Analysis Breaking comment

‘I hate tree huggers – but I love flag-shaggers’ – Keir Starmer

Starmer’s actions say he loves servile patriotism, but his words admit he hates environmental campaigners in a rare moment of (private honesty) – and isn’t interested in hope or change

Knight of the realm and ‘long-time servant of the security state‘ Keir Starmer has been caught out in a rare – albeit private – moment of honesty, admitting that he detests people who campaign for the environment and isn’t ‘interested in hope and change’. After seeing a presentation on energy policies by former Labour leader Ed Miliband – and shortly after Starmer gave a speech on energy strategy – Starmer:

thanked him for his presentation, but said he wasn’t interested in hope and change, he was more interested in creating sustainable new jobs to replace jobs in old sectors that were being lost,” said a source. “He then said he was not interested in tree-huggers, before adding to everyone’s surprise, ‘In fact, I hate tree-huggers’.

Starmer’s contempt for environmental protesters has long been obvious from his actions, but for him to admit it in so many word is a rare moment of honesty from a man who has broken every promise he made to con Labour members into voting for him as party leader – and an indication of his arrogance and sense of impunity from the protection he receives from both the ‘mainstream’ media and his closeness to the security services, for example the alleged withdrawal of the fine he received for breaching lockdown regulations at a drunken party.

However, while Starmer despises environmental activists, his record makes it abundantly clear that he has a ‘boner’ for addicts of servile faux-patriotism and has no vision or strategy beyond appealing to the small-minded, insular and racist and protecting the richest.

In other words, Starmer hates tree-huggers but loves flag-shaggers. What a diseased country we live in.

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. A person who embraces a tree to prevent it being felled is doing the only peaceful thing available to them to protect the tree. Should Keir Starmer even be in Labour, never mind its alleged leader?

    1. Yes Tony, If I live long enough to vote in the next General Election it will be the first time ever that I shall have to seriously think about who my vote goes to and whether I shall simply have to spoil my ballot paper.

      And ‘qwertboi’, I too constantly ask myself this question and how did he get there. Maybe I’m being too conspiracy minded, but looking at his ‘early life’ and supposed ‘socialist’ background, it just doesn’t stack up.

      It might sound petty but when he first came on the scene what I first noticed was those ‘dead fish’ eyes! No passion, no fire, no nothing.

  2. The nearest Starmer gets to trees is his constant branch-sawing. Every time he opens his mouth he alienates another swathe of the electorate. When ‘Labour’ are ‘voted’ in at the next ‘election’, people need to understand how this happens. Clue: it’s not by chance and it’s not by voting.

    I remain a defiant life-long tree-hugger!

    1. JulieT, it makes you question who is he trying to reach out for. There can only be a set amount of backwoodsmen and they’ve already got homes to go to. How low will he sink?

  3. Sir Keir Starmer has now passed the audition and can now take his place as a presenter on Murdoch’s GB News.

  4. “Skwawkbox wonders whether Jeremy Corbyn needs to declare all the rent-free accommodation in right-wing heads in his register of MPs’ interests…”

    Priceless – a news outlet that doesn’t maintain the MSM’s lies and deception.
    Thank you for creating Skwawxbox Steve Walker.

  5. Starmer fanboy Paul Mason on Substack.

    Mason claims that Craig (Murray) is guilty of “apologism for Russian territorial claims,” which I’m sure will come as news to anyone who reads his blog. CM has repeatedly stated that the invasion is wrong and illegal. Mason and others seemingly can’t process the idea that wanting a diplomatic solution to avert the very real escalation risks here, is not pandering pro-Putinism or apologism, it’s simply expressing a legitimate concern about the lack of effort towards a diplomatic resolution. For many, this understandable obsession with not rewarding Putin, would be sensible only were Russia not bristling with nuclear weapons.

    In his rambling piece Mason attempts to link the wholly unconnected left-wing(red) to the right-wing(brown) as if both were in some convoluted transnational ‘Red-Brown’ alliance against Western democracy. He labels people useful idiots; Mason’s whole schtick is in arguing no one is capable of thinking for themselves, and only he sees things clearly, all others are either dolts, unwittingly duped into doing Putin’s and Xi’s bidding, or just plain evil. There’s no shades of grey in Mason’s paranoia tinged world. He berates the Corbynite left, attacking those feeling deceived by Starmer’s 10 Pledge ‘bait & switch’ play.. talk about blaming the victims.
    Of late, Mason’s political Overton window appears to have shrunk to that akin to an arrow-slit in a castle wall. Previously he’s expressed support for things like proportional representation for Westminster, but going by everything he’s saying of late and given his aggressive intolerance for views differing from his own, I don’t think he could cope with the unpredictable democratic outcomes PR would produce. For example, parties opposed to NATO membership. The whole British establishment would be terrified of letting the democratic chips fall where they may under a fair voting system. Hence why we’ve got an unrepresentative, outdated two-party system, with its controlled opposition, disenfranchisement, low national morale, and only the veneer of democratic choice

  6. Interesting article about Rachel Reeves in today’s Guardian.

    This exchange between its reporter and Reeves is very informative:

    Simon Hattenstone:

    “I tell her that I am Jewish and that I agree with a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism, but the party is so gung-ho that it is now labelling people antisemitic who simply aren’t—and there is a danger of destroying lives in the process.”

    Reeves mentions Ken Loach in her response.

    Hattenstone then challenges her:

    “That doesn’t make him antisemitic, I say.”


    “You don’t think Ken Loach is antisemitic? OK. Well I think we might have to agree to differ.”

    Well done to Hattenstone for this.

    1. Rachel may, or may not be good with numbers, but she lacks emotional intelligence. A core component of which is empathy, along with self-awareness. Bluntly labelling tireless anti-poverty and anti-injustice campaigner Ken Loach anti-Semitic, is disgraceful.

      Rachel seems to share much in common with that other Rachel who’s intelligencde is limited to being good with numbers.

      1. whose intelligence… Thinking about Rachel’s dumbness causing typos.

      2. Apparently been to Cambridge or Oxford. Jut like the other one with Dunlop cheeks etc

  7. Simon Hattenstone’s lucky she’d allow him “to differ” in opinion on Ken Loach. She’s a ‘show-me-your-papers’ merchant on untested, experimental “medications”.

    Thanks Tony for not giving the link to the “long read” about her. (This isn’t it either

  8. Qtb, Good Lord. I followed your link and read it. She’s right she is not charismatic and she will be the ruin of us all. Take a bow Mr Loach, you are no longer a member of this den of thieves.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: