An election looms, so I think it is time to look at all the success over the 13 years that we have witnessed from the government.

Dinahmo

Glorianny

So the CPS knew about DNA evidence, failed to fulfil their duty by writing to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and considered their duty done because they informed Malkinson's solicitors. But the then head of the CPS considers none of this was anything to do with him. Whatever happened to taking responsibility? The buck it seems stops anywhere except Starmer's desk. And people really think they can trust him!!!

Which of the recent PMs and/or ministers have accepted that the buck stops with them? None that I can think of.

Ah but they are all Tories! I expect a little bit better from a Labour PM OK I'm just naive

Glorianny

So the CPS knew about DNA evidence, failed to fulfil their duty by writing to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and considered their duty done because they informed Malkinson's solicitors. But the then head of the CPS considers none of this was anything to do with him. Whatever happened to taking responsibility? The buck it seems stops anywhere except Starmer's desk. And people really think they can trust him!!!

What are you talking about *Glorianny, did you even read the article? He supports a public inquiry, he isn’t ducking anything.

I think people can see how desperate the left are getting to discredit him in any possible way they can conjure up, but it is getting somewhat ridiculous.

Casdon

Glorianny

So the CPS knew about DNA evidence, failed to fulfil their duty by writing to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and considered their duty done because they informed Malkinson's solicitors. But the then head of the CPS considers none of this was anything to do with him. Whatever happened to taking responsibility? The buck it seems stops anywhere except Starmer's desk. And people really think they can trust him!!!

What are you talking about *Glorianny, did you even read the article? He supports a public inquiry, he isn’t ducking anything.

I think people can see how desperate the left are getting to discredit him in any possible way they can conjure up, but it is getting somewhat ridiculous.

Of course he does Casdon he knows how long these things drag on, meantime he gets to be PM.
Letters to the CCRC can't be something which happen all the time and yet he didn't know about it!

Grany Having voted Labour for almost all my adult life (switching to SDP if the LP didn't stand a chance) I finally joined the LP in order to vote for Corbyn. I was impressed by him and I liked John MacDonald too. The policies were good but I think he went too far in what he was offering.

Unfortunately he was not up to much when dealing with the media. He allowed himself to be rattled by the likes of Andrew Neil when asked fairly innocuous questions.

Lessons should have been learned by all politicians following Paxman's interview with Michael Howard.

Here's a link for anyone that didn't see it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqU77I40mS0

The public is more clued up that politicians think and we are not taken in by their waffling. Also an increasing number of journalists are aware of this and will comment. So much so that many Tories do not want to face Susannah Read for example.

I wonder what exactly Grany's argument is. Calling politicians names and detracting from their character (unless they have broken a law or a parliamentary convention) is simply an attempt to create a distraction. Everyone without an argument does the same thing.

This is a political thread. So it would be nice to discuss the politics.

So Grany could you please *name that argument"?

No attacking personalities, just policies that have been announced that you disagree with.

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

So the CPS knew about DNA evidence, failed to fulfil their duty by writing to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and considered their duty done because they informed Malkinson's solicitors. But the then head of the CPS considers none of this was anything to do with him. Whatever happened to taking responsibility? The buck it seems stops anywhere except Starmer's desk. And people really think they can trust him!!!

What are you talking about *Glorianny, did you even read the article? He supports a public inquiry, he isn’t ducking anything.

I think people can see how desperate the left are getting to discredit him in any possible way they can conjure up, but it is getting somewhat ridiculous.

Of course he does Casdon he knows how long these things drag on, meantime he gets to be PM.
Letters to the CCRC can't be something which happen all the time and yet he didn't know about it!

That’s not a logical response for somebody who is guilty of this alleged failure, is it - I know, I’ll call a public inquiry so that when I’m PM I can be publicly shamed for my failure to do the job properly. Come on now.
And yes, CCRC receives over 1000 letters a year. It is something that happens all the time.
ccrc.gov.uk/

And yes, CCRC receives over 1000 letters a year. It is something that happens all the time.

