[Tubby Isaacs]

That's what the marches are about. But if you mean the media focus hasn't been on Sunak, I agree.

[davidjay]

But that's just it, I don't think I've seen anybody demanding that Sunak calls for ceasefire.

Sunak doesn't have Tories whose every waking moment is devoted to hoping he loses the election.

[Abernathy]

Seems fairly obvious that, twats like Andy McDonald and the rest of the Momentum/Corbynista tribe aside, the only Labour MPs piling pressure on Keir Starmer to declare that he wants a ceasefire (whatever that is), are doing so purely through self-interest. For example, here in Birmingham, Liam Byrne and Jess Phillips, who have both issued calls for Starmer to demand a ceasefire, have significant numbers of muslim constituents. They are apparently worried that the issue could possibly result in their failure to hold their seats at the election.

MPs are, of course, always fretting about getting re-elected, but I can't help thinking that Jess and Liam are over-reacting. I really can't see many muslims making this the issue on which their vote for Labour pivots.

On the other hand, if their concerns are warranted, this could have serious implications on whether Labour can achieve a majority at the election.

Does it really amount to someone polishing the floor even more highly as Keir progresses along the corridor carrying the priceless porcelain vase ? (yes, it's that metaphor again).

[Youngian]

ceasefire (whatever that is)

A fairly meaningless holding position that’s doing a lot of work. A cessation of war is a good thing but expecting Israel not to spend the time thinking up fresh plans to wipe out Hamas’s military capabilities is for the birds.

[Abernathy]

ceasefire (whatever that is)

A fairly meaningless holding position that’s doing a lot of work. A cessation of war is a good thing but expecting Israel not to spend the time thinking up fresh plans to wipe out Hamas’s military capabilities is for the birds.

Or, indeed, similarly expecting Hamas not to use the "ceasefire" period to re-build and renew their resources with the next terrorist assault on Israelis in mind.

[Oboogie]

But that's just it, I don't think I've seen anybody demanding that Sunak calls for ceasefire.

Sunak doesn't have Tories whose every waking moment is devoted to hoping he loses the election.

Johnson? Dorries? But you're right, it's probably not on the same scale.

[Andy McDandy]

Johnson etc want Sunak out before the election so they can retake control and turn the Tories fortunes around.

Momentum etc want Starmer to lose the election so they can play at being martyrs for another 5 years.

[Oboogie]

Johnson etc want Sunak out before the election so they can retake control and turn the Tories fortunes around.

Momentum etc want Starmer to lose the election so they can play at being martyrs for another 5 years.

I think it's still about Corbyn. Starmer winning when Corbyn failed (twice) is rubbing salt in their wound, if Starmer fails they can have another five years of saying Corbyn would have won a landslide.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

For some it might mean finally acknowledging that the politics in which they have invested their lives and their identities is utterly anathema to the general population. That kind of rejection will be hard to take, which is why they avoid it so violently.

[Boiler]

I'm certainly seeing that from one or two elsewhere who are more to the left of the current Labour Party. They are not happy and when told "you tried your politics and the electorate rejected you" get extremely affronted and blame the media and the right wing of the party. They want to know why their views are not being represented within the current party.

All stuff we're familiar with of course.

[davidjay]

The one thing they can never grasp is that when you tell the electorate that they're not clever enough to understand you and the other man says he understands them perfectly they tend to vote for the other man.

[Crabcakes]

Good speech, very fair and balanced. I just hope it wasn’t too late and the damage - albeit all from optics rather than much else - hasn’t already been done.

[The Weeping Angel]

Judging by that angry mob outside I'd say not.

[Spoonman]

Johnson etc want Sunak out before the election so they can retake control and turn the Tories fortunes around.

Momentum etc want Starmer to lose the election so they can play at being martyrs for another 5 years.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Starmer & his shadow cabinet, for their strengths & faults that they have, are presenting the Labour party right now as a potential party of government and clearly aspire to be one.

OTOH Corbyn & most of his fellow travellers would rather Labour be an eternal party of protest, and that's easy - it's easy to be in permanent campaign mode fighting everything that whoever is in government is doing that they don't like. That's why they want the Tories to be in power, and not just in power but with a solid majority government that can't really be touched until the next election (thus are very limited in to what they could achieve in that time), where they volunteer to campaign in constituencies that aren't expected to swing either way (explained more below).

Having someone like Starmer take the lead for Labour going into 10 Downing Street muddies the water for them, because then they cannot say that they don't have a place to actually influence policy that has a chance of making a difference - the problem for them is that they don't want such things to be subject to scrutiny before being potentially adopted.

Now, it would be unfair to label all such supporters as adopting such a mentality of being both a permanent victim while also being politically "pure" - some of them may not be at ease with Starmer, his shadow cabinet and their policies but they at least have some element of self awareness that it's better to be pissing inside the tent and getting some of what you want to the head of the table, rather than to just continually scream "it's not fair!!" Unfortunately, too many of them are unwilling to make democratic compromises, it's either their way or no way. They want a destructive political revolution that future history remembers them for tearing down almost everything before building things back up in their vision - and it must be in their vision only, having to compromise is a dirty word. That's why for all their talk of representing "the people" they are often very reluctant to actually go out at talk to people and ask them what they want (hence why they prefer to campaign in "safe seats" regardless of winability), so they can have black/white thinking and choices kept in their thoughts and not having them move a millimetre.

The sad thing is that many of their "sisters" in continental Europe, perhaps due to standing in their own parties & having different election systems that allow them to get a whiff of being a minor coalition partner, actually understand that it is possible to keep your roots while also being flexible in certain areas to obtain certain things you want. That's actually grown up political thinking, something sorely lacking with the likes of Momentum - in fact, say that they suddenly had the most left-wing Labour government elected to Westminster in history, the first thing they would do is soil their underwear - because they'd now actually have to do something and be held accountable for it - they could not just simply keep protesting like they used to**.



** Though the current Conservative goons certainly are giving a damn good try of trying to ride both horses (party of government and party of protest) at once.

[Crabcakes]

Judging by that angry mob outside I'd say not.

I suspect they would have been there, and been angry, regardless of what he said or did.

[The Weeping Angel]

Well according to someone on another forum, he's now going to be blamed for any Israeli atrocity

Anyway, Starmer's statement today (and it's all there on video, we know what he said no matter how much his supporters try to fudge it like with the water and electricity statement) makes him a hostage to the forthcoming Israeli atrocity. When we see the next images of screaming Palestinian children with limbs blown off, he's acquiesced to that outcome when he had the choice to explicitly call for something else. On his own head be it.

[davidjay]

And now we have the ludicrous situation of Corbyn's rabble shouting "TORY!!!" at Starmer while the Tories are looking at them and shouting "SEE!!!! That's what he's like!!!"

[Abernathy]

I always find the daily email From Labour List quite helpful in illuminating things.

Good morning. Yesterday, Keir Starmer used a speech to set out his stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict – you can read the full text here. Starmer doubled down on resisting calls for a ceasefire, warning it could “embolden” Hamas, and the leader said politicians making snap judgments on international law was “unwise”. But he also warned Israel it didn’t have a “blank cheque” and should stop settlements, and stressed Labour’s commitment to a two-state solution. And his ceasefire stance even left open the door to a change in stance – saying only it was not correct “at this stage”.

The speech was praised by many in the party, including veteran MP Margaret Hodge (who argued that while "calling for [a ceasefire] may make us feel better, but it will not help those on the ground right now") and the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), which praised Starmer's "clear leadership". The Guardian was more ambivalent, praising some elements of the speech but describing his intervention as "far from convincing" in an editorial. One figure on the left of the party called it a “green light” for continued Israeli bombardment, and this morning more than 330 councillors have written to the party asking for a ceasefire. We have the story here.

Overnight in Gaza the damage to a refugee camp following an Israeli airstrike is still being assessed, with reports of dozens of casualties. The Israeli military said the strike had targeted a key Hamas commander. Rosena Allin-Khan, until recently a shadow cabinet minister, posted an image of the destroyed camp to X yesterday evening and appeared to send a warning to the leadership: "I respect some believe a ceasefire is not plausible, but they should stand up and explain what they'll do to avoid more devastating bloodshed like this."

Starmer also stressed the importance of “collective responsibility” yesterday, though it will raise eyebrows given levels of dissent recently. The key question now is whether his new position and implicit warning to frontbenchers will be enough to stop further voices speaking out or even quitting their posts. Meanwhile Labour has this morning called for a coordinated disasters emergency committee (DEC) fund appeal, to be matched with government funding, to provide essential humanitarian aid in Gaza.

[The Weeping Angel]

Crisis latest

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/c ... 98844607-5

Labour poster MP Shabana Mahmood has emerged as the unofficial leader of the party’s 14 Muslim MPs who are critical of Keir Starmer’s response to the Israel-Hamas war. One of the group whispered that if the shadow justice secretary – who, after telling the leader he’d caused offence to the Muslim community, wrote to her constituents suggesting Israel may be guilty of “collective punishment” – resigns, the six others in the group with front-bench posts would quit in solidarity. The 13 members of Starmer’s team who have broken the party line by calling for a ceasefire include Imran Hussain. The shadow minister added his name to a motion (95 signatures last time I looked) tabled by Corbynista Richard Burgon. Starmer’s leadership is being tested.

Party number crunchers calculate as many as 20 seats could be jeopardised in the backlash over Starmer’s pro-Israel position, screamed a snout. That could wipe out all anticipated Scottish gains. Every crisis is an opportunity – this one for Rishi Sunak. Some in Labour mutter a May election might be back on the cards.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The shadow minister added his name to a motion (95 signatures last time I looked) tabled by Corbynista Richard Burgon.

Man's a cunt.