Analysis Breaking

Company at centre of Labour data breach hit by $3m US penalty for ‘misleading’ over ransomware attack

SEC accepts US$3m settlement over charges Blackbaud failed to disclose full extent of data loss

Blackbaud, the company at the centre of the first of two major Labour party data breaches in consecutive years, has agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) three million US dollars to settle the SEC’s charges that it failed to disclose the full impact of a 2020 ‘ransomware’ attack.

The attack affected US customers but also led to a major loss of sensitive data belonging to Labour party supporters.

Keir Starmer and party manager David Evans apparently learned little from the breach, as a year later Labour was hit by yet another massive ransomware loss of members’ outsourced sensitive data to criminals that took party member management systems offline for more than a year – some were reportedly never recovered and had to be bypassed.

The Labour right has also participated actively in huge data breaches, unlawfully providing personal data from several databases to a right-winger’s failed campaign to take over the Unite union when Unite was a bastion of support for then-leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Evans and co told victims not to discuss the ransomware attack. Sadly the UK’s Information Commissioner is largely docile and has even enabled Labour to further breach its obligations to members, even though it has the power to levy fines of up to £17.5 million.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

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


  1. How can you trust these charlatans to manage billions of pounds, create growth and other assorted buzzwords when they can even manage to keep a list of members?

    1. Personally I don’t think that a data breach has FA to do with managing the economy but you as you so obviously have a different opinion and given that the only alternative on offer is the Conservatives, do you trust them more?

      1. NVLA – This what the polls are saying
        Economic Competence Tracker
        Fieldwork: 10th-13th March 2023 · Sample: 1,561 adults in Britain
        Putting aside any support for a political party you may have, which of the following do you think would be best for the British economy?
        Conservative: 34% (-1)
        Labour: 46% (-2)
        Don’t know: 19% (+2)
        (Changes from 2nd-6th March 2023)

      2. Andy – Whether you like the current system or not has little to no relevance. You bleating about it won’t change anything. As for you confusion about the polling, maybe you’re just not as in touch as you thought you were. Perhaps you should widen your circle a little.

      3. Nothing to do with Corbyn and his team having taken on monthly spending commitments that were more than they had coming in, or the loss of 20% of the membership in the 2yrs prior to the 19GE and failing to adjust their spending appropriately, or the loss of a very big chunk of annual income in the form of ‘short money’ then?

      4. Questions are:

        *Is keef an alternative to conservatism?

        *Do I trust smarmer more than the toerags?

        The answers are the same. Absolutely not.

      5. Toffee – Given that you don’t vote, will anyone care what you think?

      6. Who says I don’t vote?

        Not me. I said I haven’t voted in a previous election – not that I don’t or won’t

        Be absolutely certain of one thing; like hundred of thousands – if not millions – of other disaffected former labour voters I WON’T be voting smarmerist labour.

        And as for people supposedly not caring… Well obviously YOU do, seeing as you blame the likes of me for the current toerag govt.

        So have ANOTHER go, gobshite.

      7. Toffee – So was it just the critical 19GE where Corbyn failed to inspire you to vote.

      8. Not a bit of it, it was the odious liar (ill)eagle I wasn’t gonna vote for.

      9. That’s a good one steveH. A record of incompetence and un-trustworthiness has no bearing on the ability to run an economy.

        Trumped only by your unwitting admission, in terms of this famed ‘credibility’ of yours, that its not about whether something works or not but about how it compares with something else that does not work.

        In terms of standards that’s a bar so low that its buried so deep in the ground you’d need a drilling rig to get to it.

        At least we all now know where Richard Curtis and Rowen Atkinson got their template for Baldrick from. No wonder you had to leg it (allegedly) to the Caribbean.

    2. …Personally I don’t think…

      I’ve already noticed, but thanks for the tip.

      …that a data breach has FA to do with managing the economy…

      As stated. Not thinking. Have we forgotten about digital IDs, CBDCs or the government gateway to name but three very, very important digital applications. Will these be treated in the same casual manner?

      …but you as you so obviously have a different opinion and given that the only alternative on offer is the Conservatives, do you trust them more?…

      Back to the old illusions again. Again, not thinking. You did warn us though. The choice is not binary. There’s the lib dems (yuck), the greens (yuck), the monster raving looney party (who could really do no worse in any western country) or like my last choice, independent.

      Enjoy the feed. It’s all your getting.

      1. NVLA – You have one ‘teeny weeny’ problem, as clearly illustrated by this poll (published today) hardly anyone agrees with you. Back in the real world we both know that your dreams are currently nothing more than just dreams. They just aren’t going to happen.
        Voting Intention
        Fieldwork: 10th-13th March 2023 · Sample: 1,561 adults in Britain
        Labour leads by twenty-three points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
        Con 27% (-4)
        Lab 50% (+3)
        Lib Dem 9% (+1)
        UKIP 1%
        Reform UK 4%
        SNP 3%
        PC 1%
        Green 4%
        Others 2%
        (Changes from 2nd-6th March 2023)

    3. They are clowns and comedians, but qualified with the serious point that their incompetence is a great danger to anyone who thinks that voting for them will make a serious difference.

      1. Ludus57 – What is the credible alternative that you are offering the electorate, do you have one?

      2. SteveH, what is the criteria you use to claim what Labour under its present sorry excuse for leadership is offering is “credible”?

