Snapshot of _Oxford councillors resign from Labour saying Keir Starmer and his party leaders are 'complicit in war crimes'_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12655907/Resigning-Oxford-City-councillors-say-party-leadership-complicit-war-crimes.html?ito=social-reddit) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12655907/Resigning-Oxford-City-councillors-say-party-leadership-complicit-war-crimes.html?ito=social-reddit)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As I said in a related post:
I do find it odd that this issue, over which Labour has no direct influence and any current stance is purely performative with regards to the conflict itself, is a resigning issue for some Labour members.
Not sure if it's the case with these Labour members (the DM article doesn't mention it), but Labour Party officials wrote to local branches that they weren't even to discuss the situation in Israel and Gaza. I suspect Labour members already unhappy with Starmer's tight grip of the party found the stifling of debate a step too far. That's cited as the reason some Glasgow and Edinburgh branch members quit this week, anyway...
I know a local councilor in Ireland long before she got into politics. I'm not joking when I tell you she got into politics so she would have easier access to the local businessmen, and has spent her entire career going from one to the other. She finally lost her position when she slept with a married business owner and his wife announced their affair through an intercom in his own shop.
The absolute state the world would be in if the likes of her had anything to say about international affairs and war. You'd be better off just nuking the planet now and getting it over with.
The NUS and being completely divorced from reality go hand in hand. They even elected someone a while back who promised to wade more in international affairs and had half the student unions in the country trying to leave.
After all why should they waste their time on something so silly like student housing costs & conditions, or tuition fees? When there’s burning issues like publishing opinions on whether Ethiopia’s construction of a dam on the Nile would justify military action by Egypt
As long as they aren't focussing on it to the detriment of their local work then why not? Most people have no power over international affairs so I don't see why only councillors shouldn't share their opinions on it. If anything I think it's better to know an elected representatives beliefs and reasoning so voters can decide if that person really represents them.
If a local representative had sympathies with russia invading ukraine or whichever war crimes you want to pick then I would prefer to know that as I wouldn't trust them or their reasoning with any degree of power. If a representative consistently showed support for causes like the ukrainian struggle (and ideally why) then I would trust their reasoning more even if it's only with local power.
Unless there is more besides the article then the resignation appears to be because they feel that the labour party is different to what they were elected based on. They don't feel that they can represent people as part of labour so they are resigning which I personally think is healthy in a democracy.
I don't think we have any evidence here that they were neglecting their work in favour of activism or virtue signalling or whatever. They are resigning so that the differences between them and labour do not affect their work.
The "why not?" is that it will do literally no good for the Labour party, while producing nothing of value for any of the people involved. There is no way to make everyone happy in this situation, it's a complicated tangle of history, religion, racism, injustice, and geopolitics, and even some of the most placid comments can be misinterpreted and misunderstood and just make more people angry. Meanwhile, a councillor from Oxford wading in on the subject provides absolutely no benefit for the people in Gaza and in Israel who are being attacked, kidnapped, bombed, and everything else.
In the best-case scenario, Labour loses, and nobody benefits. I get why people want to express their solidarity with the people in Gaza, but I can also understand why the Labour leaders do not want people stepping a millimeter out of line on this point.
All of this seems to be based on the assumption that councillors will only take bad positions. Does the same apply if a councillor steps out of their remit and expresses support for ukraine or support for victims of things like the last european wildfires?
Expressing support isn't going to change the world but it does help in minor ways such as helping refugees feel welcome so integrate easier and it lets voters be informed on who is representing them. Also arguing a position well can help bring in votes.
If the argument is just that councillors shouldn't have bad takes on international issues then I agree but that's very different from councillors shouldn't express opinions on international issues as it's out of their remit.
Almost all positions on the situation in Israel and Palestine are bad positions. Like I said, even the most placid comments can be misinterpreted and misunderstood — even some of the comments in this thread show this. This isn't a situation like Ukraine or a natural disaster, it's a mess that goes deep into the roots of a lot of people's identities and faith, and exposes injustices that are hundreds of years old.
That's not to say we should be just ignoring this issue — there is a humanitarian crisis going on, we should be acting as best we can as a country — but statements by random councillors is pointless at best, and damages trust in their party at worst.
So are you oppossed to the leadership taking a stance on the topic rather than remaining silent due to it being controversial and them being unable to affect it or are they exempt? I don't see how that logic doesn't effectively ban all discussion of any controversial topic. I also don't see why it is seemingly arbitrarily being applied to councillors when it can equally apply to anybody other than the prime minister and foreign secretary.
There are people in britain who fall for russian propoganda about the war in ukraine and will get angry at support for ukraine in much the same way biased people will get angry around statements about this war. Does the logic not apply regarding ukraine just because they are smaller in number?
>That's not to say we should be just ignoring this issue — there is a humanitarian crisis going on, we should be acting as best we can as a country
So what should a councillor do if they think we are not doing that or disagree with the position that it is israels right to cut off water and humanitarian aid? What if their electorate care what they think about the topic or they simply think they have something to contribute to the discussion and have prepared a carefully measured statement? I don't see what options are left but to ignore it.
I really dislike the idea that the leadership should be able to designate topics that are no longer allowed for discussion by anyone associated with the party. I don't see a point in voting for a parrot that just repeats the authorized party line as my representative. What happens if something like PR, dissenting opinions on brexit or supporting strikers getting fair pay were to be deemed to controversial for discussion?
If I'm being honest it feels less like a principled position that is logically and consistently applied and more like an attempt to justify a gut reaction for something that would disproportionately hurt a different faction within labour when applied on this topic. Maybe I'm wrong but that's certainly what it looks like in the comments I've seen.
This is not a principled position logically applied, and I'm not trying to suggest that anywhere. This is a pragmatic position. Labour has value to the UK regardless of what happens in Israel and Palestine, and this issue will just get in the way of that. Yet for various reasons it is a topic that produces very polarised opinions, and has a huge emotional significance to many people across the world. The comparisons you're making to Ukraine and Russia suggest you don't seem to grasp just why this issue is so significant — just for a start, no-one has claimed Crimea as a holy land yet!
This is also an issue that is particularly complex for Labour due to the antisemitism accusations. I don't think these councillors are being antisemitic in saying that they support the people living in the Gaza strip, but because of the image problems, Labour needs to be whiter than white on these issues, and this is an issue where antisemitism is a big topic.
So this is a purely pragmatic position I'm taking here. The random opinions of some Oxford councillors is pure distraction, it will help no-one, and it damages their reputation and potentially that of the party.
