Forum menu
You after are after honest and clear talking politicians there, you could be in for a wait.
Yes, because ‘calling for justice, peace, and freedom for all people whatever their race or creed’ is exactly what McDonald got suspended for.
I'm glad we agree on something.
Of course McDonald was specific, in this particular case he was talking for justice, peace, and freedom for all, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.
But it doesn't of course mean that he doesn't back justice, peace, and freedom for all everywhere in the world. It's just that this particular rally was focusing on one particular area of the world where there is currently very little justice, peace, and freedom, for all.
How's about 'human animals'? Difficult to see that in more than one way. 'From the river' etc implies to me a secular democratic state where all citizens have equal rights. Apartheid, by its very nature, will always explode into strife.
Sarwar the Scottish labour leader has made a clear call for a ceasefire as have others ( Kahn and Burnham). I look forward to them being sacked as well 🙂
Sarwar should stick to stuff within his remit fhat he can positively influence - like ScotRail, ferries, education in Scotland, Police Scotland.
I’m talking about people being free. Just what it says on the tin.
Yeah - unfortunately plenty of people before you have already given a meaning to the phrase. It's a slogan like "white lives matter" or "Britain for the British". You can try to use it literally but that's not what people will understand from it.
Sarwar should stick to stuff within his remit fhat he can positively influence – like ScotRail, ferries, education in Scotland, Police Scotland.
His wife’s parents are out there at the moment so he’s entirely within his remit to call for a ceasefire, shame starmer has been bought & paid for as expressed in his fence sitting
@jordan, good article
I don't think Starmer has been bought and paid for on this one. its that the Israeli shouts of antisemitism and the furore over folk being anti zionist being equated to anti semitism has cowed him so he dares not speak anything that could be possibly construed as criticism of Isreal as it will get those shouts of antisemitism going again
Polite camera action - do you say the same for Burnham and Khan? Of course no UK politician has any influence here so should they all shut up about it?
Of course Sarwar has no influence over the things you mention either as he is not in government in any way
Sarwar should stick to stuff within his remit fhat he can positively influence – like ScotRail, ferries, education in Scotland, Police Scotland.
I think that ^^ pretty much sums up what this is actually all about, an intolerance of criticism directed at Israel and its far-right government.
Putting Sarwar's obvious personal connections with the situation to one side, the suggestion that the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party should show callous indifference to mounting loss of life currently occuring in Palestine is absurd.
As is the suggestion that Scottish Labour voters should share this callous indifference. Sarwar as Scottish Labour leader is there to represent their veiws.
The idea that Sarwar cannot 'positively influence' Labour policy is equally absurd. Starmer, who will with almost complete certainty be the UK Prime Minister in less than a year's time, has already been forced to backtrack on his previous position on Gaza.
The mounting pressure Starmer has experienced from high profile Labour Party politicians such as Burnham, Khan, and Sarwar, has been highly instrumental to this development.
In the Sheffield ceasefire rally on Saturday a Jewish American speaker led that chant. It was a multi ethnic affair with all ages and the police picked up a nice bit of easy money. Trying to control the narrative is reactionary and has a very dubious history.
McDonald either didn’t know what he was saying in which case he was monumentally stupid
Once again, ill informed is not the same as being stupid. Not everyone in the world is a geopolitical big hitter 🙄
His wife’s parents are out there at the moment so he’s entirely within his remit to call for a ceasefire, shame starmer has been bought & paid for as expressed in his fence sitting
If he's so distracted by his in-laws' plight that he feels unable to focus on his day job, maybe he needs to take a leave of absence. It would be perfectly understandable.
If Scotland wants to help solve an intractable internecine conflict, then maybe it should consider looking to the territory off Stranraer, and consider what it has to offer there (answer: nothing). But the provincial leader of somewhere that is 92% white and where police officers choked a black man to death on the street without real consequence should focus inward instead of sticking his oar into a race war halfway around the world.
Ooh, gosh, I wonder who you think "bought & paid for" Starmer.
so do you apply that logic to Khan and Burnham?
Once again, ill informed is not the same as being stupid.
Maybe if a person is poorly-informed about a complex political situation they shouldn't make a public statement about it then?
