Starmer cannot allow voters to see what might have been or how he is outshone by his predecessor
Keir Starmer’s cowardly purge of the Labour left has extended even to the party’s YouTube page – every Jeremy Corbyn-era video but one (Corbyn’s 2019 conference speech) has been deleted from the channel in an attempt to airbrush Corbyn out of history, leaving a staggering nine-year gap in the video record:
Starmer is right to be afraid: Corbyn’s sincerity, authenticity and actual vision for the UK backed by actual policies shed a merciless light on the craven, empty and deceitful moral vacuum that is Keir Starmer.
The move is reminiscent of the infamous image in which Soviet leader Josef Stalin had a lackey who had fallen out of favour airbrushed out of a photograph as if he had never existed:
The UK has been robbed of the prospect of real change for the better, for the many – and has had an Establishment ventriloquist’s dummy foisted on it instead, to create the clearly inauthentic illusion of choice in this broken democracy.
And the spinelessness and dishonesty of Starmer and his ghoulish hangers-on know no bounds.
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.
Please don’t insult Stalin by comparing him with the CIA’s Starmer.
Historians may argue over Stalin’s legacy. But few would argue he was a controlled puppet, only interested in post-politics patrons, who’ll help him and his Chancellor join the ultra rich jet set, a la Blair & Mandelson.
Labour voters are mugs.
I don’t think it is possible to slander Stalin, who murdered nearly all the old Bolshevik leaders so the comparison is quite fitting.
As Orwell observed ‘“’Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”
The future is Starver or so he thinks
To be serious the question of slander does not arise.
What we do know is that Stalin did not in fact murder any of the Old Bolsheviks. The persona of Stalin that most people accept is a very cartoonish misrepresentation of an individual involved in the government of the Soviet Union at a time when the hand of every government in the world was turned against it. It is a misrepresentation largely authored by agents of imperialism for which it was essential that Stalin be portrayed as a monster with despotic power.
Current scholarship is revealing a much more nuanced picture of Stalin, of the government which he appears to have dominated and the events, such as the purges and show trials of the 1930s, which have been -very kindly- described for us by persons like Robert Conquest, many of them sponsored by the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office and McCarthy’s students in the USA.
The image of Stalin generally accepted in our society has been a stick used to beat socialists and those seeking national liberation and democracy for almost a century. It might seem sensible to look a little beyond the scare stories of Conquest, the White Russian emigration and Solzhenitsyn now that access to the Soviet files has become more open.
One thing we do know about Stalin’s government is that it was responsible for the deaths of far fewer political opponents than the Anglo American governments of the time or any period since. We know also, what our parents and grandparents understood, that the Red Army that Stalin came to direct was the force that saved our civilisation from the fate that France under Petain suffered.
This does not mean that Stalin was not a monster but it ought to mean that we do not accept the word of his enemies- most of whom are the enemies of human freedom- on trust.
Of course the real issue here is the one I have not addressed which is the authority that Stalin’s communist opponents have lent to the lies of the imperialists. That is another litany of debates among those who, like many of us, were brought up in the world of Militant, IS, the SLL and the partisans of Nikita Krushchev.
Some sense from this book plus a few others
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/30/keir-starmer-economic-labour-tories-austerity-britain
Starmer is just not very bright ..
Simples
A lot of the stuff referring to Jeremy Corbyn can be found here in the archive.
https://labour.org.uk/category/latest/press-release/jeremy-corbyn/
Alternatively Google the following
Corbyn site:https://labour.org.uk/
type the complete second line into Google Search
You seem obsessed with Corbyn?
You do realise he has the power to destroy Starmer’s Labour by splitting Labour’s current polling in two? And yet – presumably out of a perverse sense of loyalty, he chooses not to use it. Few doubt a new party based on his Peace and Justice Project, replete with low membership cost, would quickly gain hundreds of thousands of motivated young members, and thus could fund major campaigns targeting RW Labour MPs?
I personally wish he’d do it, the crooked controlled Lab right did it twice (SDP and TIG- Change UK) when the restablishment saw the real risk of a leftist govt winning office.
Andy – A simple thank you for pointing out where you can still access Jeremy Corbyn’s articles and speeches on Labour’s web site would have sufficed.
