good God almighty! What type of utter wrong’un must someone be to vote for that?

    Urghhhh. 🤢

    1. …. but if the polling is accurate it looks like he may already have won. If you’d had a vote then maybe you would have been able to exert some influence on the outcome.

      1. Unfortunately, the party’s suffering with a clique of right-of-centre, whining undemocratic hypocritical shithouses like yourself that think nothing of using underhanded immoral and illegal shithousery to get their own way; yet cry foul when the rules are adhered to.

        I would rather boil my testicles in Castrol GTX then force feed them to the nearest scabby mongrel than actually pay to affiliate myself with the likes of you.

        And even if I did indeed have a vote, you’d only find something to complain about my vote not beng allowed to count and whinge until you got your way. That has been your M.O. since forever.

      2. … however if you prefer to continue with your ineffective bleating from the sidelines that’s entirely your choice

      3. Oh, and remember when you howled : ‘But you weren’t told all the facts’ about the referendum?

        No surprise that once again, when starmer uses the same hypocrisy by not telling folk who’s funding him, YOU don’t say a dicky-bird about it.

        One toerag-enabling, whinging, hypocritical shithouse, you.

      4. SteveH 05/03/2020 at 3:30 pm · ·
        … however if you prefer to continue with your ineffective bleating from the sidelines that’s entirely your choice”

        ‘Ineffective bleating’ , is it?

        For the cunteenth time I’ll take the liberty of reminding you – AGAIN – where that attitude got you & your precious 70% at the last election, numbnuts.

        And because of YOU and YOUR 70% starmer & watson shithousery, I’M suffering, like millions of others.

        God, what an imbecile. Small wonder I won’t join the party when they allow complete morons like you in it.

        And before you start your usual squealing about foul-mouthed rants thinking you’ve won the reasoning with your delusions of reservation being the be-all and end-all; if you treat me like I’m a prick, you’re gonna get spoken to as one.

        So you can shove your moral high ground and yer 70% right up your hoop, sonny.

      5. ” because of YOU and YOUR 70% starmer & watson shithousery, I’M suffering, like millions of others”

        Yer’ve godda larff at the sheer twisted logic.

        Make up your mind – I thought it was the dedicated Sun/Mail Labour voters (admittedly fictional) in the ‘Labour Heartlands’ that made the difference by suddenly voting Tory.

        … or perhaps that was all made up.

        … or just doen’t fit the self-serving narrative of the Tory backers who adopted the Tory Lexit crap?

        Sorry that we actually kept a Labour MP here by not going along with that Leaver crap, Toffer – the counter-delusional fact obviously winds you up.

      6. Make up your mind – I thought it was the dedicated Sun/Mail Labour voters (admittedly fictional) in the ‘Labour Heartlands’ that made the difference by suddenly voting Tory.

        Except I didn’t deny it did I, moron?.

        Of course, you have to look at just WHO it was gave them the reason to vote toerag, and it weren’t labour voters that voted leave.

        *They supported more money for the NHS, plod and schools.

        *They supported renationalisation.

        *They supported making the corporates pay their (long over) dues

        *They supported scrapping tuition fees

        …And many other s garnered support

        They DIDN’T support a 2nd referendum. They DIDN’T support slimy shithouse starmer undemocratically steamrollering it through as policy and giving corbyn’s appearance as a leader a trashing in the process.

        But YOU and YOUR 70% did.

        But you’re alright because YOU got a labour mp in your constituency. And guess what? So did 201 other constituencies. Whoopie-fucking-doo!

        Fucking imbecile, they went into the election with 242. They were ahead in the polls right up until the minute starmer started to whine on about his impossible six tests and the 2nd ref/remain option.

        You were warned repaetedly what would happen…and it happened, all right,.

        And now we ALL suffer because of it.

        But you got your labour mp so you’re alright. Cretin.

      7. Toffee – I think you’ll find the polls started to stagnate and then decline for Labour when the endless prevarication set in.

      8. Toffee – Well considering the mess that TM was making Labour should have been way ahead in the polls and would have been if Labour hadn’t spent so long constipating themselves with ‘constructively ambiguity’.

        Then the Tories decided enough was enough and kicked out the indecisive TM for the decisive BJ. Unfortunately for all Labour had already pissed away the trust of the electorate so Labour’s stance on Brexit was largely irrelevant by the time of the GE because neither side trusted them. Labour were stupid enough to agree to a GE before Brexit was done with, and the rest is history.

      9. @Toffee

        You win today’s internet with that cretin post.

