Keir Starmer - new Labour leader

boltonbonce wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Struggling a bit with this, not Starmer sacking her - I understand he wants to set a precedent. But why was what Peake said anti-Semitic?

You can't have a pop at Israel without being called anti-semitic. Calling Netanyahu corrupt got me in hot water.
No wonder he loves Trump.
Resigned from the Party today.

You resigned from the Labour Party today?

Wow - that's a big thing from you, at least in the way you portray yourself on here - and I don't doubt that you are genuine in that respect.

Fwiw it seemed to me only a question of time before Starmer would have dumped her/and her looney left mates as they are unelectable with them (remember my two rules of politics).

From what I understand this was more of a power play confrontation - she was asked several times to take down the tweet and deliberately stood her ground - so something had to give - and if it was painted (rightly or wrongly) as a anti-Semitic issue - then Starmer couldn't be seen to turn a blind eye to it and let it go.

Long- Bailey claims she had permission to put up the tweet (maybe she had) but clearly a higher view thought it best it wasn't out there and ordered it to be removed.

She must have had her reasons to put up a fight (test out Starmer's bottle perhaps?) because she would have known the consequences if he didn't bottle what he had to do (and the thinking must have been to know he would react).

Going back to my two rules in politics I can only think the left have some sort of a long term strategy to disengage with Starmer and presumably blame him and his polices for losing the 2024 GE and put themselves forward as the way forward for the Labour Party for the 2029 GE, when in all probability the country would be ripe for a change in government anyway.

Or something like that because it was always going to be a fight that she was never going to win.

Bonce, feel free to join my political ideology - namely they are all as bad as each other, politics is only a game in order to gain power and thereafter hold on to it - and they would all compromise their ideas and beliefs if they had to in order to do what was required to win.

A rhetorical question - who was the last PM who actually delivered what they truly believed in?

I would say Clem Atlee in 1945 - 1951.

Seventy years ago if so!

Quite a thought if I'm correct.

Can see why RLB didn’t want to take it down on those terms, classing this type of comment as anti-Semitic sets a dangerous precedent.

Not quit over this alone Sluffy. I started the process some time ago but, getting out is harder than getting in.
I feel strangely free.

boltonbonce wrote:Not quit over this alone Sluffy. I started the process some time ago but, getting out is harder than getting in.
I feel strangely free.

Welcome to the Tory Party!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Can see why RLB didn’t want to take it down on those terms, classing this type of comment as anti-Semitic sets a dangerous precedent.

I would have thought you would have 'got it'?

It's not what was said but more about the 'sensitivity' of the matter - and in my humble opinion the excessive over reaction some issues seem to provoke these days.

I certainly don't want to get myself in bother but some of the reactions to the issues flowing from the George Floyd killing seem out of proportion to the issues/event - such as the 'boxing' off of Churchill's statue.

Fwiw there was a national competition as to who was British public considered the greatest Britain ever was, in 2002 with Churchill coming out the winner - indeed he and the runner up IK Brunel - were main characters in the London 2012 Olympic opening ceremony - just eight years ago!!!

As the world in respect of Churchill really turned completely upside down in just eight years, so much so that he is being perceived now as a persona non grata?

Surely that is a vast over-reaction is it not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons

Similarly it appears to me that anything that remotely could be linked to Israel/the Jewish state is 'out of bounds' to those in charge of the Labour party, and shall remain so for some considerable time henceforth.

Seems such things are now becoming the new norms, certainly for those of the social media generation, which leaves people like myself out in the margins and completely mystified as to such superficial and instantaneous crowd reaction and behaviour based mainly it seems to me on what their mates are reading and saying on Twitter and FB.

These days you simply can't be seen not to rush to embrace the prevailing view and that's why some subjects are taboo to even be mentioned and if done so draconian sanctions instantaneously follow such as what happened here, today.

Yes thanks for that, but I’ve already said I understand why he did it. My concern is over the long running debate over valid criticism of the Israeli government being dismissed as anti-Semitic. That debate has been running far longer and goes far deeper than social media.

Few things I’ve found interesting when reading this, put onto both by the comedy writer David Schneider. Bonce be interested to hear what you think:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitism-labour-israel-netanyahu-palestine-david-schneider-a8905941.html
https://twitter.com/sara_rose_g/status/1276171378044125189?s=21

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Yes thanks for that, but I’ve already said I understand why he did it. My concern is over the long running debate over valid criticism of the Israeli government being dismissed as anti-Semitic. That debate has been running far longer and goes far deeper than social media.

Because the issue has become over sensitised so much so that anything seen to be remotely in that field is immediately stamped on to prevent instantaneous social media criticism from reactionaries.

Any sense of perspective has long since gone due to the 'click of a button' social voice given to anyone and everyone with an internet connection and the need to counter such reaction whether it was warranted or not.

