I can hardly contain my apathy.

I can name 5/8 of them: Angela Rayner, dunno, Keir, dunno, Hilary Benn, Rachel Reeves, gimp features, and the fabulously-named Thanggam Debonaire. So I can confidently spell the names of 3/8 of them.

Emily Thornberry is arguably the most fuckable member of the Labour shadow cabinet, which is quite disappointing IMO. Are lefties all munters, or do I have a bigot fetish?

>>97918

I'm curious who exactly you find that much more attractive on the opposite side of the house.

Except Are Suella, obviously, but that doesn't count because it's not really attraction, it's just a mummy dom fetish. It's like that lass I almost dated for a bit who looked like a goblin but gave me a right stonk on because she said she liked to piss on lad's faces.

looks like any given line-up for The Apprentice
Could even be Come Dine With Me
Roll on a government run exclusively by Jeremy Kyle Show participants

>>97918
Those green shoes belong to Liz Kendall.

>>97919

Obviously we all want Suella to stamp on our balls, but Penny Mordaunt is an absolute 11/10 goddess.

I'd let her hold my sword for nearly an hour IYKWIM.

>>97922

Speak for yourself, lad.

>>97923

I see you're a Priti Patel man. No shame in that.

>>97924

>I see you're a Priti Patel man.


No, lad.

Just no.

Fuck no.

>>97924
>>97925

In fairness I meant Piri Piri Patel in the first place when I brought up Braverman. Getting my sexy Indian dommes mixed up again like the racist pig I am. That's right, I deserve all of it, god, all of it. Make me suffer for what my ancestors did to your stinking brown shithole and then let me do it to yours too. Phwoooar.

Where's Ed Davey in your picture?

>>97927
Is he still the leader of the Lib Dems? I can't remember the last time I saw them in the news.

Where's Streeting? I thought he was being primed as a possible leadership contender.

>>97929
A group of nine is borderline Marxism. It's bad optics.

>>97930
There's nine people in the picture.

>>97931
The backless green shoes with the pointed toe are obviously Ed's.

>>97931
Serves me right for doing a head count.

>>97915
I didn't know Catherine Tate got into politics

>>97934
Rayner is essentially what Hannah Fry would be like if she was lobotomised.

>>97934>>97935
Well done for noticing that two different women you wank over photos of in your shed both have red hair. I really don't think you can comment on another's intelligence when you reflexively bleat childlike guff at the drop of a hat.

>>97936
Hair isn't exactly the only resemblance between Rayner and Fry. Rayner could easily pass as her mongy sister.

>>97915
Well, Thangam isn't, because the Greens are going to turf her out gloriously.

>>97938

I imagine she's worried. She's sitting on a razor-thin majority of 28,000.

Do you think Labour will be the one to cancel HS2?

>>97940
They've said they won't, but then they've said a lot of things they've backtracked on.

>>97940
How? Just build 10% of it and then have it lying around as a monument to when the country gave up? A national level primed but never painted Warhammer army? The question you're asking would have been legitimate a decade ago, but HS2 is currently being built, you can go and look at it, albeit in it's phoetal state. I don't think HS2, as envisioned, was a terribly good idea, but cancelling it at this stage would be even worse. The Chilturn Tunnels are bigger than the Channel Tunnel and are being bored as we speak.

However, it's understandable how many people are under the misapprehension that it's still in the planning phase. Most news stories are a question of where exactly it's going to end up, or if it will be used as the mic drop in yet another austerity budget.

>>97942

Abandon the high speed element and finish it off as a standard 125mph line. We still get most of the hypothecated economic benefits (through increased capacity) but we can greatly reduce construction costs and use standard signalling technology.

>>97942
I'm guessing you've missed the news this week with the government now refusing to guarantee HS2 will reach Manchester.

>>97943
I thought the problem was a mixture of rampant NIMBYism and every irrelevant provincial village wanting a station?

>>97944
I can see the logic in what the civil servants have been proposing. We pause construction until the cost of borrowing decreases and hope we don't have a world war like last time we tried to build infrastructure.

It's always been a bit daft that a grand rail line connecting the North terminates at Manchester anyway.

