What is the point of Labour ?

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 hours ago, doulikefish said:

Hearing labour are about to score an own goal shortly to deflect it all away from dodgy daves return 

Drum roll.....

[Bully Wee Villa]

This?

 

[Trogdor]

48 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

This?

That would be a monumental OG. Just leave it as a matter of conscience, don't punish people for wanting a ceasefire. An end to the fighting is not an unreasonable position to hold. 

[Bully Wee Villa]

Quite. Even ignoring the obvious morally repugnant side to it, it would be a ridiculous move politically.

[Dunning1874]

Jackie Baillie has said, in the same interview, that she and Scottish Labour support a ceasefire but also that the SNP tabling a vote calling for a ceasefire is "game playing".

Reprehensible.

[coprolite]

On 08/11/2023 at 07:30, SandyCromarty said:

Jeremy Corbyn, Dianne Abbot, McDonnel etc etc etc and the rest of the hard left will see Starmer off.

[Salt n Vinegar]

18 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Jackie Baillie has said, in the same interview, that she and Scottish Labour support a ceasefire but also that the SNP tabling a vote calling for a ceasefire is "game playing".

Reprehensible.

So if "Scottish" Labour are in favour of a ceasefire, and presuming that Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies are members of Scottish Labour, if Starmer disciplines any of them (sorry, either of them) who vote for a ceasefire, Scottish Labour should collectively tell Starmer to go fek himself.  (Of course, "Scottish" Labour will do no such thing.)

The saddest thing about the Sunak/ Cameron/ Braverman/ Truss/ Cleverly/ McVey keechfest is that so many voters in Scotland are perfectly happy to risk the UK voters returning these creeps into Government every 5 years.  

Sunak is now trying to reposition the Tories. He's got both the softy Cameron and the anti-woke (whatever that means) McVey trying to make the party appear like all things to all people.  Don't for a minute think the next general election is a done deal.  Wokewars won't stop.

[oneteaminglasgow]

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Jackie Baillie has said, in the same interview, that she and Scottish Labour support a ceasefire but also that the SNP tabling a vote calling for a ceasefire is "game playing".

Reprehensible.

It’s ok to believe things, but not ok to try to act on them in any way. 

[Dunning1874]

2 hours ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

It’s ok to believe things, but not ok to try to act on them in any way. 

I couldn't think of a better summation of Scottish Labour in general tbh. Not quite good enough for Starmer's Labour in 2023 though, because believing anything that puts you to the left of David Cameron isn't okay either.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Dunning1874

[DeeTillEhDeh]

On 08/11/2023 at 08:21, Granny Danger said:

If only…

Jeremy Corbyn is no longer a Labour MP.

Starmer has done everything in his power to marginalise the fairly small number of existing Labour MPs on the ‘left’.

There will be a huge number of new Labour MPs elected at the next GE, few if any will be on the left because Starmer and Labour’s National Executive have made sure that the selection processes have been fixed that way.

After the next GE ‘left’ Labour MPs will be so few in number and influence their only ‘power’ will be to embarrass Starmer on issues but the size of the Labour majority will be such that it won’t really matter.

 

As I said, possibly the worst take in a long time.

 

It won't be the Labour Left that bring him down but backstabbers in his own wing of the Party.

[KirkieRR]

I learn, six months late, that the dreariest of Labour columnists, Posh Polly Toynbee, was a speaker at Aye Write.

Please tell me no one turned up.

Does she still believe, I wonder, that MPs from Scottish constituencies should not be allowed to serve in the UK cabinet?

[BFTD]

On 13/11/2023 at 20:28, doulikefish said:

Hearing labour are about to score an own goal shortly to deflect it all away from dodgy daves return 

It's the only decent thing to do. They've been having a terrible time of it, you know.

7 hours ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

It’s ok to believe things, but not ok to try to act on them in any way. 

I don't know if Labour are actively looking for a new slogan, but I think you've cracked it regardless.

[houston_bud]

13 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Jackie Baillie has said, in the same interview, that she and Scottish Labour support a ceasefire but also that the SNP tabling a vote calling for a ceasefire is "game playing".

Reprehensible.

Both of those things can be true at the same time. Ultimately, whatever way Labour vote on any proposed amendment, Netanyahu is hardly going to be on tenterhooks to find out the outcome.

13 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

So if "Scottish" Labour are in favour of a ceasefire, and presuming that Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies are members of Scottish Labour, if Starmer disciplines any of them (sorry, either of them) who vote for a ceasefire, Scottish Labour should collectively tell Starmer to go fek himself.  (Of course, "Scottish" Labour will do no such thing.)

I think this take is evidence that Baillie is right about game playing. The SNP aren't tabling an amendment because they think it'll bring about a ceasefire should it pass. They're laying a trap for Labour. That's politics, some people might think that highlighting disagreements in the Labour party is a good thing, equally you could find the SNP using this crisis for political gain as quite crass.

