Keir Starmer's time is up

[Sue]

What are we supporting here? Him literally just not being Sunak?

Not 'we' tbf.

 

[Signal 11]

My impression as a non-specialist is that carbon capture is most effectively used as an additional step in already existing CO2-generating processes, rather than building dedicated facilities for the purpose.

Its only effective use is as a stalling tactic, like this.

 

[NoXion]

Its only effective use is as a stalling tactic, like this.

I don't doubt that it is used that way, but it strikes me as analogous to when housing developers go back on their promises to provide affordable housing; the root of the problem stems from corporate malfeasance, rather than the idea of affordable housing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Inherent in this argument is the idea that had Major (or Tories in general) remained in power they wouldn't have joined in with the US in the same way. I believe they would have. Do you believe they wouldn't? Because that does change the assessment.

So as far as I can see the options are (were) a) Tories - doing the bad thing* and b) Labour - doing the same bad thing but also some good things. It'd be lovely if there were some other options, but there aren't.

I choose b.

* and probably some other bad things, but that is my bias - I assume Tories are evil.

you might think this a good argument but we're not hypothesising about tories, we're talking about what really did happen with tony blair. and that's before bringing in the massacres precipitated by western air strikes in the balkans, another of blair's illegal wars. it's not like until 10 sept 2001 blair was a pacific prime minister. and of course before the balkans was operation desert fox.

maybe you can give some examples of illegal wars started by the tories to round things out.

 

[Chz]

you might think this a good argument but we're not hypothesising about tories, we're talking about what really did happen with tony blair. and that's before bringing in the massacres precipitated by western air strikes in the balkans, another of blair's illegal wars. it's not like until 10 sept 2001 blair was a pacific prime minister. and of course before the balkans was operation desert fox.

maybe you can give some examples of illegal wars started by the tories to round things out.

It's not a competition. The post-ww2 colonial years have put more than enough blood on both parties to cover them for another century at least. The only reason Britain didn't jump into Vietnam is that they were busy licking their wounds from the colonial adventures of the past 10 years and needed a break. The idea that any British government ever wasn't bloodthirsty at heart is as nonsense as the concept of an "illegal war". There never has been such a thing, and it's unlikely there ever will be, international law being the way that it is.

It's ridiculous to try and assign some sort of morality on a nuclear-armed nation. Every one of them are shits. If any post-war UK government was ever serious about peace, they'd retire the nuclear force.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think it's controversial to say that Blair was a bit bomby. Would a tory (or a different Labour leader) have been just as bomby in the same situation? We can't say. Quite possibly not, though. It's a high bar.

To link to the thread, do I trust Starmer not to be a bit bomby? No, I don't.

 

[Chz]

I don't think it's controversial to say that Blair was a bit bomby. Would a tory (or a different Labour leader) have been just as bomby in the same situation? We can't say. Quite possibly not, though. It's a high bar.

We can't say, it's true. But I would attest that Britain's 21st century diplomacy is a direct continuation of its 20th century diplomacy. Plus ca change.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I could imagine Starmer bombing some poor fuckers just to prove how unwoke he is to be honest.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not calling for a general election now or anything like that and Stammer is about a appealing as a bowl of rancid piss.

But it is like when Johnson/Truss were being forced out and people (rightly) argued it makes no difference we will get someone just as bad or worse. But for me at least there are 2 things this misses.

The first is that if we are going to he fucked over whatever at least let me laugh at one of these fucks along the way.

The more serious point is that no matter how tiny I want the idea that there is some accountability for these cunts, and there actions, to persist. That Johnson can't do whatever he wants with no consequences that a government can't just tank the economy became of some insane ideology and carry on.

It is woefully inadequate and the replacement is no better, but I want that over them just being able to do whatever the fuck they want and everyone just shrugs their shoulders.

I get that, and I’m fully sympathetic. And I agree, it is just like the difference between Truss and Sunak. Sunak was a fractionally better prospect than Truss. And what a thoroughly depressing analysis that is. We can have a choice between two technocrats who are pandering to the racist-and-lock-‘em-up brigade.

