Jump to content

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


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bickster said:

The Board of Deputies is running the Labour Party? You don't see that as a) false and b) an antisemitic conspiracy theory?

For it is exactly that

I think this requires far more nuance than I have time to write or others would be interested in reading. There's a huge backstory to all of this which people will see in whichever way their current views lean.

Yes, it would be antisemitic if you assume that by the Board of Deputies it means Jewish people.

No, it's not antisemitic to people who have something against the Board of Deputies as an organisation because of how hostile they were to the Labour left, irrespective of who they represent.

I have my issues with how the BoD have done some things over the past few years (especially Jonathan Sacks) but I probably wouldn't tweet that Starmer is being controlled by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I think this requires far more nuance than I have time to write or others would be interested in reading. There's a huge backstory to all of this which people will see in whichever way their current views lean.

Yes, it would be antisemitic if you assume that by the Board of Deputies it means Jewish people.

No, it's not antisemitic to people who have something against the Board of Deputies as an organisation because of how hostile they were to the Labour left, irrespective of who they represent.

I have my issues with how the BoD have done some things over the past few years (especially Jonathan Sacks) but I probably wouldn't tweet that Starmer is being controlled by them.

Darren the huge backstory is Jews don't like antisemites

The Board of Deputies are not controlling Kier Starmer

It is an antisdemitic conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, it's as antisemitic as the Jews controlling the banks, it's a variation on the same trope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Makes you wonder why you’d have experts if you were not going to listen to them.

Don't be silly, they are following the science not a bunch of experts, everyone's tired of experts after all

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's necessarily outrageous to not implement SAGE advice. Their remit and primary objective is to eradicate the virus at all costs, and they give advice to that end. Others will be briefing on other factors. It's the job of the government to consolidate the different considerations and decide on the right path forward. It shouldn't simply be a case of saying "well the scientists want this, so let's do it", otherwise we'd just not bother with politicians and have SAGE run the country.

Whether Boris actually had any sound argument or justification for that advice is another matter, of course. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I don't think it's necessarily outrageous to not implement SAGE advice. Their remit and primary objective is to eradicate the virus at all costs, and they give advice to that end. Others will be briefing on other factors. It's the job of the government to consolidate the different considerations and decide on the right path forward. It shouldn't simply be a case of saying "well the scientists want this, so let's do it", otherwise we'd just not bother with politicians and have SAGE run the country.

Whether Boris actually had any sound argument or justification for that advice is another matter, of course. 

I’d hope that the sage advice carried a bit more realistic context otherwise they’d just tell everybody to stay home for 18 months, job done.
I haven’t seen it but I’m assuming they use the term circuit breaker because it’s a relatively short sharp action, as opposed to what the government have decided to do which is a long drawn out weak as piss half hearted action that will almost certainly need shoring up at a later stage.

They will have advised that it was (in their view) the best option for the country as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Genie said:

Makes you wonder why you’d have experts if you were not going to listen to them.

To respond to this and your and @Davkaus's subsequent posts, there's a difference between ignoring expert advice (or even saying that you, as the politician with no expertise know better) and making a call based on things which include the advice given by experts.

A long while back, jackboot Jacqui and Alan Johnson both had a beef with David Nutt and his opinion about the danger of specific drugs. They claimed that Nutt was making political rather than scientific points and so this justified them criticising what he said. That was, I think a load of old cock.

It's fair enough for politicians to weigh up the whole spectrum of concerned opinion (even uninformed as well as informed - though relative weight ought to be given obviously) and then make their decision. It's not fair enough for them either to suggest that they know better in the field than people with expertise or to hide behind someone's expertise to justify the decision that they fell most politically apposite.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm the nearest I've been to resigning from the party, since Starmer put us under "New Leadership". Abstaining on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill puts me personally in danger of being blacklisted, and in the most extreme circumstances, tortured or murdered by the state, due to my involvement trade union activities. I cannot rationalise this one. Feel very let down by the party's leadership. 

Edited by dAVe80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

I'm the nearest I've been to resigning from the party, since Starmer put us under "New Leadership". Abstaining on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill puts me personally in danger of being blacklisted, and in the most extreme circumstances, tortured or murdered by the state, due to my involvement trade union activities. I cannot rationalise this one. Feel very let down by the party's leadership. 

The party leadership doesn't want you.

It wants the soft Tories that got Blair to power, and as such the likes of you are actively a threat to what they want to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

I'm the nearest I've been to resigning from the party, since Starmer put us under "New Leadership". Abstaining on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill puts me personally in danger of being blacklisted, and in the most extreme circumstances, tortured or murdered by the state, due to my involvement trade union activities. I cannot rationalise this one. Feel very let down by the party's leadership. 

It’s a poor decision on their part.

Don’t leave all the decision making to those sorts of people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has occurred to me this is what they want. They want us to leave. 

I'm staying put till at least after the NEC elections. Part of my job in my union now involves me being a member of the party too. Looking on Twitter, our Deputy General Secretary has already has called it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â