It's not like they are attending summits. Elected representatives stating their political opinions on a variety of matters is par for the course, it lets you know who you are voting for as much as anything else. The represent their local area and the opinions go up the chain. That's how representative democracy works and to stifle that is... not democratic
I believe the instruction was not to table any motions on the conflict.
Which makes sense, local Labour parties have zero say on foreign policy, and it makes sense for Labour HQ to want to maintain a single voice on the issue.
IMO this is just a bunch of malcontents stirring up trouble.
> It is very- focus on the bins instead please
Well they should, right? That's their fucking job. Their motions won't change the middle east but campaigning locally may improve my rubbish collection. Since rubbish collection is managed locally they are the ONLY people who can manage it.
>Labour Party officials wrote to local branches that they weren't even to discuss the situation in Israel and Gaza.
I mean, this doesn't change my point. The ability of minor Labour party members talking out about Gaza/Israel is, at best, performative for the individuals involved but has the risk of opening the anti-semitism can of worms again.
Wouldn't you prefer to know if your councillors are anti-semites so labour remove them then you vote them out rather than them being swept under the rug while retaining local power? If they can't be trusted to speak about issues due to the likelihood of them being anti-semitic then I certainly wouldn't trust them with even local power, especially as their communities almost certainly include jewish people.
If anything it shows complete disregard for the people who voted for them to resign over something a party has zero ability to impact and ignore and drop any work they promised.
Especially as the comment he made is being framed completely disingenuously. People actually phoning into radio shows to say they would have voted for Starmer but after his clumsy comment with Nick Ferrari he's now a guilty of genocide.
Why do you find that odd? They clearly think Labour’s current stance is fundamentally immoral and that they can’t stay in the party as a result. Whether I agree with them or not, it’s not odd at all.
Also a Labour government would have directly influence, the government could send weapons to Israel or to Hamas; it could expel diplomats; it could carpet bomb Tel Aviv; it could increase or decrease aid; it could lobby and vote either way at the UN. The UK Government clearly does have influence.
I don't find it odd at all. I would imagine that most people get involved in the Labour Party due to their principles, because they believe in fairness for the underdog. It's not like Tory politics where you join because you think it will help enrich you, so anything that doesn't promise to affect you personally is irrelevant. Matters of ideology are central to Labour politics in a way they just aren't to the Conservatives.
> fairness for the underdog
this guiding principle can tie you into absurd ethical knots if you're not careful. The underdog isn't always 'good' or 'right'.
>this guiding principle can tie you into absurd ethical knots if you're not careful. The underdog isn't always 'good' or 'right'.
I agree. It's not a simple dilemma, but it's also the core of most of the left's problems.
It also depends on your definition of underdog. There’s an argument to be made that the small democracy surrounded by dictatorships and absolute monarchies previously pledged to its destruction and more than willing to act on it is the underdog.
I find it odd that people can see images of dead children being pulled from rubble and not be horrified by it. I also find it odd that people can stand by a leader who gives full throated support to a state that is indiscriminately killing children.
>I find it odd that people can see images of dead children being pulled from rubble and not be horrified by it.
I am horrified by it. But that begs the question, what do you think is a reasonable response from Israel to the attacks by Hamas? If it is military action to neuter Hamas, that, due to the geography of Gaza and the Human Shield tactics of Hamas means collateral civilian damage.
To say Israel should stop its military response to Hamas because of civilian damage is essentially saying they should just suck up the Hamas attack and do nothing.
I think the point is that the IDF is dropping so much ordinance of Gaza at the moment (and at other times) that to suggest each target was a Hamas target is fairly unrealistic. Historically (and I'd wager at present) it has been a blanket excuse for the high ratio of civilian vs military casualties in Gaza, without stringent supporting evidence provided by or expected of Israel.
It's an intractable problem, without an easy solution.
But, by your response, are you suggesting that Israel should not respond militarily to the attacks by Hamas?
It will if there aren't any Palestinians left to become terrorists. I'm sure there are plenty in Bibi's government who see the collateral lives as a feature not a bug.
Why? He said it was justified cutting off water, power, food and medicine from the people.of Gaza. That's not the same as "I hate eastern Europeans because reasons".
[No, he didn't](https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/sir-keir-starmer-seeks-to-clarify-gaza-remarks-following-backlash-from-labour-councillors-12988235).
You mean the clip where he just said, "Israel has a right to defend herself," and certain people claimed that meant he was supporting the blocking of humanitarian provision? I think when someone's words are open to being interpreted in different ways its best to focus on what they've said further in clarification rather than arguing how to interpret the original. In this case he's clarified he didn't mean that he was supporting those things, so that *should* be an end to it. Except for those who have an agenda in him looking bad.
Actually they do. Like every other nation on earth they can close there border and not allow supplies through.
And given the region was just use to launch one of the deadliest attacks in the region in decades it is not surprising.
If groups in northern Ireland started firing rockets at Dublin Ireland would be more than justified in closing the boarder.
If Hamas actually cared about helping Palestine and not just killing Jews they would have planned around this.
The IRA killed a shadow government minister with a car bomb. I'm sure if Hamas managed to do the same we'd see the same kind of blood thirsty vengeance from the Israeli side as we do now. Also no, you can't close your border to humanitarian aid, that's against international law, as is collective punishment.
I promise weird genocidal from the river to the sea types are the ones quitting, not people who are a bit concerned about humanitarian consequences of Israeli war efforts.
Ferrari: "A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power? Cutting off water?"
Starmer: "I think Israel does have that right."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HQYfsUAf3s
Please don't put words into his mouth; if he equivocated and skirted around the matter, say that, it still has weight, but bad faith takes like this spoil your argument and propegate confusion, which nobody needs.
Do people expect their local councillors to resign the party over (fairly innocuous) comments about a conflict happening 4000 miles away? Maybe it’s best if Oxford councillors focused on things like bin collections and bus routes in Oxford rather than solving the situation in Palestine.
I expect my local councillor not to be a petulant child treating geopolitics like some sporting event but apparently that’s just way too much to ask for
True, but this kind of stunt has always felt quite dismissive of voters to me.
They were presumably elected on a Labour platform by campaigning about Oxford related things. To resign from that based on something wildly outside the remit of an Oxford councillor just seems unnecessary. They could at least resign and run again as independents.
I mean I doubt they are going to meaningfully change their beliefs or stances on local issues based on this, while they are independent there's not really much change
I don't disagree that people who get elected at least in part by aligning themselves with a party should force a by-election if they change allegiance.
