"Forum credibility"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1d63/f1d637b4d1db0529eb82bf6bda0c9c1cb010dd96" alt="Laugh :laugh: :laugh:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1d63/f1d637b4d1db0529eb82bf6bda0c9c1cb010dd96" alt="Laugh :laugh: :laugh:"
Not only ridiculous, but disingenuous. You have failed to understand the article which is largely about events under the Tory govt, because this chap resigned the month following the election of Labour. It took less than a month after for Labour to act on arms sales.
The only actual criticism of Labour in the article is that the ban was "too late". Well, they were only elected in July. The ban took 2 months.
Lammy is named, but the complaint is that the complainant was not listened to. This seems a bizarre complaint given that shortly after the complainant got what he wanted.
In no way is the article "excoriating" of the Labour government. In you fervour for a cheap point ( because forum points seem to matter far more to you than me) you've neglected to read the article intelligently.
You seem not to have understood the distinction between the diplomatic output of the US and the UK, so let me spell it out for you in simple words you cannot twist.
Trump is calling for annexation of Gaza and expulsion of Palestinians (ethnic cleansing). Starmer has, forever, been calling for ceasefire, peace, and a final settlement involving a Palestinian state (not ethnic cleansing, or genocide). Starmer, shortly after taking office stopped sales of arms to Israel implicated in Gaza war (anti-genocidal).
There is, sadly, an underlying bigger picture that means Starmer has to be somewhat more careful in his choice of words than you or I need to be. He's the PM of a country whose primary role is the defence of the nation, above all else. That defence hinges on US membership of NATO, and there is a very real threat of the US withdrawing from NATO. This would have potentially catastrophic consequences for the UK, the least of which would be the immediate need for defence spending to rise from 2.5% of GDP to nearer 8% of GDP. Which, in turn would mean decimation of public services. The worse consequence would be Russian expansion into Baltic states and Poland, with pan-european war.
Oh, I forgot. We can just borrow more without consequence can't we.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/08c3e/08c3ee12f9f7d018c22600c460d77381e1c32a7e" alt="Whistle :whistle: :whistle:"