This is the second time you’ve seized on a phrase that everyone understands in one way, pretended that your idiosyncratic version is the True Meaning, and insisted that the word has been hijacked by The Right.
And for the second time; I wont accept your deliberate attempt to misrepresent what I've actually said. Once again; you're entitled to your own opinion, that's fine. What you're not entitled to, is creating your own fictitious narrative. The only person 'pretending' here, is you.
Palestinians and Israelis all know what “from the river to the sea” means. The only people pretending otherwise are disingenuous trolls in western countries.
No, and this has been explained many times by people far eloquent than I. It's you who are 'pretending' that something is fact, when it's not. Please don't; it doesn't help progress any discussion.
Maybe if a person is poorly-informed about a complex political situation they shouldn’t make a public statement about it then?
I couldn't agree more. Yet here you are?
"river to sea"
I have only ever heard it in the zionist context as someone quoted above that that land is all isreali. Are there other uses I have not heard of? Clearly there are and clearly both sides use the phrase
In an attempt to steer this discussion back toward the original topic; Starmer's insistence on stating that Israel has the right to defend itself, whilst refusing to afford the same rights to the millions of innocent people of Gaza, and his refusal to back calls for a ceasefire, will no doubt be what he considers prudent and pragmatic in gaining power. This will inevitably be interpreted as 'siding' with the Israeli regime, however, and lose him a lot of support especially amongst British Muslim voters. At the huge rally in central London last Saturday, the Labour party were conspicuous by their official absence. This is not a good move for a party that claims to be against injustice and oppression, and for one that claims to support human rights. And it sends a clear message that some lives are worth more than others. This in itself should set alarm bells ringing; our democracy is evaoprating rapidly, and Kier Starmer is only too pleased to stand by and let it happen. This kind of moral cowardice can only be condemned by anyone who actually cares about their fellow human beings.
What I want to know from these people who bob up here periodically to defend apartheid and genocide is can you pair a Shimano chainset with a Campagnolo cassette and, if so, what chain?
these people who bob up here periodically to defend apartheid and genocide
You think Starmer is in favour of apartheid and genocide? Likewise anyone who disagrees with your analysis? Is that what you really think? Really really?
can you pair a Shimano chainset with a Campagnolo cassette and, if so, what chain?
Sounds like roadie talk. Haven't a clue without 15 seconds of google
Starmer said himself his support was 'unconditional'.
You think Starmer is in favour of apartheid and genocide? Likewise
Well I haven't heard him criticise this, have you?
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114702
Nor have I heard him criticise Netanyahu's unrestrained attacks on civilians, have you?
Starmer said himself his support was ‘unconditional’.
that's not an answer, unless of course you edit again .
If Starmers support is unconditional then it says he is happy with indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the establishment of a ghetto
See Biden is calling for a Cease Fire sorry "A pause". May give Starmer an out on this. :/
It's a good job the Tories are getting a good smacking over the COVID enquiry otherwise Starmer's fan club might have to be critical of their man"s human rights expertise in navigating the current tragedy.
Mind you Toynbee managed to be on the wrong side of the argument about lives lost versus winning an election this week. (Despite cease-fire 'polling' being the majority.)
The more we see - the more these babies are as right-wing as they come.
Beggars belief.
It also tells me a lot if you can spend time trying to make an argument out of McDonald's words and you ignore the absolute bollocks of indecipherable word spaghetti that Starmer has been spouting recently - that your moral compass needs checking for accuracy.
May give Starmer an out on this. :/
Well yes, Starmer simply parrots whatever Joe Biden says on the world stage, he feels that as leader of the Labour Party it is his responsibility to do so.
Biden has previously called for a "humanitarian pause", which Starmer (and Rishi Sunak) dutifully also supported.
But I am not sure how much that will absolve Starmer for his continued support of Netanyahu and his far-right government. After all in this context humanitarian pauses is just 'genocide with breaks'.
And I think it is safe to say that the current situation in Gaza complies with the accepted definition of a genocide.
Edit: Btw Biden is currently facing similar problems as Starmer:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/28/democrats-biden-reelection-israel-palestine
"On Wednesday afternoon, hundreds of liberal Jewish American activists staged sit-ins in the Capitol Hill offices of top Democrats, including in the senate office of progressive champion Bernie Sanders, to demand a ceasefire in the escalating war between Israel and Hamas."
See Biden is calling for a Cease Fire sorry “A pause”. May give Starmer an out on this. :/
Well yes, Starmer simply parrots whatever Joe Biden says on the world stage,
Not only that, he parrots it a week in advance... 🙂
25th October, Starmer calls for humanitarian pause: https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-25/starmer-seeks-to-rescue-muslim-vote-amid-talk-of-front-bench-resignations
2nd November, Biden calls for humanitarian pause: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67294334
Not only that, he parrots it a week in advance…
Starmer clearly only backtracked after it became obvious he was going to potentially lose a significant number of votes. Ergo, he only acted after he saw what damage it might do to his own political aspirations if he didn't. This isn't the action of someone who genuinely cares about humanity.
Starmer has shown that he is little more than a careerist who is interested far more in his own personal progress, than in actually affecting much needed change in our society. His actions in expelling many Labor party members for daring to question his leadership and enforced rules, show that he isn't really interested in democracy either. This is really very disturbing, and doesn't fill many people with confidence that our society will get the vital changes it needs to recover and progress in a manner that is positive for all. His many attempts to look strong have only served to actually make him look weak; he's u-turned so often even he no longer knows what direction he's headed.
It must be remembered that Kier Starmer was once a great lawyer, campaigning and fighting for human rights. His part in the McLibel case showed that he was committed to fighting for social justice. People can change but what happened to Starmer to make him change so much?
I suspect that Starmer has no real ideology bar a vague " do good" I see him as a technocrat. I think he is just taking the wrong advice from folk and anything to get elected / don'yt scare the horses.
ON this particular topic the labour party is under huge pressure because they caved in and accepted a label of anti semetic for any critism of Israel and Starmer is running scared of that. He just dare not criticize Israel in any way for fear of being labelled antisemetic after what happened to corbyn
Well yes, Starmer simply parrots whatever Joe Biden says on the world stage,
Not only that, he parrots it a week in advance… 🙂
25th October, Starmer calls for humanitarian pause
Eh?? That's the day that Joe Biden also called for a humanitarian pause!
Starmer wouldn't take a position over the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict without first clearing it with Biden. My understanding is that they speak to each other daily.
Biden administration pushes for a humanitarian 'pause' in Israel’s military campaign in Gaza
Oct. 25, 2023, 7:00 PM EDT
Biden administration
read the piece you linked.
It's unnamed officials saying 'pause', it's taken until today for biden to say that. I doubt you'd accept unnamed Labour officials being the same as Starmer speaking out. Whatever, it's a reasonable take on efforts to try to get the israeli government to kill fewer civilians. (And clearly the biden administration has judged that demanding an immediate ceasefire is unlikely to be effective in this.)
For anyone who'd like to add a bit of balance with the mass media, there's some interviews on YT with Dr Gabor Mate and also with Norman Finkelstein.
Biden administration
Are you seriously suggesting that Joe Biden doesn't have control of what his administration says on currently the most important international issue??
If you prefer...... Keir Starmer checked with 'Biden Administration' whether it was agreed that it was okay to call for a humanitarian pause.
Both the Biden Administration and Keir Starmer called for a pause on exactly the same day and you think it is unconnected?
If you prefer…… Keir Starmer checked with ‘Biden Administration’ whether it was agreed that it was okay to call for a humanitarian pause.
dig away 🙂 It's a story about behind the scenes signalling and the administration's shifting from the situation in the subheading "Just last week, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. resolution calling for a humanitarian pause".
I mean I guess it's possible Starmer's people called Biden's to agree a common position, with Starmer to speak out a week ahead of Biden. I'd say highly unlikely but maybe that's what you believe?
[Anyway, diminishing returns... Carry on and I'll be back no doubt in a few pages time, being arsed dependent.]
https://www.ft.com/content/6f6bf22c-154c-49e0-b9c0-1366b85d9f9d
The number of Labour frontbenchers breaking from their party’s formal position on Gaza rose to 16 on Wednesday as leader Sir Keir Starmer failed to quell the air of mutiny among many of his MPs over the conflict.
Surely that must represent pretty much half of the Labour frontbench? I don't know how many MPs sit on Labour's frontbench but it can't be much more than 30.
I mean I guess it’s possible Starmer’s people called Biden’s to agree a common position, with Starmer to speak out a week ahead of Biden. I’d say highly unlikely
LOL! 😊
that must represent pretty much half of the Labour frontbench? I don’t know how many MPs sit on Labour’s frontbench but it can’t be much more than 30.
try something over 160, more if you count the lords. Not that it makes any difference to your argument or indeed credibility of judgement.
The opposition front bench must be more than 100, if they're matching up with the government team.
try something over 160, more if you count the lords.
There are about 200 Labour MPs, so you think the vast majority sit on Labour's frontbench? And no MPs sit in the Lord's btw.
I will stick with my claim that about half of MPs that sit on Labour's frontbench party’s have broken with Labour's formal position on Gaza.
credibility of judgement.
LOL! 😊
labour's front bench: https://labour.org.uk/about-us/the-shadow-cabinet/
Scroll down past shadow cab to labour's "full front bench". And keep scrolling through the 150- 160 MPs, before you come to the Lords front-benchers.
This is publicly available stuff as well as basic general knowledge for anyone with a vague interest in politics. So why do I bother to post it you ask? As do I 🙂
You can claim anything you want... but here's the reporting of the last shuffle...
The frontbench usually matches up with the MPs and Lords in government roles (not always, but close enough).
Anyway, I'm glad MPs and other leading Labour politicians are calling for a cease fire... but after the events of 7 October onwards, Israel were always going to go after the Hamas network. Futile and with too high a human cost in my opinion... it'll achieve nothing but more deaths and more radicalisation. But world leaders need to apply pressure on the Israeli government to deescalate... and claiming that Israel has no right to defend themselves (or even worse claiming that Israel should be done away with completely) would achieve nothing other than Israel feeling more alone, more under attack, and give some of the complete nutters in that regime even more fuel to fire up the demand for more war and more destruction.
And keep scrolling through the 150- 160 MPs, before you come to the Lords front-benchers.
Have you ever seen the House of Commons frontbench on the telly? And you think 160 Labour MPs sit on it? So the other 38 Labour MPs who don't sit on the frontbench have all those free benches to themselves?
I think you might be confused what sitting on the frontbench means. But no worries, be as it might you obviously think the 16 MPs that sit on Labour’s frontbench and have broken with Labour’s formal position on Gaza doesn't represent a serious problem for Starmer.
Which is fair enough.
However I seriously doubt that Starmer would agree with you. This, along with several important mayors, countless councillors, other MPs, and the Scottish Labour leader, represents Starmer's greatest leadership crisis thus far.
Crises?
What crises?
Stop playing the idiot.
Says the geezer who claims that "the opposition front bench must be more than 100". There are only 198 Labour MPs.
Anyway all this nitpicking you have decided to go for, with regards to what constitutes the frontbench, has nothing to do with the point I was making - according to the FT 16 MPs that sit on Labour's frontbench are now at odds with Starmer over Gaza.
Do you think that is a crises for him or not?
Edit : Did you even bother reading the FT article? I suspect no.
Instead of doubling (trebling?) down on your small mistake of confusing the shadow cabinet with the opposition frontbench, why not listen to other people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_frontbench_of_Keir_Starmer
I haven’t read the FT article as my sub ran out long ago. But I suspect there is huge pressure on Starmer from his own party, including MPs, to change his language from pause to ceasefire. More MPs, including frontbenchers not just backbenchers, will no doubt call for it publicly in coming days and weeks as the horrors of hitting targets deeply embedded in civilian life unfold… and rightly so. Starmer must work with the USA, EU and others to put pressure on the Israeli government, and I hope between them they have a better handle on how to do this with some success than I (or you) do. Personally, I think it looks hopeless.
Starmer must work with the USA, EU and others to put pressure on the Israeli government
Western governments (or rather the US) could stop this tomorrow. It’s very far from hopeless, they just need to do it. But they won’t, because they have no problem with the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. What we’re witnessing (and enabling) is the final solution (and no apologies for using that phrase) to Gaza.
Instead of doubling (trebling?) down on your small mistake of confusing the shadow cabinet with the opposition frontbench, why not listen to other people?
I haven’t read the FT article...
Well if you had read the FT article you would realise that I was using the term 'MPs sitting on the Labour's frontbench' in exactly the same context as the FT. There are approximately 20-30 MPs that sit on Labour's frontbench.
I find it interesting that you would much rather be pedantic over the term "frontbench" than discuss the core issue, which is the growing opposition within Labour to Starmer's support for Netanyahu and his far-right government.
A genocide is occurring in Gaza and vital civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools are being destroyed, but you would much rather argue about how many MPs there on on Labour's frontbench than criticise Starmer's disgrace support for Netanyahu and his far-right government.
Netanyahu is a despicable bigot who has had a long and close friendship with Putin, as he did also with Donald Trump and a multitude of other bigots and ultraconservative racists such as Victor Orban, his allies in government are fascists, he has brought Israel to the brink of civil war (and it might yet happen) as he attempts to destroy the apartheid democracy and replace it with a theocratic dictatorship,
In desperate attempt to save his own political skin Netanyahu is ordering the IDF to destroy Gaza with total disregard for the cost in human lives, now is 'the time for war' he claims.
If there is any chance of saving innocent lives from this brutal bigot it requires international pressure, including from the soon-to-be next UK PM.
But some people would rather sit and moan how awful such and such a Tory is, than condemn war criminals.
Well, I’ve read the FT article now, and you’re lying. No idea why.
And I have engaged with the substantive point, as anyone else can read above.
you’re lying
Lying?? Get a grip, I copied and posted the relevant point. Here it is again:
"The number of Labour frontbenchers breaking from their party’s formal position on Gaza rose to 16 on Wednesday as leader Sir Keir Starmer failed to quell the air of mutiny among many of his MPs over the conflict."
I couldn't give a monkeys what percentage of frontbenchers the 16 represent, I made a causal remark that that it must represent something like half of those who sit on the Labour frontbench, but that's the only thing that you want to talk about.
The point the article makes is that Starmer is loosing control of the Labour Party over his Gaza stance. How about you talking about that, instead pointless point scoring over some frontbench Vs shadow cabinet bollocks?
Although I think we both know the answer that question.
I have addressed it. And how it is likely to progress.
The UN have now said that the people of Gaza are at grave risk of genocide, and still Starmer won't speak out................
But the rebellion within Labour grows
I joined the Labour Party because of the values of standing up and speaking out against injustices across the world. Sadly, Keir Starmer has not stood up for Labour values, hence why we are calling upon him to step down.
"Blindly following the position of Mr Sunak is not acceptable to us and our residents who we represent."
still Starmer won’t speak out…………….
He's going to forever be known as the labour leader who was an apologist for genocide. Quite an achievement for someone who isn't even in power yet. At least Blair got a few years under his belt before putting himself on the wrong side of morality and history.
I've been following pro-Palestinian movements for most of my adult life, and what I've observed, is that there is sadly an element of antisemitism amongst some members and followers, but overall, most people are just concerned with justice and equality for all. I feel strongly that the negative elements are not overlooked and conveniently ignored, but I feel a lot of it is simply down to ignorance and misinformation. I feel there is a definite correlation between the rise of support for pro-Palestinian movements, and the rise of the use of social media as alternatives to mainstream news production. So much has been deliberately covered up and ignored by the mainly right-wing British press, but now, ordinary people are starting to see through the smokescreen. Opposition to the Israeli regime is growing massively; its recent huge lurch towards the far-right has been a catalyst. Netanyahu's government's rhetoric and actions are only intensifying that opposition. But right now, it's vitally important that the message be about human solidarity, unity and an end to war. If Starmer refuses to acknowledge this, then he truly will be on the wrong side of history.
During my time following pro-Palestinian movements, I've also been scrutinising the pro-Israel side; I think it essential to keep a balance and not be too partisan. What is very disturbing, is that most of that support for the Israeli regime comes from the right, and increasingly, far-right. Not just in Britain but globally. Last Saturday (28th Oct), I witnessed a group of people who had ostensibly come to 'protect the monuments', being escorted by police from Whitehall. One of their number, a middle aged woman, was arrested for offensive remarks including 'we love seeing Palestinian children dying'. Another individual was seen throwing bottles towards the main crowd. I recognised several individuals from previous demonstrations by the far-right; EDL, Britain First etc. Strange bedfellows you might think, for support for Israel. But dig deeper, and you soon see that support for Israel is an increasing trend amongst far-right wing organisations, from our very own EDL/BF etc, to white supremacists and fascist groups in the US. The fascist leader of Hungary, Victor Orban, has held talks with Netanyahu. On a less extreme level, you'll find conservative Christian groups attending pro-Israel demonstrations. But the common thread amongst all these surprising allies, is just one thing; xenophobia. And in particular, Islamophobia. Books written by the delightful Melanie Phillips, definitely not a fan of Islam, were once sold on the website of the fascist BNP. Such alliances have proven rather difficult for publications such as the Jewish Chronicle, and for groups such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Because whilst such want to appear liberal, the reality is that they are essentially right-wing, and allied more naturally to the tories, than traditional Labour. What is problematic in the UK, is that such media outlets and organisations are used by the British press as voices of British Judaism. Within the Labour movement itself, the Jewish Labour Movement is a go-to 'Jewish' voice, for the BBC etc. But it is so important for people to understand that these are not speaking for all British Jews; There are organisations such as Na'amod, which is opposed to the illegal occupation of Palestine, and calls for peace. Jewish Voice for Labour is a left-wing Jewish organisation which is opposed to the Israeli regime, and is very highly critical of the Starmer leadership (to the point that some of its members have actually been expelled for 'antisemitism', if you can believe it). Jewdas is an organisation for young Jewish people who do not want other, right-wing organisations speaking for the wider diaspora. But one thing they all have in common, is a desire for peace, justice and equality. But such organisations are routinely ignored by the main media producers, as they do not parrot the accepted narrative. So I urge anyone wanting to learn more, to cast a more objective eye over what is going on, and to question all narratives. Because in there, somewhere, is the truth. And the truth needs to come out, if anyone is ever going to find a solution to this human tragedy.
I also think that one of the main reasons for the far rights apparent support for Israel, is purely "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", they see it as a way to attack left leaning groups who support justice in Palestine . I have absolutely no doubt that they couldn't give a flying **** about antisemitism, and will quickly turn on the jewish community when it suits them to create another bogeyman. IMO the Jewish groups who are making those alignments are making a very serious and short sighted error.
I also think that one of the main reasons for the far rights apparent support for Israel, is purely “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, they see it as a way to attack left leaning groups...........IMO the Jewish groups who are making those alignments are making a very serious and short sighted error
You mean like how Israel now regrets creating Hamas to counter the left-wing secular PLO?
I think you might be right.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah.
Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas.
Edit: To be fair to Israel this would have been the 1980s when supporting anti left-wing Islamic fundamentalists was all the rage in the West. Hence the West's initial support for Osama bin Laden, until he became the monster which they created but could no longer control.
I think somewhere in the bible it mentions about how "you reap what you sow". Netanyahu likes to quote the bible but maybe he needs to study it a bit more.
The PLO lost out to Hamas because they chose the difficult route to peace, but couldn't take the people with them. Much like Labour and Likud in Israel.
Nothing to do with Starmer of course.
I don't know enough about all of this but it appears to me yet again it's the right setting the agenda of how we should act.
Check out the terrible conversation between (Novara) Michael Walker and Kelvin MacKenzie about this subject. Walker is informed but MacKenzie manages to bluster through with such contempt for history or humanity. It's complete toss but he's clearly the loudest voice here.
And this is why I find Starmer troubling.
He's let the right drive him further rightwards. He isn't coming back from that.
The idea that the Tories are clowns may be one thing but what's coming next will be just as painful if not more as they're supposed to be 'our' team; fighting to correct all this mess.
I see scant evidence and it gets worse.
Nothing to do with Starmer of course.
I am not so sure. The lesson for Starmer is careful who you align yourself and be aware that you reap what you sow.
So far his support for Netanyahu and his far-right government has proved quite toxic.
