Analysis Breaking

Starmer fan claims more in Bristol for Starmer than Corbyn. Oops.

Claim takes seconds to disprove as desperation shows

Right-winger Tom Canham’s claim – and one scything response

The Labour right continue to delude themselves – or try to delude others – that Keir Starmer is not toxic with the public, despite evidence that the more voters see of him the less they like.

One amusing example took place last night when Tom Canham shared a photo of a sparse gathering in Bristol and claimed – ‘whisper it’ – that more people had turned up to listen to Keir Starmer ‘than when Corbyn came to town’.

Canham was rightly mocked – a 3-second Google search was all that is needed to show the claim for what it is:

The wilful delusion of the Labour right may be driven by driven by a recent Channel 4 poll that shows – as if it were in doubt – that Keir Starmer is the one of the biggest reasons people think they won’t vote Labour:

Labour may still have a poll lead because of the collapse of the Tories, but that lead is itself collapsing as voters compare Starmer unfavourably even with the staggeringly bad Rishi Sunak. Perhaps behaving like ostriches is the only way for centrists to cope.

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. Having launched their Local Election Campaign – was it yesterday, I can’t remember – they’ve gone into lying warp-speed.

    Obviously, orders from the top. Blair, Mandelson, Starmer – and Akehurst, Streeting et al. have risen to the challenge. They’re naturals.

    ‘Lie for the Party!’

    ‘We was only followin’ orders, Guv!’

    See if you can catch the vid of Starmer and Rayner – on the railway platform, on the train, in Swindon.

    Gave me a good old chuckle, it did.

  2. Shall we start the countdown at three…………..

    This has been a public service announcement to assist the Gang of one.

    1. Given the results of the 19GE one has to wonder how many of those melodiously chanting ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn’ actually bothered to get off their arse and vote for him.
      Given the breakdown of the 19GE vote where for the first time ever more of the working class voted Tory than voted Labour one has to wonder how many of those chanting turned into Tory voters.

      1. The result of 2019 has already been explained to you on numerous occasions with facts and evidential substantiating links.

        The fact that your delusional subjective world view prevents you from accepting the real world reality of anything other than your worthless opinion is your problem steveH.

        For once in your miserable existence; be a man and own it rather than a child having a tantrum every time someone contradicts them.

  3. I wonder if heir starmer understands that people are starting to wake up to his lies maybe he should get some advise from Jeffrey Epsteins best mate Peter Mandleson

  4. Christ on a stick!! The smarmerites have gone full donald trumpist. 🤦

    You related to, or a colleague of, tom canham, wee helmet?

  5. It isn’t just Starmer that is the problem, the whole of the Labour party is a right wing snake pit. As long as Blair and Mandelson are pulling the strings the Labour party is doomed, no matter who is leading the party

  6. Anything below 15% Laboue lead is a hung parliament
    Methinks they are already proper fucked, unfortunately so is our Democracy

    1. Doug – I suggest that you recheck your calculations (if you actually made any). The Tories managed to get an 80 seat majority on the back of a lead of only 11.7% points which sort of makes nonsense of your claims.
      According to the latest MRP polls Labour currently have a lead of 18.9% points over the Tories and this it is predicted will give them an overall majority of 264 seats.

      1. Two Cheeks
        A MAJORITY of 264
        FFS give your head a wobble
        Sir John Curtice came up with the 4% Tory lead upto a 14% Labour lead is hung parliament territory
        Starmer is already a liability and the Tories haven’t even started on him yet
        This is only going one way

      2. Doug – In the unlikely event that Labour don’t win the next general election with a substantial majority. then you are more that welcome to come back and tell me ‘I told you so’.
        You forgot to explain how you’ve managed to reconcile your claims with the 80 seat majority that the Tories actually achieved at the 19GE with an 11.7% lead.
        Check it out for yourself

      3. This line of argument of yours steveH is wholly incorrect and inaccurate because it rests on a fundamentally flawed assumption.

        That assumption being that if two parties win the same number of votes, they should get the same number of seats.

        This is not how the system works.

        Back around the spring of 2019 one of the North West CLP’s gave a video presentation to our CLP of research they had carried out demonstrating that the Labour Party needed more votes to win a seat than the Tory Party.

