They just published the words of an Academic who specialises in Human Rights. I think they are right to report all perspectives that advocate war if they are about Stopping War. It's hard to campaign against war if you ignore these hypotheses. Or have I missed something?
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
They just published the words of an Academic who specialises in Human Rights. I think they are right to report all perspectives that advocate war if they are about Stopping War. It's hard to campaign against war if you ignore these hypotheses. Or have I missed something?
Richard Falk isn’t some random academic whose article they stumbled upon. It’s fair to say that his views on that particular topic (and others) would broadly align with many of those who have been associated with the StWC over the years.
Oh yeah. I get that but is that advocating his conclusions in any way? I think if there was an academic who suggested stronger Israeli military action would also get coverage?
Well I think it’s fair to conclude that, based on the author’s personal association and general alignment of views with the StWC hierarchy, the article was posted approvingly. And conversely, that a hypothetical article calling for “stronger Israeli military action” would be posted critically.
OK, I'm not familiar with the publication. Seems a bit odd that a paper with that name would advocate war of any sort regardless of the context.
Well I haven’t actually read Falk’s article there, so it could be that the headline has just been poorly chosen in this case. But he has a history of, let’s say, “controversial” views on that topic, so wouldn’t surprise me altogether if it’s in some way representative.
As for the StWC, I think it’s fair to say that it has historically advocated against wars launched by Western states and their allies, and has had little or nothing to say regarding wars launched by others, beyond critiquing alleged Western responsibility.
Ah yes, I get you now.
Most potential voters don't really give a shit about foreign policy, unfortunately. If foreign policy positions were front and centre in the 2019 election, we'd probably have a labour majority right now.
It matters to the ruling class because selling weapons and money laundering are two of the only remaining real British economic exports, but let's not pretend that NATO expansion was coming up when door-knocking.
I get what you're saying, but for published foreign policy both the Lib Dems and the Greens would be way ahead of Labour in 2019 if it was based on that.
What? Why?
The Lib Dems were running on increased military spending, recruiting STEM graduates into the army and were led by a girly swot obsessed with making sure everyone knew how game she'd be for nuking people.
The Greens foreign policy was a bit more sensible but they were still campaigning for cancelling the Brexit referendum. I know, I know, Labour also went a bit remainey eventually, but the Greens and the Lib Dems were voting down everything except a second referendum. In terms of foreign policy that actually was on the ballot, both parties would have lost over half of the electorate for that issue alone.
The lib dems as much as I dislike some of their policies wanted to revoke article 50, pledged to retain overseas development funding, increase the budget for global climate change, , fund schooling for worldwide gender equality and promote LGBTQ in schools worldwide. They also wanted to spend 2 percent of GDP on defence (which I think is what you're getting at) in line with NATO, but I agree with you that's a waste.
The Greens were, and still are way ahead of the rest.
If labour had been onboard with voting against Brexit there would have been probability it would have been avoided with labour, lib dems and the greens. The only reason that seems a stupid policy now is because labour didn't go for it. That's something that will go against them for decades considering how meaningful that was to the UK. It was 51% that voted Brexit with the second biggest party not being decisive either way.
The policy list from the Lib Dems you gave is just standard liberal guff. Are you suggesting that UK voters would rather pay some NGO millions to promote gender and LGBT rights in Africa than ending UK involvement in vastly unpopular wars?
I don't mean to sound condescending and flippant, because those issues are certainly important, but Labour were the only party offering a serious coherent anti-imperialist agenda. Yemen is the perfect example, which I believe wasn't even mentioned in the Lib Dem manifesto as Jo Swinson was trying to court those weird centrists who think that Labour was just too peace loving under Corbyn. The Lib Dems were offering the sort of centrist interventionist internationalism that, after the disasterous foreign policy adventures of Blair, only appeal to a tiny slice of the electorate.