        Enjoy your day Sir!

      10. Oh, sound! Ta very much!

        Is there a cash prize with that? 😋

      11. SteveH – You’re a f.ing cretin for dealing in stuff like facts.

        … and you don’t froth and swear enough to pass as a certified member of the working class.

        (You’ve got to laugh at the middle class assumptions that lie behind Toffer’s self-portrayal as the earth’s salt frequenting ‘watering holes’!). Least of all does it represent the *actual* working class ‘Remain’ support that was in the majority amongst Labour voters in 2016.

        But – fingers in ears and La La La. Whinging supporters of Tory policy distorting convincing opposition had nothing to do with Labour looking impotent : it was all to do with too much democracy – like a confirmatory referendum.

        I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on minority issues – but the sort of cartoon leftery seen in the posts of Toffer and some others certainly didn’t aid a march to victory against the Tory onslaught.

      12. ‘Least of all does it represent the *actual* working class ‘Remain’ support that was in the majority amongst Labour voters in 2016.’

        Oh look! dicky’s back with his Schrodinger’s working class.

        Try telling that to the the (formerly) labour-held leave voting ‘working class’ constituencies in Sunderland, Stoke etc etc.

        WTF IS your major malfunction?

        On second thoughts, you needn’t bother. It’s all too evident.

      13. @Toffee

        Sadly no. But if we cross paths out there, there’s a pint or two with your name on

      14. Oh dear – and now there’s a fall-back to citing Skwawkbox’s noted history of selectively quoting polling as a pretended rational analysis of results.

        Some of us watched what was happening over three years.

        Here’s the old news : Labour had begun to lose this election way back, against the massive odds of a co-ordinated MSM campaign, a wishy-washy Brexit policy, and the growing rubbishing of Corbyn. There was no convincing counter-campaign – especially on the antisemitism scam.

        By November and the early rush to an election, and a lack of counter-punch, Labour had decisevely lost.

        … and the favoured candidate for leadership of the ‘left’ can’t even bring herself to call out the JLM and Israel Lobby.!

      15. @SteveH 05/03/2020 at 5:20 pm ·

        What has the balls-up that may was making got to do with the fact that the likes of watson, starmer screeching hodge philips etc were conspiring against Corbyn at each & every turn?

        Oh sure, you didn’t agree with the A/S accusations but then again they weren’t losing anywhere near as many votes as your whining over the referendum was, yet you happily allowed starmer to steamroll thorugh a 3nd ref remain option as policy with NO vote on the matter.

        And with zero sense of shame or hypocrisy you continued calling the referendum result ‘undemocratic’.

        You still do.

        To outsiders like me, that looked like (And STILL does) the party’s full of gobshites and barely worth voting for.

        And so plenty turned their back on the party for those reasons. Cryarseing hypocrites wanting their own way and refusing to heed warnings because YOU and your 70% thunk they know better than the ‘racist, knuckledragging leavers’.

        And what’s worse is that you think the general electorate don’t count, so have no viable opinion on who becomes party leader.

      16. Toffee – Perhaps you should read my comment again before going off on one.. Have you seem my post below on RLB courting the ‘Blairite’ votes.

      17. “they (A/S accusations) weren’t losing anywhere near as many votes as your whining over the referendum was”

        Wrong. The equivocal Brexit stance lost a pile of votes right back at the initiation of the shadowing of Tory policy – *that* was what was more of a disadvantage than the additional effect of the A/S scam, which was more part of the general Corbyn rubbishing. The votes were never wholly regained.

      18. Well,at least all the pretence is over from you and the other defender of the NuLabour faith on this site.Neither of you will be able to pose as anything other than what you are.Though I suppose we will have to continue suffering RH’s arrogance along with your collective stupidity.

      19. john thatcher 05/03/2020 at 11:34 pm

        Thanks for taking an interest and responding in your own inimitable way, however I have never expressed support for New Labour. If you have any evidence to the contrary I encourage you to present your evidence and link to it.

      1. Couple of things.

        1) Alcohol can’t rub out your issues.

        2) We shall be sober in the morning, whereas you will still be thick.

  6. Here’s what Little Becky’s said on LBC earlier today.

    “She said her campaign message of ‘aspiration’ was similar to the New Labour message in the 1990s, and agreed that Labour now needs the type of “renewal” delivered by Tony Blair then. She said she would talk to the former Prime Minister himself about this aim.”

