Analysis Breaking comment

Starmer mocks those who don’t want to starve children – and bans ShadCab debate

Opponents of making 1.5m children poor, hungry and ill are a joke to ‘Sir Kid Starver’ – and makes clear to supine Shadow Cabinet that debate on the rights and wrongs of his plan to keep them poor is not welcome

Keir Starmer – the ‘kid starver‘ – has mocked anyone who doesn’t like his plan to keep poor children poor, hungry and ill by continuing the Tory ‘2-child cap’ on benefits.

The beige knight – equal parts evil and blancmange – has derided those outraged by his plan to keep the cap, which has already pushed 1.5 million children and their families into abject poverty, damaging their health and education and inflicting stigma and shame on them, claiming that they agree with his ‘need to make hard choices’ but can’t stomach it when he does, according to Times Whitehall editor Chris Smyth:

(Background image added)

And, no doubt because the less hard choices such as taxing the rich or even just recognising that the economic growth he claims to want will be boosted by having fewer poor families and starving kids, the cowardly Starver has made it clear to his Shadow Cabinet at its latest meeting that no debate on the ‘merits and demerits’ – in human words, ‘demerits’ means heartless, cruel, disgusting and evil – is welcome unless it is supporting him, as Eleni Courea of Politico revealed:

It’s working people who are paying the price of the cruel cap – six out of ten families hit by the cap are working poor

Courea also noted that the voice of those on Starmer’s front bench who have previously condemned the Tory cap and called for its end were disgracefully silent – or even supportive of Starmer’s sociopathy:

Starver’s and his cronies’ claim that lifting hundreds of thousands of children instantly out of poverty is a lie: ending the cap would cost a mere 1.3 billion pounds, while not ending it is costing the UK almost £40 billion a year as well as ruining the lives of millions. We can’t afford not to end it, as well as it being the right and human thing to do.

Starmer’s bots and few supporters, who try to claim that he must not be criticised because not voting Labour means five more years of Tory government, are lying – voting for Starmer means five more years of Tory government and the only choice given under the UK’s corrupt and rigged ‘democracy’ is which colour tie or rosette the sociopaths in charge choose to wear.

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. Is this the self same Chris Smyth who works for Rupert Murdoch as his Whitehall editor on The Times?

    1. Is it the selfsame keef smarmer who said he wouldn’t be talking to the s*n but who now writes columns in the rag – as well as goes to Murdoch do’s, where there’s no cap on the beluga, foie gras, pol roger and the hobnobbing with tories?


      1. Not even got an answer, have ya? No. You have to resort to that fucking stupid wingding AGAIN.

        You’re not clever enough to be an imbecile. Nothing but a nonce enabler.

      2. Toffee – You’re the one pretending to get your knickers in a twist over whether or not Keir Starmer communicates with Sun readers. As I’ve made clear in the past I don’t really have an issue with Keir doing this. I think that my response of a ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ neatly and succinctly summed this up.

      3. Things really are dire when the resident excuse for a ‘troll’ is reduced to posting a representation of his tackle because he has no reality based argument. Simply sticking to pushing The Official Narrative (TON) like a backstreet crack dealer.

        No one is interested in what keeps your ears apart steveH.

      4. Dave – Aren’t you disappointed with yourself that this childish drivel is the best that you could manage to come up with.

      5. Getting me knickers in a twist? I wonder why, dicky-head.

        But of course, you’ve no problem with the liar being given a platform to spew his worthless shite on by another liar.

        But you’ve got a problem when an employee of the second-mentioned liar spouts a few uncomfortable truths about the first – oleaginous rather than oligarchic – liar.

        And when fronted with it you think a fucking infantile response is appropriate.

        You godawful nonce case. Hurry up and die slowly.

      6. Aren’t you disappointed with yourself that this childish drivel is the best that you could manage to come up with.

        If – as you tell us all – everyone’s response to your constant bullshit is deemed childish I strongly suggest you actually practice what keef preaches (with your endorsement) and starve all us children of the ‘benefit’ of your reply.