Don’t be so silly, this page is all about Corbyn and as for the rest of your deluded drivel, you’re living in La-La-Land. For goodness sake, back in the real world you don’t even know whether Corbyn will stand in the next general election.
How do you know that ‘few doubt’? After five years as LP leader and being ridiculed and denigrated and smeared and demonised on an almost daily basis, perhaps Jeremy and his family and friends concluded that were he to do so, the corporate MSM and the Smearers would all kick off again full blast. Seems highly HIGHLY unlikely that they wouldn’t. Or did you think the MSM and all his and the lefts enemies would welcome him and a new party with open arms.
And if it’s as simple and easy as you make it sound, why don’t YOU start getting everyone together and making it happen. They are all there just waiting for someone to get the ball rolling after all. But if you do, please try and get your facts straight, as opposed to the exact opposite of what they actually are!
Allan Howard
At least 200,000 have quit Labour, this, when according to polls, Labour seem close to power. What does that tell you? Many more hang on feeling utterly despondent at the prospect of Starmer, Reeves and Streeting et al.
Corbyn could campaign anywhere and organically generate big, enthusiastic crowds. Starmer likely won’t be able to campaign in public at all, for all the shouts of “liar”. No, he’ll likely campaign like Theresa May did in 2017, at deserted aircraft hangers, with selected press only, or factory/farm tours surrounded by armed security.
This is why a Corbyn fronted party would attract support – it’d be an organic, genuine political entity. You’ve seen the recent YouGov poll presumably? The one that shows just shy of 60% of the voting public feel neither of the big two parties represent their political views? There is a gaping hole in British politics where a party of the left should be. This is why it’d take off.
Andy – The unfortunate fact is that the electorate rejected him at the 19GE after 20% of the membership had abandoned Corbyn during the latter half of his tenure as party leader.
SteveH
Why do you always ignore the fact he was under hysrterical, withering media attack? With lies printed daily about rampaging Momentum thug attack mobs beating people up(they weren’t). About mass antisemitism in the poarty bordering on Hitler worship(there wasn’t any). Accusations that went away like morning mist when Starmer became leader. It was pure character assassination and lies, and the PLP went along with it knowing it was lies, because they hated the idea of implementing a popular leftist programme.
I grew tired of defending Corbyn against that shit myself. It wore peole down psychologically and sapped 2017’s upbeat morale. The BBC played a big role too, promoting Johnson as perfect and denigrating Corbyn. Quite frankly, the country deserves to sink for what it did. And I have to fckin live here.
Reply to Andy
I support Jeremy Corbyn 100% and have always done so. However there is a lot in what Allan Howard says – a new Corbyn led party would once again be on the receiving end of all the lies and filth that was flung at Jeremy each and every day from 2015 and which increased to fever pitch post 2017.
Jeremy is a statesman, an anti-racist and peace campaigner but a large section of the British public were duped into believing he was the devil incarnate.They are now paying the price for their stupidity and Jeremy being Jeremy feels no rancour. He continues to fight for the poor and marginalised but whether or not he should put himself in the stocks once again for the establishment , the zionists and PLP and their allies in the media to fling dirt at him is quite another matter.
I recently had the priviledge of speaking to Jeremy Corbyn and shaking his hand. He is a quietly spoken gentle man, modest and unassuming but he has a core of steel. Nobody else would survived the barrage of hate and venom that was directed at him. If he decides to endure all that again for the sake of the ignorant people who jumped on the Establishment/ Zionist/ PLP bandwagon of hate I’ll support him. If he doesn’t I’ll still support him.He is a great man -respected and admired by socialists throughout the world .
Smartboy
I don’t dispute some of that. But the fundamental difference would be he wouldn’t be fighting his own party. For crap from the Tories and their media allies was one thing, having to deal with the TV theatrics of Labour MPs constantly popping up spewing unchallenged fake tears and lies, quite another.
We know from close friends his most stressful situations came in private Westminster meetings of the PLP – with female MPs feigning anguish by pulling theatrical performances and shouty swearing abuse from other Blairite RW bully boys, many of whom are known to often have a too many in the HoC bar.
The people who’d support Corbyn’s new party know the British media is bent. thus it’s attacks would be neutralised. A P&JP would have strict ideological rules to stop political infiltration . He’d be treated with nothing but respect, by like-minded people with a common goal.