>>97945

>I thought the problem was a mixture of rampant NIMBYism and every irrelevant provincial village wanting a station?

Building rail in this country is expensive. Building a high-speed line is really expensive, because it needs to be very straight, very flat and have very sophisticated signalling. Reducing the top speed allows you to literally wiggle around a lot of the NIMBY problems and tricky geography. It also means you can signal to trains using coloured lights on a pole controlled by a bloke in a shed, rather than a big complicated computer system of the type that our government is notoriously terrible at procuring.

>>97942

It's not even primed and unpainted, with HS2 it's more like when somebody buys five grand of Imperial Guard, and then they give up as soon as they've glued together one box of Catachans. Then they opened all the other boxes and cut random bits off the sprues leaving it worthless for resale.

It was worthless as soon as they scrapped the Leeds leg frankly. I don't say that just as a bitter Loiner but really, what would have made the project worthwhile is giving the country what is, essentially, a high speed rail equivalent of the motorway network. You need to link up all the country's major cities, give every region of the country at least reasonable access and links to it. As it is under these plans, the entire northeast remains cut off, with only the piss poor (Leeds to Sheffield is about 20 minutes, Leeds to Manchester is more like an hour. Same distance, just shite rail.) transpennine rail links to connect to the system.

>>97939
She should be. The last time she faced the Greens under a non-Corbyn leader that majority was 5,600.

Why is everything so shit compared to other countries?

>>97960
Because you're here.

Tuesday:

>Angela Rayner has given a “cast iron guarantee” that Labour would bring in a new bill to ban zero-hours contracts and repeal anti-strike laws within 100 days of a new government.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/12/angela-rayner-gives-cast-iron-promise-of-bill-banning-zero-hour-contracts

Saturday:

>There is a ban proposed only for "exploitative" zero-hours contracts - if workers welcome flexibility themselves, this would not prevented

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66824786

I know Labour under Starmer have form for walking back on pledges they've made, but four days must be a record.

>Labour drops plan to strip public schools of charitable status

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66942985

More flip-flopping!

>>97963
So what is it Labour are doing now? Just the same half-arsed "net zero" policies the Tories had until a fortnight ago? Imagine door knocking for these arseholes?

Are Labour making a comeback in Scotland?

>>98012
It's more that the SNP has been in decline for over three years.

>>98013
That, also the internet isn't real life, and despite the protestations of online lefty types, voters mostly kind of like Labour right now, even if they don't exactly love them.

>>98015
>despite the protestations of online lefty types
Listen, right. Fuck actual Nazi Keith (LOL) Stormfront for not pledging to personally fund my five-a-day courgettes-in-my-arsehole habit. What, they're ending tax breaks for private schools? Well how much of that is going into my pockets? All of this illegally sourced oestrogen won't pay for itself!

Giving the far-left free reign over the internet has made me much less tolerant of political extremism than even the mental racists that actually got voted in a decade ago. Personally I hope they fund research into time travel so we can send these belligerent little windbags to fascist Spain on a gap year.

>>98012
>>98013
Other than "Ayr's nice" I don't know much about Scotland, so it's interesting to see just how badly the Tories have done. Is it Unionist support going over wholesale to Labour?

>>98015
I don't know what "online lefty types" are saying, but I doubt they're making out like Labour aren't popular. What I will say is that they might well be fumbling a unique opportunity to not just beat the Tories, but utterly crush them in the next GE. The Conservatives are edging further and further rightwards, so I would consider a small majority over them in parliament to still be an existential threat to the country. I might sound overwrought, but they're now anouncing policies based on COVID conspiracies and giddily attacking trans people. Combined with their austerity addiction I can't abide the idea of them ever seeing power again.

It would be fair to say Stamer's unpopular, I think. Owing to his propensity for mealy mouthedness and fence sitting. It gives the Tories a legitimate attack vector and now when Starmer says perfectly sensible things, for example: "I can't commit to HS2 phase 2b because the Tories just blew it up", he looks like he's trying to string people along. But he was right to say this, because the following day the land purchased for the Birmingham to Manchester leg was already being sold off. This could be mitigated by three rock solid, flagship policies that he and Reeves won't undermine week after week until they're rendered meaningless, or sugery to make his voice less stupid. Hopefully the membership push one of these options the upcoming party conference.