        In other words – don’t like it, fuck right off, you would-be child harming wrong’un.

      7. Toffee – Fortunately, unlike your good self, not everyone feels the need to resort to the language of the playground.

      8. Fortunately, those people are civil.

        And you’ve been told on several occasions; look down upon, sneer at, and speak to people like they’re shite, and expect reciprocation.

        I won’t waste my far superior lexicon on infantile morons like you. You don’t deserve that courtesy as you show none to anybody else.

      9. Toffee – “I won’t waste my far superior lexicon on infantile morons like you. You don’t deserve that courtesy as you show none to anybody else.”

        …….and yet here you are again 🥱, it really isn’t my fault that you choose to throw a wobbly every time you are presented with some facts that are contrary to your rather weird political dogma.

      10. …And yet here you are again

        The meaning behind what I said has flew way above your miserable fucking bonce, that much is undeniable.

        You get the crass language because you deserve it, you irredeemably tedious, soul-sucking nonce. Try a different line of reply instead of your default bingo-card answers, for total and utter fucksake.

        You’re worse than a death at a party. You’re despised by just about everyone else on the site and you have nothing better to do on your supposed Caribbean idyll than come on here and do nothing but annoy and pontificate.

        Get a fucking life you miserable sadsack. Try going out and conversing with the locals ..See how long you remain conscious for before they revile you and your passive/aggressive, holier-than-thou, child-abuser mitigation attitude…Because it certainly won’t be the tone of their reply giving you cause for complaint.

        Dare ya ..

      11. I see that you are self-identifying as a kettle today steveH.

    2. Herr Flick
      The Real Tory leader makes a valid point
      Sir Kid Starver never keeps a promise anyway
      2nd Referendum, who is going to believe ‘Make Brexit work’

  2. Starmer made the comments at that appalling #smugfest with Blair.

    His unwanted NHS reforms (more private sector involvement) will likely cost more to implement than retaining this policy.

    The MoD has wasted £5.5 bn on the Ajax armoured vehicle project, not a squeak from Starmer, only pledges to outspend the Tories on defence. The Navy’s £3bn HMS Prince of Wales keeps breaking down, has major, likely unfixable, mechanical and structural alignment issues, and is being stripped for parts. HS2 – The white elephant Blair era vanity project, for the wealthiest travellers. No doubt incl. MPs, to get to and from Westminster to the ‘Northern’ consituencies they were parachuted into over local candidates.

    If it’s all about spending priorities, then Stermer-led Labour’s are pretty warped.

      1. SteveH

        They could easily find the money to fund this were they not so intent on being just like the Tories in so many policy areas.

        Twitter is full of videos of Starmer denouncing austerity under the Tories. Now he, Reeves and Powell are using exactly the same rhetoric and arguments that Osborne and Cameron were using in 2010-2015.

        You criticise Corbyn. But at least Corbyn knew:

        Politics is about holding a set of principles and sticking to them(in Labour’s case left-wing principles) and trying to win people over to your side by making the case for and arguing for those policies. Not by listening to some stupid focus group and changing your policies based on that snapshot of opinion, like blowing in the wind. If parties don’t have principles or discernible differences and nobody knows what either party really stands for then what’s the point in voting?

      2. ….and yet after their relative success in the 17GE Labour were nowhere to be seen. Why were Corbyn’s team all hiding away instead of being out their consolidating on their election progress. Why weren’t they out their explaining their version of MMT and explaining and reassuring the electorate about what had been a fairly radical manifesto by UK standards.
        Where were they?

      3. Dave – I’m struggling to see how we ended up at defence spending and procurement but it is worth noting that as a percentage of their GDP Russia is spending nearly twice as much as the UK on defence.