        Because if it is not, on the basis of objective evidence rather than opinion, what will work to resolve the present unworkable paradigm than it does not fit the standard everyday definition of the concept “credible.”

        In these terms the only relevant consideration is whether it will work and do what it says on the tin. Anything else – polls snapshots extrapolated from small meaningless samples, fine sounding words on paper, slight differences from present Government policy etc are simply old wine in a different bottle.

        Whether or not this bunch of your fellow know nothings get elected or not is not the issue. The issue is the need for a credible alternative that resolves the deep structural issues plaguing the country. Structural issues which the present incompetent incumbents of the Party have stated they are not interested in addressing. A statement backed up by policies which fully support the stated position in that they are not designed to tackle the issues which need addressing in any credible or workable way.

        On a whole raft of policy issues there do exist alternatives which more seriously address the relevant criteria.

        The absence of a means within the present system through which those alternatives can discussed, debated, and presented is part of the wider systemic problem not being addressed in this football terrace level approach you are trying to force down everyone’s throat from your safe haven in the Caribbean (allegedly).

        So cut the straw man bollocks and substantiate with evidence your bold claim that what the present LP are offering will satisfy the criteria of what is credible.

        Or are you going to run away, again.

      3. Dave – Why does the stipulation that your offer should be credible make you so nervous, are you worried that your offer lacks credibility? If not then why not just put forward your alternative offer so that people can judge its credibility and veracity for themselves?

        Please feel free to correct me, but from what I can see at the moment you don’t have a political party, or a leader, or any policies and time is running out. Do you actually have anything to offer beyond yet more rhetoric, credible or otherwise?

        If you are relying on JC to be your saviour then in my opinion you are going to be sorely disappointed again.

      4. We are talking about the credibility of what you claim is on offer.

        Trying to reframe it is simply more of your well worn running away from the facts. Which is your problem to deal with and not anyone else’s.

        However, this is unsurprising as you have already conceded that the only criteria you are interested in – from your safe haven far from the implications and consequences you want to continue foisting onto others via the same failed policy paradigm – is whether Labour win an election rather than what works and does not work.

        A criteria about which you are understandably silent because you have no answers other then the desperation of trying to reframe a context you cannot deal with.

        You really are out of depth.

  2. I suppose that, in this age of so-called “competitive tendering”, Labour HQ opted for “cheap and cheerful” rather than a pricier outfit.
    What a way to run a major political party. It’s no surprise with these comedians in charge.

    1. Labour HQ opted for “cheap and cheerful” rather than a pricier outfit.>

      Its appeal probably had more to do with the appointee’s lack of ethical standard rather than cost. Labour’s current leadership cares more about destroying Labour’s cred ntials as a left-leaning alternative to austerity and neoliberal corruption than avoiding either of the two major data breaches that occurred under its watch, providing an effective opposition or championing the needs of the British electorate.

  3. One good aspect of this for the LP is that the hackers were not able to demand a ransom in exchange for not divulging the party’s policies.

      1. Utter desperation

        A link going back to December 2021. Yet in July 2022, here’s what keef had to say about shitting on his ten pledges – the ones that he’d ditched well before December 2021 but you hadn’t realised it until just a few weeks ago when I had to point it out to ypu because you’re thicker than pigshit.

        (And as an added bonus for you, ollies, it’s from a labourlist link; the ones that you’re so fond of posting).

        “The financial situation has changed” (as it tends to do year on year ffs)

        And what else has changed? Keefs’ shadow cabinet. Most of those quoted within your link aren’t even in the same positions as they are now.

        And you STILL think that your miracle green paper will look the same IF keef gets the keys, than what it does now. 🤦🤦🤦

      2. It had also adopted a leader who made 10 Pledges that were binned the very second they’d achieved their objective and got the UK’s only selected-member of the Trilateral Commission elected.

    1. goldbach

      The fact members can justifiably suspect there was a more sinister motive behind it, shows why this party isn’t fit for purpose.

      You can well imagine that members’ database(past and present) being taken and more powerful data analytical tools used to analyse social media posting history to root out hidden lefties or pro-Palestine sympathisers(excluding Keith of course, as he was faking his support).

      Starmer mentioned five missions, his real mission is to completely purge the left, becoming PM is incidental . And everyone knows, if they win, he’ll lead an unpopular single term govt, before the Tories get in again for another 20 year stint. Yes, it’s that f’ckin bleak.

      1. Andy – Oh dear, have you been down that 🐰🕳️ again. What a load of bollocks.

      2. SteveH

        If only. Look at the facts…

        The RW cast of characters running the Labour party at HQ and NEC level ; the many lies over antisemitism, the false claims made for which there have been no apologies, the casual racism and hatred of staffers in the leaked report. This is an HQ that gave every impression of detesting its own membership c.2015-2019.

        If someone detests you, would you trust them to keep your sensitive data safe? They are purging the left and many these characters hate non-Zionists. What do you think they are doing with it?

      3. Andy – There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that whoever carried out the ransom attack has any access to any unencrypted personal data belonging to party members.

      4. You are perfectly correct, Andy.
        Starmer has the job of returning Labour to it’s perverted role of Establishment Second XI.

      5. Why is it a ‘load of bollocks’ steveH?

        Have you got an evidence based argument to substantiate this claim or are you running away again?