>>98013
Couldn't you also say that the rise of the SNP in the first place was due to the decline of Labour in Scotland over many years?

>>98018
Yes.

>>98017

>Is it Unionist support going over wholesale to Labour?

It's looking like there's some swing, but also discouraged turnout. We saw it in '97 - a lot of loyal Tories couldn't stomach voting for Blair, but also didn't want to vote for Major, so they just stayed at home.

>The Conservatives are edging further and further rightwards, so I would consider a small majority over them in parliament to still be an existential threat to the country.

The Tories have forgotten that there's a third party in England. There are a surprisingly large number of close CON/LIB marginals - leafy, wealthy suburban seats like Cheltenham, Cheadle and Guildford that tend to be economically conservative but socially liberal. Going into the next election on a populist platform might help the Tories to keep a few Red Wall seats, but it'll cost them dearly in the home counties.

Even with a fairly small nominal majority, Labour would be in a relatively comfortable position, because the left-leaning minority parties should have about 80 seats between them. The SNP might need some persuading to go into the voting lobbies with Labour, but they absolutely cannot allow themselves to be seen as aiding the Tories. There's a meaningful centre-left bloc in parliament that could usefully function as a coalition even without any formal agreements. Conversely, the Tories are deeply divided in a way that's only going to get worse after an election defeat.

>>98018

>Couldn't you also say that the rise of the SNP in the first place was due to the decline of Labour in Scotland over many years?

Only in part. Scottish voters were disaffected from Labour, but they were also energised and mobilised by the SNP. A lot of Scottish seats (particularly in the central belt) saw a big boost in turnout between 2010 and 2015, with people who previously hadn't voted showing up for the SNP. That boost had been gradually fading, but is likely to be much greater at the next election because the SNP are mired in scandal and are losing their reputation as the alternative to politics as usual.

>>98017
>I don't know what "online lefty types" are saying, but I doubt they're making out like Labour aren't popular.
Maybe it's just the circles I move in, but every time Sur Keef says something, or even doesn't say something, the response is something along the lines of "Labour are throwing it away" or "that's it, they're over" or "ok now I'm done with Labour" (typically after multiple times of previously being "done with Labour" already). He has, of course, ruined the party's chances dozens of times over the past couple of years, which is why they're [checks notes] bossing by-elections and still polling over 40%.

>Labour is currently on course to win a landslide victory on the scale of 1997, according to dramatic new modelling that points to the Conservatives losing every red wall seat secured at the last election.
>The Tories could also lose more than 20 constituencies in its southern blue wall strongholds and achieve a record-low number of seats, according to a constituency-by-constituency model seen by the Observer. Deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden, defence secretary Grant Shapps and leadership contender Penny Mordaunt are among those facing defeat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/poll-predicts-landslide-labour-election-victory-with-12-cabinet-ministers-losing-their-seats

Surprising how we've gone from Starmer trying the party from implosion to him being likely to win the next general election. How do you reckon Labour will scupper their chances next week?

>Labour is currently on course to win a landslide victory on the scale of 1997, according to dramatic new modelling that points to the Conservatives losing every red wall seat secured at the last election.
>The Tories could also lose more than 20 constituencies in its southern blue wall strongholds and achieve a record-low number of seats, according to a constituency-by-constituency model seen by the Observer. Deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden, defence secretary Grant Shapps and leadership contender Penny Mordaunt are among those facing defeat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/poll-predicts-landslide-labour-election-victory-with-12-cabinet-ministers-losing-their-seats

We've gone from Starmer trying to save the party from implosion to him being likely to win the next general election. How do you reckon Labour will scupper their chances next week?

>>98028

>How do you reckon Labour will scupper their chances next week?

If I was on the Tory campaign team and tasked with finding a chink in Labour's armour, I'd try to unearth a sex scandal. Failing that, embezzlement or favouritism. Throw mud on the wall till something sticks.