Bless us, every one.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's not a competition. The post-ww2 colonial years have put more than enough blood on both parties to cover them for another century at least. The only reason Britain didn't jump into Vietnam is that they were busy licking their wounds from the colonial adventures of the past 10 years and needed a break. The idea that any British government ever wasn't bloodthirsty at heart is as nonsense as the concept of an "illegal war". There never has been such a thing, and it's unlikely there ever will be, international law being the way that it is.

It's ridiculous to try and assign some sort of morality on a nuclear-armed nation. Every one of them are shits. If any post-war UK government was ever serious about peace, they'd retire the nuclear force.

it's very good of you to step up for prunus. i didn't mean to suggest it was a competition but i wanted to give him the opportunity to throw libya into the the equation.

i don't buy your reason for britain not jumping into vietnam under wilson with johnson. mainly, i think, because it's bollocks. this article Did Britain Support The Vietnam War? | HistoryExtra adduces a variety of other more cogent reasons. if the tories had been in power, matters might have been rather different as they had - as the article notes - been rather closer with the americans over vietnam

 

[DotCommunist]

I mean this is a labour party that welcomes tory defectors with open arms but has been stitching selections repeatedly to exclude anyone left of gordon brown. Functionally, it'll be business as usual.

 

[Chz]

it's very good of you to step up for prunus. i didn't mean to suggest it was a competition but i wanted to give him the opportunity to throw libya into the the equation.

i don't buy your reason for britain not jumping into vietnam under wilson with johnson. mainly, i think, because it's bollocks. this article Did Britain Support The Vietnam War? | HistoryExtra adduces a variety of other more cogent reasons. if the tories had been in power, matters might have been rather different as they had - as the article notes - been rather closer with the americans over vietnam

I'm not so much stepping up for prunus as poking my nose in to say I think every single British government had a bloodthirsty side to it, and the shades of grey are so close that I refuse to call Blair the worst because it suggests that someone was best.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not so much stepping up for prunus as poking my nose in to say I think every single British government had a bloodthirsty side to it, and the shades of grey are so close that I refuse to call Blair the worst because it suggests that someone was best.

yes. liz truss was best. throughout her time in office the armed forces did not, i believe, kill anyone, nor were wars started or even continued. the nation was at peace throughout

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not so much stepping up for prunus as poking my nose in to say I think every single British government had a bloodthirsty side to it, and the shades of grey are so close that I refuse to call Blair the worst because it suggests that someone was best.

I'd characterise it by saying that Blair went above and beyond in his zeal for dropping bombs. In the warmonger exams, he got an A**, the extra star given for the initiative he displayed in making sure those bombs got dropped.

 

[prunus]

you might think this a good argument but we're not hypothesising about tories, we're talking about what really did happen with tony blair. and that's before bringing in the massacres precipitated by western air strikes in the balkans, another of blair's illegal wars. it's not like until 10 sept 2001 blair was a pacific prime minister. and of course before the balkans was operation desert fox.

maybe you can give some examples of illegal wars started by the tories to round things out.

I'm not really sure what the importance of the concept of a war being 'illegal' is - surely it's the warriness of a war that is to be deplored (going a bit Dr Seuss there), rather than its (il)legality.

The gulf war was definitely under the Tories. And Bosnia I think? And there's the Falklands of course. I think on the whole UK governments of both stripes have done pretty much the same in terms of warring.

But if your position is basically that a significantly socially regressive government that does less warring is better than a significantly socially progressive one that does more warring (providing the 'less' and 'more' are of approximately the same order, that's important of course) then that's a viable position. It's just not one I agree with. We don't have to agree about it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not really sure what the importance of the concept of a war being 'illegal' is - surely it's the warriness of a war that is to be deplored (going a bit Dr Seuss there), rather than its (il)legality.

The gulf war was definitely under the Tories. And Bosnia I think? And there's the Falklands of course. I think on the whole UK governments of both stripes have done pretty much the same in terms of warring.