        Come on kid. Tell us why. Show us what you’ve got. After all, we are only applying to you what you demand of everyone else.

      6. “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that whoever carried out the ransom attack has any access to any unencrypted personal data belonging to party members.”

        And conversely there is no evidence to suggest they don;t have such access.

        Desperately bullshitting and polishing that turd again steveH.

        What’s your next cunning plan?

      7. Dave – To not waste my time trying to prove a negative. Is my statement that “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that whoever carried out the ransom attack has any access to any unencrypted personal data belonging to party members.” factually incorrect?

      8. You are the one who referred to it as ‘bollocks’ steveH. It is therefore down to you to substantiate that descriptive claim with fact based evidence.

        All this running away milarky suggests you are training either for a marathon or to be a member of the UAF?

      9. steveH: And do not waste my time with your selectively picking and choosing only those elements of a context which suits you. Discarding, just like the current junta running the LP, any contextual elements, aspects and features you find inconvenient.

        “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that whoever carried out the ransom attack do not have access to any unencrypted personal data belonging to party members.” Factually incorrect?

  4. SteveH’s measure of success is how many will play along with this fake democratic, two-party system. Tory to Starmer’s Labour is more like a tag team changeover than a real change of govt. Both parties are committed to the same neoliberal economic orthodoxies & slavish standing ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the hawkish US, which invariably means Washington’s neocons, whether right or wrong.

    Honestly don’t understand the current polling. Both parties should rightfully be neck and neck, as in equally loathed. Labour offer the same trickle down economic analysis and solutions based on that analysis as the Tories, yet claim they will perform economic miracles because they have a plan

    No doubt Reeves ‘cunning plan’ is some form of ‘tough love’ workfare; i.e. shoving people into jobs they don’t want or can’t physically do. Making them miserable and the properly paid staff, who have to work alongside them miserable. Until they’re inevitably fired, then sanctioned into destitution, which Reeves’ calls ‘tough love.’

    1. Andy – Yes my measure of success is a resounding win for the Labour Party so that they can implement their policy platform. What’s yours, another Tory win, what else do you have to offer? 🤔

      1. A hung parliament would be better than the likes of Starmer, Reeves & Streeting armed with a majority.

        I hope nobody bothers to turn out. Let both parties sink due to justified apathy. We need PR, and the best way to demand it is by not voting.

        If turnout falls <50% the Westminster careerists will know their crappy two-party (no choice) sham is over.

      2. Andy – I couldn’t disagree with you more, I want Labour to have a sizeable majority be enable them to implement their policy platform. What’s your problem are you frightened they’ll make a success of being in government.

      3. SteveH

        I don’t think the likes of Reeves, Starmer and Streeting will make a success of anything. Streeting will likely attempt to properly privatise the NHS, dressing up reform in the language of efficiency improvements to cut waiting times. In the hope of a big pay day from US patrons, post-politics

        Their role is that of placeholders, until the Tories get their act together. I think they are that disingenuous and sinister.

        Look at Mandelson, he was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein and enjoyed being around incredibly rich individuals – Mandelson went from a singleton’s flat to buying £2.4m villa in Regent’s Park, how is that ‘rags to riches’ transformation possible on his publicly declared salary? He isn’t remotely socialist, nor was property empire building Blair, and nor are Starmer and Reeves.

        It’s a #shamocracy, and the people propping this fake ‘democratic’ system up know it is.

      4. Then your measure of success is total bollocks steveH.

        Implementing a policy platform which by their own admission is not designed to solve the structural problems which need to be addressed to stop systemic collapse is not success for the majority who, unlike yourself cowering elsewhere on the planet (allegedly), have to continue to suffer.

        What you are doing is nothing more than gaslighting as your measure of success is no different from another Tory win.

        Most of us have much higher standards. than you clearly do.

      5. Dave – Implementing a policy platform which by their own admission is not designed to solve the structural problems which need to be addressed to stop systemic collapse is not success for the majority who, unlike yourself cowering elsewhere on the planet (allegedly), have to continue to suffer.

        Really, where did they say that?
        But where is the credible alternative that you and your comrades are offering?
        Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but all you appear to be offering and promoting is yet another Tory win.
        Are you a really just another closet ToryBoy?

      6. Back to alzheimer’s again I see steveH.

        This was only twenty five days ago:

        But, for the cognitively challenged such as yourself here’s the quote:

        “I think structural change should not be the priority for Government.”

        And regardless of the narrow context of the question being answered in that interview related to education the wider context is that it makes no practical systemic sense policy wise to have structural change in one policy area but not in another.

        Simply because social systems do not operate on the basis of every thing standing alone, isolated from each other and not having an impact or influence across all other areas. Its known as joined up thinking. Something which, on substantial present evidence, you would be well advised to take up.

        The fact that the general element of Phiipson’s statement was not and has not been subsequently contradicted or “clarified” in the past twenty five days adds credence and credibility to that general policy position.

        A policy position subsequently reiterated by Rachel Reeves a week later. Covered in another article on this site on 28/02/2023 in which her statement about “growth'”, as defined under the present policy paradigm, was quire rightly shredded on the basis that the official policy position that statement alluded to would fail on the basis of the only relevant criteria which counts.

        Which is what works and what does not.

