Question Marks About Keir Starmer's Past - There's a Secret MSM Won't Touch

There's allegedly a secret lurking in Westminster that the MSM don't want to touch , it relates to Keir Starmers and may also involve Lord Alli.

Isabel Oakeshott is a former political editor of The Sunday Times so she knows her way around the Halls of power , she also has connections within the House and now she is sticking her head above the parapet to call out Starmer to come clean with the public.

Some kindly advice to Downing St spinners: persuade @Keir_Starmer to tell the media everything, now. Because we are having a lot of fun with this, and we won't stop digging.
If he just tells the truth, whatever it is, we will have nowhere left to go. What d'ya say?
x.com...

Isabel Oakeshott on Talk TV earlier.


If nothing else this government has political intrigue in spades.

Gone in 3 months ?

a reply to: gortex
The rumors about this highly touchy subject are totally wild.
I am sure you have read of them..


They are however bordering on the "get locked up for a year or two for saying nasty things" in our wonderful new political climate.

The crazy thing is the media are supposed to have known about this "whatever it is" for years!
And they sat on it for...reasons.

I have heard talk of the "whatever it is" being career ending for one or more very important people.

And the best part is- We WILL find out,as there is demand to know and money to be made!

a reply to: onestonemonkey

And the best part is- We WILL find out,as there is demand to know and money to be made!

It's just a matter of time mate , but it already looks bad and yeah Angela Rayner as PM.

Youtuber History Debunked speculates on "the secret" that's being ignored by MSM , if the speculation that's doing the rounds is true it could bring Starmer's house of cards crashing down.


A story from February this year regarding Starmer's biography.

Labour’s Keir Starmer was once “beaten up” after defending a gay friend, according to a new biography.

The incident took place in a Cornwall nightclub in the 80s, when the 61-year-old was a teenager, according to reports.

The politician recounted the story to Tom Baldwin, author of Keir Starmer: The Biography, details of which have been published by The Independent.

Starmer was working at a holiday centre for a disability charity at the time of the attack.

“Graham didn’t do much to conceal that he was gay,” Starmer remembers of his friend, with whom he has since lost contact, in the book.

“Some of the local kids decided the way to prove they weren’t gay too was by punching and kicking him.”

Starmer says he and his other friend then “got involved,” resulting in the trio getting beaten up.
uk.news.yahoo.com...

The truth will come out perhaps sooner rather than later given the number of people digging but if the truth is what is being speculated it would put Starmer's relationship with the first openly gay Muslim Lord in the House of Lords in a spectacularly different light.

The problem with secrets is people will speculate and look for the fire when they see the smoke.

a reply to: gortex

If all it was being gay, that it a DEI badge of honor these days. I don't know, public probably won't hear all the details as Bill Clinton had more in the closet than Monica Lewinsky. Going to be a tough job to find anyone in politics that has not done something stupid somewhere.

a reply to: kwaka

If all it was being gay, that it a DEI badge of honor these days.

If he was openly gay it wouldn't be a problem the problem comes if he has built his career on a lie and the openly gay person in the House of Lords who is giving money to him , his wife , party and his ministers is an integral part of the secret , the question remains why was that person given a security pass to Downing Street when he isn't part of the government.

The story will come out unless Starmer gets a court order stopping it and if he does that it will just confirm what is believed.

a reply to: gortex

Any secret a politician has, if found, could be used as leverage on too many levels.

Op-Ed from Isabel Oakeshott published today in the Telegraph.

His challenge now? Wafting away a growing stench of hypocrisy. That moral high horse of his, which he has spent the past three years riding, is looking more like a giraffe. Right now, it has its neck down, and Starmer is in grave danger of sliding off.

The difficulty is the sanctimonious air he adopted throughout “Partygate” and Boris Johnson’s troubles with gold wallpaper. Sir Keir led voters to believe that he was a different kind of politician, who would never grub around in such a way.
The earnest image he sold voters now looks like a massive fraud.

As for his secret best friend, squillionaire Lord Alli, you’ve got to hand it to him. The man has played an absolute blinder. Like a kind of reverse Where’s Wally, the wealthy peer with the Downing Street pass seems to be absolutely everywhere.

Somewhere in the middle of an increasingly dizzying picture is our prime minister – looking increasingly furtive.
www.yahoo.com...

Sunday is normally the day for big revelations , I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

Labour's MP for Canterbury Rosie Duffield has today quit the party with her strongly worded resignation letter citing the sleaze and nepotism of Starmers government.

"The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party," she wrote.

"Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous.

"I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear."
news.sky.com...

Congratulations Ms Duffield.

Ginger beer! Eeerrr, allegedly.

The latest poll from Opinium makes more grim reading for Starmer , his net approval rating has sunk to -30% with his disapproval rating about -55%

x.com...

Rosie Duffield's full and scathing resignation letter to Kier Starmer.

Dear Sir Keir,

Usually letters like this begin, "It is with a heavy heart..." Mine has been increasingly heavy and conflicted and has longed for a degree of relief.

I can no longer stay a Labour MP under your management of the party, and this letter is my notice that I wish to resign the Labour Party whip with immediate effect.

Although many "last straws" have led to my decision, my reason for leaving now is the programme of policies you seem determined to stick to, however unpopular they are with the electorate and your own MPs.

You repeat often that you will make the "tough decisions" and that the country is "all in this together". But those decisions do not directly affect any one of us in Parliament. They are cruel and unnecessary, and affect hundreds of thousands of our poorest, most vulnerable constituents.

This is not what I was elected to do. It is not even wise politics, and it certainly is not "the politics of service".

I did not vote for you to lead our party for reasons I won't describe in detail here. But, as someone elevated immediately to a shadow cabinet position without following the usual path of honing your political skills on the backbenches, you had very little previous political footprint. It was therefore unclear what your political passions, drive or direction might be as the leader of the Labour Party, a large movement of people united by a desire for social justice and support for those most in need.

You also made the choice not to speak up once about the Labour Party's problems with antisemitism during your time in the shadow cabinet, leaving that to backbenchers, including new MPs such as me.

Since you took office as Leader of the Opposition you have used various heavy-handed management tactics but have never shown what most experienced backbenchers would recognise as true or inspiring leadership.

You have never regularly engaged with your own backbench MPs, many of whom have been in Parliament far longer than you, and some of whom served in the previous Labour government.

You have chosen neither to seek our individual political opinions, nor learn about our constituency experiences, nor our specific or collective areas of political knowledge. We clearly have nothing you deem to be of value.

Your promotion of those with no proven political skills and no previous parliamentary experience but who happen to be related to those close to you, or even each other, is frankly embarrassing.

In particular, the recent treatment of Diane Abbott, now Mother of the House, was deeply shameful and led to comments from voters across the political spectrum. A woman of her political stature and place in history is deserving of respect and support, regardless of political differences.

As Prime Minister, your managerial and technocratic approach, and lack of basic politics and political instincts, have come crashing down on us as a party after we worked so hard, promised so much, and waited a long fourteen years to be mandated by the British public to return to power.

Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous. I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear.

How dare you take our longed-for victory, the electorate's sacred and precious trust, and throw it back in their individual faces and the faces of dedicated and hardworking Labour MPs?! The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.

Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives' two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp - this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour Prime Minister. Forcing a vote to make many older people iller and colder while you and your favourite colleagues enjoy free family trips to events most people would have to save hard for - why are you not showing even the slightest bit of embarrassment or remorse?

I now have no confidence in your commitment to deliver the so-called "change" you promised during the General Election campaign and the changes we have been striving for as a political party for over a decade.

My values are those of a democratic socialist Labour Party and I have been elected three times to act on those values on behalf of my constituents. Canterbury made history when its voters elected their first woman, and only non-Conservative, MP since the seat was created in the thirteenth century.

My constituents elected an independent-minded MP who vowed to put constituency before party, and to keep tackling the issues that most affect us here - Brexit fallout, funding for our universities, our desperately struggling East Kent NHS, dire housing situation, repeated sewage pollution and protecting our vital green spaces.

I am confident that I can continue to do so as an independent MP guided by my core Labour values.

Sadly, the Labour Party has never shown any interest in my wonderful constituency in the seven years that I have been in Parliament. But I am proud of my community and will continue to serve them to the best of my ability.

My constituents care deeply about social issues such as child poverty and helping those who cannot help themselves. I will continue to uphold those values as I pledged to do when I first stood before them for election in 2017.

As someone who joined a trade union in my first job, at seventeen, Labour has always been my natural political home. I was elected as a single mum, a former teaching assistant in receipt of tax credits. The Labour Party was formed to speak for those of us without a voice, and I stood for election partly because I saw decisions about the lives of those like me being made in Westminster by only the most privileged few. Right now, I cannot look my constituents in the eye and tell them that anything has changed. I hope to be able to return to the party in the future, when it again resembles the party I love, putting the needs of the many before the greed of the few.

Yours sincerely,

Rosie Duffield MP

news.sky.com...

Just read he has got himself a super injunction to stop anyone discussing his secret and lurid history.

If that isnt hideously fishy then I dont know what else is.

a reply to: SprocketUK
Agreed!
Rainbows
Jane

In the UK if you take out an injuction against someone or some business entity-those who you take out the injuction on are allowed to say that you have taken out the injuction.

If you take out a "Super" Injuction that means those who you have taken out the Super injuction on are not allowed to say that an injuction has been taken out against them or even exists.

When used against the press as I assume is beng done in this case-it is an effective "legal" way to get around our pesky rules governing our free press.


If the story is of public interest-it should be printed.
Why might this story be of publc interest?

IMO-Because it is being hidden.
Its something highly shifty-or why hide it?

And today-Lord Ali is being probed-no,not like that-

This is for "alleged non-registration of interests leading to potential breaches of paragraphs 14(a) and 17 of the thirteenth edition of the code of conduct".
These rules relate to making clear what the interests are that might be reasonably thought to influence a member's parliamentary actions and ensuring entries are up-to-date.

news.sky.com...-body

And whats this?
Chummy meetings with Bashar Al Assad you say?
order-order.com... -be-removed/

This guy is a very busy chappie.

a reply to: onestonemonkey

Chummy meetings with Bashar Al Assad you say?

Good investigative journalism from Guido Fawkes who goes where MSM fear to tread , he also has news on the "shape of Kier Starmer's family" , the secret may not be a secret much longer.
He revealed on Dan Wootton Outspoken that “We have a name & a birth certificate!”.

If Keir Starmer did not have an extramarital affair resulting in a pregnancy, then he must immediately sue me and failure to do so can only be considered tantamount to a confession of guilt. I will provide my full name and address to any legal representative who contacts me.
x.com...

a reply to: gortex
Wow-this could get wild.
IF that is legit-

Whos the Mother?
Imagine if it was a famous tory,or if the husband does not yet know-that could be sketchy!

Is the hypothetical child recognized by the biological father and is the father paying the kids upkeep etc?
Probably the worst case scenario would be if biological father was denying the existence if the kid and not paying for him/her.

THAT would be something biological father would want kept out of the press for sure.

a reply to: onestonemonkey

All good questions but as yet unanswered , Guido is tying up the lose ends before he publishes what he knows , it's up to Starmer to either get ahead of the story or deal with the consequences when it's published.

In Prime Ministers Questions today when asked if he's going to give the Falkland Islands away like he just did with the Chagos Islands Sarmer said "My uncle nearly lost his life when his ship was torpedoed defending the Falklands war."

No British ships were torpedoed in the Falklands war.