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

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, meregreen said:

Conspiracy theories. Sounds pretty desperate.

Actual, recorded lobbying is a conspiracy theory? Let's all play Trope Wang.

[meregreen]

Just now, Jareth said:

Actual, recorded lobbying is a conspiracy theory? Let's all play Trope Wang.

If you really think Starmer has pocketed a few bob, and is supporting Israel off the back of it. Then it’s up to you to prove it. You can’t, because it’s bullshit.

[ml1dch]

31 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Who else, and which grouping has Chinn donated to with regard to Labour? 

Not many cash donations, but lots of flights for Labour MPs to go to Israel, including about half the shadow cabinet.  He mainly funds the Labour Together think tank, to whom he's given around £360,000 over the last few years. That's what a bit of Googling tells me. 

No idea whether this information supports or refutes the idea that Labour's perfectly reasonable position is a consquence of its leader being in hoc to the machinations of the state of Israel. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by ml1dch

[meregreen]

There’s a good argument to be made for a ceasefire on humanitarian grounds. Once people start bandying around crackpot theories . They will simply undermine their argument. Most lobbying, donations etc to Labour come from the Trade Unions, plenty of sympathy for the Palestinian cause there. 

[Thug]

2 minutes ago, meregreen said:

There’s a good argument to be made for a ceasefire on humanitarian grounds. Once people start bandying around crackpot theories . They will simply undermine their argument. Most lobbying, donations etc to Labour come from the Trade Unions, plenty of sympathy for the Palestinian cause there. 

Thats the issue though.

There’s a good argument for a ceasefire, which is not being supported for whatever unknown cause.  
 

I guess people (over?)stretch for explanations.

You have to admit, it does make you scratch your head as to what motives there could be not to support a ceasefire.  To most with no vested interest, there just doesn’t seem to be a valid explanation - corruption is the natural thing to point at.

 

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

The money donated 3 years ago cannot be reasonably said to have been for supporting Netanyahu to bomb Palestine. 

 

Well, this specific case aside, isn’t that exactly how good lobbying works?

Yes, some tories will take an envelope of cash to carry out specific tasks. But ‘legitimate’ lobbying is exactly the subtle, slow burn, long term favourable conditions you can reasonably expect your money, a few international flights a few years ago, and a ticket to a cup final is supposed to bring.

Unless you think bad lobbying is cash for gigging political bitches, and good lobbying is actually blind trust philanthropy.

 

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, Thug said:

Thats the issue though.

There’s a good argument for a ceasefire, which is not being supported for whatever unknown cause.  
 

I guess people (over?)stretch for explanations.

You have to admit, it does make you scratch your head as to what motives there could be not to support a ceasefire.  To most with no vested interest, there just doesn’t seem to be a valid explanation - corruption is the natural thing to point at.

 

 

When one of the people refusing to call for a ceasefire is an ex human rights lawyer, that head scratching really does get intense.

 

[meregreen]

8 minutes ago, Thug said:

Thats the issue though.

There’s a good argument for a ceasefire, which is not being supported for whatever unknown cause.  
 

I guess people (over?)stretch for explanations.

You have to admit, it does make you scratch your head as to what motives there could be not to support a ceasefire.  To most with no vested interest, there just doesn’t seem to be a valid explanation - corruption is the natural thing to point at.

 

That’s not true though is it. The argument has been made many times. A ceasefire would enableHamas to regroup and repeat the atrocity of 7th October. The infrastructure of terror they have built needs to be completely destroyed. Now you can argue the rights and wrongs of that theory, but you can’t claim it hasn’t been offered.

[Thug]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Well, this specific case aside, isn’t that exactly how good lobbying works?

Yes, some tories will take an envelope of cash to carry out specific tasks. But ‘legitimate’ lobbying is exactly the subtle, slow burn, long term favourable conditions you can reasonably expect your money, a few international flights a few years ago, and a ticket to a cup final is supposed to bring.

Unless you think bad lobbying is cash for gigging political bitches, and good lobbying is actually blind trust philanthropy.

 

It’s also the undocumented future promises, nudges and winks, nominations etc. that can’t be proven until no one gives a **** 50 years down the line.

The consequence is a few raised eyebrows, a few ‘I knew it!’s  and a load of ‘who the hell were these people anyway?’s.

unfortunately that’s how life works.

[Thug]

1 minute ago, meregreen said:

That’s not true though is it. The argument has been made many times. A ceasefire would enableHamas to regroup and repeat the atrocity of 7th October. The infrastructure of terror they have built needs to be completely destroyed. Now you can argue the rights and wrongs of that theory, but you can’t claim it hasn’t been offered.

The discussion is not about the merits of a ceasefire.  It’s about possible explanations as to why a human rights lawyer would not only not support it, but actively object to it.

 

[blandy]

45 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well, this specific case aside, isn’t that exactly how good lobbying works?

Yes, some tories will take an envelope of cash to carry out specific tasks. But ‘legitimate’ lobbying is exactly the subtle, slow burn, long term favourable conditions you can reasonably expect your money, a few international flights a few years ago, and a ticket to a cup final is supposed to bring.