It's worth noting that Labour aren't in the lead because everybody suddenly loves Labour so much. It's because people are tired of the Conservatives and the clusterfuck that has been their last few years in power. There's a saying in politics that you don't vote in good oppositions, but you vote out bad governments. So it goes both ways. If a government is popular and the people like their leaders and trust them, then the opposition can pretty much try as it may, they will not win an election, even with their best people. On the other hand, if people have had enough of an incumbent government and are fed up with it, then even a shit opposition has a chance of taking the crown.

>>98027
>How do you reckon Labour will scupper their chances next week?

The right-wing press will be able to get plenty of mileage out of Hamas and Israel. It can't be that long before one of their Muslim MPs (or Corbyn) put their foot in it.

>>98029
>If I was on the Tory campaign team and tasked with finding a chink in Labour's armour
...they'd claim they were a Chinese agent.

I couldn't resist.

>>98030

The media discipline has been very tight so far. David Lammy is doing an impressive job as point man.

>>98027
I've probably said this before but I want to say it again. You don't have to read it if you don't want. But the Conservatives have ruined themselves by doing too well in the previous election. So many Labour constituencies voted Conservative in 2019 that a large cohort of the Tory party is now representing Labour voters. Whenever the leadership suggests a Conservative policy, those Labour voters still oppose it because that's why they always voted Labour in the past. And local backbench MPs are generally okay; they represent their constituents fairly honourably. So the battle between Conservatives and Labour is now taking place inside the Conservative Party, and that's why nothing gets done.

Even worse, they won their landslide on a three-word slogan: Get Brexit Done. And they got Brexit done within a couple of months, as was always going to happen. So now they have nothing else to really talk about. They've delivered on the only policy of their that anyone could name, and now we've got four years and ten months of waiting around for another government to do something else. There's a lesson in all this: if you win an election, don't actually deliver on your promises. What a terrible lesson that is. No wonder Labour aren't offering anything at all. Look what happens when you promise to do something and then you actually do it.

>>98033
I forgot to add my final paragraph and conclusion: This was all 4D chess from JCorbz to annihilate the Conservative Party once and for all.

>>98033

>There's a lesson in all this: if you win an election, don't actually deliver on your promises

Or don't deliver too soon, so that voters will have forgotten about it by the next election. Timing is often crucial in politics.

Should we reclassify the environment as the high street? That way it would receive unanimous bipartisan support and the squirrels could get loans to open posh new commercial properties so long as they close at a reasonable hour and only serve alcohol as part of a food menu.

I don't know, I get that businesses are struggling but I'm starting to wonder if the high street is actually profitable.

Glad to hear my new look UKIP Britain First Labour membership card will be with me in a few weeks. Without a flag on it, people must assume I secretly hate the UK and that I want to shaft the country with a Labour government, who I hope will do bad things, not good things. I have an IQ of 4, when will I get to be general secretary of the party?

I know one of you are going have a pop at me for saying that, but it's so fucking patronising. I don't need to look at a little flag to know I like Britain, I live in this shithole.

>>98036
High streets can thrive, but they aren't going to be like how they were in 2008 ever again. If they have things to do, places to eat and the stuff you can't get online, like shoe repair and accountancy, then high streets do fine. However, no matter how much you cut, sorry, make "fairer", business rates, Woolworths and Wilkos aren't coming back to life. Meanwhile Amazon continues to opperate de-facto tax free and warehouse workers get treated worse than dogs.

>>98037
Normal people don't join political parties.

>>98037
What I've never got is why nobody ever thought to copy the LibDems in providing members with a choice of membership card. I bet the tribal nature of Labour's politics would love it.

>>98039
Who would seriously want Kirsty Williams on their membership card? Not Kirsty Williams, that's for sure.

>>98038
Where did I say I was "too normal" for a political party? If you're looking to have a pop at me just say it, don't be all snide about it, arsehole.

>>98039
>>98040
It's the Cleggheads that want sectioning. And I like Ashdown, the black and gold colouring on that card does make it look like it's a members card for an exclusive swingers club. Hell, for all I know in LibDem circles it is that, like a hanky code kind of thing. It would explain why you can get one with feet on.