        In terms of the other element of your post above; you continue to misframe anything which does not suit your own agenda. The question arises as to how many times you need to have this explained to you in Janet and John terms.

        in terms of the only criteria which matters- ie what policies will and will not resolve the major structural failings of the present unworkable not fit for purpose paradigm/model – when both policy options available fail, as a deliberate matter of their construction, to deal with the structural failings of that paradigm/model which one “wins” and which one “loses” in an election to determine who administers the continued failure makes no difference.

        The purpose of the Labour Party is to offer an alternative to the failed paradigm which will deal with the structural failings of that paradigm with a different paradigm. Not to offer a mirror image to continue with that failed paradigm.

        To reiterate the points presented below the line on the above provided url link.

        Basic question which we need to start with are:

        “a) The present framework of ideas, along with their core assumptions, upon which the model those failing and failed policies are based?

        b) What framework of ideas and core assumptions are required to construct a model which is more likely to produce better, more robust and workable policies for the common good?

        c) Whether the framework of ideas and core assumptions of any potential ‘alternative’ administration differ sufficiently from the model which is failing so spectacularly?

        In every other endeavour of human activity, other than politics and how we administer ourselves, when something is very obviously not working – ie not doing what it says on the tin – basic questions are considered. Why is this not working? Are we doing it wrong? Are the core assumptions valid? And appropriate changes are enacted.

        As the physicist Albert Einstein observed, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result represents insanity – in this case of a unique form which only people appear to be capable of generating and putting up with.

        There is little point in approaching such serious matters with an attitude which fails to tackle such failure due to what can only be interpreted as a puerile and wilful refusal to operate on the basis of the available evidence that considers such basic level considerations and the need for proper, professional structural change.

        Attempting such a tilting at windmills approach, along with its associated ignorant and arrogant mindset, which seeks to polish a turd which is rapidly collapsing is at the very least certifiable if not treasonable.

        This approach will end in multiple systems failure because its obvious to any competent real world experienced individual that more of the same paradigm/model and its failed/failing approach is dangerous nonsense.

        One thing is for sure, this is not a grown up approach by the Labour Party as an organisation, those within it who are pushing it, and those within it and without it who support it. The resulting harm will be very real and those responsible at all levels will one day be made accountable.”

        Alternatives are not only available for those honest enough to look for them – and to meet that criteria of “honest” requires moving beyond the yah boo football terrace level approach you take, steveH. Away from your simplistic zero sum nonsense of win/lose to non-zero sum win/win approaches – they are also already being practiced in other parts of the world.

        And the basic starting point is to have democratic control of Corporate Capital rather than Corporate Capital having control of democracy. The latter being what we have and which is right now being systematically already being replaced as the failed paradigm you continue to push collapses on its own contradictions.

        If I were you I’d start with the economy and work outwards from their. Micheal Hudson and Richard Murphy would be a reasonable primer to begin with.

      1. Ludas57. I’m afraid that position is already taken by our resident woke troll fron the Caribbean (allegedly).

      2. Dave – What’s with this silly obsession that you have about where I live?

      3. I would have though it was obvious steveH.

        Someone who, on the basis of everything you post here, is so congenitally intellectually dishonest and disingenuous cannot necessarily be trusted to be accurate even on such mundane things.

        Normally I would have asked the question as to why it took you so long to work it out. However, in your case that would be assuming a level of gumption for which no evidence exists.

  5. SteveH15/03/2023 AT 5:06 PM
    Personally I don’t think that a data breach has FA to do with managing the economy

    Of COURSE it’s not, soft shite. Bliarist labour spunked £££hundreds of millions on the NHS computerised system and had to scrap it.

    The rags have spunked as much on worthless IT for UC.

    But keef spunking dough on IT security for his own party is NOTHING to do with running an economy. Perhaps that’s why a £13.5m surplus is now a £4.8m deficit for labour. All within three years….

    1. Toffee – Nothing to do with Corbyn and his team having taken on monthly spending commitments that were more than they had coming in, or the loss of 20% of the membership in the 2yrs prior to the 19GE and failing to adjust their spending appropriately, or the loss of a very big chunk of annual income in the form of ‘short money’ then?

      1. That’s quite right wee pisspot…It’s NOTHING to do with Corbyn SUPPOSEDLY “losing” (yes it’s THAT one – AGAIN) 20% of the membership. (Keefs’ done well to get the numbers up like Corbyn did, hasn’t he?)

        And especially after THREE years of keef turning a £13.5m SURPLUS into a £4.8m DEFICIT.

        Yep, THAT’S the way to run an economy, isnt it? Spunk all your assets and blame your predecessor – despite having ample time to put things right but failing to do so.

        …Remind us, o genius – what other party does that?

        That’s right. Difference is, they’ve had 13years to do to the nation’s economy what keefs ‘managed to do to his own party in just THREE.

        …And the rags had the handicap of starting off with a deficit. Keef kicked off with a surplus.

        So have another go. And then another, and another after that, because you’ll just come out with the same dismally incorrect SHITE as you ALWAYS do.

        You really are very dim.

      2. Toffee – Is that your admission that you have no understanding of cash-flow?

      3. Any government that issues the currency that it spends has no problem with how much money it creates, as long as it has things to spend it upon.
        Governments spend money into the economy and then claw most of it back in tax.
        In modern Britain, we have lots of good reasons for a responsible government to create and spend money – and the need/capacity for it.
        Austerity, as we currently suffer it, is pure moonshine.
        The alternative I mention above is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), but it actually explains how our monetary system really works.
        Look it up.

