Jump to content

Politics


Christmas Tree
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Nothing to do with the STW rally held in central London yesterday literally named “No war in Ukraine - Stop NATO expansion.”?

 

OK...  I'll stand corrected if you can find a link because I can't, there was no coverage on TV news yesterday that I saw.  

 

I'm not pro Russia, but I am pro pointing out that the Tories are rotten with bent roubles from Putin's goons. Starner would've better putting the emphasis on Russia feeling they can wander around and do precisely what they like and the last decade of Tory government has encouraged them to do precisely that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

OK...  I'll stand corrected if you can find a link because I can't, there was no coverage on TV news yesterday that I saw.  

 

I'm not pro Russia, but I am pro pointing out that the Tories are rotten with bent roubles from Putin's goons. Starner would've better putting the emphasis on Russia feeling they can wander around and do precisely what they like and the last decade of Tory government has encouraged them to do precisely that

 

he should be doing that too. 

 

but when you remember that the last labour leader refused to support nato or condemn russia for the state murder of people on the streets of england, starmer's column makes perfect sense. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

he should be doing that too. 

 

but when you remember that the last labour leader refused to support nato or condemn russia for the state murder of people on the streets of england, starmer's column makes perfect sense. 

 

 

One is rather more important in the current circumstances than the other iyam.  Either he wants to avoid conflict or he wants to win the next election.  Conflating the two is what Johnson is currently doing...funny that..

Edited by PaddockLad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

He gets a free ride because he's not Corbyn? :lol:

 

 

 

There's a big space between giving him a free ride and criticising him over absolutely nothing. As Renton says, he has to clearly distinguish himself from Corbyn. That's what he's doing. It seems an odd thing to get riled up about. 

 

Unless you're a crusty, old commie... :scratchchin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

There's a big space between giving him a free ride and criticising him over absolutely nothing. As Renton says, he has to clearly distinguish himself from Corbyn. That's what he's doing. It seems an odd thing to get riled up about. 

 

Unless you're a crusty, old commie... :scratchchin:

 

I understand what people are saying but it just smacks of settling old scores to me. Corbyn is not an issue when we're on the edge of war. It's utter bollocks iyam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

One is rather more important in the current circumstances than the other iyam.  Either he wants to avoid conflict or he wants to win the next election.  Conflating the two is what Johnson is currently doing...funny that..

 

has starmer done anything to make you think he wants conflict with russia? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You literally have Starmer's predecessor, who was largely hated by the public, coming out with anti-NATO and pro-Russian bollocks and you expect Starmer to stay quiet? Of course he has to reinforce the message that Labour is under new management. Removing the stench of Corbynism is the biggest obstacle to winning the next election.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ewerk said:

You literally have Starmer's predecessor, who was largely hated by the public, coming out with anti-NATO and pro-Russian bollocks and you expect Starmer to stay quiet? Of course he has to reinforce the message that Labour is under new management. Removing the stench of Corbynism is the biggest obstacle to winning the next election.

 

Yes, this is what I'm suggesting is Starmer's priority, an election rather than war. I get it, it just stinks to me.

 

12 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

has starmer done anything to make you think he wants conflict with russia? 

 

No, not sure why you'd ask tbh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PaddockLad said:

 

Yes, this is what I'm suggesting is Starmer's priority, an election rather than war. I get it, it just stinks to me.

 

 

No, not sure why you'd ask tbh

 

you said he either wants to avoid conflict or he wants to win the next election. i think he wants to do both

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

Yes, this is what I'm suggesting is Starmer's priority, an election rather than war. I get it, it just stinks to me.

 

 

You realise that Starmer can't stop a war right now? He can do precisely fuck all unless he's in power. He's not exactly selling his soul by stating something that he, and the vast majority of right minded people, actually believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone on this :lol:

 

Starmer is making political capital out of this without question, I'd heard nothing about STW in any sense recently and I'm in circles in which it would be heard of. IMO PL is right there.

 

That said, there is as I understand it, no agreement from NATO not to include former USSR states. I thought there was for a while, so I could see the Russian angle on this, but apparently there isn't. As such, it's hard not to argue that if Ukraine wants to join because it feels threatened by Russia, it should be able to. Putin is a gangster and a major threat to Western society. We've already let him get away with too much in terms of destabilising our own countries and democracies, and if we don't make a stand here it's going to IMO open the door to a free for all elsewhere. If Russia takes the Ukraine then China will recognise that the US is too weak to defend Taiwan, and that's gone too. We suddenly have regional superpowers rather than a global enforcer.

 

As a globalist, I'd prefer to see the US get involved here for the sake of maintaining the status quo as we move closer to stronger international ties with each other. Ukraine is a sovereign country and it is reasonable to aid them if Russia attacks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ewerk said:

 

You realise that Starmer can't stop a war right now? He can do precisely fuck all unless he's in power. He's not exactly selling his soul by stating something that he, and the vast majority of right minded people, actually believes.

 

It's opportunistically using yesterday's news to denigrate a non threat. Apparently on the eve of war. Fuckin pointless in the big scheme of things. So we're in clear agreement  really.. we're just looking at it differently 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbf, it doesn't have to be in the press for the Tories to make hay of it. It doesn't even have to be true ffs, as we've seen in the past couple of weeks. And correcting the record after the fact is not something that really works any more, once the lie is out there on social media. 

 

All he was doing was trying to get out ahead of something, and with good reason. These people are fucking knackers anyway. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, PaddockLad said:

Sadiq Khan appears to have stabbed her square in the face….fair play…

 

 


He's (Khan) is a fucking arsehole as well mind you. Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ken said:

Does anyone actually think that Russia will invade Ukraine?

 

If they don't go in the day after the winter Olympics finish then it's doubtful...at the moment Vlad doesn't want to steel the limelight from his old mate Ping...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, spongebob toonpants said:

 

 

Not really related to Starmer and I'm not backing the Stop the war alliance, but blindly thinking that the west is blameless as NATO expands towards Russia is being naive.

 

Of course Russia will feel threatened by NATO expansion

 

USA wouldn't have accepted Mexico joining the Warsaw pact

Or Cuba having Soviet nuclear missiles 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spongebob toonpants said:

 

 

Not really related to Starmer and I'm not backing the Stop the war alliance, but blindly thinking that the west is blameless as NATO expands towards Russia is being naive.

 

Of course Russia will feel threatened by NATO expansion

 

USA wouldn't have accepted Mexico joining the Warsaw pact

Cuba 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

If they don't go in the day after the winter Olympics finish then it's doubtful...at the moment Vlad doesn't want to steel the limelight from his old mate Ping...

Hard to read the Russian bear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.