frankPodmore

frankPodmore, 3 days ago (edited 11 hours ago)

And now he’s complaining about Labour ‘politicising’ this. He’s a politican, everything he does is politicised!

EDIT:

The full quote is just incredible and is some evidence that Sunak might in fact be the stupidest man in the world:

I also don’t think it’s right to be political in the midst of D-day commemorations. The focus should rightly be on the veterans and their service and sacrifice for our country.

So why the fuck did you run off and record a political interview in which your refused to apologise for the lie you told about politics for political reasons?

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

Yeah, everyone will run it as ‘The interview Sunak gave instead of honouring D-Day’.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

I think cynicism is a fair response to anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict and Labour’s response to it, but it’s worth noting that the Guardian has different language:

the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country [my emphasis]

I don’t know what that bit about the veto means, but ‘before the end of any peace process’ suggests they see it as part of the peace process, not an end result.

I think it’s notable that Labour’s position is now firmly pro-ceasefire and anti any further military action by Israel. Per that same Guardian article, they’ve also given ‘implict support’ to the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, although there’s no specific reference given.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago (edited 13 hours ago)

if you look at his record, he clearly doesn’t give a fuck about anyone with darker skin than himself.

Let’s look at that record, then.

As a barrister, in addition to the pro bono work defending Caribbean people from the death penalty, which !Womble has mentioned, Keir Starmer also opposed the Iraq War, marching against it and issuing legal opinions against it. Being opposed to a war largely waged against people with brown skin suggests that he does, in fact, care about at least some people with darker skin than himself. Indeed, even some of his more controversial positions, like defending Hizb ut-Tahrir show the same: he is clearly willing to go out on a limb to defend the human rights of non-white people (I don’t personally think it’s controversial that even terrorists need legal defence, but then nor does Keir Starmer).

As DPP, Starmer did important work tackling FGM, which mainly effects women of colour. He also introduced policies which led to an increase in the number of BAME people working in the CPS. EDIT: Forgot to include this one about his work on the Stephen Lawrence case.

On becoming Labour leader, Starmer appointed the most ethnically diverse shadow cabinet in history (it’s been reshuffled since then, but as far as I can tell, it’s still very diverse, e.g., Lisa Nandy was demoted, but David Lammy was promoted, so the ‘net’ diversity was the same for that move, Thangam Debbonaire and Shabana Mahmood are both still there, etc.). Starmer has continued his work with Baroness Doreen Lawrence, appointing her as race relations adviser. Labour has implemented nearly all of the Forde report (old article, but I couldn’t find anything more recent), which includes training on anti-black racism.

We’ll have to wait to see the full manifesto, but Labour are planning some sort of new race relations law, specifically aiming at achieving equal pay. Finally, the next Parliament, which will probably be mainly made up of Labour MPs led by Keir Starmer, is going to be the most diverse ever.

Also, this isn’t directly down to Starmer, but I think it’s at least worth noting that both Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour elected their first BAME leaders during Starmer’s tenure, which hardly seems compatible with your argument that the party is currently led by a racist.

So, yeah. I have looked at his record, as you suggested. It’s pretty clear.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

We’ll have to wait for the manifesto to be sure, I agree, and you may well be correct that this is a big nothing.

Hypothetically, though, if you thought that recognising Palestine now might hinder, rather than help, any eventual peace process (I’m not saying that this is what I think, to be clear), would you still want to go ahead with that recognition?

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

Sure, totally makes sense.

frankPodmore, 4 days ago

WAR WITH SPAIN! WAR WITH SPAIN!

The British government finally heeded the call to stop the dastardly Spaniard once and for all, precipitating a wider conflict which split the continent. Switzerland elected to stay neutral, but to put a 5p charge on plastic bags. The French initially sided with Spain, before the Parisian workers gloriously arose, up with the barricades, down with the government, and sided with their British comrades. The Germans seized the moment to reconstitute the Holy Roman Empire, on the basis that no one was paying attention, but overreached with an attempt to reconquer Poland and the Low Countries, to which the Britannic-French People’s Alliance responded with remarkable swiftness, cunningly ignoring Belgium et al and striking directly at the heart of the Hun. The Russians, never ones to let a good opportunity to invade Poland from the East pass by, struck simultaneously, leading to the scenario pictured in the map.

frankPodmore, 4 days ago (edited 16 hours ago)

Yeah, I think I might have to admit defeat here. The focus on Starmer’s bloodlust is what really makes it.

frankPodmore, 3 days ago

I don’t need your pity. But I’ll take it.

frankPodmore, 4 days ago

I think most of the cooler heads are saying similar things, including, as you say, people like Fraser Nelson who are not inclined to be sympathetic towards Labour!

frankPodmore, 5 days ago (edited 16 hours ago)

I don’t think it’s just that, but that is helpful.

Look at the last two general elections: in 2019 Boris Johnson was less popular than Theresa May was in 2017, but he did way better than her because he was up against someone even less popular than he was. People didn’t actually like him but he benefited enormously from being ‘not Corbyn’.

frankPodmore, 5 days ago

People don’t like or trust Sunak, so they’re less likely to believe it coming from him. But you’re basically right and that’s why it’s so infuriating the the moderator allowed Sunak to repeat the lie so many times.

frankPodmore, 5 days ago

Hopefully that’s not too common.

I don’t suppose it makes much difference, but it’s always good to focus on the fact that it’s a lie and not mention the actual number if at all possible. I wish the headline writers would take that advice!

frankPodmore, 5 days ago

The whole internet loves Milkshake Lady, a lovely lady that throws milkshakes at Nazis! 5 seconds later We’re delighted to inform you she also publishes raunchy pictures on adult sites

frankPodmore, 5 days ago

In a post-Trump, post-Brexit, post-Johnson world, I thought journalists had gotten better at calling out direct lies. Yet the moderator allowed Sunak repeatedly to lie about Labour’s tax plans and to lie that the Treasury backed those figures. Just outrageous.

frankPodmore, 6 days ago

It’s still austerity in terms of services but now the Tories have been cutting taxes, which is obviously incompatible with reducing the deficit.

frankPodmore, 6 days ago

I think it those economic impacts that people want to avoid, though.

frankPodmore, 5 days ago

The country has a load of the world’s rich and Amazon and co are not paying the tax they should be.

Labour are promising to pay for things by closing the loopholes they’re exploiting. Although, non-doms aside, there’s not much detail about what they’re planning to do, exactly, and how much they expect to raise.

frankPodmore, 6 days ago

Uncanny. It’s like he’s in the room with me.

frankPodmore, 6 days ago (edited 16 hours ago)

Checking one word = hours of work? Stop bullshitting, man. The problem here is that you can’t get your facts or your argument straight, and your inability to do the bare minimum research is indicative of the broader problem you have.

Again, acknowledging the possibility that we can’t accurately predict the future is not ‘gaslighting’ and it also makes it very clear that I don’t have unwavering faith in Starmer or Labour to deliver. If I did, I would have assumed that they’re going to win, because that’s a precondition for delivering anything. I have also repeatedly made it clear that I am not confident they’ll be able to deliver on one of their key policies. The fact that you feel able to gloss this as ‘unwavering faith’ is yet another indication that you are not rooting your argument in anything resembling the facts.

If your definition of leftwing doesn’t include social democrats, that means it doesn’t include, e.g., Clement Attlee or FDR, and thereby excludes historic achievements like the NHS or the New Deal from being considered left wing victories. This is yet another idea you have introduced that is impossible to reconcile with the rest of your argument. Again, man, the slightest bit of thought, rather than screaming over-reactions, would be really helpful and might even make conversations like this a productive use of your time.

If you could refrain from constantly introducing irrelevancies, that might also be helpful. This started as a conversation about whether you could vote for hung parliaments and is now a conversation about the history and nature of left wing politics. This is because you kept asking more questions, which anyone can see that I have answered, despite your insistence that I haven’t. Indeed, it’s difficult to see how I could have made you sick with my answers while also not answering you.

If I can suggest another hypothetical conversation: one person is screaming ‘You make me sick! Nobody’s really left wing apart from me!’ and another is saying things like, ‘We cannot predict the future, so I might be wrong, but here’s what I think based on X, Y, Z’ – would you really find the first person more persuasive?

frankPodmore, 2 days ago

That claim by Labour probably has about 10 caveats that would further delay proper decarbonisation.

It doesn’t. It’s all well and good being sceptical but not about information that is freely available!

We do need to decarbonise everything, but the grid is the main thing. For example, there’s no point putting everyone in new electric vehicles if they’re powered by a carbon intensive grid, so it’s absolutely right to prioritise fixing that first.

Labour is investing in public transport and cycling everywhere it’s in power, which is exactly what we want. You are right about the difficulties of the voter coalition, but the voter coalition that would back green policies even better than these already very good policies is too small for any party to win power with their backing alone. Labour is doing as much as it possibly can given those constraints.