Unless you think bad lobbying is cash for gigging political bitches, and good lobbying is actually blind trust philanthropy.

You (and others) have said/implied it's (in this case) lobbying. I don't think in this case it actually is. It's something different. Lobbying is when an individual or company or body tries to persuade an MP or Parliament to support a particular policy or path of action or campaign.

What a donation to a leadership campaign is, is something different from that. But you're right, clearly if an individual or company or body donates a chunk of cash to an MP's campaign for a position, or their office costs, or similar, they might just feel (like giving to a good cause) "I want that person to succeed because I support their stance on [whatever]" or more cynically "if I give that MP a donation, they might look upon my company or my interests more favourably in the future". It can be very murky.

But in this discussion about Labour's stance on Israel, there's nothing been provided to support that Starmer's been "bought off".

[Thug]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

You (and others) have said/impied it's (in this case) lobbying. I don't think in this case it actually is. It's something different. Lobbying is when an individual or company or body tries to persuade an MP or Parliament to support a particular policy or path of action or campaign.

What a donation to a leadership campaign is, is something different from that. But you're right, clearly if an individual or company or body donates a chunk of cash to an MP's campaign for a position, or their office costs, or similar, they might just feel (like giving to a good cause) "I want that person to succeed because I support their stance on [whatever]" or more cynically "if I give that MP a donation, they might look upon my company or my interests more favourably in the future". It can be very murky.

But in this discussion about Labour's stance on Israel, there's nothing been provided to support that Starmer's been "bought off".

You’re right.

One can only speculate, unless you have absolute evidence.

I admit I’ve not read all the posts, so maybe I’m wrong, but I think all I’ve read is speculation?  
 

I think people have speculated that Starmer could either have received payments for a favourable position on certain agendas, or he has been rewarded for his favourable position on said agendas.

Pure speculation, unless of course by some magic this can be proved.

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, Thug said:

The discussion is not about the merits of a ceasefire.  It’s about possible explanations as to why a human rights lawyer would not only not support it, but actively object to it.

Because "ceasefire" in the terms being discussed is only realistically a request for one side to stop. If both sides were happy to stop trying to kill each other, then there wouldn't be discussion. 

But given Hamas have explicitly said that they won't er...cease firing, there's not really much point in asking for one is there? There are no diplomatic avenues to pursue that will cause them to stop firing rockets at Israel. So it's not a case of objecting to it, it's a case of understanding that it's not an option that is on the table, outside of making people feel better about themselves by calling for it as a solution. 

[Thug]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Because "ceasefire" in the terms being discussed is only realistically a request for one side to stop. If both sides were happy to stop trying to kill each other, then there wouldn't be discussion. 

But given Hamas have explicitly said that they won't er...cease firing, there's not really much point in asking for one is there? There are no diplomatic avenues to pursue that will cause them to stop firing rockets at Israel. So it's not a case of objecting to it, it's a case of understanding that it's not an option that is on the table, outside of making people feel better about themselves by calling for it as a solution. 

I think we’re just going over the same ground again and again.

There’s nothing wrong in what you say here, but it’s an endless cycle.

Hamas say they won’t stop.  Israel continue killing civilians.  Hamas say they won’t stop, Israel continue killing civilians.

We have already established that Hamas do not care for the civilians.  The civilians are the ones that are suffering, not Hamas.

I can understand Israel’s position, but not Starmer’s. 

That’s the current discussion, no?

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, Thug said:

It’s about possible explanations as to why a human rights lawyer would not only not support it, but actively object to it.

He doesn't "actively object" to a ceasefire. What he doesn't currently do is actively support it, as you say. And he's given his reasoning, some of which has been covered above.

 

1 minute ago, Thug said:

I can understand Israel’s position, but not Starmer’s. 

Starmer's is (because he's a politician) all carefully caveated. His version is that he wants the fighting to stop, to allow humanitarian aid to the civvies, to allow evacuation and all that kind of stuff, but that he recognises Israel's right to defend itself and take action against the terrorists who mounted the 7 Oct attacks and kidnappings and to try and get the hostages back - a permanent ceasefire puts an permanent end to that (in his mind) and so he is saying he wants to get help to the suffering people and get them out of harms way, but in the light of Hamas vowing to continue and repeat their terror attacks, not allowing Israel to use military means to stop it is not viable, once the people are out of harms way.

As I said days ago, it's all a bit performative anyway. And apparently the Labour MPs who rebelled were arguing to Starmer that a ceasefire and Humanitarian pause are pretty much the same thing anyway (I agree with them). I think it's commonly felt that if there is a stop to the fighting, it'll start again sometime later, anyway.

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, Thug said:

I can understand Israel’s position, but not Starmer’s. 

That’s the current discussion, no?

Personally I can't really understand the calls for a ceasefire without any further discussion about how you go about getting two sides, neither of whom want one and one of whom you have no diplomatic relations with or leverage over to do that thing you're calling for. Otherwise it's as relevant as just calling for world peace. It's a noble objective, but not a solution to what's actually happening. 