So far his support for Netanyahu and his far-right government has proved quite toxic.
He has to be careful because he's acting like he's the PM not the leader of the opposition. At least Blair waited until he was in power before throwing his lot in with the the far right. Starmer is at risk of allowing his support of the indefensible to define his leadership (if it doesn't already), and that's going to impact his chances of getting elected. I wonder how many labour target seats have sizeable muslim electorates?
I wonder how many labour target seats have sizeable muslim electorates?
Aren't they mostly currently Labour?
Starmer's biggest problem is likely to be Muslim voters abstaining, and also left-wing voters in areas such as London abstaining.
The party which should be benefitting most from this should be the Green Party as it takes both a pro-Palestinian stance and is a natural alternative for those on the left disillusioned with Starmer.
However I don't see much evidence of that as the media isn't really interested in the opinions of politicians outside Labour and the Tories.
----------
[Mod] thread reopened with the caveat that mention of current events in the Middle East is not permitted. Thanks for your co-operation.
Why have you closed the other thread? The subject of moderation policy is still a live one, or is that something we're not allowed to talk about too? Can someone please be clear about why any mention of the middle east is banned (and why similar subjects such as Ukraine are not)? How is it possible to talk about Keir Starmer without mentioning the single biggest thing that's going on with him right now?
The problem with banning certain subjects and pretending they don't exist is that they will inevitably crop up elsewhere as these sort of things are massively interconnected with lots of other stuff going on. Good luck with micro-managing the forum content. I would recruit some more mods if I were you, think you'll be busy. 🤔
Give it a rest.
Go and discuss in the relevant thread on the Middle East, your thread was closed as you got an answer. Don’t like it then you can go elsewhere, I can assist with that.
Dazh - you forget this is a private playground and what they want goes. Its not a democracy.
These threads often turn really angry and lead to a lot of extra work for unpaid volunteer mods. Given how the middle east thread went I am not suprised they took this stance. Indeed I am suprised it was not taken sooner as offensive and libelous statements were being made
You have a choice - follow the rules or leave. Or I guess keep on shouting until you are banned
You could make me a mod. I am a very moderate man after all 🙂
Don’t like it then you can go elsewhere
I have no problem if you guys want a policy of no politics etc, just be clear about it and add it to the terms and conditions then we all know what the score is and can make clear decisions.
BTW is there a magazine-only subscription?
These threads often turn really angry
Yup, no doubt about it, but it was not really the case when this thread was closed was it?
Keir Starmer is facing his greatest crisis since this thread was first started and yet we can only talk about Starmer as long as we don't mention the cause of this crisis.
I did originally think angry punters was the reason for silencing the Gaza debate but it doesn't appear to be that, which is why I am leaning more and more to the commercial interests/fear of hacking option.
Which to be fair is more understandable, and more acceptable, than being motivated by a need to have only political threads where everyone agrees.
So?, Kier Starmer............he's a tea drinker and objects to coffee drinkers - is he right?
So?, Kier Starmer…………he’s a tea drinker and objects to coffee drinkers – is he right?
Thats what the focus group told him to say so sure.
Dont worry though since he has adopted the tories habit of rapid u-turns along with their policies I am sure he will change soon.
#Pray for coffee drinkers
According the latest polling Starmer is clearly in the wrong and needs to change tact over his stance
[I]The Statista Global Consumer Survey found that 63% of Britons drink coffee regularly, while only 59% regularly drink tea, according to The Times. Coffee is the most popular drink worldwide, with around two billion cups consumed every day, according to the British Coffee Association.[/I]
Obviously we need to hear from the tea drinkers association but I consider this a damning indictment of Starmers position
I consider this a damning indictment of Starmers position
Don’t worry, he’ll have changed it by tomorrow.
Who would we prefer as leader of the Labour party?
I could only point out Milliband and Raynor in a photo the rest are a mystery to me.
Two Labour council leaders have called for Starmee to resign over his position on coffee. Personally, I will be quizzing any canvassers who appear on my doorstep on how they can justify it to themselves. I could never vote for a Labour Party led by someone with his position.
At the risk of being relevant, perhaps Andy Burnham?
Keir Starmer is now the turd that refuses to flush