That Starmer fella...

Goes without saying Starmer knew all about this from day one and chose to not only readmit those named in the Labour Leaks report but also to try and kick this report into the long grass for as long as possible until the hottest day of the fucking century. He knew. And he covered it up.

So if you're still a Starmer supporter, you are fine with lies, deception, cover-ups, throwing elections and undermining your own party because it helps your faction take back control of the party. That's the long and the short of it.

I thought this report was related to the period before Starmer?

The report is entirely related to the period before Starmer took over leadership. Those who are now in Starmer's inner circle or have since been readmitted to the party after temporary suspensions are implicated in the report and retain their positions to this day. Those who took part in obfuscating and delaying investigations into antisemitism retain their positions. Those who overstated the extent of antisemitism in the party or who sought to obstruct investigations into those accused of antisemitism retain their positions.

The former leader who pointed out as much has the whip withdrawn.

Starmer knew about all of this from day one. He was likely involved. He kicked the report down the road as long as he could. He tried to hide the findings and now he's trying to present them as something they're not. He's as guilty as those he tried to protect. If you support him in this, you're complicit.

But it's way bigger than the antisemitism investigations. It's the throwing elections and the horrendous racist abuse dished out by Starmer's current inner circle towards left-wing members of the party and MPs that's also in play here and also disgusting. Starmer's position should be untenable after this. That it won't be is because of our utterly rotten system that also knew of this shit all along and failed to bring it to everyone's attention.

Doesn't sound like the delay was anything to do with the Labour party.

Inquiry chief Martin Forde QC had hoped to publish his findings in early 2021.
But he said they had been put on hold while the Information Commissioner's Office completed its own probe.

Edit: Also, wasn't the report independent?

The report was independent and was not in any way in conflict with the ICO report, which made it puzzling why it was delayed. But it was commissioned by the Labour Party, so it was down to the leadership when to publish.

I mean, you're giving them an awful lot of benefit for the doubt here. It could have been published 18 months ago. Should you not be asking why the delay? If not for 'kicking it down the road' purposes?

The takeaway from this report should be: what if the faction I thought was the sensible, nice, caring, liberal faction was, in fact, a bunch of conniving twats more interested in their own status than the good of the people they have been charged with representing?

And if you're asking yourself that question (which you should be), then perhaps the answer is: they always were and you've been had.

No one likes admitting they were taken for a ride. But there comes a time.

I don't know the agreed rules when the report was commissioned but my personal experience of independent reports is once commissioned and paid for, if the contract was "publish and be damned" there's no room to withhold publishing. In much the same way you would say there's a no editing clause.

No real skin in this game, ill probably vote labour or libdem depending on who could unseat my Tory MP. I voted labour last time to for the same reasons and have floating voted all my life.

Labour commissioned the report and it was up to the current leadership when it was published.

In all honesty, I thought they'd carry on kicking it into the long grass, but perhaps they thought enough judicious instances of 'both sides' in it would make people think it was less damning that it really is. I don't know. I've given up trying to work out what kind of 5D chess the current Labour strategists think they're playing. Maybe they thought people would no longer give a shit and, by the looks of it, they're right.

I won't fucking forget, however.

Edit. Poor taste. Removed.

LOL. You know I can see that, right?

The report specifically addresses whether anyone tried to throw any election and concludes they didn't. It makes that point repeatedly. Not sure why you're claiming it says the opposite.

Here's that 'not throwing elections', earlier...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/forde-report-labour-jeremy-corbyn-2017-election-b2126500.html

Sorry, I am basing that comment on the report, not how it is reported in the press. Page 70 onwards

What, the bit where it says: "Did factionalism influence decisions about strategy and resource allocation?" and the answer is: "Yes."?

Or do 'Ergon House rules' apply here?

I haven't read the report. It's 800 pages long. Which makes me think you haven't either.

Your interpretation of the various press summaries are, shall we say, niche.

Edit: the earlier leaked form was 800+ pages long or so I read yesterday. Can't find the source now so maybe I imagined it. The final report is 136 pages double columned. Maybe I will read it then.

The Guardian s pretty specific on this but I haven't seen any other media outlets disagree yet.

One of the key allegations of the 2020 leak was that Labour staff hostile to Corbyn ran a parallel campaign in the 2017 general election, which could have cost the party the chance of winning power.

The Forde report concluded this was “highly unlikely” while noting that the two sides “were trying to win in different ways”, based in part on seeking support for MPs they favoured.

That isn't "trying to throw elections" though. A question which the report expressly asks, and answers - and says that neither side wanted to throw elections. It was such a surprising claim from you (and at odds with how the press reported it) that I read those sections of the original report.

Did HQ staff stick to a defensive strategy in bad faith, because they wanted to lose the election? No. We find the HQ staff genuinely considered that a primarily defensive strategy would secure the best result for the Party, and we have not seen evidence to suggest such a strategy was advanced in bad faith. More broadly the evidence available to us did not support claims that HQ staff wanted the Party to do badly in the 2017 general election (though many expected to it to, and some had mixed feelings about what the better than anticipated result would mean for the Party’s future and for their own roles.)

If a decision made in good faith that turns out to (maybe) negatively impact GE performance meets the definition of "throwing an election" then the election of Corbyn as leader also constitutes throwing the election!

Utterly shambolic clusterfuck but no organised coup.

The report does not reflect well on Corbyn either.

Overwhelming democratic mandate constitutes throwing an election. Interesting viewpoint.

There's a big difference between the two strategies in that one side had a massive democratic mandate to do what it was doing and the other were acting like a bunch of spoilt brats, independently and in secret. Not what I'd label 'good faith'.

Is undermining the leadership during an election campaign by operating a clandestine system to channel money away from winnable seats towards already safe seats occupied by your own faction OK, then?

I mean, were the situation reversed and a left-wing faction with absolutely no democratic mandate did that in the forthcoming general election to protect MPs from its own faction, would you think it was fine and in no way undermining the leadership?

Is undermining the leadership during an election campaign by operating a clandestine system to channel money away from winnable seats towards already safe seats occupied by your own faction OK, then?

No, its a total failure of leadership to allow it to happen.

Besides, the report only highlighted a small amount of it. Wasn't it something like £150k spent on leaflets in total?

I'm not sure that creating a budget code in the finance system to pay for some campaign leaflets qualifies as a clandestine system to channel money away from winnable seats.