Starmer

Fascinating watching the months and years go by as certain posters, overjoyed that the grownups are back in charge, have to justify progressively reprehensible stuff for sir Keith. Genuinely wonder if there’s no line provided he continues to speak in a posh accent with a neat suit. Threads like this begin to give an answer.

 

What a shameful night for the Labour movement. Truly dreadful.

What was particularly stomach churning was listening to a Labour front bencher saying earlier why supporting a ceasefire was wrong but supporting a ‘humanitarian pause’ was the right approach. He backed up the claim by highlighting that the vast majority of Labour MPs supported that position and had reached it after examining their conscience. These are Tory levels of hypocrisy.
If he’s correct it would mean that if Starmer had supported a ceasefire, the consciences of the vast majority of Labour MPs would compel them to oppose that, because they believe it wouldn’t work and only a short ceasefire should be supported. Of course that would have meant that Starmer would have had to throw out over 20 members of the Shadow Cabinet and discipline around 150 MPs for opposing him!

A truly shameful night for the Party.

 

Superb and absolutely spot on..

 

You mean like when they stopped bombing for 4 hours to give people time to make a 6 hour journey?

Or when they released a video on the internet in English telling Arabic speaking people in Gaza where they’d cut off their internet?

They’re saints, yeah.

 

I'm economically a centrist, but ideologically more left - as such I've been a big Starmer fan, but he can **** off on this one.

Humanity must come before politics.

 

Israel: "Palestinians should move South"
Israel: Bombs South

 

I'm not pleading Israel's case, so I don't know the answers to your questions. What I am saying is that unless the US exerts military or economic pressure on Israel, then a ceasefire will depend on their being persuaded. I'm not seeing how that happens while Hamas still have 200+ hostages and are still firing rockets at Israel.

 

I think that he leads - just not in the direction you would like him to!

Less flippantly, my view is that he thinks more like a lawyer than a politician. He went into politics directly by seeking election as an MP, and he doesn't carry the baggage/experience of local politics. I think that this does lead him to seek out the pragmatic solution to problems, and only to pursue what is do-able, rather than following ideological but unachievable aims. Unlike others, he is uninterested in mere protest politics.

 

Not sure how supporting Israel in committing war crimes tallies up with that but generally I agree. He isn’t interested in anything other than power.

 

Recent polling shows:

76% of UK thinks there should be a ceasefire.
68% of Americans think there should be one.

 

USA maybe, they are a super piwer. Uk no.

 

What about the percentage that thinks it's a meaningless vanity vote and Israel will do what it wants regardless of what the English shadow government feels it should do?

 

War crimes on both sides though, JV?

 

Some will defend the indefensible.

 

If you class last night's vote as protest politics fair enough. As a parliamentary process though with potential to influence government policy Starmer made a political decision not to call for a ceasefire when there's slaughter going on. Some Labour MPs decided that the overall party position argued by the leadership was not compassionate and not appropriate as opposition policy. I dont think the rebels' response is protest politics - its considered, measured and reflects a big chunk of public opinion. Its ideological in the sense that all political positions are. Its not unachievable if there's enough political will to make it happen. I dont agree with your stance at all. Its perfectly reasonable to want Starmer in as PM if you believe in overall strategy and you think he's a good bloke but sometimes I think its appropriate to stand back and think 'is this moral and a representation of genuine Labour values or is refusing to support calls for a ceasefire a moral cop out?' I think its a complete moral cop out and Starmer has made a grave error of judgement simply because he wants to look tough, pro-Israel and wants to be PM. Disgraceful for me.

 

The votes only meaningful if you're in a position to act on it though. To me it's an irrelevance.

 

All votes are meaningful in telling us what our politicians think. Whether or not the SNP amendment will change anything is very doubtful I agree. I'm commenting more on what the Labour leadership stands for more than anything else.

 

Hamas is a terrorist group so I'm not sure it's classed as war crimes. But never the less like already said to retaliate like Israel has would be similar to us bombing the Catholic areas of Ireland to death in the 90s in hope we eliminate the ira.
Not sure how anyone can argue against that they should be a ceasefire.

 

Nearly 4 million Muslims in the country and only just over 200000 Jewish people. Do their votes influence the UK. They soon will.

 

Cease fire. Nice bloke. No cease fire. Nasty bloke. Personal opinion is nothing to do with policy though. Say Labour is in power because it's a hypothetical situation. What if they all vote to cease fire? What then? Do we got to Israel and say stop dropping bombs on Gaza please because the English government would like you to stop?

Israel tells us to go fourth and multiply. What then? Oh well we tried. Lets light a candle. Or do we act? What action to take etc?