Page 9 of 29
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:47 am
by shpalman
El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:13 am
Corbyn wouldn't send soldiers in anywhere, for any reason. He wouldn't have sent forces to Sierra Leone, for instance. And many people would've died as a result.
I mean, it would be nice if there could be a discussion of Labour leaders without reference to the f.cking Iraq war. Blair did it, yes. Starmer probably wouldn't. Especially not now, with the context of how Blair is seen.
Also, the Iraq war began nearly
twenty years ago, not ten. And after it began, Blair went on to win another general election. So clearly it wasn't seen as the war crime that Corbynites insist it was.
And then, Blair didn't lose the general election, Gordon Brown did. And at the time I remember the big political scandal of the day was MP's expenses.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:20 am
by TimW
secret squirrel wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:55 am
Surely the Iraq war is worse than Corbyn's antisemitism though?
How about if we all just settle for "Yes". I don't imagine anyone is going to actually argue.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:32 am
by El Pollo Diablo
secret squirrel wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:43 am
lpm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:41 am
If what-about-the-Iraq-War isn't whataboutery, what the f.ck would be?
It's not whataboutery if it's relevant.
It's not f.cking relevant though! You're using the abysmal logic of Starmer is centrist -> Blair was centrist -> Blair did a war -> Centrists do wars -> Starmer will do a war.
Of course it's f.cking whataboutery.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:46 am
by secret squirrel
El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:32 am
It's not f.cking relevant though! You're using the abysmal logic of Starmer is centrist -> Blair was centrist -> Blair did a war -> Centrists do wars -> Starmer will do a war.
Of course it's f.cking whataboutery.
This characterization is obviously bad faith nonsense.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:50 am
by lpm
So how does Corbyn's antisemitism link to the Iraq War?
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:02 am
by TimW
It's not as bad.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:04 am
by shpalman
How does Corbyn's antisemitism now link to how much war Starmer is doing in Iraq now?
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:13 am
by lpm
Are we able to use "not as bad as the Iraq war" for everything? Because I've been embezzling company funds and they seem to think it's really bad.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:13 am
by Gfamily
The country declined to vote a Corbyn led Labour party into power twice, and the scale of loss increased over time. I'm not really sure what else needs to be said.
Corbyn was demonstrably a poor leader for the Labout party, and I can't see how he can be seen as other than a poor leader of the Labour Party.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:18 am
by secret squirrel
lpm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:50 am
So how does Corbyn's antisemitism link to the Iraq War?
I didn't insert the Iraq war into this conversation, I just pointed out why it's not ridiculous for people to hold the Iraq war against those who were involved with it. A broader conversation spun out of that because apparently Liberals love talking about it, even if it's only to angrily say how they don't care about it.
That aside, there is an obvious connection, which follows from the general principle that things a person or a group criticize should always be understood in context with what they do not criticize. For this reason woodchopper's earlier point that Leftists have made excuses for war crimes in the past is relevant too, and not whataboutery. Corbyn has faced harsh criticism by centrists for his views on antisemitism, and has been suspended from the party. On the other hand, Blair and other cheerleaders for the war remain in the party, and centrists tend to wave away criticism of them as being somehow irrelevant, or, god forbid, boring. This, to me, is an interesting point of comparison. But then I have not found it as easy to make peace with the massive, ongoing, human suffering it caused as some people.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:21 am
by secret squirrel
lpm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:13 am
Are we able to use "not as bad as the Iraq war" for everything? Because I've been embezzling company funds and they seem to think it's really bad.
Does your company also employ Tony Blair?
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:46 am
by lpm
My company employs rapists. Can I demand they must deal with the rapists first, before they suspend me?
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:56 am
by secret squirrel
lpm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:46 am
My company employs rapists. Can I demand they must deal with the rapists first, before they suspend me?
Morally yes your company should place a higher priority on dealing with rapists than embezzlers. Of course, your company may not care about the moral argument, in which case we are entitled to criticize them for that.
Does the Labour party care about the moral argument?
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:34 pm
by jimbob
plodder wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:42 am
secret squirrel wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:29 am
Well, since the overwhelmingly British middle class Liberals of scrutable have apparently decided the Iraq war is nbd I guess we can go back to the serious business of excoriating Corbyn for liking anti-Semitic murals and getting on stage with Islamists.
Old commies are often not the nicest bunch, but in practical terms the worst thing about them is that they’re unelectable.
Actually, that's a saving grace.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:54 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Gosh it's all so complicated, isn't it? So many things to think about simultaneously - right and wrong, electable and unelectable, competent and incompetent, etc.
I can definitely see why some people like to treat politics as a team sport and/or downplay some of those axes.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:56 pm
by badger
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Corbyn is suspended for making and repeating the "exaggerated claims" argument following the publishing of the report.