      4. Ludus57 – Whilst I more or less agree with you about MMT I am unsure what it has to do with the party funding that is being discussed on this particular thread. But having said that, Labour actually have a very clear policy on this. They will only ‘borrow’ (print money) for investment but they won’t ‘borrow’ to cover day-to-day expenditure.

      5. So its a cash flow problem is it, raab?

        You claim Corbyn lost 20% of the membership. You claim keef has either increased or at least kept the numbers stable since he became fuhrer.

        Therefore the numbers ought to have been budgeted for accordingly over the last THREE years

        But somehow keef’s managed to turn a £13.5m surplus into a £4.8m deficit.

        And that’s Corbyn’s fault, HOW???

        Oh yeah…in the same way Corbyn somehow managed to LOSE 20% of the membership, despite starting with 180k finishing on 430k+.


      6. Toffee – “You claim Corbyn lost 20% of the membership”

        I’m not claiming anything, I’m quite clearly stating it is a fact.
        It is a matter of public record and you being in denial isn’t going to change that.

      7. Losing 20% of 580,000(then the largest party in Europe) is to be expected. Many of those quitting grew tired of the constant sniping from the RW PLP, the staged tantrums and constant antisemitism lies they were sick of defending themselves against. The PLP and their media drained all enthusiasm and wore Corbyn down, waging their war of false headlines; a war of attrition.

        Starmer and Evans won’t even give ‘properly audited’ membership figures.

        If Starmer was under the assault Corbyn was under in 2017-2019 he wouldn’t last a week. Even the SCG were weak in Corbyn’s defence and now we see them for what they are: John McDonnell, Clive Lewis and Nadia Whittome.

        Corbyn also had fake supporters like Paul Mason, who boasted to intel contacts he’d “cauterised” Corbyn and “no one will touch him”. Does that sound like a friend of the left?

      8. Andy – Or maybe as they got to know Corbyn and his ‘team’ better his fans just became disenchanted with him. Whatever was the case it was disappointing that Corbyn’s fans didn’t have a little more backbone. Is it any wonder that ‘the left’ always fail to make any consistent progress. Were you one of those that abandoned Corbyn?

        ps – Here are the accurate figures for the number of fully paid up Labour party members.
        July 2017 – 538,606
        November 2017 – 525,779
        June 2018 – 506,320
        November 2019 – 430,359

      9. Some became depressed with Ciorbyn’s unwillingness to fight fire with fire, that’s true. He should and could have removed the unpopular Blairite right-wing careerists. They had to hide behind false claims of antisemitism to shield themselves, thus any moves against them eg. Open selection, would’ve been falsely labelled as an ‘anti-Semitic purge’ by the press.

        You know full well Corbyn’s socialist platform was popular though. Why else would Starmer run on it and call Corbyn a close friend in his lying campaign?

        Btw. Do you personally believe Starmer is obligated to stick to his 10 pledges? Many of which are spending neutral. Or do you think that kind of deception is legitimate and good for faith in democracy?

        Would you like to be deceived similarly, and lose trust in basic honesty?

      10. Andy – They had to hide behind false claims of antisemitism to shield themselves, thus any moves against them eg. Open selection, would’ve been falsely labelled as an ‘anti-Semitic purge’ by the press.
        Is that why Jeremy Corbyn went behind the membership’s backs to persuade the Union leaders to secretly betray their membership by going against their own democratically decided policy on the adoption of Open Selection to support Corbyn’s cowardly ‘trigger ballot’. 🤔

  6. The polling at the moment cannot be trusted long term –
    as several commentators have warned us. One is
    Political Commentator Mehdi Hasan who reminded
    viewers that the Tories will reconcile in the face of
    a General Election ..

    It has been said too that this is NOT like 1996 when
    the government were also in trouble but more like
    1991 when Labour were doing well yet lost the 1992
    Election. Starmer is no
    Tony Blair – who did have some policies and knew
    how to present them. Not only that he had charisma ..
    hs downfall came about because of hubris – (1) after
    some military success (West Africa) he thought he
    could conquer the world (middle East) (2) He lived
    in a London centred bubble and (apart from notable
    exceptions like “Sure Start” and te Minimum Wage)
    did not pay enough attention to deprived areas ..
    hence the falling Labour vote.

    Starmer says one thing and then does a screeching
    U-turn when he senses the general mood is against
    him and Sunak is aware of this and brings it to te
    notice of the Public. An example occurred at PMQ when
    Sunak reminded Starmer he was initially against the
    offending tweet but then noted his turn-round
    when he saw the mood of the Nation.In a past PMQ Sunak
    noted the 10 promises Starmer made during his campaign
    to be Labour Leader but ditched after he was elected.
    No doubt Sunak is saving a few more up ..

    Starmer does not seem aware of the contradictions in
    what he says – his chutzpah in mentioning “Freedom
    of Speech” made me choke on my lunch today ..

    1. Indeed, Holby.

      As much as I detest gullis, in last night’s car crash of an interview on ch4 news he at least recovered some semblance of (infinitessimal) credibility on calling out smarmer’s continual and indefensible shithousery.

      1. And the new one for wee gobshite bingo is…“context”

        The ONLY Context that matters is the CURRENT leaders. And keefs’ only level with sunak, despite being up against the last three PMs. The previous two were THE shitest on record; sunak’s not far behind those two. And STILL keef can’t maintain a lead over sunak.

