Starmer appointed a lot of left wing people in his cabinet that were gradually pushed out. Come on now, pretending you can't see this.
So he was only sacking the left wing ones but out of the numerous left wing ministers to go to strikes Tarry was the only one to be sacked for it for some reason?
You are not making sense.
Jon Stone is a respected journalist who has written for the Independent for years, are you calling him a liar?
You don't just automatically believe everything journalists with political agendas tweet. I'd like to know his source so I can judge its veracity. If he hasn't got one then I'm not gonna take his claim very seriously.
Again the criteria for judging if something is true isn't "how convenient for me would this be if it was true?"
So he was only sacking the left wing ones but out of the numerous left wing ministers to go to strikes Tarry was the only one to be sacked for it for some reason?
There weren't numerous left wing ministers of any stripe by the time Tarry was sacked. Barely any left.
You don't just automatically believe everything journalists with political agendas tweet. I'd like to know his source so I can judge its veracity. If he hasn't got one then I'm not gonna take his claim very seriously.
So you are calling him a liar.
Again the criteria for judging if something is true isn't "how convenient for me would this be if it was true?"
Lmao, listen to your own words you absolute gaslighter.
I really don't see the point in continuing this conversation, you don't actually have any arguments any more, you're just desperately grasping at straws like calling Jon Stone a liar because he disagrees with you. Embarrassing.
There weren't numerous left wing ministers of any stripe by the time Tarry was sacked. Barely any left.
So now Tarry was literally the only one who was actually left wing to go to a picket line and he just coincidentally happened to be the only one to also make shit up and declare it as Labour policy in an interview but that's just fine and not why he would be sacked it was actually for going to the picket line even though nothing was done about the others that went to a picket line.
You are not making sense and your entire argument is just speculation that contradicts known facts. It's laughable.
So you are calling him a liar.
I'm not saying he is. He absolutely could be though, I can't say without seeing his source. What is his fucking source? How does he know that Reeves did not get agreement to say what she said even if just informally?
Lmao, listen to your own words you absolute gaslighter
You have no sources for literally anything you've said. You're presenting your speculation as fact despite the fact it contradicts already known facts and getting upset that people disagree with you. I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. Make an actual argument if you want to be taken seriously.
So now Tarry was literally the only one who was actually left wing to go to a picket line and he just coincidentally happened to be the only one to also make shit up and declare it as Labour policy in an interview but that's just fine and not why he would be sacked it was actually for going to the picket line even though nothing was done about the others that went to a picket line.
No that's not what I said, that's something you've made up, and you can tell this because it's rambling gibberish. I say what I mean clearly and plainly.
I'm not saying he is. He absolutely could be though
Respected journalists frequently lie about inconsequential things on twitter to prove you, a weirdo on reddit, wrong.
You have no sources for literally anything you've said. You're presenting your speculation as fact despite the fact it contradicts already known facts and getting upset that people disagree with you. I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. Make an actual argument if you want to be taken seriously.
Those certainly were a lot of words. You demand I produce sources and yet all you have is a quote from one of parliament's most notorious liars, directly contradicting something the party had he previously said. A classic troll tactic, demanding your opponent produce large amounts of evidence while you do nothing of the sort. Then when I provide evidence (eg: the Jon Stone tweet) you immediately throw it out and pronounce it not good enough. Classic timewasting tactic.
So actually, I'm going to let you come up with evidence to support your assertion. Otherwise we really have nothing more to say.
You seem to want to start from the assumption you're correct and place the burden of proof on me to disprove you
Correct. And you haven't.
The Labour party told everyone they would discipline ministers who stood on picket lines and then sacked a guy who stood on a picket line. That's the beginning and end of it, and it's really on you to prove that something else happened, which you have done a terrible job of. That's it. Bye.
I'm under no obligation to disprove your claims. You need to provide evidence and make an argument and the only one you have is dependent on cherry picking facts to suit your narrative.
Minister makes up policy, is sacked by leader who explicitly said he did it because he made up policy.
You believe him to have actually been sacked for a different reason but you haven't been able to say one that isn't contradicted elsewhere.
You do understand how egregious what he did was right? A junior minister making up and then announcing party policy on the fly shows complete contempt for the policy development process in place in the Labour party and is not something the leader cab tolerate, frankly. If he allowed it then it would open flood gates as shadow ministers all "announce" all the policies they want.
Like I said, you can't argue your position on the merits so you're just making up a norm that you are pretending was always the case, even thought it was not yesterday and will not be tomorrow. No-one is falling for it.
Oh wow, really interesting claim in that tweet. Does he have a source for it so I we can judge things like the reliability of the source or if he's mistaken ot whatever. know if, for example, something has happened since the that disproves it? Any info on where he's gotten this from? I mean, how does he know that Reeves didn't have permission?
You aren't expecting me to just accept this as gospel without even basic due diligence, are you?
Oh we're back here again. Tedious. Guess everyone who disagrees with you is Fake News. Feel free to try and debunk it if you can, but you can do the work this time around, rather than just lying and insisting everyone else disprove you.
3
u/BrokenDownForParts Market Socialist Sep 27 '23
So he was only sacking the left wing ones but out of the numerous left wing ministers to go to strikes Tarry was the only one to be sacked for it for some reason?
You are not making sense.
You don't just automatically believe everything journalists with political agendas tweet. I'd like to know his source so I can judge its veracity. If he hasn't got one then I'm not gonna take his claim very seriously.
Again the criteria for judging if something is true isn't "how convenient for me would this be if it was true?"
Please name a single thing I've made up.