      4. Dave – As for the effectiveness of the weapons that NATO have supplied to Ukraine to repel Putin’s illegal invasion, try telling that to the Russian soldiers on the receiving end. Now they just need some F16s to finish the job.

      5. Just to clarify…

        By ‘retaining the policy,’ I meant Labour retaining their policy intent to scrap it. Not retaining the Tory cap policy.

      6. …..that how much you spend on “defence” – ie how big the budget is provides no objective and meaningful truthful measure of the resulting efficacy.

        The UK and the West spend vastly more money on “defence” and armaments than the Russians. However, in terms of bang per buck quality – which is what actually counts in the real world – that money is a waste because most of what it is spent on does not work.

        In addition to the examples of white elephants like the Prince of Wales and the Ajax provided by Andy the UK has the Challenger tank: which the British Government are desperate to keep out of the Ukraine conflict because they don’t want the public to see it go the same route as all the other expensive useless “wonder weapons” like the stinger; the HIMARS; the Patriot Missile Batteries; Bradley’s; Leopards and even Storm Shadows that are being taken out by weapon’s and weapon systems of higher quality costing a fraction of what our Governments – along with an equally useless non fit for purpose “opposition” (sic) – waste.

        And best not to dwell on the most expensive useless flying elephant in military history the F-35.

        Because the purpose of this spending is not effective defence it is to provide a cash cow to private defence companies such as Raytheon and others.

        The fact that your hero Starmer and his Junta would rather steal and misuse tax payers money to spend on not fit for purpose military hardware to continue the exponential profit requirements of fellow oligarchs than feed starving children is the point steveH.

        Do you actually have a grown up factual and evidenced based response to this reality steveH or are you going to be once again reduced to showing yourself up as the emptiest of vessels with another “Oh dear!” or some lame one liner to aviod having to deal with the objective truth/

      7. Its not quantum mechanics steveH.

        You wanted to know the point of Andy’s post and it was explained to you in Janet and John terms that we are not getting value for money because the Western oligarchy you are a shill for are incompetent and corrupt.

        The facts are – whether anyone likes it or not – that the best trained and equipped NATO proxy forces have been destroyed not once but twice and are currently unable to reach the first line of defence having lost – according to Western media feeding off Western military information – 20% of the over expensive mobile armour in the first week or so of a much touted ‘offensive’.

        Not to mention the horrendous criminal losses of what is now largely a mixture of under trained conscripts (many of them past effective military age) and mercenaries fed into the meat grinder for the ego of the same Western oligarchy which has admitted to not being serious about the Minsk agreements. Using them as a means to arm, train and re-equip a force to attack civilians. As recorded by the Western controlled OSCE in early 2022.

        An objective evidence based fact you are obviously loathe to recognise given that you view the legitimate requests of those civilian populations in the Donbass for assistance in defending themselves as an “illegal invasion”.

        So I’ll ask you again steveH – when all the Western media and talking heads were screaming blue murder about all the Russian troops to the North in Belarus during the winter of 2021-222 what were the bulk of the best trained and equipped forces of the Ukrainian doing gathered well to the South on the Donbass contact line massively increasing the shelling of civilian populations (as recorded by the OSCE)? A traditional softening up tactic prior to an invasion.

        Was it the Works Weeks and they were just gathering for the annual two weeks on the beaches of the Black Sea?

        I’ll make it simple for you. Were/are the civilian populations of the Donbass entitled to assistance in defending themselves against a bunch of fanatical neo-nazis armed to the teeth and trained by NATO who attacked them for eight years or not?

        Yes or no?

        No equivocation. A straight answer to a straight question.

        And seeing as I like you today – because I might not like you tomorrow – I would not get your hopes up on the 40 year old single engine F-16:

        (a) Because it takes time to train what pilots are left. In case you had not noticed what passes for the (Corporate) media in the West are currently in shell shock about having to publicly admit NATO is running out of ammunition and weapons and how long it will take to replace them. All the collapsing oligarchy have got is illegal cluster munitions.

