Comments by "" (@charliemoore2551) on "The New Statesman" channel.

This harks back to Stalin's purges: You frame one person, in this case, Loach, then you get rid of the people you don't like for associating with them. Pretty soon, you'll see people being un-personed for associating with Driscoll. It's actually frightening - though clearly not to these New-New Labour talking heads. They seem to consider it to be quite acceptable.
40
It's not remotely "amazing" that Starmer would keep this. He's got plenty planned where it will be useful to be able to stifle protest.
17
@briandelaney9710 um no. That wasn't the comparison. The point was about one person being framed and others then being found guilty by association with them.
7
@petergaskinuk-1785 If you want to deny that his record of perfidy and betrayal is evidence, it's fine by me. And your name-calling says more about you than abour me.
2
@Tr1ckady Evidence? That's easy. Everything he says and everything he does. He has progressively reneged on 7 of the 10 pledges he made to become leader. He has made it clear that his economic policy is going to be a watered down version of the Tories' policy, that he is going to continue the NHS "reforms" (privatisations) started by Blair and developed by the Tories. His tax policies will continue to favour the rich. His foreign policy will subordinate the UK to the aims of the US and Israel. He will deny Scotland its democratic right to decide its own future. And, to crown it all, this past weekend, at the conference of the Orwellianly named "Progressive Britain", he actually admitted to being a Tory! How much more evidence do you want?
1
"That's why Labour won such a big majority" What utter nonsense. Labour's majority (and the Lib Dem recovery) is entirely due to the Tory collapse in votes. Both the Labour and Lib Dem vote actually fell. It will only take a relatively small Conservative recovery to wipe out both - especially if Labour loses even more support on the left through actions like cutting the winter fuel allowance and supporting the genocidal Israeli government.
1
As a leftist independence (and sometimes SNP) supporter I reject the notion that it sees itself as uniquely virtuous or even that leftist. It generally falls slightly to the left of the three Westminster parties but that doesn't really say much. Its economics are slightly less neoliberal than Labour's but, again, that's not much to shout about. Primarily, it is a broad church, an ideological mixture similar to where the Labour Party stood about 50 years ago with Marxists and progressive Social Democrats on one side and a few people (like Fergus Ewing) who wouldn't have been out of place in the pre-Thatcher Tory Party on the other. There's no great disaster taking place right now. All that's happening is a wee settling down after an extraordinary period of advancing. It might have stepped back a little (the election will tell us by how much, if at all) but it's way further forward than it was 10 years ago and that's not going to change.
1
The Right of the Conservative Party is a mirror image (and a more successful one) of the Militant Tendency. The links to US neoliberals, Italian Fascists and Eastern European authoritiarianism are not coincidental. These people are as disgusted by MacMillan/Eisenhower style Conservatism as the Trots were of Clement Atlee. The more important difference is, of course, that they are backed by a massive pool of funding. They have never won any arguments, whether political or economic, but they still succeed in their aims because of that backing. They are very dangerous indeed.
1
No-one has EVER turned left after taking office. Starmer is even more right wing than Blair and he recently admitted that his mission was to build on Thatcherism than reverse it. Starmer and Reeves, having purged everyone from the PLP who would oppose them, will be full steam neoliberalism: The final destruction of the project which began with Keir Hardie.
1