    1. I cancelled my union membership direct debit after 38 continuous years last Monday. The girl from Unite was surprisingly blasé on the phone. I assume there’s been a mad rush to depart and that clearance will have been received from Tel Aviv.

      1. Because whoever wins the leadership contest, the Unite union will be affiliated to a party led by a declared Zionist. So it’s a no-brainer.

      2. Paul – Keir Starmer was the only one who refused to self declare himself as a Zionist at the JLM Husting. It is notable that RLB also said that she would welcome Louise Ellman and Luciana Berger back into our party with open arms. If you also take into consideration her recent ‘love in’ about Blair on LBC you have to begin to question her credibility as the candidate of ‘the left’.

        Starmer gave a far more nuanced response
        “I don’t describe myself as a Zionist but I understand, sympathise and support Zionism,” Starmer replied. This provoked ‘ooh’s in the room.”
        https://labourlist.org/2020/02/how-each-leadership-candidate-fared-in-the-jewish-labour-movement-hustings/

      3. @SteveH

        He is being bankrolled the Sassoon family. For days I’ve kept thinking about poor Vidal, until yesterday. Cannot remember if David Sassoon was the start or his son. It doesn’t really matter.

        Old man Sassoon used to sell rugs. Until he realised selling opium made more money. He got himself a monopoly. Of opium. Either he or his son went on to have 4 million customers…they are intertwined with both the British royal family and the Rothschild’s amongst others.

        Links never get through here, but for those who doubt, just search for Sassoon poppy fields.

        As for Starmer himself?. Whilst there has been no confession as such, it’s simple to see him for what he is. Just use your eyes. His actions define him.

      4. NVLA – Didn’t Farah Sassoon also donate around £40,000 to Ed Milliband. To be honest I think that it is unlikely that a few nights of free accommodation for Keir and his staff (whilst on the campaign trail) is going to buy much influence.

    2. There’s New Labour and New New Labour.

      What they share is subservience to the oppostion ideology –

      New Labour to the Tory policy of simple market economics

      New New Labour to the Tory policy of Brexit and subservience to the US and the Israel Lobby.

      What they have in common is laying down the red carpet for the Tories – and failure.

    3. Still not in favour of a new party? Oh well, maybe after either she or Starmer have re-‘New’-ed Labour and it’s formed a coalition with the Tories ‘for the economic advancement of New Britain’ perhaps? 🙂
      Maybe I’ll just go and live in Independent Scotland.

  7. Chill out everyone………

    “There’s a Starmer waiting in the sky
    He’d like to come and meet us
    But he thinks he’d blow our minds
    There’s a Starmer waiting in the sky
    He’s told us not to blow it
    Cause he knows it’s all worthwhile
    He told me:”

    1. I prefer…

      Starmer Starmer, Starmer Starmer, Starmer chameleon

      Remain and leave, remain and leave

  8. Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear , there really isn’t much else to say is there …. really ?
    You can have all the froth and indignation of the various commentators above , both for Starmer and against him , but the plain simple facts are there right before everyone eyes .

    If you vote for this man ( just listen to the way he refers to “the Labour Party ” as if its some abstract body , from a potential leader surely it should be OUR party ) after having seen this video clip then I am at an utter loss as I just don’t have the lexicon of vocabulary to describe such blind stupidity other than it is deliberate , wilful, ignoring of the obvious issues.

    IMO the very point of just ONE private donor contributing such a huge sum of £100K should in itself be extremely concerning.
    Money in this form is the poison to our Party’s integrity .

    And please lets not have the tedious trolling debate or whataboutery over Union donations , that has done to death on another thread and the difference between the two forms of sponsorship is immense.

    All other candidates have , without any of this behaviour , put up their donors ,, even without the obvious question now raised over Starmers apparent lack of honesty in ducking and diving , even if you dismiss that huge concern , then there still should be concerns over his decision making and forward planning capability if he can’t prepare adequately in advance for the blindingly obvious requirement to disclose his donors….. don’t tell me he didn’t see this coming ,,, he’s not supposedly stupid … is he ?

    Best solution is to suspend the vote till all of his donors are disclosed and we the membership can make an informed and honest decision .
    In fact I’d like to see ALL forms of sponsorship banned in any of our internal elections . All candidates get a specific sum paid by the Party and THAT’S ALL.

    1. rob – I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph but unfortunately the NEC decided that charging each candidate £5,000 + VAT for access to essential party membership databases was a better way forward.

    2. I wonder if we ought to re-run the whole election, since some have cast their votes before hearing the whole truth from certain parties?
      Or would that be undemocratic, Toffee?

