Firstly, it is a relief to know that Labour, if they get into power again, will downgrade their previous policy of shooting innocent civilians first, and asking questions later, to only doing so in an actual terrorist situation. Rayner's alleged appeasement of the right is not what you claim it to be, and is actually a simple reiteration of continuity of policy under Labour. Think Hooter's making things up again? Note the year... "Operation Kratos was a set of tactics developed by London's Metropolitan Police Service for dealing with suspected suicide bombers, most notably firing shots to the head without warning. The tactics were developed shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks, based in part on consultation with Israeli and Sri Lankan law enforcement agencies on how to deal with suicide bombers." Jean Charles de Menezes was shot first, as a terrorist, with no questions asked, no chance of surrender, and pretty much no justification more than "he was swarthy and appeared to be in a bit of a hurry". He was dead from the moment it was assumed (no confirmation needed) he was a terrorist, and he proceeded towards a tube station. The most severe, unrelenting and unforgiving act of judgement and execution possible, and not a tory in sight. That happened under Labour in 2005, nearly ten years into the last Labour government, and during Ken Livingstons last tenure as London Mayor. So suggesting Raynor was appeasing the right is quite ludicrous. Labour elitism already embraced such things. Indeed, it could even be argued, quite reasonably, that Rayner's comment was an easing in Labour policy, given that, in Jean Charles' case, there was NOTHING to indicate the murdered Brazilian was a terrorist. It is a shame that posters on here reject history and reality, and instead rely on ignorance to make points defaming the right, when in fact the left are unarguably the champions of the 'right wing' causes they attempt to smear the right with. Someone tell me I am wrong.
I,i,i,i,fwah, Fwah, Fwah It’s The Tories!! Nah. It's Sir Keir Starmer’s Barmy Army. Again. And barmy is the word.
The problem that Labour has had for a long time is they focus on internal conflicts rather than making an effort to compromise and focus on common ground. I think the Conservatives cover just as broad a church as Labour (or they did before the Brexit purge) but they keep their internal arguements to a minimum, especially in the run-up to elections. Anytime any labour personality comments on social media it's almost always labour commentators from the opposite "wing" of the party that are the main critics in the replies. The main positive for Labour this week is the pact between Starmer and Davey to target dozens of Tory seats. Without that, I still think Labour would struggle to get into power despite the clusterfecks of the current government.
Some of that is fair, but the Tory infighting over the last 6 or 7 years has been spectacular. How many MPs ejected by Johnson? May unseated by the ERG? Etc.
cc The pressure put on Boris over the last few months, popularly supported by both the left and right wing sides of politics, that led to the tories leaning further to the right, was a democratic action, like it or not, that could not have been achieved without persuading a majority of MP's to threaten the PM with a no confidence vote or further defeats on policy. Internal arguments are one thing, but when they are massively popular uprisings, like May's leadership challenge, or shifts towards popular party positions with broad support of the public, such as ending COVID restrictions, it is not just likely that they will strengthen party unity, but a certainty. And also likely to increase public support. Internal arguments are not the issue. Resolving them is the important thing, and the Conservatives are more able to do that, because they are not infested with extremists and idealogically opposed groups such as 'TERF' and Trans allies, BLM and Labour's non-racist traditional voters, or anti-racists v anti-Semetism. The only way to remove these mutually exclusive ideologies, is to rid the party of one or both sides in each conflict. That just isn't going to happen, because without it's extremists, the Labour party just do not have the numbers to get elected, and will come under the same type of damaging attack (accusations of racism, etc.) from those rejected groups that Labour has enjoyed dishing out to the right. Yes, overnight they would become far right wing!! Resolving infighting is a catch 22 situation for Labour. For the Conservatives, it is win-win. Not resolving infights, for both sides, is the only issue. Labour cannot afford to resolve them, nor can it afford not to. Which is why it never does. Someone tell me I am wrong.
Despot supreme leader Sir Kier Rodneyovich Starmer has started his purge. In the space of 48 hours he’s forced the usual anti-NATO faction of the PLP to back down (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...the-war-coalition-claudia-webbe-b2022770.html) and grounded Young Labour and sent it to its bedroom without dinner (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-nato-keir-starmer-young-labour-b2023351.html) Ruling with an iron fist.
