Politics

[Rayvin 5219]

4 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

this, i agree with. and so tghe cycle of hate and vengence continues - on both sides. it's fucking hopeless 

 

As I've said before, I do actually understand why Israel responded in the way it did at a human level. I am not saying I wouldn't respond in the same way ultimately, but that is why justice in our societies is taken out of the hands of the victims. Because they are unlikely to take the 'right' and balanced course. Only in the international sphere do we seem to be unable to comprehend this. Which is why countries like the US, who claim to be friends to Israel, should have counselled them against perpetuating more grief, despair and death - which will impact both sides.

 

7 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

 

121 sounds like a lot, but when you look at the list, the overwhelming majority of those countries are not exactly what you'd call major players on the global scene. And while the UK 'bravely' abstained so did 22 other countries including Germany, Italy and the Dutch. 

 

I'd also suggest that the UN calling for a ceasefire has little power over Netanyahu. I think opinion has shifted because the US has finally got enough polling data in favour of a ceasefire to correct the course. I don't think morality has as much to do with it as you'd hope. 

 

China, Russia, France (3 UN Security Council members) on the 'for' list... I mean look at the 'against' list, it's US, Israel and no one else of any significance. The UN does indeed have no power to say anything about this but that's a goalpost shift. We were talking about international condemnation - I've evidenced it for you. Whether you accept that 121 counties against 14 at a UN vote 3 weeks after October 7th qualifies as the international community speaking out or not, it does for me. It's actually fairly elitist to suggest that the international community is only relevant as far as UNSC members tbh (and even then, the majority of the UNSC backed ceasefire).

 

Take France here - do we think that they hate Israel? Or maybe Macron had the leadership to be able to see the clusterfuck for what it was going to become.

 

 

[Renton 21614]

53 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

 

 

 

She is on as well. Fucking hell. 

[Gemmill 44853]

 

 

[The Fish 10856]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

As I've said before, I do actually understand why Israel responded in the way it did at a human level. I am not saying I wouldn't respond in the same way ultimately, but that is why justice in our societies is taken out of the hands of the victims. Because they are unlikely to take the 'right' and balanced course. Only in the international sphere do we seem to be unable to comprehend this. Which is why countries like the US, who claim to be friends to Israel, should have counselled them against perpetuating more grief, despair and death - which will impact both sides.

 

 

China, Russia, France (3 UN Security Council members) on the 'for' list... I mean look at the 'against' list, it's US, Israel and no one else of any significance. The UN does indeed have no power to say anything about this but that's a goalpost shift. We were talking about international condemnation - I've evidenced it for you. Whether you accept that 121 counties against 14 at a UN vote 3 weeks after October 7th qualifies as the international community speaking out or not, it does for me. It's actually fairly elitist to suggest that the international community is only relevant as far as UNSC members tbh (and even then, the majority of the UNSC backed ceasefire).

 

Take France here - do we think that they hate Israel? Or maybe Macron had the leadership to be able to see the clusterfuck for what it was going to become.

 

 

 

No but the power that may be withheld from or wielded against a politician for angering the (pro-Israel) Jewish lobby may not be enough of a concern for Macron to speak out against Israel's actions. 

 

Maybe I'm cynical but I view the positions held by China and Russia to be more "The friend of my enemy is my enemy" kind of thing. Think about the atrocities carried out by those two and the sheer effrontery to condemn Israel for doing similar? The utter hypocrisy for Russia, in the midst of their illegal and horrific invasion of Ukraine, to pearl clutch about Israel is staggering.

[Renton 21614]

39 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Some of the international community called it out immediately.

 

I wonder if the calculation of the leaders of these countries were doing this was the best thing to placate their own domestic population? This is what it always boils down to. In the US, there is a large jewish population and undoubtedly a powerful jewish lobby. 

I was listening to a podcast on cosmology the other day, was a dialogue between two physicists, in a subject that interests me. Towards the end, they randomly veered off into politics and the US professor, who revealed he was jewish, started talking about the politics of Gaza in a way I found absolutely disgusting and absolutely fuck all to do with subject of the podcast. I had to turn it off and I won't be listening to him again. But it's illustrative of what we are dealing with here. You've got to recgnise that Biden was not empowered to change this horrendous situation. 

[Rayvin 5219]

2 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

No but the power that may be withheld from or wielded against a politician for angering the (pro-Israel) Jewish lobby may not be enough of a concern for Macron to speak out against Israel's actions. 

 

Maybe I'm cynical but I view the positions held by China and Russia to be more "The friend of my enemy is my enemy" kind of thing. Think about the atrocities carried out by those two and the sheer effrontery to condemn Israel for doing similar? The utter hypocrisy for Russia, in the midst of their illegal and horrific invasion of Ukraine, to pearl clutch about Israel is staggering.

 

Completely agree about those two but let's not pretend that we're above the same sort of behaviour. Russia will have been delighted to be able to characterise the US as morally inconsistent because of things like this.

 

We can agree to disagree here honestly but I do expect more from the US than what they showed. It was actually the last Trump presidency that convinced me that for all they're annoying on the global scene, we really do need the US to be the leaders of the Western world. It's noticeable when they fall back. I do think in this case, they failed to show leadership.