Aircraft hangars.. typo
There is a lot of right-wing misrepresentation of Corbyn.
The 2017 voter turnout under Corbyn was the largest for Labour this century.
The 2019 voter turnout under Corbyn beat the last efforts by Miliband, Brown, and Blair by some distance.
Contrary to certain misleading claims membership in 2019 was still half a million. According to the (cough, spit, the Guardian) in 2018 membership was 564,443 by 2019 under constant media attack it was still holding up at 518,659.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/08/labour-membership-falls-slightly-but-remains-about-500000
Bernie – Why bother with the Guardian when you can view the official Labour Party figures for the period.
Membership numbers
NEC elections are very useful for giving us accurate membership numbers, as under the rules only paid up members get to vote. NEC election electorate numbers give us the most clear picture of committed membership at each point they are held. Recent numbers are as follows:
July 2017 – 538,606
November 2017 – 525,779
June 2018 – 506,320
November 2019 – 430,359
https://labourlist.org/2020/11/everything-we-can-learn-about-the-labour-party-from-2020-nec-results/
General Election turnout figures have to be respected.
There is one provisor in dealing with Labour membership figures. Thanks to ‘The Labour Files’ we do know that the administrators producing these – particularly in 2019 – were doing there level best to destroy the Party’s electoral chances and had lied in many other circumstances too.
Bernie – Are you seriously trying to suggest that Corbyn and Formby fiddled the party’s internal election returns and then published and reported falsified figures to the Electoral Commission. 😲
What do you think that they were hoping to achieve?🙄
The fact that the LP continue to count as members those who have resigned for a period of six months on the basis they are “in arrears” means that relying on any membership figures published on the LP website is the pinnacle of sycophantic gullibility.
What other manipulations are practiced? They are unreliable and therefore of no value simply because they cannot be trusted. To be fair, all the political parties practice this sleight of hand. The most blatant being the SNP.
But, what else would you expect from a lightweight like steveH?
Dave – I suggest that you reread my comment and reflect again on the bits that you had difficulty in understanding.
“NEC elections are very useful for giving us accurate membership numbers, as under the rules only paid up members get to vote. NEC election electorate numbers give us the most clear picture of committed membership at each point they are held. Recent numbers are as follows:
Hopefully once you’ve had a think you’ll appreciate how little sense your silly ‘assertions” make. 😕
Just to be clear, I and others have NOT made any allegations about Jeremy Corbyn or Jennie Formby.
The people cited in ‘the Labour Files’ for repeated lies, corruptions and betraying the Party at a General Elections, were the entryist Labour Right, who were creating a path for Starmer’s equivalent treachery.
That is why they are irrelevant along with those who seek to normalise them.
Just skimming the surface:
– What is the trend over the recent past regarding the proportion/percentage of paid up members voting in NEC elections?
– What is the practical and actual APPLIED criteria – as compared to the theoretical and assumed criteria – for paid up membership?
I’ll give you hint here steveH, seeing as I like you today: Members in arrears remain on the Party Unit membership lists for six months.
– At Conference card votes which are split into Constituency and Union Sections CLP members who are also paying the Union political levy appear twice on the voting figures. Once on the CLP membership strength and once on the Union membership strength for the card vote.
Question: Is this the same for other internal voting processes?
If you ever grow up steveH you will learn from experience that where there’s money or power, there’s a fiddle.
Once you’ve thought about it for a bit you will realise just how naive you childish argument really is.
Thanks SteveH. Glad you found it and linked it for us. Seeing it all so clearly listed on one Labour (back) page just confirms how fearful and uninspiring Keir Starmer is. Starmer’s intense repression of Corbyn reveals that he is no leader and has a total unsuitability for power. Thanks.
Owen Jones is correct in claiming Starmer offers nothing but late, unpopular Blairism c.2005 -2007.
The backlash is going to be pretty horrific from those who’ll put him in office.Online Stamerites basically think anyrthing must be better than the Tories, and Labour will bring competence. But ‘yes men and women’ who owe their places to deference to the Dear Leader, are never competent, because they aren’t confident. They’ll have to seek the Dear Leader’s approval for any and all decisions, and Starmer’s judgement is notoriously poor. It’s the one thing staff at the CPS could agree on about his tenure as DPP. All those bizarrely, mysteriously deleted official records may have shed more light on how poor, alas, someone was very thorough on his behalf.
Well said Andy,
The best thing to do to hide your corruption or incompetence is to ‘lose’ the files. Consequently the Savile case files were ‘lost’ along with other Establishment Paedo files and of course the Assange files too.
Yes, Starmer had a glittering career as DPP.
He’s probably privately terrified of getting a big majority, because the expectation that’ll create will be huge.
I can imagine his govt being the most hated govt in British history, within as little as six months. There is literally no programme, plan or money to improve anything. Just promises of more right-wing reactionary authoritarian nonsense, and ‘wish upon a star’ promises of economic growth. Being in office will be slow torture for these people and the people who voted for them. Imagine conference as their polling support collapses and the media turn nasty.
Have you bothered to read the report that Keir Starmer commissioned Alison Levitt (KC) to write on the Savile cases?
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130703160030/http:/www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/dpp_statement_about_savile_cases/
A report who’s recommendation Keir implemented in full.
SteveH
He was ‘useful’ to powerful people in the intel services at the CPS. Read Matt Kennard’s explanation at Declassified UK. Starmer made some serious, credible allegations about UK involvement in torture, go away. And had a very close friendship with the Director General of Mi5.
Dob you think had he been a thorn in their side he’d have been recommended a Knighthood? Do you know anything about how the UK really works SteveH?
Andy – “He’s probably privately terrified of getting a big majority, because the expectation that’ll create will be huge.”
Are you indulging in more than a little bit of projection?
That sounds far more like you and the other self proclaimed guardians of ‘the left’. Even the thought of being in power is far too scary a prospect for you and your comrades. You all seem to be quite content to wrap yourselves up in your cosy comfort blanket of perpetual opposition whilst bleating forlornly from the safety of the next field that everything is unfair.
SteveH
I don’t speak for anyone but myself, so who’s the one projecting here?
I just think winning without any guiding principles or philosophy is equivalent to defeat. It’s akin to being allowed to win only on your opponent’s terms. Starmer promised Corbynism with less baggage and more confident delivery. He has in fact delivered reheated Blairism, and purged the left. He thinks he can do this to people without consequence. I doubt he can, there’s always a price for such evil treachery.
Andy – Don’t be ridiculous, every single DPP since 1889 when the post was created has been given a knighthood. (bar 1 who was already a Lord)
SteveH “A report who’s recommendation Keir implemented in full.”
Unlike Forde, another Inquiry/report that Starmer commissioned but didn’t implement in full or at all.
qwertboi – Which parts of the Forde Report haven’t been implemented?
SteveH
They’d have made an exception had he caused problems by doing his job right.
His appointment itself speaks volumes. And yes, I know it was under a late Labour govt c.2008.
The establishment wouldn’t appoint someone who was potentially going to rock the boat. Look at the type of people who become judges in the UK. They may be (slightly) more diverse these days, more so than the old arcane, tap on the shoulder method of appointment days. But they aren’t diverse in terms of social opinions. They are overwhelming right-wing. The country has a self-protecting Tory old boy network.
It’s why Julian Assange can’t get a fair hearing and is still in jail.
What’s Starmer’s opinion on Assange’s treatment btw? Don’t you find it unusual that the current Labour leader doesn’t give a damn when supposedly leading a party that believes in fighting injustice?
Starmer seems to have the same mindset as John Bolton or Dick Cheney, or his CIA friends at the Trilateral Commission.
Andy – “Don’t you find it unusual that the current Labour leader doesn’t give a damn when supposedly leading a party that believes in fighting injustice?”
What’s Jeremy’s? How many times did Corbyn even mention Assange’s plight in the House of Commons when he had a guaranteed platform as the Leader of the Opposition.(spoiler, it’s <1)
I think we all know what Starmer’s position on Assange is: he was as responsible as any single person in public life for the prosecution/persecution of Assange and for facilitating the process which is leading to his extradition.
I suspect that it was Starmer’s involvement that-unforgiveably- dampened Labour’s voice in Opposition on the matter.
Reply to Steve H
So Keir Starmer commissioned report on Saville- big deal. The point is that he and his department failed to prosecute the depraved sex offender. This failure cannot be defended.