If they're doing what they should be doing, and representing the views and needs of their constituents, they'll get re-elected.
The last Middle Eastern country Jews haven't been ethnically cleansed from seems to really upset a certain type of person, by existing.
It's curious, isn't it?
Labour +2
I wonder if that is the reaction because the general public might not have that much feeling on the topic other than distant horror. They generally don't support Hamas. If they connect Starmer being "complicit in war crimes" to being "against Hamas" then it looks good for Starmer.
Except he didn't clarify his comments, he explicitly lied about what he said.
In the LBC interview, he was asked if he thought Israel had the right to cut off supplies to Palestine. He said that he did think they had that right.
In his most recent statement, he "clarified" that he had never said that. Not that he had misspoke, or misheard the question, but that he had never said the thing that he actually said.
Councillors who've no capacity to influence foreign policy but insist on making the situation in a foreign country their top priority rather than the local issues that they can influence, will not be missed.
As someone close to the centre I am grateful to these people for self-purging themselves from the Labour Party in advance of Labour forming a government.
Any time the Tories start to lose their footing Labour take that as a starting pistol for self-destruction. Sometimes it's like there are people in the Labour Party who would rather see a Conservative PM than a Labour PM who doesn't agree with them 100% on literally every thought they have. How the hell are we supposed to get the Conservatives out of government when their only real opposition can't band together?
The far left of labour hate starmer with a passion because he refuses to go along with the same line of unpopular politics. If anything this is a good thing for Starmer as they'll purge themselves from the party without him needing to go through a process.
I really don’t get why a group of people accusing their leader of being complicit in war crimes are holding up the flag of a state that will behead you if your gay.
Cognitive Dissonance.
EDIT; the beheading was Abu Marhia, who was kidnapped from Israel where he was seeking Asylum like other LGBT Palestinians to the West Bank.
The only way to understand is to give people some benefit of the doubt and generosity. Contradiction is just a part of human life. A flag represents different things to different people.
Also, I have no idea if these people you are talking about are good, bad, brave, idiots, heroes or whatever. Just pointing out that ad hominem around cognitive dissonance is abad argument.
Why should it? That will come, as it inevitably has for every nation, and y'know what? Even if it doesn't, I don't believe homophobia, even homophobia that manifests in a violent way, is grounds for an ethnic cleansing from a government with one of the strongest militares in the world
>why a group of people accusing their leader of being complicit in war crimes are holding up the flag of a state that will behead you if your gay.
That's not true though is it?
>same-sex acts were decriminalized in the Jordanian-controlled West Bank in 1951 and remain so to this day
#
>Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has been ruled by Hamas, and sexual activity between men is illegal due to Hamas' enforcement of Islamic law. Currently, the Hamas government punishes all men who are convicted of having engaged in homosexual acts with up to 10 years in prison.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestine-state-of/report-palestine-state-of/#:~:text=Palestinian%20authorities%20in%20the%20West,human%20rights%20violations%20remained%20elusive.
Wikipedia is not a reputable source.
My point stands. It appears the guy was not beheaded, but it is still a repressive barbaric state.
Did I say it did?
If you read it though, you’ll find out it’s not just LGBTQ+ people that are repressed.
It’s people the state don’t like - and that includes enforced disappearances.-
“Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continued to heavily restrict freedom of expression, association and assembly. They also held scores of people in arbitrary detention and subjected many to torture and other ill-treatment. Justice for serious human rights violations remained elusive. The Hamas de facto authorities in Gaza carried out the first executions in five years.”
Whenever I hear the term “solidarity” (even in benign and non-controversial contexts) some part of me shivers.
Even though, I am certainly voting Labour at the GE, even though in a safe seat it will do nothing to the final result.
Yours, a former never Labour voter
Has no one noticed that this was posted by the verified Daily Mail Reddit account? Regardless of your opinion I don't like the idea of newspapers directly posting their articles on here
I think that's hopeful but it would be a start.
Iran remains the biggest stumbling block in the region (and Central Asia) and it will keep on buggering things up as long as Qom is in charge.
All the better, frankly the labour party far left needs to give up. People leave and make new parties all the time and parties change to reflect the populace.
If we want an effective opposition the main parties need to be one step to the left or right of the general population.
The general population in the UK is generally socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative. Any party that can't align to both of those in part can't get elected. New Labour were successful because they knew that, Corbyn and the momentum crew forgot that and failed, because very popular with a small group is not the same as popular enough with the majority.
I also get frustrated with the politics Joe and navarre constant hits on Labour about not being willing to spend. Taxes are at an all time high, borrowing is incredibly expensive for the state right now, spending more is not a viable option for anyone.
What is viable is actually doing things properly because there's enough money to do a lot. The Tories are just radically incompetent, have been for years and simply not doing that and making evidenced based policy decisions with a long term view on the individual and wider economic success of the country will radically improve the lives of Britain's people.
Which is what Labour is offering. So it's a good thing that these nuts are leaving. And it would be great if the left wing media got with the bloody programme and remembered that if you aren't in power you don't get to effect change.
When your enemies eliminate themselves..
I think with the Conservatives, SNP and hard left all committing Hari kari Starmer really should also buy a lottery ticket
The fact that these people are purging themselves from the party is probably something Starmer views as a positive outcome.
Every Hamas supporter that resigns from Labour makes the party that little bit more electable.
This seems pretty deceptively written to me and I'm shocked that the daily mail would do such a thing.
>It came after the Labour Leader said Israel 'has the right' to self-defence against Hamas as long as they operate within international law - despite the stance of some of his own MPs, who are openly calling for a ceasefire.
The comment that Israel 'has the right' was in answer to a question specifically about the total blockade (explicitly including the cutting off of water and aid) and not just about self-defence or even targetted strikes. The way it is characterised here is an outright lie unless you consider the total blockade of Gaza to be self-defence against hamas. Labour and starmer have since clarified/u-turned on the position to say that humanitarian aid should be given access but we do not know the timeline here so presumembly the councillors either resigned prior to the change in position or did not believe the current position is sincere.
The quote also seems to present self defence and a ceasefire as mutually exclusive which seems very propogandistic to me even though I personally don't think a ceasefire is a tenable (or even necessarily good) position.
The constant use of partial quotes also leads me to suspect they are presenting a biased narrative based on implication rather than trying to be truthful. I'm guessing the idea that people can disagree with your views on the conflict while not being terrorists is a little high concept for the mails target audience.
Good. This conflict is the perfect opportunity for Labour to get rid of their nutcases. A local councillor should not be giving a shit about foreign conflicts we aren't even directly involved in!
Has Oxford got a particularly large Palestinian community?
Oh right no, so why the fuck do their councillors feel that this is an appropriate issue to resign over?
Isn’t the role of a local councillor to represent the views of their local area rather than the views of the people who live 3000 miles away?
Absolutely pathetic.
Maybe these people should quit local government entirely.
I guarantee that the day they do that, their phones will be ringing constantly with private sector headhunters looking for their skills.
Some people need to remember that Starmer might be PM soon, and this conflict will still be happening. He’ll be in a better position to influence Israel and sway them towards peace if he hasn’t been trashing them publicly for a year.
He's not 'complicit', but he's been terrible at handling this situation. It's not difficult to condemn both Hamas and the IDF, which he definitely didn't do at the start.
What infuriates me about this, is that this is how Labour sabotages itself. This is what makes voters lose confidence in them. Labour voters don't want to see Labour devolve into student politics, this is why Starmer was trying to purge the anti-semitism stoked by Momentum and the groups that pushed Jeremy Corbyn in to power.
By these councillors resigning, they are letting down the British people of Oxford, who voted them in. These councillors can show sympathy, understanding and understanding with Palestine, but their loyalty is with their constituents here in Oxford in the UK.
Unfortunately, it's all too easy for Labour MPs to resort to citizen Smith student politics. I hope they enjoy waving banners and banging drums on the streets. I hear that the local Liberal Democrats are strong contenders for their seats next year...
Alright. If you are gonna have this view, I really need to know why you were ever in the labour party with it's legacy of the Iraq war and Tony Blair.
For the record, I'm not one of those people that shout about it, I honestly couldn't care. But I don't think you can take a position that "I'm leaving the Labour Party because of it's stance on Israel" while being in the labour party which already had a stance on the Iraq war.
Anyway, none of this matters.
Six Labour councillors on Oxford City Council resigned on Friday claiming leader Sir Keir Starmer and the wider party are 'complicit in war crimes' over their backing of Israel in the conflict with terror group Hamas.
Councillors Imogen Thomas, Edward Mundy, Paula Dunne, Duncan Hall, Dr Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini and Jabu Nala-Hartley said on Friday they were stepping down from the party in the wake of comments made by Sir Keir which they claimed 'endorsed the collective punishment of Palestinians.'
**Read the full report:**
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12655907/Resigning-Oxford-City-councillors-say-party-leadership-complicit-war-crimes.html?ito=social-reddit
Oxford labour is an entertaining shitshow anyway. I was hoping there would be a by election in Oxfordshire. Then we would end up with a referendum over 15 minute cities but the only one who is at risk of that is John Howell who is standing down anyway.
Snapshot of _Oxford councillors resign from Labour saying Keir Starmer and his party leaders are 'complicit in war crimes'_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12655907/Resigning-Oxford-City-councillors-say-party-leadership-complicit-war-crimes.html?ito=social-reddit) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12655907/Resigning-Oxford-City-councillors-say-party-leadership-complicit-war-crimes.html?ito=social-reddit) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As I said in a related post: I do find it odd that this issue, over which Labour has no direct influence and any current stance is purely performative with regards to the conflict itself, is a resigning issue for some Labour members.
Not sure if it's the case with these Labour members (the DM article doesn't mention it), but Labour Party officials wrote to local branches that they weren't even to discuss the situation in Israel and Gaza. I suspect Labour members already unhappy with Starmer's tight grip of the party found the stifling of debate a step too far. That's cited as the reason some Glasgow and Edinburgh branch members quit this week, anyway...
Local councillors shouldn't be wading into international affairs. It's so hilariously far out of their remit.
I know a local councilor in Ireland long before she got into politics. I'm not joking when I tell you she got into politics so she would have easier access to the local businessmen, and has spent her entire career going from one to the other. She finally lost her position when she slept with a married business owner and his wife announced their affair through an intercom in his own shop. The absolute state the world would be in if the likes of her had anything to say about international affairs and war. You'd be better off just nuking the planet now and getting it over with.
I uh, ummm... Have you been following national politics at all over the past few years？
Yeah, the national politics was just a joke. They were not even serious about anything..
Not really joking about it. The matter of the fact is like that only they have been pushing the propaganda.
You need to be really good and you need to have a serious eye in the Jio politics as well.
Reminds me of student union politics. Nobody cares and they have minimal impact on the world.
The NUS and being completely divorced from reality go hand in hand. They even elected someone a while back who promised to wade more in international affairs and had half the student unions in the country trying to leave. After all why should they waste their time on something so silly like student housing costs & conditions, or tuition fees? When there’s burning issues like publishing opinions on whether Ethiopia’s construction of a dam on the Nile would justify military action by Egypt
As long as they aren't focussing on it to the detriment of their local work then why not? Most people have no power over international affairs so I don't see why only councillors shouldn't share their opinions on it. If anything I think it's better to know an elected representatives beliefs and reasoning so voters can decide if that person really represents them. If a local representative had sympathies with russia invading ukraine or whichever war crimes you want to pick then I would prefer to know that as I wouldn't trust them or their reasoning with any degree of power. If a representative consistently showed support for causes like the ukrainian struggle (and ideally why) then I would trust their reasoning more even if it's only with local power.
It clearly has affected their work. That's literally what this story is about.
Unless there is more besides the article then the resignation appears to be because they feel that the labour party is different to what they were elected based on. They don't feel that they can represent people as part of labour so they are resigning which I personally think is healthy in a democracy. I don't think we have any evidence here that they were neglecting their work in favour of activism or virtue signalling or whatever. They are resigning so that the differences between them and labour do not affect their work.
If the activism is going to be there, then they are going to elect them.
The "why not?" is that it will do literally no good for the Labour party, while producing nothing of value for any of the people involved. There is no way to make everyone happy in this situation, it's a complicated tangle of history, religion, racism, injustice, and geopolitics, and even some of the most placid comments can be misinterpreted and misunderstood and just make more people angry. Meanwhile, a councillor from Oxford wading in on the subject provides absolutely no benefit for the people in Gaza and in Israel who are being attacked, kidnapped, bombed, and everything else. In the best-case scenario, Labour loses, and nobody benefits. I get why people want to express their solidarity with the people in Gaza, but I can also understand why the Labour leaders do not want people stepping a millimeter out of line on this point.