Some parts of the statement are correct and there are reasonable criticisms. There was some dreadful sabre rattling from the UK Government (literally, as the Crimean War was invoked). But this episode is all down to Putin and Europe needs NATO to fulfil its defensive purpose, so everyone behave FFS. The statement in full. It would be nice to have @La_tempesta_cielo_68 view on it. https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/...the-war-statement-on-the-crisis-over-ukraine/
What do I think? I think both Labour and Con are failed parties, and the UK needs some fresh ideas I find the majority of modern politicians incompetent chancers, and lament we no longer have the services of very capable big hitters like John Smith, Tony Benn etc on the left Part of the problem is the continual need to service real time social media
It’s not helpful and I wouldn’t go, but before you get all high and mighty, those pictures of shock and awe as a mighty power bombards civilian areas leading to casualties, dead kids and cities raised to the ground - well we have plenty of form for that. But today, these are useful idiots for Putin. He would be better off at this one.
Shameful. It goes wrong right at the very start and then gets worse. It's not "a war over Ukraine" - that suggests there is a legitimate dispute that had led to the war and that Ukraine is just caught in the middle between bigger powers. These people are Russian sympathising arseholes, pure and simple.
Agree that is a poor choice of words to begin with. And it ought to be clear what it means by Ukranian self-determination if Russia continues not to like it. Some people can only see things in terms of my enemy’s enemies, which is wrong. I’m simply saying that not all the right is on our side when it comes to global militarisation and let’s not have us pretending it is. That’s just as bad. Does it really help to have a minister boasting about the Crimean War? It’s quite reasonable to look at the actions of the GB Government. Not so long ago we thought it helpful to sail our warships close to Russian bases there. But unequivocally, Putin caused this to happen and shoulders the blame. Any statement muddying that, which this does, isn’t called for.
Opposing all military expansionism/intervention is of course a valid viewpoint. What Corbyn and that wider movement have shown time and again is that they apply different standards to the West because of their deep seated hatred of capitalism.
That’s partially true, but it’s also not unreasonable for politics to focus on what we do primarily, because it’s done in our name with our taxes. It seems very easy when confronted with a obvious wrong like this invasion to suspend all disbelief and scepticism towards our political and military elite that has been bombing civilians and wedding parties throughout the last 20 years, that brought rendition, occupation, depleted uranium etc. In this context, we are about defence only, but let’s not be naive and say this is really our only recent record. So if people want to criticise militarisation, then they can. But not in this clanging, opportunistic way.
I was concerned about people having their voices taken away by this, but Starmer is actually imposing a party view here which is different. Removing the whip does not stop a person from speaking their thoughts, nor does the threat of defunding young Labour. They can step away and continue with their opinions outside the party, depending on the strength of their convictions, and their subsequent actions can be judged for what they are. I would like to see him do the same with other extreme elements of the party. I am not sure this will go far in rehabilitating Starmer himself, he has portrayed himself as far too weak, but it could be the start of rehabilitating the party. He has not shut them up, he has just said that if they want to express these views, they may not do so as a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Sorry for stating the obvious. But the obvious has not always come naturally to Labour. I think he has done an alright thing here, and it reflects positively on him as a leader.
Labour win the Erdington By-election occasioned by the death of Labour MP Jack Dromey. This was one of the highest Leave voting areas and so it may be some small sign that Brexit may increasingly be less of a millstone for Labour. Low turnout though. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-60613453
I have no idea why Yvette Cooper seems to be dead set against waiving visas for Ukrainians. It seems counter intuitive - they surely can't be worried about 'fake Ukranians'? Or is it because they are worried, as with brexit, about ******* off Northern xenophobes?
The right of the Party has one gambit which is be pretty much like the Tories but not as **** at it. Good, that if there are to be visas it’s done double quick and easy for fleeing people, but hardly seems necessary, despite the claim of a false application or two claiming to be Ukranian. You wouldn’t have thought it was beyond the wit of customs to tell one from the other.
You forget, Ukraine has an ethnic mix and some of the ethnic-Russian population are quite happy being Ukrano-Russians (I imagine mixed marriages are very common). If I was a Russian spymaster I would be using that to slip in agents (sorry I've just finished watching the, very good, IPCRESS File).
To be honest, I think you'd have to be a bit thick to be a single-issue Brexit voter at this point. That ship long since sailed, even if it is holed beneath the waterline in a number of places.
But why would this suddenly be a concern? What could a Russian spy do now that they couldn’t do a month ago? We haven’t banned Russians from the country have we? They can still come in via legit means and as spies, you’d assume they’d have all they need to do that.
