pink_triangle

Owen Jones accusing Starmer of racism, I thought he wanted a labour government? I have noticed since Corbyn his output has really deteriorated and he just looks like someone after likes and retweets. In comparison I think there is more interesting output from the likes of Bastani and Sarkar at Novara, even if you don’t always agree with them they can make a decent intellectual argument.

Unfortunately we are in a situation where there isn’t a good solution, just less terrible ones. Hopefully we are doing what we can to move the dial in the right direction.

I hold Starmer to much higher standards to Sunak and believe he will deliver on them. That’s why I will be voting labour in the next election. I think he cares more about health, education, poverty, housing and many other important things. However what people are asking Starmer to say (with most accepting he has no influence and can’t do anything) is something that splits the Labour Party, potentially loses an election , distances himself for potential allies and reduces his potential to influence if he does get power. This is political chess and Starmer has to think several moves ahead with anything he says. How will the public perceive it, how will the party perceive it, how will the media twist it, how will other foreign leaders act etc. If you want to be leader of the opposition forever you can’t always say what you want all the time.

I think sometimes we get the impression that those on the left are the “caring” ones and those on the right the “bad guys”. Through my job i have met some ukip supporters who do amazing charity work and some horrible left wing people so clearly things are more complicated. I note a tweet from one of the Novara people which she sensibly deleted. You wonder why people would put it out in the first place 'Today should be a day of celebration for supporters of democracy and human rights worldwide, as Gazans break out of their open-air prison and Hamas fighters cross into their colonisers' territory. The struggle for freedom is rarely bloodless and we shouldn't apologise for it.'

The call you would like him to make would split his own party, it would stir up the anti semetism stuff and link him with Jez, something the Tory’s would love him to do. As I said I’m completely fine costing votes (maybe an election) if it helps the situation, fact is it doesn’t save one life. If Starmer then navigates through an election, he has isolated all his allies (by taking an alternative view) and Israel doesn’t let him near the negotiating table. As Ukraine has shown people will take interest at first and then quickly turn a blind eye as other priorities take over. While I think your views on this come from the right place , I don’t think they fit the real world that a PM has to work in.

I think it’s great we live in a country where we can criticise the country and the opposition, not everyone is so lucky. The question goes back however if you’re criticising what he is saying, what should he say that can make a difference and not split the party, or adversely impact on their electoral chances? This is in the world as it is, not the one you would like it to be.

I imagine there are a host of things he supports that he won’t say in public because it makes political sense. That’s the pragmatism of power, if you are a protest party you can say everything you think and not care about the impact. Out of interest what would you advise Starmer to say that both was right, but wouldn’t adversely impact on party unity or electoral chances?

The question aren’t asked because the Tory’s are pretty united. It’s a bit of a wedge issue for labour which I think some are hoping to exploit.

I think they are two different discussions. However both exist in the world as it is, not the one you may like it to be. I want to see less people killing each other, I hold my hands up that I don’t know the solution to that. I have to hope that cleverer people than me can find a sticking plaster, because that’s more likely than a solution. Now Starmer can’t necessarily say what he wants, only he knows what he really thinks. I think the approach he is going to take is obvious and the one I would advise him to take. As I said his approach is one that works with the world as it is, not the one we may like it to be.

Who is supporting Israel? I wish neither side bombed each other. I’m supporting Starmer who I believe is taking the correct approach. If people want Starmer to scream about war crimes and solidarity with Palestinians fine, but it won’t save a single life, it will split the party and if Labour wins give them no negotiation power.

Do you really think Biden, Macron , Sunak etc are all going to be hauled to international court and thrown in jail? International law is by its nature still political. Hopefully this sh*t storm will be sorted through politics as it won’t through the law. My guess is Starmer/labour will pretty much follow the Sunak (and mainstream western leader) message. Politics is sometime about knowing which battles to fight and which you can win

The thing is we can say what we want and (admittedly making assumptions on your behalf ther definitely don’t on mine ) nobody gives a sh*t. Starmer lives in a world where what he says matters and sometimes he probably can’t say what he wants. Starmer wants to be PM of this country. In a way I admire him for that as it’s a job I wouldn’t want to do. It’s a job where you make tough decisions and get involved in this crazy geopolitical world where i wouldn’t know where to start. I don’t have a clue how to sort this mess, but in his position you can’t say I don’t have a clue and have to think not just about what you say, the short and long term impact and how it will be interpreted or twisted. I think your point about social media is an apt one. Starmer could come out with statements some on the left would like, could get likes and retweets. Instead he is playing the long game and taking the flack that comes with that. This shitstorm won’t be solved by statements on social media, i think Starmer gets that and is laser focused on winning the election and making things better

