FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Lord Greensill

The way a certain sort of commentator gushed over Cameron yesterday was genuinely embarrassing.

Just been out dealing with this. It's a dead Elm hanging off my phone line after being blown over yesterday. It was well and truly caught on the line and I couldn't just wrench it off for fear breaking the wire and killing my internet so I had to saw through the branches with a rusty old blunt saw which was fun.

Honestly I'm not making this up. On Politics Live Isabel Oakshott has claimed that 320 people joining Reform yesterday demonstrated 'something'. She was rambling as usual but presumably she meant it demonstrated an appetite for a shift to the right amongst Tory voters. I kept waiting for her to realise her mistake and say 3200 but no, it would appear she really does think 320 people joining a fringe party is a sign of a momentous shift to the right in the UK.

Been there, done that.

Wind and rain here yesterday was as bad as I have ever known it.

So you know these right wing blowhards who always claim to speak for the 'silent majority'.

Here's a few of them having a meltdown over the sacking of Braverman...

'Political suicide': Grassroots Tories' fury at Rishi Sunak after sacking Suella Braverman revealed in leaked WhatsApps

https://news.sky.com/story/political-su ... s-13008202

And here's the reality of the situation.

Voters not as fond of the Cameron gambit as pundits - who would ever have thought?

(apart from anybody not in the bubble, but anyway)

The funniest thing is while the Telegraph and the Tory right are wailing about Sunak 'abandoning 2019 voters', if you check the rest of the Ipsos poll 60% of 2019 Tory voters think sacking Braverman was the right thing to do.

Here's Oakeshott informing us that 320 people joining Reform 'certainly tells you something'. Yes Isabel it certainly does.

Hot off the press...and you can still see the steam rising from the page.

Its an obvious SNP stunt, that at least has to be admitted.

Though it also shows up the likes of SfL who were *totally certain* a few days ago that Starmer would order his MPs to vote against.

Oh no, how dare the SNP argue for a ceasefire. The bastards. Israel should be able to maintain the option of murdering more innocents when they want to.

I'm going to tell you something that may shock you, but still - literally nothing that anyone does in the UK parliament on this is going to make any difference.

So Suella's shot her load then.

AnatolyKasparov wrote: ↑Tue 14 Nov, 2023 8:19 pm I'm going to tell you something that may shock you, but still - literally nothing that anyone does in the UK parliament on this is going to make any difference.

That's not the point though is it? It's about having the courage to take a stand. In fact it doesn't even take that much courage, all the polling I've seen shows at least a 2/1 majority of the public in favour of a ceasefire.

I can understand Starmer getting his knickers in a twist over this for obvious reasons, especially after Corbyn's performance yesterday, but this is biting off his own nose to spite his face.

He's taking an unpopular position, aligning himself with a right wing press who despise him, and for what? It just makes Labour look completely gutless.

Next thing you know we'll have all the Blairite hangers on pompously calling themselves the 'decent left' again, just as they did when they cheered on the Iraq war. For those who remember that sordid episode it's little wonder so many Muslims in the Labour Party are concerned because that 'decent left' movement soon descended into cesspits of open and outright Islamophobia like Harry's Place.

Give Labour MPs the freedom to vote with their conscience, let them have their say as democratic representatives of the public who overwhelmingly back a ceasefire, then accept it and move on. That's democracy.

Well (not for the first time) we disagree in that I think it *is* a point.

Its what makes this different from Iraq two decades ago - whilst we couldn't stop the US going to war, we still had *some* influence - and yes we *could* have decided not to get actively involved there, as the French and others did. This time round, we are close to powerless - almost the only outside power who can influence Israel meaningfully is the Americans (and even then some probably overstate it)

And yes I suppose Labour could "make a stand" but I suspect one thing Starmer is doing is preparing the party for how it will be in government - when, perhaps in regard to foreign policy especially, it will often be a choice between imperfect options rather than what we would ideally like to see.

AnatolyKasparov wrote: ↑Tue 14 Nov, 2023 8:19 pm I'm going to tell you something that may shock you, but still - literally nothing that anyone does in the UK parliament on this is going to make any difference.

All the more reason to be on the right side of history imo.

Same applies here

preparing the party for how it will be in government - when, perhaps in regard to foreign policy especially, it will often be a choice between imperfect options

Take the moral high ground while you can.

AnatolyKasparov wrote: ↑Tue 14 Nov, 2023 10:38 pm Well (not for the first time) we disagree in that I think it *is* a point.

Its what makes this different from Iraq two decades ago - whilst we couldn't stop the US going to war, we still had *some* influence - and yes we *could* have decided not to get actively involved there, as the French and others did. This time round, we are close to powerless - almost the only outside power who can influence Israel meaningfully is the Americans (and even then some probably overstate it)

And yes I suppose Labour could "make a stand" but I suspect one thing Starmer is doing is preparing the party for how it will be in government - when, perhaps in regard to foreign policy especially, it will often be a choice between imperfect options rather than what we would ideally like to see.

You're completely avoiding every point I made AK while downplaying the fact that Blair was a cheerleader for the 'coalition of the willing'.

Wilson told the U.S where to go when it came to Vietnam so it's not impossible for Labour leaders with a spine to oppose the warmongering excesses of our allies.

Life is all about having to choose between imperfect options, it's what we do every day. I appreciate a political party is a different beast than an individual but surely being able to look back and think you did the right thing is common to all of us?

Because frankly if I were in a position to lodge even the most insignificant of political complaints against the deliberate murder of thousands of men, women, and children I'd rather do it than abstain because I've been told to by a gutless coward.

Where am I denying that Blair *chose* to join Dubya in Iraq? I am saying the exact opposite!

It was the same with Wilson, and he made the right decision yes.

This is different, in that little we do will make any difference - and to the limited degree we can, it will be outside of parliament.

A young barmaid last weekend told me about this next one...

AnatolyKasparov wrote: ↑Wed 15 Nov, 2023 12:23 am Where am I denying that Blair *chose* to join Dubya in Iraq? I am saying the exact opposite!

It was the same with Wilson, and he made the right decision yes.

This is different, in that little we do will make any difference - and to the limited degree we can, it will be outside of parliament.

Sometimes AK talking with you is like banging my head against a brick wall.

Keep being you man.

This place would be lost without you.

Thank you for the kind(ish) words, and goodnight all.

No (ish) about it.