        …It’s like failing to get it up when a scantily-clad Kelly Brook is practically pouring the viagra down your throat.

        By the time inflation has come down – as generally predicted – I expect the goldfish-memoried lumpen middle classes; currently disillusioned with the rags will reject smarmer, and smarmerite labour, as well as the lower classes – who are already steadily getting wise to the fact smarmer’s toerag in all but rosette.

      2. Toffee – “The ONLY Context that matters is the CURRENT leaders.”

        I suppose it is understandable that you want to brush Jeremy’s embarrassing polling returns under the carpet but it is undeniable that they are significant factor in where we are now. However please feel free to check out the latest polling figures illustrating the current state of play which are incidentally a considerable improvement on anything that Corbyn ever achieved.

      3. Toffee – Is he really, when can we expect the PJ Party to enter the fray?

      4. I’d love to know the criteria that were used to produce those measurements. They certainly didn’t include financial or membership numbers or total votes won at elections.

      5. I’d love to know the criteria that were used to produce those measurements. They certainly didn’t include financial or membership numbers or total votes won at elections.

        Why let intrinsic things like those get in the way when there’s a graph or bar chart or what-have-ya to look at instead?

      6. Toffee – As i understand it the figures are simply a reflection of the historical polling figures over this extended period. Figures which incidentally very accurately predicted the national vote share in the 2019 General Election.

      7. We would really need to see Starmer’s standing after he had received the same level and type of coverage that Jeremy Corbyn was subjected to, in order to make a fair comparison.
        Unless that were to happen, I am afraid comparisons are fundamentally meaningless, if not downright dishonest and misleading.

  7. Toffee – …“It’s like failing to get it up when a scantily-clad Kelly Brook is practically pouring the viagra down your throat.

    ‘Thanks’ for the insight. 😏

    1. How did I just know you’d make reference to that, but swerve the pressing issues?

      Because you’ve got sod-all to come back with. You know I’m right.

      Biding your time, thinking of yet more means of trying (and failing) to mitigate for the useless greasy bastard. Kicking the can down the road, and expecting to be taken seriously when you attempt the same thing in future.

      And you wonder why you’re ridiculed by everyone else.

      1. Toffee – How sad is that, is the denial of the facts really all that you’ve got left?

      2. “Toffee – How sad is that, is the denial of the facts really all that you’ve got left?”

        Kettle calling pot there.

        You would have more ‘credibility’ if you took your own advice rather than bellyaching like a mardy five year old whenever anyone applies your own criteria to you steveH

      3. Dave – Are you questioning the veracity of any of the facts that I have presented, if so could you please give me precise and concise details and I will do what I can to address your ‘issues’.
        I won’t be holding my breath.

      4. No steveH. I am questioning your selective use of facts and the way you run away from dealing with facts others bring up which you are clearly, lets say, ‘uncomfortable’ with and then accusing others of doing what you do all the time.

        Talking of which. I, for just one among many posters here, am still waiting for you to deal with multiple questions put to you over a considerable period of time in which you are clearly denying facts.

        Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need it explaining again?

    2. ………..having watched the BBC documentary on Rupert Murdoch the other night, I wondered if Starmer’s chum and mouthpiece was a fit and proper person for LOTO to be associated with? ‘The TRUTH’ seems to be an alien concept to them both and any form of integrity is twisted to become a liability.

    3. SteveH. Your reply to my post on Corbyn’s treatment gives evidence that bears out my thesis.
      All the polling figures given in the chart you quote are a consequence of public perceptions shaped by the MSM.

  8. Two Cheeks
    God bless you for your simple faith in a 2 shades of shite democracy
    Red or Blue shite because we have nowhere else to go
    Methinks not

    1. Doug – ….is it unreasonable for me to ask what the credible alternative is that you are offering the electorate?
      Have we heard yet whether Corbyn is going to retire or not, or is he still doing what he does best?

      1. SteveH: is it unreasonable to ask how what you are claiming to be a ‘credible’ alternative will solve the very deep structural issues which need to be resolved when those policies have already been constructed not to tackle those structural issues?

        Or is that a State secret?

        Oh! Hang on. I’m forgetting. Just like the present iteration of the Labour Party this only works one way doesn’t it.

        steveH gets to demand everyone answers his questions with facts and evidence but anyone seeking to apply his own criteria back is some kind of bully. These woke snowflakes are everywhere these days aren’t they.

      2. Dave – I’m quite happy to present Labour’s current policy platform as a credible alternative to the Tory’s misrule and Labour’s consistent lead in the polls clearly indicate that lots and lots agree with me.
        How about you, given that you don’t have a party, or a leader or any policies what do you have to offer❓

      3. Cutting and pasting what passes for Labour Party policy does not provide an evidence based response to the question of their credibility steveH.

        People on this site have asked time and again for you to explain and justify with argument and evidence just how those policies represent a credible alternative to the present failed paradigm rather than a mirror image/old wine in a different bottle.

        Based, as continually spelled out for you, on whether and how they would solve the present failings not of the Tory Government but of the failed paradigm, along with its core assumptions (see earlier response above), the Tory Government are pursuing.

        People on this site have previously posted detailed evidence based argument as to WHY the present LP policies are not going to work in terms of that only relevant criteria.