        A short version of how this operates can be found here:

        “Put simply, if a Party wins huge majority in constituencies – such as the 77% majority for Labour in Liverpool Walton in 2017 – then those additional votes above and beyond the nearest challengers do not help a party win any more seats. So, the most ‘efficient’ thing to do under Westminster’s voting system is to win constituencies small and lose big. The result is a huge amount of votes going to waste and not counting towards the national result.”

        The above article was written in 2018 and notes the following flaw about the “Electoral Calculus” model which is operating on the same lazy bone idle assumption steveH is operating under:

        “Electoral Calculus, which regularly projects the results of future elections in the UK, has just projected a ‘wrong winner’ election after analysing the latest polling. It shows that in a fresh election, the Conservatives could win 40.5% of the vote and 297 seats, whereas Labour could win 279 seats on 40.7% of the vote.”

        What seems to be happening here is what’s known as ‘confirmation bias’. steveH is making erroneous assumptions which are not congruent with how the real world system he is commenting on actually operates.

        In short he is pre-assuming what he aims to deduce to bolster a a line of argument which does not stand even a superficial scrutiny.

        Once again trying desperately to polish a turd.

        Two possible explanations present:

        1. He either sincerely believes his argument to be the case and will die in a ditch to promote it regardless of real world facts to the contrary.

        In which case we will get the standard “Yawn” response.

        2. He knows he is selling snake oil.

        In which case we will receive some supercilious and condescending one liner which tells us all that once again he has no clothes on his argument and position and is desperately attempting to find any cover he can by playing the man rather than the ball.

      4. From the link:

        “Most polls are reported in terms of the overall popular vote share, and the pollsters do not typically project how these shares would equate to numbers of seats in the House of Commons. Other organisations including Electoral Calculus make rolling projections based on an aggregate of publicly available polls. A small number of large polls have been carried out to run multilevel regression with poststratification (MRP) models, which output predictions for each constituency”

        Which tells us that the Electoral Calculus merely aggregates together a number of current polls.

        But thanks for confirming the point I was making.

  7. How many times do I have to say under FPTP you only have to win by ONE vote
    JC and his Peace and Prosperity party could possibly be the least worst option at the next GE

  8. And anyway…a fookin bingo hall? That’s what it looks like. Imagine the nasal drawl of keef calling the numbers…

    “Number ten…pledges broken”

    Dancing queen…..Weasley screeching

    Pick n mix….your tory policies

    Droopy drawers…NOT Angela Rayner, apparently

    Cliquety clique…”progress”

    Dirty Gertie….NOT Angela Rayner – just stop that, right now!!

    Two fat ladies….akehurst & watson


  9. Reference the next article ‘Video: Starmer tried to amend IHRA ‘definition’

    Have you listened to the infamous Margaret Hodge interview on BBC Woman’s Hour from Aug18
    Pay particular attention at 06:30 (the interview is the first item on the program and lasts about 20 minutes.

      1. Steve H – having a conversation with himself.

        Do you know you’re talking out loud, Steve?

      2. “The right to criticise Israel..” Margaret Hodge says she wants this and even claims she needs it personally, as it is something she cannot do without. She accuses pro-palestinian-rights JC as Leader of ‘failing to protect the right of all of us (in the Labour party?) to criticise Israel”

        WOW – an outright lie on her part. She says Jeremy’s failure weakened the security and safety of Palestinians, WOW again!

        Wow, aside, she goes on to say JC should have adopted the IHRC definition of antisemitism without any mention of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians (he did!) and set up a “working group” of Jews, zionists and Palestinians to confirm the right to criticise Israel was properly embeded (in an ‘inclusive’ and ‘consultative’ manner.

        WOW again.

        “So”, she said, “there was another way of doing it which would not have lead to confrontation. He CHOSE confrontation. – and it was partly that too which made me think ‘what on earth does a man do choosing confrontation rather than consensus, what does that say about his own attitude to Jews?”

        What was the alleged ‘confrontation’ that convinced Hodge and the LabourRight that Jeremy Bernard Corbyn is a VILE ANTI-SEMITE? What? I’d love to know…

      3. cont. to 10.03 post….

        Margaret Hodge ” ‘what on earth does a man do choosing confrontation rather than consensus’, what does that say about his own attitude to Jews?”

