0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Another reasoned response but why Sunak over Starmer?Sunak is going back on his word WHILE he is in power!Edit.That was a reply to BFYP
The thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2023, 09:43:38 pmThe thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.Here's a thought experiment.It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.Do you:a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 26, 2023, 10:13:41 pmQuote from: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2023, 09:43:38 pmThe thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.Here's a thought experiment.It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.Do you:a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country. What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2023, 10:26:56 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 26, 2023, 10:13:41 pmQuote from: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2023, 09:43:38 pmThe thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.Here's a thought experiment.It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.Do you:a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country. What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.You did vote for Boris Johnson as Tory leader and have still never criticised him to this day.Bit rich of you to crticise someone else for what you did.
One of the enduring myths about Signals Intelligence in the Second World War is that Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill knew from intercepted messages that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor in December 1941 but kept the fact secret to bring the USA into the war on the Allied side. A variant of the myth has US President Roosevelt as part of the secret, looking for a pretext to bring his country into the war.The myth is false. The strategic situation in the Far East was such that war with Japan had become more likely. Rumours of a Japanese attack in South East Asia had been reported from Bletchley Park some days before the actual attacks, and, ironically, the report had been shared with US intelligence, but the report was vague and assumed that the Japanese would invade Thailand.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2023, 10:26:56 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 26, 2023, 10:13:41 pmQuote from: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2023, 09:43:38 pmThe thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.Here's a thought experiment.It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.Do you:a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country. What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.I would never, ever support a pathological liar. Someone who has built his entire professional and personal life upon lying for the purpose of self-aggrandisement.There's the big difference between thee and me.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 26, 2023, 10:13:41 pmQuote from: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2023, 09:43:38 pmThe thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.Here's a thought experiment.It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.Do you:a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country. What is as certain as the sun is You'd even vote for Boris Johnson if he was Labour leader, and you would defend him to the bloody hilt.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on September 26, 2023, 09:43:38 pmThe thing is, some of the Labour supporters want Starmer to be deceitful.Well it was as certain as the sun coming up that'd you'd pile in with a comment like that.I do wonder what some people's personal standards are like in their own lives, when they are so quick to interpret what other people say as evidence of hypocrisy.Of course I don't want any leader to be deceitful where they absolutely do not have to. Sometimes they do, on very serious matters. In this case, it was the very survival of the Labour party, given the state that Corbyn had taken it to. Had Long-Bailey won, the Labour party didn't have any future. It was necessary for Starmer to do what he needed to do to win that election.And before anyone gets their spotless, perfect knickers in a twist over that, they'd do well to understand that politics is about doing really, really unpleasant things sometimes.Here's a thought experiment.It's December 1941. You are Winston Churchill. Your intelligence officers tell you they have broken Japanese transmissions, and they know that an attack on Pearl Harbour is imminent.Do you:a) Immediately tell Roosevelt, thus enabling him to take such obvious precautions that the Japanese know they are rumbled and call off the attack - thereby keeping America out of the war?b) Keep schtum. Deceive your closest allies. Flat deny it if you're asked if you have any intel to share. Thus leave America open to attack and bring them into the war?Anyone who says a) is certainly not fit to be the leader of their country.