From Jimmy Savile to Peter Mandelson, Starmer has followed a trajectory of career-enhancing ignorance. He knows far more than he lets on. It's the reason, after all, why he was knighted
Starmer would do well to look at Jim Collins description of a Level 5 leader. ‘Level 5 leaders look out the window to attribute success to factors other than themselves. When things go poorly, however, they look in the mirror and blame themselves, taking full responsibility. The comparison CEOs often did just the opposite—they looked in the mirror to take credit for success, but out the window to assign blame for disappointing results.’ Blaming Olly Robbins for his stupid and ill-judged decision to appoint Mandleson was an unjust and self-serving decision which has exposed Starmer’s lack of leadership capabilities.
He needs to take more responsibility. Period. Stopping pawning your job onto others and take accountability, like you promised you would when Boris was in charge in 2022.
For me, what underpins all of the above is how deeply corrupt and treasonous Starmer is. Despite having been a human rights lawyer, he is utterly without ethics or morals.
Amazing how "stupid" these supposedly "smart" politicians are when it comes to the whys and hows they became involved with immoral people like Mandelson and Saville. They really can't have it both ways. They're either imbeciles or they are on the take. Which one is better depends on if you like being fooled or not.
Didn't we Labour members who supported Corbyn and his policies with all our hearts, know that Starmer was a liar and a hypocrite? I begged my friends not to vote for him to be leader, but they'd been fooled by his protestations of honesty and promises to follow Corbyn's policy goals. He's turned out worse than we could ever have imagined. Thanks, Jonathan, for taking the lid off this can of purulent worms.
A shining example of mediocrity prevalent in the Western political puppet class. As Roger Waters would say, lower than a snake. I remember the look he gave Boris 'and his' Johnson when accused of Saville skullduggery at PMQs... Might still be somewhere on the web, would imagine in Hansard... Tells you all you need to know.
Let's not forget McSweeney, Ahmed Khan, the CCDH and their censorship regime in tandem with the Intel agencies rolled out for the scamdemic... Utter, unambiguous filth.
How pathetic can this dumbing down of standards get? Following the public loss of credibility of corrupt Boris et al, in particular partying at No. 10 while the nation was in covid lock down, the promise of accountability and leading by example that swept Starmer into power shrivels up as a woefully inadequate fig leaf!🍃
How did his backers not spot how bad he was at politics? Or had his stint as (supposed) Brexit opponent ("Ref 2") at least for a while, covered it up? A then Labour comrade told me Starmer was "a political novice" and she was right. I confess I'd been fooled, tho' my excuse is I didn't know anything about him, after all, he'd seemed to come from nowhere (politically).
Was there no-one else so "trusted" by -- if there's such a thing -- the deep state much better at doing the politics? Or was it that he was so pliant, a man with even fewer political/ ideological convictions than Boris Johnson?
We've had such a dreadful bad run of prime ministers in recent years. Is that fact a symptom of declining state, end of empire, or has it been a cause of our anomie? (Some politicians and others do still seem to hanker after Empire.)
"Nobody told me, I didn't know" is such a shabby non-excuse for his failing. In a way it seems to me that it's irrelevant that he didn't know (assuming against the odds that he's telling the truth). A more savvy PM would at least have waited until *after* the UKSV procedures before announcing Mandy's appointment. Why the rush? Did he just assume it was all a formality, foregone conclusion?
Quite apart from a basic review of "Petie"'s well-known previous history in office. Larry the cat could have told him.
I did think he'd be gone by this evening, fool me. It's as if I still can't quite believe the depth of his perfidy, even though consciously I do. He's pernicious.
I accept that, all possible -- MI5/6/CIA connections, circumstantial evidence. But he was / is just so bad at politics!! It's like looking at a roll of cotton wool when he's interviewed or speaking on stage. Unless it was that earlier in his career he was so bland that anyone could read into him whatever they wanted to find. "They" could have settled on a Tory (a real one) I suppose but after a run of bad Tory PMs it had to be Labour, and probably easier to control a leader so much on the rebound from Jeremy C. He simply had to be everything that Corbyn wasn't and make a reputation ejecting the left.
Ah, OK, I did. I voted for JC first time around, but not after the "chicken coup". I thought by then he really wasn't up to it (I compared with how I imagined Denis Healey, say, would have dealt with the onslaught, even tho DH was from the opp wing of the party, but you know what I mean -- the interview with Andrew Neil was probably the most excruciating thing I've seen on TV, at least in politics).
But I still think Corbyn was always the wrong person (given our media) to have been put in the position of having to "sell" Corbynism (= sheer decency) to the electorate. I don't even think a purist socialism (let alone communism) works for human beings (not in the way it works for social insects for whom the colony is all, the individual nothing by itself -- there are good biological reasons for that embedded in our very different reproductive strategies).
Corbyn wasn't offering socialism but a mixed social democracy. He probably wasn't aggressive enough, intellectually tough enough, to fight establishment, military, "deep state" whatever that is, the capitalist interests, the Zionists (non-Jewish as well as Jewish). Or simply too darned nice. (I used to wonder why he didn't take legal action against the smears of antisemitism, but thought he was probably right, whether deep down he wanted to or not -- it's a battle that's extremely difficult to win.
Pointless now to wonder what might (not) have been had he, against the odds, made it to No. 10. Could we have been in a worse position? Could we have been in a better one? I still like to believe, despite all, things would have been better for us. (And that's even taking into account his anti-EU positions. Life is complex.)
A foreign agent has not only been installed as prime minster, but has also sat for years on the inside of activist movements spying on them as their human rights lawyer and counselor. Wow.
Starmer would do well to look at Jim Collins description of a Level 5 leader. ‘Level 5 leaders look out the window to attribute success to factors other than themselves. When things go poorly, however, they look in the mirror and blame themselves, taking full responsibility. The comparison CEOs often did just the opposite—they looked in the mirror to take credit for success, but out the window to assign blame for disappointing results.’ Blaming Olly Robbins for his stupid and ill-judged decision to appoint Mandleson was an unjust and self-serving decision which has exposed Starmer’s lack of leadership capabilities.
Duplicitous man so obvious will thriw anyone under the bus
He needs to take more responsibility. Period. Stopping pawning your job onto others and take accountability, like you promised you would when Boris was in charge in 2022.
For me, what underpins all of the above is how deeply corrupt and treasonous Starmer is. Despite having been a human rights lawyer, he is utterly without ethics or morals.
Amazing how "stupid" these supposedly "smart" politicians are when it comes to the whys and hows they became involved with immoral people like Mandelson and Saville. They really can't have it both ways. They're either imbeciles or they are on the take. Which one is better depends on if you like being fooled or not.
Didn't we Labour members who supported Corbyn and his policies with all our hearts, know that Starmer was a liar and a hypocrite? I begged my friends not to vote for him to be leader, but they'd been fooled by his protestations of honesty and promises to follow Corbyn's policy goals. He's turned out worse than we could ever have imagined. Thanks, Jonathan, for taking the lid off this can of purulent worms.
Sir Keir Starmer in a nutshell....
"For nearly two decades, his job has been to do exactly what the British establishment has demanded of him."
I think it will be shown how much he is owned by the Israeli lobby more than the British establishment.
Brilliant...
Yes. Treasonable behaviour fein the start
It is not unreasonable to expect that should the death penalty be voted in, he be among those to be executed.
Keith reminds me of 'Brown Bottle' from Viz....
A shining example of mediocrity prevalent in the Western political puppet class. As Roger Waters would say, lower than a snake. I remember the look he gave Boris 'and his' Johnson when accused of Saville skullduggery at PMQs... Might still be somewhere on the web, would imagine in Hansard... Tells you all you need to know.
Let's not forget McSweeney, Ahmed Khan, the CCDH and their censorship regime in tandem with the Intel agencies rolled out for the scamdemic... Utter, unambiguous filth.
How pathetic can this dumbing down of standards get? Following the public loss of credibility of corrupt Boris et al, in particular partying at No. 10 while the nation was in covid lock down, the promise of accountability and leading by example that swept Starmer into power shrivels up as a woefully inadequate fig leaf!🍃
Fool me once....wow, we got an identikit Johnson without the laughs and womanising.
Sounds like typical British Politics: after all, the US and Israel based their notion of Truth and Justice via Colonial rape on the British model.
Starmer wasn't "in the dark"--he is The Dark! So also the rest of the shady cabal.
How did his backers not spot how bad he was at politics? Or had his stint as (supposed) Brexit opponent ("Ref 2") at least for a while, covered it up? A then Labour comrade told me Starmer was "a political novice" and she was right. I confess I'd been fooled, tho' my excuse is I didn't know anything about him, after all, he'd seemed to come from nowhere (politically).
Was there no-one else so "trusted" by -- if there's such a thing -- the deep state much better at doing the politics? Or was it that he was so pliant, a man with even fewer political/ ideological convictions than Boris Johnson?
We've had such a dreadful bad run of prime ministers in recent years. Is that fact a symptom of declining state, end of empire, or has it been a cause of our anomie? (Some politicians and others do still seem to hanker after Empire.)
"Nobody told me, I didn't know" is such a shabby non-excuse for his failing. In a way it seems to me that it's irrelevant that he didn't know (assuming against the odds that he's telling the truth). A more savvy PM would at least have waited until *after* the UKSV procedures before announcing Mandy's appointment. Why the rush? Did he just assume it was all a formality, foregone conclusion?
Quite apart from a basic review of "Petie"'s well-known previous history in office. Larry the cat could have told him.
I did think he'd be gone by this evening, fool me. It's as if I still can't quite believe the depth of his perfidy, even though consciously I do. He's pernicious.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/pernicious
The reality is -as Jonathan implies - Starmer is a Manchurian candidate.
I accept that, all possible -- MI5/6/CIA connections, circumstantial evidence. But he was / is just so bad at politics!! It's like looking at a roll of cotton wool when he's interviewed or speaking on stage. Unless it was that earlier in his career he was so bland that anyone could read into him whatever they wanted to find. "They" could have settled on a Tory (a real one) I suppose but after a run of bad Tory PMs it had to be Labour, and probably easier to control a leader so much on the rebound from Jeremy C. He simply had to be everything that Corbyn wasn't and make a reputation ejecting the left.
I don't think I said anything about Corbyn here. Did I?
Ah, OK, I did. I voted for JC first time around, but not after the "chicken coup". I thought by then he really wasn't up to it (I compared with how I imagined Denis Healey, say, would have dealt with the onslaught, even tho DH was from the opp wing of the party, but you know what I mean -- the interview with Andrew Neil was probably the most excruciating thing I've seen on TV, at least in politics).
But I still think Corbyn was always the wrong person (given our media) to have been put in the position of having to "sell" Corbynism (= sheer decency) to the electorate. I don't even think a purist socialism (let alone communism) works for human beings (not in the way it works for social insects for whom the colony is all, the individual nothing by itself -- there are good biological reasons for that embedded in our very different reproductive strategies).
Corbyn wasn't offering socialism but a mixed social democracy. He probably wasn't aggressive enough, intellectually tough enough, to fight establishment, military, "deep state" whatever that is, the capitalist interests, the Zionists (non-Jewish as well as Jewish). Or simply too darned nice. (I used to wonder why he didn't take legal action against the smears of antisemitism, but thought he was probably right, whether deep down he wanted to or not -- it's a battle that's extremely difficult to win.
Pointless now to wonder what might (not) have been had he, against the odds, made it to No. 10. Could we have been in a worse position? Could we have been in a better one? I still like to believe, despite all, things would have been better for us. (And that's even taking into account his anti-EU positions. Life is complex.)
A foreign agent has not only been installed as prime minster, but has also sat for years on the inside of activist movements spying on them as their human rights lawyer and counselor. Wow.