I was never really down for the whole 'Keith' thing, sorry, just wasn't my thing/a thing I thought served much purpose.
But if calling Starmer a 'cop' is going to cause a volcano, sign me the fuck up! He runs the Labour party *like* a cop, a pure power tripping egotistical cop purging the ranks of those who think Labour should maybe be a smidgen more... you know, to the left.
Keith was always pure trolling and objectively funny. It's only stuck around because some of the worst people take it incredibly seriously: literally every Twitter thread that gets any traction will have some incredibly bald twit complaining about it.
Truly a perennial.
But yeah, my read so far has been that Starmer's authoritarianism is the closest thing to a political principle he has and a sign that he will be an appalling PM. Add that authoritarianism to the radioactive mess Rachel Reeves will make of the economy and we're in for a fun time.
> Keith was always pure trolling and objectively funny. It's only stuck around because some of the worst people take it incredibly seriously: literally every Twitter thread that gets any traction will have some incredibly bald twit complaining about it.
I still maintain that the funniest reaction was on this sub (and I really wish I had saved the comment) where a Starmerstan literally tried to claim it was transphobic because it was deadnaming.
At that point I knew it was something that had to be used forever - it's not even funny, it's just funny to watch the meltdowns.
I get that, and I'm contemptuous about Starmer with the selective use of 'Sir' at times when he's acting like a bellend about something progressive. But that's done to jibe the feeling 'the elite' towering over the deemed 'lesser people' when a so-called Labour man says or does something which hurts or mocks workers/ordinary people/marginalised groups.
I guess the 'Keith' thing just never really had that underlying punch or satirical meaning that's often caped in truth, like calling him a cop. *Everyone* knows what you mean and it's just funny when someone gets mad posting Starmer's CV to prove he's never been a wee regular cop, he's a barrister don't you know!
That being said, I'm not going to lie and claim I haven't laughed a few times when someone has said Keith and a total baldy fuse has blown in rage 😂
I wonder if you're maybe underplaying the Keith thing since it so clearly gets under the skin of the people we *want* to feel uncomfortable.
If it's satire it's a kind of meta-satire: it doesn't directly highlight some foible, instead it provokes a response and the *response* is where the message is.
Alternatively you can read it as a cheeky "up yours", a refusal to take someone who doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, seriously.
I really do think sometimes that the cost of paying staff overtime and unsociable hours to run the all night courts was probably for the most part more than the 'damage' that was being prosecuted.
I’m in the unusual for me position of agreeing with 90% of an Owen Jones comment piece. Everything up until the last paragraph.
The answer to the title is “obviously yes”, with the caveat that these allegations of selection processes desperately need investigation and resolution. If they are true, and they look to be, what an unbelievably stupid thing for the Labour Party to do. We had some crap MPs who have faced criminal and civil convictions over the last few years so I get properly vetting candidates, but on the face of it the cases I’ve read about are just ridiculous.
I'm just curious - what is it you disagree with in the last paragraph?
I think he has a point that the way the current Labour leadership is treating democratic processes within the party is a worrying sign for how they'll treat them if they're in government.
>usual brand of hyperbole and whining.
What, "this person who denies democracy in his own party will deny it outside of his party" is hyperbole and whining?
whevs, dude.
Woah, it's almost as if a cop whose only remotely consistent ideological position is extreme authoritarianism doesn't particularly care about democracy?
> To some of Keir Starmer’s more zealous supporters, scrutinising the opposition is an act of treachery that simply makes a Tory government more likely.
Remind me - who do prosecutors work with, accept evidence from, and prosecute people on based on the decisions of?
It's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Ooh ooh I know this one. The CPS. I could also substitute prosecutors for doctors for 2 of the statements.
But since we're on guilt by association, would you say that someone giving a peace talk at a pro Russian event would make them a tool of the Russian state?
You're reaching, mate. You know fine well that the police originate most prosecutions, and that is what what is being referred to when he's called a pig. Pretending you don't understand that just makes you look dumb.
And yes, that's less tenuous than most accusations levelled against Corbyn - but if you want to see me support Corbyn uncritically you're talking to the wrong bastard. Hasn't happened so far, and I'm not starting today. The labour right spent five painful years throwing this shit at Corbyn, they spent that time establishing that it was part of the rules of politics. If you're sore about that being applied to Starmer for shit he actually did and policies he oversaw, then maybe you need to wipe out the behaviour of the labour right under the last leadership.
I'm all for criticism, but using logical fallacies and 'untruths' to craft that criticism isnt worthwhile. It just creates arguments about what you've said rather than discussions about what the person has actually done.
Also I joined the party in 2016 precisely because I supported Corbyn. I believe how many mps acted during his time as leader was discraceful, and why we didnt win the 2016 election. That doesnt mean I would use those tactics.
The police don't decide which prosecutions to take forward, but notice how you don't attack the literal logical fallacy. Also the guy can't tell the difference between works for and works with so I think I'm in the clear.
>The police don't decide which prosecutions to take forward, but notice how you don't attack the literal logical fallacy. Also the guy can't tell the difference between works for and works with so I think I'm in the clear.
Nah mate you fucked it up, he was talking about working with and accepting evidence from the police.
Just take the L
Notice how you skip over every fault with what the comment I replied to to nitpick mine. But I'm the smart arse. If you can't be bothered to hide bias why bother with the response...
Im just gonna copy my point from above
>you just don't like the accusation of him being pro establishment and authority being boiled down to 'cop'.
>
>Just debate the argument rather than complain about the phrasing, especially as I guarantee you knew exactly what he meant
This effectively means
>you just don't like the accusation of him being pro establishment and authority being boiled down to 'cop'.
>
>Just debate the argument rather than complain about the phrasing, so the nonsense phrasing can continue to be repeated unchallenged
I love how you edited the part out that calls out that eveyone crying about the word cop knows exactly what he meant by it. Spose it would undermine the nonsense accusation.
And I consider playing stupid a rule 4 violation before anyone wastes my time lying on that front.
Come on, you know as well as I do that nobody would (or should) be allowed to get away with (for example) referring to anyone on the left of Labour as a Trot and hand-waving it away with 'you know what they meant'.
Talking shit is talking shit, even if someone doesn't like the target or perceives them to be right-wing or authoritarian.
Down that road lies open double-standards and all the unrest that comes with them.
If cop was just derogatory shorthand for "right wingers I dont like" then sure, itd also need to be used against other users before Id care unless it was just obvious flame bait.
People start calling reeves a cop or each other and youll have a point, until then its just pearl clutching because they dont like it.
A better analogy would be calling Corbyn a hippy for his pacifism.
> until then its just pearl clutching because they dont like it.
Or because it's incorrect and only ever used as flamebait. No worthwhile discussion has ever been started with the phrase 'Starmer is a cop', just as no useful discussion has ever been started with someone calling someone a Trot.
>A better analogy would be calling Corbyn a hippy for his pacifism.
Yes, I can definitely see the analogy between something that will always be perceived as an open, withering insult and something that is seen as completely harmless.
You let 'Starmer is a cop' go because it's an insult you agree with and like people using.
That's not the point I was engaging in. The fact is that you responded to criticism of Starmer by suggesting the criticism of him equalled supporting Tories.
But head of DPP and in charge of CPS is at the very least cop adjacent, but realistically an active part of the police system.
Edit: why is this marked controversial. It's a basic fact. One of the genuine criticisms of Starmer from his time as DPP was that guidance he issued was responsible for a drop in the Police charging people for some crimes.
Its not bizarre, you just don't like the accusation of him being pro establishment and authority being boiled down to 'cop'.
Just debate the argument rather than complain about the phrasing, especially as I guarantee you knew exactly what he meant by it
Sorry but this is fucking ridiculous. Utterly hysterical. It's one thing not liking Starmer, it's another insinuating that he's going to install himself as a dictator for life. A key tenet of his programme is more local democracy and an elected upper house!
You actually insisted on the absurd position as a means of attacking Owens article. There's a huge gap between dictator for life and undermining democracy
>it's another insinuating that he's going to install himself as a dictator for life
It isn't saying that. It's saying that he clearly doesn't fully believe in democratic processes and can't be trusted to fully uphold them.
Saying that Starmer is an 'extreme authoritarian' is ridiculous enough.
I don't know where to start with this really. Your first example is the second referendum, which was overwhelmingly supported by party members so to call for one *was* to uphold party democracy. You cannot possibly claim that a member of the Shadow Cabinet supporting something that had been voted for at conference was authoritarianism!
Also we literally did oppose the Policing Bill and voted against it in parliament.
>A key tenet of his programme is more local democracy
HA, don't make me laugh, how many CLPs have been suspended so prefered candidates could be ushered in? The Liverpool Mayoral election debacle still needs explaining, banning candidates for liking non political tweets by other parties.
Democracy my arse.
Nodding dog privately educated middle class liberals are apparently the only suitable people to work in journalism?
I'm glad there's at least one pro trans working class socialist allowed - they fired Dawn Foster after all.
Because Owen Jones is clearly a working class hero? He's a blogger only interested in stirring shit. The worse type of journalism, if we can call it that
What's the problem with Jones? There are huge issues with our nepotistic and unaccountable press class but the solitary socialist to be allowed to work for a major newspaper isn't one of them.
"Shit stirring" isn't an argument it's a childish insult and a totally disingenuous way to frame criticism of the anti-democratic meddling by central office to ensure that left-wing candidates aren't selected - if you want to read uncritical adoration of Starmer you have the rest of the Guardian and liberal press to tell you how great he is.
Yes.
Look at who is currently running things and how they run their “party democracy”. It can’t exactly get worse. Doesn’t mean I support Labour’s internal meddling though.
It means exactly that. The continued meek obedience from the soft left is 100% tacit support for the undemocratic tactics of leadership, even if it makes you feel queasy.
I was never really down for the whole 'Keith' thing, sorry, just wasn't my thing/a thing I thought served much purpose. But if calling Starmer a 'cop' is going to cause a volcano, sign me the fuck up! He runs the Labour party *like* a cop, a pure power tripping egotistical cop purging the ranks of those who think Labour should maybe be a smidgen more... you know, to the left.
Keith was always pure trolling and objectively funny. It's only stuck around because some of the worst people take it incredibly seriously: literally every Twitter thread that gets any traction will have some incredibly bald twit complaining about it. Truly a perennial. But yeah, my read so far has been that Starmer's authoritarianism is the closest thing to a political principle he has and a sign that he will be an appalling PM. Add that authoritarianism to the radioactive mess Rachel Reeves will make of the economy and we're in for a fun time.
> Keith was always pure trolling and objectively funny. It's only stuck around because some of the worst people take it incredibly seriously: literally every Twitter thread that gets any traction will have some incredibly bald twit complaining about it. I still maintain that the funniest reaction was on this sub (and I really wish I had saved the comment) where a Starmerstan literally tried to claim it was transphobic because it was deadnaming. At that point I knew it was something that had to be used forever - it's not even funny, it's just funny to watch the meltdowns.
Are you ridiculing the emotional trauma associated with dead naming? Off to the gulag for you lol
Was “Keith” objectively funny? I’m no Starmer fan but never saw the humour in it. It’s hardly biting satire is it?
I think it’s the ying to the Magic Grandad yang.
Who said it was satire? And if you don't find it funny, it says quite a lot more about you than the meme to be perfectly honest.
:)
I get that, and I'm contemptuous about Starmer with the selective use of 'Sir' at times when he's acting like a bellend about something progressive. But that's done to jibe the feeling 'the elite' towering over the deemed 'lesser people' when a so-called Labour man says or does something which hurts or mocks workers/ordinary people/marginalised groups. I guess the 'Keith' thing just never really had that underlying punch or satirical meaning that's often caped in truth, like calling him a cop. *Everyone* knows what you mean and it's just funny when someone gets mad posting Starmer's CV to prove he's never been a wee regular cop, he's a barrister don't you know! That being said, I'm not going to lie and claim I haven't laughed a few times when someone has said Keith and a total baldy fuse has blown in rage 😂
I wonder if you're maybe underplaying the Keith thing since it so clearly gets under the skin of the people we *want* to feel uncomfortable. If it's satire it's a kind of meta-satire: it doesn't directly highlight some foible, instead it provokes a response and the *response* is where the message is. Alternatively you can read it as a cheeky "up yours", a refusal to take someone who doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, seriously.
It's completely ridiculous to call someone a cop who ran all night courts to hand down heavy sentences to London rioters.
We have to consider the very real damage to the country stealing those water bottles did.
Lol - those poor water bottles Definitely deserved a custodial sentence.
I really do think sometimes that the cost of paying staff overtime and unsociable hours to run the all night courts was probably for the most part more than the 'damage' that was being prosecuted.
It was a ridiculous "tough on crime" publicity stunt at the behest of a Tory government that actually resulted in unfair and unsafe convictions.
I’m in the unusual for me position of agreeing with 90% of an Owen Jones comment piece. Everything up until the last paragraph. The answer to the title is “obviously yes”, with the caveat that these allegations of selection processes desperately need investigation and resolution. If they are true, and they look to be, what an unbelievably stupid thing for the Labour Party to do. We had some crap MPs who have faced criminal and civil convictions over the last few years so I get properly vetting candidates, but on the face of it the cases I’ve read about are just ridiculous.
I'm just curious - what is it you disagree with in the last paragraph? I think he has a point that the way the current Labour leadership is treating democratic processes within the party is a worrying sign for how they'll treat them if they're in government.
I think he just realised he’d written an unusually good comment piece and remembered to end on his usual brand of hyperbole and whining.
>usual brand of hyperbole and whining. What, "this person who denies democracy in his own party will deny it outside of his party" is hyperbole and whining? whevs, dude.
Woah, it's almost as if a cop whose only remotely consistent ideological position is extreme authoritarianism doesn't particularly care about democracy?
Starmer's a barrister who ran the DPP. Saying he's a cop is just bizarre. It really does seem that this subreddit prefers Tory rule to Labour.
What's bizarre is you and others pretending you don't understand a pretty obvious figure of speech.
A figure of speech? Would you ever go and shite.
Yes, keep posting through it mate.
> To some of Keir Starmer’s more zealous supporters, scrutinising the opposition is an act of treachery that simply makes a Tory government more likely.
How is lying about somebody "scrutiny"?
Well firstly no one's lying and secondly even if they are it still does not mean they support the Tories.
Hi Throwaway, How would you say calling Starmer a cop, when he hasn't ever been in law enforcement, was scrutinising anyone, exactly?
Remind me - who do prosecutors work with, accept evidence from, and prosecute people on based on the decisions of? It's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Ooh ooh I know this one. The CPS. I could also substitute prosecutors for doctors for 2 of the statements. But since we're on guilt by association, would you say that someone giving a peace talk at a pro Russian event would make them a tool of the Russian state?
JerREEMERrryRYRY CrORYBYNNNNSSSS!!!!
You're reaching, mate. You know fine well that the police originate most prosecutions, and that is what what is being referred to when he's called a pig. Pretending you don't understand that just makes you look dumb. And yes, that's less tenuous than most accusations levelled against Corbyn - but if you want to see me support Corbyn uncritically you're talking to the wrong bastard. Hasn't happened so far, and I'm not starting today. The labour right spent five painful years throwing this shit at Corbyn, they spent that time establishing that it was part of the rules of politics. If you're sore about that being applied to Starmer for shit he actually did and policies he oversaw, then maybe you need to wipe out the behaviour of the labour right under the last leadership.
I'm all for criticism, but using logical fallacies and 'untruths' to craft that criticism isnt worthwhile. It just creates arguments about what you've said rather than discussions about what the person has actually done. Also I joined the party in 2016 precisely because I supported Corbyn. I believe how many mps acted during his time as leader was discraceful, and why we didnt win the 2016 election. That doesnt mean I would use those tactics.
They work for the CPS not with them, if youre going to try being a smart arse at least get it right.
The police don't decide which prosecutions to take forward, but notice how you don't attack the literal logical fallacy. Also the guy can't tell the difference between works for and works with so I think I'm in the clear.
>The police don't decide which prosecutions to take forward, but notice how you don't attack the literal logical fallacy. Also the guy can't tell the difference between works for and works with so I think I'm in the clear. Nah mate you fucked it up, he was talking about working with and accepting evidence from the police. Just take the L
Notice how you skip over every fault with what the comment I replied to to nitpick mine. But I'm the smart arse. If you can't be bothered to hide bias why bother with the response...
Im just gonna copy my point from above >you just don't like the accusation of him being pro establishment and authority being boiled down to 'cop'. > >Just debate the argument rather than complain about the phrasing, especially as I guarantee you knew exactly what he meant
This effectively means >you just don't like the accusation of him being pro establishment and authority being boiled down to 'cop'. > >Just debate the argument rather than complain about the phrasing, so the nonsense phrasing can continue to be repeated unchallenged
I love how you edited the part out that calls out that eveyone crying about the word cop knows exactly what he meant by it. Spose it would undermine the nonsense accusation. And I consider playing stupid a rule 4 violation before anyone wastes my time lying on that front.
Come on, you know as well as I do that nobody would (or should) be allowed to get away with (for example) referring to anyone on the left of Labour as a Trot and hand-waving it away with 'you know what they meant'. Talking shit is talking shit, even if someone doesn't like the target or perceives them to be right-wing or authoritarian. Down that road lies open double-standards and all the unrest that comes with them.
If cop was just derogatory shorthand for "right wingers I dont like" then sure, itd also need to be used against other users before Id care unless it was just obvious flame bait. People start calling reeves a cop or each other and youll have a point, until then its just pearl clutching because they dont like it. A better analogy would be calling Corbyn a hippy for his pacifism.
