Reminders of the alleged funding gap between the two main parties are frequent, usually accompanied by the suggestion that the email recipient bung The Red Team a quid. Or maybe three quid. Or five quid. Remember, they didn’t want to have to ask the favour, but look at that funding gap.
At which point a question occurs: was this not the party that, in the days when Jeremy Corbyn was leader, was flush with cash? Well, yes it was. And then came the lawsuits, along with Labour’s response to them. When an edition of the BBC Panorama strand titled “Is Labour anti-Semitic?” was aired, several of those involved were called out by the party as, effectively, bad faith actors.
So seven of them sued Labour, as did the programme’s presenter John Ware. Then, after Keir Starmer became leader, came the rumours that Labour was to settle with those suing. The Guardian noted in its report “The Guardian understands legal advice provided to Labour under Corbyn’s leadership suggested the party could win the case”. Was new legal advice sought?
We don’t get to know. But, as the Guardian continued, “The Labour party has apologised 'unreservedly' and paid out a six-figure sum to seven former employees and a veteran BBC journalist, admitting it defamed them in the aftermath of a Panorama investigation into its handling of antisemitism”.
Labour took legal action against five people it claimed had leaked the report. Meanwhile, nine people who claimed their data had been misused also sued. But despite the advocacy of, among others, Mark Lewis of Patron Law, the case dragged on until it was dropped in September last year. It wasn’t the first high profile legal action that Lawman Lewis has seen fail recently.
Meanwhile, the action by Labour against Seumas Milne, Karie Murphy, Georgie Robertson, Harry Hayball and Laura Murray dragged on. Until it, too, was discontinued, the BBC reporting today “The Labour Party has abandoned longstanding legal action against five former members of staff who have been accused of ‘conspiring’ against Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership”. Do go on.
“The action is estimated to have cost the party millions of pounds, which critics said could otherwise have been spent on the general election campaign”. Did someone say millions plural? Indeed they did: “The most recent documents presented in open court last autumn showed that Labour had spent £1.5m on legal action, and estimated it would spend nearly £900,000 more … The party's final costs are likely to be higher, as these figures don’t reflect the full cost of the litigation”. Three mil? Four??
Now imagine what many Labour members will think, reading that report, or other similar ones in the press, and then getting more of those begging emails, along with requests to leaflet, canvas, and the rest. The party may well be 20 points ahead in the polls. But that news will hurt.
And it’s all self-inflicted. By the current leadership. Can you spare a quid?
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
20 comments:
Meanwhile in the blue corner a business owner only known for his racist comments about Diane Abbot gives £5m from the millions he earns from NHS contracts.
'Earns', Anonymous?
Starmer is going to be PM, I have no doubts but he will trip up and people will see how we need change desperately, with the Tories and Labour cast aside and replaced with a real progressive party.
So, New ln Labour has shed thousands of members thanks to Starmers whoppers, purges, and glaring double standards, has pissed away millions cynically conceding a winnable court case, and on pursuing ones it couldn't win, and now it expects members to cough up? Perhaps passing round the hat to the new corporate pals its attracted instead? Or would that really let the cat out of the bag?
As a former Labour member, who got a flurry of begging emails recently (I've now unsubscribed) this is true. During the Corbyn years, besides my subscription, I donated, bought merch, and with others, did fundraising in a small way: probably contributing around £500 to labour's coffers.
I wouldn't do that again, and I was horrified at the way the vindictive fools in the Starmer camp think that the money was theirs to p*ss away in fruitless lawsuits. Not as a campaigning fund, which is what I thought I was raising money for.
The economic competence of Labour is already obviously like the Titanic, and will fall apart rapidly in office.
Another step in the race to lose the election. Labour worked very hard to totally demoralise the members (or chase them away) and waste as much money as possible. At any other time, this would be a sure winning (losing) move. But clever Sunak decided to do a masterstroke: leaving D-Day celebrations half way through, surely alienating his staunch flag sh****ng support in the press.
Starmer/Reeves getting practice before they rob more of the economy and hand it to their "friends" in blue.
Oh I wouldn't worry, Tim.
The way the insane twats in Washington, London and Europe are behaving you'll just have time to say, "What the fuck was that?" after the nuclear flash.
Then all Starmer/Reeves problems will evaporate. They'll even help light the fuse.
Apparently we have nothing to worry about on that score! The military are talking about an Israeli style 'shield' against missiles. Which, as the bods description of the proposal went on, shifted from 'Europe wide' to 'the British isles', to, knowing how stingy and London obsessed our govts are, 'major domestic centres'. Ie London. Oh, goody!
Down here in spiv-ridden, M25, pearly king, Alf Garnett, curtain-twitching, £7 a pint, Great Wen, pampered, parasitic, lah-di-dah, kimchi-munching, Labour-voting, hedge-fund-heaven Babylon we're not at all reassured by the idea of 'military shields' protecting our £3 million quid swimming-pool-infested mansions from equity-eroding nuclear attack.
As has recently been shown in both Ukraine and Israel, all that's needed to trick and thus penetrate such 'smart' defences is to adopt the dastardly and unsporting ploy of firing off lots and lots of missiles at the same time instead of just the odd one or two when the fancy takes you.
Accordingly,and to quote quondam local hero George Gideon Oliver Osborne, we seem to be 'all in ths together'.
As I hail from London originally, your description was, while delightfully stereotyped - bang on! If you read the Granuiad that is...
More seriously, the little speech given by the military bod discussing the 'screen's was utterly depressing. First, as you say they aren't infallible. Second, it was clear that while discussions for a Europe wide system (thus everyone shared the cost) is underway, we won't be party to it. Can't think why... Third, even if a uk govt does sign off on such an expensive programme when the current ruling party is promoting yet more tax brib.. sorry cuts, such a shield will indeed be limited to 'our key infrastructure and population centre(s)'. So, bollocks to you country folk!
Thanks for your comment, but I’m afraid I can’t claim credit for the accuracy of my portrayal of London as it’s based entirely on the information I get from the posts of a frequent visitor to this blog, one ‘Anonymous’.
I would try to form my own view of my city but I never dare to go out anymore as I’m terrified of being roughly manhandled by Khan’s bully-boy Ulez enforcers, chanted at by Palestine hate marchers, assaulted by militant Gen Z transphiles or invited in for a drink by Laurence Fox.
As for a nuclear attack on country folk, from what I’ve read about recent plotlines on The Archers such an event would count as a relatively quiet day in the modern Shires. It must be hell out there!
Tsk tsk! I left out ‘far right', 'Daily Heil....Scum-reading' and 'flag shagging hysteria’ from my reference to 'the flower of cities all'.
Luckily the ever- poetic 'Anonymous' has now put me right (see his 9 June 18.33 contribution to Tim's 'Tory Desperation Bozo Bigotry' post above).
What would I do without him?
The begging bowl has been presented to the occupants/tenants/owners of the ugly architectural slum that is the London skyline. Even the buildings are as bent as the occupants, tenants and owners. Which guarantees acceptance of bribes by Quisling "Labour".
Oh how we laffed.
Why Starmer is a treacherous gobshite:
https://youtu.be/mv7sZoQkkns?si=uT7-Va-HtF4aEkh0
Just be happy the Tories are going, crank. Honestly stop watching Al Jazeera all day and grow a brain.
17:03.
The tories are not "going".
The red version is about to replace the blue version, that's all.
After early red tory bullshit there'll be a return to the usual far right thievery propped up by Starmer/Reeves Quislings. Probably along the lines of "Gun For Hire" Hoon and "Five Thousand Pounds A Day, Something Like That" Straw. Maybe even more mass murdering wars criminality a la Bliar/Brown, as per Zionist-without-qualification Starmer.
The criminality, lying and hypocrisy will continue. The red tory Quislings have said so
This is exactly why the Starmer Quisling is a proven far right liar and malevolent shithouse. He deserves all the contempt he gets:
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2024/06/12/starmer-2019-manifesto-general-election/
Starmer is a proven habitual liar, every bit as morally corrupt as Bozo.
In 1785 Thomas Jefferson said this about such malign people:
He who permits himself to tell a lie often finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, til at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.
Starmer and his allies are responsible for continuing to inject dry rot into the soul of British culture. The results are self-evident. His type ensure dishonesty and lying are now standard in public life. Which is why Britain will continue to decline at an accelerating rate. That's the moral state we are in and why Starmer Inc. is merely the latest vomit into the sick pool.
Pretty much. A lying, treacherous, back stabbing weasel of a man. There is no low to which he won't sink in the pursuit of power for powers sake. Those clinging on to 'well he can't be as bad as the Tories' would do well to listen to the Starmer/Reeves/Streeting axis and what they're actually proposing - which is just more of the same.
Should they win, no-one will notice any difference. No increased spending just more PFI. No extra nurses for the NHS just more tendering out to the private sector. No reform of the Tories disastrous education system, and definitely no change to the aggressive, cynical, life ruining DWPs spite and propaganda.
No reigning in of the excesses of the City (another crash is in the wind) nor strengthening of workers rights.
No new money has been promised to rebuild our collapsing legal system, just more crap about building yet more privatised hell holes, sorry prisons.
So, what exactly are people voting Labour for? Simply to punish the Tories. And so it goes on. A process that in Europe has ended with the growth of the far right..
Post a Comment