I want to see less people dieing from both sides . I am not pro or anti Israel or Palestine. I am just anti needless death. Unfortunately needless death has resulted in more needless death and that will continue. The question is how can we reduce (as we won’t stop ) these needless deaths and what measures can we put in the future to make them less likely. I think if Starmer/labour made the statement you would like him to make, it wouldn’t save a single life. I doubt most in the region even know who he is. It would however split the Labour Party and potentially impact on the next election. If I thought Starmer had the influence to save loads of lives then maybe that’s worth it. Unfortunately i don’t believe he has that influence. So we are left with the generic position Israel has a right to defend, but needs to stay within international law. We can only hope those who do have influence can sort this out.

I am sure in power they will be involved in diplomacy. However some people have this need to see everything on twitter, many of these talks will be done behind closed doors. As you say what labour say in public will make no difference if it’s the opposite to the USA.

How can labour work for peace in the opposition, as the opposition party they have no sway. If they get in to power they will have a tiny bit of sway, but not much.

Whatever you think about this complex situation. Surely everyone can agree it doesn’t make the slightest difference if they light up Wembley in the colours of Israel.

Of course you have a right to be annoyed. When money is tight everyone will be annoyed about something. From a personal perspective I need to be persuaded that getting rid of tuition fees is the right thing to do. I feel that a regressive change when I would look for something more progressive.

I wonder what proportion of SNP politicians are true nationalists and how many just see the SNP as the easiest route to become a politician.

I know of the argument you have to move to the centre to win. I actually think someone more left could win, but the problem was the person delivering the message. Jez had too much baggage, not enough charisma and couldn’t adapt. He ended in the position almost by accident, so not really his fault. I still feel a younger (with less baggage) and more charismatic lefty could win under the right circumstances.

I (through my union membership) voted Starmer knowing he would go left for the party vote and move centre when it came to the country. Candidates (left and right) have done similar things in different countries for years, I think anyone who didn’t think this was happening was a bit naive. However happy to consider the alternative scenario where Starmer was 100 percent honest about his plans. We have RLB as labour leader, 5 more years of the PLP split, labour getting stuck in debates about politics. While PM Bojo heads for another election win and the left slap themselves on the back saying we may be in opposition, but at least we stuck with our principles. I get the impression the average voter is quite happy that Starmer fibbed about his pledges, at least they have a labour leader they can vote for. To me being a leader is not just about what you stand for, but making the correct decisions. Starmer could have thrown out his toys like Chuka, but stayed within the tent. He could have looked to get people singing his name in Glastonbury, but he cares more about winnning an election. He may not be charismatic, but I think he is a good politician, with good judgement and his heart is in the right place. That’s a good start for me.

It depends how you mean by movement to the right, it’s right compared to Corbyn. However I see Starmer labour as mainstream centre left, to the left of Democrats in USA. Similar to Blair/Brown labour. Certainly no more right than the SNP who seem to fool some people. I do worry about this idea of saying they are another right wing party just leads to a Tory government. I see Starmer as a very able politician and one who is there for the right reasons, he could earn way more money doing something different.

The electorate had 2 opportunities to choose Corbyn and chose not to. He was a drag on labour as a band, the Tory’s are not trying to link Starmer with Jez because it gives the electorate a warm and fuzzy feeling. Foreign affairs are an issue of politics, always have been and always will be. The Labour Party exists to get power and sometimes involves pragmatism.

If you take the topic of Israel/Palestine this is (rightly or wrongly) something the electorate doesn’t really care about. I can quite understand them not wanting to use political capital on such an issue, where what they say will have zero impact anyway. I’m not sure about HS2, I’m personally for it, but again don’t see it as an important issue for most. They are instead focusing on issues that matter to people, we can wish different issues matter to the electorate, but probably can’t change that now.

Agreed the rhetoric will be very much about right to defend, but we all know what’s said in private and public are likely different.

That’s just not true, if you ask Tory’s to pick the labour policy on this then they would choose the most pro Palestine approach possible as this gives a dividing line to fight an election, splits the Labour Party and allows them to link Starmer to the previous unpopular leader. Having the same approach pretty much nullifies any attack line.