Vandelay
Junior Member
Posts: 4,699
Member is Online
|
Post by Vandelay on Nov 16, 2023 9:57:51 GMT
I don't think it is particularly unreasonable for Labour to say their frontbenchers have to vote in a particular way on this, especially when it comes to something that the party has been very clear on its policy. If they were in government, they couldn't have members of their cabinet going off and calling for things that aren't government policy. It's a vote for a ceasefire for more needed aid in that part of the world. It has little to do with the running of the UK. It's a question of conscience not politics. I suppose this is the crux of the issue, Britain still thinking they are relative in world politics, clinging on to the idea we are still an Empire. Like I said, I really don't think that Israel would give flying fuck what the UK thought or wanted. Let's reverse the situation; Labour are calling for a cease-fire. Would you or would you not be saying Starmer was right to give the boot to anyone that didn't vote along those lines? My suspicion is that you would be saying he would be in his right to kick them out and the issue is more the stance Labour have rather than them insisting their key MPs stick to it. |
|
Dgzter
Junior Member
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by Dgzter on Nov 16, 2023 10:07:20 GMT
To be fair, there is the fact that he is the PM in waiting so at some point he actually is going to be in the hot seat and have to actually do something. Its a decent test and he is failing it, so I can see why some people are shitting their pants. Indeed. A point a fair few prominent posters in this thread, whom I have a lot of respect for and whom over the years (in the old place and subsequently here) I've generally found myself aligned with in terms of political outlook, appear to be disregarding. Politics is by its very nature performative, especially so if you happen to be in opposition, where the onus is on Starmer to demonstrate how his potential government would act were they to be elected into power. How opposition MPs engage with and vote on certain questions that come up before the house DOES matter, often regardless of the actual tangible effects/real-world application, as they are likely soon going to need to go to their constituents and ask for their backing in a GE. In terms of Jess Philips, I'm also a little uncomfortable with this idea that she's picked a "terrible" or "performative" hill to die on. Sounds very presumptive to me, borderline patronizing. What has she said previously on the matter? What is the make-up of her constituency? How strong has the local feeling on this particular issue been amongst voters there? These will all presumably have been factor in her decision making, no? I dunno, I'm sensing a massive undercurrent of frustration on here more than anything else. Is it more a case of people being worried that Labour are still somehow going to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Can't see that at this stage, tbh. Starmer would need to seriously implode, in England at least. Though I would give a penny for Anas Sarwar's thoughts: publicly and explicitly called for a ceasefire two weeks ago, whipped his two UK MPs to vote against the motion yesterday, whilst desperately having Scottish Labour sources leak to the press that all their Holyrood MSPs will definitely be backing/endorsing a ceasefire when the vote comes up in the devolved assembly next week. Performative politics? Or responding to the overwhelming sentiments amongst his voters north of the border? |
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Nov 16, 2023 10:14:45 GMT
Sure, but at this point not being performative and not demonstrating what they stand for would do them more good in the eyes of the voters and gives the press less ammunition.