        (b) They are well out of date in terms of the AD systems and aviation opposition they are facing.

        (c) The won’t get off the ground. The single engine is prone to small debris – FOD – damage. As this article from 2007 observes:

        Which is why the runways have to be kept clean. Its not difficult to work out that rather than waste money on explosive munitions all you need to do to counter this relic is drop large amounts of small foreign objects onto the military airfields. Once the single engine F-16 has a damaged engine its no longer viable. Like the much touted Leopards, Bradley’s, Abraham’s, Stingers, HIMARS, Patriots et al it’s just expensive junk providing profits at public expense for the defence company trough rather than effective defence/offence.

        Or are you, like Starver, not really serious about obtaining value for money?

  3. “Not a peep” from Angela Rayner

    It’s only a ‘scummy thing to do’ when the Tories do it, in Rayner’s world.

    1. Andy let us not forget Rayner’s words of “shutting first and ask questions later”. These words don’t belong out of the mouth of a socialist but a fascist.
      A Labour government has to be resisted with Starmer as leader, it is a question of a national priority. The only ones we can vote for are:
      – Labour MPs members of the SCG
      -Independent candidates that have well established socialist credentials.
      As an aside well done to Jamie Driscoll for standing up and be counted. This is the link to his fund raiser, please donate if you can afford it.

      1. He has raised almost £100,000 which is amazing. And so he is likely to have quite a few campaign volunteers.

      2. …..and meanwhile you all seem to have forgotten Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘Go Fund Me’ is still nearly £380,000 short.

    2. Reply to Dave Hansell. Great post. Was that link for a satirical site? FED’S can damage the planes. If bits of dust can incapacitate the very expensive, much vaunted F series, what would a guided missile do? Strangely, a poster has commented that F16 are all that is needed to ‘finish the job’. There are no wonder weapons, Top Gun was fiction. John Wayne is dead and there will never be boots on the ground. Polish troops are already there but they are beginning to realise that going into an inferno that never stops is not a good idea. The Foreign Legion has scarpered and they were only ever the best of the worst. Maybe they can get a few of ‘God’s Chariots ‘ on the black market, but not the new bestest in the world ones. Israel need those for somewhere else and would hate to see one fall into the hands of foreign scientists and engineers. The outlook is bleak if you are a NATOist. I hope that the Ukranians see sense and surrender. Their bravery is not in question. Their lives are important and necessary for the rebuilding of a new, neutral, Ukraine, free from overseas and internal corruption. Let’s all have a look at the labs that Biden doesn’t want us to know about.

  4. Andy, Britain has a Fiat currency, it creates/issues Sterling pounds. There is no shortage of money for a country who issues it’s own currency. Taxation is not used for expenditure. The Bank of England always creates money for expenditure literally by the click of a mouse. What Starmer is saying about the economy is complete bullshit.

    1. @baz2001

      I know.

      It’s more about Reeves wanting reassure the markets. They are in effect virtue signalling to those markets. When Reeves went to the US, privately she likely said as much.

      They are terrified of the kind of market reaction those same markets were threatening Corbyn with, a run on the £GBP etc. The Liz Truss tratment albeit for unfunded spending rather than tax cuts in Truss’ case.

      But it’s a poor state of affairs when the markets call the shots.

    2. baz2001
      Perfectly sums up the unacceptable face of Capatalism, endless vanity projects to feed the beast
      Obsolescence built in to to keep the gravy train rolling
      Anything with the word Nuclear in it, is the Devils Trifecta
      How do they pay for it, money printing and increased debt, Real Tories don’t balance the budget
      How much did we find to bail out the Banks
      Latest on long expected Economic meltdown, China bailed out the Yanks last week, quid pro quo is Uncle Sam has been told to get out of Ukraine
      It will be done under the guise of Peace Negotiations that give Russia everything they should have had from the 2014 Minsk agreement
      Beginning of the end for NATO
      Thankfully there time is up, long live the ‘Silk Road’
      Peace and Prosperity

  5. Ive been looking trough the 2019 Labour Manifesto and there are plenty of ideas for
    funding Public Services.

    Its a lie that there wasn’t.