But if your position is basically that a significantly socially regressive government that does less warring is better than a significantly socially progressive one that does more warring (providing the 'less' and 'more' are of approximately the same order, that's important of course) then that's a viable position. It's just not one I agree with. We don't have to agree about it.

there's several points in your post that need unpicking. there are legal wars, wars with the sanction of the united nations eg the gulf war. there are wars to eject invaders, eg the falklands war, which i think most people would see as justified. then there are wars of choice. and after nuremburg the worst war crime was deemed to be wars of aggression, such as the 2003 invasion of iraq. there was only really the pretence of legality about that, which wasn't sanctioned by the un security council, and barely sanctioned by the house of commons. if you remember the time, that was when the 45 minute bollocks was told to the house. and the commons was told there would be other opportunities to vote on the action. which there weren't. but leaving the legality of the action to one side, the effects of the war and the war in afghanistan will be with us for a long time to come. the destruction of the ba'athist regime in iraq might have seemed a good idea at the time but unleashed forces which will continue to affect the middle east for many years yet to come. if there hadn't been the invasion of iraq i don't think there'd have been the civil war in syria. many hundreds of thousands of people have died in both countries who wouldn't but for the hubris of george bush and tony blair.

the insanity of the invasion, its bungled aftermath and the bloody civil wars in iraq and afghanistan, set the stage for the war against ukraine which i don't think could have happened without that vile precedent. the vast waste of treasure, both british and american, sits alongside the waste of lives. and without the wars in iraq and afghanistan i don't think you'd be seeing the internal ructions in the united states. sure, there'd be people pissed off as there were in the 90s (i think it is not without significance that timothy mcveigh was a veteran of the gulf war). but i don't believe that things would have descended to the point where a civil war in the united states is being discussed as a very real probability. and for me chinese ambitions have been emboldened by the way america squandered its money, weaponry and reputation on wars in the middle east.

maybe these effects could not all be foreseen when the invasion was first mooted, planned and put into place. but they've left us now with instability at a time when stability is desperately needed, if there's to be a future without apocalyptic climate change. so, looking back from this vantage point i think that for me the most major factor in getting us to where we are has been the appalling wars which have dominated so much of this century. sure there are other factors. the financial crisis of 2008. the tory decisions over the course of the past decade, from austerity to the brexit referendum and beyond. the pandemic. but for me blair's most lasting legacies are the ripples from his wars, which have not yet ebbed away.

without the wars blair might enjoy a very different reputation today. maybe. but i always thought he was going to be authoritarian and unpleasant.

 

[Pickman's model]

and another thing - i think another thing that can be laid at blair's door is the way in which the armed forces have become so much more central to the country's way of seeing itself. sure, there was always the act of remembrance on 11 november or nearest sunday. but there wasn't always the armed forces covenant (tho arguably there should have been, the treatment of veterans has long been a stain on the mod) and there wasn't armed forces day or the slavish worship of military terms, the way in which the bbc for some years, maybe still does, describe things as being done with military precision. there's been a concerted effort to resituate the military in the public consciousness, into which so many people have bought as veterans from the greater wars, from ww1 and ww2, have died away. the frankly mawkish way in which poppies now adorn tube trains and dustcarts. for me that's all down to the wars too.

 

[Chz]

I do agree with you for the most part Pickman's, but are you at one point up there arguing that it wouldn't have occurred to Russia to invade places without the Iraq War?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

.

 

[Pickman's model]

I do agree with you for the most part Pickman's, but are you at one point up there arguing that it wouldn't have occurred to Russia to invade places without the Iraq War?

How Russia war on Ukraine echoes precedent set by US in Iraq | Fadi Farhat | AW for example

but yeh i don't think that russia would have invaded ukraine without the invasion of iraq, i think in many ways the past twenty years would have been far more pacific if that particular war had not been chosen

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I do agree with you for the most part Pickman's, but are you at one point up there arguing that it wouldn't have occurred to Russia to invade places without the Iraq War?

We're a long way down the line of hypotheticals at this point, so who knows? But the Iraq invasion in particular (and Afghanistan to a large extent) was a blatant infringement of the principle of state sovereignty. 'Regime change' through war. Invasion justified by pointing out how bad a regime is. As far as I know, Blair and his apologists still take that line - well, we got rid of Saddam, so it wasn't all bad. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has followed in that tradition - it is the mirror-image of liberal interventionism.

