Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Seems the public aren't buying Johnson's diversion.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... sw3LL8FYjY

All day I've been thinking that Keir Starmer was unlucky to stumble across the only far-left group in history to have union jacks in their logo, organise a nation-wide motorcade and use "Peedo" as a go-to insult. Now it appears that he was conspiring with MI5 all along. Who'da thought it?

Something of note: Johnson accuses Starmer of not doing anything about paedos, when Starmer took positive action post-Savile to close loopholes.

Johnson himself said pursuing historical cases was spaffing money up the wall.


Johnson accuses Starmer of prosecuting journalists, which he did but these were phone hackers who broke the law.

Johnson himself conspired to have a journalist beaten up, and has his cronies decry the 'mainstream media'


Every group he tries to imply has been shafted by Starmer, he in fact has shafted himself. I think more should be made of this.

There appears to be a touch of the Michelle Obamas here. "When they go low, we go high."

That is all very laudable and probably what most decent people would prefer, but it belongs to a bygone political era, one which was put to the sword by the likes of Trump, Bannon, Johnson, Frost et al.

Ignoring it is not the solution and I am not sure that "...so we go lower" is the only realistic response, but I can't see any other route at the moment.

Was having this chat last night.

We thought that Starmer's best tactic at PMQs is to not refer to the Monday incident at all, or to Johnson's words. If Johnson brings it up, more fool him, because he'll not be able to spin it as anything other than vindictiveness.

Best thing to do is focus on lorry queues, turds in lay-bys, and Rees-Mogg's new post. "So, apart from the increased costs, increased paperwork, increased waiting times, drivers forced into degrading acts and so on, what are exactly the benefits of Brexit on trade with the EU?".

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 11:26 am There appears to be a touch of the Michelle Obamas here. "When they go low, we go high."

That is all very laudable and probably what most decent people would prefer, but it belongs to a bygone political era, one which was put to the sword by the likes of Trump, Bannon, Johnson, Frost et al.

Ignoring it is not the solution and I am not sure that "...so we go lower" is the only realistic response, but I can't see any other route at the moment.

You can’t avoid going high over this issue. Normally accusing a PM of parroting fascist tropes would be a below the belt shot. In this case its just a fact.

What was interesting was last week, Littlecock referring to the Savile story's far-right origins as "laughable". In the same way, he's consistently described the fash as "a bunch of no-marks sitting in bedsits", whereas radical Islamists are apparently a clear and present danger of bedsit-sitting web browsing lethal loons.

He has form for this, of course, and knows his audience. I remember him taking issue with a voter registration campaign, because it featured a skinhead and an old British Asian woman sitting on a see-saw. Apparently this was a horrible slur on the right, who weren't all skinheads, and many had Asian friends and hang on, where on the ad did it say the skinhead was a right winger?

“When they go low, we should point out they already went lower themselves”

I saw some Corbynite clown elsewhere last night bemoaning the fact that Starmer had turned the attention away from Johnson and made it "all about him. " They couldn't grasp that this was Johnson's intention all along.

davidjay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:52 pm I saw some Corbynite clown elsewhere last night bemoaning the fact that Starmer had turned the attention away from Johnson and made it "all about him. " They couldn't grasp that this was Johnson's intention all along.

Same logic as the attacks on e.g. Jess P. If she did something, it was showboating and taking the attention away from Jeremy. If she didn't do something, it was showing she was lazy. If they attacked her and she responded, it was attention seeking.

(The only acceptable action is, of course, talking about and praising Jeremy.)

Someone on Fenton's blog commented that some seem determined to keep Tories in power until an ideologically pure Socialist Labour appears - cue the usual idiot going on about "Vichy Labour".

I am convinced that the infamous "anonymous" is Fenton himself.

I've had a look at the "Assange" stuff. It's, well, not that earth shattering.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... mails-show

Sweden is sovereign. It doesn't have to "try to drop the Assange case". It can do it any time it wants. From the fuss made, I thought somebody at the CPS had said "HMG would like you to know there will be implications" or something. "Don't get cold feet!!!!" hardly cuts it.

Do I think Assange was seen as just another case? No, I don't. I think the British Government thought "Fantastic, we could be rid of this runt who's just jumped bail and made us look stupid, and will save us from getting into an awkward corner with America". I think that would have been obvious to anybody working at the CPS, really. And to Swedes too. Starmer may or may not have made that point explicitly to the staff, who knows?

As it happens, Assange might have been better off going to Sweden for his own good. I don't think he should be extradited, but that looks like where he's heading. All with "establishment favourite" Sir Keir long gone from the CPS.

I've come across some guy called Jonathan Cook's writing for the first time today. I didn't get very far with it, but apparently the big reaction to Johnson's slur wasn't because calling people paedo protectors might end badly. It's because it exposed the "underbelly of the establishment" or something. Evidence for this is that some of the people angry about this.... didn't like Jeremy Corbyn much.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 5:18 pm

davidjay wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:52 pm I saw some Corbynite clown elsewhere last night bemoaning the fact that Starmer had turned the attention away from Johnson and made it "all about him. " They couldn't grasp that this was Johnson's intention all along.

Same logic as the attacks on e.g. Jess P. If she did something, it was showboating and taking the attention away from Jeremy. If she didn't do something, it was showing she was lazy. If they attacked her and she responded, it was attention seeking.

(The only acceptable action is, of course, talking about and praising Jeremy.)

And when Jess says anything about what she thinks, she's "making it all about her".

Good for him.

Ooh, I can think of one Russophile commenter on Fenton's blog which that'll upset

What Starmer actually said

Of all the great achievements of the 1945 Labour government, one stands out on the world stage. The NHS may have the greatest impact on our daily lives, but it is the creation of Nato that ushered in what is now approaching three-quarters of a century of peace between the nations of Europe.

Nato is just one part of the rules-based international system that allows for collective action, but it is a vital one. It should be supported, and its resolve strengthened, not undermined by ill thought-out opposition. That is why Labour’s support for Nato remains as unwavering today as it was when we played an instrumental part in its formation. And that is why I regard both the Ns – Nato and the NHS – as legacies of that transformational Labour government that we need to be proud of and to protect.

Well TWA, did you expect anything less? To some, NATO = Western Imperialism = BAD.

Luckily the grown-ups are slapping it down.

I do hope he proscribes momentum, he does seem quite emboldened at the moment which is good.

Having a clue what Unite are actually on about. Local dispute with a local Labour council is now a war between Unite and Starmer.