    In any case how much is the “two child cap” going to cost in terms of child deprivation?

    I will make a little start – in depriving children of opportunities we are depriving the
    nation of their gifts and hence reducing GROWTH .

    There is lots more to add to the other side of the scales.

  6. Why am I not remotely surprised it was that obnoxious fucking worm ashworth who had his fat tongue furthest up keef’s arse crack?

    What a snivelling, sycophantic little shitehawk ashworth truly is. I would celebrate every bit of personal misfortune visited upon that subvirate every bit as much as an Everton win (hopefully they’ll both be a bit more common next season)

    That said, the rest of them are equally as horrendous. And Rayner’s political and moral promiscuity has now been proven beyond doubt with her silence.

    I hope her reticence is thrown back in her face the next time she harps on about the struggles of being a single (teenage) mother; a mother who no doubt claimed for all of her issue.

    1. Boris Johnson hiding in a fridge during the general election.
      Labour 5% behind in some polls (bear in mind that a poll is already out of date when it is published).

      And then what happens?

      Ashworth has his remarkably well-timed accident.

    2. I used to have a lot of respect for Angela Rayner – I lived in a neighbouring constituency and know the area where she was brought up very well – and initially thought aligning herself with Starmer maybe a case of ‘slowly slowly catch a monkey’ regarding her own political ambitions. Sadly this does not appear to be the case.

      An old novel by Howard Spring ‘Fame is the Spur’ set around the beginnings of the Labour Party comes to my mind time and time again, still so relevant.

      1. Ta Julia. You’re prompting memories which I’d have evermore frgotten. My Auntie Sadie gave me a signed copy of Howard Spring’s ‘Fame is the Spur’ when I as the age for a Bar mitzvah and told me that when I’d understand why some people ‘sell-out’ and drift from a principled (‘revolutionary’) people drift into self-satisfied conservatism. I’m going to hunt-down a copy…

        “Still relevant” – yup, with bells on!

  7. Funny how they constantly say they can’t reveal fiscal policy, specifically, promise things or make spending commitments until nearer the election, when they can see the state of public finances etc.

    And yet here we find shadow minister after shadow minister touring TV studios possibly 17 months from an election, insisting to interviewers they are certain to keep the cap? This is clearly all about sending right-wing messages and F-all to do with ‘tough choices’.

  8. And John Healey instantly matching Conservative spending plans for the Ministry of Defence.

    Where’s the fiscal responsibility there?

    Incidentally, the Guardian has given a column to Driscoll in which he explains his decision to stand.

    1. Just think about what these New Labourites priorities:

      If there are tough financial decisions to make, decisions that could well involve hurting the poorest in society, then weare happily ready to make those calls. We won’t shy away from hurting the poorest in society!

      For the poorest must carry the heavy burden because of the things we’re committed to, like HS2, and its luxury high speed business class travel, such VIP luxury isn’t going to fund itself!

  9. Clearly with right wing lightweight Labour the cavalry is NOT coming.
    Tories & Lab on this issue – The Gruesome Twosome! End the cap, feed the kids!

    1. Some are actually buying the idea it pains these people to make such decisions. Reeves has made clear on countless occasions that she thinks there are too many idlers and feckless people among her own northern constituents- a constituency she was of course parachuted into.
      Reeves and Starmer’s neoliberal emphasis on ‘growth ,growth, growth’; more trade, more commerce, ignores the fact resources are finite and people don’t live to work they work to live. Boosting GDP means nothing if the quality of life is crap in the UK. Claiming they’ll somehow perform economic miracles while refusing to countenance rejoining the single market is a con trick that’s doomed anyway. Like going into a fight with one hand tied behind our backs.