Also I have no idea what you mean by voting against Brexit. Changing from a Brexit position to a Remain position was utterly disastrous for Labour, so I don't know how anyone could conclude that not being pro-remain enough cost them. I think the most meaningful Parliamentary vote on Brexit that could have gone differently was the motion to stay in the single market, which ironically would have passed had the Lib Dems and Lucas voted for it.
Yemen was in the 2019 Lib Dem manifesto from a quick google:
The Liberal Democrats will "suspend UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia in response to their consistent targeting of civilians, in breach of international humanitarian law, in Yemen".
I don't think it's as difficult as you're making out for Brexit. It was a close vote, almost certainly swung by the leave vote being co-ordinated and by the remain vote being fragmented yet the story seems to be to blame the parties that stayed true to their beliefs with wanting to stay in the EU rather than the party who came across as undecisive. The labour policy was unclear at best, with the idea to vote for remain or a "sensible deal". The tories won by offering one option and getting all those voters on their side.
He is more of a passenger than a driver in the current political race.
Strange enough, the current Kanzler of Germany (from the social democrats) has been adopting the same habit for decades.
The BBC headline "Starmer hints that he's not Corbyn getting louder" 
Because he's been so subtle with that, his only policy, until now.
Because he's been so subtle with that, his only policy, until now.
True. Quite an accurate description. Trying to follow public opinion rather than lead.
Dangerous when public opinion is shaped by the right wing media!
That's correct. This was a good article in 2016.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ghting-for-syrians-russia-assad-a7461316.html
As for the Richard Falk article, the issue is not so much about the content of the article I would say but the editorialisation of it. STWC knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote that headline and essentially put their words in his mouth even if Falk himself aligns with it. You can't go around saying the media is agitating for war all the time while publishing a headline explicitly calling for war as a choice yourself - a headline the author of the piece did not choose.
Fair point on Yemen, I didn't know that Jo Swinson's Lib Dems also called for ending UK support. And to be fair your initial point has a lot of truth. It's hard for me to accept a party run by Jo 'I proper fancy nuking someone' Swinson could compare favourably on foreign policy with a party run by someone with a coherent diagnosis and solution for neocolonialism, but I certainly take your point. Plus I think the Greens stayed strong on their commitment to scrap Trident whereas Labour ditched it after 2017. Obviously it's easier to have these positions when you've got 1 MP, but your point is still correct.
In terms of Brexit though... Remain lost the referendum. 48/52, but if the Referendum was a GE it would have been a landslide. I can envision an alternate history where we ended up with a soft Brexit, but I honestly can't countenance a sequence of events or votes that would have resulted in overturning the referendum and remaining. Moving from backing the referendum result to backing a second referendum, which Labour did in 2019 after it saw its vote share plummet in the EU election, turned out to be a huge mistake.
I'm not pretending that becoming Remain was the only reason Labour lost in 2019, but it was a big factor.
Anyway, I think we could re-litigate Brexit and 2019 ad infinitum. I assume we're both remain voting lefties though so perhaps our weekend would be better spent enjoying watching Johnson's government collapse, whilst being terrified of what might come next!
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/steve-reed-interview-labour-cared-26216833
In his first sit-down interview since Keir Starmer named him Shadow Justice Secretary, Mr Reed said Tony Blair “got this right” with the slogan “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” in the 1990s.
He revealed he would "absolutely look at" a “naming and shaming” scheme against people who buy recreational drugs under a Labour government.
In his first sit-down interview since Keir Starmer named him Shadow Justice Secretary, Mr Reed said Tony Blair “got this right” with the slogan “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” in the 1990s.
He revealed he would "absolutely look at" a “naming and shaming” scheme against people who buy recreational drugs under a Labour government.
Cannot wait for @Mr Pigeon to be named and shamed by a Labour government.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/steve-reed-interview-labour-cared-26216833
In his first sit-down interview since Keir Starmer named him Shadow Justice Secretary, Mr Reed said Tony Blair “got this right” with the slogan “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” in the 1990s.
