• @frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Another perfect encapsulation of how some people on the left prefer opposition to power.

    Labour are on the very brink of government, actually in government in many parts of the country. What better moment to resign over something over which Labour not only has no control now but will still have little control over even if they do win?

    • Echo Dot
      link
      413 days ago

      I do wish you would come out and actually call it genocide though. It won’t actually change anything but it would be good to know that he at least admits it. I really don’t think you’d lose any votes saying otherwise I’m not quite sure why he won’t.

      • @frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        It won’t change anything, as you say, but it would be controversial both domestically and internationally. For starters, politicians generally won’t say anything specific about even apolitical, uncontroversial crimes, in case they prejudice any future trials. Obviously, this is neither apolitical nor uncontroversial.

        Also, it wouldn’t actually silence his critics on this, precisely because it won’t change anything. The war will continue, so people would just start demanding that he demand issuing arrest warrants for Israeli government ministers who come to the UK, or trade embargoes, or whatever.

        • Echo Dot
          link
          313 days ago

          Why would issuing embargoes be a bad thing. We have embargoes with Russia

          • @frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            312 days ago

            See? This is exactly my point. Even the mere hypothesis that he might say something about genocide has led you on to another demand. I’m not criticising you for this, nor am I saying that it’s a bad thing. My point was simply that acknowledging genocide wouldn’t do anything to silence his critics over Gaza, and I feel I’ve demonstrated that.

            • Echo Dot
              link
              1
              edit-2
              12 days ago

              He’s being criticized over Gaza because he’s not saying anything. It’s his lack of any kind of response whatsoever that the critics are criticizing him over, so coming up with a response would stop the critics.

              How can they continue to criticize him if he condemns the genocide? No one is actually expecting him to get involved and do physically stop it himself. Nor is anyone really expecting the UK to commit military forces since that would demonstrably inflame the situation and everyone knows it.

              • @frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                3
                edit-2
                12 days ago

                It’s just not true that he’s not said anything. Not saying the exact thing you’d like is not the same as saying nothing. Literally the first result when I searched Ecosia was ‘Sir Keir Starmer calls for Gaza “ceasefire that lasts”’. This was obviously not the first thing he’d said, because it was a shift from his previous position that it wasn’t the right time for a ceasefire (and, indeed, his previous egregious comments that seemed to defend Israel shutting off the water supplies, which he also either walked back or clarified, depending on your level of sympathy). Finally, here he is yesterday reiterating his position that the Rafah offensive must not go ahead. Obviously, these examples both collectively and individually show that you are wrong when you say ‘he’s not saying anything’ about Gaza, as he has said quite a lot about it and, as the example from yesterday shows, keeps saying more things in response to new developments. I sincerely do not see why you think you can have this discussion when you’re making such flatly inaccurate claims about it.

                We know that people wouldn’t stop criticising him over Gaza because, a couple of months ago, people were saying ‘All we want is for him to call for a ceasefire’. He did. Now they say ‘All we want is for him to call it a genocide.’ If he does that, they will say ‘All we want is [new thing]’. I’ve proved this point already: I raised a hypothetical way someone might continue to criticise him, and you instantly took it up and agreed that it would be a valid criticism.

                Seriously though, please go and do some research so that you can criticise Starmer for his actual position on this. I agree with you that his position is, and has been, the wrong one. Where I disagree with you is 1) on the facts, which I have proved; 2) on the likely consequences of any comments he might make about genocide.

  • katy ✨
    link
    fedilink
    012 days ago

    the liberal democrats have a very good opportunity to come out and rebuild in the model of the canadian ndp, especially since both labour and the conservatives are moving right.