    3. rob – you make a fair point about “the tedious trolling debate or whataboutery over Union donations “.

      My criticism is *not* about equating broad-based, democratic Union donations with individual funding by the wealthy.

      The criticism is the way in which the donation of union monies is not determined democratically, but is in the hands of a small group of officials who exercise the power in a similar way to plutocrats – rather than at the behest of members.

  9. Who gets to keep the Labour party if we decide to go our separate ways
    JC legacy is clear red water between us and red/blue tories
    600,000 members, 10 – 13 million supporters and demographics all in our favour
    But it all depends on us clearing out plotters and vexatious claimants and I dont think we have the horrible bastards who can do the dirty work

  10. What an utter slimebag Starmer is, if he gets in its the end of the dreams many of us had under Corbyn and back to the extreme centre of a New New Labour and political oblivion like Pasok.
    Diverse working people deserve better!

  11. The argument that because Starmer interests will at some point in the future all is above board is bogus.

    All people in public office are required to observe the
    “The 7 principles of public life” aka “The Nolan Principles”
    also
    The Labour Rule book refers to enabling members to select
    “Labour Party candidates representative of our
    society who can uphold the highest standards of
    probity and integrity in public life”

    This means that Labour Party candidates are mandated to observe
    “The Nolan Principles”
    These require Interests to be declared where non-disclosure of them might be of personal benefit.
    For these principles to be effective it means interests that may give benefit have to be disclosed before any benefit is gained from the non-disclosure.
    I.e. Starmer should have disclosed them before the voting started or in realtime like the other two candidates do.

    Failure to do so is a breach of the Integrity, Openness and Accountability principles on the part of Starmer
    and a breach of Labour Party rules.

    When such interests are officially recorded is irrelevant.

    1. iamcrawford – I suggest you address your complaints to the NEC who wrote these disclosure rules and the Electoral Commission who I believe approved them.

  12. rob, I have the same concerns about him.
    Rich people don’t donate 100k without expecting a degree of access, ownership or worse.
    He’d have done better to refuse the offer or at least accept it only with a written agreement that Labour could use it as it wished – then donate it to central Party funds in the name of the donor – nobody needs 100k to fight an internal election – the very concept demeans the party.
    Informing the whips’ and the leader’s offices of the quid pro quo “suggested” by the donor, preferably with a sworn affidavit, would have protected his reputation.
    Maybe Starmer has difficulty turning down ‘free’ money.

  13. Is this just an unfortunate typo in this extract from an ISS letter sent to it’s staff.

    As a business we are getting routine updates, which are being shared to the wider team.”

    “Should, as part of your preparations need us to consider something more specific to your demise, ISS are happy to do so.”

    1. Hadn’t heard of ISS – looking on their ‘services’ page it’s all low wage/zero hour employee exploitation stuff – security, catering, cleaning, healthcare, waste management etc.
      Like what agricultural worker gangmasters would get into if they got enough money together to go legit.

  14. For the record
    The clip of the activist questioning Cockwombles loyalty to the party was not anti semitic, RLB had nothing to apologise for
    Those named are guilty of vexatious claims and should all have been thrown out of the party
    None of them care a jot about AS,
    If they did then they would have worked with JC and party behind the scenes to resolve any issues,
    Never ever shit on your own doorstep
    Everything was done for effect and in the full glare of MSM and toilet papers to cause maximum damage,
    Fact is not one vexatious claim has been unearthed by the media, Hodge alone made 200

    1. Doug – “RLB had nothing to apologise for” Apart from her apology

      I agree, but all the candidates have been cowed into sub-mission and dare not speak the truth.

    1. How dare hide behind “concern” for Assange you bloody weasel SteveH,your chosen man is partly responsibly for his predicament.

      1. You again, the third time in just a few minutes. I never realised that it would be so exciting having a stalker

      2. Indeed he was, whilst director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer told the Swedish authorities “ don’t you dare get cold feet” when they were deliberating about dropping the false rape charges against the political dissident, Julian Assange.

        Moreover, as is widely known but played down by his supporters both on this site and amongst the Labour Party that Starmer is a member of right wing American organisation founded and financed by billionaire who had didn’t have respect for democracy, just like Starmer.

      3. John & brianbotou – I am also concerned about these two issues as well as some others and I will be making the time over the next 3 weeks to do my own research into all the issues that concern me. All I am saying is that at the moment on the information I currently have KS is the best option out of the three of them. However I will delay my final decision and voting (as I always do) until just a couple of days before the polls close, partly to see what emerges over the next few weeks but also because it gives me more time to carry out my own research into all the candidates (for all the posts).