All its demonstrated is that people in the party have their own opinions which aren’t all aligned. That’s not what the general public want and there was no need for it to happen for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibroon on Nov 16, 2023 10:20:35 GMT
It's a vote for a ceasefire for more needed aid in that part of the world. It has little to do with the running of the UK. It's a question of conscience not politics. I suppose this is the crux of the issue, Britain still thinking they are relative in world politics, clinging on to the idea we are still an Empire. Like I said, I really don't think that Israel would give flying fuck what the UK thought or wanted. Let's reverse the situation; Labour are calling for a cease-fire. Would you or would you not be saying Starmer was right to give the boot to anyone that didn't vote along those lines? My suspicion is that you would be saying he would be in his right to kick them out and the issue is more the stance Labour have rather than them insisting their key MPs stick to it. If it is a free vote, you can vote however you wish. I doubt very much there would be many voting in favour of more bloodshed. For instance, how many would have voted for a ceasefire if they were free to do so? Probably a lot more. Like I say, it's all a bit moot as Netanyahu has objectives firmly in his mind and nothing the UK says or does is going to sway that. It was an own goal from Labour leader imo. |
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,633
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Nov 16, 2023 10:22:11 GMT
In terms of Jess Philips, I'm also a little uncomfortable with this idea that she's picked a "terrible" or "performative" hill to die on. I cant speak for everyone else, but I was talking about Starmer. It seems needlessly hardline just to make a point. |
|
|
|
Post by imamazed on Nov 16, 2023 10:28:23 GMT
It just seems so avoidable. During a seven-day period in which Braverman went off the deep end in a national broadsheet, incited riots on Armistice Day, got herself fired, and was ruled against re the Rwanda debacle, all Labour had to do to come out smelling like roses was not shit the bed... and even that was too much to ask. Whisper it, but I really don't think that many people will be talking about Labour's stance on Israel this week or next. I'd be surprised if small boats/David Cameron/Tory internal strife aren't the most talked about things this week to most voters. |
|
Ulythium
Full Member
Lily-livered
Posts: 7,106
|
Post by Ulythium on Nov 16, 2023 10:37:42 GMT
imamazedI hope you're right, but with the pro-Tory media prattling on endlessly about "Starmer this", "Corbyn that", and "woke the other", I wouldn't be altogether surprised if this issue were to stick around for way longer than it should.
|
|
mcmonkeyplc
Junior Member
General Martok Qapla!
Posts: 3,084
|
Post by mcmonkeyplc on Nov 16, 2023 10:40:45 GMT
It means nothing in the long run. Their not going to lose votes on this and if they do then this country deserves it's Tory masters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Nov 16, 2023 10:44:49 GMT
The "Westminster Bubble" is overused an awful lot but this vote firmly falls into that category.
|
|
Vandelay
Junior Member
Posts: 4,699
Member is Online
|
Post by Vandelay on Nov 16, 2023 10:44:59 GMT
Just looked at front pages today. It is on most of them, but it isn't prominent on any of them. Sunak's response to the Rwanda ruling is the big story. Unsurprisingly, it is probably the Guardian that has it taking up the biggest space on their front page. The general arguments and the reporting of them might go on for as long as the conflict, but this particular vote won't be talked about by end of the weekend.
|
|
kal
Full Member
Posts: 8,309
|
Post by kal on Nov 16, 2023 10:56:11 GMT
In terms of Jess Philips, I'm also a little uncomfortable with this idea that she's picked a "terrible" or "performative" hill to die on. Sounds very presumptive to me, borderline patronizing. What has she said previously on the matter? What is the make-up of her constituency? How strong has the local feeling on this particular issue been amongst voters there? These will all presumably have been factor in her decision making, no? Like I said this has never been a big issue for her. She’s much more about domestic policy and in particular women’s rights. She’s not part of the far left side of the party that go big on this issue. She was anti-Corbyn. She’s in Labour Friends of Israel. She’s been vocally critical of Islam in relation to women’s rights. Not to say that any of that means she can’t want a ceasefire but it is a strange hill for her to die on. I agree it’s likely about her constituents. |
|
geefe
Full Member
Short for Zangief
Posts: 8,323
|
Post by geefe on Nov 16, 2023 11:37:22 GMT
Is she potentially playing the long game and ensuring she wins her seat, then goes to Kier with "soz mate you know how it is"?
|
|
Ulythium
Full Member
Lily-livered
Posts: 7,106
|
Post by Ulythium on Nov 16, 2023 11:39:01 GMT
This is a neat encapsulation of what bothers me most about Labour's status as a government-in-waiting: Brave Labour MPs have voted with their conscience. Where is Keir Starmer’s?
(No prizes for guessing whose name is on the byline.)
Own goals are bound to happen from time to time; the right-wing press will do its thing regardless; polling numbers will ebb and flow.
The election is some way off yet, in all likelihood, and all signs seem to point to a Labour victory - even for one as pessimistic as I, it'd be far too soon to hit the panic button over yesterday's events.
But damn it all, with the Momentum types undermining Starmer at every turn, it's hard not to feel mildly concerned!
Let the Tories' infighting tear that party asunder and render it unelectable for a generation or more. I'd be fine with that - delighted, even - but if the Magic Grandpa cultists have their way, Labour won't be far behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Nov 16, 2023 11:41:57 GMT
No one hates the left more than the left, not even the Mail
|
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Nov 16, 2023 11:43:30 GMT
I share those concerns.
Some lefties do a really great job at undermining anyone who don't pass their purity tests.
And whilst it seems like a shoe in I honestly can't have total faith that the Tories will be booted out until it actually happens.
|
|
geefe
Full Member
Short for Zangief
Posts: 8,323
|
Post by geefe on Nov 16, 2023 11:46:50 GMT
I mean this is exactly why you can see the Tories, long term, are always the winners.
Labour lefties hate themselves and talk down their achievements or fight each other for who is more miserable.
Tories just go "yeah, sure my mate is a money pilfering cunt of the highest order but he's my mate and better than you"
People buy that kind of arrogance
|
|
Ulythium
Full Member
Lily-livered
Posts: 7,106
|
Post by Ulythium on Nov 16, 2023 11:46:56 GMT
I don't get it - if you have 50% political common ground with Keir Starmer, and 0% with Rishi Sunak, how do you not reach the conclusion that the first guy is a better bet than the second?
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,633
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Nov 16, 2023 11:58:27 GMT
Because youre still left with 50% shit. If I dont vote for someone because they suck, thats on them for sucking*
*I pretty much always vote against people rather than for someone and it is absolutely tiresome
|
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Nov 16, 2023 12:01:50 GMT
Fucking Owen Jones.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhaegyr on Nov 16, 2023 12:03:41 GMT
South Park nailed that process with the Douche & Turd episode 20 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Nov 16, 2023 12:12:45 GMT
I managed to vote for a Labour Party lead by Jeremy Corbyn for the last two general elections and I would cross the street to avoid him if I ever saw him.
Politics is about compromise and most people accept that, if you only voted for people that you 100% agreed with the only person you could vote for is yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Nov 16, 2023 12:14:00 GMT
And even then, I think I'm a twat most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by grey_matters on Nov 16, 2023 12:14:17 GMT
I managed to vote for a Labour Party lead by Jeremy Corbyn for the last two general elections and I would cross the street to avoid him if I ever saw him. Politics is about compromise and most people accept that, if you only voted for people that you 100% agreed with the only person you could vote for is yourself. I dunno, I'm a bit of a cunt sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by grey_matters on Nov 16, 2023 12:14:39 GMT
Haha, damn you Dougs!
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,633
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Nov 16, 2023 12:18:25 GMT
Politics is about compromise and most people accept that, if you only voted for people that you 100% agreed with the only person you could vote for is yourself. Where's the cut off point? 80%? 50%? 10%? |
|
Ulythium
Full Member
Lily-livered
Posts: 7,106
|
Post by Ulythium on Nov 16, 2023 12:24:15 GMT
In a two-party system, to all practical intents and purposes, surely it's less about a % threshold and more about which of the parties is a better option than the other?
I'm not massively galvanised by the prospect of voting for Starmer as PM, but I'd still do it in a heartbeat. Why? Because the realistic alternative is five more years of the Tories, and that's enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by DJCopa on Nov 16, 2023 12:25:53 GMT
It's almost as if we'd be better off listing our preferred votes in order.
|
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Nov 16, 2023 12:27:02 GMT
For me the cut off point is when there is somebody else who I agree with more.
If there was somebody I only agreed 10% with, I would probably, assuming no other options were available, vote for them above someone who I agreed 0% with. On the basis that any step in (what I consider) the right direction is better.
|
|
|
|
Post by grey_matters on Nov 16, 2023 12:30:04 GMT
It's almost as if we'd be better off listing our preferred votes in order. You still often end up with choosing via the 'least worst' technique, but yeah, usually at a slightly finer level of detail. |
|
|
|
Post by DJCopa on Nov 16, 2023 12:32:55 GMT
It's almost as if we'd be better off listing our preferred votes in order. You still often end up with choosing via the 'least worst' technique, but yeah, usually at a slightly finer level of detail. Oh yes, can't disagree with that - no candidate/party is going to be 'all things to all people'. Just the constant battle of trying to keep one party out does get very tiring. |
|