I agree with Pickman's that the ripples from Blair's wars are still spreading. The disintegration of Iraq, ISIS, Syria... And now arguably Ukraine.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

How Russia war on Ukraine echoes precedent set by US in Iraq | Fadi Farhat | AW for example

but yeh i don't think that russia would have invaded ukraine without the invasion of iraq, i think in many ways the past twenty years would have been far more pacific if that particular war had not been chosen

I don't think this is true, Putin has been on about a greater Russia since before Iraq was a twinkle in GWB's eye...

 

[Dystopiary]

How does it get so easily forgotten that Labour introduced changes the benefit system in a way that destroyed lives, against the advice of experts. Their "welfare reforms" have done untold damage, and they have no plans whatsover to try to change things there for the better. If anything, they're worse now than they were then. They're not only an enemy of the workers, but also those who can't work. They're absolute scum.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think this is true, Putin has been on about a greater Russia since before Iraq was a twinkle in GWB's eye...

yeh. it's an opinion. being as kiev was the first capital of the rus obviously ukraine has some importance for the russians. but in my opinion absent the invasion of iraq and its effects in the middle east i don't think they would have invaded.

 

[danny la rouge]

How does it get so easily forgotten that Labour introduced changes the benefit system in a way that destroyed lives, against the advice of experts. Their "welfare reforms" have done untold damage, and they have no plans whatsover to try to change things there for the better. If anything, they're worse now than they were then. They're not only an enemy of the workers, but also those who can't work. They're absolute scum.

If they rebranded as Capital, that would at least be honest.

 

[Pickman's model]

If they rebranded as Capital, that would at least be honest.

or scum.

 

[Dystopiary]

If they rebranded as Capital, that would at least be honest.

Exactly.

 

[hitmouse]

I mean, this discussion is interesting and all, but I'd like to go back to the starting point - Danny said:

People who are calling for a #GeneralElectionNOW need to address this stuff. The anti immigrant rhetoric, the “arrest protesters” chat, his personal connections with private healthcare concerns, the anti working class neoliberalism… What are we supporting here? Him literally just not being Sunak?

And prunus replied:

We are supporting getting these fucking tories out of government? Have you seen the devastation they're wreaking on the country??

If you've broken your leg in the wilderness you make a splint out of whatever's to hand, until you can find proper treatment.

Yes Starmer's Labour is hardly inspiring. But it just won't be as bad as the utter shower of shite currently eviscerating everything. So we takes steps to staunch the bleeding, and move forward to something better from there.

But what I haven't seen anyone asking is, what does it mean to be calling for a #GeneralElectionNOW? Like, I want a pay rise that keeps up with inflation, or at least vaguely approaches it, and I have some understanding of what it might take to get there, by taking strike action that may or may not inflict sufficient disruption on my employer that they give in and negotiate something better. Similarly, Don't Pay seem to me like they're politically serious - they have an aim (reduced energy bills), have identified relevant decision makers/power holders (the energy companies and the government), and have a means of exerting pressure (non-payment).
With calling for a general election and getting the tories out, what's the plan? Is the idea that Sunak will call a general election just so he can lose it? Or is it that a critical mass of tory backbenchers will defy the leadership and join with Labour in bringing about a general election that, again, will not have any obvious benefits for them and may well lead to them losing their seats? Or if it's understood that neither of those things are likely to happen of their own free will, is there some kind of plan to exert leverage on them, and what does that look like if so?
Cos without any of those questions being answered, it's just an "I'd like", the same way I'd like a million pounds or a pet capybara, it's not serious politics.
Or if the plan isn't to have a general election now, but to wait till 2024, then a different but related set of objections apply - it's fine to have conversations about things you might like to happen in 2024, but it's definitely not like, Proper Pragmatic Harm Reduction or whatever.

If they rebranded as Capital, that would at least be honest.

And there'd be potential for a big merger if they dropped the "l" too.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yup. Like with the demo at the weekend for a #GeneralElectionNOW. OK, we get you’re unhappy with the Tories, but “what’s the plan, Phil?” (Modern Families reference there. Don’t say I’m not good to you).

I agree. There do seem more useful courses of action.

 

[inva]

Yup. Like with the demo at the weekend for a #GeneralElectionNOW. OK, we get you’re unhappy with the Tories, but “what’s the plan, Phil?” (Modern Families reference there. Don’t say I’m not good to you).

I agree. There do seem more useful courses of action.

Is that the bit where the car is rolling backwards?