        To me, an ‘unobservant’ Jew, it says that JC exhibits a trait of being “a good Jew” better than Margaret Hodge (or any Jew guilty of the political choice called ‘zionism’)

        Which trait? Kvetching – a wonderful distrust of power and authority, a way of thinking which a couple of milenia of Jewish diaspora (or, as the authoritarian right would say, being “economic migrants”) imposed on the Jews: Karl and Eleneor and Laura Marx, Leon Trotsky, Eric Hobsbawm, Albert Einstein, Georges Politzer, Michael Rosen, a good-few Rosenbergs, Hanah Arendt (my mum’s 3rd cousin), Ralph Miliband: they were all great socialists because of their distrust of power and authority, their need to Kvetch.

        Corbyn is truer to Jewish thought and values than any zionist who serves the agenda of Imperialism, which, arguably, denatures the talmudic and ethical principles that historical Judaism (and socialism) have developed.

        Disclaimer: The above is a thought of an unobservant Jew and in no way claims to be a transcendent truth, just an opinion.

    1. Well on baz. I remember reading that thread around the time it was released.

      I also recommend everyone else get familiar with it. It shows just how these despicable, lowlife nonce protectors and their acolytes operate.

      I’ve also seen another article/thread that shows how a plethora of these nonces and their protectors all seem to be friends of Israel, their inextricable links with mossad and MI6, and how kincora, north Wales and the infamous dolphin square are all tied in to their sick, abhorrent practices

      Interesting, how the author(s) of said threads have never been sued, innit?? 😙🎵

      More likely to get bumped off, I reckon. But even that would raise questions.

      1. Toffee:“all seem to be friends of Israel, their inextricable links with mossad and MI6, and how kincora, north Wales and the infamous dolphin square are all tied in to their sick, abhorrent practices…”

        And global law enforcement police-forces (well,US, hopefully, no British) that take police training services from Israeli state and commercial providers?

        Just think, providing the above link could open me to an unfounded accusation of anti-semitism from Sir Keior (sorry Grannie, may you rest in peace), whereas I’m really just trying to ensure that some good comes out of George Floyd’s tragic murder and that it’s never repeated for the same reason (intentional police militarisation) again.

      2. I’m really just trying to ensure that some good comes out of George Floyd’s tragic murder

        Watch “The greatest lie ever sold”.

    2. Irving. Cheltenham. His name is still around the town.

      They used to say that if you dropped a parcel outside his hotel, you’d be best kicking it to the post office.

  10. Hopefully one day we will prosecute Vexatious claims of Anti Semitism as hate crimes
    The only thing stopping us will be time limits on how far back we can realistically go

  11. Blocking JC was based on the Anna Rothery case
    Yet Luke Akehurst voted it through on Anti Semitism, he has confirmed in an article written today
    One for the Lawyers methinks

      1. Why don’t you ask him?

        And note the question mark that usually follows a question.

      2. If he (Jeremy) does (owe a substantial legal bill), then like a ‘vicar’ in a parish, he’s incurring the cost vicariously on behalf of all good people who share his opinion. Crowdfunding lets us each play a small part in remedying the oppression he took on our behalf. Technically it might be his debt, but in practice, like a nationalised postal service (or a non-outsourced NHS), it belongs to us all.

      3. qwertboi – Corbyn’s debts are Corbyn’s If you and others choose to help him out that is your choice. I was just pointing out that he may not currently be in a position to take on any more debt.

      4. “He might not be in a position to take on any more debt”. I see, thanks. I doubt that he’s choosing any of the litigation-caused debt he’s been subjected to or will in the future, but that’s the way the world is (especially those loyal ‘freedon loving’ parts that encourage litigation as a social and political control).

        Nobody is NOTsued because they can’t afford it. Quite the opposite.

  12. Starmer ” Ok Ange, let’s get out there & change Britain for the better”

    Have you ever heard anything as tired, lame & stilted?

    1. Have you ever heard anything as tired, lame & stilted?

      Yeah. Every time keef opens his piehole.

      (Baz neat me to the wee fella one)

    1. More likely that a new party is started by somebody else -maybe the first, second and third person who asks JC for his permission to cite ‘peace ‘ and/or ‘justice’ as a label along with ‘independent’ in an election sometime. Jeremy’s way to issue-oriented to start a party himself The political right are only panicking about JC starting a new party because they know he has the standing and integrity to give it wings – and that terrifies them. My point is, if they watch JC in the hope of seeing a new party at its moment of birth, they’ll probably miss it, because JC will probably not be not be present physically.