[The Fish 10856]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Completely agree about those two but let's not pretend that we're above the same sort of behaviour. Russia will have been delighted to be able to characterise the US as morally inconsistent because of things like this.

 

We can agree to disagree here honestly but I do expect more from the US than what they showed. It was actually the last Trump presidency that convinced me that for all they're annoying on the global scene, we really do need the US to be the leaders of the Western world. It's noticeable when they fall back. I do think in this case, they failed to show leadership.

Absolutely, and that's kind of my point, when we're happy to arm Saudi Arabia, or (I'm sure ) Israel and probably equally unscrupulous regimes, it's a little ridiculous for us to hop on top of a high horse with our frills in our fists.

 

If it's a show of morality you're after, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Nobody is voting one way or another for pure reasons, it's all self serving theatre,. Either for the folks back home, or their counterparts on the global stage.

 

In short, everyone is awful.

[Rayvin 5219]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I wonder if the calculation of the leaders of these countries were doing this was the best thing to placate their own domestic population? This is what it always boils down to. In the US, there is a large jewish population and undoubtedly a powerful jewish lobby. 

I was listening to a podcast on cosmology the other day, was a dialogue between two physicists, in a subject that interests me. Towards the end, they randomly veered off into politics and the US professor, who revealed he was jewish, started talking about the politics of Gaza in a way I found absolutely disgusting and absolutely fuck all to do with subject of the podcast. I had to turn it off and I won't be listening to him again. But it's illustrative of what we are dealing with here. You've got to recgnise that Biden was not empowered to change this horrendous situation. 

 

I think Biden was likely the most empowered of all non-directly affected international leaders, but I'm not saying I expected him to change it. I'm saying I expected him to call it out. Which he did - but if you remember I said very early on in that whole thing that for me, Biden had to either call for a ceasefire straight out of the gate, or back Israel to the end. If he just waited for the death toll to pass some arbitrary limit, I would be fucking pissed because it implies that he felt that an acceptable number of civilian casualties were worth it to allow Israel a revenge strike. His arbitrary number was 30,000 dead - here's the post I made back in November saying what my view was going to be on this:

 

On 16/11/2023 at 22:55, Rayvin said:

 

That is the only logical view if he at some point decides to back a ceasefire. That the only thing stopping him from doing it now is that not enough innocents have been killed to satisfy Israel.

 

He gets some respect from me if he sticks to his guns and pushes Israel to decimate all of Gaza in an attempt to destroy Hamas because at least that will mean it is genuinely the only option he thinks there is. If at some point he flips around and says we need a ceasefire cos 20k, 30k, 50k are dead, then no, he's getting nothing from me for that. All that tells me is that he knew ceasefire is what this would come to, and he was waiting for the death toll to hit a predefined number/global outrage to become unsustainable. Instead of, y'know, doing the thing he knew he should have done from the word go.

 

So right now I'm really hoping Israel are successfully going to permanently eradicate Hamas for the rest of time, because that's the hill Biden has chosen to die on.

[Renton 21614]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

I think Biden was likely the most empowered of all non-directly affected international leaders, but I'm not saying I expected him to change it. I'm saying I expected him to call it out. Which he did - but if you remember I said very early on in that whole thing that for me, Biden had to either call for a ceasefire straight out of the gate, or back Israel to the end. If he just waited for the death toll to pass some arbitrary limit, I would be fucking pissed because it implies that he felt that an acceptable number of civilian casualties were worth it to allow Israel a revenge strike. His arbitrary number was 30,000 dead - here's the post I made back in November saying what my view was going to be on this:

 

 

Yeah, I remember you saying that and it was a good call, although probably an underestimate. I don't disagree tbh. Israel were always going to get their pound of flesh at a ratio of at lease 10 to 1. As the survivors of the race most affected by the holocaust, I find this particularly disturbing. I just think the realpolitik of it meant that Biden couldn't prevent it happening, short of a military intervention against Israel itself, which is of course unthinkable. 

[Dr Gloom 21915]

5 hours ago, The Fish said:

And lets not paint Hamas as an innocent party in this either. They knew there would be retribution for their attack, and they have only slightly more regard for the Palestinian lives than the Israeli forces.

 

spot on. 

[Rayvin 5219]

What are the thoughts on the two child benefit cap issue? Seems to be a clear sign that Labour are going to stick to their promises to the letter and not surprise us.

 

I've not seen any discussion around this issue beyond headlines in fairness so I assume Labour have an alternative approach to combat child poverty.

[NJS 4378]

It's not about children in poverty or budgets it's about getting another one up on the left.

 

More tories who voted for them in 2019 died (8%) than switched to Labour (6%) this time but those 6% still count for more than anyone left wing. Or kids onviously. 

[NJS 4378]

 

 

 

Source for comment about getting one over on the left. 

[ewerk 30598]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

What are the thoughts on the two child benefit cap issue? Seems to be a clear sign that Labour are going to stick to their promises to the letter and not surprise us.

 

I've not seen any discussion around this issue beyond headlines in fairness so I assume Labour have an alternative approach to combat child poverty.