        Others appear to proudly cast their votes as early as they can which I find a little difficult to understand because why would anyone volunteer to give up the option to change their mind. They don’t publish running totals, so what’s the point in voting early. A lot can happen in the next few weeks before the polls close, for instance who would have thought in their wildest dreams that ‘Little Becky’ would turn out to be a fan of Tony Blair.

        As a result of early voting I may well be wasting my time because according to the polls Keir Starmer may already have won but personally I think I have a responsibility to make myself as informed as I can before casting my vote.

      4. SteveH, my reluctant, frankly disgusted assessment is that Starmer would probably appeal to more voters than the other two, but I wouldn’t vote for any of them.
        Had Gardiner or McDonnell stood for leader I might have felt slightly more optimistic but only Corbyn offered the prospect of a genuinely socialist government.
        A party that pisses away its first chance in 75 years to make real political progress is too stupid to live – a prime Darwin Award candidate.
        I really believe it was resentment at the unprecedented popularity of a figure they’d discounted and dismissed – rather than any political differences – that set the “New Labour” old guard against him.
        On his best day Blair wasn’t a tenth as popular as Corbyn.
        If he sickens and dies next month I hope they bury the vapid twunt at Thatcher’s feet where he belongs.
        That way I can pay my respects to both of them with one bladderfull.

      5. None of them are the best option, unless you include Burgon (“He’d be welcome to study”).

        This current leadership selection is like choosing your favourite turd.

        It stinks, and it’s already messy.

  15. The knight has broken some very serious rules regarding honesty and integrity.The governance of the Labour party have a duty to enforce the Labour party rules.I have informed them of their responsibility in this election and I urge you to contact r Labour party urgently.Our Labour party is being hijacked by crooks under the banner of Sir Keir Starmer.

    1. Precisely which rules has he broken (as opposed to the rules that you might legitimately expect to be in place). As I understand it the rules around the disclosure of donors were created and implemented by the NEC.

  16. As New Labours cabal revealed they were heavily indebted to private financial and corporate interests. For example, the cash for honours debacle, the PFI corporations plus financial concerns scamming money out of Joe Public, the Brown relaxed attitude to the city of London and the lobbying and revolving door scandal enriching some of the NL politicians and advisers.

    Not forgetting of course kowtowing to an oligarchical controlled country. Starmer is part of the same clique as the above mentioned. Evidence, as director of public prosecutions he kowtowed to the above mentioned oligarchy in the USA in order to persecute a political dissident for exposing their imperial war crimes, he is a member of a right wing undemocratic organisation dedicated to undermine democracy at the behest of billionaires.

    Lastly, a leadership candidate who is refuses to name all of his financial backers has something to hide if he is elected leader what obligations, allegiances will he have to these secretive backers and the Trilateral commission of which he is a member?

  17. Why doesn’t he name all of his donors? Because some of them don’t want to be named and having taken their cash he’s agreed not to name them.

    I don’t think that this is because those donors’ possess a pronounced sense of modest generosity . They seek to influence Starmer and their anonymity ensures that it will be harder for others to counter their influence.

    Starmer demonstrates contempt for LP members by not naming all of his backers. It’s got nothing to do with rules it about honesty and trust.

  18. Fascinating stuff. Weeping and wailing about Starmer (who I don’t intend to vote for, BTW – I can’t bring myself to cross any box) – distracts attention from Becky’s support base among the the barony, and her alliance with Lansman – and reinforcement of the ‘anisemitism’ myths – coupled with a pretty poor performance record.

  19. I note, again, that Skwawkbox is tiptoeing around the latest news on the ‘antisemitism’ scam – the refusal of ‘Show Racism the Red Card’ to bow to pressure over Ken Loach and Michael Rosen.

    I understand the fear – the intimidation infects the whole media, but it is symptomatic of the need to face down the Israel lobby and its perversion of the term ‘anti-semitism’.

    Which, if any, any of our candidates celebrate the straightforwardness of SRRC? Will they use it as an illustration of the venality of certain interests exploiting the charge?

    Or should I not hold my breath?

    1. RH. You’re not the only one who has noted Skwawky’s reluctance to allow comments on how the CAA, a front for yet another Zionist organisation, is attempting to blackmail critics of the Israel Lobby.