This is the game that is being played now - and led by professional activists / paid for private media companies / possibly even external states - to control and influence the masses.

What pre-dates this was/is the belief that Jews and their money controlled the western world we live in and were thus a barrier to any change for the betterment of the proletariat.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Few things I’ve found interesting when reading this, put onto both by the comedy writer David Schneider. Bonce be interested to hear what you think:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/antisemitism-labour-israel-netanyahu-palestine-david-schneider-a8905941.html
https://twitter.com/sara_rose_g/status/1276171378044125189?s=21

Both links are well worth reading and Sara Gibbs provides a good analysis of why RLB brought it on herself.

Maxine Peake has admitted she was "inaccurate" so why couldn't RLB take down her tweet?

Agree X it was stupid of RLB to even tweet it, I wonder if she fully read the article before doing so? Given everything that’s gone on with the Labour Party and anti-semitism just why bother with the hassle it was bound to cause.

RLB did clarify the tweet but by that point clearly damage done, Starmer has made a point of being no nonsense on the subject. He does need to work to keep the left on side too though the party needs to unite we can’t swing from one way to the other and completely ostracise a wing of the party again.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Agree X it was stupid of RLB to even tweet it, I wonder if she fully read the article before doing so? Given everything that’s gone on with the Labour Party and anti-semitism just why bother with the hassle it was bound to cause.

RLB did clarify the tweet but by that point clearly damage done, Starmer has made a point of being no nonsense on the subject. He does need to work to keep the left on side too though the party needs to unite we can’t swing from one way to the other and completely ostracise a wing of the party again.

It's all a game.

One day hopefully you might see it.

I know it effects how the country is run/fits in with the rest of the world and effects all our lives directly but never the less it is a game, strategy, posturing, feigning, rebelling, subjugating, lip service, allowing, taxing, positioning, ignoring, ridiculing, and so on - all to gain power, then to hang on to it.

When can you remember the last time any government did the 'right thing' for it's people, without there being an ulterior motive underpinning it?

Conservatives (unintentionally) caused Brexit simply to play internal politics to silence the Euro-sceptics within their party, Lib Dems committed political suicide when the ditched their main election promise of scrapping tuition fees in order to get in bed with the Conservatives to form a government, Labour led us into a needless war 'Weapons of mass destruction' that caused the vacuum that led directly to IS and the atrocities they brought and all that has flowed from Iraq/Syria since.

Indeed politics even created the map of the middle east and America getting into bed with Saudi Arabia just for the oil there.

It's all about 'power' and the games that are played to get it and keep it.

Obviously I can't do anything about it but I can refuse to get 'wound up' about things and have false belief that one 'side' is better than the other.

Would Hillary been that much better than Trump, or Corbyn superior to Boris - Christ just look at some who have climbed to the top of the greasy pole recently - Ed Miliband, Teresa May, Michael Howard, William Hauge, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable - do you really think they did it on their own ability or perhaps there were others behind them, who 'supported' them for their own reasons?

It's all a game mate and that's why in many non westernised country's once someone gets into power they ensure they stay there indefinitely - Putin (21 years) Xi Jinping (effectively 12 years), Robert Mugabe (37 years) and the house of Saud (around a 100 years!).

It's all about gaining and keeping power.


Do you really think Long Bailey didn't realise the consequence of her tweet (did she even tweet it, don't they employ people/political advisors to run their accounts?) and even if she didn't, don't you think someone on 'her side' wouldn't have let her know immediately?

The tweet was deliberately left there for a reason.

Up to us to guess what the reason was but it deliberately wasn't taken down when it so quickly and easily could have been without causing any fuss.

Sluffy I find your statement that it is a "false belief that one 'side' is better than the other" bizarre. Do you really mean this? Taken to its logical extreme you are saying there is no difference between Hitler and any other politician.

In more practical terms you are equating a Tory party which exists only to help the rich and powerful and a Labour party which does implement measures which help ordinary people. I am not pretending the Labour party is perfect or defending misguided policies like invading Iraq. Even you credit it with the introduction of the NHS but more recently there has been the National Minimum Wage, the Equality Act, increasing real expenditure on education and the NHS (rather than cutting it as the Tories do), etc.
There is a real difference between these parties expressed in terms of what they do.

xmiles wrote:Sluffy I find your statement that it is a "false belief that one 'side' is better than the other" bizarre. Do you really mean this? Taken to its logical extreme you are saying there is no difference between Hitler and any other politician.

In more practical terms you are equating a Tory party which exists only to help the rich and powerful and a Labour party which does implement measures which help ordinary people. I am not pretending the Labour party is perfect or defending misguided policies like invading Iraq. Even you credit it with the introduction of the NHS but more recently there has been the National Minimum Wage, the Equality Act, increasing real expenditure on education and the NHS (rather than cutting it as the Tories do), etc.
There is a real difference between these parties expressed in terms of what they do.