>>98041
I would definitely get a Paddy Ashdown card. I used to live in Yeovil, which was his constituency, plus he was in the SBS so he's basically Andy McNab with a snorkel. Some of the others might be nearly as cool, but I don't recognise half of them and I'm definitely not having the feet card.

>>98040

She's the pengest of a very un-peng bunch.

>>98042
I got the black Churchill and Lloyd George card to confuse historically ignorant people. Unfortunately nobody commented on my choice which is owed at least in part as I never showed anyone it. The end.

>>98044
Well, you wouldn't, would you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FErfyZuhjzA

Lads, help me crunch some sums here: if Starmer's big tentpole figure for his whole campaign is 1.5 million homes and we currently have a backlog of 4.3 million compared to the average European country. How fucked are we? If we all just collective vote labour 4 times next year how much will house prices go down by?

>>98046
I thought he looked better with the glitter suit on.

>>98046
They said on the news he was protesting for a new electoral system. It really didn't come across from what he was yelling. He's absolutely right but he's shit at protesting.

>>98048
It took a relatively long time for security to haul him away, I don't think he'd actually planned on having so much time to say something.

In the Mid-Bedfordshire by-election, Reform UK got 1,487 votes. Just one short of the magic Nazi number. They must be furious.

>>98056
>English Democrats
>Putting England first
>Antonio Vitiello

Proper traditional English name, that. Same with "Alberto" Thomas of the Heritage Party. These silly bastards really don't get that politicking is 90% optics these days.

>>98057
It's humorous, but if we're being serious modern racism isn't about anti-Italian sentiment. I don't think many people would know what you meant if you tried calling someone a "wop".

Besides, Reform putting up a bloke called Dave Holland is the real slap in the face to English pride. I do not forget the raid on the Medway so easily.

>>98056
It's interesting how no one seems to give a shit about Reform. UKIP were the right-wing boogeymen for years, constantly threatening to snatch the tens-of-millions of voting white ven men away from both the Tories and Labour, both of whom were the ven mens's traditional party. But despite this, and the fact that the party leader Richard Tice has his own telly show or something, Reform are about as popular as clogs at the Second Anglo-Dutch War veterans association.

I guess it doesn't help them much that the Conservatives are just UKIP now.

>>98058

>I don't think many people would know what you meant if you tried calling someone a "wop".

BRING BACK PROPER RACISM LIKE WE HAD IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

>>98058
Why would I give a shit about a party that can maybe field one or two MPs? FPTP or whatever, reality is that "dissident" parties like Reform are great at drumming up media attention but by design pretty inefrfective at achieving meaningful change. At a local level it works if the constituents are wealthy enough, but actual (and in my view reactionary and media pandering) change of the kind Reform proposes is a grift.

Hey, I can make a new party:
- Britain for the British
- Fund the NHS
- Points based immigration, deport the rest
- No money for scroungers
- Wood burners for everyone over 65
- Wood industry subsidies to fire the burner

Easy, isn't it? No how do I make this work? That's where Reform, UKIP, BNP, etc. are stuck. They grift in the existing political system, if they wanted actual change they'd be on the streets.

>>98060
>Easy, isn't it? No[w] how do I make this work?
How is that different from the mainstream parties? They offer unworkable promises all the time ("Get Brexit Done") and conveniently hide their explanations for how they will do these things if the explanation would be unpopular (=taxes, every time).

>>98061
Do Labour or the Lib Dems have any unworkable promises? I don't really know what either of them stand for these days.

>>98060

UKIP took a lot of votes from the Tories, which forced the Tories to shift to the right to squeeze them out. Cameron couldn't just camp out on the middle ground, because his share of the vote was being attacked from both sides. There's a direct line between UKIP winning 12.6% of the vote in the 2015 General Election and the referendum a year later.

The same threat is happening now with Reform, albeit manifested slightly differently because of the Tories being much weaker in the polls. If the Tories had won the 1,487 votes that went to Reform in Mid Beds, they would have held on to the seat. If Reform stand candidates in all of the key Tory marginals and win only a small proportion of the vote, it could cost the Tories dozens of seats; that is obviously going to shape Tory messaging and policy on issues like immigration and our relationship with the EU.

>>98056

I mean I think the part to pay attention here is that the votes for Reform were enough that they'd have swung it from Labour to the Tories. When people wonder why the Conservatives are pandering to far right rhetoric, here is your answer. When people wonder why Kieth Anti-Trans Literal Worse Than Hitler Starmer won't come out and say he likes lady penises and make his manifesto pledge free puberty blockers for all 12 year olds, this is why.

The Tories created a monster with their constant "muh migrants, muh dolescum" type rhetoric. The gambit was that they could control the media narrative and it wouldn't ever make a difference what the reality actually was. They thought they would always be able to position themselves as the ones who were "solving" the problem while the muzzie loving globohomo leftie wet wipes in Labour are the ones who want to open the valve and make your daughter shag a darkie. The problem is they never expected these voters to become self aware, they were supposed to be easily controlled Daily Mail drones.

The trouble is that the leash slipped out of their hand, but by now there's no way of putting the genie back in the bottle. If it was possible to dismiss it all as dogwhistling and xenophobia to be a BNP voter back in 2007 when we first started getting the Poles over, it really isn't any more. Not even the most ardent Europhile Graun reading Lib-Dem posho can deny, our services are straining, the housing supply has flat out dried up, and people are directly feeling negative impacts of overcrowding. We've got so many Slavs over here I've been shagging exclusively Eastern Europeans for about the last 3 years, and even THEY will tell you in their own words, that there are too many of them. They wouldn't put up with this level of influx to their own countries- Even they are voting to stop more of their own coming over behind them, let alone more brown-eyed people.

It's been the perfect storm of conditions that has in a very real sense pushed the Overton window of our politics further to the right than it has been in years, at least in terms of social issues.

Labour's the name, imploding is the game.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67432393

If things on the economic side continue to look better in 2024 we might not actually see a Labour government.

>>98157

It's only an implosion if Starmer bottles it. If he makes good on his word, removes the cabinet ministers who voted against the whip and makes it very clear to the back benchers that anyone who crosses the line is looking at deselection or loss of the whip, it's just a purge of troublemakers. Sacking a load of people pour encourager les autres is generally seen in a very favourable light by the electorate if it's wrapped in rhetoric about common sense and getting the job done.

>>98157

Honestly I don't get how this lot haven't learned their lesson after what happened to Corbyn. It's just not worth the hassle of speaking up about it. My heart bleeds over what is happening as much as the next lefty, but you know damn fucking well you will never be elected in this country unless you pay the Israel lobby its lip service.

But to be extremely cynical it'll probably do them good in the long run, though, because you can put money on all the MPs kicking off over this being either brown or women. How else would the party get away with sacking them.

>>98157

Oh, and

>If things on the economic side continue to look better in 2024

I wouldn't worry about that mate. Nobody in real life is buying "we're all getting poorer a marginally slower rate than last year, hooray!" as a miraculous economic recovery.

Oh no, Labour might have to purge shitheads like Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Stella Creasy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Jess Phillips, Naz Shah, Cat Smith, Zarah Sultana, Valerie Vaz and a bunch of others who are only doing it because their seat relies on securing Asian votes. Please don't go, you'll be sorely missed.

>>98159
I don't even know if it counts as lip-service. Israel aren't going to agree to a ceasefire just because the British parliament say they should achieve anything. It's purely performative.

>>98160
If you watch the BBC you'd be forgiven for thinking inflation slowing down means prices are going down, so I imagine other media outlets are similar. Considering loads of people don't understand how marginal rates of tax work don't be surprised if loads of thickos can't comprehend inflation.

The near total acquiescence within parliament to the idea of killing tens-of-thousands of Arabs consequence free is the most racist phenomenon in politics I've witnessed within my lifetime. The fact that taking the same position as the United Nations on this issue is a sacking offense within Labour is repellent, and the hypocrisy after twenty months of, righfully, condemning and actively opposing Russia's attack on Ukraine is shocking. If a 25% lead in the polls isn't enough to have even the bare minimum level of morale courage, then when is?

The actions of the past five weeks, including those of Hamas, have almost totally eroded my personal beliefs in the positive aspects of humanity. I confess they'd already diminished in recent times, but now they're vapor.

>>98164
It's optics. Sunak has looked weak due to Braverman going off the rails, but be did manage to sack her in the end. Starmer also needs to demonstrate that people have to toe the line with him.

When we do have a general election what is going to be the priority for most voters? Will it be their stance on a ceasefire on a different continent or is it more likely to do with the state of the NHS, schools, police, immigration or the economy in general?

>>98165
I quite literally deleted a line in my previous post about how the optics of all this are actually bad, how I didn't care about them in any event, given the direness of the issue, and how you should fucking top yourself if were thinking of lecturing me about that kind of thing. You can shove your game theory, race to the bottom politics up your arse, you patronising fuckwit.

>>98166
Nah, you're right. Labour's stance on Israel is the most important issue facing the country right now and Netanyahu was on record saying he'd agree to a ceasefire if only the opposition party in the UK were given a free vote on it.

>>98167
>You can shove your game theory, race to the bottom politics up your arse, you patronising fuckwit.

>>98168
Rightly or wrongly, Starmer has inherited the situation with the Labour Party where anything with even the faintest whiff of antisemitism will be under the magnifying glass so he's got to he mindful of that.

Similarly, Labour have never been able to shake the tag that they're the party of open borders and mass immigration. If you're in the circles where you encounter the "legimate concerns" of the "silent majority" who voted for Brexit then there has been a lot of disquiet about the ethnicity of the majority of pro-Palestinian protestors, usually leading to pearl clutching about where the country will be heading if they're allowed to outnumber us. As mental as some of these people are, looking like you're pandering to Muslims would not go down well at all when immigration is still a pressing concern.

>>98169
Why are you saying this to me? I already made it clear how racist this all was in my first post on this topic.

>>98170
Because I'm genuinely trying to figure out whether you're on the spectrum or not. You appear to be struggling with the concept that other people think differently to you.

It's a very weird stance you're taking. Starmer has shown time and time again that he'll do or say whatever he thinks will get him elected, going back on numerous campaign pledges. It's weird how Israel is the straw that broke the camel's back for you.

>>98163
>you'd be forgiven for thinking inflation slowing down means prices are going down
Inflation is a year-on-year measure tracked from month to month, so a reduction in inflation may indeed mean prices are going down, especially if it went up in the same period the previous year.

>>98171
>It's weird how Israel is the straw that broke the camel's back for you.
Cute, very cute. When I was 17 I stood in the middle of Manchester arguing with two Communist uni students, half-a-dozen Asian lads and one racist white girl that Israel had a right to exist, and saying otherwise was at best naive, at worst antisemetic. I was doing this because the students were collecting signatures for a petition calling for the dissolution of Israel. I'd stand by every bastard word I said back then. However, the recent level of bloodshed inflicted by the IDF is abhorrant, and even more so when you consider that a significant motivation for the violence is to compensate for the fact that that idiot Netanyahu was overwhelmingly concerned with defending the illegal West Bank settlements, and as such had abandoned the Israel-Gaza border. I have very personal expierences that mean I am actually deeply sympethic to the rage Israelis must feel since the events of October 7th. Those experiences left me a hateful stupour for well over a week, and it was only after I'd acted on them that I realised I needed to change my attitude or face ruin. Now, you, probably, don't have the experience of a friend being on the scene in the immediate aftermath of a daft militant wog attack that killed tens of people and helping to treat the wounded before even the emergency services had arrived, so I wouldn't expect you to have felt the same way. Likewise, the UK's distance from the Hamas attack should allow us a clarity of mind not afforded to those directly effected by it. This clarity should make it abundantly clear that the uncommon and relentless slaughter of Palestian civilians is wholly unacceptable and must stop immediately. I'm not daft enought to think Labour adopting this as it's official stance would magically convince a far-right Israeli government to cease it's assault, but I do have a basic ethical understanding that some things are too important to play politics with. One of those things is human lives, but, according to the great majority of MPs, if those lives belong to lowly sandn!ggers; kill, kill, kill them all. My words might seem harsh, but they are a reflection of the actions of our politicians, and that is why I choose them.

I also want you to know that if you were to imply I was a Jew hater in the real world, you would not be getting a florid speech like the one above. Instead I would beat you so hard you parents would feel it.

>>98175
In other words, "that's not funny: my brother died that way."

You care about this situation because it personally affects you. I don't recall anyone on here having a similar teary about how China are treating the Uyghurs or when ISIS were releasing videos where they were torturing and beheading people. Clearly, some tragedies are more important than others but it's almost always Israel people get obsessively occupied with for some reason I can't put my finger on.

>>98176
I'll be honest, this reply of yours is so devoid of rationality or reason that I'm struggling to engage with it.

>In other words, "that's not funny: my brother died that way."
I find your lack of reading comprehension to be a serious concern, because it was very clear what I said. I said I understand Israel's desire for action at any cost (this is called empathy, if you were curious), but that it's up to people with an emotional distance from the events to behave more rationally. If you have a problem with this take it up with the United States, as it was their sage military and political advice that was allegedly the only reason the IDF weren't storming Gaza the moment southern Israel was cleared of Hamas. "Some tragedies are more important" is such a vile and ignorant thing to say. It's taken the Sudanese civil war seven months to rack up the amount of dead the Hamas-Israel conflict has, the better part for two years for the amount of civilian dead in the Russo-Ukraine war to reach the tens-of-thousands. What has happened in Gaza has been a brutal slaughter, there are no two ways about it. The British government never sent the Fleet Auxillery to assist ISIS or the People's Republic of China nor referred to either organisation as our "allies", and if a vote was held to call for an end to Saudi Arabia's policy of mortar bombing illegal migrants and Labour opposed it, I'd have a similar stregth of feeling on that matter. A great many people were disgusted when stories of ISIS comitting mass rapes, enslavement and videoing their murders of westerners and enemy combatants. I, personally, have never forgotten the name Kayla Mueller. To pretend that there wasn't mass outrage and disgust at the actions of ISIS from the UK is complete bollocks and you know it.

Again you continue to ignore the role race is playing in all this. I don't know if this is because it makes you uncomfortable, or perhaps you simply don't care, or the third option; you are racist and see Arabs as lesser. However, the idea that you could kill 10,000 Europeans in a month and and any amount of leeway would be given is absurd. The Yanks still get shit for killing, I believe, around 300 or 400 people while bombing Belgrade, and that was to actively prevent a genocide.

Lastly, if you want to play "who can name more human tragedies" we can. I look forward to your full throated defence of the Burmese military state, of the Mexican cartles and their de-facto takeover of the entire nation, of cynical and brutal actions of the RSF and the regular Armed Forces in Sudan and of course the Azeri's genocide of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. I can confidentally assume you support all of this violence, as you haven't made a thread about any of them.

>>98176
Russia has definitely received more criticism than Israel over the bad things they have done to innocent bystanders in recent years. And while nobody is calling for China to stop being a country, that’s because the country wasn’t artificially established in the first place; we are still nevertheless calling for boycotts and sanctions far more often than we are for Israel.

I also have a moronic thought that I would only say anonymously. I was going to put it in that Politics General thread, but I have decided it’s too terrible a thread so I am going to not post there. Anyway: if Israel completely wipes Gaza off the map, as they are clearly trying to do, maybe it’s going to be like nuking Japan instead of doing a ground invasion and it might save more lives in the long run. Would it still be as contentious then?

>>98178
Utilitarianism to justify genocide: yes, in the same way glassing the entire planet would prevent immeasurable suffering in the long run. It might be an unpopular opinion but I don't think that's really what anyone human wants.

Bottom line is Labout can't afford to be seen as anything but turbo-Zionists, because the apparatus of pro-Israel interest groups and their connections have shown exactly what they can do to the party if it doesn't toe the line. I mean, wouldn't it just be terrible if another scandal about how the party is still institutionally anti-semitic came out, right in time for the election next year?

I ask myself what I would have done in Corbyn's shoes. I am a much more pragmatic man- I am completely willing to sell a less important principle out, in order to gain power to implement others. I would have pledged to give Israel full support up to and including nuclear weapons as long as it is used to claim Israeli land from the Palestinian untermensch. Blank cheque.

We'd have nationalised rail and utilities by now put it that way.