      A govt led by Starmer could be the most unpopular and hated in British history. Callous with the unemployed – forcing people into workfare and deeply authoritarian and hawkish. While not providing the funding the public services need. it’s a recipe for a huge civil unrest and massive backlash. The fact that even the selfish PLP will finally wake up and throw Starmer out, will be of littlle comfort.

      1. According to DeltaPolls latest trackers Labour’s polling is holding up well.

        > Labour’s lead is up by six percentage points this week, according to our latest poll. Approval for both leaders also sees an increase, to varying degrees.
        >Fiieldwork: 14th-17th July 2023 · Sample: 1,000 adults in Great Britain

        Labour leads by twenty-four percentage points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
        Con 24% (-4)
        Lab 48% (+2)
        Lib Dem 11% (+2)
        Other 17% (-1)
        (Changes from 7th-10th July 2023)

        Leadership Approval
        Rishi Sunak: -18 (+1)
        Keir Starmer: +3 (+3)

        Economic Competence Tracker
        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: 31% (-1)
        Labour: 44% (-)
        Don’t know: 25% (+1)

        If there were a second referendum on British membership of the European Union, how would you vote?
        Re-join: 52% (-)
        Stay out: 41% (-1)

      2. SteveH

        Yeah, they are the main beneficiaries from Tory and Sunak unpopularity and a cost of living crisis. Right time, right place in a rotten two-party system.

        But what of Starmer’s ratings :

        NEW: Keir Starmer’s net favourability drops to -22 (-8)

        ✅ Favourable: 32% (-4)
        ❌ Unfavourable: 54% (+4)

        This gives Starmer his worst rating in a monthly average of YouGov polls since mid-2022.

        , 13-14 Jul (+/- vs 20-21 Jun)

        Please explain this. This is no Blair in 1996-1997.

  10. Ffs Andy, you know he’s gonna come back with the abused-beyond-belief, got-nothing-else default answer of:

    “But Corbyn….”

    1. The Toffee

      Just shows how Starmer isn’t really an asset tho. More like an albatross.If labour win it’ll be in spite of him, not because of him.

      SteveH claims no one would dare challenge Starmer, but it only needs a disgruntled 20% of the PLP (39 MPs) and there are still 33 in the SCG afaik. If the unions would push for a challenge the terrible Starmer would be history as leader.

      Because there is no way Starmer would put himself forward before members again, after finding his ten pledges stuffed down the back of the sofa? He couldn’t pull that crap again, no, he’d resign the moment a challenge was triggered.

      1. Andy,

        Just about everyone with the remotest modicum of intelligence appreciates that the only reason keef’s ahead is because the rags are worse than useless.

        The remaining socialists within the PLP don’t strike me as having the cojones to make any sort of contest, the so-called soft left are smarmerite, and the lot of them appear to be just as content to remain in their seats be it in government or opposition.

        Keefs so far up himself he’s coming out the other side. He believes his own shite, and with gobshites of the same mind in the upper echelons and calling the shots makes me believe keef actually would run again – because which of his (bliarite/smarmerite) acolytes would run against him?

        It’d be a two horse race. And it’d be weighted heavily in keef’s favour.

        The only viable solution I see is to spew the party altogether and set up another.

        It’s not a leftist party anymore. Given the shift of what constitutes the middle ground over the last forty-odd years,, I very much doubt it ever will be again, much to my chagrin.

  11. Sir Kid Starver has Theresa May written all over him, he will single handedly lose votes and guarantee a hung parliament

    1. He and the political amateurs around him, like Mr Slugworth(Ashworth) and Lucy Powell are certainly capable of throwing that big lead away. Right now, their poll support comes from those who don’t realise just how far to the right the party has moved after being captured. The manifesto will be a bland, anodyne affair that makes those people shrug. A six week campaign with tough interviews could see Labour support tank.