Anyone got the remotest idea why Starmer thought now would be a great time to step on the ‘definition of a woman’ booby trap?
I think it followed Jenni Murray’s article in the Mail, which followed Yvette Cooper dodging the issue. I mean come, surely Yvette could have workshopped an answer by now? A lot of criticism of Starmer’s interpretation of the law, but the irony of this is that his critics don’t really believe in the right to live in your assigned gender that the law provides for.
Thought he did that at conference last year, same time he said the next Bond should be a woman. It is not a booby trap for Starmer or Labour. It is apparent policy, and he is just showing consistency with his cabinet, back bench and activist colleagues, who some would have us believe are a small, insignificant proportion of the party.
I do often look at centre Labour MPs and wonder what on Earth attracted them to the Party. One such is Graham Stringer, who has attracted fresh criticism for sharing another platform with Nigel Farage. Farage’s latest diesel powered bandwagon is an attempt to roll back ‘Net Zero’ with a (sigh) referendum. Stringer will share the stage with him. There are of course issues with Net Zero of energy security and equity. However, I’d be very surprised if Labour voters were not for it en masse and would vote for very different ways of tackling the issues around it to Farage. This is typical of the Labour Right’s indifference to Labour voters and members. For Farage it’s simply another vehicle for his rancid style of populism. We don’t need a referendum for everything Farage doesn’t like. No Labour MP should be giving him the time of day. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...tringer-join-nigel-farage-anti-net-zero-rally
So we wake up this morning to hear that Starmer and Rayner ‘may’ have broken lockdown rules. You know the ones they wanted to make more restrictive. After months of bashing boris(quite right too) it seems that they were at it as well. You really couldn’t make it up! Both parties absolutely shocking.
There are a few differences though: Starmer was investigated by the police and found not to have breached the rules as it was a campaigning event (exempt). Johnson was investigated by the police and found to have broken the law. Starmer is accused of breaking the rules at one event. Johnson is accused of multiple breaches. The Starmer event took place in April when the pandemic was abating ahead of summer. The Downing St events took place in the run up to a Christmas, that was heavily restricted because of the mounting number of cases. But, most of all, JOHNSON'S GOVERNMENT WROTE THE RULES! I have absolutely no problem with Starmer, or anyone else, being investigated and reinvestigated for Covid restrictions/law breaches. And, if any of them are found guilty then they should be fined and, if a minister or shadow minister, removed from office. But their offences are never going to be equivalent to those that wrote the laws, told us night after night how important it was for us to obey them, while totally ignoring them themselves.
And all this from the Daily Heil. They are really kacking themselves about the elections. Pictures of Starmers "birthday cake" "gathering" taken in July (when no lockdown) when Starmer b/day in September. Starmers birthday during Eat out to help out. Picture of Starmer on Rayner on zoom in the same chair so not at same time. And, finally, and definitively, he was in Durham to campaign in the Hartlepool by-election. It is all a desperate attempt to convince you that 'they're all the same'.
For Christ's sake why don't these people get on with sorting out the God-awful mess this country is about to find itself in instead of obsessing over who ate some cake with who and which female MP had her arse pinched at the xmas party
I, for one, believe the government should be capable of doing more than one thing at a time! And I don't believe an excuse that "we're too busy" or "have better things to do" is ever acceptable as a reason to give misconduct and impropriety in our government a free pass. There has been a catalogue of abuse, including sexual, in parliament and law breaking going on in Downing Street, as well as elsewhere amongst our law makers. That is not acceptable or excusable in my opinion. And, if we ignore it, then it's the start of a slippery slope. Why should the common person accept the moral boundaries and laws of the land if the law makers don't?
All this proves is what most sensible people already knew - namely that the laws brought in around covid were utterly ridiculous and pretty much any form of social contact can be construed as 'sexual assault' these days
If the restrictions were ridiculous then surely those that brought them in should be the least deserving of a free pass for breaking them? There are, I believe 56 MPs, under investigation for sexual misconduct. I would have to see the charges and evidence first, but I doubt very much if they are all innocent "office bantz". Certainly watching porn in the office is never going to be acceptable and, if done in front of colleagues, is very much a form of sexual intimidation/misconduct. What is the alternative? Let MPs do what they like with none of the consequences, that the likes of you or I would have to face, if we did the same?
