The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Chindie]

We should be very happy that President elect Starmer has taken such a logical position.

Anyone that disagrees is an antisemite commie bumbum face soup dragon.

[Jon]

59 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

I have no sympathy with Netanhyahu at all, he's vile, but I kind of don't expect to see any main UK party leader, be that Sunak or Starmer, or whoever, to be so blunt as to say so, or to call him a war criminal (even though I think he clearly is).

The previous guy would have.  

It was nice, for a while, to have a conviction politician at the helm.  

[Chindie]

Starmer called out by the radical hate organisation Save the Children.

Quote

Following Keir Starmer’s speech at Chatham House earlier today, Alastair Russell, Head of Public Affairs at Save the Children UK, said:

"In his speech today Keir Starmer once again referred to meeting he had with aid agencies regarding the conflict in Gaza and Israel. Save the Children was one of the agencies present at that meeting. Every single agency referred to the urgent need for a ceasefire. It was the united position of all the organisations, as it is also of UNICEF, UNRWA, and the UN Secretary-General that a ceasefire is essential to saving lives and allowing aid to flow. It is deeply disappointing that Keir Starmer has continued to rebuff this vital humanitarian call. Aid cannot be delivered under fire, and the catastrophic conditions facing 2.3 million Palestinian civilians, half of whom are children, cannot be addressed merely by a pause."

Silly Save the Children. Don't they know this is necessary to fight evil?

And even if it isn't, Centrist Messiah Starmer can't do anything anyway so it's important he sides with war crimes.

Silly Save the Children. 

You run along now.

*Ruffles hair*

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, Jon said:

The previous guy would have.  

It was nice, for a while, to have a conviction politician at the helm.  

We all know the previous guy was pawing the ground at the chance to raid a synagogue with a rifle though.

[Jareth]

Well this is it isn't it. The self titled 'grown-ups' running Labour, and then everyone else on the no ceasefire bandwagon, all exclaim that logically there is no alternative solution to the conflict other than to let Israel do its thing - it's where all logical roads lead, if you're a wise head who understands the realities of this world. Absolute tosh. Starmer is cos-playing as a PM, if he wants to lead he needs to grow a pair and stand up for human rights and challenge Israel loudly and publicly to stop the carnage. Or he's complicit.

[Chindie]

Or he knows that the tiger he rode to power will very happily rip his face off if he upsets it. And he can very easily upset it in the current climate.

[bickster]

55 minutes ago, Jon said:

The previous guy would have.  

"Our friends in Hamas...."

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Jon said:

It was nice, for a while, to have a conviction politician at the helm.  

 

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

To paraphrase President Biden, pick a team. It’s all a lot simpler once you’ve picked a team.

Yeah. The previous one picked Hamas to be his friends (in his words). 
To be fair to both Starmer and Corbyn, what side they pick, if any, doesn’t matter in the big scheme of things. Neither Israel nor Hamas gives a flying **** what our opposition leader says.

Personally speaking picking a side in a bloodbath between Israel and Hamas is not for me. My sympathies lie with the people being used and dying because of the actions of both of those murderous entities. One side has more power, militarily, the other side counters some of that imbalance by using people, often at gunpoint, as shields for them to carry out their murdering. Neither demonstrates the slightest regard for the lives of the poor souls in the West Bank 

[chrisp65]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

Yeah. The previous one picked Hamas to be his friends (in his words). 
To be fair to both Starmer and Corbyn, what side they pick, if any, doesn’t matter in the big scheme of things. Neither Israel nor Hamas gives a flying **** what our opposition leader says.

Personally speaking picking a side in a bloodbath between Israel and Hamas is not for me. My sympathies lie with the people being used and dying because of the actions of both of those murderous entities. One side has more power, militarily, the other side counters some of that imbalance by using people, often at gunpoint, as shields for them to carry out their murdering. Neither demonstrates the slightest regard for the lives of the poor souls in the West Bank 

Personally speaking, I wouldn’t be making a profit selling arms to one side.

[Xann]

30 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yeah. The previous one picked Hamas to be his friends (in his words).

Words were ignored and we're onto shooting.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Personally speaking, I wouldn’t be making a profit selling arms to one side.

I don’t think Starmer is doing that. I don’t believe either that the UK sells much arms to Israel (of the type used to kill Palestinians). I think we sell, or sold, Radar systems and stuff like that. Probably the biggest thing is that the F35 jets that the US sold to Israel have UK made rear fuselages. I’m sure we’ve sold guns and stuff in the past and I agree an arms embargo would be a “signal”, but realistically it’s another thing where the UK is insignificant. I’d support Labour calling for an embargo, I suppose, but dunno what they’d hope to achieve by doing so, other than perhaps pleasing some potential voters and annoying some others.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Xann said:

Words were ignored and we're onto shooting.

Yep. Corbyn was ignored by Hamas and Israel. Sunak, Starmer… likewise.

It’s completely pointless in terms of resolving problems in the Middle East whether a Labour politician says “blah blah” or not. For the Labour politicians it’s just preaching to whichever audience follows them in the uk

[His Name Is Death]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Or he knows that the tiger he rode to power will very happily rip his face off if he upsets it. And he can very easily upset it in the current climate.

That's certainly a novel way of describing someone's wife.

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don’t think Starmer is doing that. I don’t believe either that the UK sells much arms to Israel (of the type used to kill Palestinians). I think we sell, or sold, Radar systems and stuff like that. Probably the biggest thing is that the F35 jets that the US sold to Israel have UK made rear fuselages. I’m sure we’ve sold guns and stuff in the past and I agree an arms embargo would be a “signal”, but realistically it’s another thing where the UK is insignificant. I’d support Labour calling for an embargo, I suppose, but dunno what they’d hope to achieve by doing so, other than perhaps pleasing some potential voters and annoying some others.

Yeah sorry that was my messageboard shorthand, I didn’t mean for it to look like Starmer was personally building military kit and posting it to Israel.

He’s no more capable of that or to blame for that than I am. I think the safest most sensible thing to do is just be good, vote labour, and hope that in 12 months time he’s in power and turns out to be a bit nicer than than this current lot. That would be a reasonable aspiration we should be mildly hopeful we might be able to achieve providing there aren’t any awkward circumstances where we need to review our hopes a little more to take out anything that might be inconvenient.

 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yeah sorry that was my messageboard shorthand, I didn’t mean for it to look like Starmer was personally building military kit and posting it to Israel.

He’s no more capable of that or to blame for that than I am. I think the safest most sensible thing to do is just be good, vote labour, and hope that in 12 months time he’s in power and turns out to be a bit nicer than than this current lot. That would be a reasonable aspiration we should be mildly hopeful we might be able to achieve providing there aren’t any awkward circumstances where we need to review our hopes a little more to take out anything that might be inconvenient.

I know you didn’t. I was just trying to gently steer the chat onto this thread’s topic, without being too much of an arse. I achieved 50% of that aim.

Anyways, as I must have posted tens of times in this thread, over several years,  what he has been doing all along is focusing on getting Labour elected  He’s got and has had a very obvious plan to do that, and helped by the mind blowing incompetence and throbbing arrogance of the tories, it’s working very well.

Like you say, what he does if/when he gets to be Britain king remains something of a blank canvas on which we can currently put our hopes or fears, as our mood takes us.

 

[ml1dch]

On 26/10/2023 at 12:15, bickster said:

The only place where it would be a slight concern is Scotland I think

That "Labour lose all muslim voters" narrative really doesn't seem to be translating to national / local polling very well

 

[Chindie]

Being an amorphous blob that fits any mould the public fancies in the hope it gets him elected isn't a ringing endorsement of anyone, for my money. I'd think the point of a politician, a democracy, is that the candidate is clear about who and what they are, so the voters can make a considered decision, rather than having an playdoh man in a suit that can be whatever you wish it to be, in the hope it'll all work out when he's elected.

I may as well back the neighbours dog for PM. At least it knows what it values in life.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Jon said:

The previous guy would have.  

He still could, but afaik he hasn’t.  Last week in Parliament he asked Sunak why the uk didn’t support the thing Starmer has asked for, and which the UN was voting on - “a humanitarian pause”.

[meregreen]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

Well this is it isn't it. The self titled 'grown-ups' running Labour, and then everyone else on the no ceasefire bandwagon, all exclaim that logically there is no alternative solution to the conflict other than to let Israel do its thing - it's where all logical roads lead, if you're a wise head who understands the realities of this world. Absolute tosh. Starmer is cos-playing as a PM, if he wants to lead he needs to grow a pair and stand up for human rights and challenge Israel loudly and publicly to stop the carnage. Or he's complicit.

Whatever he says, won’t make a smidgeon of difference to the Israelis. They are totally set on a course to destroy Hamas. Only the USA can hold any influence over them. And honestly, after the atrocities inflicted on the Israelis on the 7th of October, I doubt even they could hold Israel back. It’s pointless to target Starmer here, he simply isn’t a player. Neither is Sunak or anybody else on this small, post Brexit, rather insignificant island.

[Risso]

38 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Being an amorphous blob that fits any mould the public fancies in the hope it gets him elected isn't a ringing endorsement of anyone, for my money. I'd think the point of a politician, a democracy, is that the candidate is clear about who and what they are, so the voters can make a considered decision, rather than having an playdoh man in a suit that can be whatever you wish it to be, in the hope it'll all work out when he's elected.

I may as well back the neighbours dog for PM. At least it knows what it values in life.

The voters made a decision in the last election, and they decided in rather huge numbers that they'd prefer almost anybody at all to Jeremy Corbyn. So that being the case, should Labour go down that route again, or instead pick a grown up, who as boring and non-commital as he certainly is, is at least a big improvement on a work-shy chancer like Johnson?