Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Best friend or not, I’m rather embarrassed to say that Starmer was right not to join in on the Iran war.
But ‘join in’ has flexible boundaries. In one interpretation, it ‘not joining in’ means keeping totally clear of any political or tangible assistance; in another interpretation, it could mean not physically engaging but allowing our closest ally to use our sovereign bases for the USA’s purposes. I favoured the latter.
Starmer was right because Trump would have wanted to be the senior person who would call all the shots and would have got into the current mess whether or not we were in there with him.
Also, even Starmer must have realised that Trump is NOT a trusted partner. All deals/partnerships need a basis for trust. Trump only understands domination. One day, when he is ghone, a trusted alliance can be rebuilt.
In the meantime, may Starmer squirm and cry in his bed. May his whatsits turn square and fester at the corners.
|
I agree completely that we should not have been involved in the war, but that’s not really the issue. Starmer refused to let the US use our bases, which was not the action that a NATO partner should ever have made. Starmer realised that he shouldn’t have listened to Miliband and his supporters almost immediately, and within a few days he relented.
Starmer twisted the facts to suggest that other political parties wanted to join Trump’s war, but that simply wasn’t the case. Both the Conservatives and Reform were telling Starmer that his decision not to allow the use of our bases was wrong, not that he should have joined Trump in his personal adventures.
---------- Post added at 11:24 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
Yes, to his credit Starmer had the courage to say no whereas Badenoch and Farage would have pandered to Trump and dumped us in it. History shows they're not to be trusted in positions of real power.
|
Oh, Andrew, and I thought you were a stickler for the truth!
---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
The more I think it is completely ridiculous a non-MP can stalk a PM out of office.
|
Burnham
is an MP. Starmer was only persuaded that he would have to resign on Friday. Until the election announcement, he was saying he’d carry on fighting.
Burnham didn’t cause the discontent with Starmer’s performance - that’s been self evident for some time now.
---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
Burnham is a fan of PR, he'll get my vote in perpetuity if he brings that in, imagine everyone's vote actually counting for something and no more of this 30% of the vote and 100% of the power BS
|
So you are looking forward to the permanent chaos of coalition governments? Be careful what you wish for.
---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
From what I've heard, that's extremely unlikely.
|
Don’t you think Streeting will stand? Isn’t that why he resigned from the Cabinet?