That Starmer fella...

Centrists gonna centrist

Not directly related to Starmer, but an interesting analysis of economic considerations that will form the backdrop of the next government:
https://jamesmeadway.substack.com/p/inflation-and-the-anthropocene-a?r=22vfr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Also kind of related to this:
https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2023/01/the-full-employment-challenge.html

In an environment where there’s a limited ability for governments to spend without causing more inflation (tight labour market or continuous exogenous shocks), Labour wanting growth will need to be deciding which jobs should no longer exist alongside which should be funded, as well as the standard problems of inequality and redistribution.

https://twitter.com/PGourtsoyannis/status/1736751979576045921?t=_vCtYb-7ucJXbjvOgCvQbQ&s=19

If only there had been sometime in the past month or so to back the idea of a ceasefire...

no moral compass, no back bone, just goes which ever way the wind is blowing. absolute worm.

Or, calling for a ceasefire carries more weight now - following Israel's actions and its ambassadors trashing the two state solution in public - than it did in the days immediately following the massacre.

I was talking about the vote on the bill, when all that had been happening for some time but ok.

even if I accept yr premise, was it worth waiting for how ever many more thousands of people being killed so it "carries more weight"? Of course not It wasn't politically advantageous at the time for him to call for a ceasefire so he didn't. He argued against it. Now he's seen which way public and media sentiment is going he's changed his tune entirely.

Hardly like that's the only thing he's done a 180 on is it, and I think it takes some real mental gymnastics to convince oneself that it's anything other than politically motivated tbh

I see the desperate Tory attack lines are really getting wheeled out now.

https://twitter.com/alasdairmack66/status/1737396244287246392?s=46&t=HeRd25GM65CE20-VgtAQvA

particularly desperate given there are plenty of valid criticisms to be made from his time at the CPS

politically motivated

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!

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.

should be pointed out this wasn't an autonomous decision by labour or because of its weight, it has come at a shift of american pressure, it's in response to the tories also shifting their line for "a sustainable ceasefire", which is not an immidiate one nor condemnation of israeli states methods, but merely calling for a "2 state solution" once hamas is removed. this has come as ol' joe is feeling his own heat in the upcoming election state side as their current stance on the conflict is out of step with their base in key seats.

it's very novel to think they're making free decisions on foreign policy but they're v much doing what made their current shadow health sec step away from the party during the iraq war, and the only motivator for these people is their own livelyhoods and grip on power so they can maintain the current power projection in a way they deem best for their donors.

i can't see why anyone would not see through this switch in tone, or feel enthused let alone defend it unless they were doggedly ideological over managerialism.

in domestic news, labour spokesperson welcoming, and not condeming, what is essentially section 28 for trans people, and a policy which is in direct contradiction to the equality act.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0vT9OTshXI

they obviously go on to talk about winning the election and so forth, i'm sure this is "all bluff to stop the rw press!!" but when combined with their health ministers comments, and that starmer has said, out of pocket really, he doesn't think kids can know they're trans, doesn't exactly make for much comfort to queer people or parents of queer people.

We all know what it’s like with teenage children and I feel very strongly about this… this argument that children can make decisions without the consent of parents is one I just don’t agree with at all,” Starmer told Justine Roberts

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.

where have you plucked the day after from?
Obviously that would be fucking stupid.

Stop the killing by saying "Israel has the right to defend itself"(demonstrably not what they were doing at that point) repeatedly when he was being asked about war crimes? Stop the killing by putting a three line whip out to vote AGAINST a ceasefire?

i can't see why anyone would not see through this switch in tone, or feel enthused let alone defend it unless they were doggedly ideological over managerialism.

nail. head.

Also Starmer, left wing? fucking lol.

where have you plucked the day after from? Obviously that would be fucking stupid.

So you agree with the principle that there is a point, somewhere between one civilian being killed, and where we are today, where it becomes appropriate to demand a ceasefire. In which case we're just arguing over when that point is. Because your original argument:

was it worth waiting for how ever many more thousands of people being killed so it "carries more weight"? Of course not

...sounds like you think this argument should've been made as soon as the first bomb dropped - which would've aligned Starmer with kooks like STW et al.

sounds like you think this argument should've been made as soon as the first bomb dropped

it doesn't and I don't.

So you agree with the principle that there is a point, somewhere between one civilian being killed, and where we are today, where it becomes appropriate to demand a ceasefire. In which case we're just arguing over when that point is.

What a fun argument.

I fun it an odd view that Starmer is playing cynical politics by not backing a bill brought by the SNP for the express reason of trying to weaken Labour and distract voters north of the border from what a hot mess they are.

I mean you can't begrudge them for taking some steps to avoid Labour retaking Scotland, but equally you can't begrudge Starmer for returning Yousaf's serve.

not remotely what I said.

Not verbatim. But definitely adjacent.

You linked to a tweet referencing a shift from the SNP motion and then say he should have called for a cease fire earlier which I read as implying he should have backed the SNP motion.

Fwiw it was a wider point based on comments I've read here and elsewhere.

Keir Starmer backs Esther Rantzen's calls for law change on assisted dying

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-keir-starmer-backs-esther-31723825

This is great to see. Leaders need to be able to bring subjects to the table, not just react to them. I hope this is more of the same.

I hope this finally becomes a thing. I was just reading the story on the BBC website and for once the comments all seem to share the same view (as far down as I got anyway).

I am sure we have all had to witness the utterly awful, slow, painful demise of close relatives.

fair play to the lad, don't think he gets much right but spot on here.

Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

Floating heads?