Action had been taken against Corbyn, MP for Islington North, because of a Facebook post, released that morning, in which he claimed that the problem of antisemitism was “dramatically overstated for political reasons” by opponents and the media.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... om-labour
If he'd actually waited a few hours, and listened to his party leader's response before making his own statement, he would have altered it accordingly and wouldn't have been suspended (so his team say, but then he didn't retract it either so... *shrugs*).
He may yet be suspended for (in)actions related to the report's findings (I'm guessing, I don't know), but at the moment he's suspended for what he said in response.
The "exaggerated claims" argument is backed up by Corbyn and his supporters with polls showing the public believe(d) that "n% percent of labour MPs/officials/members have made anti-Semitic/racist statements/are being investigated", where n = more than reality, rather than actual evidence of "exaggerated claims" and "dramatic overstatement". Of course, screeching tabloids gonna screech and political rivals gonna, er, rival, but having that as your main defence against your party's sub-standard actions under your watch is painful to see.
It all seems very... Corbyn-esque.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:56 pm
by Grumble
Blair won an election after the Iraq war. It clearly wasn’t a big deal. Corbyn couldn’t win an election even without that albatross around his neck.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:03 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Grumble wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:56 pm
Blair won an election after the Iraq war. It clearly wasn’t a big deal. Corbyn couldn’t win an election even without that albatross around his neck.
This is why I mentioned the distinction between moraliry and electability.
I don't think it's quite right to conclude that the Iraq war wasn't a big deal because it didn't have much impact on the next UK election - it's not like dead Iraqis could have voted in it, even if there had been a mainstream party that opposed the war, which there wasn't.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:13 pm
by El Pollo Diablo
the Lib Dems opposed it.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:15 pm
by secret squirrel
Grumble wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:56 pm
Blair won an election after the Iraq war. It clearly wasn’t a big deal. Corbyn couldn’t win an election even without that albatross around his neck.
The Great British public doesn't care that much about dead Arabs and the like it's true. Do you?
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:17 pm
by Bird on a Fire
ETA @EPD Not sure I'd consider them mainstream, especially bearing in mind the distortions of FPTP.
If Labour and Conservatives both support something, voters in England at least don't have a choice on the matter.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:21 pm
by monkey
And they increased vote share in 2005.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:23 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Still, it is true that in electoral terms the Iraq war is basically ancient history, so I'm sure the new leadership has already laid the issue to rest.
Presumably Starmer has already made a statement denouncing it and promising that he wouldn't support such an atrocity himself, demanded apologies from key proponents still in the party, and perhaps launched an internal investigation into what went wrong within Labour to lead to those decisions being made.
I don't follow the minutiae of UK party politics any more, so could well have missed it.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:35 pm
by jimbob
badger wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:56 pm
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Corbyn is suspended for making and repeating the "exaggerated claims" argument following the publishing of the report.
Action had been taken against Corbyn, MP for Islington North, because of a Facebook post, released that morning, in which he claimed that the problem of antisemitism was “dramatically overstated for political reasons” by opponents and the media.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... om-labour
If he'd actually waited a few hours, and listened to his party leader's response before making his own statement, he would have altered it accordingly and wouldn't have been suspended (so his team say, but then he didn't retract it either so... *shrugs*).
He may yet be suspended for (in)actions related to the report's findings (I'm guessing, I don't know), but at the moment he's suspended for what he said in response.
The "exaggerated claims" argument is backed up by Corbyn and his supporters with polls showing the public believe(d) that "n% percent of labour MPs/officials/members have made anti-Semitic/racist statements/are being investigated", where n = more than reality, rather than actual evidence of "exaggerated claims" and "dramatic overstatement". Of course, screeching tabloids gonna screech and political rivals gonna, er, rival, but having that as your main defence against your party's sub-standard actions under your watch is painful to see.
It all seems very... Corbyn-esque.
And Starmer had given Corbyn notice of what would be in Starmer's statement, so Corbyn was knowingly being disloyal.
Re: Starmer
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:56 pm
by El Pollo Diablo
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:23 pm
Presumably Starmer has already made a statement denouncing it and promising that he wouldn't support such an atrocity himself, demanded apologies from key proponents still in the party, and perhaps launched an internal investigation into what went wrong within Labour to lead to those decisions being made.
Why on earth would he do any of those things? Miliband said
Blair was wrong ten years ago and Corbyn
apologised for it four years ago.
Aside from being completely out of the blue, politically it would achieve the dual f.ckup of being both utterly needless and damaging. At a time when Labour are being hammered over anti-semitism, there's almost no reason to say, "oh yeah, remember that thing that happened 17 and a half years ago which most of you don't give a f.ck about any more but which many of you really disliked at the time? That was bad, wannit? Anyway, soz."
The only people who give a sh.t about Iraq any more are the wazzocks on the far-left who pop up like Herpes every time Blair is mentioned.