11 hours ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

It’s ok to believe things, but not ok to try to act on them in any way. 

Let's say the Labour Party vote for a ceasefire, then what? Do the bombs stop falling? Do Hamas release the hostages? 

Starmer is likely to be PM in a year or so. If he comes our demanding a ceasefire, it'll make no difference to what's happening now but will probably have a negative consequence on any kind of dialogue with the Israeli government when he's PM. 

The implication that Starmer (or indeed Sunak) are indifferent to the suffering is not something I can take particularly seriously. 

[Freedom Farter]

Baillie is saying her party supports something yet won't vote for that very thing just to spite a rival party. That is "game playing", as she puts it.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

4 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

Baillie is saying her party supports something yet won't vote for that very thing just to spite a rival party. That is "game playing", as she puts it.

Absolutely.

No issue with the SNP tabling the vote - if SLab truly are not just the branch party then vote for it.   To say one thing then do another is complete fucking hypocrisy.

Edited November 15, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Leith Green]

5 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

Baillie is saying her party supports something yet won't vote for that very thing just to spite a rival party. That is "game playing", as she puts it.

Slightly unsure why Baillie is being asked about this, on the basis that the amendment is a Westminster one to the Kings Speech, and nothing at all to do with some tinpot mouthpiece who was about 20 votes from losing in the last Holyrood elections.

[oneteaminglasgow]

6 hours ago, houston_bud said:

The implication that Starmer (or indeed Sunak) are indifferent to the suffering is not something I can take particularly seriously. 

They should stop actively supporting it then. Both have made statements which are in complete support of what Israel is doing. Israel repeatedly admits that what they’re doing is ethnic cleaning. It’s not a particularly difficult moral dilemma to say that if you’re in a position of any influence, and don’t do anything to oppose that, then you are tacitly supporting it. 

[Suspect Device]

22 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Jackie Baillie 

Reprehensible.

FTFY.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

12 hours ago, houston_bud said:

Both of those things can be true at the same time. Ultimately, whatever way Labour vote on any proposed amendment, Netanyahu is hardly going to be on tenterhooks to find out the outcome.

I think this take is evidence that Baillie is right about game playing. The SNP aren't tabling an amendment because they think it'll bring about a ceasefire should it pass. They're laying a trap for Labour. That's politics, some people might think that highlighting disagreements in the Labour party is a good thing, equally you could find the SNP using this crisis for political gain as quite crass.

Let's say the Labour Party vote for a ceasefire, then what? Do the bombs stop falling? Do Hamas release the hostages? 

Starmer is likely to be PM in a year or so. If he comes our demanding a ceasefire, it'll make no difference to what's happening now but will probably have a negative consequence on any kind of dialogue with the Israeli government when he's PM. 

The implication that Starmer (or indeed Sunak) are indifferent to the suffering is not something I can take particularly seriously. 

I have to say that is a particularly glib take on things given that people are being murdered by the hour in Gaza. 

And whilst of course the SNP is laying a trap for Labour, and yes that is politics or game-playing if you prefer, it also serves to publicly highlight the circle that Labour simply cannot square, that of purporting to be a left-of-centre party of humane origins which has hopelessly strapped itself into a dismal 'Israel Right Or Wrong' policy straitjacket.

Israel may or may not react to world opinion, almost certainly the latter.  But that's no reason for people to simply shrug their shoulders and remain mute.  It's called taking a principled stand, and whilst the Tories are beyond the pale on that score it appears to have also fallen out of favour in the Labour Party.

Edited November 15, 2023 by O'Kelly Isley III

[houston_bud]

5 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

I have to say that is a particularly glib take on things given that people are being murdered by the hour in Gaza. 

And whilst of course the SNP is laying a trap for Labour, and yes that is politics or game-playing if you prefer, it also serves to publicly highlight the circle that Labour simply cannot square, that of purporting to be a left-of-centre party of humane origins which has hopelessly strapped itself into a dismal 'Israel Right Or Wrong' policy straitjacket.

Israel may or may not react to world opinion, almost certainly the latter.  But that's no reason for people to simply shrug their shoulders and remain mute.  It's called taking a principled stand, and whilst the Tories are beyond the pale on that score it appears to have also fallen out of favour in the Labour Party.

Glib? How so? 

Obama was interviewed last week and I thought his comment was an important one. I'm paraphrasing, he said that for this problem to be solved there needs to be an admission of it's complexity. 

I don't think that Starmer has an 'Israel right or wrong view'. I think he sees it, that he will soon be PM and his government will have to try and speak with the leaders of Israel as well as Fatah/PLO, so is being cautious. They're also not shrugging their shoulders, to me is seems there's a lot of semantics around 'ceasefire/humanitarian pauses' etc but presumably this stuff matters in terms of diplomacy.

Maybe Starmer's approach is the wrong one, but again I go back to my point that the opinion that he's indifferent to the suffering, is not an opinion worth taking seriously.