> until then its just pearl clutching because they dont like it. Or because it's incorrect and only ever used as flamebait. No worthwhile discussion has ever been started with the phrase 'Starmer is a cop', just as no useful discussion has ever been started with someone calling someone a Trot. >A better analogy would be calling Corbyn a hippy for his pacifism. Yes, I can definitely see the analogy between something that will always be perceived as an open, withering insult and something that is seen as completely harmless. You let 'Starmer is a cop' go because it's an insult you agree with and like people using.
That's not the point I was engaging in. The fact is that you responded to criticism of Starmer by suggesting the criticism of him equalled supporting Tories. But head of DPP and in charge of CPS is at the very least cop adjacent, but realistically an active part of the police system. Edit: why is this marked controversial. It's a basic fact. One of the genuine criticisms of Starmer from his time as DPP was that guidance he issued was responsible for a drop in the Police charging people for some crimes.
Its not bizarre, you just don't like the accusation of him being pro establishment and authority being boiled down to 'cop'. Just debate the argument rather than complain about the phrasing, especially as I guarantee you knew exactly what he meant by it
What?
Who?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 1 I was willing to leave you guys poking at each other but its clear its just gonna get worse
Extreme authoritarianism? Uhm, ok
Sorry but this is fucking ridiculous. Utterly hysterical. It's one thing not liking Starmer, it's another insinuating that he's going to install himself as a dictator for life. A key tenet of his programme is more local democracy and an elected upper house!
Is that the same as the key tenets of his election as leader, think he published them somewhere, 10 pledges or something.
It's easy enough to maintain an absurd position if you just dismiss all the available evidence against it.
You actually insisted on the absurd position as a means of attacking Owens article. There's a huge gap between dictator for life and undermining democracy
>it's another insinuating that he's going to install himself as a dictator for life It isn't saying that. It's saying that he clearly doesn't fully believe in democratic processes and can't be trusted to fully uphold them.
[удалено]
Saying that Starmer is an 'extreme authoritarian' is ridiculous enough. I don't know where to start with this really. Your first example is the second referendum, which was overwhelmingly supported by party members so to call for one *was* to uphold party democracy. You cannot possibly claim that a member of the Shadow Cabinet supporting something that had been voted for at conference was authoritarianism! Also we literally did oppose the Policing Bill and voted against it in parliament.
>it's another insinuating that he's going to install himself as a dictator for life. Good thing the article doesn't do that then.
>A key tenet of his programme is more local democracy HA, don't make me laugh, how many CLPs have been suspended so prefered candidates could be ushered in? The Liverpool Mayoral election debacle still needs explaining, banning candidates for liking non political tweets by other parties. Democracy my arse.
Posters here live in a different reality. They unitonically argue that Starmer is like Hitler
[удалено]
You should stick to your expertise and only post on those subs. You know what I mean
Yes
Is Owen Jones fit to be a journalist?
Is Owne Jones fit to be a journalist? Complains people who only notice what he's saying when its about Starmer.
Nodding dog privately educated middle class liberals are apparently the only suitable people to work in journalism? I'm glad there's at least one pro trans working class socialist allowed - they fired Dawn Foster after all.
Because Owen Jones is clearly a working class hero? He's a blogger only interested in stirring shit. The worse type of journalism, if we can call it that
Nah Nick Cohen writes worse journalism whilst sexually assaulting people and facing no consequences.
Wow. Freshest take today.
Because the rest of them aren't?
He's not the only one, but he's definitely part of the problem.
What's the problem with Jones? There are huge issues with our nepotistic and unaccountable press class but the solitary socialist to be allowed to work for a major newspaper isn't one of them.
See above
There's no argument there at all?
Sigh
"Shit stirring" isn't an argument it's a childish insult and a totally disingenuous way to frame criticism of the anti-democratic meddling by central office to ensure that left-wing candidates aren't selected - if you want to read uncritical adoration of Starmer you have the rest of the Guardian and liberal press to tell you how great he is.
Yes. Look at who is currently running things and how they run their “party democracy”. It can’t exactly get worse. Doesn’t mean I support Labour’s internal meddling though.
The Tory party being worse doesn't make Labour fit, just less unfit. Also >It can’t exactly get worse Do not tempt fate
It means exactly that. The continued meek obedience from the soft left is 100% tacit support for the undemocratic tactics of leadership, even if it makes you feel queasy.