And we don't know at what level in the CPS these are dealt with. It doesn't seem likely to me that they would go all the way to the DPP.

And how many of those letters come from the CPS? Not many I bet. Most will be people imprisoned or their legal representatives.
Even so the number of letters they receive is irrelevant. The number the CPS send might be more use
.If the directions to an organisation are not followed correctly resulting in a man serving a longer prison sentence when his name should have been cleared, surely the head of that organisation bears some responsibility.

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

Glorianny

And how many of those letters come from the CPS? Not many I bet. Most will be people imprisoned or their legal representatives.
Even so the number of letters they receive is irrelevant. The number the CPS send might be more use
.If the directions to an organisation are not followed correctly resulting in a man serving a longer prison sentence when his name should have been cleared, surely the head of that organisation bears some responsibility.

What has this to do with Conservative success over the last 13 years? Threads wander but this, and the previous comments, seem more like intentional derailing.

Agree Glorianny
Could be Starmer is being avasive he's good at that. We are talking about the Conservative government being no good, but Labour are following same polices under Starmer so no change.

Grany

Agree Glorianny
Could be Starmer is being avasive he's good at that. We are talking about the Conservative government being no good, but Labour are following same polices under Starmer so no change.

I didn’t realise that Labour agreed with Rwanda?

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

Sorry I should have said the CCRC can't get many letters from the CPS.
(And I'm the one splitting hairs!!)

If Starmer had said "No" to a public inquiry he would immediately have been subject to a lot of negative publicity.
But here's a typical Starmer wriggle
In April
The Labour leader told Sky News in April that he took "full responsibility for every decision of the Crown Prosecution Service when I was director of public prosecutions".

Labour has said the case never crossed his desk and that Sir Keir had no personal involvement in it

There were meetings between the CPS and greater Manchester Police about the new evidence.
The guidelines of the CPS were not followed.
A man spent 20years in prison because of this.
And Keir Starmer was in charge.

Glorianny

If Starmer had said "No" to a public inquiry he would immediately have been subject to a lot of negative publicity.
But here's a typical Starmer wriggle
In April
The Labour leader told Sky News in April that he took "full responsibility for every decision of the Crown Prosecution Service when I was director of public prosecutions".

Labour has said the case never crossed his desk and that Sir Keir had no personal involvement in it

There were meetings between the CPS and greater Manchester Police about the new evidence.
The guidelines of the CPS were not followed.
A man spent 20years in prison because of this.
And Keir Starmer was in charge.

What shall we do with him now then?

Publicly hung drawn and quartered? Would that satisfy you all?

After all, he is clearly a Very Bad Man.

Tell me how he can take responsibility for something that happened all those years ago, when he is no longer DPP?

MaizieD

Glorianny

If Starmer had said "No" to a public inquiry he would immediately have been subject to a lot of negative publicity.
But here's a typical Starmer wriggle
In April
The Labour leader told Sky News in April that he took "full responsibility for every decision of the Crown Prosecution Service when I was director of public prosecutions".

Labour has said the case never crossed his desk and that Sir Keir had no personal involvement in it

There were meetings between the CPS and greater Manchester Police about the new evidence.
The guidelines of the CPS were not followed.
A man spent 20years in prison because of this.
And Keir Starmer was in charge.

What shall we do with him now then?

Publicly hung drawn and quartered? Would that satisfy you all?

After all, he is clearly a Very Bad Man.

Tell me how he can take responsibility for something that happened all those years ago, when he is no longer DPP?

Well he could start by acknowledging that there was obviously a complete cock up and as the man in charge he takes responsibility.
Yes all those years which a man spent in prison for a crime he didn't commit because the CPS failed to abide by its own guidelines.
Starmer meanwhile earned a fortune and built a reputation, unfortunately it's a reputation which is rapidly crumbling.

So what you’re saying is that you think he should lose his role as Labour leader because of a situation he knew nothing about because it hadn’t ever been referred to him., as somebody else within the 6000 staff of the CPS took it on themselves to make that decision, and although he supports an inquiry which will find out exactly what happened and will no doubt take it on the chin if any elements are down to him. The most obvious failure in this case lies with the police of course, which you conveniently haven’t mentioned.

I don’t think he should lose his role over this trumped up issue, and judging by the latest poll neither do the electorate, but as it suits you to keep knifing him in your echo chamber, you will no doubt carry on.

Declassified has previously shown that the UK Home Office deployed eight staff on the secret operation to seize Assange from his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. This was a highly irregular move as Ecuador is a friendly country and asylum is a right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The CPS’s lack of disclosure of documents related to Assange may raise suspicions of a cover-up. While Starmer was still in charge, in April 2013, the CPS rejected Assange’s request for the personal data it had on him “because of the live matters still pending”.
Even GCHQ, the UK’s largest spy agency, had granted Assange’s request for the personal information it held on him, which revealed one of its intelligence officers calling the Swedish case a “fit-up”.
Keir Starmer did not respond to a request for comment.

A KINGLY PROPOSAL: LETTER FROM JULIAN ASSANGE TO KING CHARLES III

declassifieduk.org/a-kingly-proposal-letter-from-julian-assange-to-king-charles-iii/

Starmers fault Assange in prison, could be extradited to America for writing about American war crimes.

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

I often wish I remembered that it is not worth talking to extremists - on either side or in the centre, about their extreme thinking Casdon. (They are probably quite nice people otherwise.)

We hear so much about what the complainers don't want. However, we hear so little about what they do want. Just as with the anti-EU voters and particularly the Conservative MPs, and those who voted and supported the hardest of "leaves" - a "no-deal Brexit" - the position they take is not, to paraphrase Rory Stewart, voting for or wanting "something", but voting for or wanting the absence of something.

This approach makes for a very bleak and dying country.

DaisyAnneReturns

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

I often wish I remembered that it is not worth talking to extremists - on either side or in the centre, about their extreme thinking Casdon. (They are probably quite nice people otherwise.)

We hear so much about what the complainers don't want. However, we hear so little about what they do want. Just as with the anti-EU voters and particularly the Conservative MPs, and those who voted and supported the hardest of "leaves" - a "no-deal Brexit" - the position they take is not, to paraphrase Rory Stewart, voting for or wanting "something", but voting for or wanting the absence of something.

This approach makes for a very bleak and dying country.

I think a far more dangerous concept is the idea that because one party has proved such a liability in government we must necessarily support whoever leads the other party.
Much was hurled at anyone who supported Corbyn about them being unthinking and blinkered. It seems that Starmer supporters will put up with anything from him, and regard any criticism as unacceptable.
Is it too much to ask that the Labour party be led by someone who has shown a commitment to Labour values, who is capable of making and keeping promises and who understands (as even Tony Blair did) that the party is made up of people whose views are politically widespread, but who share a common purpose, and that throwing people out of it helps no one?

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

I often wish I remembered that it is not worth talking to extremists - on either side or in the centre, about their extreme thinking Casdon. (They are probably quite nice people otherwise.)

We hear so much about what the complainers don't want. However, we hear so little about what they do want. Just as with the anti-EU voters and particularly the Conservative MPs, and those who voted and supported the hardest of "leaves" - a "no-deal Brexit" - the position they take is not, to paraphrase Rory Stewart, voting for or wanting "something", but voting for or wanting the absence of something.

This approach makes for a very bleak and dying country.

