-
I dunno, I kind of feel like maybe, just maybe, putting pressure on the people responsible for the death of tens of thousands of civilians (half of them children) to you know, stop killing people indiscriminately is a little more important than gaining another point or
two in opinion polls that you already have a massive lead in. Also, yeah, it is incredibly cynical and given the context, really fucking gross.
chickenbones-
It absolutely is. But you mistake my point. Starmer's political goal here was to stop the killing, not to climb a few points in the polls - an argument for efficacy in stopping civilian deaths is not an argument to stop caring about civilian deaths, no matter how you twist it.
If your political goal is to stop the killing by Israel, and you're a left wing leader from a foreign country, calling for it the day after the massacre is counterproductive - you have precious little sway with the far right government in Israel anyway, but by calling for the ceasefire that day, you align yourself with the stop the war type kooks - people for whom Israel is always the bad guy, often straying into antisemitism - so you make it easy for Israel to ignore you.
By keeping your voice well within the pack, to keep it cross party with the right wingers in your parliament, such a voice gains weight, and your call is more likely to be heeded. We've dancing on the head of a pin anyway - Starmer's voice is a small one in the world of geopolitics - but the strategy is sound for maximising his small chances of achieving it.
We tried the politics of demanding things without a strategy for achieving them with Corbyn. It didn't work.
ReekBlefs
Of course we'd never want our politicians to act in a way that maximises the chances of their political goals being achieved. That would be cynical!