He revealed he would "absolutely look at" a “naming and shaming” scheme against people who buy recreational drugs under a Labour government.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/steve-reed-interview-labour-cared-26216833
In his first sit-down interview since Keir Starmer named him Shadow Justice Secretary, Mr Reed said Tony Blair “got this right” with the slogan “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” in the 1990s.
He revealed he would "absolutely look at" a “naming and shaming” scheme against people who buy recreational drugs under a Labour government.
Drugs are the main causes of crime, not wealth inequality, poverty, food shortages, unemployment, lack of housing, slashes to youth centres & recreational activity etc.
No, just weed.
Never mind the economic boost a legalised weed industry would bring to this destitute country that needs it because we'd rather let billionaires & politicians game the system.
Ffs.
For taking Lemsip?
Yes, but we can vote for red Tories or blue Tories. Democracy.
He's oblivious to the 2 decade long decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal which has reduced crime and drug abuse.
Addiction should be a medical issue not a criminal issue.
https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight
DRUG DECRIMINALISATION IN PORTUGAL: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
13TH MAY 2021
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
- Drug-related deaths have remained below the EU average since 2001
- The proportion of prisoners sentenced for drugs has fallen from 40% to 15%
- Rates of drug use have remained consistently below the EU average
Let’s be honest, Boris Johnson shouldn’t be our prime minister but Starmer isn’t the answer either. Bring in Ralf for the rest of the term to sort things out.
Exactly, addiction shouldn't be criminalised and poverty can't be overlooked when you look at crime - almost every study shows how the two are interlocked.
Even the Democrats are more left wing on social issues at this point. Embarrassing.
I'm assuming by this you mean 'I think we should all be open minded about Rishi Sunak, lads!
' rather than, 'this country needs a very different path'?I'm assuming by this you mean 'I think we should all be open minded about Rishi Sunak, lads!
Haha . I don’t know if this country does need a very different path. Maybe just a few changes but it really need sone strong leadership to bring the country together again (I don’t think that should be Sunak before you say it
).Imagine Ole at the wheel, he would bring the smiles back
Apparently this Steve Reed fella used an antisemitic trope when talking about a Jewish Tory Donor, by referring to him as a "puppet master"
Keir "Zero tolerance for racism" Starmer takes no action.
What a farce.
Why do you say that Starmer is not the answer.
And if not he, then realistically who?
He’s a good guy and politician but I feel he’s more of a manager type than a leader, he doesn’t seem to inspire much. I admit I don’t know who else realistically. That’s the unfortunate thing about politics, we can only choose from the candidates in front of us.
I know these guys are chosen by their party’s but guys like Sir Starmer and Eton Boris are all just there because of their status and connections. Tired of people cut from the same cloth, it would be refreshing to have a leader from a real world background. Sorry, im babbling and ranting now
Not only have Labour lost any progressive vote but with a stance like this there is no way a supreme life long anti racist like @sun_tzu can stay in or vote for the party.
Andy Burnham is doing himself no harm I don't think. Left enough to be useful, "centrist" enough to not be off putting for the ordinary voter (tabloid journalists).
I don't think that Reed's comment is antisemitic. You can be a billionaire property developer who pulls political strings without that having to do with your ethnicity or race. There are many of them. What is interesting is the ad hoc basis upon which such comments are assigned antisemitic or racist value, though. Essentially, when it is vague it becomes a matter of political expediency as to whether it was "right" or "wrong", having nothing to do with morality and everything to do with political interest. In other words, Starmer could rightly defend this because it doesn't read like an intentional smear to me, but the hypocrisy comes in when you consider that Corbyn would be called an antisemite if he dared defend the same thing. Which is something people remain blind to despite so much evidence on the topic.
There's no way he will stand for this.
He will declare Keirbollah and leave the party, surely?
An entirely sensible reading.
Yep, I'd agree with this - I don't know if it's antisemitic or not and it's not my place - but I think it's fair to say that Corbyn or anyone on the 'left' would not be given any grace or nuance for the exact same incident.