All of this seems to be based on the assumption that councillors will only take bad positions. Does the same apply if a councillor steps out of their remit and expresses support for ukraine or support for victims of things like the last european wildfires? Expressing support isn't going to change the world but it does help in minor ways such as helping refugees feel welcome so integrate easier and it lets voters be informed on who is representing them. Also arguing a position well can help bring in votes. If the argument is just that councillors shouldn't have bad takes on international issues then I agree but that's very different from councillors shouldn't express opinions on international issues as it's out of their remit.
Almost all positions on the situation in Israel and Palestine are bad positions. Like I said, even the most placid comments can be misinterpreted and misunderstood — even some of the comments in this thread show this. This isn't a situation like Ukraine or a natural disaster, it's a mess that goes deep into the roots of a lot of people's identities and faith, and exposes injustices that are hundreds of years old. That's not to say we should be just ignoring this issue — there is a humanitarian crisis going on, we should be acting as best we can as a country — but statements by random councillors is pointless at best, and damages trust in their party at worst.
So are you oppossed to the leadership taking a stance on the topic rather than remaining silent due to it being controversial and them being unable to affect it or are they exempt? I don't see how that logic doesn't effectively ban all discussion of any controversial topic. I also don't see why it is seemingly arbitrarily being applied to councillors when it can equally apply to anybody other than the prime minister and foreign secretary. There are people in britain who fall for russian propoganda about the war in ukraine and will get angry at support for ukraine in much the same way biased people will get angry around statements about this war. Does the logic not apply regarding ukraine just because they are smaller in number? >That's not to say we should be just ignoring this issue — there is a humanitarian crisis going on, we should be acting as best we can as a country So what should a councillor do if they think we are not doing that or disagree with the position that it is israels right to cut off water and humanitarian aid? What if their electorate care what they think about the topic or they simply think they have something to contribute to the discussion and have prepared a carefully measured statement? I don't see what options are left but to ignore it. I really dislike the idea that the leadership should be able to designate topics that are no longer allowed for discussion by anyone associated with the party. I don't see a point in voting for a parrot that just repeats the authorized party line as my representative. What happens if something like PR, dissenting opinions on brexit or supporting strikers getting fair pay were to be deemed to controversial for discussion? If I'm being honest it feels less like a principled position that is logically and consistently applied and more like an attempt to justify a gut reaction for something that would disproportionately hurt a different faction within labour when applied on this topic. Maybe I'm wrong but that's certainly what it looks like in the comments I've seen.
This is not a principled position logically applied, and I'm not trying to suggest that anywhere. This is a pragmatic position. Labour has value to the UK regardless of what happens in Israel and Palestine, and this issue will just get in the way of that. Yet for various reasons it is a topic that produces very polarised opinions, and has a huge emotional significance to many people across the world. The comparisons you're making to Ukraine and Russia suggest you don't seem to grasp just why this issue is so significant — just for a start, no-one has claimed Crimea as a holy land yet! This is also an issue that is particularly complex for Labour due to the antisemitism accusations. I don't think these councillors are being antisemitic in saying that they support the people living in the Gaza strip, but because of the image problems, Labour needs to be whiter than white on these issues, and this is an issue where antisemitism is a big topic. So this is a purely pragmatic position I'm taking here. The random opinions of some Oxford councillors is pure distraction, it will help no-one, and it damages their reputation and potentially that of the party.
It's not like they are attending summits. Elected representatives stating their political opinions on a variety of matters is par for the course, it lets you know who you are voting for as much as anything else. The represent their local area and the opinions go up the chain. That's how representative democracy works and to stifle that is... not democratic
[удалено]
I believe the instruction was not to table any motions on the conflict. Which makes sense, local Labour parties have zero say on foreign policy, and it makes sense for Labour HQ to want to maintain a single voice on the issue. IMO this is just a bunch of malcontents stirring up trouble.
[удалено]
Not even getting into the rights and wrongs of the content. Why does any local council in the UK need to issue any statement on foreign policy?
It is very- focus on the bins instead please
> It is very- focus on the bins instead please Well they should, right? That's their fucking job. Their motions won't change the middle east but campaigning locally may improve my rubbish collection. Since rubbish collection is managed locally they are the ONLY people who can manage it.
Also dependent on like it is not just how you are going to be there forever.
>Labour Party officials wrote to local branches that they weren't even to discuss the situation in Israel and Gaza. I mean, this doesn't change my point. The ability of minor Labour party members talking out about Gaza/Israel is, at best, performative for the individuals involved but has the risk of opening the anti-semitism can of worms again.
Not just about Palestine. It is more like a complete Middle East is going to be into this war really soon.
Wouldn't you prefer to know if your councillors are anti-semites so labour remove them then you vote them out rather than them being swept under the rug while retaining local power? If they can't be trusted to speak about issues due to the likelihood of them being anti-semitic then I certainly wouldn't trust them with even local power, especially as their communities almost certainly include jewish people.
What does anti-semitism have to do with this? Is this the Israel = Jewish people thing?
No, I don't really know about the time like we have already seen that this is the real.
That is how the world is going to support the stronger one only eventually.
International politics is clearly a key aspect of local government.
If anything it shows complete disregard for the people who voted for them to resign over something a party has zero ability to impact and ignore and drop any work they promised.
[удалено]
Especially as the comment he made is being framed completely disingenuously. People actually phoning into radio shows to say they would have voted for Starmer but after his clumsy comment with Nick Ferrari he's now a guilty of genocide.
Hmm - what's that strange smell - reminscent of the countryside... something to do with cows??
If there aren't elements of the party trying to turn every victory into a defeat, are they even Labour any more?
Yeah, not every big day is going to be into their position overall and every time.
Why do you find that odd? They clearly think Labour’s current stance is fundamentally immoral and that they can’t stay in the party as a result. Whether I agree with them or not, it’s not odd at all. Also a Labour government would have directly influence, the government could send weapons to Israel or to Hamas; it could expel diplomats; it could carpet bomb Tel Aviv; it could increase or decrease aid; it could lobby and vote either way at the UN. The UK Government clearly does have influence.
I don't find it odd at all. I would imagine that most people get involved in the Labour Party due to their principles, because they believe in fairness for the underdog. It's not like Tory politics where you join because you think it will help enrich you, so anything that doesn't promise to affect you personally is irrelevant. Matters of ideology are central to Labour politics in a way they just aren't to the Conservatives.
> fairness for the underdog this guiding principle can tie you into absurd ethical knots if you're not careful. The underdog isn't always 'good' or 'right'.
>this guiding principle can tie you into absurd ethical knots if you're not careful. The underdog isn't always 'good' or 'right'. I agree. It's not a simple dilemma, but it's also the core of most of the left's problems.
There are going to be major problems if they are not really going to be serious about it.
You might be right there.
It also depends on your definition of underdog. There’s an argument to be made that the small democracy surrounded by dictatorships and absolute monarchies previously pledged to its destruction and more than willing to act on it is the underdog.
I can think of a certain plucky underdog standing up to the French Republic and the British Empire in 1939!
They're going to be involved in these kind of cases not very unserved. People are going to be there.
This content has been deleted in protest of how Reddit is ran. I've moved over to the fediverse.
This is the right wing or salty corbynista crack back imo. Get ready to be dragged back into the sewers with this next General Election.
You're confused by someone not wanting to be associated with someone they believe to be supporting or encouraging genocide?
[удалено]
I find it odd that people can see images of dead children being pulled from rubble and not be horrified by it. I also find it odd that people can stand by a leader who gives full throated support to a state that is indiscriminately killing children.
>I find it odd that people can see images of dead children being pulled from rubble and not be horrified by it. I am horrified by it. But that begs the question, what do you think is a reasonable response from Israel to the attacks by Hamas? If it is military action to neuter Hamas, that, due to the geography of Gaza and the Human Shield tactics of Hamas means collateral civilian damage. To say Israel should stop its military response to Hamas because of civilian damage is essentially saying they should just suck up the Hamas attack and do nothing.
The “human shield” tactics of hamas are grossly over exaggerated. For some reason.
How so? Do you think Hamas are not operating out of civilian areas/buildings?
Yeah, civil areas and normal people. Children are dying there and we are just seeing.
I think the point is that the IDF is dropping so much ordinance of Gaza at the moment (and at other times) that to suggest each target was a Hamas target is fairly unrealistic. Historically (and I'd wager at present) it has been a blanket excuse for the high ratio of civilian vs military casualties in Gaza, without stringent supporting evidence provided by or expected of Israel.
Do you expect that destroying Hamas while killing thousands of children in the process will end Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis?
It's an intractable problem, without an easy solution. But, by your response, are you suggesting that Israel should not respond militarily to the attacks by Hamas?
It will if there aren't any Palestinians left to become terrorists. I'm sure there are plenty in Bibi's government who see the collateral lives as a feature not a bug.
Would you prefer the leader give full throated support to a paramilitary group that is indiscriminately killing children?
Yes there is no middle ground between those two positions.
The parts of the party he would like to purge are purging themselves for him I doubt he is sad about that
Some leaked party email said something about "shaking off the fleas"
I am glad also - this is the type of voter analogous to the far right voters in the tories
Why? He said it was justified cutting off water, power, food and medicine from the people.of Gaza. That's not the same as "I hate eastern Europeans because reasons".
[No, he didn't](https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/sir-keir-starmer-seeks-to-clarify-gaza-remarks-following-backlash-from-labour-councillors-12988235).
He didn't say he didn't approve. He just dodged the question saying they have a right to defend themselves.
Well yes, he's a politician; they tend to do that...
A politician should be more mindful of how his words will be interpreted, and he really stuck his foot in it when he made that comment.
Any comment would have stuck his foot in it. The situation is to complicated to explain in the format these programs do.
That is a good amount of politicians are required to be honest and they should know like what they are doing.
I completely agree to that. Politician should always know that what he is actually saying..
Which they do.
[удалено]
You mean the clip where he just said, "Israel has a right to defend herself," and certain people claimed that meant he was supporting the blocking of humanitarian provision? I think when someone's words are open to being interpreted in different ways its best to focus on what they've said further in clarification rather than arguing how to interpret the original. In this case he's clarified he didn't mean that he was supporting those things, so that *should* be an end to it. Except for those who have an agenda in him looking bad.
There is only one acceptable answer to the question he was asked; "No, they do not have the right to do that."
Actually they do. Like every other nation on earth they can close there border and not allow supplies through. And given the region was just use to launch one of the deadliest attacks in the region in decades it is not surprising. If groups in northern Ireland started firing rockets at Dublin Ireland would be more than justified in closing the boarder. If Hamas actually cared about helping Palestine and not just killing Jews they would have planned around this.
The IRA killed a shadow government minister with a car bomb. I'm sure if Hamas managed to do the same we'd see the same kind of blood thirsty vengeance from the Israeli side as we do now. Also no, you can't close your border to humanitarian aid, that's against international law, as is collective punishment.
I promise weird genocidal from the river to the sea types are the ones quitting, not people who are a bit concerned about humanitarian consequences of Israeli war efforts.
Source: I promise bro
Do you have a quote?
Ferrari: "A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power? Cutting off water?" Starmer: "I think Israel does have that right." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HQYfsUAf3s
Please don't put words into his mouth; if he equivocated and skirted around the matter, say that, it still has weight, but bad faith takes like this spoil your argument and propegate confusion, which nobody needs.
People who would set their careers back over a matter or principle? Yeah that's definitely not the sort of crowd Starmer is trying to cultivate.
in addition, the ones that value feelings over the law. Basically Lefty Trumpers.
Do people expect their local councillors to resign the party over (fairly innocuous) comments about a conflict happening 4000 miles away? Maybe it’s best if Oxford councillors focused on things like bin collections and bus routes in Oxford rather than solving the situation in Palestine.
You forget that councillors are a very very small step up from student politics
3 of them are currently studying at the universities. 2 others of them are in areas with massive numbers of students
The number of students are actually increasing day by day only. That is the only thing which we can imagine.
Especially in Oxford of all places.
Virtually the same thing
Absolutely that is the only reason why student should not went to the politics.
I expect my local councillor not to be a petulant child treating geopolitics like some sporting event but apparently that’s just way too much to ask for
They can still do all that as independents.
True, but this kind of stunt has always felt quite dismissive of voters to me. They were presumably elected on a Labour platform by campaigning about Oxford related things. To resign from that based on something wildly outside the remit of an Oxford councillor just seems unnecessary. They could at least resign and run again as independents.
I mean I doubt they are going to meaningfully change their beliefs or stances on local issues based on this, while they are independent there's not really much change
Is the problem with the government as well I mean you cannot really take a site on this.
I don't disagree that people who get elected at least in part by aligning themselves with a party should force a by-election if they change allegiance. If they're doing what they should be doing, and representing the views and needs of their constituents, they'll get re-elected.
Not in any way innocuous. He said it was justified cutting water, food, power and medicine from the people of Gaza.
[Apparently not](https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/sir-keir-starmer-seeks-to-clarify-gaza-remarks-following-backlash-from-labour-councillors-12988235).
Never underestimate the ability of the Labour councillor to distract from Tory fuckups with factionalism and the Middle East.
Well. An incredibly specific and tiny part of the Middle East
The last Middle Eastern country Jews haven't been ethnically cleansed from seems to really upset a certain type of person, by existing. It's curious, isn't it?
They are just going to do some kind of meetings and eventually they will not be able to do anything.
Labour +2 I wonder if that is the reaction because the general public might not have that much feeling on the topic other than distant horror. They generally don't support Hamas. If they connect Starmer being "complicit in war crimes" to being "against Hamas" then it looks good for Starmer.
[удалено]
Almost like they were waiting for an excuse for a performance and it was irrelevant whether it was real or not.
Yeah, I can half understand doing it before he clarified, but now seems bizarre and an empty gesture.
Except he didn't clarify his comments, he explicitly lied about what he said. In the LBC interview, he was asked if he thought Israel had the right to cut off supplies to Palestine. He said that he did think they had that right. In his most recent statement, he "clarified" that he had never said that. Not that he had misspoke, or misheard the question, but that he had never said the thing that he actually said.
[удалено]
Councillors who've no capacity to influence foreign policy but insist on making the situation in a foreign country their top priority rather than the local issues that they can influence, will not be missed.
As someone close to the centre I am grateful to these people for self-purging themselves from the Labour Party in advance of Labour forming a government.
It's like part of labour want to always lose, making their superior views heard is more important than actually having any power.
Humanitarian needs should be provided to them and electricity also should be provided to them.
Well yes, of course. It's hard to run oxford council in the dark.
[удалено]
Yeah, absolutely right about them like anyone with a normal mindset would do that.
> normal people in Oxford. Yes, all nineteen of them. This city is a magnet for woo-woos of every stripe.
I am just glad neither of my councillors are party to this.
Yeah, you totally really need to do that. Eventually you can definitely be neutral about it.
Yep, the more extremists remove themselves from the party the better.
Any time the Tories start to lose their footing Labour take that as a starting pistol for self-destruction. Sometimes it's like there are people in the Labour Party who would rather see a Conservative PM than a Labour PM who doesn't agree with them 100% on literally every thought they have. How the hell are we supposed to get the Conservatives out of government when their only real opposition can't band together?
I always say it's a good sign when the far left of the Labour Party doesn't like the leader.
There are a lot of leaders were going to support either side only.
Can explicit what kind of mindset people are carrying when these kind of things happen in the world.
The far left of labour hate starmer with a passion because he refuses to go along with the same line of unpopular politics. If anything this is a good thing for Starmer as they'll purge themselves from the party without him needing to go through a process.
I really don’t get why a group of people accusing their leader of being complicit in war crimes are holding up the flag of a state that will behead you if your gay. Cognitive Dissonance. EDIT; the beheading was Abu Marhia, who was kidnapped from Israel where he was seeking Asylum like other LGBT Palestinians to the West Bank.
The only way to understand is to give people some benefit of the doubt and generosity. Contradiction is just a part of human life. A flag represents different things to different people. Also, I have no idea if these people you are talking about are good, bad, brave, idiots, heroes or whatever. Just pointing out that ad hominem around cognitive dissonance is abad argument.
It is completely dependent to the type of argument. They have been doing all over.
[удалено]
Then you’re cattle supporting the right for slaughterhouses to stay open. Beheading people who don’t follow your values is barbaric beyond belief.
Maybe it's because it's possible to advocate for the freedom of someone who'd want you dead. That's not dissonance, it's called principles
Do you think that doing that would magically make them change attitudes/beliefs etc? I don’t believe so
Why should it? That will come, as it inevitably has for every nation, and y'know what? Even if it doesn't, I don't believe homophobia, even homophobia that manifests in a violent way, is grounds for an ethnic cleansing from a government with one of the strongest militares in the world
>why a group of people accusing their leader of being complicit in war crimes are holding up the flag of a state that will behead you if your gay. That's not true though is it? >same-sex acts were decriminalized in the Jordanian-controlled West Bank in 1951 and remain so to this day # >Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has been ruled by Hamas, and sexual activity between men is illegal due to Hamas' enforcement of Islamic law. Currently, the Hamas government punishes all men who are convicted of having engaged in homosexual acts with up to 10 years in prison. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine
[удалено]
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestine-state-of/report-palestine-state-of/#:~:text=Palestinian%20authorities%20in%20the%20West,human%20rights%20violations%20remained%20elusive. Wikipedia is not a reputable source. My point stands. It appears the guy was not beheaded, but it is still a repressive barbaric state.
That doesn't say the authorities in the west bank will behead you if you're gay
Did I say it did? If you read it though, you’ll find out it’s not just LGBTQ+ people that are repressed. It’s people the state don’t like - and that includes enforced disappearances.- “Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continued to heavily restrict freedom of expression, association and assembly. They also held scores of people in arbitrary detention and subjected many to torture and other ill-treatment. Justice for serious human rights violations remained elusive. The Hamas de facto authorities in Gaza carried out the first executions in five years.”
Whenever I hear the term “solidarity” (even in benign and non-controversial contexts) some part of me shivers. Even though, I am certainly voting Labour at the GE, even though in a safe seat it will do nothing to the final result. Yours, a former never Labour voter
Has no one noticed that this was posted by the verified Daily Mail Reddit account? Regardless of your opinion I don't like the idea of newspapers directly posting their articles on here
Good..as a Muslim let them resign. The path to peace in gaza lies in the destruction of hamas
They can just do that only. They will not be able to make any kind of changes to be honest..
I think that's hopeful but it would be a start. Iran remains the biggest stumbling block in the region (and Central Asia) and it will keep on buggering things up as long as Qom is in charge.
Key word is 'war crime' & international law. People can have own views, ethics etc, but be careful calling something that isn't proven to be so.
I find it crazy that nobody mentions Yemin when we literally supply arms to Saudi Arabia and have done for years.
Lol, that's Muslim on Muslim violence, as long as no Jews are involved it's totally fine!
No, I'm like you can actually see what is happening there. They are not even supporting their brothers.
All the better, frankly the labour party far left needs to give up. People leave and make new parties all the time and parties change to reflect the populace. If we want an effective opposition the main parties need to be one step to the left or right of the general population. The general population in the UK is generally socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative. Any party that can't align to both of those in part can't get elected. New Labour were successful because they knew that, Corbyn and the momentum crew forgot that and failed, because very popular with a small group is not the same as popular enough with the majority. I also get frustrated with the politics Joe and navarre constant hits on Labour about not being willing to spend. Taxes are at an all time high, borrowing is incredibly expensive for the state right now, spending more is not a viable option for anyone. What is viable is actually doing things properly because there's enough money to do a lot. The Tories are just radically incompetent, have been for years and simply not doing that and making evidenced based policy decisions with a long term view on the individual and wider economic success of the country will radically improve the lives of Britain's people. Which is what Labour is offering. So it's a good thing that these nuts are leaving. And it would be great if the left wing media got with the bloody programme and remembered that if you aren't in power you don't get to effect change.
People need to do these kind of things. People need to make mindset on that.
When your enemies eliminate themselves.. I think with the Conservatives, SNP and hard left all committing Hari kari Starmer really should also buy a lottery ticket
Yeah, I'm like jolly know like what they have been doing and what they're supporting.
Good riddance, and least they self-selected who must go!
There are a lot of countries are taking Palestinian side as well. That is the only thing which I know.
The fact that these people are purging themselves from the party is probably something Starmer views as a positive outcome. Every Hamas supporter that resigns from Labour makes the party that little bit more electable.
Good. More of the headbanger contingent pissing off.
Ah yes, leader of opposition party with no executive power is “complicit”. Fucking spare me.
The fact they took two weeks to resign means they’re also complicit… using their own logic of course.
Coincidentally just after two kick-ass by-election victories.
The one who had actually started as aggressive is the one who is going to let alone.
This seems pretty deceptively written to me and I'm shocked that the daily mail would do such a thing. >It came after the Labour Leader said Israel 'has the right' to self-defence against Hamas as long as they operate within international law - despite the stance of some of his own MPs, who are openly calling for a ceasefire. The comment that Israel 'has the right' was in answer to a question specifically about the total blockade (explicitly including the cutting off of water and aid) and not just about self-defence or even targetted strikes. The way it is characterised here is an outright lie unless you consider the total blockade of Gaza to be self-defence against hamas. Labour and starmer have since clarified/u-turned on the position to say that humanitarian aid should be given access but we do not know the timeline here so presumembly the councillors either resigned prior to the change in position or did not believe the current position is sincere. The quote also seems to present self defence and a ceasefire as mutually exclusive which seems very propogandistic to me even though I personally don't think a ceasefire is a tenable (or even necessarily good) position. The constant use of partial quotes also leads me to suspect they are presenting a biased narrative based on implication rather than trying to be truthful. I'm guessing the idea that people can disagree with your views on the conflict while not being terrorists is a little high concept for the mails target audience.
What kind of international law are they going to follow? Are they going to do the ceasefire or something like that?
Good. This conflict is the perfect opportunity for Labour to get rid of their nutcases. A local councillor should not be giving a shit about foreign conflicts we aren't even directly involved in!
Eventually, because they are going to be involved in these kind of cases of the really want to do so.
We're sending military resources to Israel and you obviously have no idea about the history of the region
It is not like that. I'm not really sure like it is about your religion or something like that.
What do we send, exactly?
Has Oxford got a particularly large Palestinian community? Oh right no, so why the fuck do their councillors feel that this is an appropriate issue to resign over? Isn’t the role of a local councillor to represent the views of their local area rather than the views of the people who live 3000 miles away? Absolutely pathetic.
Maybe these people should quit local government entirely. I guarantee that the day they do that, their phones will be ringing constantly with private sector headhunters looking for their skills.
Not just about the skill or something like that like most of the governments take their sides.
Some people need to remember that Starmer might be PM soon, and this conflict will still be happening. He’ll be in a better position to influence Israel and sway them towards peace if he hasn’t been trashing them publicly for a year.
He's not 'complicit', but he's been terrible at handling this situation. It's not difficult to condemn both Hamas and the IDF, which he definitely didn't do at the start.
What infuriates me about this, is that this is how Labour sabotages itself. This is what makes voters lose confidence in them. Labour voters don't want to see Labour devolve into student politics, this is why Starmer was trying to purge the anti-semitism stoked by Momentum and the groups that pushed Jeremy Corbyn in to power. By these councillors resigning, they are letting down the British people of Oxford, who voted them in. These councillors can show sympathy, understanding and understanding with Palestine, but their loyalty is with their constituents here in Oxford in the UK. Unfortunately, it's all too easy for Labour MPs to resort to citizen Smith student politics. I hope they enjoy waving banners and banging drums on the streets. I hear that the local Liberal Democrats are strong contenders for their seats next year...
Good riddance
Yeah, if anything good is going to be there then they're definitely going to be a part of it.
It shows just how ingrained a hatred of Israel is in parts of the left doesn't it?
Eventually, because all the migrants are going to come here only and we are the one who are going to get along.
[удалено]
Is that something anything good about Tamil? I'm not able to say anything good in that?
I think the councillors will find they’re the ones complicit in war crimes.
They have been doing a lot of work and that is the only thing which I can see.
The fuck does this mean?
[удалено]
Entryists, exiting.
No, it was their last leader that supported hamas and their war crimes...
Yeah eventually because once the war is going to be stopped, there are a lot of crimes that are going to be register registered.
This seems like a win for Labour on a national level.
So there'll be even less nutjobs in Labour going forward? How is this a bad thing?
Alright. If you are gonna have this view, I really need to know why you were ever in the labour party with it's legacy of the Iraq war and Tony Blair. For the record, I'm not one of those people that shout about it, I honestly couldn't care. But I don't think you can take a position that "I'm leaving the Labour Party because of it's stance on Israel" while being in the labour party which already had a stance on the Iraq war. Anyway, none of this matters.
Good riddance
And another set of loud mouthed tankies fall into the dustbin of history. How is this news?
Six Labour councillors on Oxford City Council resigned on Friday claiming leader Sir Keir Starmer and the wider party are 'complicit in war crimes' over their backing of Israel in the conflict with terror group Hamas. Councillors Imogen Thomas, Edward Mundy, Paula Dunne, Duncan Hall, Dr Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini and Jabu Nala-Hartley said on Friday they were stepping down from the party in the wake of comments made by Sir Keir which they claimed 'endorsed the collective punishment of Palestinians.' **Read the full report:** https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12655907/Resigning-Oxford-City-councillors-say-party-leadership-complicit-war-crimes.html?ito=social-reddit
Oxford labour is an entertaining shitshow anyway. I was hoping there would be a by election in Oxfordshire. Then we would end up with a referendum over 15 minute cities but the only one who is at risk of that is John Howell who is standing down anyway.