Be real. Child poverty can only be tackled when it’s fiscally responsible to do so.

[Renton 21614]

1 hour ago, NJS said:

It's not about children in poverty or budgets it's about getting another one up on the left.

 

More tories who voted for them in 2019 died (8%) than switched to Labour (6%) this time but those 6% still count for more than anyone left wing. Or kids onviously. 

 

It wasn't part of the manifesto because of the optics of it providing the right wing media an attack line. So yeah, it was about getting votes, not getting one over the left or kids ffs. 

Now it's not in the manifesto they're hardly going to introduce it after 2 weeks are they? 

Personally, I fully believe in universal child benefit for all children. No means testing, no limits on family size. I am fairly sure Starmer, Phillipson etc also believe this. But it's not straight forward in our political climate. An additional problem is if you expand child benefit many families will hit the benefit cap and be no better off anyway. 

These problems are going to take a long time to sort out, at least two terms. If Starmer does half as well in tackling child poverty as New Labour did, under much, much worse constraints, I'll regard that as a success. 

Edited July 23 by Renton

[Alex 35077]

My take is that ‘Getting one over on the left’ is the sort Owen Jones type rhetoric that could paralyse a Labour government that has a massive amount to sort out. Grow up you pathetic fucking cunts, or don’t complain if we’ve got our own version of the Republican Party back in a term or two. 

[NJS 4378]

If they're going to suspend MPs for not voting with the government then why do we even bother with a Parliament? 

[NJS 4378]

7 minutes ago, Alex said:

My take is that ‘Getting one over on the left’ is the sort Owen Jones type rhetoric that could paralyse a Labour government that has a massive amount to sort out. Grow up you pathetic fucking cunts, or don’t complain if we’ve got our own version of the Republican Party back in a term or two. 

That was the phrase the jounalist's government source used. 

 

 

[Rayvin 5219]

34 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Be real. Child poverty can only be tackled when it’s fiscally responsible to do so.

 

What is it you think I'm arguing for? I tried to make my comment as neutral as possible because I don't actually know what Labour's proposed approach for dealing with this is.

 

You've been a bit trigger happy on this one my old friend

[Rayvin 5219]

Tbh I think NJS' post is plausible although I would argue that it's good politics by Starmer if so? If he has to make some pointless statement against the left to appease the brainless before enacting the policy further down the line anyway then tbh.. I'm ok with that. As long as the right thing gets done, I'm pretty relaxed on whatever bullshit has to be done to arrive at it.

[ewerk 30598]

13 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

What is it you think I'm arguing for? I tried to make my comment as neutral as possible because I don't actually know what Labour's proposed approach for dealing with this is.

 

You've been a bit trigger happy on this one my old friend

My comment was tongue in cheek.

 

They’re the fucking Labour Party. Of course they should be lifting this cap but because of their commitment to fiscal responsibility they can’t.

 

They do need to do something about this but I can understand them delaying it slightly as do the seven martyrs who find themselves suspended after voting against the government.

 

Labour will make positive changes but it will take time even though most of us wish it wouldn’t.

[ewerk 30598]

36 minutes ago, NJS said:

If they're going to suspend MPs for not voting with the government then why do we even bother with a Parliament? 

Because you vote for the MP, not the party. The MPs are free to vote however they wish but if you go against the party line then you know what will happen.

 

The rebels knew their actions would be ineffective and they knew they would face minor repercussions for doing what they did.

 

Everyone saves face and the status quo continues.

[NJS 4378]

34 minutes ago, ewerk said:

My comment was tongue in cheek.

 

They’re the fucking Labour Party. Of course they should be lifting this cap but because of their commitment to fiscal responsibility they can’t.

 

They do need to do something about this but I can understand them delaying it slightly as do the seven martyrs who find themselves suspended after voting against the government.

 

Labour will make positive changes but it will take time even though most of us wish it wouldn’t.

There's nothing wrong with a commitment to fiscal responsibility but it's the absence of any willingness to consider ideas to look at revenue increases apart from some nebulous idea of growth that bothers me. 

 

Too much caution and fear of the press - a press incidentally we found out today they did a nice little deal with to garner support at the cost of justice. I wonder how many other deals they've made on things like CGT and tax avoidance. 

 

 

Edited July 23 by NJS

[Rayvin 5219]

40 minutes ago, ewerk said:

My comment was tongue in cheek.

 

They’re the fucking Labour Party. Of course they should be lifting this cap but because of their commitment to fiscal responsibility they can’t.

 

They do need to do something about this but I can understand them delaying it slightly as do the seven martyrs who find themselves suspended after voting against the government.

 

Labour will make positive changes but it will take time even though most of us wish it wouldn’t.

 

My bad, it's difficult to tell on here sometimes. I remain fairly neutral on this personally as long as they actually reduce child poverty somehow.

[Kid Dynamite 7025]

On 06/07/2024 at 12:08, Kid Dynamite said:

UKIP died when Brexit happened tbf. And they didn't have the idiots poster boy, Farage as an MP. Leaving the ECHR will be their next grift so it remains to be seen how much traction they get between now and the next election. Hopefully about as much as