I think a far more dangerous concept is the idea that because one party has proved such a liability in government we must necessarily support whoever leads the other party.
Much was hurled at anyone who supported Corbyn about them being unthinking and blinkered. It seems that Starmer supporters will put up with anything from him, and regard any criticism as unacceptable.
Is it too much to ask that the Labour party be led by someone who has shown a commitment to Labour values, who is capable of making and keeping promises and who understands (as even Tony Blair did) that the party is made up of people whose views are politically widespread, but who share a common purpose, and that throwing people out of it helps no one?

That, as my mum would say, is a load of eyewash. Corbyn’s supporters still think he walked on water, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Starmer has tuned in to what voters want, rather than what the diehard left of the Labour Party wants, and it leaves you disenfranchised, while a major part of the country is breathing a sigh of relief that at last we will have a competent, moderate government. I certainly don’t think Starmer is without fault - but on the whole he has less fault that all those trying to discredit him. You need to get over yourselves and accept that what you want doesn’t fit with what the electorate wants.

We probably have more than a year to the next GE I see no point in Starmer spelling out all Labour's policies because that would leave the LP open to constant attack from the Tories and the right wing media.

Justin Schlosberg
@jrschlosberg

Just in case anyone was still in ny doubt over what
@ukLabour
actually now stand for, and who they stand for.

Andrew Feinstein
@andrewfeinstein

Arms makers, fossil fuel companies & a spyware firm r among those sponsoring events at this year’s Labour Party conference. Boeing, Babcock & Palantir, a controversial spyware firm funded by the CIA, will sponsor fringe events hosted by the New Statesman.
opendemocracy.net/en/labour-party-conference-greenwashing-weapons-boeing-palantir-babcock/?utm_source=oD%20Daily%20SEGMENT&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Labour%20conference%27s%20surprising%20sponsors&_kx=ZMNdAajsBpbT8qYESPQbM0w6ahcq_IaIabdVWeOzTUY%3D.YjCYwm?utm_source=tw

Starmer is not popular

Ministers and Permanent Secretaries no longer resign over errors made by their junior staff and neither should Starmer. That belongs to the mores of pre-1950s' Britain. Under many years of mainly Tory governments public mores have changed and that is understandable given the size of government departments (tens of thousands of staff) and the increased complexity of legislation which worsens decision making. And nowadays even minor issues are blown out of all proportion by the foghorn press.

Casdon

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

I often wish I remembered that it is not worth talking to extremists - on either side or in the centre, about their extreme thinking Casdon. (They are probably quite nice people otherwise.)

We hear so much about what the complainers don't want. However, we hear so little about what they do want. Just as with the anti-EU voters and particularly the Conservative MPs, and those who voted and supported the hardest of "leaves" - a "no-deal Brexit" - the position they take is not, to paraphrase Rory Stewart, voting for or wanting "something", but voting for or wanting the absence of something.

This approach makes for a very bleak and dying country.

I think a far more dangerous concept is the idea that because one party has proved such a liability in government we must necessarily support whoever leads the other party.
Much was hurled at anyone who supported Corbyn about them being unthinking and blinkered. It seems that Starmer supporters will put up with anything from him, and regard any criticism as unacceptable.
Is it too much to ask that the Labour party be led by someone who has shown a commitment to Labour values, who is capable of making and keeping promises and who understands (as even Tony Blair did) that the party is made up of people whose views are politically widespread, but who share a common purpose, and that throwing people out of it helps no one?

That, as my mum would say, is a load of eyewash. Corbyn’s supporters still think he walked on water, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Starmer has tuned in to what voters want, rather than what the diehard left of the Labour Party wants, and it leaves you disenfranchised, while a major part of the country is breathing a sigh of relief that at last we will have a competent, moderate government. I certainly don’t think Starmer is without fault - but on the whole he has less fault that all those trying to discredit him. You need to get over yourselves and accept that what you want doesn’t fit with what the electorate wants.

Oh really! So can you tell me one policy that you are absolutely certain Starmer will follow when he comes to government?
As fo the electorate Starmer has been proved inadequate already. U.xbridge showed that. A Labour candidate parachuted in by head office lost