      This was always the problem for the centrists who were constantly hounding Corbyn; namely, they never had any attractive policies themselves. And Starmer hasn’t got the charisma to carry the party as a cult of personality. This is why Labour were secretly terrified of Johnson coming back. A hung parliament would be preferable to a Starmer-led labour govt. Neither of the big two should be allowed anywhere near a majority.

    2. Doug – Really?
      Please feel free to compare and contrast Labour’s polling during Corbyn’s tenure with Labour’s now consistent lead under Keir’s leadership.
      When Jeremy was ‘leading’ Labour In 2019 the polls were consistently predicting a substantial Labour defeat.
      Contrast this with Labour under Keir’s leadership, the polls are now consistently predicting (and have been for well over a year) that Labour will win with a substantial majority.

      1. Will you just fuck off and croak, you torpid twunt.

        Nothing better to do than bore everyone with your constant bullshit about how great keef is and how shit Corbyn was…even though you calim you voted for him twice and ONLY voted keef as best of a bad bunch

        Who shat on your second referendum?


        Who shat on the ten (corbynist) pledges that YOU voted for?


        You’re meant to be enjoying your retirement on some Caribbean idyll yet all you do is come on here annoying people.

        Im calling bullshit on you voting Corbyn TWICE.

        I’m calling bullshit on you actually being a party member.

        And I’m calling bullshit on you being in the Caribbean. You’re in some bedsit in the arse end of nowhere UK, sitting in your piss-stained spiderman y-fronts, trolling people in order to gain attention.

        Its always: ‘look at my post, see my earlier post, I’m glad I’m always on your thoughts’

        Until you’re called out, and then it’s: “but I was merely pointing out…”</I. Or “I fail to understand”

        You fail to understand? You’re a fucking genius of you’re to be believed. You know everything about everything, according to you.

        Except you don’t.

        You’re a friendless, despicable, would-be child harmer.

        And that’s all you’ll ever be.

      2. Toffee – It’s not my fault that you behave like a moth to a flame but the only riposte that you can manage to come up with is a load of incoherent childish expletives and silly personal accusations.
        Perhaps it would serve you better if you at least tried to follow your hero Corbyn’s mantra to attack the message (if you can) rather than the messenger.

      3. “It’s not my fault”…And there it is- again, irrefutable proof.

        “Childish expletives”…from the gobshite with the wingding stock answer when stumped (as you invariably are) by anything and anyone.


      4. Toffee – I give your rants the respect and consideration that I think they warrant.

        Irrefutable proof of what for goodness sake, that you can’t deal with the facts. What have I said above that is in any way inaccurate?

      5. Corbyn faced a massively hostile media and PLP.

        Starmer does not have that problem.

        The reason Labour is so far ahead in the polls is largely thanks to Liz Truss. Perhaps she should be invited to be leader.

  12. “Dave – As for the effectiveness of the weapons that NATO have supplied to Ukraine to repel Putin’s illegal invasion, try telling that to the Russian soldiers on the receiving end. Now they just need some F16s to finish the job.”
    I can fully understand these neocons who desperately want Ukraine to decisively defeat Russia having that view. What I fail to follow is why they so readily deny reality of the views expressed in Responsible Statecraft, by many in the US military and, increasingly, by sections of the US media that Russia is systematically destroying the Ukrainian military and that the western weapons have been less effective than the Soviet era hardware that Ukraine started the war with. Denying reality will simply lengthen the war and result in an even more catastrophic outcome for Ukraine.
    The neocons have to recognise that they have failed to use Ukraine to destroy Russia, and that the US must negotiate. Otherwise there will be three possible outcomes:
    1. A debacle – Ukraine ceases to exist and the US gets its Suez moment.
    2. WW111
    3. Option 2 that includes nuclear annihilation.
    I have realised that SH is a neocon.
    I’m just not sure which option he favours.
    Or is he really in denial.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: