What sort of Prime Minister would Starmer make?

nightowl

There are plenty of sources online which confirm Grany’s post about David Lammy attending the Bildenburg meeting. As it is a secretive organisation, we are unlikely to ever know what was discussed or agreed there (you can find the agenda but nothing else).

Formed in the mid-1950s as a joint project of British and US intelligence, the conference has kept its cards so close to its chest that the world’s press has given up trying to get a glimpse of them.
Source: the Guardian.

Make if it what you will, but I find it very scary.

Maybe it's a case of 'know your enemy'.

Or, 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer'...

There is, inevitably, a wikipedia page on the Bilderbrg conferences:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilderberg_meeting&action=history

It has an interesting quote from a former Chair of the Steering Committee

In 2005, Davignon discussed accusations of the group striving for a one-world government with the BBC: "It is unavoidable and it doesn't matter. There will always be people who believe in conspiracies but things happen in a much more incoherent fashion. ... When people say this is a secret government of the world I say that if we were a secret government of the world we should be bloody ashamed of ourselves."[

I have to say that I subscribe more to the 'incoherence' theory than I do to conspiracy theories.

I don't think anyone did draw attention to the "doubtful connections". They more or less suggested a conspiracy theory because Kings, Queens, Princes, various Chancellors, Prime Ministers, Presidents and Ministers of Finance attend a meeting to discuss and share thinking on World Finance. The problem is that they don't then splash what they have been talking about in our gutter press. There's a surprise.

Isn't it interesting when our far-left begins to share the same views as America's far-right?

Oops. That's the second time a quote has disappeared. My last post was in reply to Glorianny's last one.

I think Keir Starmer would make a very fair Prime Minister; it is the Labour Party who would make a disastrous government.

DaisyAnne

I don't think anyone did draw attention to the "doubtful connections". They more or less suggested a conspiracy theory because Kings, Queens, Princes, various Chancellors, Prime Ministers, Presidents and Ministers of Finance attend a meeting to discuss and share thinking on World Finance. The problem is that they don't then splash what they have been talking about in our gutter press. There's a surprise.

Isn't it interesting when our far-left begins to share the same views as America's far-right?

If you are referring to anti-globalisation DaisyAnne I think most on the left are opposed to the form globalisation now takes. That is globalisation for the benefit of the rich and powerful. Most recognise globalisation is happening, but want it to be based on human rights and not on private profit.

Naom Chomsky said The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity—that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems

I don't think MPs should attend a meeting which is held in private and be unable to discuss what they learned there.

Casdon this is the link to the Guardian article I quoted (which does not confirm David Lammy’s attendance)

amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/04/bilderberg-reconvenes-in-person-after-two-year-pandemic-gap

You may not think these are reputable links but there are quite a few of them, and none have been contradicted so far as far as I’m aware.

labourheartlands.com/bilderberg-2022-politicians-from-michael-gove-to-david-lammy-to-discuss-our-futures-in-secret-with-no-accountability/

m.thewire.in/article/macro/the-secretive-bilderberg-group-is-a-key-to-the-global-power-elite/amp

skwawkbox.org/2022/09/04/lammy-attends-elite-bilderberg-conference-funded-by-former-intelligence-chiefs-company/?utm_campaign=lammy-attends-elite-bilderberg-conference-funded-by-former-intelligence-chiefs-company&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss&

There are more. I’m happy to be proved wrong if David Lammy or his representatives issue a denial. Believe it if not, I desperately want a Labour Party to believe in.

Doodledog

*I've always thought Andy Burnham would make an excellent leader. Maybe once he's finished his mayoral duties*

Absolutely. I would vote for him over Keir if we ever get the choice.

Another vote for Andy Burnham from me

Glorianny

DaisyAnne

I don't think anyone did draw attention to the "doubtful connections". They more or less suggested a conspiracy theory because Kings, Queens, Princes, various Chancellors, Prime Ministers, Presidents and Ministers of Finance attend a meeting to discuss and share thinking on World Finance. The problem is that they don't then splash what they have been talking about in our gutter press. There's a surprise.

Isn't it interesting when our far-left begins to share the same views as America's far-right?

If you are referring to anti-globalisation DaisyAnne I think most on the left are opposed to the form globalisation now takes. That is globalisation for the benefit of the rich and powerful. Most recognise globalisation is happening, but want it to be based on human rights and not on private profit.

Naom Chomsky said The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity—that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems

I don't think MPs should attend a meeting which is held in private and be unable to discuss what they learned there.

Why would you think I would accept the madness that is Noam Chomsky as justification of a conspiracy theory.

Someone else may. Not me.

We shouldn’t forget Andy Burnham stood twice in leadership contests. The left preferred Corbyn. Burnham is a strong mayor but remains unpopular with the left.
There are rumours of a local mp in a safe seat standing down so AB can become an Mp again. I’d like to see him back as an MP. I don’t believe the LP would benefit from a leadership contest currently

Iam64

We shouldn’t forget Andy Burnham stood twice in leadership contests. The left preferred Corbyn. Burnham is a strong mayor but remains unpopular with the left.
There are rumours of a local mp in a safe seat standing down so AB can become an Mp again. I’d like to see him back as an MP. I don’t believe the LP would benefit from a leadership contest currently

Andy Burnham is doing a very good job. I hope those for whom he is Mayor don't see him attempt to be an MP again. His current role is so important. On the other hand, he would bring what he has learned to the Labour Party. Oh dear, that's me back on the fence again. I shall think about it.

nightowl

Casdon this is the link to the Guardian article I quoted (which does not confirm David Lammy’s attendance)

amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/04/bilderberg-reconvenes-in-person-after-two-year-pandemic-gap

You may not think these are reputable links but there are quite a few of them, and none have been contradicted so far as far as I’m aware.

labourheartlands.com/bilderberg-2022-politicians-from-michael-gove-to-david-lammy-to-discuss-our-futures-in-secret-with-no-accountability/

m.thewire.in/article/macro/the-secretive-bilderberg-group-is-a-key-to-the-global-power-elite/amp

skwawkbox.org/2022/09/04/lammy-attends-elite-bilderberg-conference-funded-by-former-intelligence-chiefs-company/?utm_campaign=lammy-attends-elite-bilderberg-conference-funded-by-former-intelligence-chiefs-company&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss&

There are more. I’m happy to be proved wrong if David Lammy or his representatives issue a denial. Believe it if not, I desperately want a Labour Party to believe in.

I’ve read the Guardian article now, thanks nightowl, I don’t know why it didn’t come up on my search, presumably because Lammy wasn’t mentioned by name. All of the other sites are on the left wing propaganda arm. Now I’ve understood more what the Bilderburg conference is though, I’m not surprised that Lammy couldn’t discuss it publicly, he would not have been allowed to, I would imagine it was classified information. If Labour had not sent a representative, I’m not clear what you think would have been gained in moving the party forward in understanding the global issues we are facing.

Starmer doesn't know what a woman is, even though he married one. I lot of woman won't vote for him, for this reason. He's been Stonewalled!

Gossamerbeynon1945

Starmer doesn't know what a woman is, even though he married one. I lot of woman won't vote for him, for this reason. He's been Stonewalled!

Boris of course knows what a woman is-someone you F***, get pregnant and abandon. Even I can't castigate Starmer for his treatment of women.

There's a full list of the participants at Bilderberg here www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2022/participants-2022
Gove, Lammy and Turgenhat seem to be the three MPs there.
I still don't think it is in the interests of democracy for any elected representative to attend a meeting where one of the conditions is that you shouldn't discuss what is said. Apparently this is to enable people to speak freely. I'm sure there were meetings like this in Germany at the start of WW2 where they came up with the final solution.

Glorianny

There's a full list of the participants at Bilderberg here www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2022/participants-2022
Gove, Lammy and Turgenhat seem to be the three MPs there.
I still don't think it is in the interests of democracy for any elected representative to attend a meeting where one of the conditions is that you shouldn't discuss what is said. Apparently this is to enable people to speak freely. I'm sure there were meetings like this in Germany at the start of WW2 where they came up with the final solution.

This was an international meeting though Glorianny chaired by the Secretary General of NATO. It doesn’t compare in any way with Hitler’s Germany. In those circumstances, castigating the Labour Party representative for being there and not reporting back confidential discussion is not appropriate in my opinion.

I'm a bit stunned that people think that it's appropriate for Labour politicians to be unaware of what is being discussed at an international meeting.

Know your bl**dy enemy, Glorianny. And you don't get to know them by depending on third party suppositions and interpretations.

DaisyAnne

Iam64

Grany, You only post criticisms of Labour ministers and the leader. You never criticise the conservatives.
Heaven help us if people who see themselves as left of centre are so focussed on destroying the Labour Party we end up with 5 more years of Tory misrule. Devastating public services, no real concern for people on minimum wage or the nhs. Criminal justice in melt down. Yet you’re focussed on some so far unsubstantiated slur on David lammy

Grany only wants to be a warrior, not a have a government doing what she believes in Iam. To win would be to lose the warrior status. I find her very easy to ignore these days as nothing she says adds to the reality of life in the UK and simply continues to attack her own party - very strange.

I do find this a very rude comment about Grany
it is true that Grany does not like Mr Starmer and is to the left possibly of some Labour voters, but there are a lot of people who say the same thing so it is the reality of life in the UK.
the Labour Party is just as split as the Conservative Party today.

MaizieD

I'm a bit stunned that people think that it's appropriate for Labour politicians to be unaware of what is being discussed at an international meeting.

Know your bl**dy enemy, Glorianny. And you don't get to know them by depending on third party suppositions and interpretations.

If Lammy or any other MP attended then leaked exactly what had been discussed MaizieD I would wholeheartedly support their attendance. But they are not doing that. As elected representatives they have absolutely no right to attend a meeting where they undertake such a commitment. If one of their constituents was to go into a surgery and ask what was said at the meeting they have an obligation to answer them.
It isn't much use being aware of what is discussed when part of your undertaking is that you won't talk about it.

Glorianny

MaizieD

I'm a bit stunned that people think that it's appropriate for Labour politicians to be unaware of what is being discussed at an international meeting.

Know your bl**dy enemy, Glorianny. And you don't get to know them by depending on third party suppositions and interpretations.

If Lammy or any other MP attended then leaked exactly what had been discussed MaizieD I would wholeheartedly support their attendance. But they are not doing that. As elected representatives they have absolutely no right to attend a meeting where they undertake such a commitment. If one of their constituents was to go into a surgery and ask what was said at the meeting they have an obligation to answer them.
It isn't much use being aware of what is discussed when part of your undertaking is that you won't talk about it.

If a politician attended a meeting where classified information was discussed and then ‘leaked’ it as you suggest Glorianny he would be castigated, and potentially imprisoned. We elect politicians to act on our behalf. Surely nobody is naive enough to think that means we should all be told the detail of issues that potentially threaten national security?

Starmer is intelligent , a thinker, has a clear ideas of justice and fairness but of course lacks charisma and comes across as boring a slower move and for some peculiar reason the clown Johnson seems to appeal to many as a fun loving’ risk taking idiot ?‍?

Casdon

Glorianny

MaizieD

I'm a bit stunned that people think that it's appropriate for Labour politicians to be unaware of what is being discussed at an international meeting.

Know your bl**dy enemy, Glorianny. And you don't get to know them by depending on third party suppositions and interpretations.

If Lammy or any other MP attended then leaked exactly what had been discussed MaizieD I would wholeheartedly support their attendance. But they are not doing that. As elected representatives they have absolutely no right to attend a meeting where they undertake such a commitment. If one of their constituents was to go into a surgery and ask what was said at the meeting they have an obligation to answer them.
It isn't much use being aware of what is discussed when part of your undertaking is that you won't talk about it.

If a politician attended a meeting where classified information was discussed and then ‘leaked’ it as you suggest Glorianny he would be castigated, and potentially imprisoned. We elect politicians to act on our behalf. Surely nobody is naive enough to think that means we should all be told the detail of issues that potentially threaten national security?

Nothing to do with "National Security" this is an organisation which supposedly crosses national barriers. However the majority of the attendees are from large multi-nationals, banks or other influential bodies. Nor is the restriction put on attendees cited as being for security. It says that it is there to enable people to speak freely. I wonder how far this goes. Do they for example have members who are holocaust deniers? I'm naive enough to believe that an MP is elected to represent the people in his constituency and not to carry out the demands of powerful people.

Glorianny

MaizieD

I'm a bit stunned that people think that it's appropriate for Labour politicians to be unaware of what is being discussed at an international meeting.

Know your bl**dy enemy, Glorianny. And you don't get to know them by depending on third party suppositions and interpretations.

If Lammy or any other MP attended then leaked exactly what had been discussed MaizieD I would wholeheartedly support their attendance. But they are not doing that. As elected representatives they have absolutely no right to attend a meeting where they undertake such a commitment. If one of their constituents was to go into a surgery and ask what was said at the meeting they have an obligation to answer them.
It isn't much use being aware of what is discussed when part of your undertaking is that you won't talk about it.

When did Government or Opposition tell us everything they know Glorianny. Or do you have some special privilege they have now taken away?

There has always been some information that is not available to all. What makes you think information, exchanged in confidence, should now be shouted from the rooftops?

If you google, Glorianny you can find a list of invitees. Then you can check them out, all 120 of them.

Is paranoia a requirement for being left wing, or does being left wing induce it?

I understood that participants weren't to go public on who said what. Chatham House rules. Which doesn't preclude them discussing things with other people.

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

MaizieD

I'm a bit stunned that people think that it's appropriate for Labour politicians to be unaware of what is being discussed at an international meeting.

Know your bl**dy enemy, Glorianny. And you don't get to know them by depending on third party suppositions and interpretations.

If Lammy or any other MP attended then leaked exactly what had been discussed MaizieD I would wholeheartedly support their attendance. But they are not doing that. As elected representatives they have absolutely no right to attend a meeting where they undertake such a commitment. If one of their constituents was to go into a surgery and ask what was said at the meeting they have an obligation to answer them.
It isn't much use being aware of what is discussed when part of your undertaking is that you won't talk about it.

If a politician attended a meeting where classified information was discussed and then ‘leaked’ it as you suggest Glorianny he would be castigated, and potentially imprisoned. We elect politicians to act on our behalf. Surely nobody is naive enough to think that means we should all be told the detail of issues that potentially threaten national security?

Nothing to do with "National Security" this is an organisation which supposedly crosses national barriers. However the majority of the attendees are from large multi-nationals, banks or other influential bodies. Nor is the restriction put on attendees cited as being for security. It says that it is there to enable people to speak freely. I wonder how far this goes. Do they for example have members who are holocaust deniers? I'm naive enough to believe that an MP is elected to represent the people in his constituency and not to carry out the demands of powerful people.

I don’t know how you know what they discussed Glorianny, has somebody, not David Lammy obviously, been leaking information? They surely will have had the Ukraine war high on the agenda, but to suggest that there may have been holocaust deniers attempting to influence others in a multinational conference is indeed a flight of fancy, if you had suggested that. I do think it’s naive to think that shadow cabinet members won’t attend conferences where privileged information is discussed and not share it. I don’t think that means, as you put it, that they are going to ‘carry out the demands of powerful people’.

Casdon

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

MaizieD

I'm a bit stunned that people think that it's appropriate for Labour politicians to be unaware of what is being discussed at an international meeting.

Know your bl**dy enemy, Glorianny. And you don't get to know them by depending on third party suppositions and interpretations.

If Lammy or any other MP attended then leaked exactly what had been discussed MaizieD I would wholeheartedly support their attendance. But they are not doing that. As elected representatives they have absolutely no right to attend a meeting where they undertake such a commitment. If one of their constituents was to go into a surgery and ask what was said at the meeting they have an obligation to answer them.
It isn't much use being aware of what is discussed when part of your undertaking is that you won't talk about it.

If a politician attended a meeting where classified information was discussed and then ‘leaked’ it as you suggest Glorianny he would be castigated, and potentially imprisoned. We elect politicians to act on our behalf. Surely nobody is naive enough to think that means we should all be told the detail of issues that potentially threaten national security?

Nothing to do with "National Security" this is an organisation which supposedly crosses national barriers. However the majority of the attendees are from large multi-nationals, banks or other influential bodies. Nor is the restriction put on attendees cited as being for security. It says that it is there to enable people to speak freely. I wonder how far this goes. Do they for example have members who are holocaust deniers? I'm naive enough to believe that an MP is elected to represent the people in his constituency and not to carry out the demands of powerful people.

I don’t know how you know what they discussed Glorianny, has somebody, not David Lammy obviously, been leaking information? They surely will have had the Ukraine war high on the agenda, but to suggest that there may have been holocaust deniers attempting to influence others in a multinational conference is indeed a flight of fancy, if you had suggested that. I do think it’s naive to think that shadow cabinet members won’t attend conferences where privileged information is discussed and not share it. I don’t think that means, as you put it, that they are going to ‘carry out the demands of powerful people’.

But by attending they are "carrying out the demands of powerful people" Casdon that is exactly the commitment they make.
I posted the link to who attended some way back MaizieD do keep up.
The holocaust denial was just an example of the sort of things that can be spoken about if people are assured no one is going to report what they say. I can't believe that in a world of free speech with supposedly democratic beliefs anyone would support an unelected body, which has no mandate to do anything, but exists purely because of the economic power of its participants, should be able to insist democratically elected representatives comply with a silence instruction. It makes you wonder why we bother having a Freedom of Information Act.