      Why have so many on the left, such as RLB allowed themselves to be ensnared in the Zionist net? She allowed Andrew Neil to back her into a corner over her appearance in Liverpool when she was questioned about why she had declared herself to be a Zionist. She squirmed and wriggled and tried to shake off AN by accepting everything he threw at her.

      To say that Corbyn was brought down by the Israeli Lobby including Margaret Hodge is perfectly true, yet RLB was forced to say it was anti-Semitic and anyone who says it should be summarily expelled! Is she or anyone like her the sort of person we need to lead the Labour Party? She would be eaten for breakfast and throw members under the bus. No time for Starmer or Nandy either.

      1. Yes Comrade, but as a ‘Centreist’ why do you take instruction from Starmer; Hodge & Phillips?

      2. C’mon, Steve Richards – you’re surely not that dim as to believe this sort of generalised indiscriminate nonsense (actually quite reminiscent of the Irrael lobby’s type of distortion)?

      3. Steve Richards, please let me know the meaning of ‘Centreist’ as you perceive it and if your comment referred to me, please give me some evidence I have done what you suggest.

      4. RH 06/03/2020 at 12:48 pm · ·

        And

        Jack T 06/03/2020 at 6:45 pm ·

        Instead of your usual obfuscation and deflection, try answering Steve’s question directly and have the courage to expose yourselves for what you are instead of your pathetic pretence of being of the left..

        And YES Jack, by your (and rh’s) silence and refusal to condemn or disown what they were up to, you ALLOWED watson & starmer to shit on both the leadership and policy which emboldened the two rats to conspire to steamroller through the 2nd ref with remain option WITHOUT a vote being taken, so there’s ONE example.

  20. I felt the least I could do after supporting the Labour party and the idea of a just society free of pomp and privilege was to vote for the candidates who at least talk Socialism and the working classes,without holding their noses .Richard Burgon and the best of the remainder RLB.My membership runs out soon and I will not renew.My battle now is just surviving a mutated virus and most people in the UK need to worry about the mutating virus of the Tory party that destroys the lives of millions of our people with the active collaboration of leadership candidates Sir keir Starmer and that abomination Nandy.Solidarity comrades

  21. Who’s behind the slur (smear) on Micheal Rosen and Ken Loach, if this farce doesn’t prove that antisemitism was nothing more than a fabricated attempt to destroy the left. The Israeli lobby will sink to any depth to hide there murders of innocent Palestinians, their God will be ashamed of them.

    1. That’s why I was asking the question about leadership candidates citing the incident – it wasn’t just rhetoric. It is, indeed, a classic extension of the less prominent fabrications that we have been seeing, and a case that exposes the absurdity of such allegations, given the impeccable and diverse track records of the two individuals involved.

      If anything is worthy of fearless rebuttal – this is the one.

  22. More bullying; this time from a BBC presenter & not Priti Patel. Such aggression when Jeremy Corbyn’s name is even mentioned. RBL told Murdoch’s errand boy, that she would initiate a programme of ‘re-education’ to prevent members asking more ‘difficult’ questions about the “Israeli lobby” in Parliament…..to eliminate anti-Semitism.

    I look forward to being ‘re-educated Chinese Style? Perhaps we could change the facts & eliminate self evident truths that don’t fit the dominant preferred ideology. Neither BBC nor Labour Party establishment will allow debate or question IHRA definition. How soon will AS become a hate crime & punishable in law? Criticise Israel & you go to prison?

    Speaking Truth to power will soon be illegal.

    1. I think we are just about there, Steve. Note that France and Germany have all but outlawed criticism of Israel, and several states in the US are trying to outlaw the BDS movement.

      Labour ‘leaderhip’ (guffaw) candidates talking about ‘education’, when they mean ignorance-based ‘censorship’, is beyond parody.

      Whether the explanation is cowardice or stupidity doesn’t make much of a difference – both are absolute disqualifications for the role.

  23. PS………the quality of the debate is becoming as poor as the insults & dis-respect shown Comrades!

  24. The PLP are to blame for the Shambles of the candidates dished up and for the Tory government that will kill thousands of real people with real lives and familys.God damm those obnoxious vermin that are supposed to represent the Labour party and socialism..

  25. So she thinks it’s OK for back benchers to fight a factional war but not the front bench? Right wing shadow ministers quitting every hour wasn’t factional?
    What kind of twisted infantile anti-logic anti-truth is that?
    The whole of the right wing has been deploying the nuclear option of fake antisemitism accusations for what – FOUR years?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: