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

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Phillips will be kicking herself

They'd have already known that the Palestine Issue wasn't having the effect that some journalists were claiming it would in the polls. The evidence in polls and actual elections has shown that for weeks

And as said in the thread above, Phillips is in absolutely no danger of losing her seat regardless

So no, I doubt she'll be kicking herself

Any reason you didn't pick on any of the other ministers that were sacked / voted for the SNP amendment ?

[Jareth]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

They'd have already known that the Palestine Issue wasn't having the effect that some journalists were claiming it would in the polls. The evidence in polls and actual elections has shown that for weeks

And as said in the thread above, Phillips is in absolutely no danger of losing her seat regardless

So no, I doubt she'll be kicking herself

Any reason you didn't pick on any of the other ministers that were sacked / voted for the SNP amendment ?

Which of those on the front bench, who voted for a ceasefire had previously ran a leadership campaign?

[bickster]

Just now, Jareth said:

Which of those on the front bench, who voted for a ceasefire had previously ran a leadership campaign?

Cod is £3:50 a Ib

[Jareth]

Just now, bickster said:

Cod is £3:50 a Ib

You asked why Phllips no? Answer - her ambition - which has never been matched by political nous. You say she had no fear of losing her seat - you should have rung her up.

[bickster]

Just now, Jareth said:

You asked why Phllips no? Answer - her ambition - which has never been matched by political nous. You say she had no fear of losing her seat - you should have rung her up.

So you're saying that all the other MPs that took the same action as Phillips lack ambition. I'm sure they'll agree with you

I say Phillips had no fear of losing her seat because it really is almost impossible for her to do so. I have no need to ring her up, she'll have known that as will all the others.

Their actions were clearly from conviction and not the demographics of their seat.

The bellend that is Dan Carden voted the same way but no doubt he'll have done it out of conviction, why is Phillips not the same?

[Jareth]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

So you're saying that all the other MPs that took the same action as Phillips lack ambition. I'm sure they'll agree with you

I say Phillips had no fear of losing her seat because it really is almost impossible for her to do so. I have no need to ring her up, she'll have known that as will all the others.

Their actions were clearly from conviction and not the demographics of their seat.

The bellend that is Dan Carden voted the same way but no doubt he'll have done it out of conviction, why is Phillips not the same?

Philips held a shadow ministerial role - within a year she was set to be in power. You're clearly of the opinion that she has voted out of conviction - or holding no opinion either way? Yardley might have a few non Muslim folk who also wanted a ceasefire, let alone shouty neighbours or dinner party friends in Moseley. I think she's voted in order to keep her seat. Can't be leader if you're not an MP can you.

[chrisp65]

I don’t know very much about Jess Phillips, as a casual observer she usually appears to be ok, on the correct side of things.

That’s from the perspective of someone that couldn’t tell you where she’s the MP of.

Rayner is another one that appears to be ok and says the right things the right way. But again, from a position of not really knowing much about her or where she’s MP of.

 

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I think she's voted in order to keep her seat.

Phillips could have called for the nuclear destruction of Palestine and she would retain Yardley at the next election. I'm sure that it'll make her constituency life easier by going down this route, but risk of losing her seat isn't something that would have needed to enter her calculations. 

[ml1dch]

25 minutes ago, bickster said:

So you're saying that all the other MPs that took the same action as Phillips lack ambition. I'm sure they'll agree with you

I say Phillips had no fear of losing her seat because it really is almost impossible for her to do so. I have no need to ring her up, she'll have known that as will all the others.

Their actions were clearly from conviction and not the demographics of their seat.

The bellend that is Dan Carden voted the same way but no doubt he'll have done it out of conviction, why is Phillips not the same?

I suspect it's that because it's a lot of people have talked themselves into believing that anyone who didn't like Corbyn is automatically "right wing" and that's why they didn't like Corbyn. 

And it's then a shock to learn that all these fairly normal, left-wing people who hold normal, left-wing opinions actually are pretty comfortable voting for fairly normal, left-wing positions. 

