What is the point of labour ?

[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.

[oneteaminglasgow]

6 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

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.

“Ethnic cleaning is bad” isn’t complex. I don’t think that Starmer is indifferent to the suffering, I think that he’s actively supporting it. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by oneteaminglasgow

[O'Kelly Isley III]

1 hour ago, houston_bud said:

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.

Of course I agree that Keir Starmer is not indifferent to the suffering in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank.  But unlike most of us he's actually in a position to influence things.  Unfortunately however, instead of taking that Obama 'nuanced' judgement he immediately positioned the Labour Party four-square behind the familiar but failed policy of the UK and the USA.  

Apart from being a dispiriting knee-jerk response which ignores the humanitarian traditions of his party, it is to me also electorally incoherent as despite what the UK right-wing media may claim, opposition to what the IDF is currently under instruction from the Israeli Government to do in Gaza does NOT equate to hatred of Israel or Jews per se.

At some point there has to be a negotiated peace in the region.  A Starmer-led UK Government could be part of that process but he's not off to a good start, especially with the Palestinian and Arab elements, never mind a sizeable percentage of his own party and the UK electorate.

[HTG]

Starmer is a complete fucking shitebag. 

[Highlandmagar]

47 minutes ago, HTG said:

Starmer is a complete fucking shitebag. 

He hasn't got any control of his party. Heading for a hung parliament. He should be chased 

[DrewDon]

4 minutes ago, Highlandmagar said:

He hasn't got any control of his party. Heading for a hung parliament. He should be chased 

What is it about Labour's consistent 20/25-point poll leads that makes you think Starmer is heading for a hung parliament? 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Just now, DrewDon said:

What is it about Labour's consistent 20/25-point poll leads that makes you think Starmer is heading for a hung parliament? 

Two words - John Major.

[Highlandmagar]

Just now, DrewDon said:

What is it about Labour's consistent 20/25-point poll leads that makes you think Starmer is heading for a hung parliament? 

Because when he is put under the microscope of a general election he will crumble and be ripped apart. He is shallower than the shallow end of a swimming pool.

[carpetmonster]

Labour leader Keir Starmer has seen a big rebellion of eight shadow ministers – including Jess Phillips – from a total of 56 Labour MPs who voted with the SNP on an amendment to the king’s speech calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

The rebels on the front bench included Phillips, Rachel Hopkins, Sarah Owen, Afzal Khan, Paula Barker, Naz Shah, Yasmin Quereshi and Andy Slaughter.
 

Khan, Qureshi, Phillips and Barker have chucked it rather than waiting to be sacked, according to Guardian. 

[DrewDon]

2 minutes ago, Highlandmagar said:

Because when he is put under the microscope of a general election he will crumble and be ripped apart. He is shallower than the shallow end of a swimming pool.

There is nothing at the moment to suggest that this will happen, though - nor that the Tories would be able to take advantage of it, even if it did.

This isn't me commenting on whether I agree with Starmer, but he has repeatedly demonstrated since standing for the Labour leadership that he is a very agile and capable political operator.

[Highlandmagar]

1 minute ago, DrewDon said:

There is nothing at the moment to suggest that this will happen, though - nor that the Tories would be able to take advantage of it, even if it did.

This isn't me commenting on whether I agree with Starmer, but he has repeatedly demonstrated since standing for the Labour leadership that he is a very agile and capable political operator.

Agile and capable? Really? He has just jumped onto to Tory policies. Not a man of conviction or capability for a Labour Party leader.