Smartboy – You should try living up to your pseudonym and read the report before commenting further.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130703160030/http:/www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/dpp_statement_about_savile_cases/
And any comment on the subject above from the Chief Turd Polisher will be ignored because for some reason had to leave these Islands, and also wholeheartedly supports protecting Establishment paedos. He is disgusting.
baz2001 – I see that you’ve run out of anything sensible to say, again.🥱
It is interesting that NASA claimed that it had lost the tapes of the Apollo 11 moon landing.
Seems rather hard to believe.
Were the moon landings faked?
I do not know but I think that it is possible. So many of the ‘official narratives’ are false and so that might be too.
Open-minded.
Owen Jones has a nerve complaining about Starmer given Jones very substantial volume of pro-Israel columns helped clear his path to the leadership. Jones even smeared Ken Loach.
This article below details this, crunches the numbers of Jones despicable output and shows him pictured socialising with leading figures of the Israel lobby.
https://labourheartlands.com/ken-loach-and-other-victims-of-owen-jones-guardian-pro-israel-smears/
Andy – “He’s probably privately terrified of getting a big majority, because the expectation that’ll create will be huge.”.
I disagree. It would require a degree of self-awareness for that to be the case, and he certainly doesn’t display any of that. He is politics’ version of David Brent.
The devil, as always, is in the detail:
It seems reasonable to suggest that the focus of the framing around one individual (Corbyn) detracts from the main issue, which is not the individual but what they represent and stand for/against.
Ditto with Starmer. It is not Starmer per se that should be the focus but what he represents. Which is the continuity of a parasitic Oligarchy whose narrative is the only permitted narrative.
A narrative rooted in the political economy of media which, as Noam Chomsky noted, are “large corporations selling privileged audiences to other corporations [so] what pictures of the world would a rational person expect from this?”
Which is also why you get stupid, ignorant and arrogant amateur trolls like steveH whose role, whether they understand it or not, is to defend that narrative and what it represents.
And when what that narrative represents is failing because it is unworkable and not fit for purpose it makes little difference whether its Tweedledum or Tweedledee nominally sitting at the head of the table.
Whilst this piece…..
http://robinmcalpine.org/when-everyones-economic-policy-is-basically-the-same/
…..focuses on Scotland, its argument is applicable across not only the UK but Europe and the collective West.
For example; Surveying the supposed economic “choices” on offer from a narrative which attempts to sell the same product in several different brands it is, as argued here, evident that “in the end, Trussite economics, Blairite economics and EU economics are barely different from each other.
All assume that government is there to incentivise or disincentivise markets, seldom to intervene and only in event of a crisis. Otherwise, the markets must do all the work. All believe that productivity is a product of education, that all investment is good investment and that everyone in the economy has the same interests.
But above all it assumes that economic growth makes things better. All of these assumptions have been pretty roundly discredited in the last two decades. It is corporate leadership which has led to low productivity. The markets have not followed the public interest, or worked particularly well. Lots of current investment is the problem, not the solution. And after 50 basically straight years of economic growth, things didn’t really get better.”
And this, along with related narratives which represent equally not fit for purpose policy approaches – from geo-politics downwards – is what Starmer and “The Loyal Opposition” is about.
The narrative of what Starmer represents and what numpties like steveH desperately attempt to shore up is, as succinctly described, ‘a failed ideology.’ In terms of economics ‘the economic model we are following is an extractive model which uses long, complex ownership structures to enable powerful players to take the most possible out of the economy while putting the least possible back in……
……If you’ve run an economy in one way for 50 years and literally everyone argues [on the basis of evidence which is clear to a blind man on a galloping horse] that there is something really wrong with that economy, proposing to do it all over again is surely actual madness.’
Everything else is just window dressing and skirting around the real issue. Which is why the resident wannabe useless troll here will avoid it like the plague with some inane one liner about length – because he’s shallow and incapable of doing proper evidenced based detailed synthesis – or the well worn nursery school playground tropes about being too clever by half – which merely deflects from his total lack of gorm.
Can’t argue with that. But I bet he will.
He couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag.