[Thug]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

They’ve all called either for a ceasefire or used a different term, like ”humanitarian pause”, which apart from semantics is essentially the same thing

You are WAY off the mark here.

it’s absolutely not even close to being the same thing.

(the rest of your post I agree with)

Edited November 16, 2023 by Thug

[sidcow]

She made it clear that her decision was also due to personal views and specifically said she thought there should be a ceasefire. 

Fancy that, a politician actually following her conscious. 

Incidentally my parents know her a little bit. Both traditionally Tory (and last time Lib Dem I've recently discovered) voters and they both think she's a thoroughly nice person. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by sidcow

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Thug said:

You are WAY off the mark here.

it’s absolutely not even close to being the same thing.

So enlighten me - what's the difference?

My take is that a ceasefire is "stop fighting", but either side or both (as we know from the past) can or has either ignored, partially ignored or ended the ceasefire and resumed hostilities, whereas a humanitarian pause is , er, "stop fighting", but either side, or both, can at some unspecified point resume hostilities. Semantics to me, as applied to this conflict.

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, sidcow said:

She made it clear that her decision was also due to personal views and specifically said she thought there should be a ceasefire. 

Fancy that, a politician actually following her conscious. 

Yeah, this. She's done it to have a clear conscience, because she holds that view.

It's what I'd do, but not that any of it makes any difference to the killing.

[Thug]

Just now, blandy said:

So enlighten me - what's the difference?

My take is that a ceasefire is "stop fighting", but either side or both (as we know from the past) can or has either ignored, partially ignored or ended the ceasefire and resumed hostilities, whereas a humanitarian pause is , er, "stop fighting", but either side, or both, can at some unspecified point resume hostilities. Semantics to me, as applied to this conflict.

A ceasefire is to end the current hostilities indefinitely.  You’re not wrong when you say hostilities may restart again prob a matter of months, but the idea would be that it wouldn’t.

A humanitarian pause (as suggested in this case) is a ?4-12? Hour window of opportunity for the people to a drink of water before they get bombed to bits.

 

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

They’ve all called either for a ceasefire or used a different term, like ”humanitarian pause”, which apart from semantics is essentially the same thing.

It's not, and it's not semantics to suggest it is.

If you've got someone tied to a chair and you're punching them in the face and you stop for a moment and say, "I'm just going to lunch, I'll come back and punch you in the face again later", that's a very, very different thing than saying "Right, we're done with this, I'm not going to punch you in the face anymore".

EDIT: ah, i can see this is something that's already being pointed out.

 

[Thug]

When Shabana Mahmood  representing 70,000 Muslim votes doesn’t vote for a ceasefire, I’m not going blame any Labour politician for voting how they did.

I thoroughly applaud any of them that did though.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Thug

[Jareth]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

I suspect it's that because it's a lot of people have talked themselves into believing that anyone who didn't like Corbyn is automatically "right wing" and that's why they didn't like Corbyn. 

And it's then a shock to learn that all these fairly normal, left-wing people who hold normal, left-wing opinions actually are pretty comfortable voting for fairly normal, left-wing positions. 

You realise nearly the entire Labour PLP were anti Corbyn? And that them folks me included who voted Corbyn as leader also voted Starmer as leader? My dislike of Philips is that she’s expert at throwing out criticisms but when push came to shove in her leadership campaign she had nothing to say. So now she’s a lauded MP who votes with her conscience? Doesn’t add up, to me, but each to their own. 

[Chindie]

Tories propose new harsh benefits regime whereby benefits claimants will have access to services and things like free prescriptions cut. Labour?

Not harsh enough...!

Christ. And idiots want to vote for this. They're scum.

[Davkaus]

If you're taking that paragraph at face value, you just want to believe the worst.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

If you're taking that paragraph at face value, you just want to believe the worst.

I've been given exceptionally little reason to think otherwise.