        They have not taken the position of simplistic child like blind faith which you have taken.

        They have provided substantive evidence. Unlike yourself they have not taken a woke approach of “This is so because I say it so.”

        That does not cut it the grown up world.

        So. Now its your turn. Take your own advice rather than mouthing off that it only applies to everyone else and not yourself.

        No hiding place. Get on with it. Put up or shut up.

  9. or is he still doing what he does best

    Yep. He’s opposing the toerags. Keef supports them AND brags about it, that’s when he’s not abstaining.

      1. Toffee – Was I wrong to conclude that you are a supporter of Corbyn and his PJ Party?

      2. You’re ALWAYS wrong, gobshite.

        I’m ANYONE BUT smarmer. And if that means the toerags get in because I refused to vote keef, so be it.

        Not that there’s any difference. Not that keef will make my life any better than the toerags make it worse.

        And every day more and more people are getting wise to that FACT.

      3. Toffee – Thanks for confirming your lack of concern for your community and your ToryBoy credentials again.

      4. You know as much about me and my community as you do about politics.


        My community has been poorly served by angela illeagle mp for the last 31 years.

        Illeagle is a profound bliarist/smarmerist, happy to accept donations from disability denier lobbyists, and who has enjoyed the benefit of my previous support (albeit less than half-hearted from 2001 onwards; and benefitted from my unenthusiastic choice in 97 ) from which it has enabled the witch and her Ilk to decimate and disown the founding principles and socialist wing of the party, dragging it further toward the right (of thatcherism).

        So tell me, what good would it do for me – and my community – to reelect the whingeing, lying, faux-toerag(s)?

        Name me a smarmerist policy that will benefit me and my community…

        …Go on, name just ONE? You can’t. Because they don’t have one.

        So shut your fucking cave. Imbecile.

  10. A certain “gentleman” with a moustache won election in a certain country in central Europe in the middle of the 20th century. The outcome for the population of Europe was not good.
    Is “success” to be measured by whether an election is won?
    Or is it to be measured by whether it achieves positive outcomes for the great majority of the people?

    1. Oh, and am I the only one who has never heard of Kelly Brook?
      Is she Labour, LibDem or Tory?

  11. Oh dear, I wonder what happened here.
    “Russian secret service FSB building erupts in flames after huge explosion
    The fire ravaged the border service of the Russian FSB, reports said, with footage and images shared on social media showing huge plumes of thick, acrid smoke piling into the air above Rostov
    ….Russia fears that a spate of explosions and fires may be caused by sabotage by people opposed to Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

    1. For a somewhat different perspective, we have this from the BBC.
      You will note that the Ukrainian Presidential aide, Mykhaylo Podolyak, like you “watches with pleasure”.
      One man was killed in the fire.
      One of the many tens or hundreds of thousands who have been killed in the region in the fighting over the past nine years.
      It is high time that the US became willing to seek a negotiated settlement.
      A plague on all those who derive pleasure from such events.

      1. goldbach – Surely what you should be saying is that it’s high time that Putin stopped committing war crimes, abandoned his illegal invasion of Ukraine and took his troops and criminals back home.

      2. No. What I should be saying, though I’m too polite to do so, is “You’re despicable for taking pleasure in the death of anyone.”

      3. goldbach – Oh for goodness sake get over yourself and practise some self awareness. You’re the one doing your best to inflict another win by the Conservatives on your long suffering community and playing at being an apologist for Putin.

      4. I see that you are incapable of dealing with your own lack of awareness of your inadequacies.
        I wonder, though, if you are capable of answering a few questions.
        1. Do you derive pleasure from the death of the workman in the fire, because your comments give that impression?
        2. Do you look favourably on the shelling of Donetsk City since 2014, which has taken around 15,000 civilian lives, something which you seem happy to ignore?
        3. Do you celebrate the shelling attack on Donetsk City on Tuesday which amongst other things took the leg off a 13 year-old boy leaving him fighting for his life?
        If you can’t answer each question with an emphatic ‘NO’ then you are like the senator about whom Theodore Roosevelt said ‘I could carve a better man out of a banana.”

      5. goldbach – If only Putin hadn’t started this illegal war because of his ridiculous imperialist fantasies and his fear of democracy then this worker wouldn’t have died in this attack on a legitimate military target.. Have you had a look at the causality figures?
        What do you think about the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin for abducting and trafficking 10s of 1,000s of Ukrainian children?

      6. “I wonder, though, if you are capable of answering a few questions.”

        In context that statement represents the fabled Monty Python funniest joke in the world and I claim my free day trip to Hermitage-on-Sea in Berkshire.