I think the whole thing would be much easier to discuss if there was an assumed "Obviously I would like both sides to stop trying to kill each other" at the top of every comment. 

[Thug]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

He doesn't "actively object" to a ceasefire. What he doesn't currently do is actively support it, as you say. And he's given his reasoning, some of which has been covered above.

 

Starmer's is (because he's a politician) all carefully caveated. His version is that he wants the fighting to stop, to allow humanitarian aid to the civvies, to allow evacuation and all that kind of stuff, but that he recognises Israel's right to defend itself and take action against the terrorists who mounted the 7 Oct attacks and kidnappings and to try and get the hostages back - a permanent ceasefire puts an permanent end to that (in his mind) and so he is saying he wants to get help to the suffering people and get them out of harms way, but in the light of Hamas vowing to continue and repeat their terror attacks, not allowing Israel to use military means to stop it is not viable, once the people are out of harms way.

As I said days ago, it's all a bit performative anyway. And apparently the Labour MPs who rebelled were arguing to Starmer that a ceasefire and Humanitarian pause are pretty much the same thing anyway (I agree with them). I think it's commonly felt that if there is a stop to the fighting, it'll start again sometime later, anyway.

I don’t think anyone objects to ‘Israel’s right to defend itself.’

But there’s a line, which has long been crossed.

At the end of the day, it’s all about opinions- and it’s natural that there’s a chain here where each opinion is largely based on the one before.

I would say that my chain is as follows:

1) the Palestinian people are oppressed.

2) Hamas used this sense of injustice to garner support to carry out a horrific attack, with an underlying agenda to incite a reaction from Israel (for a multiple of political reasons)

3) Israel reacted - like I would expect them to.

4) Israel are taking things too far - in my opinion it is no longer about defence - but I would speculate that their objective is now different, but remains under the banner of self protection and to destroy Hamas.  I do not believe they are being as surgical as they could.

5) The uk politicians support for 4) is baffling to me because of what I believe in 4)

6) my opinion in 5) leads me to speculate about Starmer’s integrity. (Not just Starmer btw)

 

Like I said, opinions.  If anything along that chain changed, then the following opinions would also change.

 

[Thug]

8 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Personally I can't really understand the calls for a ceasefire without any further discussion about how you go about getting two sides, neither of whom want one and one of whom you have no diplomatic relations with or leverage over to do that thing you're calling for. Otherwise it's as relevant as just calling for world peace. It's a noble objective, but not a solution to what's actually happening. 

I think the whole thing would be much easier to discuss if there was an assumed "Obviously I would like both sides to stop trying to kill each other" at the top of every comment. 

To be honest, from being a member of this forum for a very long time, I take your last sentence as a given from 99.999999% of posters here.  It’s genuinely a very nice community, so that’s my default position.

I think my main issue is that the default position of 2 sides to this ‘war’

To understand my position, I think you need to start thinking of this as a 3 sided war.  You have to separate Hamas and the civilians.  Hamas do something, and the Gazans suffer.

I don’t know the answer.  What I see is Hamas, war criminals.  IDF, war criminals.  The people of Gaza and Israel as the victims.

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, Thug said:

I don’t think anyone objects to ‘Israel’s right to defend itself.’

But there’s a line, which has long been crossed.

At the end of the day, it’s all about opinions- and it’s natural that there’s a chain here where each opinion is largely based on the one before.

I would say that my chain is as follows:

1) the Palestinian people are oppressed.

2) Hamas used this sense of injustice to garner support to carry out a horrific attack, with an underlying agenda to incite a reaction from Israel (for a multiple of political reasons)

3) Israel reacted - like I would expect them to.

4) Israel are taking things too far - in my opinion it is no longer about defence - but I would speculate that their objective is now different, but remains under the banner of self protection and to destroy Hamas.  I do not believe they are being as surgical as they could.

5) The uk politicians support for 4) is baffling to me because of what I believe in 4)

6) my opinion in 5) leads me to speculate about Starmer’s integrity. (Not just Starmer btw)

Like I said, opinions.  If anything along that chain changed, then the following opinions would also change.

Yeah, spot on with the first 4. The last 2, like you say different opinions. As I sometimes have to type, here I'm commenting in this next sentence, not on my personal view of the conflict, but of my assessment of why politicians are doing what they're doing. It's this, the last 2 I think it's pretty clear that for 5 they are following the Western orthodoxy with terror attacks. And for 6 I don't at all think there's so much of a sniff of any evidence of any lack of integrity and I have no reason at all to think he's said what he's said for any other reason than his own genuinely held views.

[OutByEaster?]

I think it's telling in a way that Starmer is receiving much more direct criticism for not backing a ceasefire than Sunak is.

We still expect the Tories to be 'bad' and Labour to be 'good' and that massively oversimplified paradigm is the one that Starmer repeatedly finds himself the wrong side of, not just on Israel but on many things. Frightened horses are one thing, but he needs to be mindful that even if he's not offering 'good', that the 'less bad' he's offering voters is 'less bad' enough to justify their faith in him.