Stop being a troll.

Extremism of any political party or religion is wrong, therefore Hitler (right wing) was no better or worse than Stalin (left wing) (see the Soviet famine an estimated deaths of circa 6-8m people).  I'm not comparing Tony Blair (right wing) to Hitler or Teresa May (right wing) to Stalin and you know it.

Politics is about getting into power and in this country that means by the ballot box.  Of course you have to appeal to the majority voters to win enough seats to do that and in simple terms that's been a class war, the 'needy' v the 'well off' for the last 100 years or so - so clearly you set out your stall to 'attract' what they will vote for you for, rather than your opposition.

The world has moved on since then but the Labour Party hasn't and only gained power in the Blair period my moving it's policies more centrally (and becoming Tory 'lite' if you will) otherwise it's been Conservative rule for more or less 30 of the last 40 years.  

Labour under Corbyn went backwards (hardly believable that they could get any worse but they did!) and lost seats they had never lost before, they were that bad - and totally out of touch with who they thought were their own hard core supporters!

Meaning that the Conservatives really had to do nothing much to stay in power - even as bad as many perceive them to be they are still seen to be better than Labour have been for most of our lifetimes.

It's not really rocket science to see what goes on in politics if you stop having your prejudicial bias to whatever party you believe you should be supporting and take a step back and take off your blinkers.

If you did you would see it for what it is, simply a 'game' to win and retain power.

Any wonder why there's so much lies, corruption and cronyism in politics - Jenrick and the planning application and the bad smell that surrounds it (didn't he break lockdown too?), Cummings certainly did but that was swept under the carpet.  How about 'cash for questions', the expenses scandal (remember the duck house we paid for - and the cleaning of the moat too!) The MP's who lied about who was driving the car to avoid fines, Jeffrey Archer, Plebgate,  cash for honours, Madelson, the list is endless but they all had their roots in seeking or retaining power - usually as a means to enrich/progress themselves (or not to lose the power they had).

So jog on - I've told you I'm no longer playing games on here, I think most are now believing I mean it too.

Tony Blair was in no way right wing.

And I don’t think anyone is under any illusions about ulterior motives - I spend half my time on here speculating about what they are, and this is basic stuff really. 

However, it doesn’t mean automatically that every single action taken by a politician is Machiavellian. I think that’s far too simple.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Tony Blair was in no way right wing.

And I don’t think anyone is under any illusions about ulterior motives - I spend half my time on here speculating about what they are, and this is basic stuff really. 

However, it doesn’t mean automatically that every single action taken by a politician is Machiavellian. I think that’s far too simple.

I meant to put left wing for Blair - obviously, as I was giving examples of opposites and no there are always a few who keep true to their beliefs but in general it is a game, just the same as life is a game - nobody is completely altruistic, we all keep an eye open to better ourselves or our children wherever we can, we tell and live the 'little white lies' to move along, to grease the wheels or keep the peace or whatever it is not to make waves unless it really, really means something to you personally.

I'm sure most of us start out with genuine intentions and beliefs but real life rarely allows us to achieve those without some compromise on our part.  

It's just how it is.

I'm not saying we dump on others to get ahead but there are plenty out there who will take what ever advantage they can of us for their own benefit and that includes voting for someone with a rosette on, who once they get to Parliament are more often than not used as 'voting fodder' as per what their party wants or otherwise they simply don't progress to the point where they can get to the position of power to do things only to find that more often than not achieving power is only half the battle, they now have to keep the people below them in line (and do whatever it takes to keep them there) if they want to remain there.

I ask my rhetorical question again, who was the last leader of a government who truly delivered what they actually believed in?

Thatcher smashing the unions perhaps - if so that was about 30 years ago.

Sluffy it is not being a troll to ask you to justify a sweeping statement that all politicians are the same.

You also ignored the evidence that there is a real difference between what the Tory and Labour parties do when in power.

Finally you do not appear to understand what a troll is. The definition is "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post". How was my post either offensive or provocative?

I’m not one to defend Tony Blair, but he seems to quite clearly disprove your point aside from Iraq - as does Cameron up until Brexit. 

Don’t mean to be dismissive but I’m struggling to see what your point is here Sluffy?

xmiles wrote:Sluffy it is not being a troll to ask you to justify a sweeping statement that all politicians are the same.

You also ignored the evidence that there is a real difference between what the Tory and Labour parties do when in power.

Finally you do not appear to understand what a troll is. The definition is "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post". How was my post either offensive or provocative?

You posted about Hitler and you didn't expect for me to respond!

Pull the other one.

We've been down this path once before and recently too.

We won't be going down it again.

I'm not playing your little games.

I can't make it clearer than that.

Those days have finished - whether you like it or not.

He demonstrated the flaw in your statement, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.