Mailwatch(ed) Forum

So instead of undermining the Party leader, she's doing a good job of undermining her own credibility.

I know nothing about this woman, but it is true that even intelligent people can be very stupid in some ways.

If in doubt, just say that there was a clear dogwhistle in the subtext. If you got it, you'll know.

It's a bit like saying everything's a false flag operation or a dead cat, or someone's being thrown under the bus. It marks you out as a jaded and savvy operator who can't be blindsided by some clever-pants double talking machine politician*.

*Honest guv.

Sums it up:

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 12:56 am I'm really worried that this is going to spiral out of control. To think less than a week ago we won two by-elections and now it feels that the party is in meltdown.

I suspect it's a tiny handful of "usual suspects" stirring the pot.

Are we going to be like Cameron and May - let the tiny stump of a tail wag the dog?

Or do we want to present as a credible government in waiting?

39 out of 6400...

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 4:29 pm 39 out of 6400...

You're well into "storm in a teacup" territory there.

That's the quantitative answer, now let's look at the qualitative...

Starmer just needs to hold the line on this. There will be no “meltdown”.

We’ve just polled 49% in one of today’s polls, for fuck’s sake. If a few twats want to make a death or glory stand on the next PM declining to make a completely pointless Corbynesque gesture because they want him to, then so be it.

If you gave the electorate the choice of support Israel, support the Muslims and couldn't care less either way, we all know who would win and who would lose their deposit.

I am not so sure that that is the fulcrum of the story which the press will try to force in to view.

More, it will be "Slippery Starmer faces a wave - A TSUNAMI11!1 - of resignations". They'll be running it through ChatGPT as we speak.

39 councillors is quite a lot, but equally not a huge problem. I only hope the YTS boy who's made crass unattributable remarks previously is kept quiet this time. Do like Theresa May when she lost those MPs over Brexit. Say you're sorry to lose them.

Meanwhile a Leicester councillor LabourList spoke to said he had “never seen the bottom fall out of the Labour vote so fast”, among “predominantly very loyal” local Muslim voters. He even claimed the anger was “worse” than over Iraq. Commenting after Starmer’s new statement, the councillor added: “Moving in the right direction, but taking so long to get there other parties have occupied that ground first. Unless he’s calling for a ceasefire, this statement just won’t cut through images coming out of Gaza.” But one MP said while his voters were “passionate” about the issue, other issues like the cost of living, health and education would still affect their vote too. With rumours swirling about frontbenchers being on resignation watch, expect this story to keep on rolling.

https://labourlist.org/2023/10/israel-p ... -backlash/

I know I said it feels the party is in meltdown, but I must confess to sceptisism here.

I wish he’d just back a sodding ceasefire. It’s now entirely not a contentious position given every other country bar the UK and US have done so, Khan and Sarwar have done it, and it doesn’t preclude making the case for Israel to still be free to defend itself under international law.

Whoever is advising him to continue to hold off - presumably now out of concern to be seen to be caving - isn’t making the right call anymore. It’s doing more damage than not.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑ I wish he’d just back a sodding ceasefire. it's now entirely not a contentious position given every other country bar the UK and US have done so, Khan and Sarwar have done it, and it doesn’t preclude making the case for Israel to still be free to defend itself under international law.

I'd agree with you, if only on the grounds that it'd make absolutely no difference to the situation, other than to placate the twats (perhaps). It would be an entirely tokenistic gesture. After all, isn't a ceasefire just an extended "humanitarian pause" - which Starmer has already called for? What's the difference? It's effectively all coming down to semantics, but the real trouble with the notion of a ceasefire is that it needs the agreement of both sides in the conflict, and Israel isn't interested in a ceasefire because it would interrupt and possibly hinder its sworn objective of permanently obliterating Hamas' military/terrorist capacity, and Hamas isn't interested because it basically doesn't give a fuck about ordinary Palestinian civilian casualties or fatalities and still has the annihilation of the Jewish people in its fucking charter.

Whoever is advising him to continue to hold off - presumably now out of concern to be seen to be caving - isn’t making the right call anymore. It’s doing more damage than not.

Not at all sure that's right. I still think he needs to hold the line. It's a question of leadership now, which is fundamental on so many levels.

Granted it wouldn’t change anything, but sometimes a token gesture isn’t a bad thing.

He’s a former human rights lawyer. He’ll know the score, as we all do. And it is semantics, but that works both ways - all this is doing now is making him look stubborn at best, and at worst giving trolls something they could really cause some harm with.

I'm with Crabcakes I think Starmer should call for a ceasefire. Although if he does then the response will be

1) He should have done it sooner

2) It's his fault that there's been no ceasefire.

I think it's time for Keir to call for a ceasefire. There is no moral alternative.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 9:22 am I think it's time for Keir to call for a ceasefire. There is no moral alternative.

We're on numbers of angels dancing on the head of a pin territory here, aren't we? How is a call for a "humanitarian pause" - which of course, Keir has already voiced - less good than a call for a ceasefire? Is it not the very same thing?

The morality aside, the question arises of what benefit - what political benefit - would accrue to Starmer/ Labour by complying with the internal party demands that he now call for ceasefire . Has the issue now morphed into an unwelcome test of Keir's leadership? To what extent might that be profitably exploited by Sunak and the Tories? Arguably, this could be a key issue in terms of Labour's putative victory 12 months from now - which, contrary to most expectation, now looks still not entirely firmly nailed on.

In purely practical terms, the Israelis would appear now to have made considerable inroads on their avowed objective of wiping out Hamas terrorist capabilities, so may be more amenable to calls for ceasefire.

Back in the Labour camp, I note that Anas Sarwar appears at least to be taking a somewhat nuanced approach to calling on Starmer to advocate ceasefire, recognising that conditions will have to be attached and that there must be a recognition of longer-term needs (what happens to Palestinian representation - and the necessary two-state resolution - if and when Hamas is finally banished?) :

“We need a proper peace process, because sadly right now there is no peace and there is no process. That’s the only way we can see a safe, secure and free Palestine, and a safe, secure and free Israel,”

This subject - humanitarian pause versus ceasefire - was covered on Any Questions last night.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001rqzt

To me, a ceasefire is open-ended: a "humanitarian pause" sounds like "stop fighting for six hours, then you can resume."

In Johnson's Mail column today, he argues that because the Palestinian people chose Hamas as a government, they basically deserve everything they get. He says he believes still in a two state solution, but doesn't think it's possible due to Palestinian intransigence. He offers some platitudes about breaking cycles of hatred, but has no idea how.

I don't think anyone does, aside from the fucking maniacal options.