      7. ” Have you had a look at the causality figures?
        What do you think about the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin for abducting and trafficking 10s of 1,000s of Ukrainian children?”
        Casualty figures? Indeed.It’s a tragedy. According to the BBC/MediaZone figures there have been between 15000 and 16000 Russian troops killed, and according to Pentagon estimates there have been between 100,000 and 140,000 Ukrainian troops killed. Civilian casualty estimates are more difficult to come by, though some estimates put the number of Ukrainian civilians killed at hundreds, and estimates by a range of NGOs put the number of civilians killed in Donetsk City alone at around 15,000 (i.e. Russian speakers who did not accept the government installed after the 2014 coup). [By the way, the 13 year-old boy who was injured on Tuesday is recovering].
        As for the ICC – Nothing will come of this. It is what you have referred to in the past as “virtue signalling”. I assume that the “abductions” refers to the children who have been evacuated from Donbas, Kherson and Zaporozhia to get them away from the regular shelling. Nobody seems to want to provide details of these alleged abductions. If you can do so I’d be grateful.
        I’d also be interested in the source of your insight into Vladimir Putin’s inner thoughts. If you could give me contact details for your mind reading tutor I’d be very grateful.
        In the meantime, if you continue to be unable to offer logical arguments to support your perspective I would recommend that you give up on the disinformation and try to become better informed.
        Some useful sources are:
        Ray McGovern – Retired Head of the Russia Section of the CIA
        Jack Matlock – Former Ambassador to the Soviet Union/Russia
        Alexander Mercouris – Analyst (for detailed assessment of the current state of things both on the battlefield and politically).
        Or, if all the thinking might make your head hurt, you could try another Pina Colada or two.

      8. Bt the way, I forgot to mention that the US does not recognise the ICC.

    2. Given that the Russian Federation was at long last responding to pleas for protection from Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbass to EIGHT years of recorded by the OSCE war crimes by a neo-nazi dominated Ukrainian regime widely recognised as the the most corrupt on the planet you are clearly confused as to who is guilty of war crimes here corporeal steveH.

      Or are you going to once again [checks notes] “deny facts” and run away?

      1. So you are denying these facts steveH.

        Ralph Waldo Emerson obviously had people like you in mind when he made the comment “the louder he spoke of his honour the faster we counted the spoons.”

        You’ll be telling us next that you live in the Caribbean when you are clearly on a massive landmass somewhere – no one could run away as often as you do and as far away from facts as you do and not be treading water.

  12. Toffee – “You claim Corbyn lost 20% of the membership”

    I’m not claiming anything, I’m quite clearly stating it is a fact.
    It is a matter of public record and you being in denial isn’t going to change that.

    Except it ISN’T FACT, and it ISN’T a” matter of public record” because going from 180k members when starting to 430k when leaving is a NET GAIN of 250k+ members.

    Got that, walter? A NET GAIN Go and ask Mrs H. And when she confirms what I’m telling you, go and take your frustrations out on your caprine concubine(s)


    1. Toffee – “Except it ISN’T FACT, and it ISN’T a” matter of public record”

      Well the facts are there for all to see and unless you are now claiming that Corbyn and his team falsified the official voting records then you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

      1. DO shut up, you godawful, boring, infantile moron.


        What you say is no different to companies complaining they’ve LOST money when they failed to reach the profit level of the previous year.

        And, while we’re at it…

        From a £13.5m surplus to a £4.8m deficit – in just under three years.

        £18.3m spunked away…In less than 156 weeks. Works out at OVER £115K per WEEK.

        About £16K DAILY. (off the top of my head)

        And YOU tell us we should be trusting them with an economy of hundreds of £££BILLIONS?

        Fuck off. Just get to fuck.

      2. Toffee – Its not my fault or problem that you can’t cope with reality.

  13. Which reality StevieH lad? The membership figures reality, or the fake (non-existent) Twitter followers?

    And it is clear that the multi-billionaire who has recently taken control of twitter-land is -politically- no friend of the trilateral gang of thugs and leeches.

    Sir Keior is well and truly padle-less on that one.

    1. qwertboi – I suppose that all depends on how much credence you give to a solitary tweet from a partial source.
      Are you seriously questioning the veracity of the membership figures I’ve given above because if you are then you are also questioning the integrity of Corbyn and you should forward your evidence to the Electoral Commission..

  14. Couldn’t get off to sleep so, instead of counting sheep, I thought I’d count posts.
    There are 112 attached to this report.
    He scored 45.
    I think it’s sending me to sleep.
    My dad used to be paid on piece rate.

  15. SteveH17/03/2023 AT 4:32 AM


    SteveH17/03/2023 AT 4:40 AM

    He’s got a new one folks. And it’s NOT patronising and condescending in ANY way, because despite (allegedly) being 4000 miles away, apparently he’s more concerned about our communities than we are.

    Don’t forget to add it to your bingo card

    1. Toffee – So how much suffering are you willing to inflict on your community by sacrificing them on the alter of your weird ideology when you literally have nothing to offer the electorate. Maybe there is a reason why despite searching for over a quarter of a century you have failed to find a political home.🤔

    2. Once again projecting your own position onto others steveH.

      What a cowardly way to debate from someone (yourself) who, on the basis of your own claims (which, given your record of dis-ingenuousness has to be taken with a pinch of salt) will not suffer the results of the failed Tory policy paradigm you are wanting to inflict on the rest of us.

      You and the failed unworkable paradigm you are pushing have nothing to offer to us – the electorate (of which you are not one). You cannot even substantiate with evidence your grandiose claim that what you are pushing meets the relevant criteria necessary to meet the standard definition of success – which is what works and what does not.

      it was once the case that someone with such a poor record as yourself who is constantly running away in denial of reality would have at least had a sufficient level of self awareness to do the decent thing, if only metaphorically.

      But, as Shakespeare observed:

      “manhood is melted into courtesies, valour into
      compliment, and men are only turned into tongue, and
      trim ones too: he is now as valiant as Hercules
      that only tells a lie and swears it.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: