Apropos of nothing but if you ever make home made porn for personal use that you don't want the world to see make sure you have a Disney film playing in the background.
If the video becomes public Disney's lawyers will have the video taken down for copyright infringement.
Apropos of nothing but if you ever make home made porn for personal use that you don't want the world to see make sure you have a Disney film playing in the background.
If the video becomes public Disney's lawyers will have the video taken down for copyright infringement.
And you know this how, exactly?
For over a decade I have been regulating and supervising bankers (sic).
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
That's probably what she meant, but I know some Jewish people that experience racism every day. It just depends on how you dress.
That is probably what she meant, but even then, it's stupid. There's a reason why the Jewish Free School in Kenton has all kinds of anti-terrorist devices. And, why synagogues employ security guards.
And, then, when she brought in historical persecution, she invited the obvious retort that Jews didn't have to sit at the back, because there were no seats in the cattle trucks.
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
That's probably what she meant, but I know some Jewish people that experience racism every day. It just depends on how you dress.
That is probably what she meant, but even then, it's stupid. There's a reason why the Jewish Free School in Kenton has all kinds of anti-terrorist devices. And, why synagogues employ security guards.
And, then, when she brought in historical persecution, she invited the obvious retort that Jews didn't have to sit at the back, because there were no seats in the cattle trucks.
I think we should praise Diane Abbott for admitting her mistake and not going full Chris Williamson.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Yeah wrt Abbott it is typical of Lab and the left and we have rehearsed many times on here the whole once-were-oppressed-now-run-the-world thinking that infuses the left's thinking.
I can explain it if not excuse it.
But I like Diane Abbott and I don't think that this should be the end of her career. She broke ground and faced outrageous prejudice from all sides and has been a consistent champion for (visible!) minorities.
However, she should remain peripheral as an important but ineffectual voice in Labour. God forbid her thinking should inform any policy. As long as Lab doesn't have another brain fart a la Jezza and try to promote her to anything important then, like Jezza pre LotO, it was fine to have him and will be fine to have her jabbering away on the distant back benches.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
There is now lens of the hierarchy of oppression (based upon immutable characteristics) through which some on the left frame everything about the world, and when faced with a Kwasi Kwarteng or Priti Patel or... even a TSE....you get the glitching of you are not really a...and thus don't know about....
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
That's probably what she meant, but I know some Jewish people that experience racism every day. It just depends on how you dress.
That is probably what she meant, but even then, it's stupid. There's a reason why the Jewish Free School in Kenton has all kinds of anti-terrorist devices. And, why synagogues employ security guards.
And, then, when she brought in historical persecution, she invited the obvious retort that Jews didn't have to sit at the back, because there were no seats in the cattle trucks.
I think we should praise Diane Abbott for admitting her mistake and not going full Chris Williamson.
Black is white.
*pause*
White is black.
Is about how quickly admitting her mistake came about.
Interesting that the suggestion is he’ll make up his mind in May, after the legislative session ends in Florida.
If the polls haven’t moved by then, will spending a year embroiled in the Trump sh!tshow really be worth doing, rather than keeping his power dry for 2028?
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
It's like the claim that racism didn't exist in the Roman empire, addressed by Harry Sidebottom in his recent book on Elagalabus, and which attracted some flak. Well, not in the sense of colour prejudice, but that was only because there were so few black people in the empire.
There is in fact, plenty of evidence for racial hatred, directed inter alia, against the Jews (some things never change). But, also quite frequently expressed in the form of inter-ethnic massacres, especially massacres of Germans who were thought to be getting above themselves.
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
About as authentic Italian food as Cafe Rouge is French....
I'm sceptical that this is primarily to do with costs. I can't comment specifically on Prezzo, but there is a tendency for mid-range restaurant chains to get bought out by debt-laden purchases and then menu-engineered to within an inch of their lives to pay the debt back, losing anything that was once good in the process. Perfectly adequate businesses are asked to be at lot more profitable than is ever feasible, and go down the pan in the process. Particularly when the cost of debt increases.
Just 3½ years ago, Keir Starmer campaigned to make Diane Abbott home sec
How effective is this line? Just 3.5 years ago, Rishi Sunak campaigned to make Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab…
Yeah. Because the alternative was Corbyn.
If the choice is between someone who campaigned for Corbyn to be PM and someone who campaigned for him not to be PM, it's not difficult.
But that is simply your subjective opinion. I can't bear the Soviet sympathising anti-Semite, but if Johnson were ever the only alternative again I would have to weigh up the relative damage either could do. One's preference would be to draw an enormous nob across the ballot paper, but that doesn't help in clipping the wings of one or the other.
In 2019 we faced an appalling choice. Neither deserved our vote. We could only guess as to how terrible the one candidate would be as Prime Minister. We saw it for ourselves with the winner.
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
About as authentic Italian food as Cafe Rouge is French....
I'm sceptical that this is primarily to do with costs. I can't comment specifically on Prezzo, but there is a tendency for mid-range restaurant chains to get bought out by debt-laden purchases and then menu-engineered to within an inch of their lives to pay the debt back, losing anything that was once good in the process. Perfectly adequate businesses are asked to be at lot more profitable than is ever feasible, and go down the pan in the process. Particularly when the cost of debt increases.
There were just way too many of these over-priced high street chain restaurants prior to COVID and now its got significantly more expensive to eat out, there is only one way this is going.
The craziest one that is surely going to go pop, The Restaurant Group, whose solution to be in a mess prior to even COVID, was to take on even more debt to buy Wagamama, which was profitable at the time. Now its all going to hell in a handcart. Who financed that debt for the buy must have been mad, it wasn't like a highly successful group was trying to buy a rival.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
About as authentic Italian food as Cafe Rouge is French....
I'm sceptical that this is primarily to do with costs. I can't comment specifically on Prezzo, but there is a tendency for mid-range restaurant chains to get bought out by debt-laden purchases and then menu-engineered to within an inch of their lives to pay the debt back, losing anything that was once good in the process. Perfectly adequate businesses are asked to be at lot more profitable than is ever feasible, and go down the pan in the process. Particularly when the cost of debt increases.
My favourite burger joint has recently opened its third location.
While I'm delighted by their well-deserved success, I do have a worry about what might happen to them if they try to expand too quickly, or get bought out.
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
About as authentic Italian food as Cafe Rouge is French....
I'm sceptical that this is primarily to do with costs. I can't comment specifically on Prezzo, but there is a tendency for mid-range restaurant chains to get bought out by debt-laden purchases and then menu-engineered to within an inch of their lives to pay the debt back, losing anything that was once good in the process. Perfectly adequate businesses are asked to be at lot more profitable than is ever feasible, and go down the pan in the process. Particularly when the cost of debt increases.
I haven't eaten at a Prezzo for years, but their honeycomb smash cheesecake used to be nice.
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
About as authentic Italian food as Cafe Rouge is French....
I'm sceptical that this is primarily to do with costs. I can't comment specifically on Prezzo, but there is a tendency for mid-range restaurant chains to get bought out by debt-laden purchases and then menu-engineered to within an inch of their lives to pay the debt back, losing anything that was once good in the process. Perfectly adequate businesses are asked to be at lot more profitable than is ever feasible, and go down the pan in the process. Particularly when the cost of debt increases.
My favourite burger joint has recently opened its third location.
While I'm delighted by their well-deserved success, I do have a worry about what might happen to them if they try to expand too quickly, or get bought out.
If a full book from a given bookmaker has a total percentage that exceeds 100% then (oversimplifying) the bookmaker will make a profit regardless of who wins. If the total is less than 100% then the bookie may make a loss. The latter does occasionally happen and IIRC occurred during referendum night, when one bookie couldn't adjust the odds fast enough and the loss was in the hundreds of thousands
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
That's not what the article, to which she was responding, claimed. What it did was analyse a study of claimed racially motivated assaults, by ethnic group. Some minority white groups, such as Jews, had a higher proportion of people claiming racially motivated assaults than either black Africans or West Indians. That is not implausible.
"HOW LONG BEFORE THE LAB LEAD IS IN SINGLE FIGURES?"
Naught but Tory Propaganda!
If the Nation runs with the Labour are again anti-Semites story and the Raab is innocent narrative in the same way that the PB faithful have, how about crossover next weekend?
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
That's not what the article, to which she was responding, claimed. What it did was analyse a study of claimed racially motivated assaults, by ethnic group. Some minority white groups, such as Jews, had a higher proportion of people claiming racially motivated assaults than either black Africans or West Indians. That is not implausible.
Could it be that Jews face more discrimination on the streets, while black Africans or West Indians face more discrimination institutionally.
... She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight...
Well yes, and if she had made an argument that such discrimination was greater in magnitude we would not be having this discussion. But IIUC she made the argument that such discrimination was greater in kind, and that is less persuasive. People are not likely to be sympathetic to an argument that goes "discrimination against me is much more different and worse by its nature than discrimination against you".
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
That's not what the article, to which she was responding, claimed. What it did was analyse a study of claimed racially motivated assaults, by ethnic group. Some minority white groups, such as Jews, had a higher proportion of people claiming racially motivated assaults than either black Africans or West Indians. That is not implausible.
That's what - if I'm right - she took it to claim. And I'd say it sort of did.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
That's not what the article, to which she was responding, claimed. What it did was analyse a study of claimed racially motivated assaults, by ethnic group. Some minority white groups, such as Jews, had a higher proportion of people claiming racially motivated assaults than either black Africans or West Indians. That is not implausible.
Could it be that Jews face more discrimination on the streets, while black Africans or West Indians face more discrimination institutionally.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
That's not what the article, to which she was responding, claimed. What it did was analyse a study of claimed racially motivated assaults, by ethnic group. Some minority white groups, such as Jews, had a higher proportion of people claiming racially motivated assaults than either black Africans or West Indians. That is not implausible.
Yes. One of the sad things about this furore is that the article Abbott was responding to was a careful, thoughtful piece that avoided drawing simple conclusions. It deserved a better response than it received.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
"HOW LONG BEFORE THE LAB LEAD IS IN SINGLE FIGURES?"
Naught but Tory Propaganda!
We'll settle for 5th May. After the real votes are counted.
No votes in Wales and it's only the locals, so we will miss out on any potential PC surge, and the LDs declaring their preparation for national government after the locals seldom bears fruit.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
It's like the claim that racism didn't exist in the Roman empire, addressed by Harry Sidebottom in his recent book on Elagalabus, and which attracted some flak. Well, not in the sense of colour prejudice, but that was only because there were so few black people in the empire.
There is in fact, plenty of evidence for racial hatred, directed inter alia, against the Jews (some things never change). But, also quite frequently expressed in the form of inter-ethnic massacres, especially massacres of Germans who were thought to be getting above themselves.
Offing a few hundred thousand migrants was one way to make yourself really popular in Roman politics. Marius, Caesar etc etc…
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
That's not what the article, to which she was responding, claimed. What it did was analyse a study of claimed racially motivated assaults, by ethnic group. Some minority white groups, such as Jews, had a higher proportion of people claiming racially motivated assaults than either black Africans or West Indians. That is not implausible.
That's what - if I'm right - she took it to claim. And I'd say it sort of did.
I haven't seen a pub with a sign saying 'no travellers or gypsies" for a while.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
It's like the claim that racism didn't exist in the Roman empire, addressed by Harry Sidebottom in his recent book on Elagalabus, and which attracted some flak. Well, not in the sense of colour prejudice, but that was only because there were so few black people in the empire.
There is in fact, plenty of evidence for racial hatred, directed inter alia, against the Jews (some things never change). But, also quite frequently expressed in the form of inter-ethnic massacres, especially massacres of Germans who were thought to be getting above themselves.
Offing a few hundred thousand migrants was one way to make yourself really popular in Roman politics. Marius, Caesar etc etc…
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
In their heads, Jews are WAY more prosperous and powerful than everyone else, and, by extension, than they actually are.
Therefore they must be the oppressors. The fact that Jewish people are, as an average, on relatively higher incomes, obviously hides a significant discrepancy in their lived experiences. However for Corbyn and Abbott, it just does not compute.
They would never accept that because there can be wealthy or powerful black Britons, racism against them does not exist, but they fail to extend that argument.
They must be confused as anything when they see a photo of the current Cabinet. How did the Conservatives manage to get such a diverse-looking group of people at the top table, without imposing targets or quotas for each minority?
"HOW LONG BEFORE THE LAB LEAD IS IN SINGLE FIGURES?"
Naught but Tory Propaganda!
We'll settle for 5th May. After the real votes are counted.
No votes in Wales and it's only the locals, so we will miss out on any potential PC surge, and the LDs declaring their preparation for national government after the locals seldom bears fruit.
So what will it tell us?
I know what you are saying. Locals this year and GE next year two different things, not at all linked. But if Sunak only has 500 seat losses next week, now he has narrowed the polls in April, it will buoy him and the Conservatives that the comeback is on! If it is nearer 850 losses, it will buoy Conservative opponents and deflate the comeback. So it is sort of linked to GE and important for that.
Interesting that the suggestion is he’ll make up his mind in May, after the legislative session ends in Florida.
If the polls haven’t moved by then, will spending a year embroiled in the Trump sh!tshow really be worth doing, rather than keeping his power dry for 2028?
Timing of when politicos formally & officially throw their hats (or whatever) into the ring, particularly with respect to POTUS, is governated as much (indeed usually more) by legal requirements, relations, restrictions AND timelines, as by other electoral, personal OR polling considerations.
Same with Biden.
Trump being sui generis, in this as in everything presidential.
EDIT - By legal, meaning about 99.4% re: US federal campaign finance laws and compliance therewith.
It looks like a steadily improving trend since 2020, not a blip, building on a more modest closing of the gap under Obama. Black men are still less likely to be in work, thanks to higher unemployment, but the gap there is closing too. It is an impressive achievement, I'd be interested to see what's driving it, perhaps a less aggressive prosecution of the so called war on drugs plus a tight labour market?
"HOW LONG BEFORE THE LAB LEAD IS IN SINGLE FIGURES?"
Naught but Tory Propaganda!
We'll settle for 5th May. After the real votes are counted.
No votes in Wales and it's only the locals, so we will miss out on any potential PC surge, and the LDs declaring their preparation for national government after the locals seldom bears fruit.
So what will it tell us?
Who is voting next week? It's not London, I know that much. Or Scotland? Any met districts or just rural counties?
"HOW LONG BEFORE THE LAB LEAD IS IN SINGLE FIGURES?"
Naught but Tory Propaganda!
We'll settle for 5th May. After the real votes are counted.
No votes in Wales and it's only the locals, so we will miss out on any potential PC surge, and the LDs declaring their preparation for national government after the locals seldom bears fruit.
So what will it tell us?
I know what you are saying. Locals this year and GE next year two different things, not at all linked. But if Sunak only has 500 seat losses next week, now he has narrowed the polls in April, it will buoy him and the Conservatives that the comeback is on! If it is nearer 850 losses, it will buoy Conservative opponents and deflate the comeback. So it is sort of linked to GE and important for that.
I suspect the sunny-side narrative whatever the results will be thrashed with gay abandon on here. Don't forget 2019 was a poor showing for the Cons. so they could be limited to modest losses and still be going backwards from a position of weakness. Sensible commentators normally pick a good to bad range. I have no idea yet what that is, but I'll stick with that.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
That's not what the article, to which she was responding, claimed. What it did was analyse a study of claimed racially motivated assaults, by ethnic group. Some minority white groups, such as Jews, had a higher proportion of people claiming racially motivated assaults than either black Africans or West Indians. That is not implausible.
That's what - if I'm right - she took it to claim. And I'd say it sort of did.
I haven't seen a pub with a sign saying 'no travellers or gypsies" for a while.
They used to be quite common.
The rate of racial incidents against Jews is quite high. Remember when someone in the Labour Party noticed the subsidy the governments (of all stripes) have given, for many years, to Synagogues etc for private security?
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
In their heads, Jews are WAY more prosperous and powerful than everyone else, and, by extension, than they actually are.
Therefore they must be the oppressors. The fact that Jewish people are, as an average, on relatively higher incomes, obviously hides a significant discrepancy in their lived experiences. However for Corbyn and Abbott, it just does not compute.
They would never accept that because there can be wealthy or powerful black Britons, racism against them does not exist, but they fail to extend that argument.
They must be confused as anything when they see a photo of the current Cabinet. How did the Conservatives manage to get such a diverse-looking group of people at the top table, without imposing targets or quotas for each minority?
This point is valid but as Rupa Huq found to her cost it needs a skilful elaboration if attacked.
Obviously in other ways Sunak's cabinet is admirably diverse. What more elaboration does it need?
Ok so -
"He's much more culturally, ideologically and intellectually a product of the elite education system he's been through in the UK than his Ghanaian heritage."
This is from a Times profile of Kwasi at the time he was made CoE.
Question: In essence how different is this from the sentiment that got Rupa Huq into hot water?
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Well yes. But Rupa Huq went about it in a crass and brain-dead manner - that you can't be black if you're rich. Whereas the correct criticism would be 'what you look like is beside the point: we want to see a world where people from all backgrounds can prosper, and KK hardly exemplifies that.' But they can't say that, because then they'd have to stop banging on about race. And they like banging on about race almost as much as banging on about sexuality.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
I think you can focus on class without making absurd comments that someone isn't really black because they've been successful. I don't see that one follows from the other.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
In their heads, Jews are WAY more prosperous and powerful than everyone else, and, by extension, than they actually are.
Therefore they must be the oppressors. The fact that Jewish people are, as an average, on relatively higher incomes, obviously hides a significant discrepancy in their lived experiences. However for Corbyn and Abbott, it just does not compute.
They would never accept that because there can be wealthy or powerful black Britons, racism against them does not exist, but they fail to extend that argument.
They must be confused as anything when they see a photo of the current Cabinet. How did the Conservatives manage to get such a diverse-looking group of people at the top table, without imposing targets or quotas for each minority?
What Diane Abbott was, dimly, trying to say, was that rich, successful people are Essentially White.
So the current U.K. cabinet is 100% Ze Pure Aryan.
The corolloray of that is all those poor wwc living on sink estates are black
"HOW LONG BEFORE THE LAB LEAD IS IN SINGLE FIGURES?"
Naught but Tory Propaganda!
We'll settle for 5th May. After the real votes are counted.
No votes in Wales and it's only the locals, so we will miss out on any potential PC surge, and the LDs declaring their preparation for national government after the locals seldom bears fruit.
So what will it tell us?
Who is voting next week? It's not London, I know that much. Or Scotland? Any met districts or just rural counties?
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
I agree. In her own mind she was responding to THAT Guardian article, which to be fair, go look at the article, is at odds with Abbotts and many others long time understanding of lived racism against them, and that was her context. It’s normal politics to see something you don’t agree with, and challenge it. It came across differently as a general statement detached from what she was responding to, detached from the context. For that reason the Labour Party process of giving an all round fair hearing will likely exonerate Abbott, tell her she made mistake for sure, she has already admitted those herself, but will agree with what she was trying to do as the right thing to do. It certainly won’t threaten her party membership.
Getting cleared by the party process is not the same as autocrat leader, obsessed by what the Mail and Sun May say tomorrow, giving the whip back. Once Abbots is cleared by the party, on basis of replying to an article, and challenging it’s concept of racism, All the pressure and focus will fall on Starmer, is the likely outcome in this one.
Between the lines you can read Starmer clearly knows this isn’t an open and shut case at all, and knows it’s going to become very difficult and messy for him. It already is after today.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
I think it's important to distinguish between two different uses of the word class.
There is class as it relates to education, parentage, social conventions, fitting in, etc.
Then there is class as it relates to power, who in society has power, and who does not.
British people talk incessantly about the former, but in terms of the political lesson I would like the Left to learn I was talking about the latter.
Rumours are circulating about a 52 Yr old presenting themselves to Scotland police on Thursday to circumvent the media coverage of a public arrest. This person's lawyers carved out the deal therefore one must ask who was this individual with such powerful persuasion??
Just catching up on the Ulez-x protests – which were pretty thin and meagre. It's not clear to me why some councils and indeed politicians are setting their face against this. Seems a hostage to fortune:
a) opposing anti-pollution schemes is pretty much the definition of a policy that can be used against you in future b) it's perfectly legal – even Mark Harper has said so
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
In their heads, Jews are WAY more prosperous and powerful than everyone else, and, by extension, than they actually are.
Therefore they must be the oppressors. The fact that Jewish people are, as an average, on relatively higher incomes, obviously hides a significant discrepancy in their lived experiences. However for Corbyn and Abbott, it just does not compute.
They would never accept that because there can be wealthy or powerful black Britons, racism against them does not exist, but they fail to extend that argument.
They must be confused as anything when they see a photo of the current Cabinet. How did the Conservatives manage to get such a diverse-looking group of people at the top table, without imposing targets or quotas for each minority?
What Diane Abbott was, dimly, trying to say, was that rich, successful people are Essentially White.
So the current U.K. cabinet is 100% Ze Pure Aryan.
Like when Kwasi Kwarteng was described as “superficially” black by Rupa Huq, because he was rich and successful....now less of the success, perhaps he is just black?
Did she say he was superficially black because he was rich and successful, or because he holds 'incorrect' political views?
Still wrong, but you do wonder at the logic sometimes.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
In their heads, Jews are WAY more prosperous and powerful than everyone else, and, by extension, than they actually are.
Therefore they must be the oppressors. The fact that Jewish people are, as an average, on relatively higher incomes, obviously hides a significant discrepancy in their lived experiences. However for Corbyn and Abbott, it just does not compute.
They would never accept that because there can be wealthy or powerful black Britons, racism against them does not exist, but they fail to extend that argument.
They must be confused as anything when they see a photo of the current Cabinet. How did the Conservatives manage to get such a diverse-looking group of people at the top table, without imposing targets or quotas for each minority?
What Diane Abbott was, dimly, trying to say, was that rich, successful people are Essentially White.
So the current U.K. cabinet is 100% Ze Pure Aryan.
The corolloray of that is all those poor wwc living on sink estates are black
1) It’s not actually Disney 2) Disney’s lawyers are famously litigious 3) The account is using the n-word quite freely 4) Also claiming all kinds of adult humour is coming to Disney soon
Absolute shitshow.
Apropos of nothing but if you ever make home made porn for personal use that you don't want the world to see make sure you have a Disney film playing in the background.
If the video becomes public Disney's lawyers will have the video taken down for copyright infringement.
I know its twitter and so inherently silly stuff is happening but I really dont get this 'give marks to people thing'. If you're charging you're charging, if you randomly give out to some why even bother?
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Is it ? I'd say there's an increasing rather than decreasing gulf between those with significant wealth and those without it.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Particularly in terms of dress. The bloke in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers might be work at the local Tesco or be a billionaire.
Rumours are circulating about a 52 Yr old presenting themselves to Scotland police on Thursday to circumvent the media coverage of a public arrest. This person's lawyers carved out the deal therefore one must ask who was this individual with such powerful persuasion??
That Anthony Seldon book being serialised in The Times shows why Boris Johnson is so unfit to be PM.
Yep. Government was completely dysfunctional under him. The reality was exactly as one imagined it. This doesn't always happen. Sometimes what you imagine goes on behind the scenes with someone proves to be off the mark but not here. Johnson truly is as he so often presents - a clueless clown.
Held together by malevolent pettiness.
At first they thought he was a clueless clown. They they saw there were complexities underneath. Then they saw underneath that was a clueless clown.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
In their heads, Jews are WAY more prosperous and powerful than everyone else, and, by extension, than they actually are.
Therefore they must be the oppressors. The fact that Jewish people are, as an average, on relatively higher incomes, obviously hides a significant discrepancy in their lived experiences. However for Corbyn and Abbott, it just does not compute.
They would never accept that because there can be wealthy or powerful black Britons, racism against them does not exist, but they fail to extend that argument.
They must be confused as anything when they see a photo of the current Cabinet. How did the Conservatives manage to get such a diverse-looking group of people at the top table, without imposing targets or quotas for each minority?
This point is valid but as Rupa Huq found to her cost it needs a skilful elaboration if attacked.
Obviously in other ways Sunak's cabinet is admirably diverse. What more elaboration does it need?
Ok so -
"He's much more culturally, ideologically and intellectually a product of the elite education system he's been through in the UK than his Ghanaian heritage."
This is from a Times profile of Kwasi at the time he was made CoE.
Question: In essence how different is this from the sentiment that got Rupa Huq into hot water?
Because so charged has any conversation about race become that saying a black man 'isn't really black' because they fail to conform to some perceived stereotype of blackness is almost as taboo as using the n-word.
I don't like the fact that discussion of race, or even of non-white people, is so full of taboos as to be rendered impossible, and it's not my fault that it's the case. But you know it's true.
Also, it was bloody stupid. Look at him. Of course he's black.
Also, look at the subtext. ('It's possible to assume that all people of one race have the same interests and behave the same way.') Don't you think that deserves condemnation? And also the sub-subtext ('It's fine for me to say this because I'm one of the good guys and KK is one of the bad guys.') Don't you think that also deserves condemnation?
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
About as authentic Italian food as Cafe Rouge is French....
I'm sceptical that this is primarily to do with costs. I can't comment specifically on Prezzo, but there is a tendency for mid-range restaurant chains to get bought out by debt-laden purchases and then menu-engineered to within an inch of their lives to pay the debt back, losing anything that was once good in the process. Perfectly adequate businesses are asked to be at lot more profitable than is ever feasible, and go down the pan in the process. Particularly when the cost of debt increases.
I remember when Itsu started to try and charge for soy sauce. It is very annoying but in the end, you know that they are going to be consistently ok and quick, despite all the value engineering; I guess there is a big enough market for that.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
I agree. In her own mind she was responding to THAT Guardian article, which to be fair, go look at the article, is at odds with Abbotts and many others long time understanding of lived racism against them, and that was her context. It’s normal politics to see something you don’t agree with, and challenge it. It came across differently as a general statement detached from what she was responding to, detached from the context. For that reason the Labour Party process of giving an all round fair hearing will likely exonerate Abbott, tell her she made mistake for sure, she has already admitted those herself, but will agree with what she was trying to do as the right thing to do. It certainly won’t threaten her party membership.
Getting cleared by the party process is not the same as autocrat leader, obsessed by what the Mail and Sun May say tomorrow, giving the whip back. Once Abbots is cleared by the party, on basis of replying to an article, and challenging it’s concept of racism, All the pressure and focus will fall on Starmer, is the likely outcome in this one.
Between the lines you can read Starmer clearly knows this isn’t an open and shut case at all, and knows it’s going to become very difficult and messy for him. It already is after today.
Reading the original article (which was very nuanced) does not make Diane Abbot's letter in response look any better. There's nothing inflammatory about the original article.
... She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight...
Well yes, and if she had made an argument that such discrimination was greater in magnitude we would not be having this discussion. But IIUC she made the argument that such discrimination was greater in kind, and that is less persuasive. People are not likely to be sympathetic to an argument that goes "discrimination against me is much more different and worse by its nature than discrimination against you".
Yes I'm not defending her on the letter. It's v bad. I'm just giving my take on what she was trying to say and what triggered it.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Is it ? I'd say there's an increasing rather than decreasing gulf between those with significant wealth and those without it.
But IMV wealth does not equate to class. Witness the short, fat man being I saw being taken as a VIP onto a yacht at the London Boat a few years back. He had two leggy ladies in tow, and was dressed like he'd been in a whirlwind through Next. I mean, I'm a scruffy soul, but this guy looked wrong.
(And yes, it was the boat show. Scruffy is allowed, as long as it is nautical scruffy. Particularly at the Southampton one...)
Whereas a fair few 'upper class' people of old families are actually rather poor in comparison. In the competition between 'old' and 'new' money, new is increasingly winning.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Particularly in terms of dress. The bloke in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers might be work at the local Tesco or be a billionaire.
The richest guy I knew at uni used to walk around college in the same crappy jumper full of holes and crappy jeans day in day out....that been said, given how crap he did at uni (too much time spent chasing the ladies), wouldn't be surprised if he ended up working in Tescos.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
I agree. In her own mind she was responding to THAT Guardian article, which to be fair, go look at the article, is at odds with Abbotts and many others long time understanding of lived racism against them, and that was her context. It’s normal politics to see something you don’t agree with, and challenge it. It came across differently as a general statement detached from what she was responding to, detached from the context. For that reason the Labour Party process of giving an all round fair hearing will likely exonerate Abbott, tell her she made mistake for sure, she has already admitted those herself, but will agree with what she was trying to do as the right thing to do. It certainly won’t threaten her party membership.
Getting cleared by the party process is not the same as autocrat leader, obsessed by what the Mail and Sun May say tomorrow, giving the whip back. Once Abbots is cleared by the party, on basis of replying to an article, and challenging it’s concept of racism, All the pressure and focus will fall on Starmer, is the likely outcome in this one.
Between the lines you can read Starmer clearly knows this isn’t an open and shut case at all, and knows it’s going to become very difficult and messy for him. It already is after today.
We all have thoughts we have without thinking; emotional reactions to things. Most people analyse their thoughts and correct them before speaking - but I've met people who have no filter between what they think and what they say. I've even come across people who have no filter between what they think and what they post anonymously on an internet site devoted to politics. But I've never met anyone who has no filter between what they think and what they write to the editor of a newspaper for publication and ridicule. DA really is quite special.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
I agree. In her own mind she was responding to THAT Guardian article, which to be fair, go look at the article, is at odds with Abbotts and many others long time understanding of lived racism against them, and that was her context. It’s normal politics to see something you don’t agree with, and challenge it. It came across differently as a general statement detached from what she was responding to, detached from the context. For that reason the Labour Party process of giving an all round fair hearing will likely exonerate Abbott, tell her she made mistake for sure, she has already admitted those herself, but will agree with what she was trying to do as the right thing to do. It certainly won’t threaten her party membership.
Getting cleared by the party process is not the same as autocrat leader, obsessed by what the Mail and Sun May say tomorrow, giving the whip back. Once Abbots is cleared by the party, on basis of replying to an article, and challenging it’s concept of racism, All the pressure and focus will fall on Starmer, is the likely outcome in this one.
Between the lines you can read Starmer clearly knows this isn’t an open and shut case at all, and knows it’s going to become very difficult and messy for him. It already is after today.
Starmer needs to shut this down. Otherwise it is going to set off these self destructive identity wars within the labour party, particularly amongst the activist MP's that came in during the Corbyn era.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
Yes, I know. But from the letter you could get to thinking its author doesn't - hence the problem.
My impression is she was thinking only about Britain today, and about skin colour, saying black people face what others don't.
“My impression is she was thinking only about Britain today, and about skin colour, saying black people face what others don't.”
You mean she knew what she was saying, and is correct in what she was saying in your opinion, as being your quote above, everyone else don’t understand what she was saying, but think they do, so are wrong in that?
But that is quite a stupid hole for a politician to dig themself in. For example, imagine she is in charge of an advertising campaign, and that point she was making about racism was her product.
I have to be careful what I say because of the current government, but my own view is that the Armenian events during and immediately after WW1 were a genocide. Make of that what you will.
(As was the Holodomor.)
Incidentally, it's really quite a luxury to live in a country where I can say: "The British Empire was an evil ****", without risking getting arrested for it. Long may this continue. Please understand that luxury might not extend to citizens of other countries, and therefore your question might be a little problematic.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Particularly in terms of dress. The bloke in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers might be work at the local Tesco or be a billionaire.
The richest guy I knew at uni used to walk around college in the same crappy jumper full of holes and crappy jeans day in day out....that been said, given how crap he did at uni (too much time spent chasing the ladies), wouldn't be surprised if he ended up working in Tescos.
There are some interesting cause-and-effect dynamics going on there.
Just catching up on the Ulez-x protests – which were pretty thin and meagre. It's not clear to me why some councils and indeed politicians are setting their face against this. Seems a hostage to fortune:
a) opposing anti-pollution schemes is pretty much the definition of a policy that can be used against you in future b) it's perfectly legal – even Mark Harper has said so
The thing is that those who dislike this sort of thing really dislike it. So even if the median voter might think "it will be a pain, but I can see the point and it's worthwhile overall", the average opinion is strongly anti, because they're so loud.
And there's definitely still a "we resent and fear London" vote in the outermost boroughs, which this taps into.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
I think it's important to distinguish between two different uses of the word class.
There is class as it relates to education, parentage, social conventions, fitting in, etc.
Then there is class as it relates to power, who in society has power, and who does not.
British people talk incessantly about the former, but in terms of the political lesson I would like the Left to learn I was talking about the latter.
Spot on. It's money and power. All the rest is pretty much hot air.
I know its twitter and so inherently silly stuff is happening but I really dont get this 'give marks to people thing'. If you're charging you're charging, if you randomly give out to some why even bother?
Sometimes companies will give out free stuff to some people in order to seek to create demand for that something from others.
I get the impression that Musk is doing it for the lolz, though.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
I agree. In her own mind she was responding to THAT Guardian article, which to be fair, go look at the article, is at odds with Abbotts and many others long time understanding of lived racism against them, and that was her context. It’s normal politics to see something you don’t agree with, and challenge it. It came across differently as a general statement detached from what she was responding to, detached from the context. For that reason the Labour Party process of giving an all round fair hearing will likely exonerate Abbott, tell her she made mistake for sure, she has already admitted those herself, but will agree with what she was trying to do as the right thing to do. It certainly won’t threaten her party membership.
Getting cleared by the party process is not the same as autocrat leader, obsessed by what the Mail and Sun May say tomorrow, giving the whip back. Once Abbots is cleared by the party, on basis of replying to an article, and challenging it’s concept of racism, All the pressure and focus will fall on Starmer, is the likely outcome in this one.
Between the lines you can read Starmer clearly knows this isn’t an open and shut case at all, and knows it’s going to become very difficult and messy for him. It already is after today.
Starmer needs to shut this down. Otherwise it is going to set off these self destructive identity wars within the labour party, particularly amongst the activist MP's that came in during the Corbyn era.
Totally agree. But I don’t believe he has the power to. That’s the point. He can take a whip away I think is his only power, because of the inbuilt checks and balances to prevent demagogue leaders. And those checks and balances to give a fair hearing to every member will obviously conclude the point Abbott was trying to make was merely that black people face what others don't, in her opinion, and that is innocuous if taken in context, which it couldn’t have been in the outcry at the time.
This one a bigger problem for Starmer than PB realises. It will make him look weak and a loser by the time it gets to its obvious conclusion. Maybe it’s because he had a career in law, but he certainly realises it.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Is it ? I'd say there's an increasing rather than decreasing gulf between those with significant wealth and those without it.
But IMV wealth does not equate to class. Witness the short, fat man being I saw being taken as a VIP onto a yacht at the London Boat a few years back. He had two leggy ladies in tow, and was dressed like he'd been in a whirlwind through Next. I mean, I'm a scruffy soul, but this guy looked wrong.
(And yes, it was the boat show. Scruffy is allowed, as long as it is nautical scruffy. Particularly at the Southampton one...)
Whereas a fair few 'upper class' people of old families are actually rather poor in comparison. In the competition between 'old' and 'new' money, new is increasingly winning.
You cannot buy class, you either hve it or you don't
Just catching up on the Ulez-x protests – which were pretty thin and meagre. It's not clear to me why some councils and indeed politicians are setting their face against this. Seems a hostage to fortune:
a) opposing anti-pollution schemes is pretty much the definition of a policy that can be used against you in future b) it's perfectly legal – even Mark Harper has said so
The thing is that those who dislike this sort of thing really dislike it. So even if the median voter might think "it will be a pain, but I can see the point and it's worthwhile overall", the average opinion is strongly anti, because they're so loud.
And there's definitely still a "we resent and fear London" vote in the outermost boroughs, which this taps into.
I had an interesting argument about it with some mates recently – they were instinctively stridently against it because it means they will have to change their car. Once we'd got into the discussion about it, they softened their view. People are mostly reasonable. One or two of them also clicked that it would give them the perfect excuse to get a nicer motor, which they wives would otherwise have blocked...
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Is it ? I'd say there's an increasing rather than decreasing gulf between those with significant wealth and those without it.
But IMV wealth does not equate to class. Witness the short, fat man being I saw being taken as a VIP onto a yacht at the London Boat a few years back. He had two leggy ladies in tow, and was dressed like he'd been in a whirlwind through Next. I mean, I'm a scruffy soul, but this guy looked wrong.
(And yes, it was the boat show. Scruffy is allowed, as long as it is nautical scruffy. Particularly at the Southampton one...)
Whereas a fair few 'upper class' people of old families are actually rather poor in comparison. In the competition between 'old' and 'new' money, new is increasingly winning.
At some point in time the whole of the English class system, in the Nancy Mitford sense, is founded on wealth.
Whether that was being a Marcher Lord via aggression during the time of Henry III or some spare cash during the time of Lloyd George.
You didn't get to be a duke or an earl or whatnot without cash and that is the basis of class in the UK, notwithstanding eg Hugh Grosvenor is marrying a girl involved in ethical foods and for all the world looks like he might have come from his shift at if not Tescos, then perhaps Wholefoods.
More recently, the wealth hasn't percolated down sufficiently and hence the term nouveau to describe those of a generation or two "newly" rich.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
Yes, I know. But from the letter you could get to thinking its author doesn't - hence the problem.
My impression is she was thinking only about Britain today, and about skin colour, saying black people face what others don't.
“My impression is she was thinking only about Britain today, and about skin colour, saying black people face what others don't.”
You mean she knew what she was saying, and is correct in what she was saying in your opinion, as being your quote above, everyone else don’t understand what she was saying, but think they do, so are wrong in that?
But that is quite a stupid hole for a politician to dig themself in. For example, imagine she is in charge of an advertising campaign, and that point she was making about racism was her product.
Her basic central point is imo valid (if it's the one I think it is). However the wrapping around the point is so bad as to merit the uproar.
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Particularly in terms of dress. The bloke in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers might be work at the local Tesco or be a billionaire.
The richest guy I knew at uni used to walk around college in the same crappy jumper full of holes and crappy jeans day in day out....that been said, given how crap he did at uni (too much time spent chasing the ladies), wouldn't be surprised if he ended up working in Tescos.
His lady-chasing would have probably required less time if he hadn't dressed like a slob
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
In their heads, Jews are WAY more prosperous and powerful than everyone else, and, by extension, than they actually are.
Therefore they must be the oppressors. The fact that Jewish people are, as an average, on relatively higher incomes, obviously hides a significant discrepancy in their lived experiences. However for Corbyn and Abbott, it just does not compute.
They would never accept that because there can be wealthy or powerful black Britons, racism against them does not exist, but they fail to extend that argument.
They must be confused as anything when they see a photo of the current Cabinet. How did the Conservatives manage to get such a diverse-looking group of people at the top table, without imposing targets or quotas for each minority?
This point is valid but as Rupa Huq found to her cost it needs a skilful elaboration if attacked.
Obviously in other ways Sunak's cabinet is admirably diverse. What more elaboration does it need?
Ok so -
"He's much more culturally, ideologically and intellectually a product of the elite education system he's been through in the UK than his Ghanaian heritage."
This is from a Times profile of Kwasi at the time he was made CoE.
Question: In essence how different is this from the sentiment that got Rupa Huq into hot water?
The thing is though, I'm not responsible for the Times profile or Rupa Huq's sentiment, neither of which I am very familiar with, but they don't seem to be terribly relevant to the statistic I gave. It's not surprising if most of the cabinet are privately educated that most of the ethnic minority cabinet ministers are also privately educated. It would only be worth noting if that wasn't the case!
First you have to find an attack on the point that in terms of the numbers of state-educated ministers Sunak's cabinet is way less inclusive than May's (or any Labour cabinet), and then I'll see if it need any skilful elaboration.
Chris Christie syndrome. Trump is the Original Big Dog and sooner or later all the wannabe GOP big dogs fall into line and smell his bottom. Doesn't matter how big or strong they think they are, they all end up whimpering. He is basically Brick-Top, he has a very large pig farm, and he's between you and the door...
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
One mistake??????????
Depends how bad the mistake is.
Abbott's mistake over the weekend was an absolute doozy, and her excuse pretty feeble.
The "it was just the first draft" only made matters worse.....
The reality is that it is exactly how a particular subset of politicians (and some of the public) see the world, the black / white Corbyn view that there are oppressors, who can't suffer things like racism, and oppressed who get a pass for bad things like being racist, anti-Semitic, etc...and because Jews / Israel are stereotyped as successful, they aren't part of the oppressed class and then you get the Corbyn-esque blind spot to the fact they suffer discrimination.
The "first draft" excuse to me sounded like basically an admission that the letter, as published, contained her authentic views.
It is like having too much to drink, and waking up in the morning trying to write off having spoken your mind as "but I was drunk". It just means "I meant what I said, I'd just rather not have said it."
The first draft may well have contained Abbott's views, but what it lacked was the context that she was countering an article which said White people suffer more racism than Black people, and specifically Jews, Travellers and Irish. Abbott then relied on the semantic point that racism is defined as impacting Blacks rather than Whites, which rather begs the question.
So even if Abbott's views are wrong or objectionable, it is still possible they were badly articulated in that first draft, or that they might have been seen as part of a wider debate in light of the previous article.
There’s a flawed kernel of truth within her arguments, which I don’t think she really understands herself - certainly she’s unable coherently to express it.
Jewish people experienced systematic prejudice and brutal persecution in Europe long before the Transatlantic save trade - and the prejudice was as much religious as against the ‘other’. But ‘racism’ was a term which didn’t then exist: ‘race’ itself dates as a word in English from the 16th century, didn’t mean peoples of common forbears with common distinguishing characteristics until the 18th, and didn’t acquire its pseudo-scientific modern meaning until late in the nineteenth.
Hitler’s treatment of the Jews and other 'inferior races' was to an extent informed and inspired by American treatment of black and indigenous people in the 19th century. That fact alone ought to explode her argument if she thought about it.
Impossible to know without being her but my impression is she'd read an article which claimed white people in Britain suffer just as much racism as people of colour and it angered her. Her reply was from the hip/heart not the brain. She reacted rather than responded
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
I agree. In her own mind she was responding to THAT Guardian article, which to be fair, go look at the article, is at odds with Abbotts and many others long time understanding of lived racism against them, and that was her context. It’s normal politics to see something you don’t agree with, and challenge it. It came across differently as a general statement detached from what she was responding to, detached from the context. For that reason the Labour Party process of giving an all round fair hearing will likely exonerate Abbott, tell her she made mistake for sure, she has already admitted those herself, but will agree with what she was trying to do as the right thing to do. It certainly won’t threaten her party membership.
Getting cleared by the party process is not the same as autocrat leader, obsessed by what the Mail and Sun May say tomorrow, giving the whip back. Once Abbots is cleared by the party, on basis of replying to an article, and challenging it’s concept of racism, All the pressure and focus will fall on Starmer, is the likely outcome in this one.
Between the lines you can read Starmer clearly knows this isn’t an open and shut case at all, and knows it’s going to become very difficult and messy for him. It already is after today.
We all have thoughts we have without thinking; emotional reactions to things. Most people analyse their thoughts and correct them before speaking - but I've met people who have no filter between what they think and what they say. I've even come across people who have no filter between what they think and what they post anonymously on an internet site devoted to politics. But I've never met anyone who has no filter between what they think and what they write to the editor of a newspaper for publication and ridicule. DA really is quite special.
But the reason we don’t sack people on the day, and have a hearing about it a month later, is presuming what someone is saying, or getting an opinion second hand and knowing it from that, and getting it wrong.
A lot of people back peddling today on just how atrocious what she said yesterday was.
Yourself for example, if you take the letter, first draft poorly put or whatever, purely in the context of article she is replying to, definition of racism being pushed she disagrees with, and not in any other context, are you still saying she is completely wrong in trying to speak up?
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Particularly in terms of dress. The bloke in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers might be work at the local Tesco or be a billionaire.
The richest guy I knew at uni used to walk around college in the same crappy jumper full of holes and crappy jeans day in day out....that been said, given how crap he did at uni (too much time spent chasing the ladies), wouldn't be surprised if he ended up working in Tescos.
His lady-chasing would have probably required less time if he hadn't dressed like a slob
Starmer has just said on Sky Abbotts comments were anti semitic
The journalist came back that that admittance means she cannot stand for labour
Starmer struggling with response
Should one mistake end her parliamentary career? Seems a bit harsh.
If it were the first time she’d come out with something blatantly racist, then perhaps so. This isn’t the first time though, she has been making similar comments for years.
She thinks that racism is only ever a problem when white people attack black people, and that any other racism is perfectly fine.
I suspect that what she was trying to say is that black people/ people of colour deal with racism every day, when other minorities do not. The lack of sensitivity to Jewish people who have the history of the holocaust was very dumb though, and for her to even "go there" given the recent problems in Labour with respect to antisemitism is astonishing in political terms. I imagine Starmer is delighted.
Yes, she thinks that black people, and only black people, ever experience racism, and that only white people can be racist.
The actuality, of course, being that racism occurs across all races, albeit not equally in different places.
Worse, and why Starmer has had to deal with her today, is that there was a huge problem in his own party not so long ago, with blactant racism aimed towards Jews, from the far left of the party. Of all the things he wanted to be talking about today, this wasn’t on the list yesterday morning, he’ll be hoping to turn it into a net positive by dealing harshly with the recalcitrant MP. She’ll almost certainly be stood down at the next election, asked to retire gracefully to avoid a disciplinary case.
Racism is not just about prejudice and/or discrimination against an individual or groups; it is also about a power differential. When there is a minority that lacks power of the majority, racism becomes much more powerful.
Which is why racism by the police, or teachers, or doctors, had more dramatic effects than if I was to go up to my neighbour and say something horribly racist (which I wouldn't). My only power against the victim of the abuse are my words; if I were an authority figure, then I might have much more power.
I fear the problem with the likes of Corbyn and Abbott is that they see Jews as amongst the 'powerful'. Therefore they think any racism directed towards them in the UK matters less than it does towards other ethnic minorities, who lack such power. In this, they are utterly wrong, and indeed I'd argue that it's racist to view Jews as 'powerful' in the first place, as it feeds into old Antisemitic tropes.
I'm also concerned that other ethnic minorities, such as Asians, don't get quite the same concern from them.
Or, in simple terms:
Abbot doesn't care about discrimination towards any group she's not a member of; and Corbyn doesn't care about discrimination towards any group that doesn't block vote for the Labour party.
Its not about who votes Labour, it is the narrow world view of the oppressor vs the oppressed. The big Jewish communities in the UK traditionally were Labour leaning for many years until Corbyn attracted hardcore anti-Semites to be part of his project, while he doesn't see any issues with bits of art containing all the anti-Jewish tropes.
The thing is that the Left used to have a big-tent view of oppression - everyone who wasn't part of the ruling class was oppressed, and so people had more in common, through the class oppression they experienced, than divided them, through racism, sexism and other forms of oppression.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Interesting point, this. Focus on class not race, to simplify but keep the essence of it. It's a common criticism of the 'modern' left that they don't do this. That they obsess about race to the detriment of class.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
Class is a minefield as well. I went to both private and state schools at various times. Yet I spent lots of time as a kid around labourers, workmen and working-class people. I don't have a posh accent (in fact I have a speech defect), but someone I had recently met guessed I'd gone to public school, not because of accent, but because of the *way* I spoke.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Particularly in terms of dress. The bloke in a T-shirt, jeans and trainers might be work at the local Tesco or be a billionaire.
The richest guy I knew at uni used to walk around college in the same crappy jumper full of holes and crappy jeans day in day out....that been said, given how crap he did at uni (too much time spent chasing the ladies), wouldn't be surprised if he ended up working in Tescos.
His lady-chasing would have probably required less time if he hadn't dressed like a slob
Weirdly the ladies seemed to love his "shabby chic", although the fact he had the connections and money to take them on exciting dates also helped e.g. I have Wimbledon centre court tickets....
Comments
Prezzo will shut 46 loss-making restaurants hit hard by soaring pasta and energy costs, as well as poor footfall.
The Italian restaurant group said the closures would put about 810 jobs at risk.
The company's utility costs have more than doubled amid surging energy prices since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It has also been impacted by soaring food inflation, which hit a 45-year high last month.
Prezzo has been battling a 40pc increase in the cost of spaghetti, 28pc rise for pizza sauce and 15pc increase in the cost of its dough balls.
The company said the shake-up will impact a raft of sites where footfall is still below pre-pandemic levels.
It will leave restaurants in busier shopping destinations such as retail parks or tourist hot-spots.
Dean Challenger, chief executive of Prezzo, said: "The last three years have been some of the hardest times I have ever seen for the high street and I'm extremely proud of the way our colleagues have retained Prezzo's position as an appealing, trusted, great value food and drink experience.
"But the reality is that the cost-of-living crisis, the changing face of the high street and soaring inflation has made it impossible to keep all our restaurants operating profitably."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/24/ftse-100-markets-live-news-cbi-credit-suisse-house-prices/
Trump: ‘Nixon had no support … I have great Jim Jordan’
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3965593-trump-nixon-had-no-support-i-have-great-jim-jordan/
And, then, when she brought in historical persecution, she invited the obvious retort that Jews didn't have to sit at the back, because there were no seats in the cattle trucks.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3965985-desantis-dodges-question-about-2024-polling-during-trip-to-japan-im-not-a-candidate/
First daft.
That approach could have its problems. Sometimes it came across as white guys telling people who weren't white guys that their problems as not white guys weren't as important as white guy problems. But ideally it served as a basis for people to empathize with each other and to bring people together (well, in opposition to the ruling class, obvs).
The Left is still reacting to the defeats of the 80s by going down a series of dead-ends.
Black men are as active in the labor force as White men for the first time since records began in 1972.
Closing that gap that persisted for over fifty years is a MAJOR accomplishment. When I pulled the data and made the chart, I said, “Wow.” out loud.
https://twitter.com/Claudia_Sahm/status/1650224025317015552
I can explain it if not excuse it.
But I like Diane Abbott and I don't think that this should be the end of her career. She broke ground and faced outrageous prejudice from all sides and has been a consistent champion for (visible!) minorities.
However, she should remain peripheral as an important but ineffectual voice in Labour. God forbid her thinking should inform any policy. As long as Lab doesn't have another brain fart a la Jezza and try to promote her to anything important then, like Jezza pre LotO, it was fine to have him and will be fine to have her jabbering away on the distant back benches.
*pause*
White is black.
Is about how quickly admitting her mistake came about.
https://twitter.com/OhNoSheTwitnt/status/1650495894918184963
If the polls haven’t moved by then, will spending a year embroiled in the Trump sh!tshow really be worth doing, rather than keeping his power dry for 2028?
There is in fact, plenty of evidence for racial hatred, directed inter alia, against the Jews (some things never change). But, also quite frequently expressed in the form of inter-ethnic massacres, especially massacres of Germans who were thought to be getting above themselves.
In 2019 we faced an appalling choice. Neither deserved our vote. We could only guess as to how terrible the one candidate would be as Prime Minister. We saw it for ourselves with the winner.
The craziest one that is surely going to go pop, The Restaurant Group, whose solution to be in a mess prior to even COVID, was to take on even more debt to buy Wagamama, which was profitable at the time. Now its all going to hell in a handcart. Who financed that debt for the buy must have been mad, it wasn't like a highly successful group was trying to buy a rival.
The 'racism vs prejudice' distinction she makes isn't particularly accurate or useful imo. In any case putting antisemitism in the same sentence as prejudice against gingernuts is crasser than crass. Lobbing in Irish and Travellers, hardly less so. Just a really really bad letter.
For me the valid point that's in there with the dross is about skin colour. She's saying black people face an incessant insidious racism 'all their lives' in a way and to an extent that white people and people who look white do not. And of course she says this from a position of deep personal insight.
Naught but Tory Propaganda!
While I'm delighted by their well-deserved success, I do have a worry about what might happen to them if they try to expand too quickly, or get bought out.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_bookmaking#Making_a_'book'_(and_the_notion_of_overround)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish
If a full book from a given bookmaker has a total percentage that exceeds 100% then (oversimplifying) the bookmaker will make a profit regardless of who wins. If the total is less than 100% then the bookie may make a loss. The latter does occasionally happen and IIRC occurred during referendum night, when one bookie couldn't adjust the odds fast enough and the loss was in the hundreds of thousandshttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/racism-in-britain-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-it-is-far-more-complicated
But of course Jews have a very long history of that, too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge
So what will it tell us?
They used to be quite common.
If it is nearer 850 losses, it will buoy Conservative opponents and deflate the comeback. So it is sort of linked to GE and important for that.
Same with Biden.
Trump being sui generis, in this as in everything presidential.
EDIT - By legal, meaning about 99.4% re: US federal campaign finance laws and compliance therewith.
But remember the Rupa Huq thing a while back? Her saying Kwasi K is black but 'not really' because what he mainly is is a product of upper class privilege? She was kind of going the way the critics want, wasn't she, in a sense. Looking at a person and seeing class not race.
Bit of a minefield.
"He's much more culturally, ideologically and intellectually a product of the elite education system he's been through in the UK than his Ghanaian heritage."
This is from a Times profile of Kwasi at the time he was made CoE.
Question: In essence how different is this from the sentiment that got Rupa Huq into hot water?
But Rupa Huq went about it in a crass and brain-dead manner - that you can't be black if you're rich. Whereas the correct criticism would be 'what you look like is beside the point: we want to see a world where people from all backgrounds can prosper, and KK hardly exemplifies that.'
But they can't say that, because then they'd have to stop banging on about race. And they like banging on about race almost as much as banging on about sexuality.
What class am I? I'm certainly not upper class; our salary and situation probably puts us firmly in the upper-middle class. Yet I *feel* classless, and I seem to get on well with people from all classes.
IMO class is becoming increasingly indistinct in the UK.
Getting cleared by the party process is not the same as autocrat leader, obsessed by what the Mail and Sun May say tomorrow, giving the whip back. Once Abbots is cleared by the party, on basis of replying to an article, and challenging it’s concept of racism, All the pressure and focus will fall on Starmer, is the likely outcome in this one.
Between the lines you can read Starmer clearly knows this isn’t an open and shut case at all, and knows it’s going to become very difficult and messy for him. It already is after today.
There is class as it relates to education, parentage, social conventions, fitting in, etc.
Then there is class as it relates to power, who in society has power, and who does not.
British people talk incessantly about the former, but in terms of the political lesson I would like the Left to learn I was talking about the latter.
This person's lawyers carved out the deal therefore one must ask who was this individual with such powerful persuasion??
a) opposing anti-pollution schemes is pretty much the definition of a policy that can be used against you in future
b) it's perfectly legal – even Mark Harper has said so
Still wrong, but you do wonder at the logic sometimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
I'd say there's an increasing rather than decreasing gulf between those with significant wealth and those without it.
My impression is she was thinking only about Britain today, and about skin colour, saying black people face what others don't.
I don't like the fact that discussion of race, or even of non-white people, is so full of taboos as to be rendered impossible, and it's not my fault that it's the case. But you know it's true.
Also, it was bloody stupid. Look at him. Of course he's black.
Also, look at the subtext. ('It's possible to assume that all people of one race have the same interests and behave the same way.') Don't you think that deserves condemnation?
And also the sub-subtext ('It's fine for me to say this because I'm one of the good guys and KK is one of the bad guys.') Don't you think that also deserves condemnation?
It is very annoying but in the end, you know that they are going to be consistently ok and quick, despite all the value engineering; I guess there is a big enough market for that.
She's not going to get the whip back.
(And yes, it was the boat show. Scruffy is allowed, as long as it is nautical scruffy. Particularly at the Southampton one...)
Whereas a fair few 'upper class' people of old families are actually rather poor in comparison. In the competition between 'old' and 'new' money, new is increasingly winning.
You mean she knew what she was saying, and is correct in what she was saying in your opinion, as being your quote above, everyone else don’t understand what she was saying, but think they do, so are wrong in that?
But that is quite a stupid hole for a politician to dig themself in. For example, imagine she is in charge of an advertising campaign, and that point she was making about racism was her product.
(As was the Holodomor.)
Incidentally, it's really quite a luxury to live in a country where I can say: "The British Empire was an evil ****", without risking getting arrested for it. Long may this continue. Please understand that luxury might not extend to citizens of other countries, and therefore your question might be a little problematic.
overall", the average opinion is strongly anti, because they're so loud.
And there's definitely still a "we resent and fear London" vote in the outermost boroughs, which this taps into.
I get the impression that Musk is doing it for the lolz, though.
This one a bigger problem for Starmer than PB realises. It will make him look weak and a loser by the time it gets to its obvious conclusion. Maybe it’s because he had a career in law, but he certainly realises it.
Fox News: “ FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways”
https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/1650522061721182210
Whether that was being a Marcher Lord via aggression during the time of Henry III or some spare cash during the time of Lloyd George.
You didn't get to be a duke or an earl or whatnot without cash and that is the basis of class in the UK, notwithstanding eg Hugh Grosvenor is marrying a girl involved in ethical foods and for all the world looks like he might have come from his shift at if not Tescos, then perhaps Wholefoods.
More recently, the wealth hasn't percolated down sufficiently and hence the term nouveau to describe those of a generation or two "newly" rich.
https://twitter.com/brennspen/status/1650522874220871687
https://twitter.com/TurnipRail/status/1650511393127276563
An interesting aspect that I had never considered before.
First you have to find an attack on the point that in terms of the numbers of state-educated ministers Sunak's cabinet is way less inclusive than May's (or any Labour cabinet), and then I'll see if it need any skilful elaboration.
A lot of people back peddling today on just how atrocious what she said yesterday was.
Yourself for example, if you take the letter, first draft poorly put or whatever, purely in the context of article she is replying to, definition of racism being pushed she disagrees with, and not in any other context, are you still saying she is completely wrong in trying to speak up?