Starmer

Establishment plant installed to kill off any real working-class voice. It's saying something that he makes me angrier than the Tories; at least the Tories are evil to your face.

 

It seems obvious though that those appointed to a front bench position are expected to follow the line taken by the leadership. If you disagree with the leadership position then you should step down, not wait to be sacked.

 

So a bit like N Korea? Wonderful mate. Yeah that’s the kind of country I want to live in.
FFS babies are being killed along with hospital patients women and children. There could be a chance to help them but the likes of Starmer wants to not upset Israel or America so has an opinion the bombing is justified. Then uses blackmail to get the rest of his front bench to agree with him. That’d is disgusting and he should be called out over his stance. What an absolute C unt.

 

Not at all Ian. There are two points here. The first is whether front bench appointees should abide by the line taken by the leadership. The second is whether Starmer's view is right or wrong. I was referring only to the first point. It's quite clear that Keir Starmer stands by the stance he has taken. He set out his reasons in the Chatham House speech. So I would assume he is not for changing, as things stand. If you are on the front bench and you disagree with that stance on such a high profile issue, then the honourable thing to do would be to resign. If you feel sufficiently strongly about it you could always mount a leadership challenge if you felt you had the support. Not a viable option in North Korea, I believe! There are notable examples of 'honourable' resignations - see Robin Cook during the Blair administration.

The actual substance of the ceasefire issue is more complex. No ceasefire and thousands more innocent civilians perish due to Hamas hiding amongst their midst. Obtain a ceasefire and Hamas remain active to commit further atrocities against the Israeli population - an intention they have already reaffirmed. You may disagree with Starmer, but he has set out a closely-reasoned explanation of his stance. But he also has potential future relations with important allies to consider. One thing is for sure. Whichever way Starmer leans will make not a blind bit of difference to what happens on the ground. It is doubtful whether the Prime Minister's views could have any sway. Even the US President has adopted a cautious approach to "telling" Israel what to do. So in some respects, the Labour Party stance is unimportant in regard to it's ability to influence events. I am certain that Starmer does not wish to revert to the protest politician tactics of his immediate predecessor, even though Sunak would be delighted if he did.

 

It seems like the Israelis aren't even dancing to Biden's tune. I believe whatever motion gets passed in the UK Parliament will be shrugged off by the Israelis.

 

Of course it will mate. UK demanding a cease fire will only be a token gesture. But not demanding one by Starmer is all you need to know about the creep.
A very sorry state of affairs.

 

Long reply there mate and one I only partially agree with but the bigger issue could be this could split the Labour Party. Then happy days for the tories.

 

Ye good point, should have said show support for. Hopefully if enough countries call for a ceasefire Israel might listen..

 

Very doubtful

 

I suspect Starmer's stance is supported by at least two thirds of the PLP. But you're right. mate. A split could open the back door for Sunak (or Braverman?) to return. That would almost certainly be less palatable to those opposed to Starmer's position. It's a long game.

 

Israel has already paused fighting and opened corridors on a number of occasions to allow citizens to get away, something that Hamas don't want as it gives them less people to hide behind, and unlike Hamas Israel don't target non-combatants, rape them and then kill them.

 

Palestinians are dying due to Israel bombing schools, houses and other buildings which should not be targets of war. They've been dying for many years at the hands of Israel, but the drip drip, drip of their deaths) 6:1 ratio) barely registers a headline. Hamas exist because of Israeli policy:

• Israel and Netenyahu directly funding Hamas (over the secular PLO)
• occupation
• displacement
• Imprisoning children
• stealing their land
• turning Gaza into an open air prison

Hamas don't exist in the West Bank but most of the above still occur, indeed nearly 200 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since this current round of violence.

Would you have supported UK bombing Catholic areas to root out the IRA who were "hiding amongst the population"?

A 'humanitarian pause' is simply a decision not to kill Palestinians now, but later. It's morally bankrupt.

 

I haven't said I support either side. Both sides seem intent on 'eliminating' each other. And neither side wants a ceasefire. Meanwhile, innocent Israelis and Palestinians suffer.

 

Your original comment was noted for it's lack of condemnation/neutrality, intentional or otherwise.

Israel has chosen to invade and no doubt occupy Gaza. They can have a ceasefire when they wish to do so.

I'm not sure how many Palestinians wanting revenge they've created in this past month, probably more than they've killed.

 

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." - Desmond Tutu

 

Correct.

 

Well argued Mr Kaht. I think Starmer is calling this badly wrong and although as you've mentioned he's thinking about future relationships he is incapable of standing up for what's right, decent and perfectly reasonable. He's also further alienating many in his own party. But hey ho, he looks 'tough' and 'unCorbynlike' so that's much more important than trying to stop little kids getting blown to bits. He's a complete tos.ser in my opinion (as you know).

 

I am not convinced that you are correct.

 

What do you reckon the numbers are in the PLP re those who will back his stance and those who won't? (I honestly don't know - and I guess we'll have a better idea later.)

 

I would think the vast majority will follow him. They'll be keen to not rock the boat for one thing and will be concerned about being marginalised/dumped for another. Starmer will get his way in parliament.