Keir Starmer

[TinFoilHat]

Some keep saying that he’s a bit boring and soft, the reality is that he’s pretty ruthless and will not stop until he has his way.

I reckon he'll be like Truedau in power. He will be more authoritarian than he's giving away.

In our current rail dispute some members are naively thinking that him as PM will change the dynamic positively. Yet he's not promised to reveal any of the Draconian protest laws put in place by the Tories.

 

[Rascal]

You might find the answer unedifying, but it is very simple.

Despite a lot of guff in here, we are not citizens of the world, there is a hierarchy of empathy and more importantly a limit. And what empathy there is for the Palestinians and Israelis is further drained by a sense of never ending hopelessness.

For those with a dog in the race this situation is paramount, for the rest of us? Despite what we might tell ourselves, not so much.

To quote Neville Chamberlain it is "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing".

Which is a very fair point to make, I have no skin in the game,i will not pretend i actually understand the situation, i don't, but what I do have though is humanity and compassion. The needless death of any person is a situation I find hard to come to terms with, when it is the mass destruction of a populace (any populace), I simply do not understand how man can treat fellow man with so much disdain and hatred.

 

[BayernMan]

 

[Postman Pep]

This on top of doubling down and still insisting that he didn't say what he actually said live on LBC. Shameless lying ****.

 

[Vic]

Brass neck on this ****

I didn't like the original answer. I guess he was reflecting one "just war" view that belligerents are not obliged to feed or supply an enemy (so could cut off access to a well, but couldn't poison the well) but any subtlety was lost and instead it sounded like endorsing a siege.

I'm not sure what he thought was going to happen.

 

[Postman Pep]

 

[BayernMan]

 

[BayernMan]

 

[blueinsa]

Do you think he and the leadership are Islamaphobic?

 

[metalblue]

I didn't like the original answer. I guess he was reflecting one "just war" view that belligerents are not obliged to feed or supply an enemy (so could cut off access to a well, but couldn't poison the well) but any subtlety was lost and instead it sounded like endorsing a siege.

I'm not sure what he thought was going to happen.

I think it’s more subtle than that and it feels like one of those damned if you do, damned if you don’t situations for him so I have a bit of sympathy here.

He’s going to be terrified of anti-semitism accusations resurfacing against the Labour Party. If he says anything remotely hostile towards Israeli actions the Tory press is going to round on Labour and him, pushing that door more and more. Maybe it will stick, maybe it won’t.

It’s hard to see how any other response would have ended any better for him, and party HQ would have war gamed different responses - deciding it’s better to piss off parts of the Labour Party (who they can say are legacy anti-Semitics if needs must) rather than the Tory press. I’m sure they’ve also “war gamed” voters won’t be swayed if Labour and Tories are following the same path.

Now if I was war gaming this in Tory HQ I’d be telling my side to double down on our support for Israel and look to goad labour in to breaking cover….and it’s working at a very low level based on some councillors resigning.

Politics is a dirty business.