news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

Trying to work out what "Let's Get Britain's Future Back" means.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Trying to work out what "Let's Get Britain's Future Back" means.

It’s the BBC reboot of Back to the Future. 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Trying to work out what "Let's Get Britain's Future Back" means.

Yeah it's a sh*t slogan boris does them better.

[Crazyfool01]

26 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Why can’t they just say that it’s pretty sh*t for all and a peaceful solution for all on both sides is required . What a horrendous situation it is 

edit and shutting off water / access to fuel and medical aid is a war crime and Starmer should know that 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Crazyfool01

[pink_triangle]

4 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:

without content these things don't exist .... Although tbf the scum would likely make something up 

Without the Starmer interview they would still exist. Labour are trying to build a coalition of voters to win an election, not a protest party. I think it would be complacent to think they can do that refusing to engage with sun readers.

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

Without the Starmer interview they would still exist. Labour are trying to build a coalition of voters to win an election, not a protest party. I think it would be complacent to think they can do that refusing to engage with sun readers.

so they just give in to everyone that they think they need to convince ? where's the line drawn ?  or do they just do it because .... 

[pink_triangle]

9 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Why can’t they just say that it’s pretty sh*t for all and a peaceful solution for all on both sides is required . What a horrendous situation it is 

I think Labour are (probably correctly) cautious about saying the wrong thing following the Corbyn regime. I think if they said what you wanted them to say it would be twisted quite badly by the media, opening the door for the torys.

The reality is what they say is going to make no difference to Israel foreign policy, so saying something that causes political damage probably doesn’t make sense.

[Skip997]

32 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

And Mr Starmer moves further away

Twat

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Without the Starmer interview they would still exist. Labour are trying to build a coalition of voters to win an election, not a protest party. I think it would be complacent to think they can do that refusing to engage with sun readers.

It’s the same reason Starmer has written in different newspapers and will appear on different news channels. He wants to get Labour into power so is trying to appeal to as many different demographics as possible as he can’t take for granted that he could win without Sun readers.

[steviewevie]

20 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Why can’t they just say that it’s pretty sh*t for all and a peaceful solution for all on both sides is required . What a horrendous situation it is 

edit and shutting off water / access to fuel and medical aid is a war crime and Starmer should know that 

he does say within international law.

[Crazyfool01]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think Labour are (probably correctly) cautious about saying the wrong thing following the Corbyn regime. I think if they said what you wanted them to say it would be twisted quite badly by the media, opening the door for the torys.

The reality is what they say is going to make no difference to Israel foreign policy, so saying something that causes political damage probably doesn’t make sense.

Forgive my ignorance but are there other countries that don’t take a side in this ? So purely involved from a purely humanitarian and peace negotiation standpoint 

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, steviewevie said:

he does say within international law.

Yes but clearly it’s not 

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

so they just give in to everyone that they think they need to convince ? where's the line drawn ?  or do they just do it because .... 

Andy Burnham was speaking in one of the meetings at tory conference, no issue with this. I don’t see it as giving in, it’s talking to people who may not agree with you. This is what parties who want to be more than parties of protest have to do. Starmer can write in any mainstream paper for all I care, I’m probably not going to buy (or read ) any.

 

 

[pink_triangle]

4 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Forgive my ignorance but are there other countries that don’t take a side in this ? So purely involved from a purely humanitarian and peace negotiation standpoint 

Switzerland?

[Skip997]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Switzerland?

Ireland

They were one of the four that prevented the EU from withholding aid.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Skip997

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

he does say within international law.

I think it’s worth noting that Starmer’s wife is Jewish and they have some family in Israel so it might be affecting his view in a way.

It’s been pointed out but he’s probably trying to be very cautious given the Corbyn years. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Ozanne

[Neil]

Just now, Ozanne said:

It’s been pointed out but he’s probably trying to be very cautious given the Corbyn years. 

yeah, imagine something like this had kicked off when corbyn was leader.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

I think it’s worth noting that Starmer’s wife is Jewish and they have some family in Israel so it might be affecting his view in a way.

It’s been pointed out but he’s probably trying to be very cautious given the Corbyn years. 

I think support for Israel is the consensus messaging coming from most of the west at the moment...behnd the scenes I expect US/EU/others are trying to talk Israel out of totally wiping out Gaza (and firing nukes at Iran). 

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

yeah, imagine something like this had kicked off when corbyn was leader.

Corbyn has condemned the violence from both sides 

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Corbyn has condemned the violence from both sides 

the BBC is getting sh*t for calling it violence and not terrorism.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

the BBC is getting sh*t for calling it violence and not terrorism.

also for calling Hamas militants and not terrorists.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I think support for Israel is the consensus messaging coming from most of the west at the moment...behnd the scenes I expect US/EU/others are trying to talk Israel out of totally wiping out Gaza (and firing nukes at Iran). 

I agree, that might change over the course of the conflict but for now that’s the messaging from the West.

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

yeah, imagine something like this had kicked off when corbyn was leader.

It wouldn’t be feasible for him if he was Leader given everything he’s said before.