Oh but Jeremy Corbyn….It was his fault that Labour lost the 2019 GE the biggest loss in over a thousand years……Blah blah blah…….Here he comes again.
baz2001 – “Oh but Jeremy Corbyn….It was his fault that Labour lost the 2019 GE the biggest loss in over a thousand years”
For once we are in agreement.
“As one MP quipped to Maguire – even Blair didn’t have this many Blairites in his cabinet.”
Starmer and co increasingly sound like Liz Truss. Perhaps they are trying to get her to defect?
Incidentally, if any leader is responsible for putting Labour so far ahead in the polls, it would be Liz Truss.
Tony – If only Corbyn had been a little less unpopular. 🤔
https://mcusercontent.com/ceb437017cd651e33813473af/images/08b498c5-5dc0-539a-da44-7ff31d382e29.png
Indeed – the media are capable of making motherhood and apple pie unpopular if it suits their objectives. And many people swallow it just like you, don’t they?
goldbach – Whilst others delude themselves and indulge in proselytising conspiracy theories and Putin propaganda.
A report who’s recommendation Keir implemented in full
Like those guidelines for sentencing present-day saviles, eh?
Toffee, not sure if you’ve read this from Craig Murray, but it’s interesting to say the least:
“Alison Levitt, the lawyer appointed by Keir Starmer to produce the report which “cleared” him of involvement in the decision not to prosecute Jimmy Savile, is married to Lord Carlile, friend of two serial paedophiles, Greville Janner and Cyril Smith.
Carlile played a role in the Establishment cover-up of Janner’s crimes.”
No matter how hard you try that turd cannot be polished.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/02/how-the-establishment-functions-the-real-dark-web/
Toffee – Are you referring to the upper and lower sentencing limits that the government sets before passing them on to the Sentencing Council for them to codify?
An aside – I guess that the fact that I’ve seen a couple of things from Time recently caused YouTube to suggest I might be interested in this.
Last night I was desperately looking for something interesting to watch on TV (unsuccessfully) when my finger slipped and pressed a button and the ‘Jeremy Kyle Show’ appeared on the screen. Oh dear, thought I and was about to surf elsewhere when I heard Jeremy Kyle begin to describe Jeremy Corbyn in the most obnoxious terms I have ever heard, describing J C as unfit to be a politician, let alone leader of the Labour Party. Talk Talk TV, yet another Murdoch Media Enterprise; surely such concentrations of MSM in the hands of an oligarch cannot be good for democracy?
Correct, and that’s the objective.
Whether Corbyn could rally hundreds of thousands to a new party is moot, but the key point is funding. A new party needs financial backing. It would need a decent-sized union or two to stump up. Members’ subs would be unlikely to be enough. Could Corbyn win next year in Islington? It would be tough because loyalty to Labour is fairly tribal. If he did it would be a boon, if he didn’t it would give the Labour right a stick to beat us with. What is needed is widespread grassroots civil disobedience. Quite in what form, takes imagination and will vary from place to place, but nothing else with shift the Labour Establishment. Thoreau, the initiator of civil disobedience, helped many fleeing slaves to escape to the north. Quite illegal but morally laudable. Civil disobedience is morally justified when the electoral system disenfranchises us.
Liz Kendall, who scored 5% in the leadership contest in 2015 is now in the shadow cabinet; Corbyn who won by a street isn’t allowed to represent Labour. Leaving aside policies and electorability, is that democratic? There is no democracy in the Labour Party. Long-Bailey who came second to Starmer is on the back benches. There is no democracy in the Labour Party.
As an aside…..https://twitter.com/StevePowers_/status/1699000605199466998?s=20
“Ex-Labour MP Joan Ryan admits to taking part in a media conspiracy to smear Corbyn as an antisemite. Claims Lord Austin was also involved and it was ‘deliberate”
Smartboy, and for anyone else that’s interested. Please read this tweet that fully sets out Stamer’s self appointed inquiry into his failure to prosecute Savile and any other Establishment Paedo.
“Starmer’s former principal legal adviser at the Crown Prosecution Service was Alison Levitt, mistress then wife of Lord Carlile, one of Greville Janner’s staunchest supporters, defender of Paul Burrell and the man who co-starred with Jennifer Arcuri.”
https://twitter.com/ciabaudo/status/1246811979999838210?s=20