Starmer's vision quest

[multitool]

There's a weird disconnect between this thread and the Palestine one - over the road you can recognise what's happening, and no one except a couple of c**ts, a crank, and a brain-melted libfem really disagrees, whilst here you're urged to vote for an opposition that has willingly degraded itself to the status of a stooge for the Board of Deputies.

I'm fully aware this is addressed to me and its a fair point and one of which I am acutely aware.

You will be surprised to discover that I am not remotely surprised by the conduct and outcome of the Gaza invasion. But if you are, you should have paid attention to the references I made to Ben Gvir and Smotrich prior to October 7th, or possibly around that time. I have been aware of the intentions of Likud for about 30 years.

So why the apparent disconnect between what I say in these two threads? It is because I am talking about political realities in this one. It doesn't mean I approve of the actions of the Labour party, it means I understand them. I don't live in Adam's idealised world. I recognise that democratic politics in an imperfect landscape always involves compromises, and at times those compromises may involve morality and ethics. (in this case swerving the issue).

It is disappointing that he will not take a firmer line now, even though his position has changed markedly, as I expected it would.

I don't think he could have accused Israel in October of doing things that they hadn't yet done, even though anybody with a brain (not you AndyCXR) could see what was coming. But he can now.

 

[multitool]

Here you go - I'll put this in this thread to try and join the dots...


View: https://twitter.com/chakrabortty/status/1751656263694299512?t=Ef_pv1o71L7duhrmAe31pA&s=19

What reaction do you think is reasonable when somebody hijacks an event with the soon-to-be Deputy PM?

Invite him on to the stage and give him a platform? In which case that opens the door for wholesale disruption of meetings by anybody, even peolle with whom you disagree. Tommy R's thugs? Come on down...

The cause is not the issue. He had his protest, he got airtime on twitter, and for all I know tv news, but you cannot expect a different reaction from the people holding the meeting.

 

[theclaud]

I'm fully aware this is addressed to me and its a fair point and one of which I am acutely aware.

No flies on Multz!

You will be surprised to discover that I am not remotely surprised by the conduct and outcome of the Gaza invasion. But if you are, you should have paid attention to the references I made to Ben Gvir and Smotrich prior to October 7th, or possibly around that time. I have been aware of the intentions of Likud for about 30 years.

I'm not surprised that you're not surprised, and I am surprised that you think I might be surprised.

It doesn't mean I approve of the actions of the Labour party, it means I understand them. I don't live in Adam's idealised world. I recognise that democratic politics in an imperfect landscape always involves compromises, and at times those compromises may involve morality and ethics. (in this case swerving the issue).

It is disappointing that he will not take a firmer line now, even though his position has changed markedly, as I expected it would

I guess I'm wondering why it never occurred to the grown-ups at the time, and seemingly continues to elude them, that putting the biggest political party in Europe into the hands of a bunch of imperialist, authoritarian goons, tethering it to the interests of a genocidal rogue state, manufacturing an 'antisemitism crisis' and screaming hysterically at the mildest dissent within or outside the ranks, all in order to own the Corbynistas, might possibly have any unfortunate consequences for domestic democracy and future international relations.

don't think he could have accused Israel in October of doing things that they hadn't yet done, even though anybody with a brain (not you AndyCXR) could see what was coming. But he can now

Spoiler

He won't.

at times those compromises may involve morality and ethics. (in this case swerving the issue).

Can't really swerve aiding and abetting a live genocide that everyone is witnessing. Well, you can, obviously, if you regard becoming the PPC for Greater Twattington as a higher goal than achieving a functioning civil society with basic human rights.

 

[theclaud]

I'm not a member of the Labour Party so I'm not 'going along with it'

I mean, you're literally on the other thread banging out hasbara narrative, so I guess it was just a cheap joke about how much your grudging support might be worth.

 

[theclaud]

What reaction do you think is reasonable when somebody hijacks an event with the soon-to-be Deputy PM?

I guess part of the problem is behaving with this kind of entitlement towards the people who, a while back, helped them to get there.

Invite him on to the stage and give him a platform?

Yes, actually.

 

[multitool]

I guess I'm wondering why it never occurred to the grown-ups at the time, and seemingly continues to elude them, that putting the biggest political party in Europe into the hands of a bunch of imperialist, authoritarian goons, tethering it to the interests of a genocidal rogue state, manufacturing an 'antisemitism crisis' and screaming hysterically at the mildest dissent within or outside the ranks, all in order to own the Corbynistas, might possibly have any unfortunate consequences for domestic democracy and future international relations.

That is your own post-hoc rationalisation of what actually happened

Spoiler

He won't.

As yet no (credible) world leader has (and KS isn't even a world leader)

Can't really swerve aiding and abetting a live genocide that everyone is witnessing. Well, you can, obviously, if you regard becoming the PPC for Greater Twattington as a higher goal than achieving a functioning civil society with basic human rights.

I think you are overselling Kier Starmer's potential influence as it currently stands.

 

[multitool]

Yes, actually.

In which case, she would also have to invite Tommy Robinson's thugs onstage when they disrupt. Or some of Aurora's cûnty mates when they want to shout "Do you know what a woman is?" at Starmer.

 

[theclaud]

Is it? I think genocide is a word you wouldn't want to use lightly.

Yes. Lightly? Have you not been looking at the footage?

Would you consider the events of October 7th to be an attempt at genocide?

No. This is playground level bullshit.

 

[AuroraSaab]

In which case, she would also have to invite Tommy Robinson's thugs onstage when they disrupt. Or some of Aurora's cûnty mates when they want to shout "Do you know what a woman is?" at Starmer.

Funny that because you're all in favour of the lads who disrupt women's meetings, in fact you cheered on the soup throwing NZ idiot, but you disapprove of Rayner's appearance being disrupted for some reason.

 

[multitool]

Funny that because you're all in favour of the lads who disrupt women's meetings, in fact you cheered on the soup throwing NZ idiot, but you disapprove of Rayner's appearance being disrupted for some reason.

There's a substantive difference between the deputy leader of the UK Labour Party and your peroxide Nazi icon.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes. Lightly? Have you not been looking at the footage?

I've seen footage from Gaza. I think genocide is a term that has different meanings to people, including an official one.

I haven't seen the October 7th footage. Presumably you have if you can dismiss it so easily. But then you were joking about the best way to kill babies so I already knew you didn't take it seriously.

There's a substantive difference between the deputy leader of the UK Labour Party and your peroxide Nazi icon.

Not really. You either think everyone has the right to hold their meetings without disruption or nobody does. Why do you extend that courtesy to people you agree with but not to people you don't? Seems a bit undemocratic and authoritarian to think your side should have that right but not others.

 

[multitool]

Why do you extend that courtesy to people you agree with but not to people you don't?

Strawman

Seems a bit undemocratic and authoritarian to think your side should have that right but not others.

...which you then try to run with.

So you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Not at all. You approve of gangs of lads in black disrupting a women's meeting. You disapprove of a single distraught Palestinian disrupting a Rayner Labour meeting. At least be consistent in your disapproval otherwise we might think you're a hypocrit.

 

[multitool]

Not at all. You approve of gangs of lads in black disrupting a women's meeting. You disapprove of a single distraught Palestinian disrupting a Rayner Labour meeting. At least be consistent in your disapproval otherwise we might think you're a hypocrit.

"We" LOL.

Actually, if you bothered to read what I said rather than try and squeeze it into your GC cult obsession you'd notice I didn't object to this Gazan man's right to protest. What I said was that it is unsurprising that the police would seize a guy leaping up at the future Deputy PM. IIRC the police arrested the person pouring tomato juice on your Nazi hero, so I'm not sure what your point is.

You are up to your usual sophist trick of iteratively moving the reference points of the debate until it resembles something you want it to, hoping that 'we' won't notice and I'll dim-wittedly try and defend the strawman points you have put up in my name.

We do. Every time. It's beyond tedious that you are still stuck in this <checks notes> "playground" level of debate.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What reaction do you think is reasonable when somebody hijacks an event with the soon-to-be Deputy PM?

Invite him on to the stage and give him a platform? In which case that opens the door for wholesale disruption of meetings by anybody, even peolle with whom you disagree. Tommy R's thugs? Come on down...

Still sounds a bit hypocritical tbh. It looks like you're actually agreeing with me here, when it suits of course.

The point of course is that people should be able to meet (within the law) and say whatever they like as long as it's not illegal without fear and intimidation. That someone was apprehended for an offence afterwards doesn't negate that right and is of little consolation to those being intimidated or assaulted.