      1. but a “Peace + Justice party” – even if it registers at companies house and whatever other bodies a ‘party’ must, is not a party of the type JC would want to start. He made it clear as leader of Labour. The party he wanted to turn Labour into would be a member-led, bottom-up mass ‘movement’ of many (hundreds of thousands?) members and community causes. That’s not going to be done in time for the next GE complete with corporate colours, a logo and “mission statement” – and, arguably, can’t even start properly ’till we’ve had a GE or two.

      2. qwertboi – Or to put it succinctly you and your comrades have SFA to offer the electorate for the foreseeable future and in the meantime you are going continue campaigning for the Tories.

      3. “Or to put it succinctly you and your comrades have SFA to offer the electorate..
        (at the next GE)”

        That’s probably right, exactly what a new party (or repatriated and repaired Labour party) actually need(s): For sell-out-merchant Sir Keior (or a different leader of his ilk) to win an election or two and perform poorly proving that Labour (under him/them) is not an alternative to “government for the few by lying to the Many”.

        It’s probably the only way a new party can be a future government in my lifetime (happily, being vax-free, I might live at least another quarter century, although as you no-doubt know, life expectancy is falling in all advanced economies in direct proportion to covid vaccine(s)-uptake: This is the real reason they’ve ‘shelved’ the legislation to make 68 the retirement age for men in UK).

      4. qwertboi – Given your lack of any consistent progress to date I think you are being more than a little over optimistic with your prediction that you’ll have something tangible to offer the electorate in 2029/30. In all likelihood you’ll still be scrapping amongst yourselves about the one true way,
        That’s always providing that you and ilk haven’t all died off because of your inane anti-Vax stance

    2. That article in the Times was remarkably enjoyable and insightful, Stevieh lad. Alarmingly so. Thanks. A v good read.

      Q is: does it mark the end of Murdoch’s tolerance of the vile knight Starmer, or is it just an ‘outsider’ article by a visiting ‘weirdo’?

      I suspect the former.

      I had reason to look up a 2017 article on JC today, and couldn’t help notice a similarly unfriendly article there, of all places, too (by adopted-by-Jews, Ian Christopher Austin). Sure, it’s more vehemently anti-Corbyn than anti-Starmer, but it does lay down a guantlet against the vile knight (“Jeremy’s gone but Sir Keir must apologise for his personal role in supporting him..Starmer can’t erase his former support for Corbyn….”)

      Editors who are serving an insanely ideological master (zionism and Murdoch) don’t publish anything without it serving the purpose of the master or the ideology. Sir Wish-he’d-never-been-in Labour Starmer should take both articles as a warninG as in a gentle foretaste of what’s to come once an election is called.

      Me, I loved them both.

      1. A more interesting article from the Times can be found here:

        Which perhaps revealed more than it ought to to those used to reading the runes:

        ““It is politically funny that we had three prime ministers, four chancellors and four budgets in 12 months,” says Starmer. “But from an economic growth [and] investment point of view it’s a complete disaster. And that message was played to us loud and clear in Davos by global investors who told us they will not be investing in the UK any time soon. Because we haven’t got the stability, we haven’t got the leadership and strategy to give them the confidence to do so.””

        Coupled with the recent admission in interview by Starmer that he prefers Davos to Westminster that represents a bigger albatross around the neck of the Labour Party then even the toxic gender/sex issue. An an issue which, despite a recent about turn from his previous dilly dallying, Starmer has already burned his bridges with the majority of the constituency which makes up 51% of the adult population.

        It there is one thing which animates the majority of people in the UK more than anything it is the principle of ‘Sovereignty”. The Davos crowd are already a seriously compromised busted flush of entitled Western elites who most people now associate with a philosophy which is the anti-thesis of Sovereignty.

        Good luck with hanging your hat on that dead end paradigm which a majority of the world are rapidly rejecting and moving away from. Those in the red wall seats who voted for Bloody Stupid Johnson’s ready cooked Brexit on the basis of taking back Sovereign control are not going to give that up for a Davos glove puppet like Starmer.

        And that’s the problem with opinion polls. People opinions can be changed and often do change. And that represents the only difference that exists between the Tory Party and the Labour Party.

        The Tory Party are quite prepared to argue and change people’s minds. Because that is the essence of politics. The Labour Party since Callaghan took charge have been content to be just another brand of the same product rather than offering an alternative to the failed and now collapsing in real time paradigm.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: