That Starmer fella...

HM King Charles III to you..

Imo Prince Charles and Beckham are probably the only relevant Britains who can make any impact on the world stage.

List needed:

Harry Styles
Hugh Grant
Ricky Gervais
James Corden
Emma Watson

we have a permant un coucil seat, are part of the handful of nations with rights and ability to manafacture; export parts for and complete advanced weapon weapons systems, we are also one of only 9 nuclear armed countries.

the opposition leader on a radio show is next in line to win a large electoral majority, putting them in charge of those seats and positions. he's also keen to remind us that he's "acting as a party preparing for government". the idea that britain has little influence, or his party does, is misguided.

britain as a country is seen as an aged out colonial force, one often despised for the trauma they have caused historically and within modern thearters. that feeling of antagonism towards us is persistant because nations know the disporportional sway we have relative to our position currently.

the people without power are palestinians, at the behest of politicians like the labour party, believing their hands are tied into selling arms to israel to assist in their destruction. the people without power are muslim and jewish people globally seeing states act violently under the guise of doing it in their faith. the people without power were israeli citizens who saw their government fail in protecting them from a terrorist attack by a force their priminister funded and encouraged.

a constant theme in uk politics, western politics as a whole, as not some looney lefty tells us, but the prized bbc documentry maker adam curtis, is the belief that modern politicians have no power, because they believe they have no power, they believe in nothing.

Harry Styles
Hugh Grant
Ricky Gervais
James Corden
Emma Watson
JK Rollin'

I imagine it will be this. A slap on the wrist and an education course then fully reinstated. All to shut down Tory attack lines.

Harry Styles
Hugh Grant
Ricky Gervais
James Corden
Emma Watson
JK Rollin'
Harry Kane

Feels to me like he was trying to coin an acceptable version of the slogan to replace the problematic one - which I think was a noble thing to try to do. Don’t agree with the suspension.

trying to coin an acceptable version of the slogan to replace the problematic one

I can get behind that. I've experienced it myself, when I tried to reclaim the phrase 'ain't no black in the union jack' at a BLM march.

I patiently explained that it was simply a statement of fact about the pigmentation in our national flag, and that we should treat the phrase as one which could be morally neutral, and even useful for those who dabble in the printing industry.

But for some reason they simply kicked my fucking head in.

I mean, if you’d written ‘ain’t no whack in the Union Jack’ I’d think you were making a point about it being doomed to failure to even attempt to rewrite a contentious slogan to try to shift the discourse away from the horrible thing to a more positive thing, but as you’ve opted for the unabashedly racist slogan I guess you’re just facetiously misinterpreting my point.

'From the river to the sea' IS an unabashedly racist phrase. The point I was making was that there IS no reclaiming it. It's like trying to reclaim 'ain't no black in the union jack'.

I’d thought it was the bit that typically came before it that made it racist, and that trying to change that was trying to shift the discourse. But it seems it has become so contentious a phrase because of what typically precedes it that it can’t be rehabilitated.

Harry Styles
Hugh Grant
Ricky Gervais
James Corden
Emma Watson
JK Rollin'
Harry Kane Jude Bellingham

Edit:can't striketext
Edit2: can now

Harry Kane Jude Bellingham

FTFY

You need double ~'s either side

Eg
~~ Harry Kane ~~ without the spaces = Harry Kane

He well may have been. But why?

Is he the sort of person who responded to questions about BLM with "I think all lives matter"?

Thanks all

I mean, you frame it that way, @ReekBlefs frames it the opposite way, it’s almost as if the phrase needs a neutral framing or to be dropped entirely.

The amount of brain rot on display in this thread is at record levels, thank you all.

this is your brain on starmer

Look I like ReekBlefs' analogy. I struggled with an obvious comparable, which is why I went with more ambiguous dog whistles, but it's hyperbole. There is no ambiguous history of that National Front chant - whereas there is space for a bit of both sidesing from the river to the sea.

But one of points I'm making - probably too indirectly - is that I'd put money on it that none of the people arguing for it being totally fine, would for a second try and both-sides "all lives matter", or dog whistles like urban youths in a comparable situation.

Look back to the reaction on here to Amber Rudd's use of coloured instead of woman of colour, or Danny Baker's gaff. Next to zero space given for any accidentally gaff. But yet it's cool to go to a rally and try and reclaim a phrase Jewish people view as antisemitic, because fuck it, geographic facts don't care about your feelings sweetheart?

At best it's a dumb ego driven gaff necessitating a public slap. At worst it's a cynical dog whistle. Either way it's not Starmer who is at fault, especially given Labour's record under Corbyn.

Tl;Dr

it’s almost as if the phrase needs... to be dropped entirely.

Agreed.

you frame it that way, @ReekBlefs frames it the opposite way

I think we're both pointing out the same thing, that each of these phrases is at best a dog whistle and at worst openly and obviously racist - and therefore probably best stayed away from in contexts where they're likely to be inflammatory.

EDIT Ha jinx

Aside from that, a lovely message from Labour on their feelings about Palestinians following Starmer's clarification of being spineless and having a broken moral compass.

“The main thing is to look like we care about Palestinian lives rather than arguing about the technical difference behind a ceasefire versus a pause.”

I'm aware this can be read differently, but I'd argue that given the context [given in the guardian article], I find it incredibly hard to read it that way.

Starmer’s position is proper ‘War is Peace’ fuckery. “We need actual violence in the here and now to avoid some hypothetical violence I have imagined in the future”